Environmental Impact: Gas vs Electric vs Hybrid

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nark @ Apr 29 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]432045[/snapback]</div>

Nice article. We really should ignore hydroelectric power for the analysis as all of it is already consumed for base load - and there is very little opportunity to create new generating capacity from this source.

The new incremental loads for cars would have to come from Wind, Solar, Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear or whatever else our society can develop.

Given the above, it looks like Hybrids are essentially equal to an EV solution. This is of course just based on this study - which was done based on 2000 technology.

 

I'll get back to this in more detail, I'm sure. In the meantime, maybe consider how events like this make you feel about using gasoline. Heck, to stay topical, just thing of the environmental damage of the initial explosion... and then what it will do to traffic for the forseeable future.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...eed=rss.bayarea

Just happened this morning here in the SF bay area.

... and like I said - more later on-topic. Right now I need to go ride my bike and clear my head of unhappy thoughts.

 

This reminds of a commentator on Science Friday that had the audacity of say that batteries were unsafe because just like in laptops they would explode. To his credit the moderator reminded him that a gallon of gasoline was the explosive equivalent of 12 dynamite sticks.

 

A refinery in OK suffered a lightning strike which destroyed two tanks containing 80,000 gals of naphtha (unrefined gasoline, appearently).

You must be considering large impoundment style hydro generation. There are other forms of hydro power that haven't been developed to the scale you're thinking of. Don't forget tidal and wave power.

More people should be aware of the fact that EVs run on coal are still cleaner than gasoline powered cars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 29 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]432088[/snapback]</div>

Ride on, Darrell.

Maybe we should factor this into the transportation cost/benefit analysis too. Cycling and walking make us fitter and happier, while driving makes us fatter and frustrated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 29 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]432088[/snapback]</div>

Tanker accident happened this week in San Diego too. Only it was water, not gas. (Luckily). He was going downhill from 805 to 8 east too fast and the tank just rolled off the truck and fill over the side of the offramp and landed on the road below. Luckily it isn't travled that heavily and there were no injuries. When I heard it I laughed and wondered to my library tech if he was going to have his wages garnished until he paid for the tanker.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Apr 29 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]432108[/snapback]</div>

(Emphasis added.)
If I'm killing the planet by refusing to live on the 47th floor of a concrete hive, the planet will just have to go on dying. :blink:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 29 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]432115[/snapback]</div>

(Emphasis added.)
Come down to Florida this August and tell me how much happier walking makes you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 29 2007, 07:28 AM) [snapback]432088[/snapback]</div>

Another reminder that we travel on oil (highways), are propelled by oil (cars), generate electricity from oil and eat oil (agriculture). We have a worse addiction that most of us realize. An article in a Sacramento CA newspaper earlier this year entitled, "Sacramento Without Oil," envisions a much more human-oriented landscape.

When we get serious we will think and act long-term, make greater use of light and heavy rail, bicycles, buses and walking - all powered by renewable wind, hydro and solar energy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nark @ Apr 29 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]432176[/snapback]</div>

GOOD ! ! ! the sooner, the better it will be for change/motivation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Apr 29 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]432163[/snapback]</div>

Come on up to Connecticut during the middle of February and try the same thing as well

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Apr 29 2007, 09:14 PM) [snapback]432260[/snapback]</div>

But you're making my point for me: unless you live in Eden, driving has its comfort advantages, at least some part of the year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Apr 29 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]432163[/snapback]</div>

There are two types of people in this world: those who divided people into two types, and those who don't.

My point is that this is a false dichotomy. To say we must either suffer great personal inconvenience OR let the world go to environmental hell ignores the fact that there are plenty of effective intermediate steps that can be taken. All or nothing can degenerate into a way for people to justify doing nothing.

I liken environmentalism to Christianity in that regard. No, you don't really have to "give all you have to the poor and follow Christ" in order to count yourself a Christian. That would certainly do the trick, but it's not a necessary condition. But if you fail to perform simple Christian acts that cost you little or nothing, then no, you're not (much of) a Christian. It's not a zero-one thing, is a continuum, and you reveal who you are along that continuum by how you act, or, more often, by how you fail to act. I can in some sense admire people who are wiling to take a vow of poverty, and see that in some sense as an ideal, without in the least feeling bad or threatened by the fact that I would never do that. Similarly, the person who'll give up his car, or pay extra for the zero-energy house, I find them inspirational rather than threatening.

 

The more I invest in the renewables deal the more I understand what oil really is to us. I don't think we can expect average Americans to cough up the type of money to really make this happen overnight. I guess these small steps are going to be our best bet when done in mass. I'm trying to unplug just to do it. I think I'll be around 100K in the end, I'm 3/4 the way there now. If you don't like Exxon Mobil, don't use their product.....in the end we're the ones that are the bad guys.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Apr 30 2007, 07:14 AM) [snapback]432446[/snapback]</div>

Hi chogan. Have you tried decaf? There are some really tasty ones out there these days.

My original post (about walking) was intended as partially serious and partially facetious. (I actually enjoy hiking here in FL, even in summer if there's a good breeze.) I'm not as enthusiastic about walking as a mode of transportation, partially because of its susceptibility to inclement weather of all kinds and partially because, as I also mentioned in my original post, nothing is worth living in a human beehive just to cram people close enough to work and shopping to make walking practical.

 

I recently got a demo ride in a Tesla Roadster prototype. After that, anything with an internal combustion engine (ICE) seems So Twentieth Century... Yes, it really does 0 - 60 Mph in about 4 seconds without using a drop of gasoline.

Keith

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tech_Guy @ May 16 2007, 10:54 PM) [snapback]443964[/snapback]</div>

Sigh. Is that the model that costs $100k? Sweet. But, I couldn't justify spending that much on a car.

Dave M.

BTW, this is with respect to post #18, since it relates to other posts where I've tried to reply.

When quotes aren't closed, you can't reply to the post.