The End of Coal Fired Powerplants

I would tend to agree. Maglev dramatically reduces the energy required to move a vehicle by eliminating friction and it would make an electric car much more viable where limited energy storage is a serious problem.

The basic problem being that middle-income jobs are disappearing because of AI and technology and they not being replaced. Yes, younger workers can be retrained but that doesn't mean they'll be able to earn a living in a new profession.

 

The basic problem is people who used to take on middle income challenges now offer so little that they can be replaced with AI and technology.




​

 

This is a highly inaccurate statement. It has been the advances in AI and technology that have eliminated the jobs and not any lack of the willingness or ability of those that used to be employed in those jobs.

As an anecdotal example I would address engineering that has always been the backbone of manufacturing. I spent over 45 years in manufacturing and between the 1960's and 2013 (when I basically retired) I watched as computer technology eliminated about 90% of all engineering jobs required for manufacturing. An engineering project that required 100 engineers in 1970 can easily be accomplished by a team of 10 engineers today because the computers do most of the work. The engineers are not really any different today than they were in 1970. The primary difference is they use computers to do the design as opposed to physically drawing the design because the computers use their 3-D models to perform all of the engineering functions related to the design. Basically by the engineers using the computers to do the design they reduce the number of engineering jobs by 90%. The computers are now so good they often don't even require the engineers to do the design anymore in many cases eliminating 100% of the engineering jobs on some projects.

 

I recall the first flat screen tvs costing $10k, I waited a couple years until the price came down to $3k for a 30" flat screen, now I can buy a 50-60" for between $1-2k and that's all happened over 10 yrs...the same applied to video players/recorders, they become so inexpensive devices that initially sold for thousands now you can buy far superior versions buy for $75...

you're just being a contrarian/naysayer, its irrational and doesn't reflect reality...you're basing your argument on poor technical knowledge as your knowledge of rail systems demonstrates...

 

Domesticating the horse eliminated 100% of the 'carry-this-load-to-the-camp jobs' that were the backbone of the gathering industry. The steam engine eliminated 100% of the 'pole-this-raft-up-the-river jobs' and the automatic elevator eliminated 100% of the 'drive-this-car-to-the-third-floor jobs.' You can only imagine what electric light, cotton gin, and automobile did to other industries.

Self assembling software, 3D printers, driver-less automobiles, robotic ovens, expert systems, and other advances will eliminate the need for many tasks we used to require. So what? Find another way to be useful.




​

 

When you can purchase any TV size flat screen for $10 new (i.e. 1/1000th of the cost of a $10,000 flat screen) then get back to me.

I'm a pragmatist when it comes to technology. I do believe that we'll develop batteries with enough capacity to provide a viable electric car in the future that can drive for extended distances between recharging. I can also see us dramatically reducing the charging time as well (but probably not to the few minutes required to fill-up with a tank of gasoline). We might even someday develop a nuclear fusion car but much of this is still science fiction today.

Just remember that science fiction is often a precursor to science fact historically but it can take a long times to get there in many cases.

 

Yeah the electric light killed the candle and oil lamp industry but created millions of electrician jobs and an entire new enormous electrical industry...cars ended the horse a buggy industry but the number of employeed directly and indirectly in the automotive industry dwarfs the number lost in the buggy industry...

 

You verified my point again, newest electric cars have reached acceptable long range, they've already equaled daily driving requirements, fast charge systems are well on the way with new abundant electric power (fusion) tesla engineers predict 5 minute charge time...

 

Automobiles didn't create a single job. People, wanting things, created those jobs. People still want things.





​

 

That argument always baffles me. Why would we worry about the jobs of an industry that is inevitably not the way of the future. Obviously people need to be educated and trained in other fields and cities and towns need to go thru the evolution of of progressing. What happened to all the jobs that relied upon horse drawn buggies or kerosene lighting. Life progresses and people and place change to keep up with the times. Clearly, coal is not safe or good for the environment and there is a problem using it.

 

Car part stores, mechanics, road construction, service stations, most of oil industry, drive-in resturants and theaters, recreational industry, auto dealers, the amount of jobs created by automobile and the ICE is staggering...our lives in western world revolve around the car and the markets it creates and can take us to...

 

The jobs aren't created by car parts. They're created by people wanting them. All jobs are basically solving a problem for someone, as long as we have problems there are jobs.




​

 

Taking an all electric car on vacation is still not a viable option.

When evaluating electric cars and their battery capacity we need to look at "plug in miles" (i.e. how far will it go on the battery alone). Based upon 2013 information varies from the very highest (Mitsubishi i-MiEV) that can go up to 62 miles (the only one to break the 40 mile barrier) down to (Toyota Prius) 11 miles on a battery charge.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ars-rated-range-for-each-model-ultimate-guide

You didn't provide a source for the Tesla engineers statements but currently few houses have electrical outlets and wiring that even provide 50 amps at 220v (most have 20 amps at 220v for the clothes dryer). It is the amperage/voltage along with how quickly the battery will accept the charge that determines how long it takes to charge the battery. It doesn't have anything to do with the source of the electricity so the fact that fusion power will come in the future that won't affect charging times at all. Upgrading to evey 220/50 amp service is very expensive I've learned because my wife is a potter that uses 220/50 amp service for her kilns. Just to run the wiring for one kiln from the service panel recently cost me over $3,000 (required a new electrical panel and a 220/100 amp run to the panel). That's a lot of bucks to spend upgrading electrical service and that was only for 220/50 amp service.

Out of curiousity I ran the numbers on how long it would take to charge a battery that would result in the same mileage for identical vehicles where one runs on gasoline with a 20 gallon tank and one on electricity with a battery that would store 1/3rd that amount of energy. An electric car gets 3-times the mileage when compared to a gasoline car on the same energy which is why I factored in 1/3rd of the energy required. Using a 220v/50a charger it would require almost 22 hours of charging time assuming the battery had zero charge when you started. You can't charge faster than the electricity can be fed into the battery so I don't know what the Tesla engineers are talking about. You can get this basic information needed for this calculation on this link:

http://evsroll.com/Electric_Car_Basics.html

Even with all of this said I'm a huge advocate of all electric cars when the electricity is from a clean source and nuclear fusion offers that but they have a limited application. The commutes needs to be short but most commutes are. As a retiree today I could live with nothing but an all electric car (and my Harley LOL) and would simply rent a car for vacations or long drives. My problem today is that electricity isn't coming from clean sources so why switch to electric when overall it does nothing for the environment.

 

Actually most car parts are created by computers and technology today (e.g. cnc machining) but you are correct that jobs are created by people needing parts (consumption) which dispells the Republican myth that jobs are created by external investments in enterprise. If there is demand then the parts will be produced and production facilities expanded based upon the sales of the parts.

 

People want a lot of things but that doesn't create jobs. Buying things creates jobs but a person has to have enough income to be able to buy what they want before they can create jobs. That's where so many have it wrong. Increasing income for low and middle income households that spend the greatest percentage of their income "buying" commodities like cars creates the most jobs. Increasing income for the wealthy that are already spending all they want on commodities and then investing the surplus income doesn't creates very few jobs.

 

Commerce is a trade. Demand needs to exist on both sides, for a sale to occur. But yea, if I have something you want and you can do something for me in return, business usually happens.





​

 

Although typically referred to as "supply and demand" this is pretty accurate and the only problems that really arise is when their is market-wide price-fixing for necessities as that violaties the "law of contract" by introducing coercion into the trade contract.

 

Price fixing ... ah, you mean minimum wage.




​

 

The minimum wage doesn't refer to a "necessity" for enterprise. An enterpise can exist in the United States without any employees and tens of thousands of them do. A necessity refers to something like food, shelter, water, energy, clothing and/or health care all of which are a necessity for the person's survival.

 

People have survived for a long time before clothing, energy, or even the health care industry existed. And people can exist in the united states without many kinds of food or shelter.

Price fixing is price fixing.





​

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/new...aims-to-charge-electric-cars-in-five-minutes/

Fusion and cheap plentiful power makes this practical...

you can be a grumpy old naysayer in rocking chair or you can accept that technical progress has been made can be accomplished at amazing speed...and yeah trains dont need electritfied rails anymore

 

Fusion would be nice - but good luck. Fission is perfectly fine, but the environmental crowd is hysteric over such things.

Here in Australia, most of our energy comes from coal because the left has stalled any attempt to use our vast, vast supply of Uranium to power our nation without emissions. They prefer to just extort a cut off the top.

 

Nuclear fission, that produces millions of tons of highly radioactive waste that remains extremely toxic for thousands of years, is not "perfectly fine" by any standard and yet I've advocated for it's usage as an interim step to acheiving nuclear fusion. Our problem is the storage of this highly toxic radioactive waste and while we spent billions of dollars to build a safe repository at Yucca Mountain politics has prevented us from using it to date.

Choosing between coal and nuclear fission has always been a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils but neither choice was a "perfectly fine" solution to our energy problems.

 

If my calculations are correct to be able to deliver the kwh of power required to charge a battery in five minutes using in my example (i.e. enough energy stored in a battery to move an electric car for the same distance as a gasoline powered car with a 20 gal gas tank) would require 440v/6,600a electrical service to the home assuming the battery could handle that charge rate without blowing up or melting. I'm just making a wild-ass-guess but I'd bet even money that the size of the electrical line to carry this much electricity probably costs well over $1,000 a foot (probably several inches in diameter using highly expensive copper wiring) not including installation that could only be accomplished with very heavy equipment. The size of the transmission lines to a neighborhood would have to be as large as the transmission lines we use between major regions of the country. It is both an impractical and unaffordable proposition.

Of course I'm just an engineer so I only address the engineering problems associated with the proposition.

 

Price fixing is price fixing but there is a difference when it relates to something that is mandatory such as food in general and when it relates to something that isn't mandatory like "lobster" that, while food, isn't necessary for survival so long as other general foods are available.

People have always required food, shelter, clothing, energy, and even health care for survival. In earlier historical times they could provide for this themselves using natural sources but today that is virtually impossible. A person living in an apartment cannot grow the food they require to survive for example. Enterprise has replaced the natural means for survival while the necessity for survival has not diminished. The necessities that nature once provided are is now provided for by enterprise and enterprise, by replacing nature and making nature inaccessable to the person today for survival, assumed the responsible for ensuring survival today.

In it's simplest form when the farmer took over the land the farmer assumed responsibility for furnishing the food required by those that lived off of the land.