Who here knows how hazardous lithium ion batteries are to the earth? what about nicklenickel metallhydrid? I have no problem with electric cars but when your not seeing what it takes to produce the batteries or looking were they go when they die out, your supposed to dispose of them properly instead i see them go in trashcans->landfills and that i imagine is not good.
So stupid. 900 batteries... i wonder how much fuel went into making that energy... It may be a step forward, but until we can harness energy directly from the sun rather than energy stored in the earth, whether it runs on electricity or fuel, there will always be pollution in some way or another. But this is progress.
Gas cars can only be refueled by randomly expensive gas prices owned by middle eastern nations hostile to the west. Electric vehicles can be powered by 1. The grid 2. Solar 3. Wind 4. A creek with an generator. Pretty much electric opens the door to western innovation.
If your still not convinced electric is the way of propulsion. Go as your mother why your so stupid I can't answer that for you. Gas propulsion has been here for a hundred years you dummies. Wake up and smell the electric revolution. Most of the people hung up on fossil fuels are also war mongers anyways. Imperialistic pigs gonna lose their funding. Cheers to that.
"You meant to say that "y" is less than "x" by default, especially if you charge your car via solar panels."
-yes, i did. sorry about that; the comment wasn't posting originally & i was getting annoyed, so i must have overlooked it in my attempts to get it to post. :/
@yuskjr First off you can't compare tank of gas to battery running out of charge. That is totally subjective as the tank and battery pack are arbitrary sizes. You have to do it this way, Car X travels a specific distance and consumes Y amount in energy and outputs Z in emissions. The output in emissions has to be from the tailpipe of the car versus the stack at the power plant generating the EXACT amount electricity the electric car required. This is an OVERLY simplistic start...
"First off you can't compare tank of gas to battery running out of charge."
-sure i can; im free to compare whatever i want to. comparing a tank vs. battery is like comparing a tank vs. tank of two Gas powered cars. where's the difference?
"The output in emissions has to be from the tailpipe of the car versus the stack at the power plant generating the EXACT amount electricity the electric car required."
-that's what i was asking for in my previous comment.. like EXACTLY what i was asking for..
I did post some rough calculations here for you to look with the specific CO2 output from a Leaf powered by coal and a gas powered car, but you either missed it.
@yuskjr Your logic doesn't make sense here. "Solar & Nuclear Power Plants make "y" negligible, so "x" is less than "y" by default." ...this says that BECAUSE solar and nuclear power plants make "y" negligible, "x" is less than "y" by default. I don't believe that one has to do with the other. Please extrapolate this so I can understand your reasoning if you would be so kind.
"Your logic doesn't make sense here. "Solar & Nuclear Power Plants make "y" negligible, so "x" is less than "y" by default.""
-i made a mistake when typing my comment; it should be "more than".
-Solar Power Plants produce 0 emissions, so charging any battery with Solar Power means no emissions are produced through the Power Plant. Nuclear Power Plants produce only heated water & Nuclear waste, but no CO2 emissions, so they too are completely clean to charge a battery. so, "y" becomes negligible.
"OK, I thought that is what you meant, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth."
-it's all good.
-sorry about the mistake; the comment wasn't posting for some reason, so i was getting anxious & changing the format - i guess i just didn't check myself before it finally posted. :/
Your an idiot if you think electric cars cause less pollution. It might not be coming our of your tailpipe, but that coal plant is working overtime to charge your "eco-friendly tree-hugging electro-mobile".
@bigdv519 Your an ignoramus if you blindly believe that statement. No one is denying that power plants produce harmful emissions. But, power plants are cleaner and more efficient out of extracting energy out of a fuel source than ANY internal combustion engine powered car is able to do. Power plants are point sources of emissions that can be sequestered and do a better job of filtering emissions than any puny catalytic converter. Power plants can use ANY fuel source and give us independence.
@M1CHAE1R0SE Mike, are you saying the addition of electric cars charging on the grid will not increase the power production load on a power plant? That sounds imaginary, at best. There will be an additional load on power plants, there will be additional pollution, possibly even more than normally combusted engines since batterys are worthless in cold weather. If the battery powered car idea is such a solution, why does Chevy still have a "backup" gasoline engine on its Volt?
@bigdv519 No, I am not saying ANY load, I am saying the load is not much more than what we currently have to handle which are PEAK loads during the day. Most people will be out driving during the day and charge at home. Most of the charging is done at night, off peak. Power plants are producing more than what we need at night. There are going to be cases outside of this of course, but for most cases electric cars are taking advantage of power that is otherwise wasted.
Electric vehicles are not worthless in cold weather. Perhaps you are confusing lead acid car batteries with the Lithium-Ion chemistry cells used in the commercially available production electric cars. The batteries are completely different. Also, Electric cars are not mobile furnaces like gas powered cars which waste around 80% of the power as heat out the tail pipe. They only use more energy in the cold because of the need to make heat for the passengers.
The Volt has a backup generator to extend its range. Here is why, most Americans drive an average of 33 miles a day. For most of the time you can plug the Volt in at night and drive it to and from work without EVER needing a drop of gas. But for the time you want to travel further than that what the power in the battery can hold, the on board generator will allow you to use gas to continue to travel without stopping for hundreds of miles. You can take a road trip and fill up at any gas station.
@M1CHAE1R0SE Man you really make me laugh out loud. The easy way to end this pissing contest is to let the Chevy Volt sales figures settle it. Oh wait...they did.
@bigdv519 I am only responding to question as to why Chevy put a gasoline engine in the Volt. Certainly sales figures in the end will tell how successful the Volt is. Considering there is far more demand than they can produce, it speaks well for it. Personally, I don't like the Volt. It is really nothing more than an overpriced Chevy Cruze that swaps an electric motor in place of the transmission and has a poorly sized battery pack. It works as stated, but they could have done much better.
@bigdv519 Power plants do not have to work overtime to meet the demands of electric vehicles. Power plants are designed to provide enough power for our peak electric usage during the day. As a result they produce far more power than what we need at night. It is surplus power and is the primary reason why we pay less for electricity usage at night. Over 90% of the time people recharge their cars at night in their garage. The grid already has the capability to support them.
@bigdv519 Just because coal MAYBE used to make electricity, it isn't the only way. We have a myriad of choices in how we make electricity to power cars, but we do not if we continue to make internal combustion engine power vehicles. There is only one choice for those, oil, a fuel which we mostly import, fight and die over, transport, refine, store, and pay subsidies to foreign energy companies. Coal is a least American and keeps the wealth at home.
if you need a really good battery (as in very light, alot of charge cycles and powerful!) check out fastbattery Iv built a few ebikes.. started in 07 but my normal mountain bike easily went 60mph.. not 200mph like these guys haha
"Coal is at least American, rather than sending more of our money to nations in the middle east."
-Coal is the WORST fuel on the planet in terms of pollution..
we shouldn't use Coal, but we shouldn't send money to buy Petroleum either. we need to use Solar/Nuclear power to power EV's, & use BioDiesel to power the trucks. no gas stations would need to be redone, just add a solar panel to the roof & switch the gas pumps for BioDiesel. simple, cheap answer for residents, industry, etc.
@yuskjr I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us. Solar is obviously the cleanest source, it is also inadequate to supply all our energy needs. Everything is a trade off. Wind power may disrupt some air currents, but it is highly debatable if the effect is negative in anyway. But we do know that fossil fuel emissions are bad, are not replenish-able, and cause political instability.
"I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us."
-so, you're saying the Earth's well-being is less important that money/politics? nobody who actually cares for the environment would say that.
"Everything is a trade off."
-for the most part, yes; you cannot create energy/power without some impact/harm, but right now Nuclear & Solar are the two lowest impacts we can make; the best trade-off.
@yuskjr No, the environment is the most important thing, after all we all live here on this planet. So, that being the case we have to ask ourselves how we can best use the resources that we have been given. Unless everyone wants to go back to living in caves and forging for food we are going to have to make compromises. If you are so against wind and hydroelectric power for disrupting nature then you had better just sign off on your computer, go compost it now, and move to a cave.
you're a hypocrite. here are three direct quotes from you yourself;
"Let me make this perfectly clear, I DO NOT LIKE COAL. It is a dirty fuel."
"No, the environment is the most important thing,.."
"I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us."
-the three quotes above show, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that money/economy is more important than protecting the environment..
Yes, I said those three things and I standby those statements. The environment is the most important thing. Coal is dirty, it is bad. We can agree on those things right? We are using petroleum based fuel sources for cars right? I am trying to explain to you that although COAL IS BAD, it is BETTER TO USE COAL for power plants for electric cars than to use GAS. It is better for political AND environmental reasons. They are both bad, but COAL used in this fashion is STILL CLEANER.
"Coal is dirty, it is bad. We can agree on those things right?"
-haha obviously.
"I am trying to explain to you that although COAL IS BAD, it is BETTER TO USE COAL for power plants for electric cars than to use GAS."
-i'm well aware of what you are trying to explain to me, & i'm well aware that you are 100% incorrect. Coal is the MOST HARMFUL air pollutant; saying we should use it for any purpose makes me glad you're not my professor.
-the answer to one problem is not to find another problem..
@yuskjr I agree COAL IS THE WORST POLLUTER. In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas. I am not and have not disputed that. HOWEVER, EVEN when using the dirtiest and worst polluting fuel, coal, it is still cleaner to burn coal at the power plant to make electricity for an electric car as opposed to the total emissions in all of the steps involved in pumping, refining, transporting, and then burning gas in a car engine to propel it.
"I agree COAL IS THE WORST POLLUTER. In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas."
-there's your answer; you have just beaten yourself in your own words. Coal is worse than Gas, so, Coal is NOT the answer. the answer to one problem is NOT to go out & find another one..
-Solar power & Nuclear power are the only two options we have for EV's, in conjunction with BioDiesel for trucks [home-grown by American farmers - peanut oil, vegetable oil, etc.].
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
@yuskjr I have repeatedly listed coal as a dirty polluter. Neither of us like coal. Now moving on, what I am trying to have you understand is that even IF we were to use coal as the only source of power to make electricity for electric vehicles it still works out to being CLEANER than using fossil fuel to power the engine in the car. What part of that are you not understanding?
"..it still works out to being CLEANER than using fossil fuel to power the engine in the car. What part of that are you not understanding?"
-the part where your math comes into play.. please type out the equations supporting this idea. please type out the numbers that show this idea instead of just repeating the same thing a million times. you are not supporting anything without typing out the equations/numbers that show examples of your assertions..
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
@yuskjr "-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to.."
No, that is not what I said, please go back and re-read it. Stop changing my statements and taking them out of context. For once, try to finish the complete sentence and if you really don't understand it ask for clarification.
In your words, "for the millionth time", no, we should not be using coal to make electricity. But it is even worse to burn gas to power a car.
@yuskjr The comments are NOT GOING AGAINST EACH OTHER. We all know that simply burning a lump of coal is going to be dirtier than burning any other fuel source, but it doesn't end there. What I am trying to get across to you is that many factors, such as drive train efficiency, economies of scale in energy production, that when you use ANY fuel we currently posses to make electricity at a power plant to propel a car a certain distance an electric car is ALWAYS cleaner than a gas powered one.
@M1CHAE1R0SE The whole reason I even mentioned coal is BECAUSE IT IS THE DIRTIEST FUEL. That is the point I am trying to make, that even the dirtiest fuel being used at a power plant STILL results in a reduction in harmful emissions WHEN that power is used to propel an electric car VERSUS driving a gas powered one. There are MANY reasons behind this, but the primary ones are the differences in drive train efficiency, electric cars do not idle, they do not produce waste heat, and so on.
"In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas."
-so, in order for electric vehicles powered by Coal Power Plants to be cleaner than Gasoline, the Coal Power Plants would have to burn OVER 3x LESS Coal when powering the EV, or else the Coal would be just as polluting as the Gasoline. so, you're saying that a Power Plant burns LESS THAN 1/3 the amount of Coal to FULLY power a Car, than a Car engine burns Gasoline?
@yuskjr This the part that I am trying to have you understand. Burning gas and coal under the same circumstances, gas is cleaner. Now stay with me, gas powered vehicles are woefully inefficient. In a typical gas powered car less than 15% (high estimate) of the energy released from burning the gasoline makes the car move. The rest is lost due to friction in the drive train (18 to 22%), idling, and MOST of it goes right out the tail pipe as heat. Electric cars don't have ANY of those issues....
"This the part that I am trying to have you understand. Burning gas and coal under the same circumstances, gas is cleaner."
-yup; obviously.
"gas powered vehicles are woefully inefficient.. 15% (high estimate) of the energy released from burning the gasoline makes the car move"
-i know that.
"The rest is lost due to friction in the drive train (18 to 22%), idling, and MOST of it goes right out the tail pipe as heat. Electric cars don't have ANY of those issues...."
In an AC electric drive train there are only a couple of moving parts, namely the motor and a single gear ratio. The motors have overall efficiencies around 90% or so. They do not idle, the do not produce vast amounts of waste heat. Most of the energy in the battery just makes the car move. It is the relative efficiencies of the vehicles that make it cleaner to use a power plant. Gas engines are only their most eficient at highway speed, never stopping or slowing down...
@yuskjr ...but we hardly ever drive a car constantly at highway speeds. We stop, slow down, accelerate, get stuck in traffic, etc... on an electric vehicle, the stopping in traffic does not decrease the energy being consumed aside from running accessories. Braking energy can be recaptured. Overall, out of the same energy going in, electric cars are anywhere from 4x (worst case) up to 10x more efficient than a gas powered equivalent. That is why EVEN dirty coal at a power plant is still cleaner.
"...but we hardly ever drive a car constantly at highway speeds."
-unless we're on the highway.. but i know what you're getting at.
"..on an electric vehicle, the stopping in traffic does not decrease the energy being consumed aside from running accessories. Braking energy can be recaptured."
-yup, all known ideas of electric cars, but they still need to be recharged. im NOT arguing that the car goes farther because it uses it's energy more efficiently, but it still needs to be resupplied.
@yuskjr When you look at the WHOLE picture from well to wheel, it changes even more in an electric vehicles favor. Then you have to add in the energy consumed in the drilling, refining, transporting tankers across the globe, pumping the fuel, trucking to gas stations, and then filling your car, it gets to be DRASTICALLY even worse. Of course there is mining for coal here as well, but it is a domestic resource so most of the other steps in transporting it are eliminated and there is less refining
"When you look at the WHOLE picture from well to wheel, it changes even more in an electric vehicles favor."
-this is where your Coal argument falls apart.. Coal is the dirtiest fuel to mine, transport, burn, & is the WORST fuel to find because it requires strip mining that clears landscapes down to nothing.. no matter how you argue it, Coal is not & NEVER WILL BE cleaner than Gasoline when used in ANY form.
@yuskjr No this is not where it falls apart. It is still cleaner, because we don't USE as much coal to accomplish the same amount of work. On a gas powered car you only get 15% (at best) of the energy released from burning it to make you move. An identical sized electric vehicle will use ~90% of the energy to make the car move. You are using far less energy to move the car the same amount. You are getting the same amount of work accomplished, but one requires far more effort (energy) to do it.
"It is still cleaner, because we don't USE as much coal to accomplish the same amount of work."
-then simply type the final numbers from your calculations & show your work, & i will believe you. but, you haven't shown any of your calculations & you haven't shown me any evidence towards this being true..
So to power a car from electricity made from coal you do burn less than the three times what you would burn of gasoline in the engine of the car. Coal is still horribly dirty, but when we use oil in the fashion that we do it pollutes more because we WASTE so much more of it for our transportation needs. That is why an electric car powered 100% by coal is still 4-5% cleaner than a gas powered one. Now this is the worst case scenario. We never make electricity with 100% coal, anywhere.
"So to power a car from electricity made from coal you do burn less than the three times what you would burn of gasoline in the engine of the car."
-can you PLEASE stop repeating yourself a billion times & just type the numbers [cubic tons, ppm, etc.] & cite the equations? if you would simply do this & i could check them for validity, & [if they held up] then i would say you were right, but you have failed to provide any numbers & sources displaying their equations..
@yuskjr I keep providing you with various studies, but you are not acknowledging them or only picking one comment, such as the aforementioned full potential statement and stopping there. If you aren't going to consider the sources I am providing how about you simply "Google" the information yourself. You will be overwhelmed with more studies than you can go through in a lifetime. Look for things that measure the WHOLE process, Well to Wheel, and you will see what I mean.
"I keep providing you with various studies, but you are not acknowledging them.."
-i am acknowledging that them; they DO NOT provide ANY sort of numbers or simple equation layout. they all simply talk & talk about how vehicles pollute & electric cars produce no/less emissions. these things i already know..
"The comments are NOT GOING AGAINST EACH OTHER. We all know that simply burning a lump of coal is going to be dirtier than burning any other fuel source, but it doesn't end there."
-yes it does. energy does not come from nothing. it takes the same amount of work to move a car 20 miles on gas as it does on electricity. the ONLY difference is in how the work is achieved. the question is, does using Coal lower the pollution vs. using Gasoline? if numbers to show this you have, provide them please..
@yuskjr No, no it doesn't take the same amount of work to move a car on electricity and gas, that is the WHOLE point! You need much more energy to move a car using an internal combustion engine because you LOOSE so much of the energy in other areas, the drive train loss, waste heat, peak torque at only at higher RPM, etc... you are consuming much more energy to accomplish the same goal. It isn't the same.
"No, no it doesn't take the same amount of work to move a car on electricity and gas.."
-yes it does.. "work", in Physics is the same no matter how you go about doing it. the difference is HOW you accomplish the work. it's simple; EV's need less FUEL to accomplish the same work, but that is because they have ways of being more efficient with their fuel/electricity. they do the same amount of work, but using less FUEL.
-you don't magically do less work, you reduce the amount of FUEL required..
@yuskjr Do you have any concept as to why these statements that you have taken out of context ARE NOT contradicting each other? You have not acknowledged my replies to you accusations.
"2. burn gas in car = very bad, but cleaner than 1."
"3. burn coal to make electricity for EV = better, cleaner than 2."
-& your numbers/evidence/equations to support 3? you have given none. all you have said is that burning Coal in Power Plants is cleaner than burning Gas in cars, yet you consistently fail to provide even one number/figure that supports this. let me help you; try typing a comment that resembles this;
@yuskjr The calculations DO NOT FIT ON ONE PAGE. That is why I provided the links to the studies, the data, and the forty other reports that the information is the culmination there of. You have those other reports, these are linked here IN ADDITION to the Power point presentation.
-so, TYPE THE FINAL FIGURES & PROVIDE THE SOURCE. have you never wrote a college essay for english before? you 1st provide information/numbers, & THEN provide a citation & Works Cited.. why is it so hard for you to simply post these final numbers if they exist?
@yuskjr Source US Government Accountability Office Report: GAO-09-493 I created a table, but when posting here it removes all spacing. In summary: Below are the REDUCTION in CO2 emissions when using the listed fuel as the ONLY source to make electricity to propel an electric car versus using gas to propel a traditional car the same distance: Coal: 4-5% Natural Gas: 54% Nuclear or Wind: 85-100% When it is an SUV sized electric vehicle: Coal: 19-23% Natural Gas: 61-63% Nuclear or Wind: 85-100%
"..In summary: Below are the REDUCTION in CO2 emissions when using the listed fuel as the ONLY source to make electricity to propel an electric car versus using gas to propel a traditional car the same distance:.."
-those are NOT numbers, those are percentages.. there is a HUGE difference; percentages can be skewed, but numbers cannot.
-i am really at a loss as to why it is this hard to simply type two numbers down & then cite a source as to how to calculate those numbers..
@yuskjr It is hard to simply post those numbers because it varies greatly from vehicle to vehicle and on the exact power plant source breakdown. Most people who don't understand well to wheel efficiency automatically pick on electric cars because think only of coal. That is the reason I picked coal for my examples, because if using coal, the dirtiest fuel, turns out to be cleaner in the end to power a car, then everything else is going to be an improvement.
"It is hard to simply post those numbers because it varies greatly from vehicle to vehicle and on the exact power plant source breakdown."
-hahaha oh, i just figured you'd say something like that..
-then how do you know Coal is better? the only way you could know for sure is by doing the math. so, since you know Coal is better through EV's, please just SHOW YOUR WORK. just simply type the numbers you came up with.. it shouldn't be this hard if you actually did the math & got clear numbers..
@yuskjr Okay, lets try to do a CO2 emission comparison with a known vehicle, a Nissan Leaf. It is all electric so we don't have to deal with when it is partially under gas or plug in power.... it is all electric, no gas engine, and we'll assume the worst, a power plant using coal. Again this would never happen in the real world as no one ever uses just coal. It is a worst case scenario...
Burning one pound of coal generates 926Wh, roughly 1kWh of electricity, you can look up the numbers.
The Leaf has a 100 mile range, a 24kWh battery pack, which equates to approximately .24kWh of electricity usage per mile.
That works out to roughly 4 oz. coal per mile or four miles traveled per pound of coal burned at the power plant. 1 lb of coal produces 2.9 pounds of carbon. ...
@yuskjr We are producing 3/4 lb of carbon produced by every one pound of coal burned, or roughly 1/5 lb of carbon produced for every 1 lb of coal burned.
Electric Vehicle: .19 Lbs of CO2 per mile:
Gasoline produces 19.4lbs of CO2 for every one gallon of gas burned in the vehicle. A brand NEW car meeting the 2010 CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg, 19.4/27.5 = .71lbs of CO2 per mile.
@yuskjr Using a more traditional power plant energy mix yields numbers of .14 lbs of CO2 per mile for the electric which I believe is closer to the actual rating on the Nissan site.
Of course in my case where I do not use any fossil fuel for my electricity at home, there will be no CO2 produced when driving the vehicle. And that is the point, once we switch over to electric vehicles we can make electricity lots of different ways, and all of it without giving a dime to the middle east.
@yuskjr Yes, coal is ONE of the most harmful air pollutants. But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one. This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal. Once again you are misinterpreting what I am saying.
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
@yuskjr And you are arguing with me in circles with illogical interjections and assumptions. Let me make this perfectly clear, I DO NOT LIKE COAL. It is a dirty fuel. That being the case, it is still BETTER to use coal at a power plant to make electricity than to fight, die, drill, transport, refine, store, pump, and burn other fossil fuels to power our cars. They are both bad, but one is far worse for the environment, politic stability, and our countries financial well being.
"And you are arguing with me in circles with illogical interjections and assumptions."
-i too am in college, & know how to intertwine lengthy conjectures into my speaking/writing, much like yourself. please stop trying to act "high & mighty" because you think you're right. try finding/showing evidence towards your accusations instead of trying to win your argument through cute, descriptive adjectives.
@yuskjr Again stop making assumptions. It is wonderful that you are in college. While you assume that I am in college to, you are somewhat wrong. I am a professor in college, not a student. But if you were one of my students and you tried to debate this way I would fail you.
-wow, knowing you're a professor makes me glad that i don not go to your college, & also makes me so thankful that i have the knowledgeable Geology/Physics professors to teach me..
"if you were one of my students and you tried to debate this way I would fail you."
-abusing power much? i didn't curse, yell, or insult you, so you'd fail me because you can't support your arguments?
If you feel that any of the information I have stated is not correct I would ask that you please research it yourself and ask your Geology and Physics Professors. I would love to hear their opinion on the matter.
I certainly would not be abusing power if I were grading you're ability to debate, jumping to conclusions, and misunderstanding of economies of scale, sequestering, and overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact.
-that WOULD be abusing power because college professors DO NOT grade based off of "ability to debate" or "jumping to conclusions" unless they teach a class on argument/debate. students debate in my classes all the time & the teacher does not have to right to simply fail them for it.
-i am going to college to become a teacher, & that is NOT something a teacher is allowed to do. you grade based on their knowledge & comprehension, NOT on arguments..
@yuskjr "that WOULD be abusing power...students debate in my classes all the time..."
I said you would fail, not because you are debating, but because your debating skills are lacking. You jump to conclusions without doing proper research, you take incomplete statements out of context to try and support your opinions, and you attempt to intimidate instead of sticking to facts. That is reason enough to fail. Claiming it is an abuse of power is just an insult to me and to yourself.
"I said you would fail, not because you are debating, but because your debating skills are lacking."
-i know what you said, & you just supporting your abuse of your teaching power. YOU CANNOT FAIL ME FOR MY DEBATING SKILLS UNLESS THE SUBJECT IS DEBATING &/or ARGUMENT THEORY. how did you ever become a teacher with that ideology?
"You jump to conclusions without doing proper research.."
-haha how ironic & hypocritical; you have yet to provide a single number/figure for your assumptions.
@yuskjr You have the links to three different reports, one of which is the compilation of over forty individual studies that validate what I am trying to get across to you.
This forum is a debate wouldn't you say? My comments were in reference to your performance here. It isn't as if I said I would fail you in basket-weaving just because I felt like it.
"It isn't as if I said I would fail you in basket-weaving just because I felt like it."
-no, you would fail me for having different opinions than you based on your unsupported claims.. you would fail me because i was opposing your ideas & asking for simple x >y mathematical evidence.. you would fail me because you have not been able to provide a simple numerical comparison, showing evidence of the assertions you have made.. that IS abusing teaching power.
@yuskjr I can do the mathematics behind a well-to-wheel efficiency and emission analysis but it will quite simply not fit within a comment posting. You have been giving several reports to look at the information yourself, but you refuse to acknowledge them or discuss the information. I am not saying you would fail because your opinion differs, it is because of the reasons I have already stated. What shred of proof have you offered to back up your opinion? You haven't presented anything.
"I can do the mathematics behind a well-to-wheel efficiency and emission analysis but it will quite simply not fit within a comment posting."
-ugh.. again, give the final numbers, & then cite the sources like is tradition & custom in school, work, life, etc. it's not hard to state two numbers, & then show your work through a web source or some other media..
I also think Solar and Nuclear are the best choices. Unlike you, I also like wind and tidal hydro electric power. Wind may disrupt crucial air currents as you say, but by that sort of reasoning, you had best be living in a cave because ANY man mad structure is going to alter air currents. We just have to do these things carefully. The wind isn't going to stop because we put in a wind farm. We just have to put them where they don't effect wildlife and create strobing shadows.
"..ANY man mad structure is going to alter air currents."
-again, you're not following me.. of course any building/structure affects LOW air currents, but those are not vital to weather or air circulation. if you understand basic physics & fluid dynamics, you would know that only the HIGH air currents are important for shifting temperatures/weather/circulation.
"The wind isn't going to stop because we put in a wind farm."
-no, but weather patterns will change; thus our environment changes.
@yuskjr I am following you. I am asking you to consider the other choices, versus drilling, transporting, refining, storing, and pumping oil from across the world versus setting up a wind farm what is going to have the more damaging impact? Everything we do is going to have some sort of an impact. We just have to pick the least damaging ones. There isn't one single energy source that is going to solve all our problems. Solar is not enough and you can't vary output from Nuclear to meet demands.
-no, you're not. there is simply NO WAY to have this conversation online & say all i want to say, because there is such limited space. the only way you'd understand me, is if we talked in person.
"Solar is not enough and you can't vary output from Nuclear to meet demands."
-Solar needs to be researched & perfected, as it's the only 100% TRULY environmentally friendly power source. Nuclear Plants provide tenfold what other plants provide in terms of Kwh.
Of course gas stations would have to be redone. Show me a gas station with a solar area big enough to produce enough bio-diesel to fill up a truck tank and prove it. Algae based bio-diesel is a wonderful thing, but it is still going require a significant investment in infrastructure to implement. Those changes aren't going to happen at a gas station. The best way to implement algae based Bio-diesel production is to have the algae feed off the emissions from a power plant and solar.
"Show me a gas station with a solar area big enough to produce enough bio-diesel to fill up a truck tank and prove it."
-what? haha i was talking about farmers growing crops [peanuts, etc.] for BioDiesel, & then transporting BioDiesel the same way gasoline is now. then, you put up a Solar roof for ELECTRIC VEHICLES, NOT TRUCKS. haha
"Algae based bio-diesel is a wonderful thing, but it is still going require a significant investment in infrastructure to implement."
-Nuclear; the only pollution comes in the radioactive tubes that can be 95% recycled[France does this everyday], & slight water heat around the plant from drainage.
-Hydro; may produce no emissions, but it destroys wildlife homes, river currents, & mating habits of local fish.
-Wind; may produce no emissions, but it disrupts vital air currents that are needed to circulate Earth's hot/cold air.
-Solar; 100% clean, but needs HUGE areas for solar farms & constant sun.
"Electric is great but when you plug it in the wall, it pulls it's power from the power plant. and where do they get their fuel..."
-yup; almost nobody thinks of that, but it's true.
-EV's & Hybrids are only clean when powered by Nuclear or Solar power plants. Wind plants disrupt vital air currents, Hydroelectric Dams rape the homes of nearby wildlife because they destroy/alter the natural water flows, & Coal/Oil/Natural Gas still release massive amounts of air pollution.
@yuskjr But all of those things combined put out LESS emissions than all the internal combustion powered cars on the road. They are also mostly DOMESTIC power sources rather than fighting, dying, drilling, transporting, refining, storing, and pumping a fuel which we largely import from countries that hate us. In the end electric cars using electricity from power plants are always cleaner, more efficient, provides more domestic jobs, and keeps the wealth in this country.
"But all of those things combined put out LESS emissions than all the internal combustion powered cars on the road."
-how do you know? do you have any evidence to support that? because power plants emit millions more tons of emissions than cars 24/7/365.
"In the end electric cars using electricity from power plants are always cleaner, more efficient, provides more domestic jobs, and keeps the wealth in this country."
-again, any evidence to support this? it seems completely backward honestly..
@yuskjr, I know it is less because there are countless studies that prove it. Rather than make assumptions that electric cars only move the source of pollution to the power plant, I suggest you investigate it yourself. Power plants aren't just a little bit cleaner and more efficient than extracting energy from fuel sources than having millions of cars with internal combustion engines driving all over the place, they are vastly superior. It isn't even debatable. It is simply a fact.
-that link you provided was a link to yet another car emission Powerpoint presentation with cute graphs of emissions of vehicle, & ZERO comparisons of Power Plant vs. Hybrid/EV emissions.
-here's the simple idea for you;
1. we all switch to Hybrids/EV's.
2. power/energy demands rise.
3. more Power Plants are built.
4. Power Plant pollution goes up [as a direct result of 3].
5. problem NOT solved unless those plants are clean.
@yuskjr You obviously dismissed the information in the presentation. Obviously simply building additional power plants are going to increase the total emission output by power plants. However, by shifting the fuel consumption to the power plant by switching to electric vehicles you are removing millions of internal combustion engine vehicles off the road. The power plants are far cleaner than the car engine they are replacing. Over all it greatly reduces emissions .
"You obviously dismissed the information in the presentation."
-haha what information. there was no simple outline or simple equation or comparison. it was a bunch of silly graphs showing various vehicle emissions, & some charts that say cars get their gas from Petroleum. wow.. nice evidence you've got there.. i had no idea cars used/burned some form of Oil..
And one more thing, when shifting to EV vehicles we have choices. The power doesn't HAVE to come from a power plant. In my case ALL of my household electric needs are provided by renewable, clean, and local power sources. It not only keeps the profits in the United States, it keeps it in NY State. I am supporting jobs here at home rather then sending more jobs and money overseas. When we do get our EV, it will also be charged at home. No fossil fuel will EVER be used to power it.
"When we do get our EV, it will also be charged at home. No fossil fuel will EVER be used to power it."
-haha you're hopeless.. from where does your home draw power? Power Plants. what do ~80% of the United States' Power Plants use to create power? Coal/Oil/Gas. you obviously will burn fuel indirectly to power your EV. haha wake up; EV's are only clean/beneficial when paired with CLEAN Power Plants [Nuclear & Solar]. you're the one who cannot see past this media driven "Green Movement" crap.
@yuskjr Let me explain something very clearly to you, my household electric needs ARE NOT COMING from a coal, oil, or any fossil fuel derived POWER PLANT. My home exclusively gets it electric supply from wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. Stop making so many assumptions. EVs are still BETTER EVEN when using fossil fuel polluting power plants because they REQUIRE LESS ENERGY than if we used the fossil fuel in internal combustion engine cars. They are BEST when using 100% clean sources.
"My home exclusively gets it electric supply from wind, hydroelectric, and solar power."
-& you know this how? do you check your bills? do you monitor your power?
"EVs are still BETTER EVEN when using fossil fuel polluting power plants because they REQUIRE LESS ENERGY than if we used the fossil fuel in internal combustion engine cars."
-for the millionth time, PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN NUMBERS. you have yet to provide ANY numbers/statistics to back up your argument.
@yuskjr "you know this how? do you check your bills? do you monitor your power?"
Yes, of course I check my bills and monitor our usage. I would not make this statement had I not specifically picked the electric power sources for my home. When and if you become a home owner and choose a utility provider and/or install renewable power sources at home you can make these choices. We all have these choices, but most people do not investigate or even consider them.
"I would not make this statement had I not specifically picked the electric power sources for my home."
-i did not know you could choose which specific Power Plants provide your home power; i was always told that the entire grid was uniform, & all Power Plants simply fed into the uniform grid as a whole.
@yuskjr "-& you don't? are you saying you know everything there is to know about this universe/life?"
I never said or implied I didn't have a lot to learn. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting or attempting to intimidate?
I said you have a lot to learn because by your own admittance you didn't know you could pick your power sources and you do in fact have quite a bit to learn about this.
"I never said or implied I didn't have a lot to learn. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting or attempting to intimidate?"
-"Well, you have a lot to learn" implies that i have a lot to learn, & that you do not have a lot to learn; which we all know is a load of crap considering none of us know half of what this life/universe is about. also, please point out a single "insult" or "attempt to intimidate" you that i have typed, because i typed no threats or insults.
@yuskjr You have a lot to learn does not imply anything else beside stating the quite obvious. It does not mention, imply, or make any reference to my own knowledge or lack there of. And if it isn't plainly obvious enough, WE ALL HAVE A LOT TO LEARN. I see I have to be much more specific to avoid your condescending comments. I should have said "Well, you have a lot to learn about selecting energy sources and installing renewable power in your home." Would that have been easier for you to follow?
"I should have said "Well, you have a lot to learn about selecting energy sources and installing renewable power in your home." Would that have been easier for you to follow?"
-it would be nice if that's what you meant; i know too many adults like you who think because i am younger or a student that i'm a moron. for your information, Bill Gates never finished college, & Albert Einstein never finished grade school. do not think because you're a professor you're automatically smarter than me..
@yuskjr That IS what I meant, another reason why should never assume anything. If I simply thought you were a moron I wouldn't be spending all this time debating with you. Obviously you are passionate about the topic, I am just trying to get you to see the bigger picture.
Bill Gates never finished college for business reasons, you should watch "Triumph of the Nerds", it talks about the history of the personal computer and part one shows how Microsoft came into being.
"Bill Gates never finished college for business reasons, you should watch "Triumph of the Nerds", it talks about the history of the personal computer and part one shows how Microsoft came into being."
-i know why Bill Gates never finished college, thank you very much; please stop assuming im a moron. i was the one who brought up Bill Gates' case as an example, so obviously i know the backstory.. ugh.. again you assume i don't know something - even after i use it as an example.. -__-
@yuskjr I am assuming nothing. You are the one who keeps assuming everyone thinks you are a moron. I certainly never said it. I was only suggesting that you watch the movie because I thought you might find it interesting, nothing more.
@M1CHAE1R0SE once again, "there is simply NO WAY to have this conversation online & say all i want to say, because there is such limited space. the only way you'd understand me, is if we talked in person". i would be more than happy to discuss this in a person to person setting, but there is no way to properly argue online like this; you must realize by now that this is going nowhere, like all too many arguments on Youtube.. :/
its strange seeing a burnout with no noise pss
Canito1312 3 weeks ago
i wonder what his sixty foot is hahaha
TigerG2 2 months ago
in the future we'll probably laugh at the cars we now consider fast, making all that loud noise..
Mohachedachamalamo 3 months ago 2
Electricity is the future!
Agamemnon3333 3 months ago
Who here knows how hazardous lithium ion batteries are to the earth? what about nicklenickel metallhydrid? I have no problem with electric cars but when your not seeing what it takes to produce the batteries or looking were they go when they die out, your supposed to dispose of them properly instead i see them go in trashcans->landfills and that i imagine is not good.
superbird520 3 months ago
Fuck whales, run GAS!!!
I don't care how many creatures will die if i pass the quarter in 6 seconds.
AscarPudel 5 months ago
@AscarPudel Batteries are the only limitation. Once thats solved you'll be running electric to get under 6 seconds.
Triple88a 4 months ago
@Triple88a Maybe, it's way much easier to get a quarter-mile-long power cable for it? :))) If this is not forbidden by FIM? :)
AscarPudel 4 months ago
@AscarPudel haha that would bring a whole new meaning to hot wired cars eh?
Triple88a 4 months ago
@Triple88a HOT WIRESSSSS!!!! :) I LAUGHED MY STOMACH OUT:)))
AscarPudel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Triple88a HOT WIRESSSSS!!!! :) I LAUGHED MY STOMACH OUT:)))
AscarPudel 4 months ago
So stupid. 900 batteries... i wonder how much fuel went into making that energy... It may be a step forward, but until we can harness energy directly from the sun rather than energy stored in the earth, whether it runs on electricity or fuel, there will always be pollution in some way or another. But this is progress.
tkotomy 5 months ago
SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
politicalman75 5 months ago
Gas cars can only be refueled by randomly expensive gas prices owned by middle eastern nations hostile to the west. Electric vehicles can be powered by 1. The grid 2. Solar 3. Wind 4. A creek with an generator. Pretty much electric opens the door to western innovation.
Zooni2 7 months ago
go gas
123mrresidentevil 7 months ago
You think refining crude oil into fuel uses no emissions?
dans15 7 months ago
0 to 60 in HOLY SHIT!!!
jpruitt546 8 months ago
If your still not convinced electric is the way of propulsion. Go as your mother why your so stupid I can't answer that for you. Gas propulsion has been here for a hundred years you dummies. Wake up and smell the electric revolution. Most of the people hung up on fossil fuels are also war mongers anyways. Imperialistic pigs gonna lose their funding. Cheers to that.
.
maryjane123rd 8 months ago
You meant to say that "y" is less than "x" by default, especially if you charge your car via solar panels.
What is the carbon footprint of the manufacturing of the batteries, and their disposal?
hydroxygenman 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You meant to say that "y" is less than "x" by default, especially if you charge your car via solar panels."
-yes, i did. sorry about that; the comment wasn't posting originally & i was getting annoyed, so i must have overlooked it in my attempts to get it to post. :/
yuskjr 8 months ago 5
@M1CHAE1R0SE, speaking of two cars of equal size, this is the bottom line;
burning an entire tank of Gasoline = "x" emissions by car engine
fully charging a dead EV battery = "y" emissions from Power Plants
if "x" is less than "y", EV's pollute more when being recharged by Power Plants.
if "x" is greater than "y", EV's pollute less when being recharged by Power Plants.
-Solar & Nuclear Power Plants make "y" negligible, so "x" is less than "y" by default.
yuskjr 8 months ago 21
@yuskjr First off you can't compare tank of gas to battery running out of charge. That is totally subjective as the tank and battery pack are arbitrary sizes. You have to do it this way, Car X travels a specific distance and consumes Y amount in energy and outputs Z in emissions. The output in emissions has to be from the tailpipe of the car versus the stack at the power plant generating the EXACT amount electricity the electric car required. This is an OVERLY simplistic start...
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"First off you can't compare tank of gas to battery running out of charge."
-sure i can; im free to compare whatever i want to. comparing a tank vs. battery is like comparing a tank vs. tank of two Gas powered cars. where's the difference?
"The output in emissions has to be from the tailpipe of the car versus the stack at the power plant generating the EXACT amount electricity the electric car required."
-that's what i was asking for in my previous comment.. like EXACTLY what i was asking for..
yuskjr 8 months ago 9
I did post some rough calculations here for you to look with the specific CO2 output from a Leaf powered by coal and a gas powered car, but you either missed it.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr Your logic doesn't make sense here. "Solar & Nuclear Power Plants make "y" negligible, so "x" is less than "y" by default." ...this says that BECAUSE solar and nuclear power plants make "y" negligible, "x" is less than "y" by default. I don't believe that one has to do with the other. Please extrapolate this so I can understand your reasoning if you would be so kind.
crazyyella 7 months ago
"Your logic doesn't make sense here. "Solar & Nuclear Power Plants make "y" negligible, so "x" is less than "y" by default.""
-i made a mistake when typing my comment; it should be "more than".
-Solar Power Plants produce 0 emissions, so charging any battery with Solar Power means no emissions are produced through the Power Plant. Nuclear Power Plants produce only heated water & Nuclear waste, but no CO2 emissions, so they too are completely clean to charge a battery. so, "y" becomes negligible.
yuskjr 7 months ago 5
@yuskjr OK, I thought that is what you meant, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth.
crazyyella 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"OK, I thought that is what you meant, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth."
-it's all good.
-sorry about the mistake; the comment wasn't posting for some reason, so i was getting anxious & changing the format - i guess i just didn't check myself before it finally posted. :/
yuskjr 7 months ago
@yuskjr Lol what?
"y is negligible, so x is less than y"
?
GUD MATHZ
HelloBrainMind 5 months ago 2
"GUD MATHZ"
-posted at least three comments addressing that already; it was a mistake.
yuskjr 5 months ago
@yuskjr Solar panels problem solved
daswada9 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Solar panels problem solved"
-it's not that simple, but yes, they are the cleanest source of energy we have currently.
yuskjr 5 months ago
@yuskjr Hummm yes interesting. I agree with his calculations.
ihateblink182 3 months ago
The "Rocket" electric drag bike with 1,610HP just did 7.13 second run at 187 mph.
goo
.
gl/jZVjT
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M1CHAE1R0SE just out of curiosity, what subject do you teach in college?
-you did not answer me the 1st time.
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr I did answer you. Scroll down, the answer is still sitting there for you to read.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
Comment removed
yuskjr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I did answer you. Scroll down, the answer is still sitting there for you to read."
-actually it was marked as spam, so i could not read it..
yuskjr 8 months ago 6
I would never drive a vechile with that sound
KyriakosInnova 8 months ago
Your an idiot if you think electric cars cause less pollution. It might not be coming our of your tailpipe, but that coal plant is working overtime to charge your "eco-friendly tree-hugging electro-mobile".
bigdv519 8 months ago 6
@bigdv519 Your an ignoramus if you blindly believe that statement. No one is denying that power plants produce harmful emissions. But, power plants are cleaner and more efficient out of extracting energy out of a fuel source than ANY internal combustion engine powered car is able to do. Power plants are point sources of emissions that can be sequestered and do a better job of filtering emissions than any puny catalytic converter. Power plants can use ANY fuel source and give us independence.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@M1CHAE1R0SE Mike, are you saying the addition of electric cars charging on the grid will not increase the power production load on a power plant? That sounds imaginary, at best. There will be an additional load on power plants, there will be additional pollution, possibly even more than normally combusted engines since batterys are worthless in cold weather. If the battery powered car idea is such a solution, why does Chevy still have a "backup" gasoline engine on its Volt?
bigdv519 8 months ago 5
@bigdv519 No, I am not saying ANY load, I am saying the load is not much more than what we currently have to handle which are PEAK loads during the day. Most people will be out driving during the day and charge at home. Most of the charging is done at night, off peak. Power plants are producing more than what we need at night. There are going to be cases outside of this of course, but for most cases electric cars are taking advantage of power that is otherwise wasted.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
Electric vehicles are not worthless in cold weather. Perhaps you are confusing lead acid car batteries with the Lithium-Ion chemistry cells used in the commercially available production electric cars. The batteries are completely different. Also, Electric cars are not mobile furnaces like gas powered cars which waste around 80% of the power as heat out the tail pipe. They only use more energy in the cold because of the need to make heat for the passengers.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
The Volt has a backup generator to extend its range. Here is why, most Americans drive an average of 33 miles a day. For most of the time you can plug the Volt in at night and drive it to and from work without EVER needing a drop of gas. But for the time you want to travel further than that what the power in the battery can hold, the on board generator will allow you to use gas to continue to travel without stopping for hundreds of miles. You can take a road trip and fill up at any gas station.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@M1CHAE1R0SE Man you really make me laugh out loud. The easy way to end this pissing contest is to let the Chevy Volt sales figures settle it. Oh wait...they did.
bigdv519 8 months ago 5
@bigdv519 I am only responding to question as to why Chevy put a gasoline engine in the Volt. Certainly sales figures in the end will tell how successful the Volt is. Considering there is far more demand than they can produce, it speaks well for it. Personally, I don't like the Volt. It is really nothing more than an overpriced Chevy Cruze that swaps an electric motor in place of the transmission and has a poorly sized battery pack. It works as stated, but they could have done much better.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@bigdv519 Power plants do not have to work overtime to meet the demands of electric vehicles. Power plants are designed to provide enough power for our peak electric usage during the day. As a result they produce far more power than what we need at night. It is surplus power and is the primary reason why we pay less for electricity usage at night. Over 90% of the time people recharge their cars at night in their garage. The grid already has the capability to support them.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@bigdv519 Just because coal MAYBE used to make electricity, it isn't the only way. We have a myriad of choices in how we make electricity to power cars, but we do not if we continue to make internal combustion engine power vehicles. There is only one choice for those, oil, a fuel which we mostly import, fight and die over, transport, refine, store, and pay subsidies to foreign energy companies. Coal is a least American and keeps the wealth at home.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
its a belt sander put on some 80 grit
trblcumn 9 months ago
if you need a really good battery (as in very light, alot of charge cycles and powerful!) check out fastbattery Iv built a few ebikes.. started in 07 but my normal mountain bike easily went 60mph.. not 200mph like these guys haha
neukin 9 months ago
so much for going green.....
DJxRebirth 10 months ago
Electric is great but when you plug it in the wall, it pulls it's power from the power plant. and where do they get their fuel...
southernbelles11697 10 months ago
@southernbelles11697
Atomic, hydro, wind, solar..
gunProF01 10 months ago
@gunProF01 But the majority is from coal
aunshi190 10 months ago 4
@aunshi190 Coal is at least American, rather than sending more of our money to nations in the middle east.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Coal is at least American, rather than sending more of our money to nations in the middle east."
-Coal is the WORST fuel on the planet in terms of pollution..
we shouldn't use Coal, but we shouldn't send money to buy Petroleum either. we need to use Solar/Nuclear power to power EV's, & use BioDiesel to power the trucks. no gas stations would need to be redone, just add a solar panel to the roof & switch the gas pumps for BioDiesel. simple, cheap answer for residents, industry, etc.
yuskjr 8 months ago 14
@yuskjr I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us. Solar is obviously the cleanest source, it is also inadequate to supply all our energy needs. Everything is a trade off. Wind power may disrupt some air currents, but it is highly debatable if the effect is negative in anyway. But we do know that fossil fuel emissions are bad, are not replenish-able, and cause political instability.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us."
-so, you're saying the Earth's well-being is less important that money/politics? nobody who actually cares for the environment would say that.
"Everything is a trade off."
-for the most part, yes; you cannot create energy/power without some impact/harm, but right now Nuclear & Solar are the two lowest impacts we can make; the best trade-off.
yuskjr 8 months ago 13
@yuskjr No, the environment is the most important thing, after all we all live here on this planet. So, that being the case we have to ask ourselves how we can best use the resources that we have been given. Unless everyone wants to go back to living in caves and forging for food we are going to have to make compromises. If you are so against wind and hydroelectric power for disrupting nature then you had better just sign off on your computer, go compost it now, and move to a cave.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
you're a hypocrite. here are three direct quotes from you yourself;
"Let me make this perfectly clear, I DO NOT LIKE COAL. It is a dirty fuel."
"No, the environment is the most important thing,.."
"I am not saying I like coal, I am just saying it is at least a domestic fuel source rather then supporting the economies of countries that don't like us."
-the three quotes above show, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, that money/economy is more important than protecting the environment..
/watch?v=Omqe4whiry4
yuskjr 8 months ago 10
Yes, I said those three things and I standby those statements. The environment is the most important thing. Coal is dirty, it is bad. We can agree on those things right? We are using petroleum based fuel sources for cars right? I am trying to explain to you that although COAL IS BAD, it is BETTER TO USE COAL for power plants for electric cars than to use GAS. It is better for political AND environmental reasons. They are both bad, but COAL used in this fashion is STILL CLEANER.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Coal is dirty, it is bad. We can agree on those things right?"
-haha obviously.
"I am trying to explain to you that although COAL IS BAD, it is BETTER TO USE COAL for power plants for electric cars than to use GAS."
-i'm well aware of what you are trying to explain to me, & i'm well aware that you are 100% incorrect. Coal is the MOST HARMFUL air pollutant; saying we should use it for any purpose makes me glad you're not my professor.
-the answer to one problem is not to find another problem..
yuskjr 8 months ago 8
@yuskjr I agree COAL IS THE WORST POLLUTER. In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas. I am not and have not disputed that. HOWEVER, EVEN when using the dirtiest and worst polluting fuel, coal, it is still cleaner to burn coal at the power plant to make electricity for an electric car as opposed to the total emissions in all of the steps involved in pumping, refining, transporting, and then burning gas in a car engine to propel it.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I agree COAL IS THE WORST POLLUTER. In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas."
-there's your answer; you have just beaten yourself in your own words. Coal is worse than Gas, so, Coal is NOT the answer. the answer to one problem is NOT to go out & find another one..
-Solar power & Nuclear power are the only two options we have for EV's, in conjunction with BioDiesel for trucks [home-grown by American farmers - peanut oil, vegetable oil, etc.].
yuskjr 8 months ago 8
@yuskjr Wrong, you still don't get it do you. Nor have I once stated coal is the answer. Are you only reading half the sentences?
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
you have just contradicted yourself;
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
yuskjr 8 months ago 7
@yuskjr I have repeatedly listed coal as a dirty polluter. Neither of us like coal. Now moving on, what I am trying to have you understand is that even IF we were to use coal as the only source of power to make electricity for electric vehicles it still works out to being CLEANER than using fossil fuel to power the engine in the car. What part of that are you not understanding?
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"..it still works out to being CLEANER than using fossil fuel to power the engine in the car. What part of that are you not understanding?"
-the part where your math comes into play.. please type out the equations supporting this idea. please type out the numbers that show this idea instead of just repeating the same thing a million times. you are not supporting anything without typing out the equations/numbers that show examples of your assertions..
yuskjr 8 months ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
@yuskjr
Please read this report, it is all there:
goo
.
gl/QNR63
If you are not going to read the full report, please exam Table 1 on Page 11.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you have just contradicted yourself;
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
yuskjr 8 months ago 13
@yuskjr "-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to.."
No, that is not what I said, please go back and re-read it. Stop changing my statements and taking them out of context. For once, try to finish the complete sentence and if you really don't understand it ask for clarification.
In your words, "for the millionth time", no, we should not be using coal to make electricity. But it is even worse to burn gas to power a car.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I agree COAL IS THE WORST POLLUTER. In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas."
"In your words, "for the millionth time", no, we should not be using coal to make electricity. But it is even worse to burn gas to power a car."
"No, that is not what I said, please go back and re-read it."
-haha those are YOUR OWN WORDS. don't tell me i take things out of context when YOUR STATEMENTS go directly against each other..
/watch?v=Omqe4whiry4
**facepalm**
-__-
yuskjr 8 months ago 5
@yuskjr The comments are NOT GOING AGAINST EACH OTHER. We all know that simply burning a lump of coal is going to be dirtier than burning any other fuel source, but it doesn't end there. What I am trying to get across to you is that many factors, such as drive train efficiency, economies of scale in energy production, that when you use ANY fuel we currently posses to make electricity at a power plant to propel a car a certain distance an electric car is ALWAYS cleaner than a gas powered one.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@M1CHAE1R0SE The whole reason I even mentioned coal is BECAUSE IT IS THE DIRTIEST FUEL. That is the point I am trying to make, that even the dirtiest fuel being used at a power plant STILL results in a reduction in harmful emissions WHEN that power is used to propel an electric car VERSUS driving a gas powered one. There are MANY reasons behind this, but the primary ones are the differences in drive train efficiency, electric cars do not idle, they do not produce waste heat, and so on.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"In fact, burning coal produces three times the harmful emissions of burning gas."
-so, in order for electric vehicles powered by Coal Power Plants to be cleaner than Gasoline, the Coal Power Plants would have to burn OVER 3x LESS Coal when powering the EV, or else the Coal would be just as polluting as the Gasoline. so, you're saying that a Power Plant burns LESS THAN 1/3 the amount of Coal to FULLY power a Car, than a Car engine burns Gasoline?
-im simply asking for those numbers.
yuskjr 8 months ago 4
@yuskjr This the part that I am trying to have you understand. Burning gas and coal under the same circumstances, gas is cleaner. Now stay with me, gas powered vehicles are woefully inefficient. In a typical gas powered car less than 15% (high estimate) of the energy released from burning the gasoline makes the car move. The rest is lost due to friction in the drive train (18 to 22%), idling, and MOST of it goes right out the tail pipe as heat. Electric cars don't have ANY of those issues....
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"This the part that I am trying to have you understand. Burning gas and coal under the same circumstances, gas is cleaner."
-yup; obviously.
"gas powered vehicles are woefully inefficient.. 15% (high estimate) of the energy released from burning the gasoline makes the car move"
-i know that.
"The rest is lost due to friction in the drive train (18 to 22%), idling, and MOST of it goes right out the tail pipe as heat. Electric cars don't have ANY of those issues...."
-knew that too.
yuskjr 8 months ago 5
In an AC electric drive train there are only a couple of moving parts, namely the motor and a single gear ratio. The motors have overall efficiencies around 90% or so. They do not idle, the do not produce vast amounts of waste heat. Most of the energy in the battery just makes the car move. It is the relative efficiencies of the vehicles that make it cleaner to use a power plant. Gas engines are only their most eficient at highway speed, never stopping or slowing down...
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"They do not idle, the do not produce vast amounts of waste heat."
-yup, i know this.
"It is the relative efficiencies of the vehicles that make it cleaner to use a power plant."
-ONLY if the Power Plant is not polluting the same, or more, than the Car pollutes..
"Gas engines are only their most eficient at highway speed, never stopping or slowing down..."
-yup, another obvious, well-known ideology of Gasoline engines/vehicles.
yuskjr 8 months ago 6
@yuskjr ...but we hardly ever drive a car constantly at highway speeds. We stop, slow down, accelerate, get stuck in traffic, etc... on an electric vehicle, the stopping in traffic does not decrease the energy being consumed aside from running accessories. Braking energy can be recaptured. Overall, out of the same energy going in, electric cars are anywhere from 4x (worst case) up to 10x more efficient than a gas powered equivalent. That is why EVEN dirty coal at a power plant is still cleaner.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"...but we hardly ever drive a car constantly at highway speeds."
-unless we're on the highway.. but i know what you're getting at.
"..on an electric vehicle, the stopping in traffic does not decrease the energy being consumed aside from running accessories. Braking energy can be recaptured."
-yup, all known ideas of electric cars, but they still need to be recharged. im NOT arguing that the car goes farther because it uses it's energy more efficiently, but it still needs to be resupplied.
yuskjr 8 months ago 6
@yuskjr When you look at the WHOLE picture from well to wheel, it changes even more in an electric vehicles favor. Then you have to add in the energy consumed in the drilling, refining, transporting tankers across the globe, pumping the fuel, trucking to gas stations, and then filling your car, it gets to be DRASTICALLY even worse. Of course there is mining for coal here as well, but it is a domestic resource so most of the other steps in transporting it are eliminated and there is less refining
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"When you look at the WHOLE picture from well to wheel, it changes even more in an electric vehicles favor."
-this is where your Coal argument falls apart.. Coal is the dirtiest fuel to mine, transport, burn, & is the WORST fuel to find because it requires strip mining that clears landscapes down to nothing.. no matter how you argue it, Coal is not & NEVER WILL BE cleaner than Gasoline when used in ANY form.
yuskjr 8 months ago 7
@yuskjr No this is not where it falls apart. It is still cleaner, because we don't USE as much coal to accomplish the same amount of work. On a gas powered car you only get 15% (at best) of the energy released from burning it to make you move. An identical sized electric vehicle will use ~90% of the energy to make the car move. You are using far less energy to move the car the same amount. You are getting the same amount of work accomplished, but one requires far more effort (energy) to do it.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"It is still cleaner, because we don't USE as much coal to accomplish the same amount of work."
-then simply type the final numbers from your calculations & show your work, & i will believe you. but, you haven't shown any of your calculations & you haven't shown me any evidence towards this being true..
yuskjr 8 months ago 20
So to power a car from electricity made from coal you do burn less than the three times what you would burn of gasoline in the engine of the car. Coal is still horribly dirty, but when we use oil in the fashion that we do it pollutes more because we WASTE so much more of it for our transportation needs. That is why an electric car powered 100% by coal is still 4-5% cleaner than a gas powered one. Now this is the worst case scenario. We never make electricity with 100% coal, anywhere.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"So to power a car from electricity made from coal you do burn less than the three times what you would burn of gasoline in the engine of the car."
-can you PLEASE stop repeating yourself a billion times & just type the numbers [cubic tons, ppm, etc.] & cite the equations? if you would simply do this & i could check them for validity, & [if they held up] then i would say you were right, but you have failed to provide any numbers & sources displaying their equations..
yuskjr 8 months ago 7
@yuskjr I keep providing you with various studies, but you are not acknowledging them or only picking one comment, such as the aforementioned full potential statement and stopping there. If you aren't going to consider the sources I am providing how about you simply "Google" the information yourself. You will be overwhelmed with more studies than you can go through in a lifetime. Look for things that measure the WHOLE process, Well to Wheel, and you will see what I mean.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I keep providing you with various studies, but you are not acknowledging them.."
-i am acknowledging that them; they DO NOT provide ANY sort of numbers or simple equation layout. they all simply talk & talk about how vehicles pollute & electric cars produce no/less emissions. these things i already know..
yuskjr 8 months ago 7
"The comments are NOT GOING AGAINST EACH OTHER. We all know that simply burning a lump of coal is going to be dirtier than burning any other fuel source, but it doesn't end there."
-yes it does. energy does not come from nothing. it takes the same amount of work to move a car 20 miles on gas as it does on electricity. the ONLY difference is in how the work is achieved. the question is, does using Coal lower the pollution vs. using Gasoline? if numbers to show this you have, provide them please..
yuskjr 8 months ago 3
@yuskjr No, no it doesn't take the same amount of work to move a car on electricity and gas, that is the WHOLE point! You need much more energy to move a car using an internal combustion engine because you LOOSE so much of the energy in other areas, the drive train loss, waste heat, peak torque at only at higher RPM, etc... you are consuming much more energy to accomplish the same goal. It isn't the same.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"No, no it doesn't take the same amount of work to move a car on electricity and gas.."
-yes it does.. "work", in Physics is the same no matter how you go about doing it. the difference is HOW you accomplish the work. it's simple; EV's need less FUEL to accomplish the same work, but that is because they have ways of being more efficient with their fuel/electricity. they do the same amount of work, but using less FUEL.
-you don't magically do less work, you reduce the amount of FUEL required..
yuskjr 8 months ago 6
@yuskjr Do you have any concept as to why these statements that you have taken out of context ARE NOT contradicting each other? You have not acknowledged my replies to you accusations.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr No, wrong again. Let me make this as simple as possible:
burn coal = bad
burn gas = not as bad, but still bad
now on to cars:
1. burn coal in car = worst (hypothetical and no one does this).
2. burn gas in car = very bad, but cleaner than 1.
3. burn coal to make electricity for EV = better, cleaner than 2.
4. burn oil to make electricity for EV = even better than 3.
5. nuclear power to make electricity for EV = better than 4.
6. renewable power to make electricity for EV = the best.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"2. burn gas in car = very bad, but cleaner than 1."
"3. burn coal to make electricity for EV = better, cleaner than 2."
-& your numbers/evidence/equations to support 3? you have given none. all you have said is that burning Coal in Power Plants is cleaner than burning Gas in cars, yet you consistently fail to provide even one number/figure that supports this. let me help you; try typing a comment that resembles this;
Power Plant emissions per car = x
emissions per car = y
y > x
yuskjr 8 months ago 4
@yuskjr I provided the links with the results of over forty studies that show this.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I provided the links with the results of over forty studies that show this."
-you provided links that show Powerpoint slides displaying vehicle emissions, not the ACTUAL EVIDENCE toward your claims;
Power Plant emissions due to each plug-in car = x
emissions due to each normal car = y
y > x
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr The calculations DO NOT FIT ON ONE PAGE. That is why I provided the links to the studies, the data, and the forty other reports that the information is the culmination there of. You have those other reports, these are linked here IN ADDITION to the Power point presentation.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The calculations DO NOT FIT ON ONE PAGE."
-so, TYPE THE FINAL FIGURES & PROVIDE THE SOURCE. have you never wrote a college essay for english before? you 1st provide information/numbers, & THEN provide a citation & Works Cited.. why is it so hard for you to simply post these final numbers if they exist?
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr I did post the table of the results from one of the studies. It is here. Look for my other replies.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I did post the table of the results from one of the studies. It is here. Look for my other replies."
-post the final numbers. then post the sources. it's not that hard to type this;
50.7e28 cubic tons of emissions due to Power Plants charging all potential EV's.
102.6e28 cubic tons of emissions due to all Gasoline Cars.
50.7e28 < 102.6e28
^equations found at; xyxyxyxyxyxyxy.
-see how simple that was in theory? my god, are you complicating this..
yuskjr 8 months ago 4
Comment removed
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"..In summary: Below are the REDUCTION in CO2 emissions when using the listed fuel as the ONLY source to make electricity to propel an electric car versus using gas to propel a traditional car the same distance:.."
-those are NOT numbers, those are percentages.. there is a HUGE difference; percentages can be skewed, but numbers cannot.
-i am really at a loss as to why it is this hard to simply type two numbers down & then cite a source as to how to calculate those numbers..
-__-
yuskjr 8 months ago 3
@yuskjr It is hard to simply post those numbers because it varies greatly from vehicle to vehicle and on the exact power plant source breakdown. Most people who don't understand well to wheel efficiency automatically pick on electric cars because think only of coal. That is the reason I picked coal for my examples, because if using coal, the dirtiest fuel, turns out to be cleaner in the end to power a car, then everything else is going to be an improvement.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"It is hard to simply post those numbers because it varies greatly from vehicle to vehicle and on the exact power plant source breakdown."
-hahaha oh, i just figured you'd say something like that..
-then how do you know Coal is better? the only way you could know for sure is by doing the math. so, since you know Coal is better through EV's, please just SHOW YOUR WORK. just simply type the numbers you came up with.. it shouldn't be this hard if you actually did the math & got clear numbers..
yuskjr 8 months ago 5
@yuskjr Okay, lets try to do a CO2 emission comparison with a known vehicle, a Nissan Leaf. It is all electric so we don't have to deal with when it is partially under gas or plug in power.... it is all electric, no gas engine, and we'll assume the worst, a power plant using coal. Again this would never happen in the real world as no one ever uses just coal. It is a worst case scenario...
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
Burning one pound of coal generates 926Wh, roughly 1kWh of electricity, you can look up the numbers.
The Leaf has a 100 mile range, a 24kWh battery pack, which equates to approximately .24kWh of electricity usage per mile.
That works out to roughly 4 oz. coal per mile or four miles traveled per pound of coal burned at the power plant. 1 lb of coal produces 2.9 pounds of carbon. ...
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr We are traveling four miles on each pound so that equals roughly 3/4 lbs of carbon generated for every mile traveled.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr We are producing 3/4 lb of carbon produced by every one pound of coal burned, or roughly 1/5 lb of carbon produced for every 1 lb of coal burned.
Electric Vehicle: .19 Lbs of CO2 per mile:
Gasoline produces 19.4lbs of CO2 for every one gallon of gas burned in the vehicle. A brand NEW car meeting the 2010 CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg, 19.4/27.5 = .71lbs of CO2 per mile.
Again this is using coal...
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr Using a more traditional power plant energy mix yields numbers of .14 lbs of CO2 per mile for the electric which I believe is closer to the actual rating on the Nissan site.
Of course in my case where I do not use any fossil fuel for my electricity at home, there will be no CO2 produced when driving the vehicle. And that is the point, once we switch over to electric vehicles we can make electricity lots of different ways, and all of it without giving a dime to the middle east.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr Yes, coal is ONE of the most harmful air pollutants. But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one. This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal. Once again you are misinterpreting what I am saying.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you have just contradicted yourself;
"But what I am trying to explain to you is that in the WORST CASE SCENARIO, even using 100% coal sourced electricity (which does not happen anywhere in the US), an Electric Vehicle is still cleaner to operate than a gas powered one."
"This fact does not imply, state, or is any attempt to infer that we should be using coal."
-so, you're saying we should never use Coal because it's terrible, but we should use Coal if we really need to..
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr And you are arguing with me in circles with illogical interjections and assumptions. Let me make this perfectly clear, I DO NOT LIKE COAL. It is a dirty fuel. That being the case, it is still BETTER to use coal at a power plant to make electricity than to fight, die, drill, transport, refine, store, pump, and burn other fossil fuels to power our cars. They are both bad, but one is far worse for the environment, politic stability, and our countries financial well being.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"And you are arguing with me in circles with illogical interjections and assumptions."
-i too am in college, & know how to intertwine lengthy conjectures into my speaking/writing, much like yourself. please stop trying to act "high & mighty" because you think you're right. try finding/showing evidence towards your accusations instead of trying to win your argument through cute, descriptive adjectives.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr Again stop making assumptions. It is wonderful that you are in college. While you assume that I am in college to, you are somewhat wrong. I am a professor in college, not a student. But if you were one of my students and you tried to debate this way I would fail you.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Again stop making assumptions."
-follow your own hypocritical advice.
"I am a professor in college, not a student."
-wow, knowing you're a professor makes me glad that i don not go to your college, & also makes me so thankful that i have the knowledgeable Geology/Physics professors to teach me..
"if you were one of my students and you tried to debate this way I would fail you."
-abusing power much? i didn't curse, yell, or insult you, so you'd fail me because you can't support your arguments?
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr What assumptions do you feel I am making?
If you feel that any of the information I have stated is not correct I would ask that you please research it yourself and ask your Geology and Physics Professors. I would love to hear their opinion on the matter.
I certainly would not be abusing power if I were grading you're ability to debate, jumping to conclusions, and misunderstanding of economies of scale, sequestering, and overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I certainly would not be abusing power.."
-that WOULD be abusing power because college professors DO NOT grade based off of "ability to debate" or "jumping to conclusions" unless they teach a class on argument/debate. students debate in my classes all the time & the teacher does not have to right to simply fail them for it.
-i am going to college to become a teacher, & that is NOT something a teacher is allowed to do. you grade based on their knowledge & comprehension, NOT on arguments..
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr "that WOULD be abusing power...students debate in my classes all the time..."
I said you would fail, not because you are debating, but because your debating skills are lacking. You jump to conclusions without doing proper research, you take incomplete statements out of context to try and support your opinions, and you attempt to intimidate instead of sticking to facts. That is reason enough to fail. Claiming it is an abuse of power is just an insult to me and to yourself.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I said you would fail, not because you are debating, but because your debating skills are lacking."
-i know what you said, & you just supporting your abuse of your teaching power. YOU CANNOT FAIL ME FOR MY DEBATING SKILLS UNLESS THE SUBJECT IS DEBATING &/or ARGUMENT THEORY. how did you ever become a teacher with that ideology?
"You jump to conclusions without doing proper research.."
-haha how ironic & hypocritical; you have yet to provide a single number/figure for your assumptions.
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr You have the links to three different reports, one of which is the compilation of over forty individual studies that validate what I am trying to get across to you.
This forum is a debate wouldn't you say? My comments were in reference to your performance here. It isn't as if I said I would fail you in basket-weaving just because I felt like it.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"It isn't as if I said I would fail you in basket-weaving just because I felt like it."
-no, you would fail me for having different opinions than you based on your unsupported claims.. you would fail me because i was opposing your ideas & asking for simple x >y mathematical evidence.. you would fail me because you have not been able to provide a simple numerical comparison, showing evidence of the assertions you have made.. that IS abusing teaching power.
/watch?v=Omqe4whiry4
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr I can do the mathematics behind a well-to-wheel efficiency and emission analysis but it will quite simply not fit within a comment posting. You have been giving several reports to look at the information yourself, but you refuse to acknowledge them or discuss the information. I am not saying you would fail because your opinion differs, it is because of the reasons I have already stated. What shred of proof have you offered to back up your opinion? You haven't presented anything.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I can do the mathematics behind a well-to-wheel efficiency and emission analysis but it will quite simply not fit within a comment posting."
-ugh.. again, give the final numbers, & then cite the sources like is tradition & custom in school, work, life, etc. it's not hard to state two numbers, & then show your work through a web source or some other media..
-__-
yuskjr 8 months ago 3
I also think Solar and Nuclear are the best choices. Unlike you, I also like wind and tidal hydro electric power. Wind may disrupt crucial air currents as you say, but by that sort of reasoning, you had best be living in a cave because ANY man mad structure is going to alter air currents. We just have to do these things carefully. The wind isn't going to stop because we put in a wind farm. We just have to put them where they don't effect wildlife and create strobing shadows.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"..ANY man mad structure is going to alter air currents."
-again, you're not following me.. of course any building/structure affects LOW air currents, but those are not vital to weather or air circulation. if you understand basic physics & fluid dynamics, you would know that only the HIGH air currents are important for shifting temperatures/weather/circulation.
"The wind isn't going to stop because we put in a wind farm."
-no, but weather patterns will change; thus our environment changes.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr I am following you. I am asking you to consider the other choices, versus drilling, transporting, refining, storing, and pumping oil from across the world versus setting up a wind farm what is going to have the more damaging impact? Everything we do is going to have some sort of an impact. We just have to pick the least damaging ones. There isn't one single energy source that is going to solve all our problems. Solar is not enough and you can't vary output from Nuclear to meet demands.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I am following you."
-no, you're not. there is simply NO WAY to have this conversation online & say all i want to say, because there is such limited space. the only way you'd understand me, is if we talked in person.
"Solar is not enough and you can't vary output from Nuclear to meet demands."
-Solar needs to be researched & perfected, as it's the only 100% TRULY environmentally friendly power source. Nuclear Plants provide tenfold what other plants provide in terms of Kwh.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
Of course gas stations would have to be redone. Show me a gas station with a solar area big enough to produce enough bio-diesel to fill up a truck tank and prove it. Algae based bio-diesel is a wonderful thing, but it is still going require a significant investment in infrastructure to implement. Those changes aren't going to happen at a gas station. The best way to implement algae based Bio-diesel production is to have the algae feed off the emissions from a power plant and solar.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Show me a gas station with a solar area big enough to produce enough bio-diesel to fill up a truck tank and prove it."
-what? haha i was talking about farmers growing crops [peanuts, etc.] for BioDiesel, & then transporting BioDiesel the same way gasoline is now. then, you put up a Solar roof for ELECTRIC VEHICLES, NOT TRUCKS. haha
"Algae based bio-diesel is a wonderful thing, but it is still going require a significant investment in infrastructure to implement."
-wasn't talking about that.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
"Atomic, hydro, wind, solar.."
-Nuclear; the only pollution comes in the radioactive tubes that can be 95% recycled[France does this everyday], & slight water heat around the plant from drainage.
-Hydro; may produce no emissions, but it destroys wildlife homes, river currents, & mating habits of local fish.
-Wind; may produce no emissions, but it disrupts vital air currents that are needed to circulate Earth's hot/cold air.
-Solar; 100% clean, but needs HUGE areas for solar farms & constant sun.
yuskjr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atomic, hydro, wind, solar.."
-approximately 80% of the power plants in America today are some form of a fossil fuel burning plant; Oil [Petroleum], Natural Gas, etc.
yuskjr 8 months ago
"Electric is great but when you plug it in the wall, it pulls it's power from the power plant. and where do they get their fuel..."
-yup; almost nobody thinks of that, but it's true.
-EV's & Hybrids are only clean when powered by Nuclear or Solar power plants. Wind plants disrupt vital air currents, Hydroelectric Dams rape the homes of nearby wildlife because they destroy/alter the natural water flows, & Coal/Oil/Natural Gas still release massive amounts of air pollution.
yuskjr 9 months ago 5
@yuskjr But all of those things combined put out LESS emissions than all the internal combustion powered cars on the road. They are also mostly DOMESTIC power sources rather than fighting, dying, drilling, transporting, refining, storing, and pumping a fuel which we largely import from countries that hate us. In the end electric cars using electricity from power plants are always cleaner, more efficient, provides more domestic jobs, and keeps the wealth in this country.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"But all of those things combined put out LESS emissions than all the internal combustion powered cars on the road."
-how do you know? do you have any evidence to support that? because power plants emit millions more tons of emissions than cars 24/7/365.
"In the end electric cars using electricity from power plants are always cleaner, more efficient, provides more domestic jobs, and keeps the wealth in this country."
-again, any evidence to support this? it seems completely backward honestly..
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr, I know it is less because there are countless studies that prove it. Rather than make assumptions that electric cars only move the source of pollution to the power plant, I suggest you investigate it yourself. Power plants aren't just a little bit cleaner and more efficient than extracting energy from fuel sources than having millions of cars with internal combustion engines driving all over the place, they are vastly superior. It isn't even debatable. It is simply a fact.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr Here is one report to get you started:
Copy and paste into browser address line (to bypass Youtube link comment blocking)
goo
.
gl/dtoJs
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Here is one report to get you started:"
-that link you provided was a link to yet another car emission Powerpoint presentation with cute graphs of emissions of vehicle, & ZERO comparisons of Power Plant vs. Hybrid/EV emissions.
-here's the simple idea for you;
1. we all switch to Hybrids/EV's.
2. power/energy demands rise.
3. more Power Plants are built.
4. Power Plant pollution goes up [as a direct result of 3].
5. problem NOT solved unless those plants are clean.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr Following "your" simple idea...
Let me ask you, do you think it easier to clean up the emissions from a power plant or millions of cars on the road?
Can emissions from cars be sequestered and used for bio-fuel production? Power plant emissions can.
Is it easier to monitor emissions on millions of cars or several additional power plants?
If additional power plants are built do they HAVE to be pollution sources or do we have other choices?
EV, we have options, with gas there are none
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr You obviously dismissed the information in the presentation. Obviously simply building additional power plants are going to increase the total emission output by power plants. However, by shifting the fuel consumption to the power plant by switching to electric vehicles you are removing millions of internal combustion engine vehicles off the road. The power plants are far cleaner than the car engine they are replacing. Over all it greatly reduces emissions .
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"You obviously dismissed the information in the presentation."
-haha what information. there was no simple outline or simple equation or comparison. it was a bunch of silly graphs showing various vehicle emissions, & some charts that say cars get their gas from Petroleum. wow.. nice evidence you've got there.. i had no idea cars used/burned some form of Oil..
**facepalm**
-__-
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
And one more thing, when shifting to EV vehicles we have choices. The power doesn't HAVE to come from a power plant. In my case ALL of my household electric needs are provided by renewable, clean, and local power sources. It not only keeps the profits in the United States, it keeps it in NY State. I am supporting jobs here at home rather then sending more jobs and money overseas. When we do get our EV, it will also be charged at home. No fossil fuel will EVER be used to power it.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"When we do get our EV, it will also be charged at home. No fossil fuel will EVER be used to power it."
-haha you're hopeless.. from where does your home draw power? Power Plants. what do ~80% of the United States' Power Plants use to create power? Coal/Oil/Gas. you obviously will burn fuel indirectly to power your EV. haha wake up; EV's are only clean/beneficial when paired with CLEAN Power Plants [Nuclear & Solar]. you're the one who cannot see past this media driven "Green Movement" crap.
yuskjr 8 months ago 3
@yuskjr Let me explain something very clearly to you, my household electric needs ARE NOT COMING from a coal, oil, or any fossil fuel derived POWER PLANT. My home exclusively gets it electric supply from wind, hydroelectric, and solar power. Stop making so many assumptions. EVs are still BETTER EVEN when using fossil fuel polluting power plants because they REQUIRE LESS ENERGY than if we used the fossil fuel in internal combustion engine cars. They are BEST when using 100% clean sources.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"My home exclusively gets it electric supply from wind, hydroelectric, and solar power."
-& you know this how? do you check your bills? do you monitor your power?
"EVs are still BETTER EVEN when using fossil fuel polluting power plants because they REQUIRE LESS ENERGY than if we used the fossil fuel in internal combustion engine cars."
-for the millionth time, PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN NUMBERS. you have yet to provide ANY numbers/statistics to back up your argument.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr "you know this how? do you check your bills? do you monitor your power?"
Yes, of course I check my bills and monitor our usage. I would not make this statement had I not specifically picked the electric power sources for my home. When and if you become a home owner and choose a utility provider and/or install renewable power sources at home you can make these choices. We all have these choices, but most people do not investigate or even consider them.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I would not make this statement had I not specifically picked the electric power sources for my home."
-i did not know you could choose which specific Power Plants provide your home power; i was always told that the entire grid was uniform, & all Power Plants simply fed into the uniform grid as a whole.
yuskjr 8 months ago 2
@yuskjr Well, you have a lot to learn.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Well, you have a lot to learn."
-& you don't? are you saying you know everything there is to know about this universe/life?
-if you answer "yes", then you're incredibly arrogant.
-if you answer "no", you're a hypocrite.
yuskjr 8 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@yuskjr "-& you don't? are you saying you know everything there is to know about this universe/life?"
I never said or implied I didn't have a lot to learn. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting or attempting to intimidate?
I said you have a lot to learn because by your own admittance you didn't know you could pick your power sources and you do in fact have quite a bit to learn about this.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I never said or implied I didn't have a lot to learn. Is it possible for you to have a discussion without insulting or attempting to intimidate?"
-"Well, you have a lot to learn" implies that i have a lot to learn, & that you do not have a lot to learn; which we all know is a load of crap considering none of us know half of what this life/universe is about. also, please point out a single "insult" or "attempt to intimidate" you that i have typed, because i typed no threats or insults.
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr You have a lot to learn does not imply anything else beside stating the quite obvious. It does not mention, imply, or make any reference to my own knowledge or lack there of. And if it isn't plainly obvious enough, WE ALL HAVE A LOT TO LEARN. I see I have to be much more specific to avoid your condescending comments. I should have said "Well, you have a lot to learn about selecting energy sources and installing renewable power in your home." Would that have been easier for you to follow?
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"I should have said "Well, you have a lot to learn about selecting energy sources and installing renewable power in your home." Would that have been easier for you to follow?"
-it would be nice if that's what you meant; i know too many adults like you who think because i am younger or a student that i'm a moron. for your information, Bill Gates never finished college, & Albert Einstein never finished grade school. do not think because you're a professor you're automatically smarter than me..
yuskjr 8 months ago 4
@yuskjr That IS what I meant, another reason why should never assume anything. If I simply thought you were a moron I wouldn't be spending all this time debating with you. Obviously you are passionate about the topic, I am just trying to get you to see the bigger picture.
Bill Gates never finished college for business reasons, you should watch "Triumph of the Nerds", it talks about the history of the personal computer and part one shows how Microsoft came into being.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
"Bill Gates never finished college for business reasons, you should watch "Triumph of the Nerds", it talks about the history of the personal computer and part one shows how Microsoft came into being."
-i know why Bill Gates never finished college, thank you very much; please stop assuming im a moron. i was the one who brought up Bill Gates' case as an example, so obviously i know the backstory.. ugh.. again you assume i don't know something - even after i use it as an example.. -__-
yuskjr 8 months ago 4
@yuskjr I am assuming nothing. You are the one who keeps assuming everyone thinks you are a moron. I certainly never said it. I was only suggesting that you watch the movie because I thought you might find it interesting, nothing more.
M1CHAE1R0SE 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M1CHAE1R0SE AGAIN, because you failed to answer this twice now;
"just out of curiosity, what subject do you teach in college?"
yuskjr 8 months ago
@yuskjr I answered you the FIRST TIME. Learn to use the search function if you can not find it by scrolling.
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
@yuskjr "-again, any evidence to support this? it seems completely backward honestly.."
Here is a report and executive summary detailing over forty studies that verify this:
goo
.
gl/XBbf9
M1CHAE1R0SE 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M1CHAE1R0SE once again, "there is simply NO WAY to have this conversation online & say all i want to say, because there is such limited space. the only way you'd understand me, is if we talked in person". i would be more than happy to discuss this in a person to person setting, but there is no way to properly argue online like this; you must realize by now that this is going nowhere, like all too many arguments on Youtube.. :/
yuskjr 8 months ago 2