Pollution

[Judah14]

Good thing there are truly innovative companies such as Tesla Motors that aim to end dependence on fossil fuels for cars.

[moonshadow]

Good thing there are truly innovative companies such as Tesla Motors that aim to end dependence on fossil fuels for cars.

The irony is however the electric cars can still technically be fossil fuel driven. I'm not sure what the exact mix of coal, nuclear, and hydro power is around here, but I've been told coal accounts for most of it. Also I wonder what it cost to charge the batteries. Appalachian Power raises rates all the time. When I first moved out on my own (2001), electric was about 4.9 cents per KWH, now it is almost three times that. My electric bill in the winter can easily reach $300, and I've got it cheap. I live in a tiny 600 square foot cinder block house. I've spoken to some who live in more average sized houses (1200 sqft) who runs an upwards of $700-$800 per month in the winter.

As far as savings, I'd have to know exactly how many kilowatt hours are used to take the cars battery from practically dead to full charge. Also the amount of time it takes to charge.

The sticker price of almost $80,000 also puts it a bit out of reach for people like me.

Someone once told me the batteries for these electric cars are typically only good for about 5 years, and be VERY costly to replace. (several thousand dollars), and can still be an environmental problem.

But I will at least give it kudo's for putting us in the right direction.

I don't know.... makes me think of the CFL bulb. Yeah, they only use about 13 watts as opposed to 60, but they cost about $5 each whereas the old incandescent were around a dollar for a box of 4. They don't really last longer. I find they burn out just as often as the incandescents, and you're technically not supposed to just "throw them away" although few communities offer practical means to dispose of them. I wonder if I'm really coming out ahead.

Besides throughout my adult life, every time I would cut energy usage in my home, Appalachian Power would just raise the rate! So at the end of the day, I'm well insulated, all CFL'ed up, turned the t-stat down, and otherwise drastically reduced my carbon foot print, yet somehow my power bill managers to be higher than when I started!

Who's winning and who's loosing here??? I pay to make my place efficient, the power company raises rates to compensate. They burn less coal to produce less electricity and charge me more for it! Conspiracy I tell ya!

[Judah14]

As for CFL bulbs, I have 7W LED bulbs that have the same brightness as a 14W CFL or 70W incandescent. Based on my experience using LED bulbs, they work reliably for longer than CFL's and save more money by buying less replacement bulbs (the first LED bulb I bought a a few years back is still working relaibly now). Here in the Philippines good quality LED bulbs don't cost that much, though they are still more expensive than CFL bulbs.

[moonshadow]

As for CFL bulbs, I have 7W LED bulbs that have the same brightness as a 14W CFL or 70W incandescent. Based on my experience using LED bulbs, they work reliably for longer than CFL's and save more money by buying less replacement bulbs (the first LED bulb I bought a a few years back is still working relaibly now). Here in the Philippines good quality LED bulbs don't cost that much, though they are still more expensive than CFL bulbs.

Hmmm. I totally forgot about LED's. Checking online, they don't seem like they are much more expensive than CFL's, actually they might be a little less.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-60W- ... lsrc=aw.ds

I'll have to check into that next time I have a lamp burn out.

Thanks for sharing!

[crfriend]

I man was rocketed to the moon almost 50 years ago, and yet for some reason the technology that drives automobiles has remained relatively unchained for over 100 years.

Of note is the fact that there are more people alive today who believe that the Moon landings were faked than those who know that they actually happened. Such is the pace of some technologies. After all, how could we have landed on the Moon without iPads and Windows 8? The technology simply wasn't there.

The standing joke with automobile technology is that if it progressed at a similar pace to computing technology we'd have cars capable of 250 miles per hour, which would get 500 MPG, be autonomous, 99.99% reliable, and every so often would simply lock up for no reason at all and crash thereby killing everyone inside.

In automotive technology, by far and away the biggest improvement has been computer-management of the power-train. What used to be handled by fiddly analogue computers is now handled digitally, faster, more efficiently, and vastly more reliably in, what is, an entirely unforgiving environment. That, alone, is likely responsible for >90% of the fuel-efficiency improvements over the past decades. Sure, the analogue computers "did the job", but they required a knowledgeable user-bas who knew how to keep them at their best and when to refer them to professionals for work; we have none of that with the digital world; the thing either works right, or it's completely busted with an indicator on the dash-panel saying so.

On the note of MPG (or km/l) and emissions, those are inextricably related. The more fuel one burns to go a given distance, the more combustion byproducts one puts into the atmosphere. Now, if we were living in a hydrogen-fuel ecosystem our sole pollutant would be water (and some oxides of nitrogen); however, we don't, mainly because there are "storage problems" with hydrogen and, thanks to one notorious airship incident back in the 1930s, a bad "public perception" of the stuff. So we use hydro-carbons instead; those are liquid at most temperatures we humans find comfortable, easy to store, and contain a decent "bang for the buck" in terms of energy output -- and a decent bit of the energy output from burning hydrocarbons comes from the hydrogen component. There's just the problem with the carbon -- and it's only been rather recently, in the past 50 years or so, that much thought was given to carbon-dioxide being a pollutant.

I'll not expound on conspiracy-theories here, but the "extraction industry" is vast, extremely profitable, and comparatively old -- why would it not look out for its own interests?

The upshot is that if we want to live in the world we now inhabit, we need some form of energy to make it run. Do you really want to return to a 17th Century style of living?

That's a nice shot, by the way, and thanks for posting it. It goes to show what can be done in the line of remediation. However, if everything was bottom-line and profit, do you suppose that would have been done, or would the pit simply have been abandoned once the resources were gone leaving a whopping great scar upon the landscape (which would have covered in with vegetation over millennia anyway)?

[moonshadow]

As always Carl, you are one for intelligent and straight forward discussion, I'd like to meet you one day, as I'm sure it would be very enlightening on my part!

Again as I've stated, this is a subject I have trouble finding facts on as it is such a hot button issue, with all of the politics and propaganda on both sides, its difficult to root out the hard facts.

Often time's I'm pegged as anti-coal. Which I don't think it really fair or correct. Personally, I can't imagine any major consequences that could arise out of continued use of fossil fuels to some degree over the next few generations, at least nothing we couldn't repair in some amount of time at any rate. But I do believe that now is the time to start thinking about tomorrow.

I once saw a pro-coal commercial that proudly stated "in the U.S. we have enough coal to last for 200 years". When I saw that, my mind immediately went to "okay, so what are we going to do in 201?" It will take the burning of fossil fuels to run the industry that makes the machines that power tomorrow, so why burn it down to the last drop or pound and then say "well now what are we going to do?"

Of course I enjoy modern technology, and for us to go back to a pre-industrial way of living (1700's) would be a disaster for probably billions of people, with mass famines, death tolls, wars, et cetera. There is just no way our current population could survive with horse drawn plows and kerosene lamps as our sole source of energy/light.

One analogy that can be used to describe this is that of a trust fund. Mother Nature gave us a trust fund of so many years of fossil fuels to burn to invest for the future of our species. Will we spend every dime and then say "now what?" Or be proactive, recognize that this fund will eventual exhaust and invest in tomorrow?

I myself had a trust fund of sorts when I got out of high school. Rather than go to college and better myself, I squandered it. Oh yes I lived a flashy life for about a decade, lived a life totally without want. I was in good health, in my 20's, had all my expenses paid, worked what ever job I wanted, quit when it got to tough, so on and so forth.

Now the money is gone. My only saving grace is I picked up a little good old boy knowledge on how to repair commercial cooking appliances, and that alone is how I manage to eek out at least a "low middle class" existence, but that's probably the best I'll do. So I spend my life working on nasty fryers, grills, cold meat grinders, and saying "how high?" when those egotistical district managers say "JUMP!" I live paycheck to paycheck. I'll be lucky if I can ever retire, and as I move in on 40, I feel my body getting older and I worry how will we make it should my health go.

I'd hate to see humanity go down a similar road.

So I think that by all means, lets the old hands work while they can and then retire from the coal mines on their own terms, and avoid pulling the rug out from under them. Many have a somewhat long heritage of coal mining in their blood, and they, like myself in cooking equipment, simply don't know how to do anything else. However why not work to teach our children to plan for a day when coal and oil is no longer easily extracted and work towards that end?

[dillon]

Good thing there are truly innovative companies such as Tesla Motors that aim to end dependence on fossil fuels for cars.

Tesla is a fascinating company. Their success won't be made from selling cars but from developing and patenting technology that will be applied in electric vehicles which GM, Honda, and others will mass produce in the future. That day is a dot on the horizon now, but the advent of all electrics that are now emerging will inevitably and joyfully foretell the death-rattle of the fossil-fuel economy. Ironically, I think it was our last "oil president", "dubya", that actually drove the first nail in that coffin. Americans will never again be so willing to wage an inexplicable war in a foreign land to procure petroleum. It is that war, as much as the peril of climate change, that is going to tip the scales toward our finally doing the right thing.

There is a new "silent majority" in America...and we think well outside the box of limitations that the doddering dinosaurs of old-guard energy have long imposed. The future of this country will be electric, and it will be partly nuclear and partly renewable. Nearly half our power demand could be met by wind and solar, and when you combine the potential of offshore wave/current energy, the possibilities are amazing. Engineering now offers the potential of converting coal-fired plant sites to smaller breeder nuclear facilities, using the same water resources that the coal plants required, with more thorough utilization of nuclear fuel and reduced potential for meltdown scenarios. And still more progress will follow.

The gains in electrical efficiency alone are remarkable, and we have barely scratched the surface of that potential. I replaced two of three heating/AC units in my home with more efficient ones and have brought my electric bills from around $350 in peak heat and AC months to around $185 month in and month out. And just imagine a totally redesigned power grid, a two-way grid that restores the idea of power companies as public partners (which they should be regarded, being government-granted monopolies) so that they can efficiently buy power back from consumers. The potential gain in grid efficiency alone is around 20%!

As for powering electric cars...the ironic and beautiful thing about plug-ins is that they are reservoirs of energy, and can actually be used to feed back to the grid when power demand peaks. The technology to plan for need is essentially available today, it just has to be built.

It will still be a struggle to achieve this goal; no entity of economic and political power has willingly put its own head on the chopping block, and they will certainly only go kicking and screaming (and threatening, propagandizing, lying, bribing, and cheating). But I think the message is being delivered: evolve or face extinction. I see the bright kids who have the vision of a cleaner energy future and I am optimistic about the future. We just have to get behind them and reinforce that vision. It will infect the world.

Consider the potential of Africa for solar energy. Consider the potential of the southern reaches of South America for wind energy. Consider the potential of both for offshore tidal energy. It's staggering. God put these resources right here in front of us; we step outside and feel the sun and wind, we watch the seas rise and fall. He blessed us with the intellect to set and achieve those goals but left it up to us to muster the will to do so. Doing so doesn't require costly exploration, or dangerous ocean drilling, or flattening the tops of once majestic mountains, or waging wars over the politics of scarcity. It can be a moral awakening for the world - the idea that there is abundance for all our need if we look beyond our greed.

Okay, sermon concluded. Have a good day, and think about it!

[moonshadow]

A beautiful "sermon" it is Dillon!

Really put me in a good mood for the day!

[dillon]

Corrected. I quoted Wikipaedia incorrectly. I only skimmed through the article, as the bloke in question seems to have been a troublemaker and I found his life description less than riveting.

Tom

It still made an interesting film. You should see it.

[Uncle Al]

Denmark is taking the lead in Wind Energy
Here is a good clip to start with Wind Power(00:02:00 minutes) from Iceland.
This article, Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
will give more info and this clip,
Smart Energy Systems: 100% Renewable Energy at a National Level(00:17:24 minutes long)
along with Solar Power, will show more on how it's done.

BIG OIL, and auto manufacturers, in the U.S. helps to keep this
info away from the public. With the mass-media being pro $$$$,
they will 'spin' the info to whom-evers advantage that will pay
the most $$$$ for the report(fictional story, with about 5% truth).

If you want a very fuel-efficient auto, check out www.eliomotors.com
They will use current, off-the-shelf 'parts' to build this 'auto-cycle'.
I'm tempted to get one, once they are in production. Would be
great to go 2 weeks on 5 gallons of gas

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

The irony is however the electric cars can still technically be fossil fuel driven. I'm not sure what the exact mix of coal, nuclear, and hydro power is around here, but I've been told coal accounts for most of it.

I recall getting my tail in a sling a number of years ago when I publically refuted some of the "PR" spin about "zero-emissions" cars be referring to them as "relocated-emissions" cars. In reality, all one is doing is moving the tailpipe from the back of the car to wherever the power-station is, and also incurring the inefficiencies inherent in long-haul electric-transmission ("The Grid" was never designed for what it's being used for now, and it's pretty amazing that it's even able to stand up to the load at all). I no longer have access to the paperwork, but the utility where I used to live published its power-purchases by technology every year; they tried to have a balanced source-portfolio, but a lot of it came from natural gas. They were ramping up on "renewables", and installed a solar PV field in town, but those sources were down in the single-digit percentages or very low 2-digit.

As far as savings, I'd have to know exactly how many kilowatt hours are used to take the cars battery from practically dead to full charge. Also the amount of time it takes to charge.

Usually the time-to-charge -- at least in the past -- has been "overnight"; newer battery technologies can speed that up -- at some cost in efficiency, but it still takes time. The numbers should be published, at the very least in the cars' owners' manuals. This would also yield an estimate of the cost-to-recharge and effective locomotive efficiency.

makes me think of the CFL bulb. Yeah, they only use about 13 watts as opposed to 60, but they cost about $5 each whereas the old incandescent were around a dollar for a box of 4. They don't really last longer.

Don't get me going on that scam. Not only are they short-lived, they contain mercury (just a bit, to be sure, but still) which means that one should keep them out of the usual waste stream, and, like most everything else are all sourced from China and incur a large carbon-footprint just to get them here. I was forced to use CFLs for a while -- and hated it; it's the perfect example of what happens when government, influenced by pressure-groups, gets its hands on an idea it doesn't understand and mandates its uptake. I'm kitting out with LEDs now -- and liking the results; the only place they don't work well in is applications where dimming is required. LEDs tend to go from "off" to about 80% brightness almost immediately which rather disrupts the "sunrise simulator" I use as an alarm-clock; everywhere else, though, I find LEDs a big win. (The power-off curve is interesting, too, as they dim out very perceptibly when the mains power gets removed.

[Tor]

Don't get me going on [the CFL] scam. Not only are they short-lived, they contain mercury (just a bit, to be sure, but still) which means that one should keep them out of the usual waste stream...

Another piece I've gleaned from my varied reading is that electronics (which the ballasts of CFLs and the drivers of LEDs fall into) have what is called a "power factor". This power factor is the difference between the rated wattage and what the generator must produce to run the device. This is because generators generate and devices draw in Volt-Amps, while labels (and meters) read in Watts. Incandescent lamps, as a purely resistive device, draw exactly the same in Volt-Amps and Watts. Those CFLs and LEDs, on the other hand, draw more Volt-Amps than Watts. Thus, usage of CFLs and LEDs means that the power company must burn more fuel to produce the metered Watts drawn (because they must produce the Volt-Amps) than if people use incandescent lamps. Not to mention the vastly higher energy input to produce the CFLs and LEDs. I'm yet unconvinced that both are not also a case of "moving the tail-pipe".

As for the mercury, that (along with countless other uses) may well be a health hazard far greater than any savings in power plant emissions, but I will leave that aside for the moment.

[pleated]

Corrected. I quoted Wikipaedia incorrectly. I only skimmed through the article, as the bloke in question seems to have been a troublemaker and I found his life description less than riveting.

Tom

It still made an interesting film. You should see it.

This article in the Irish Post gives a good overview-
http://irishpost.co.uk/the-true-story-b ... mmys-hall/

Jimmy's Hall Official UK Trailer #1 (2014) - Barry Ward, Simone Kirby Movie HD
Movieclips Trailers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUQ9s2ex4HE
02.19

[Kirbstone]

Thanks, Pleated, for the info on 'Jimmy's Hall'.

The film has been made by the makers of 'The Wind that shakes the Barley', by far the ugliest film about Ireland that I have ever seen.

Interesting no doubt, and shows up what a lot of mind-controlling the Irish Clergy/State were and continued to be up until very recent times, but not my choice of entertainment.

Tom

[Kirbstone]

Returning to topic. Two more steam 'pollution' pics, but rather nice, I think.

Tom