EPA approves more ethanol in fuel for cars

• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;654020 wrote:The Volt is not an electric car. It's a pos.
  
  Real electric cars are certainly more friendly to the environment because we can produce electricity on a much larger scale and more efficiently than most engines can burn gasoline. Especially when you consider the future and that we should have less of a reliance on coal with advances and more investment in solar, wind, tide, piezoelectricity, nuclear, etc.
  
  By real electric cars I mean things like the Tesla Model S.

  
  Yeah...sweet ride. Starting at just a tick or two over $100,000. Maybe we need a "Cash for Green" program from Obama??? From their website:
  
  
  Available Now
  
  From $101,500* or $1658/Mo Lease**
  with $9,900 deposit
  
  *Includes $7,500 Tax Incentive **Leasing details
• I Wear Pants

  No, that's the Tesla Roadster.
  
  The Model S is their sedan which has a starting price of $49,000 and should start being produced this year.
  0-60 in 5.6 seconds
  - 120 mph top speed
  
  160, 230, or 300 mile range pack
  45 minute QuickCharge
  
  
• BGFalcons82

  

  Pants - I love the look of the Tesla cars, but back to the point...they take much more energy to recharge than say a 60 watt bedside light. Don't know if they have it, but I'm pretty sure the Volt uses a 220v outlet, which uses much more energy than your standard everyday 110.
  
  Let's say everyone owns one. Everyone plugs their little green machine in at 9:00 pm so they can drive it at 7:00 am. Think of the drain on the power companies with millions of these things plugged in. Think about condensing units in homes and offices on a 75 degree night with 90% humiidity and millions of these beauties all plugged in. Then think of the drain on the power companies. My point is that even though they don't use gas, they will use fossil fuels, unless we get a trillion square foot black solar panel erected over every power plant to equal the megawatts necessary to supply enough energy. Electric cars are not as environmentally friendly as everyone wants to suggest.....and where do their toxic batteries go after they've expired in a few years?
• I Wear Pants

  Yes they'll use fossil fuels still but a power plant is far more efficient than my Chevy when you look at how the fuel is used. And again with the "solar/whatever can't provide enough power". That's correct but no one is saying we must go all solar or all wind or all tide. It's got to be a mix becuase the goal is and should be to use the least amount of non-renewable energy as possible. Not only for the gains we get in air quality but because it just makes sense.
  
  What to do with batteries is a real question and hopefully people will set up companies to recycle or reclaim them.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;653814 wrote:Well I mean it's traditionally been Republicans who supported farm subsidies. That's somewhat changed of late but still.

  
  Irrelevant. Subsidies are a stupid policy and taking FOOD to make fuel is even more stupid.
• 2quik4u

  

  obviously someone in the EPA is making some serious cash off this
• fan_from_texas

  BGFalcons82;654277 wrote:Let's say everyone owns one. Everyone plugs their little green machine in at 9:00 pm so they can drive it at 7:00 am. Think of the drain on the power companies with millions of these things plugged in. Think about condensing units in homes and offices on a 75 degree night with 90% humiidity and millions of these beauties all plugged in. Then think of the drain on the power companies. My point is that even though they don't use gas, they will use fossil fuels, unless we get a trillion square foot black solar panel erected over every power plant to equal the megawatts necessary to supply enough energy. Electric cars are not as environmentally friendly as everyone wants to suggest.....and where do their toxic batteries go after they've expired in a few years?

  
  If people plug them in overnight, it isn't an issue, as there is plenty of excess capacity then anyway. There is little to no drain on the power companies if these cars are charging overnight. The issue with our power system isn't total load, it's peak load.
  
  And generally, while electricity is not "clean," it can be produced much cleaner, on average, than gasoline. Other than a handful of states in the rust belt and southeast, everything I've seen suggests that mile-for-mile, electric cars are MUCH cleaner than gas.
• BGFalcons82

  

  fan_from_texas;655343 wrote:If people plug them in overnight, it isn't an issue, as there is plenty of excess capacity then anyway. There is little to no drain on the power companies if these cars are charging overnight. The issue with our power system isn't total load, it's peak load.

  
  Yes, it is peak loads. While I didn't spell it out that way, it is what I was referring to. Electric companies have their record peak loads on hot humid days and nights...hence my questions. I have read reports that there isn't nearly enough capacity in today's power plants to recharge these batteries and there will need to be a significant increase in the number and size of electricity-generating plants. Sure, nuclear can help, but the quickest way is through coal and natural gas. I forgot to add that when these people drive their green machines to work, what will they do there in the middle of the day? Yep...plug 'em in. It is undeniable that electric cars will run on fossil fuels, although not gasoline nor diesel. It's just harder to see it.
  
  I was comparing this to the ethanol issue wherein it takes more energy to make the stuff than it provides in an internal combustion engine. Exactly the same amount of inefficiency? No, but the analogy is valid.
• I Wear Pants

  So they expand capacity via new plants and adding renewable energy. All of this is good for the economy.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;655444 wrote:I have read reports that there isn't nearly enough capacity in today's power plants to recharge these batteries and there will need to be a significant increase in the number and size of electricity-generating plants. Sure, nuclear can help, but the quickest way is through coal and natural gas. I forgot to add that when these people drive their green machines to work, what will they do there in the middle of the day? Yep...plug 'em in. It is undeniable that electric cars will run on fossil fuels, although not gasoline nor diesel. It's just harder to see it.

  Yes it is harder to see it but it will be there nonetheless.
  
  Still, all the "greenies" will gleefully discuss how they're saving the planet over their dinners of organic tofu after plugging in their "clean" cars complete with Obama bumper stickers and parked in their upper middle class garages.
  
  Of course we could just offset the additional burning of fossil fuels at the over-taxed power plants by building more nuclear facilities. Then again that will just get the "greenies" in a nuclear uproar so strike that idea.
• I Wear Pants

  The "greenies" stereotype is just as dumb as the stereotype of the diesel-truck driving, tire burning redneck that wants to kill all the dolphins.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;655541 wrote:The "greenies" stereotype is just as dumb as the stereotype of the diesel-truck driving, tire burning redneck that wants to kill all the dolphins.

  As usual IWP, you fail to see the sarcasm but OK.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;655582 wrote:As usual IWP, you fail to see the sarcasm but OK.

  
  But your point is well taken. I would guess most of the green crowd believes that electric cars help the environment. I also believe the majority of them have no concept of how electricity is generated or where their little plug in the wall gets its magic. The type of coal needed to create such massive amounts of electicity is not as clean burning as the gasoline engine/catalytic converter system. Yet, the green crowd doesn't see any smoke coming from an exhaust, so they indeed don't see the pollution emanating from the power plants. As far as getting us off of our oil fix and weakening the mideastern countries, there is some logic to it. However, the vast majority of exotic minerals and metals necessary to make the batteries necessary to power these vehicles is mined in.....yep....China. Just what we need to do, get rid of our dependence on the Arabs and double-down on our necessity for the Chinese. Brilliance.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;655596 wrote:But your point is well taken. I would guess most of the green crowd believes that electric cars help the environment. I also believe the majority of them have no concept of how electricity is generated or where their little plug in the wall gets its magic. The type of coal needed to create such massive amounts of electicity is not as clean burning as the gasoline engine/catalytic converter system. Yet, the green crowd doesn't see any smoke coming from an exhaust, so they indeed don't see the pollution emanating from the power plants. As far as getting us off of our oil fix and weakening the mideastern countries, there is some logic to it. However, the vast majority of exotic minerals and metals necessary to make the batteries necessary to power these vehicles is mined in.....yep....China. Just what we need to do, get rid of our dependence on the Arabs and double-down on our necessity for the Chinese. Brilliance.

  Why not? The Chi-coms own us now anyway.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;655582 wrote:As usual IWP, you fail to see the sarcasm but OK.

  Sarcasm is hard to infer in text without a smiley or /s tag added.
• I Wear Pants

  http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/28/tesla-details-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program-for-europe/
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;657006 wrote:http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/28/tesla-details-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program-for-europe/

  
  Good idea. Capitalism at its finest. On another note...look how big that thing is!
• HitsRus

  

  The single biggest problem/ danger that we face as Americans next to government spending gone wild, is our dependence on foreign oil. It directly affects our economy and skews our foreign policy. Reducing our dependence on oil should be at least the #2 national priority. That means development of ALL other energy sources...wind, solar, nuclear, coal...and yes,... biofuels. The enviroment is going to take a hit no matter what we do....but in the end, the best thing that we can do for the environment is to be productive and affluent enough to afford taking care of it. That means American generated energy production. I want to see American engineeers getting paid to produce wind farms and nuclear plants and power. I want to see American coal miners mining coal. And I want to see American farmers being paid to grow biofuel rather than our energy dollars being shipped to the rich sheiks of OPEC.
  I find it somewhat interesting that some who are so adamnant about scrapping Social Security because there is not going to be "anything left for them" are unwilling to move away from oil. Oil is a finite rersource. Cheap oil is/will be a thing of the past. We need to move away from oil at best possible speed. In reality, this should have been done 25 years ago. Nothing is perfect, and development will take time... but it is critical that we address and tackle this issue now.
• stlouiedipalma

  Well said.
• iclfan2

  

  We could always go with off shore drilling and open up Alaska for it too. We have oil just sitting there. Tell the hippies to F off.
• HitsRus

  

  We could always go with off shore drilling and open up Alaska for it too. We have oil just sitting there.

  How about we just manage our resources intelligently. Alaska at peak could produce about 3- 5% of our current needs for about 20 years. How about we just keep that in the bank for a while considering it is our last known proven untapped reserve. Off shore drilling may be limited too and it comes with a bigger cost. It really is high time we begin to look at other sources and start developing them. It will take time to implement and bring them online. We should not be using oil to produce electricity.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  My "greenie" story.
  
  I know a philosophy professor from the University of Texas. Delightful woman; intelligent as all get out; and like her academic colleagues often out of touch with the real world. While that can be annoying in many, it just seems like a quirk in her personality because she's such a nice person, otherwise.
  
  In any event, she needed a new car and went to a mutual friend who knows cars very well. He did some serious shopping on-line, checking Austin area dealerships, and even those in Dallas. He came up with several very good possibilities for her, but none were a Prius. He had looked at those, too, but found them lacking in too many ways (including price) to recommend it in good conscience.
  
  It seems she had had her green heart set on getting a Prius, even though she didn't express it as such. Her basic reasoning was that many of the UT profs were driving them to reduce their carbon footprint and she felt compelled to do the same. Green pressure can be fierce, I guess.
  
  Well, even though our mutual friend had found her some very good buys on cars that were more reliable than the Prius and would be a better value down the line, she ended up waiting (Prius' were on back order) and paying much more to get her "green" car.
  
  Again, a delightful woman in every way, but this story just makes me laugh and SMH.
• Belly35

  

  Back in 1968 I was a proud owner of a 1954 Chevy six banger, three two barrels ..... straight pipes/dump tubes...... 20 Miles Per Gallon City / 27 Open Road if I don't open it up
  
  Green Energy is a joke .... ......
• I Wear Pants

  No it isn't Belly. I'd like to know how it is. Now some of the technologies aren't as good as others but it is not a joke.
• Belly35

  

  I Wear Pants;658709 wrote:No it isn't Belly. I'd like to know how it is. Now some of the technologies aren't as good as others but it is not a joke.

  
  Estimated population of Cleveland 914,808
  Estimated power output for one Wind Power Generator 600 homes
  
  Where do you plan on we set 1524 Wind Power Generators that requires 8 areas of land (water would be less 4 areas)
  
  We have based on present oil consumion and estimated crude finding 160 year of American supply of self reliance crude. Does not include natural gas finding.
  In those 160 years if we can’t provide additional dependable energy then we aren’t Americans.
  The mentality to force “Green energy” and not keep developing our present oil production is crazy. America strength in the oil market is needed, create jobs and our economy is depended on our production of our crude.
  
  I’m all for the development of alterative fuels (more that you can understand) but the path of this Administration is wrong.
  
  The demand for electric car will put addition stress on the present production of electric for the population where is that additional power source come from?
  Seems to me “We are putting the cart before the power source”
  
  If those who say they are serious about conseving energy. If we simply alter (staggered starting time per profession) less traffic jam and more saving of energy and 4 day work week… saving????
  
  Always looking for the big fix and not doing the simple fix creates more problems. Once the little fixes are taken care of then the rush for the big solution is not so desperation.