Why do environmentalists oppose the electric car?

[rfkrfk]

my other flamewar seems to have burned out.

Millions of people worldwide, live in smog choked cities.
at countless intersections, an armada of blue-smoker motorcycles
foul the air. Vehicles of every decription clog the streets,
jeepneys, motorized rickshaws, junky car to bus hybrids,
ect, ect, ect.

Mearly moving the pollution elsewhere, would be
a god-send for billions of people.

Sleazy politicans try to change the subject to 'regionl pollution'.

The environmentalists main concern seems to be the
finantial mal-being of poor taxpayers.
Lets face reality, it is lots easier, to tax gasoline,
than make people pay an income tax or Vat.

I also have problems with naive people, who
believe what tax whores tell them

tax tax tax tax, -->first
people's health, --> let the people in the 25th century
worry about that


my sincere Thank You goes to the humanitarians at Honda,
who wisely sent their somewhat-workable electric cars
to the crushing machine

[Rick Myers]

1. I don't know that electric cars are the answer

And today I hear Priuis (sp) owners are complaining about mileage. I want a nuklear kar!!!

[msongs]

2. because the electricity used to run them comes from

polluting sources such as coal powered electric plants. Now if the electric cars could generate their own battery power from
natural and non polluting sources like solar or only hydroelectric power, that would be different.

that is my suppostion. could be wrong however.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[ladjf]

5. Charge the batteries with solar power.

[mom cat]

13. i think that would take a huge array of solar panels per car. We need

to seriously improve mass transit and restore our rail system. Trains are much more energy efficient than trucks and could reduce fuel consumption substantially.

[ladjf]

22. I'm not an engineer so I can't rebut your comment. However,

I believe that we will see people mounting multi-purpose solar arrays on racks in the yards. These panels, that track the sun during the day, would re-charge batteries or put power back onto the grid.
In the case of electric auto batteries, each car could have two sets of batteries with one set charging continually until needed. This process could be supplemented with some grid power.

I don't disagree with your mass transit suggestions.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Most cars need 50KW at the wheels

At least, based on current fuel-cell car specs. Driving for an hour would take a week of dedicated charging on a typical home PV setup.

[ladjf]

27. I"m not an engineer so I don't know the exact numbers here.

However, I think the idea of having a good sized array in the back yard charging all day, every day has possibilities. PV's are being improved. There could a combination of grid and solar power. I'm going to do some research to find out about charging e-car batteries. Then we can argue more effectively.

[Dead_Parrot]

29. An an array of that size...

is going to top $100k. Most people just don't have the money: But I hope I'm wrong, let us know what you find. :)

Edit: make that 25Kw, with regen. braking. :)

[ladjf]

31. $30K array will serve a medium size house. Do the car batteries

for a small car take more power than a house? In California, more than half the price of an array can be rebated, plus federal tax breaks. I'll get some good numbers and get back to you on this one.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Oh yes...

The only figures I have off the top are for the Morgan Lifecar, which needs a 25Kw fuel cell (it uses regen braking). Most home PV installs are in the 1-2 Kw range.

Assuming you want to drive for an hour, it's going to take 25Kwh of juice with regen braking: It takes a typical home PV installation at least 4 days to produce that - assuming you don't use any for the house!

[JohnWxy]

78. The cheapest way to produce the electric power for this or any

purpose is wind power. Currently costs about 5-7 cents per kilowatt Hour. Much cheaper than solar. (still we want to research solar and get it's costs down). But for right now wind is the cheapest and of course zero pollution.

[Dead_Parrot]

79. Home wind power !?

It has applications, granted, but for transport you need something a little more reliable If I phoned my boss and said I wouldn't be in to work because it wasn't windy yesterday, I could kiss my Christmas bonus goodbye....

[GumboYaYa]

60. The GEM Car that we are looking at requires 7.2 KW to charge.

Here is a link to the car: http://www.gemcar.com/asp/subpage_e4.asp

We plan on using a PV panel with a set of six extra batteries (12V each) to keep it charged and running. That should give us all the driving we need with no emmissions and no gas usage.

[Dead_Parrot]

61. Sounds a bit more reasonable...

Fudging some figures around: It's got a range of 30 miles, and a full charge capacity of 7.2KWh, so it has a "fuel econony" of 0.24 KWh per mile. (I can't say if that's good or bad.)

A couple of assumptions about your PV: We'll assume you get a minimum of 3 hours of sunshine (seems right for winter in MO), a panel price of $5.00/Wp (a little lower than current, but it's a nice round number :)) and a typical "stated Wp" -> We efficiency of 40% (This depends of your location, roof angle and lots of other things I'm not going to second guess), giving you $4.15 per Wh per day, or $1,000 per mile. If you want to run the full 30 miles on a daily basis, your PV array would be $30,000, which isn't too bad a price for running transport.
(You'll also need 600 ft² of roof space)

You'd still need to charge from the grid on cloudy days, though - PV output drops to about 20%, and I'm assuming you don't want to scale the array to a $150,000 behemoth...

[GumboYaYa]

63. It gets even cheaper and easier when you factor

in the fact that we only need a car every other day b/c of carpooling. When my wife uses the car, she goes less than 30 miles typically. Just using you basic assumptions and results, at $1,000 per mile per day divided by two and multiplied by her average drive (15-20) miles, the cost for the solar power goes down to $7,500 - $10,000 before any rebates or tax incentives. The car costs $9,000, but I think it qualifies for a $2,000 federal tax credit.

All told, we could conceivably be in a solar powered auto for around $15,000. That's not too bad.

[Dead_Parrot]

65. That's pretty damn good!

Let us know how you get on!

Are you going the whole hog and getting PV for 'normal' home use as well, BTW?

[GumboYaYa]

66. Yes.....

We currently heat our home primarily with Solar thermal. We have been working on the PV system for about a year. The first year was spent reducing our power usage to the bare minimum. We average between 450-550 kwh per month now, so that is what I have to generate.
Right now, AmerenUE (Our power company) is evaluating the schematics for our grid tie. We will be the first family in Missouri to do a grid-tied system on the Ameren system.

I have not picked out the panels we will use. I am a co-founder of a company that is developing circuitry for panel producers and manufacturing products that incorporate solar generating capacity. I am talking to our customers and suppliers to get the cheapest wholesale panels I can find. For now it looks like Shell or Sharp will be the ones we use.

I'll keep you posted on how it goes.

[Dead_Parrot]

67. Sounds like you've got it all sorted...

Good luck! :bounce:

[NNadir]

70. Do you expect this car to be "street legal?"

I think it's certainly usuable for some transportation needs, but essentially the thing seems to be a golf cart with golf cart specs.

When I look at the specifications, I see a top speed of 25 mph.

I suspect that even as a "station car," there may be, in some juristictions, limits on whether or not this vehicle can be registered for road use. To the extent that it is street legal, it is an interesting machine.

Good luck with it.

[Dead_Parrot]

71. Well, you wouldn't want to hit the interstate in it...

From the FAQ:

GEMs can be driven on all public roads that are posted at 35 mph or less, in states that have approved the use of neighborhood electric vehicles. It is an ideal vehicle for local, around-town use. Uses include transportation from mass transit stations to the workplace or home, taking the kids to school or the library, grocery shopping, or other common neighborhood or downtown errands.

There are a couple of dealers in MO, do I'm guessing the state OK'd them.

[GumboYaYa]

72. It goes under 25 in order t o be street legal.

There are restrictions on the street that it can be driven on. Anything with a speed limit over 35mph (I think that is the limit)is illegal in our town. There are two being used by a real estate company here already.

We don't really need more than that. We have no reason to want to get on the highway and drive out to the suburbs. The only reason for us needing a car at all is to take the kids from place to place.

[NNadir]

73. I see your point.

Certainly your strategy is appropriate for your needs. You have thought creatively and acted responsibly.

Do you live in an urban area?

[GumboYaYa]

74. Yes, we do live in an urban area.

I got rid of my car two years ago and opted for a scooter and public transit for my transportation needs. It was a very liberating decision.

We still have a car for my wife and the kids, but they have decided to go with the GEM Electric car. A side benefit is that our overall expenditures on transportation will be reduced dramatically.

We will take trains if we need to travel longer distances. In St. Louis we can drive the GEM Car to a public transit parking area and access most areas outside of the driving distance of the car.

Clearly this would not work in a rural area, but for us it makes perfectly good sense.

[NNadir]

75. Personally, I think urban life is the wave of the future.

That said, I am suburban dweller.

[GumboYaYa]

76. We shall see, access to food will be a big issue in the cities.

I have been working with the city council in our town to start public gardens in the local parks. We have also been planting fruit treees at the local schools. Every little bit helps.

I think cities with easy access to river transport will be in much better shape than many others. Certainly, the major suburbatropolises like Florida and Phoenix are in for a rough future.

Ain't none of us gonna be in great shape if we don't act agressively to stop global climate change.

[NNadir]

77. I especially agree with your last sentence.

[rfkrfk]

16. regional pollution is better than ...

regional pollution is better than...

{from a central power station, compared to millions of emmitters]

ten feet away from you, then
hanging around a city with millions of people, then
regional pollution

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Electricity generation, outside nuclear, is a dirty, polluting process

and nuclear, while it doesn't so much pollute in process, it pollutes once it's done.

Sure, your electric car will have no emissions, but the power plants making the energy stored in that car sure do pollute.

[Berry Cool]

4. * is totally against electric cars, you know.

He's afraid that pedestrians will trip over the cords.

[MrModerate]

8. Well, we're clearly screwed, then . . .

Since there appear to be no sources of electricity sufficient to maintain (let alone grow) our modern societies without poisoning ourselves and everything else on earth. And you know that people who feel they've gotten the short end of the development stick are not going to slow down their development anytime soon.

Myself, I'm convinced that the pollution problem from nuclear-generated electricty CAN be solved, and what's more, it'd better be -- since new nukes are coming along whether we like it or not.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Yeah, nuclear really is the only good option.

And you are very correct that the rest of the world is not gonna sit without electricity much longer, and once they fire up their plants, and the other 5 billion people start consuming electricity at an American/European rate, the pollution and fossil fuel usage of the world will go up 6-fold and we'll be seriously fucked all the quicker.

I hate to say it, but for the good of the planet, it would be best to deny technology and "progress" to most of the world until we of the Western world figure out a way to maintain our lifestyle wihtout the destructive results.

[Lorien]

6. Not against them myself

if power plants are the reasons for others opposition, then they need to focus on forcing power plants to clean up their act-not attack electric cars. We don't have much in the way of better alternatives right now.

[bemildred]

7. I reject the premise.

Provide some evidence that "environmentalists" as a class "oppose the electric car". My impression was the exact opposite, that enviros generally like electric vehicles.

[papau]

24. I agree - much better mileage for the amount of pollution - and for the

cost.

I want a plug-in Prius that uses E85!

:-)

[Viking12]

53. ...but strawmen are good fuel for flame wars...

On edit: ;)

[bemildred]

56. Yes, a good trap requires bait. nt

[acmejack]

9. Batteries are hazardous waste.

acid and heavy metal, not so good for the earth and other living things.

[democracyindanger]

10. Armada of blue-smoker motorcycles?

You must live in 1979 Vietnam or something.

[PaganPreacher]

11. Two reasons:

1. As msongs said, the electricity necessary to charge the batteries is generated from fossil fuels, or nuclear (personally, I am pro-nuclear energy, but many are not).

2. The lead-acid batteries are toxic, difficult to dispose of, and really dangerous in an accident.

The current crop of hybrids are not more economical than gascars, and not particularly ecological, but they make people feel good about owning them, so dealers sell the hell out of them.


Nuclear car

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[cdsilv]

18. ...actually we need a return to the days of the 'Stanley Steamers'....

..that is steam driven cars, with the steam generated by the efficient burning of whatever.

The steamers went out of style due to inferior metallurgical processes that caused boiler explosions.

Today, we could produce very efficient steam driven cars that initially run on fossil fuels, and later on bio-diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas or whatever.

Common Sense. It's what missing in the GOP and big business. The GOP is the party of the past. We are the party of the future.

Oh yeah, George W. Bush (I'm not saying WHICH GWB), eats boogers - I saw it on the internet so it must be true!!!

[PaganPreacher]

26. Steam would be great!

We have the technology....



Seriously, an efficient heat generator, steam turbine, and condensor should make for an ecologically friendly(er) and efficient engine.

I wonder if I could build one on a Rhodes car for in-town driving?


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[midnight armadillo]

38. There are MUCH better steam designs than the Stanley

Abner Doble greatly improved upon the Stanley Steamers. No big boiler is necessary in a Doble car - it only boils enough water to run the engine, which also means it starts up quickly. Jay Leno drives one, a model that put out something like 50 hp and 1000 ft-lb of torque (not a typo!!).
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/sub_coll_leno/1302916.html

Efficiency could be very high - at idle you just turn off the fuel source. With modern electronics and metallurgy, it could make for a superb flexible-fuel power plant for a vehicle.

However, it'll never happen since you'd be inventing a parts and maintenance infrastructure from scratch. The only place it'd probably be practical would be for large commercial vehicles (tractor-trailers, etc). The massive torque would be a great benefit!

[Dead_Parrot]

19. There are alternative to lead-acid

Li-ion seems to be a workable alternative.

[punpirate]

14. Could you provide a source for the statement...

... that Honda sent electric cars to the crusher? I ask because this sounds like a morphing of a story about a few unsold GM electric cars being destroyed in southern California after the manufacturers managed to avoid the 10% zero-emissions law there. And even that original story is somewhat suspect.

As for electric cars and environmentalists, you really should be supplying a source for the statement, because it's likely that the source would offer the reasons given. The one I've most heard is that it does not eliminate pollution; rather, it transfers it to another locale, where someone else must suffer the effects of it.

Another common complaint is that a wholesale change to electric cars presents other problems--environmental problems related to battery reclamation (that industry is one of the bigger polluters in the country, historically), and of nuclear waste disposal, since the additional demand could only come from a greatly increased nuclear power infrastructure. Another complaint has been battery life and range. Since the range is now small and recharging time long, people would have to own two cars--one for long trips and one for metropolitan use (m'self, I think this is the least persuasive argument, since other modes of transportation for trips are available, and those other modes might expand with demand).

What the credible environmentalists are saying, I think, is that electric cars aren't necessarily a panacea. They come with new problems, too.

[rfkrfk]

25. try this link

http://www.hondaev.org/

for more info ,just ask


Honda did exactly the same thing as GM.

Honda crushed its leased electric cars

[punpirate]

34. Well, this doesn't say that Honda is...

... crushing them, exactly. They're gradually removing them from the lease market and recycling them--certainly because there's no new legislation in CA requiring their sale. From a manufacturer's point of view, I can understand them not wanting to continue supporting a model that's not economical and will not continue to be built in the future (that's not saying that other electric car models may not appear later). Federal legislation requires, for example, spare parts availability from the dealers for eight years (there's been some attempt to change that, so it may be a bit lower by now), and with an extremely small run of these, the chances for high costs on those parts and premature failures make it an economic decision.

As with the GM electric car, these were hustled to the market at a time when the law in CA required them, and there was a presumption that the law would be more or less permanent. If you know that you'll continue to sell electric cars in that market indefinitely at a rate justifying the investment, you can absorb higher parts and warranty costs on introductory models because development would be ongoing and you can make up the costs in the future on more reliable vehicles and on volume. Without that continuing market, the economic justification is no longer there.

Cheers.

[yurbud]

15. the advantage of electric cars is that you can hook them up to the grid

and the grid can be hooked up to any power source, coal, nuke, wind, solar, whatever.

We should be working on making the grid more reliant on renewables, but if necessary, electrics and hybrids can get us over the hump--or make the transition from dirty to clean grid power seamless.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Beats me

They are emission free, the batteries can be recycled, and the power can come from where you like (although, given most need a power-at-the-wheels of 50Kw, nuclear is the only option).

The question is, do they? can you post a link for this?

[cdsilv]

20. Can't they also use braking to generate power - flywheels? n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

30. They can indeed

what efficiency they get depends on the storage medium. Off the top of my head, flywheels cycle about 90%, Lead acid about 80% Li-ion about 70% (feel free to correct me on this, anyone). I suspect flywheels might have an unfortunate gyroscope effect on a car, though...

[happyslug]

69. 20% efficiency for Lead Acid

Li-Ion gets about the same but is lighter so you need less electric power to haul the battery around.

While fly wheels do get 50% efficiency (i.e. for every watt of power that goes into the fly wheel you get .9 watt out of it) they are expensive and dangerous in an accident. The better choice would be the fuel cell with its 50% efficiency.

[NNadir]

23. I don't have a problem with electric cars if...

the batteries are recycled, their mass is small, and they are generally charged with non-greenhouse gas emitting power.

Some people here have reported that battery technology is much improved, and I believe it. Coastiefortruth often writes on this subject.

Mass transit is better, but electric cars are fine with me under the aforementioned conditions. Electric cars are not really acceptable in places the depend on fossil fuels for electricity, since they necessarily inefficient where chemical energy must be converted to thermal energy, then to mechanical energy then to electrical energy, then to chemical energy and then to electrical energy before being converted to mechanical energy. Direct use of the fossil fuel - and all fossil fuels are unacceptably dangerous - eliminates 4 energy conversion steps and transmission losses as well. However in a country like France, or a state like Vermont (Vermont produces no greenhouse gases to generate electricity) they are fine.

Another possible caveat concerns the peak capacity of the electric grid. It would be ideal if electric cars were charged at night. Maybe this could be encouraged by metering power according to the time of day it is used.

There is the matter of fuel taxes, but that I think can be ameliorated by shifting to other types of fees.

I note that there is at least one fluid fuel, DME, that offers the convenience of a gasoline car - quick refueling - and low polluting capability of an electric car. However DME fuel is only really acceptable if it is made from carbon dioxide removed from the air. Such technology is nowhere near industrialized on an appropriate scale but it has excellent long term potential, should humanity survive global climate change.

[rfkrfk]

33. an electric car has Real regen braking...

that sorta makes up for the multiple conversions
from the power station to the wheels.
more useful in stop-go driving, does not help on the hiway


the 1999 era Honda and GM electrics had
about 24 kilo-watt hour of electric storage.

the current Prius has one kilowatt hour of storage.
............{not a typo, 24,, then 1]

is anyone has real numbers on, how
effective the regen-braking is,
for the Toyota Prius, please post,

[skids]

35. The regen limit on the Prius is the battery C.

I don't know what the figures are -- it isn't great. Breaking is usually really abrupt compared to acceleration -- the batteries they currently use in them can't take that amount of current.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. With that in mind...

...any thoughts on using high capacity capacitors? either as a helf-way stage, or complete replacement?

[amandabeech]

37. The idea is to charge overnight and on the weekends, at least

with respect to plug-in hybrids. Most ideas I've seen seem to focus around 20-mile battery operation. That will get many, many people either to work or to the mass transit park-and-ride, and maybe part-way home, without using fossil fuel.

As you know, quite a bit of electrical generating capacity goes unused at night, mostly from nuclear and coal, which is more efficient if run at capacity all the time. Why not use some of that capacity for transportation?

[NNadir]

39. I agree in concept, but practice may prove more difficult.

The use of off peak nuclear capacity would serve to minimize the most serious drawback to nuclear power, which is that it is ill suited for meeting peak demand loads.

However such an outcome would depend very much on public compliance, cooperation, spirit and education. Public spirit, for one, is a largely vanished commodity.

Any electric car that operates on coal fired electricity is a net global warming (and general environmental) loser, however. It would have less environmental impact - albeit trivially less environmental impact - to simply cut to the chase and use Fischer-Tropsch based fuels derived from coal. All fossil fuels under all circumstances are unacceptably risky today, though many people have yet to realize it.

[htuttle]

40. Since peak loading is only going to become more of an issue in the future

I wonder why power companies haven't considered hour-of-day-based power rates, much in the same manner as telephone companies do with long distance. This might be a terrible idea, but couldn't power companies provide a low cost rate for low usage customers all the time, but then charge an arm and a leg for usage over that amount during peak hours, with cheaper rates for higher usage at off peak hours?

Like I said, this might be a terrible idea, but it would provide an incentive to even out electrical usage without relying on the public spirit. Seems like it could also distribute the costs of power generation more equitably, with the high usage customers (factories, etc...) paying for a higher percentage of new faciltities if needed. Right now, even low usage home customers end up footing the bill for new power plants required due to industrial customers.

I'm wondering if I'm missing some hitch with doing this, though...:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

41. They do in the UK and NZ

...and probably other places, but I've only had power bills in those two. :)
A bit of tinkering and you can (for instance) use off-peak electricity to heat a day's worth of hot water, and if needed charge up a storage heater (which heats up a ceramic brick overnight to warm a room over the day). This cuts down the load during the day when power is more expensive, and saves money.

I should point out that the hot water is cold by lunchtime and the space heaters are as effective as a birthday cake candle, but the theory is sound...

[NNadir]

43. However they do not use many electric cars in the UK or NZ.

There are other things that theoretically could be shifted, aluminum manufacturing, water pumping etc, but it is difficult to imagine - putative electric cars notwithstanding - household functions that are easily shifted.

I do think it's primarily an industrial issue though, again, unless electric cars become popular.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. No, but if we did have

we could charge them at night :)

The point was that it's not impossible - or illogical - to charge different rates for peak/off-peak power. There might even be an argument for buying a home-PV-type battery pack, charging overnight on off-peak power and using it during the day: It would probably pay for itself after 50 years... ;)

(Actually, I'm not sure why NZ has a peak/off-peak system - most of the power is hydro, and can easily be turned off if there's no need. I'll think on that one.)

BTW, I don't think smelting plants are prime target - IIRC, they need to run pretty much constantly, and starting one up from cold takes a few days. I may be wrong, though.

[NNadir]

45. Most kinds of plants are most economical when they run continuously.

However, it sometimes is the case that the most compelling economic factor is energy.

The cost of energy has dictated in some places aluminum manufacture. Kaiser Aluminum shut its Northwest US plants, if I remember right, because they could make more money by selling their power contract rights than they could by selling aluminum. (At one point, aluminum manufacture accounted for 3% of US power demand.)

If rails were electrified to displace high diesel costs - transportation could also be time shifted relatively easily - with transport being conducted at night, loading and unloading during the day.

However most of these solutions are at best of partial utility. The problem is not easily solved. Time shifted power rates would help though. People might be a little less free with the air conditioner and think more about conservation, which of course, is always a good thing.

[Dead_Parrot]

46. Agreed...

Every little helps (open the damn window and take your jackets off, you morons) :D

I'm not sure about transportation being time-shifted though: Most people like the idea of working 9 to 5, as ti fits in our natural rythum nicely. Ifit was 9pm to 5am, there would be rioting in the streets, peasants with pitchforks storming the castle, etc. etc: It works for long-haul, but not for the commute.

As an interesting aside, the local Comalco plant were up in arms recently about having thier power reduced during an aluminium high: The Al comodity price was through the roof, but the hydro station they rely on was diverting power to the grid (it's been a dry year in NZ, and rolling blackouts are still on the cards). Quite funny really...

[NNadir]

48. Of course, aluminum is an excellent battery...

...if you have fuel cells.

One could reduce sodium aluminate to the metal electrolytically each night and recover the energy in the peak hours as hydrogen. The chemical reaction in question is 6H₂O + 2Al + 2 (OH)^- <-> 2Al(0H)^-₄ + 3H₂. This system has been considered for automobiles but weight concerns make it less than perfect. It might work better in a home setting, though. Probably such a system would be no cheaper than PV at the end of the day, and so it's more or less for the wealthy. One would also need an electroysis unit to make hydrogen and NaOH. I don't know where the hell you'd put any chlorine :-).

I've thought about it and heard about it, but I don't know if it's serious. I suspect a lot of waste heat would be involved.

[Dead_Parrot]

49. OK, my chem isn't up to that...

where the hell does Cl come into it? :dunce:

[NNadir]

50. You would need to generate sodium hydroxide by the electrolysis of NaCl

solutions. Alternatively, one could buy big bags of it.

The system would also require a hydrogen tank, and a chlorine tank.

It sounds too involved actually. Forget I said it.

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Certainly not...

...not many power systems give you a free, heated & water-treated swimming pool as a spin off...

:D

(edit: Yeah, I know. But a man can dream, can't he?)

[NNadir]

54. I neglected to mention solar power.

I believe that the solar thermal plants in California are becoming competitive with natural gas. I like this capacity very much. It is small, but it really does seem that it can work well - again, on sunny hot days, precisely the moment when peak demand is highest.

People who can afford solar PV and who live in suitable areas, would also be generating peak power - and precisely at the moment it is needed.

A large peak surcharge on electric bills would probably make PV seem more affordable.

The use of solar power to displace gas generated peak power helps to slow the impact of global climate change.

[NNadir]

42. I think the main reason is the capital cost of hundreds of millions of

meters.

I have long advocated just what you say.

[GumboYaYa]

64. Ding, ding, ding...you are corect sir.

We have been working to get CA utilities to apply peak usage rates in conjunction with the state's investment in power. Peak usage is attractive to them as the costs of peak power is the most expensively generated power in the system. Nevertheless, they can not get beyond the capital investment needed to get there.

[amandabeech]

47. One could control summer afternoon charging by use of exhorbitant

pricing or by prohibition during certain hours. Obviously, this only would work with a PHEV.

As to the coal. I don't like the stuff either for the usual reasons. However, I don't see it going away any time soon, so I say use every bit of the electricity produced by these things while they are around in order to get the most bang for every sooty buck as it were. As you have mentioned, these things work best if working at full capacity.

In addition, by using off-peak electricity to charge PHEV's, one would use a bit less oil per day, maybe a gallon or two. Is your point that it would be more efficient, and thus cleaner, to ratchet down the coal baseload plants at night and use the coal saved for F-T liquid fuel? Have you seen any study comparing the two possibilities?

[NNadir]

55. I'm sorry Amanda, I didn't see your question from a few days ago.

I oppose all coal fired plants under all circumstances; I oppose the use of coal.

I really don't support "saving" coal for F-T purposes. To me, F-T is a disaster waiting to happen. It can happen, it is not all that technically challenging but it shouldn't happen. F-T is the thing in my mind that environmentalists should fight above all other things.

(Population management is the base problem - but F-T should not be used to attempt to support a larger population.)

Right now though, it is nearly impossible to stop coal use, as dangerous as it - and it clearly is the most dangerous fuel there is.

To the extent that electric automobiles can work - and can be fueled by fuels other than fossil - and this is limited to nuclear and solar (including wind as solar), I support them. My point was that F-T is less of a threat than coal fired electricity, since the direct chemical to chemical transformation (carbon to liquid fuel) involves fewer energy transformations but either way coal remains a threat and a serious one. There is no solution for managing the primary waste of coal which is carbon dioxide.

Nuclear power is not suited to peak loads. Future types of plants may be so suited - if humanity survives global climate change long enough to build them - but right now that is "pie in the sky." The only well demonstrated nuclear plants and successful nuclear plants are electrical generation plants - and they must run at constant power, more or less as close to peak power as possible. Therefore the only solution involving nuclear power is to do off-peak recharging - basically if we level loads we can increase base load generation.

However ultimately we must decrease base loads by decreasing the human population. One would hope that this could be done ethically, through low birth rates, but increasingly I doubt that it will happen ethically.

[amandabeech]

57. I agree with you on the population issue, NNadir.

I also share your hope that the population can be cut back before Mother Nature takes matters into her own hands. She is not always kind.

As you probably know, birthrates have declined precipitously in many countries since the '70s. As an example, Mexico's birthrate in that time was 6-7 children per woman. Now it is in the range of 2.5-3. That is still far too much, but it is an improvement.

Declines have not been great in Africa, many countries in the Middle East and India.

Here, population increase has been predominantly through immigration, which I do not intend to discuss here.

On the topic of nuclear and base loads, I strongly favor research into methods of storing electrical energy generated off-peak for use on-peak. Of course, those same storage mechanisms would help us exploit solar/wind to a greater degree in appropriate locations, such as solar in the Southwest and wind in the Great Plains.

[skids]

28. PHEVs are for all intents and purposes are electric cars.

PHEVs only need to dip into fossil on long trips and for emergency acceleration. For many people this would be a low enough use of liquid fuel that biodiesel or ethanol or methanol would be practical to use.

And I support both, as long as the battery technology is responsibly engineered. It's easier to replace electricity with renewables than it is to replace large quantities of liquid fuels.

So my question back is why some EV proponents are so hostile to hybrids? Just because they have some extra parts? Please. That's no good reason.

[IrateCitizen]

52. Cars are a piss-poor transportation choice for cities

One thing I was highly impressed with when I visited Europe was the secondary (or even tertiary) role that automobiles played for transportation in many of the cities. The primary means of transportation, rather, were public transportation, walking and bicycling (esp. in Amsterdam).

The goal should not be to introduce more automobiles into the city, but rather to make public transit highly accessible. Furthermore, urban spaces can be designed so that people can walk and/or ride bikes for the vast majority of trips.

Cars are NOT the answer. They are part of the problem. This is a blind spot for so many around here, as indicated by this post.

[rfkrfk]

58. electric powered mass transit is opposed by environmentalists

pollution somewhere else

why are people riding on electric trains trying to
destroy our planet?

[NNadir]

59. I don't think so. Most environmentalists understand efficiency.

[Dead_Parrot]

62. err, no it isn't. nt

[IrateCitizen]

68. Citation, please?

If you're going to make such claims, you should at least be able to cite one or two instances (news articles or even commentaries) that support them.

[JohnWxy]

80. I think there are some concerns about batteries and pollution in

production and recycling. It's hard to find good info on this on the web among all the 'advertising' going on.