Fossil Fuel industry trying to shut down electric vehicles

Oh the joy. The smug. And then one realizes that for most of the US, that Tesla is the same as driving a coal powered car. The shine seems to fade at that point. And then, when you reference the load of batteries said car relies on, it's like you're toting around a load of coal with you, everywhere you go. It makes one feel so "green"......

 

Not really. Only about 33% of electricity was generated from coal in 2015. (admittedly about 67% of the electricity was created from fossil fuels, with natural gas being about 33% and petroleum about 1%)

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

 

I'm thinking of getting an electric car, because I run an electricity surplus every month, with my solar and wind. I haven't made the investment in the electric car yet, hoping that the range of the vehicles would improve, and it appears they have.

 

Fine for you, if you can live with the fragility of the cars themselves, and you never extend past the range. Oh, and weather effects their efficiency. Batteries don't like cold. I have seriously investigated the Tesla product, and passed. I couldn't get over the quality, and the quality issues with them.

 

Only need a 40-mile range for our every day driving needs. I can extend my zero-energy home concept to zero-energy transportation. I'd probably buy a Honda or Toyota offering though. Maybe GM. Haven't researched it too closely yet.

 

I pretty much agree. I think 40 miles range is a little low, but I would buy an electric car for a commuter, if I could get one with 150 mile range (while using A/C or heat) for less than $30k.

 

The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt are getting close.

 

I have the Ford Fusion Energi and I love it. It doesn't have a huge battery, but it's big enough for my needs and I don't have to worry about range anxiety since it functions as a hybrid too. I got it for about $1500 cheaper than a similarly equipped pure gasoline version. So my breakeven period on it is actually negative plus I save about $800/yr in fuel expensive (and that includes the cost of electricity). I really don't think the fossil fuel industry is going to have a significant impact on the EV market.

 

I hate you because I had to pay for your perversion by my taxes.

 

Do you have similar complaints about nuclear power? I have to support an entire government division - the NRC, and I don't use nuclear power. And I don't want their horrid wastes stored anywhere within a 100 miles of my home.

 

We are not talking about nuclear power plants, are we?

Nuclear power plants, like coal power plants have their big minuses and their big pluses. There are certain methods of weighting pluses and minuses in each case. Only brainwashed ideologists work on pushing their blind beliefs what is good and what is bad on everyone.

What we are talking is that the fact Tesla is powered by both nuclear and coal power plants. It is dirtier than any gasoline vehicle.

What we are talking is that electric cars are very good and desirable for golf courses, but a modernized golf cart sold to brainwashed public as some kind of modern technology under Tesla name and at taxpayers expenses, while billions are put into pockets of corrupted politicians during such a transaction, is a totally idiotic, totally disgusting idea and I hate it.

 

I have a residential wind turbine, solar panels, and netmetering. I run a surplus every month. If I got a Tesla, it would be powered by none of your dirty trash power. Your last paragraph demonstrates the extent of your delusion.

 

Since you have no logical or factual objections to the fact that electric carts are powered by nuclear and coal as a rule, then why do you call me delusional when I suggest that brainwashing the public and pushing electric cars is caused by corruption? Do you have any other suggestions?

 

Your last paragraph was a lot more than a suggestion -
What we are talking is that electric cars are very good and desirable for golf courses, but a modernized golf cart sold to brainwashed public as some kind of modern technology under Tesla name and at taxpayers expenses, while billions are put into pockets of corrupted politicians during such a transaction, is a totally idiotic, totally disgusting idea and I hate it.

 

Following up on a previous deleted thread:


Output - Input = Accumulation applies to a control volume surrounding the earth and its atmosphere. The accumulation of heat is what drives temperature. All calculations and models concerning global warming start with this simple concept to determine the effects of increasing CO2 (and other forcings) on global average temperature.

Rastislav Levicky
Professor in the Chemical Engineering department
Dept. of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Polytechnic Institute of New York University

http://faculty.poly.edu/~rlevicky/Handout6.pdf

 

Was it deleted? How comes?
You have found one. Took you a few days but one can find anything on Internet.
I even found your Volume Control I had no clue about.
Obviously if you charge an accumulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_(energy) or a battery energy will be accumulated and stored in it.
Is it breaking the 2nd law ? Why not, can you explain?
Now, do you mind applying Levicky's perspective (though I must say I never liked chemistry and don't feel comfortable) to the given problem?

 

The entire thread was deleted - Moderator decision.

The first law is covered in any thermo text book. The conservation principle applies to mass, momentum, energy, bank balances, etc ...

The second law applies to the universe - entropy can decrease within a control volume but the entropy increase outside the control volume is of greater magnitude and the second law is not violated. Control volumes are used to solve problems. Your lack of understanding about what they mean is telling.

I've shown how the first law applies to global warming.

 

No, in that deleted tread you made no attempt to show anything and in the same way as you are doing here you avoided answering any questions.

 

When in a hole it is best to stop digging. Input energy comes from the sun. Output energy is either reradiated or reflected solar energy. Energy accumulated (or lost) results in temperature increase (or decrease). The concept is simple. What specifically don't you understand about this ??

 

I mean no disrespect but this is the pot calling the kettle black. One question...why is Venus warmer than Mercury despite it receiving 25% of the energy?

 

Obviously if you charge an accumulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_(energy) or a battery energy will be accumulated and stored in it.
Is it breaking the 2nd law ? Why not, can you explain?
Now, do you mind applying Levicky's perspective (I mean the chapter you posted) to the given problem?

Would not be interesting to estimate how the average Temperature of the Earth would change if all its atmosphere changed to 100% CO2?

 

Was my answer deleted?
Repeating: I have no problems answering this Q as I did for another poster a couple of weeks ago ( all I have is to copy-paste), but I would appreciate if your first answer my questions as they came first in order http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-18#post-1067324688 before calling pots and kettles.

 

Wow. I naively thought I was the only one that asked you about Mercury and Venus. I just searched the forums. Apparently you've been asked this multiple times. I had absolutely no idea. Anyway, I found this non-answer in which you said the answer is simple but didn't actually answer the question. Or this non-answer in which you said it was basically because scientists are idiots. You're words...not mine.

 

Instead of answering my questions, you searched.
You are not opened to an honest conversation.
And you projecting that everyone else including me have the same state of mind as you do.
Will my answer whatever it is make you an honest open minded person?

It is interesting that you didn't find it. Ask politicalcenter poster. It is interesting what will be his answer.

P. S. Searched, it is there.

 

I've explained that upthread.

Why would anyone be interested in Earth with a 100% CO2 atmosphere ??