"Green" Energy

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 5, 2020
2,093
400
213
59
Broken Arrow
#22
Well, he’s only off right now by 10 years and still counting. Maybe one day someone will find that acorn.

“Many scientists predict that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months in the first term of the next president.”
————Al Gore, August 2008———-
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,879
2,550
1,743
#23
Well, he’s only off right now by 10 years and still counting. Maybe one day someone will find that acorn.

“Many scientists predict that the entire north polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months in the first term of the next president.”
————Al Gore, August 2008———-
Another John Stossel classic. I doubt it will change any opinions of those already in the alarmists camp. But worth a view for those concerned about climate change, but are reasonable.
https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1548673321352531968?s=20
 
Apr 7, 2006
3,165
1,624
1,743
#26
Electric vehicles have a place in our economy but the push we're seeing due to ulterior motives (politics, investments, virtue signaling) is going to come back and bite us.

We are going to create an emergency on our electric grid, we are going to have geopolitical challenges by the locations of rare earth minerals (batteries) and we're driving up cost of living in the process.

There are multiple reports that show the amount of increased power generation required to supply power if we double EVs by 2030. And where will that power come from? Mostly coal and natural gas. In my opinion that will remain the case since along with nuclear it's the energy we can reasonably store right now (unless we see a quantum leap in battery tech)

Lithium, Nickel and Cobalt is critical to the future of EV. Unfortunately, this presents a challenge to the US since a large portion of the world's supply comes from China and Russia. If we invaded Iraq "for oil", it should be worth keeping an eye on how we respond as we become more and more dependent on materials that we cannot extract at a cost and environmental method we are comfortable with.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,064
17,422
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#27
I've said it before, until the alarmists start ACTING like they believe it instead of just talking like they do, then why should I be worried. And as long as the alarmists continue to foolishly claim that science is settled then why should I even try to debate the subject with them.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,386
4,925
1,743
35
Keller, Texas
#28
Electric vehicles have a place in our economy but the push we're seeing due to ulterior motives (politics, investments, virtue signaling) is going to come back and bite us.

We are going to create an emergency on our electric grid, we are going to have geopolitical challenges by the locations of rare earth minerals (batteries) and we're driving up cost of living in the process.

There are multiple reports that show the amount of increased power generation required to supply power if we double EVs by 2030. And where will that power come from? Mostly coal and natural gas. In my opinion that will remain the case since along with nuclear it's the energy we can reasonably store right now (unless we see a quantum leap in battery tech)

Lithium, Nickel and Cobalt is critical to the future of EV. Unfortunately, this presents a challenge to the US since a large portion of the world's supply comes from China and Russia. If we invaded Iraq "for oil", it should be worth keeping an eye on how we respond as we become more and more dependent on materials that we cannot extract at a cost and environmental method we are comfortable with.
The push for EV is just too early with our battery capabilities. Example below...

294270430_2182214785280566_852313614594667466_n.jpg
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,687
7,342
1,743
Landlocked
#29
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how mining lithium is more sustainable/better than drilling for fossil fuels. I'm also trying to understand how "clean energy" as a full cycle is so much better than the new era of highly efficient ICE vehicles.

Have people investigated the carbon footprint from manufacturing, maintenance, and disposal costs of wind turbines? Have people considered the same with solar panels? Do people know how much carbon is used to produce the concrete necessary for something like the Hoover Dam? Do people think at all about where their electrons come from when they charge their EVs?

I 100% support our efforts to find better sources of energy and to be more sustainable / responsible for the Earth. But the current insanity of "green" energy and products is baffling. I'm guessing it's mostly driven by virtue signaling and ignorance.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,209
3,101
743
36
tractor
#30
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how mining lithium is more sustainable/better than drilling for fossil fuels. I'm also trying to understand how "clean energy" as a full cycle is so much better than the new era of highly efficient ICE vehicles.

Have people investigated the carbon footprint from manufacturing, maintenance, and disposal costs of wind turbines? Have people considered the same with solar panels? Do people know how much carbon is used to produce the concrete necessary for something like the Hoover Dam? Do people think at all about where their electrons come from when they charge their EVs?

I 100% support our efforts to find better sources of energy and to be more sustainable / responsible for the Earth. But the current insanity of "green" energy and products is baffling. I'm guessing it's mostly driven by virtue signaling and ignorance.
Because EV sounds more avante guard than gasoline
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
13,687
7,342
1,743
Landlocked
#32
The push for EV is just too early with our battery capabilities. Example below...

View attachment 96546
Or this one. This is comically terrible.

But Ford has been boasting about how with the larger chassis in the F-150 Lightning, it has that much more juice so you can really go out there and not have to worry about running the battery dry. Well, The Fast Lane Truck debunked that claim, at least when towing a trailer is involved. The Ford truck didn’t make it the 282 miles the onboard computer estimated, a figure which was adjusted to 160 miles once the driver provided the trailer specs. The plan was to go to a charging station 147 miles away, but as the batteries depleted more rapidly than expected, a destination 45 miles closer was chosen. However, the Lightning couldn’t even make it the 102 miles pulling the trailer, so the driver had to turn around and head back to a nearer charging station, arriving with 9 percent charge left.

https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/ford-lightning-towing-test/
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,509
1,227
1,743
#34
On the EV topic, I think we have to remind ourselves that the perfect is always the enemy of the good. My Tesla experience so far mirrors the example above with the truck. Driving down the interstate at 78 MPH with 4 people and the ac running, we got about half of the posted mileage. However, in town driving, it is dead on. So, I think in the long run, the typical two car family will end up with one of each, like us, and that will do wonders for gas prices and consumption.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,819
1,070
1,743
nunya
#35
And unless it’s a supercharger, you’re looking at a 15-20 minute wait while it charges.
Or this one. This is comically terrible.

But Ford has been boasting about how with the larger chassis in the F-150 Lightning, it has that much more juice so you can really go out there and not have to worry about running the battery dry. Well, The Fast Lane Truck debunked that claim, at least when towing a trailer is involved. The Ford truck didn’t make it the 282 miles the onboard computer estimated, a figure which was adjusted to 160 miles once the driver provided the trailer specs. The plan was to go to a charging station 147 miles away, but as the batteries depleted more rapidly than expected, a destination 45 miles closer was chosen. However, the Lightning couldn’t even make it the 102 miles pulling the trailer, so the driver had to turn around and head back to a nearer charging station, arriving with 9 percent charge left.

https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/ford-lightning-towing-test/
It's not there yet, not even close. On the commercial side anecdotal story. Back in 08 there was a huge push for Commercial vehicles to go CNG. The stations were slow fill overnight stations, that you had installed at your facility. NG was cheap right? The station you had to install not so much. The ROI was horrible, so we did not do it. The consortium did and they lost their collective butts. CNG lost a lot of range and power.

They should be focusing on lower diesel prices. That will help the economy the most. I am currently paying around 80k per month in diesel as opposed to 33k / month previously. With lower diesel rates it will help everyone.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,184
33,334
1,743
oklahoma city
#38
The push for EV is just too early with our battery capabilities. Example below...

View attachment 96546
I've seen people stupid enough to pull big boats with 4 and 6 cylinder trucks/cars and get on a hill and top out at about 35 mph on the interstate. An example that we are not ready to push people into small-engine cars given their current capabilities.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,184
33,334
1,743
oklahoma city
#39
Or this one. This is comically terrible.

But Ford has been boasting about how with the larger chassis in the F-150 Lightning, it has that much more juice so you can really go out there and not have to worry about running the battery dry. Well, The Fast Lane Truck debunked that claim, at least when towing a trailer is involved. The Ford truck didn’t make it the 282 miles the onboard computer estimated, a figure which was adjusted to 160 miles once the driver provided the trailer specs. The plan was to go to a charging station 147 miles away, but as the batteries depleted more rapidly than expected, a destination 45 miles closer was chosen. However, the Lightning couldn’t even make it the 102 miles pulling the trailer, so the driver had to turn around and head back to a nearer charging station, arriving with 9 percent charge left.

https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/ford-lightning-towing-test/
Do you guys still have horses?

Because taking a trip by car at first was an insane adventure compared to the same trip by horse. The roads were not ready. There were no gas stations. It was EASY to argue how much better a horse was than a car. And I am sure some people did. It was a much more one-sided debate than the EV vs ICE debate. Fortunately, we didn't listen to the stick-with-horses advocates. Naysayers about advancing tech are nearly never right, especially when they exude such confidence that the current tech is as good as it gets.

What fascinates me is, if you want to stick with a horse, just stick with a horse. Why the overwhelming need for the "horse" people to point out/theorize/flat out falsify every possible flaw in the new "car." Just ride your dang horse if that makes you happy. Trust me, if at some point the government forces you to buy a truck for towing that only goes 100 miles, I'll be right there by your side protesting. But, we all know that simply will never happen.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/
The First Road Trip
The tinkerer: Alexander Winton in the office of his bicycle plant in Cleveland, 1893.
That first car worked pretty well, but I saw so many things wrong with it that I started another, using part of my bicycle factory for the work. I foresaw a future in automobiles and tried to interest some people in starting a manufacturing plant. Failing in that, I decided to go on a long trip, hoping attention would be attracted to the machine.

In July 1897, I confided in a friend: “I am going to drive my horseless carriage from Cleveland to New York. I am inviting you to come with me.”

He laughed at me. I sought another friend.

On the morning of July 28, 1897, Bert Hatcher and I left Cleveland. The Horseless Age, one of the few motor publications of that time, wrote about us this way: “Combining business with recreation, Alexander Winton left Cleveland with a companion in a new motor carriage on the morning of July 28, and after a leisurely journey he reached New York City Saturday, August 7. From Mr. Winton’s account, no greater test could have been given the machine as, to use his own words, ‘the roads were simply outrageous.’ Fully two weeks of rainy weather had preceded him on the journey, and in many places the mud and water were hub deep, and in some places the sand was equally as bad. He traveled fully 800 miles, and the best day’s run was 150 miles. The machine consumed on an average of six gallons of gasoline a day, which would be little more than half a cent a mile for the trip. Much interest was shown by the people on the road and especially by those in the mountains.”

Hatcher and I did not return by motor. We had blisters enough. You may wonder why, on this first trip ever attempted by an automobile over a long distance, we were able to complete a day’s journey on an average of six gallons of gasoline. The fuel was more volatile in those days, and we had a low-speed motor. The present high-speed motor uses a great deal more fuel, but it is a more adaptable engine for the needs of modern travel.

In those days there were no gasoline stations, and the only place the fuel could be purchased was in a drug store. If, by chance, the druggist had a gallon of it, we were happy. Seldom were we able to buy in such a large quantity and usually we had to be content with a pint or a quart.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,209
3,101
743
36
tractor
#40
It's not there yet, not even close. On the commercial side anecdotal story. Back in 08 there was a huge push for Commercial vehicles to go CNG. The stations were slow fill overnight stations, that you had installed at your facility. NG was cheap right? The station you had to install not so much. The ROI was horrible, so we did not do it. The consortium did and they lost their collective butts. CNG lost a lot of range and power.

They should be focusing on lower diesel prices. That will help the economy the most. I am currently paying around 80k per month in diesel as opposed to 33k / month previously. With lower diesel rates it will help everyone.
It's actually cheaper for us to spray than plow.