Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[Scott5114]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

This is an argument that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If you have an ICE, it can only take the fuel it was built with, usually gasoline. Electricity puts every fuel source in play. Sure, all of the electric cars in Oklahoma City are coal-powered now, because OG&E runs a coal-fired power plant. But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

[StogieGuy7]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind. And, at scale, it becomes very inefficient and expensive. Solar is similar. As a source, it cannot be ramped up and down to meet demand; nor can generation be adequately planned or forecast as utilities/grid operators do with coal, gas and nuclear gen stations.  In the case of wind, it's not green at all; you just trade the issues of coal or gas (which is very clean, btw) for a source that blights hundreds of square miles with huge, ugly, turbines that often kill birds (including protected species) and which still contain enough hydraulic oil to burst into flame if the malfunction is severe enough.

Now, you'll likely say "oh, this guy watches too much Fox news" or something like that.  No, I hardly ever do. Thing is, I have worked for more than one utility as a environmental specialist. I've seen how coal plants aren't as dirty as the media claim and how wind and solar aren't nearly as clean. We used to nurture annual broods of peregrine falcons at my former coal plant. Meanwhile, our company's wind farms in the west had a habit of slaughtering eagles. Like a cuisinart. Each had to be reported to the USDA (fortunately, that was my colleague's task).

And don't even get me started on how each wind turbine can only (at the very best) generate maybe 2 MW of power - under perfect conditions. Which means you need a farm the size of a city to equal the output of a fossil fuel plant sited on maybe 200 acres. The fossil plant can generate several hundred megawatts all day long; the wind farm cannot and never will be able to. 

Just a little dose of reality on this.

[ethanhopkin14]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind. And, at scale, it becomes very inefficient and expensive. Solar is similar. As a source, it cannot be ramped up and down to meet demand; nor can generation be adequately planned or forecast as utilities/grid operators do with coal, gas and nuclear gen stations.  In the case of wind, it's not green at all; you just trade the issues of coal or gas (which is very clean, btw) for a source that blights hundreds of square miles with huge, ugly, turbines that often kill birds (including protected species) and which still contain enough hydraulic oil to burst into flame if the malfunction is severe enough.

Now, you'll likely say "oh, this guy watches too much Fox news" or something like that.  No, I hardly ever do. Thing is, I have worked for more than one utility as a environmental specialist. I've seen how coal plants aren't as dirty as the media claim and how wind and solar aren't nearly as clean. We used to nurture annual broods of peregrine falcons at my former coal plant. Meanwhile, our company's wind farms in the west had a habit of slaughtering eagles. Like a cuisinart. Each had to be reported to the USDA (fortunately, that was my colleague's task).

And don't even get me started on how each wind turbine can only (at the very best) generate maybe 2 MW of power - under perfect conditions. Which means you need a farm the size of a city to equal the output of a fossil fuel plant sited on maybe 200 acres. The fossil plant can generate several hundred megawatts all day long; the wind farm cannot and never will be able to. 

Just a little dose of reality on this.

Not to mention to all of this, wind energy is 100% dependent on what God gives you that day.  If you need more energy output this week, lets say because there is a heat wave, and your only energy source is wind, and the forecast has absolutely zero wind for a month, you are just stuck with whatever small amount of energy the wind produces.  This is the main reason why I don't want to 100% switch to any alternative fuel.  It has nothing to do with the environment or that I am a redneck that doesn't want to switch...it's because I see if we put all our eggs in one basket, the results are catastrophic. 

[formulanone]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

I like I'm repeating myself often on this:

The point is that most ICE vehicles run at about 20-30% efficient with the fuel it uses. Much it is converted to heat waste and frictional losses, of which a fraction of that is used to heat components or exhaust gas recirculation, but that's about it.

A power plant and associated transmission of power is more efficient (levels of 40-70%) because A) it doesn't have to move or go places B) other wastes can be reused so there's greater thermal efficiency C) they're obviously very large things and individual transportation is not.

Don't conflate a modern power plant with being somehow worse than a bunch of 1880s technology in terms of greenhouse gasses and other noxious environmental problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better overall solution for a pollution problem. Even a coal plant is more efficient in using its fuel than the average car is.

If that's not good enough, get walking or take a bike. If the real reason is that you want an exhaust note, its range, and the existing infrastructure that gasoline provides, just say so.

[MultiMillionMiler]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind. And, at scale, it becomes very inefficient and expensive. Solar is similar. As a source, it cannot be ramped up and down to meet demand; nor can generation be adequately planned or forecast as utilities/grid operators do with coal, gas and nuclear gen stations.  In the case of wind, it's not green at all; you just trade the issues of coal or gas (which is very clean, btw) for a source that blights hundreds of square miles with huge, ugly, turbines that often kill birds (including protected species) and which still contain enough hydraulic oil to burst into flame if the malfunction is severe enough.

Now, you'll likely say "oh, this guy watches too much Fox news" or something like that.  No, I hardly ever do. Thing is, I have worked for more than one utility as a environmental specialist. I've seen how coal plants aren't as dirty as the media claim and how wind and solar aren't nearly as clean. We used to nurture annual broods of peregrine falcons at my former coal plant. Meanwhile, our company's wind farms in the west had a habit of slaughtering eagles. Like a cuisinart. Each had to be reported to the USDA (fortunately, that was my colleague's task).

And don't even get me started on how each wind turbine can only (at the very best) generate maybe 2 MW of power - under perfect conditions. Which means you need a farm the size of a city to equal the output of a fossil fuel plant sited on maybe 200 acres. The fossil plant can generate several hundred megawatts all day long; the wind farm cannot and never will be able to. 

Just a little dose of reality on this.

Exactly, and you all the issues with phones/computers failing to charge properly when plugged in, or rolling blackouts. Well, have fun trying to charge your electric car, or plug it in only to find out the next day it didn't charge correctly. Solar powered cars? Have fun when it's cloudy overcast for a week straight. I don't know much about wind farms, but yep, what if there's no wind? I like getting liquid gas because you know the gas is going in, there is no doubt about it. Have work the next day and plug your car in the night before, you are just trusting that it's actually charging and will continue charging, all so you can get 200 miles out of it when with gas I don't usually even think about hitting the pump until after driving 350-425 miles.

[CoreySamson]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

I like I'm repeating myself often on this:

The point is that most ICE vehicles run at about 20-30% efficient with the fuel it uses. Much it is converted to heat waste and frictional losses, of which a fraction of that is used to heat components or exhaust gas recirculation, but that's about it.

A power plant and associated transmission of power is more efficient (levels of 40-70%) because A) it doesn't have to move or go places B) other wastes can be reused so there's greater thermal efficiency C) they're obviously very large things and individual transportation is not.

Don't conflate a modern power plant with being somehow worse than a bunch of 1880s technology in terms of greenhouse gasses and other noxious environmental problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better overall solution for a pollution problem. Even a coal plant is more efficient in using its fuel than the average car is.

If that's not good enough, get walking or take a bike. If the real reason is that you want an exhaust note, it's range, and the existing infrastructure that gasoline provides, just say so.

But that asks the question, are batteries better and more efficient at storing and transmitting power than internal combustion? Because if the coal power plant is more efficient than the ICE car but the battery of an electric vehicle is less efficient than the ICE car, we're back at square one. I've heard that capacitors are much more efficient than batteries at transmitting energy, but I don't know specifics.

[Scott5114]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

But if they switch us all over to wind, that converts everyone's car in town to wind in one fell swoop. Or if I want to invest in my home and put a solar panel on my own roof, now my car is solar powered. If I take a trip to Las Vegas, my car is hydroelectrically powered.

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind.

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

Solar powered cars? Have fun when it's cloudy overcast for a week straight.

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

I don't know much about wind farms, but yep, what if there's no wind?

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

[Max Rockatansky]

So I'm unclear, what is the actual unpopular road opinion?  I'm kind of gathering there is a consensus concern over PHEV mandates and short term reliance on potential new renewable energy sources?

[MultiMillionMiler]

I guess if Oklahoma tornados pass close to a windmill,  they can harness alot of energy, provided it doesn't destroy the whole structure itself.

[hotdogPi]

I would rather see power generated from lightning striking really tall buildings (the Empire State Building being the obvious one).

I'm serious about this one, unlike MMM.

[Scott5114]

I would rather see power generated from lightning striking really tall buildings (the Empire State Building being the obvious one).

I'm serious about this one, unlike MMM.

Unfortunately, lightning strikes aren't anywhere near common enough to be used as an energy source like that. It would probably take a long time to break even on the cost of setting up such a system.

[JayhawkCO]

If only we would have had one of these systems in Tonga a couple years back.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I would rather see power generated from lightning striking really tall buildings (the Empire State Building being the obvious one).

I'm serious about this one, unlike MMM.

Problem is the bolt only lasts a fraction of a second, so even though you have up to a billion volts, you aren't going to get much current out of that, unless you place an extremely tall metal structure in an area that gets constant thunderstorms, but that is a good idea.

[formulanone]

And electric cars are not overall better for the environment. The electricity likely comes from oil or coal.

I like I'm repeating myself often on this:

The point is that most ICE vehicles run at about 20-30% efficient with the fuel it uses. Much it is converted to heat waste and frictional losses, of which a fraction of that is used to heat components or exhaust gas recirculation, but that's about it.

A power plant and associated transmission of power is more efficient (levels of 40-70%) because A) it doesn't have to move or go places B) other wastes can be reused so there's greater thermal efficiency C) they're obviously very large things and individual transportation is not.

Don't conflate a modern power plant with being somehow worse than a bunch of 1880s technology in terms of greenhouse gasses and other noxious environmental problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better overall solution for a pollution problem. Even a coal plant is more efficient in using its fuel than the average car is.

If that's not good enough, get walking or take a bike. If the real reason is that you want an exhaust note, it's range, and the existing infrastructure that gasoline provides, just say so.

But that asks the question, are batteries better and more efficient at storing and transmitting power than internal combustion? Because if the coal power plant is more efficient than the ICE car but the battery of an electric vehicle is less efficient than the ICE car, we're back at square one. I've heard that capacitors are much more efficient than batteries at transmitting energy, but I don't know specifics.

Well yes, but the batteries have a life expectancy as well. And that's 7-12 years, probably 15 on the higher side. They're really just banks of many smaller rechargeable batteries. In the lifespan of an ICE car, you'd go though 3-5 12V batteries, depending on your climate.

I'm going to on a limb and suggest that the EV battery waste is going to total out to a similar amount of weight as the parts maintenance for an ICE engine's consumables. So that's a push.

If there's suddenly a way to develop longer-lasting electric motors and battery packs, then that would help. If auto manufacturers want to stick with with short lifecycles to move more units, then they'll sit on that development until some player in the industry proceeds to tout that benefit.

There's only been 30 years of serious development on EVs compared 140+ years on the internal combustion engine. This takes time.

[ethanhopkin14]

I would rather see power generated from lightning striking really tall buildings (the Empire State Building being the obvious one).

I'm serious about this one, unlike MMM.

Unfortunately, lightning strikes aren't anywhere near common enough to be used as an energy source like that. It would probably take a long time to break even on the cost of setting up such a system.

The main problem is, we still have not found a very effective way to store energy.  If we could contain the lightning strike, great, but as it is we have to use it at that instance, or it's gone forever. 

[StogieGuy7]

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind.

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

Doesn't matter. Not even all the wind in the Great Plains can replace all of the fossil fuel and nuke plants. The coal plant where I managed environmental had a peak generating capacity of 765 MW (megawatts); wind turbine units generate between 1 and 2.5 MW each and that's when the wind conditions are just right.  Roughly between 18 mph and 30 mph. When it gets above 40 mph, they start shutting them down as it's too much of a physical load on those giant blades. Wind speed is variable; it's not like a boiler that cranks out a set volume of steam to drive the turbines; wind is up and down, so you never get that max capacity.  So, they try to compensate by covering entire counties with ugly wind farms. Yet is still doesn't make up for whatever the last coal or gas plant that was shut down would have generated.

So, in summary: wind/solar are never going to be our primary power sources. They'll only ever supplement them.  And, with the shutting down of distasteful power plants that upset Greta, there wont be enough generated to support EV charging if that's what we all had. As it is, many grids are already having brownouts during hot weather. It's not climate change doing that; it's climate alarmism.

[Quillz]

So I'm unclear, what is the actual unpopular road opinion?  I'm kind of gathering there is a consensus concern over PHEV mandates and short term reliance on potential new renewable energy sources?

Mine is less an opinion and more that I don't think any of these "2035 mandates" will actually happen. Or necessarily should happen. Let the market and the consumers bring about the changes as appropriate. Maybe it will happen sooner. Or later.

[Quillz]

As it is, many grids are already having brownouts during hot weather.

And energy grids also fail in Texas when the weather is cold.

[Scott5114]

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind.

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

Doesn't matter. Not even all the wind in the Great Plains can replace all of the fossil fuel and nuke plants.

That would be a problem if someone was advocating doing that, but as far as I know nobody who actually knows what they're doing has and probably never will. Usually you see things like wind and solar paired with a "base load" generator that is something less reliant on variable conditions.

Las Vegas is a great example. They're getting a ton of electricity from solar these days. But that's paired with hydroelectric output from Hoover Dam. (Obviously that will be a huge issue if the Colorado River keeps declining to the point it can't spin the turbines anymore, but so long as the river is healthy it works well.)

New York burns all of their trash and spins the turbines with that. This releases CO₂ into the atmosphere but apparently it's less than the CO₂ and CH₄ that would be released if it were allowed to decompose organically.

[Quillz]

This will never, ever, ever happen. It's a fantasy. Why? Because there's only so much energy to be obtained from wind.

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

Doesn't matter. Not even all the wind in the Great Plains can replace all of the fossil fuel and nuke plants.

That would be a problem if someone was advocating doing that, but as far as I know nobody who actually knows what they're doing has and probably never will. Usually you see things like wind and solar paired with a "base load" generator that is something less reliant on variable conditions.

Las Vegas is a great example. They're getting a ton of electricity from solar these days. But that's paired with hydroelectric output from Hoover Dam. (Obviously that will be a huge issue if the Colorado River keeps declining to the point it can't spin the turbines anymore, but so long as the river is healthy it works well.)

New York burns all of their trash and spins the turbines with that. This releases CO₂ into the atmosphere but apparently it's less than the CO₂ and CH₄ that would be released if it were allowed to decompose organically.

I would add that it seems the people who really make these decisions also understand you use a mix of fossil fuels and renewable. Even the most politically extreme states in either spectrum don't actually intend to go all-in on just one option. Politicians make noise, that's their job. The actual implementation of these things always seems to be more in the middle.

[thenetwork]

IMHO, I think the best energy-efficient cars are the hybrids.  I have a Honda Civic Hybrid that regularly gets 40-50 per gallon.  When I fill up, I can go to the nearest gas station and fill my 10-11 gallon tank in under.5 minutes -- no waiting in lines 98% of the time.

So to sum up:

* 45 MPG
* I don't have to find a specific place to "refuel/recharge"
* I don't have to remember to "plug" my car in every night at home
* I am using less fossil fuel than most vehicles that run on gas only.

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

In other words, if the government were to solely create the technology for smart phones or iPhones, we'd likely be going back to technology and products from 20-25 years ago , as we'd be hung up on so much red tape and be stuck with sub-par products that nobody would want, and the government would be losing money, not profiting, on their product like the phone manufacturers of today.

[Scott5114]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

Never seen a backed-up on-ramp? Or the inside of the post office?

[Bruce]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

Public transit has lines and people camp out for hours before a new rail station opens to get to be first. No one is forcing people to use it, even if there's heavy encouragement through development and reducing car dominance.

[pderocco]

I don't know much about wind farms, but yep, what if there's no wind?

Dude, I live in Oklahoma.

I heard somewhere that it comes sweeping down the plain.

[pderocco]

BTW, I have yet to see our government create something for consumers that is so good, there is a line of people that forms to get it without being pressured.

National parks routinely have long lines. No one is forcing to go to them.

No, they're forcing people to wait in line to pay for admission, instead of just driving in without stopping.