Ford's all-electric F-150 is good for 300 miles of range and 0-60 mph in the mid-4 second...

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,166   +963
The reason that no other media outlet picked this up is because it's clearly a misleading propaganda piece written by someone with credentials who should have known better.
Not going to argue the political agenda you brought up, not really interested in that, nor where New Brunswick gets their electricity and from what sources.

However to white wash the science behind methane and CO2 being released by hydroelectric reservoirs as propaganda is a vast misrepresentation of science that is still in its infancy.

Is that right. There is a Hydroelectric plant in Washington that produced something like 6 or 7 GW from 3 facilities. I think it was one of the top 10 plants in the world and by far North America.
Robert-Bourassa alone produces 5.6 GW, La Grande 1-4 produce a combined total of 8.7GW. Then there's another 7 stations that produce over 1 GW of electricity, with another 12 in the 500 MW range.

 

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,166   +963
Oh I get what he was saying now. I was thinking just plant per plant, but he meant Quebec as a whole. Thanks for the clarification brother. (y) (Y)
No worries, was happy to find Hydro-Quebec lists all their facilities and their output, whether or not they are the larges single supplier of Hydro electric power in North America, or the Western hemisphere is nothing to brag about. Not when you know the history behind their construction, the ecological, environmental and cultural impact this had and still has.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Methane is not the only factor, but that is actually a load of BS.

The Guardian is usually pretty reliable, I'll give you that but no other entity has adopted the "billion tonnes of greenhouse gas from hydro plants" stance since this article came out and they've had 4¼ years to do so. In fact, here's a paper from 2020 on ResearchGate that completely refutes the claims made in The Guardian 4½ years ago:
"Hydropower and climate change show a double relationship. On the one hand, as an important renewable energy resource, hydropower contributes significantly to the avoidance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to the mitigation of global warming. On the other hand, climate change is likely to alter river discharge, impacting water availability and hydropower generation. Hydropower contributes significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions and to energy supply security. Compared with conventional coal power plants, hydropower prevents the emission of about 3 GT CO2 per year, which represents about 9% of global annual CO2 emissions."
The Role of Hydropower in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: A Review
I'll see your grist.org and raise you one epa.gov:
The American EPA also refutes the Guardian's claim on their own website:
"Coal combustion is more carbon intensive than burning natural gas or petroleum for electricity. Although coal use accounted for about 61 percent of CO2 emissions from the sector, it represented only 24 percent of the electricity generated in the United States in 2019. Natural gas use accounted for 37 percent of electricity generation in 2019, and petroleum use accounted for less than one percent. The remaining generation in 2019 came from non-fossil fuel sources, including nuclear (20 percent) and renewable energy sources (18 percent), which include hydroelectricity, biomass, wind, and solar.1 Most of these non-fossil sources, such as nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar, are non-emitting."
Now, I don't really believe that they're completely non-emitting but when 61% of emissions come from the source of only 24% of the total generated watts, it's pretty clear that there's absolutely zero chance of hydro producing more than the burning of fossil fuels. I kinda think that the EPA is far more aware of what the national numbers are when it comes to their power generation compared to an online environmental magazine that is run by a former Washington State politician.
I have no idea who utilitydive is but they're quoting the Environmental Defense Fund, a charity that seems kinda skeevy when you look closely at them:
"EDF has drawn criticism for its ties to large corporations including McDonald's, FedEx, Walmart, and the Texas energy company TXU, with which the organization has negotiated to reduce emissions and develop more environmentally friendly business practices. EDF's philosophy is that it is willing to talk with big business and try new approaches in order to get environmental results."
Yeah because that approach has ALWAYS yielded positive results, eh? /S
Then of course, there's this tidbit which just makes me cringe because it completely destroys the EDF's credibility:
"EDF has been accused of funding and disseminating studies [129] that utilize questionable science and economics in their promotion of catch share fishery management. Also, they have employed substantial political lobbying to promote fisheries policies that tend to force out smaller fishing businesses in favor of consolidated, corporate owned fleets, while denying any adverse effects these programs have on fishing families and communities."
Sweet Jesus, that's just.... yeah. It's clear that they don't have much in the way of ethics which makes me think that they're somewhat akin to a Koch brothers charity. However, it doesn't make sense as to why they would lie about the greenhouse emissions of hydro dams until I saw this next part and then it made a lot more sense:
"EDF has funded studies jointly with the petroleum industry on the environmental effects of natural gas production. The policy has been criticized by some environmentalists."
REAL environmental scientific groups do not get chummy with big oil and definitely don't carry out joint studies with them because it's a massive conflict of interest. Case-in point, they drew the impossible conclusion that hydropower emits more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels.

Sometimes you gotta do a little bit of sleuthing to find and analyse the sources of these articles on little corporate sites like "utilitydive" before throwing them into a discussion. Hell, that site that isn't even big enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Speaking of which, here's the source for the quotes that I stuck up there:
As before, I'll see your UtilityDive and raise you one OurWorldInData:
What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-1536x847.png
Our World In Data: What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?
About the author:
"Hannah joined us in 2017. She is Senior Researcher and Head of Research at Our World In Data. She focuses on the long-term development of food supply, agriculture, energy, and environment, and their compatibility with global development. Hannah completed her PhD in GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh."
Author: Hannah Ritchie, Head of Research, OurWorldInData Team
Now, that is a credential you can pay attention to.

When it comes to scientific matters, I have a tendency to avoid corporate websites like The Guardian and ultilitydive in favour of government and ethical scientific websites like Hydro-Quebec, the American EPA, ResearchGate and OurWorldInData. Any website can be paid under the table by a special interest that remains anonymous. Government departments aren't affected by lobbyists, politicians are. When it comes to scientific sources, I only look at the ones that have no criticisms raised concerning their scientific methods (unlike the EPF). ResearchGate and OurWorldInData are two such sources.
Is that right. There is a Hydroelectric plant in Washington that produced something like 6 or 7 GW from 3 facilities. I think it was one of the top 10 plants in the world and by far North America.
I think that you should read my post again because I said Hydro-Quebec which is a power generating entity with an installed hydro capacity of 36.7GW, not just one single hydro dam. Now, to be fair, after fact-checking myself I am actually incorrect because Brazil opened a bunch of plants recently and since they are nationalised instead of provincialised, Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras is actually the largest in the Western Hemisphere and second in the world, overtaking Hydro-Quebec by about 8GW. However, Hydro-Quebec does sit third in the world (2nd in the Western Hemisphere and 1st in North America) with the Russian company RusHydro sitting fourth and Electricite de France sitting fifth.
What are the largest hydropower companies in the world?
So yeah, I was incorrect. Hydro-Quebec is only the largest producer of hydropower in North America. As for the Grand Coulee Dam, I really don't know what it has to do with anything because it's only the fourth-largest hydro dam in the Western World. Paraguay, Venezuela and Brazil all have larger dams than the Grand Coulee.
The World’s 10 Largest Hydroelectric Dams
Scavenger, you should know by now that I NEVER discuss in bad-faith. It's just not my way because I consider it to be a waste of time. I'm just not one to spew BS because I would consider it embarrassing.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
No worries, was happy to find Hydro-Quebec lists all their facilities and their output, whether or not they are the larges single supplier of Hydro electric power in North America, or the Western hemisphere is nothing to brag about. Not when you know the history behind their construction, the ecological, environmental and cultural impact this had and still has.
You're right, it's nothing to brag about and I sure as hell wasn't bragging. The way that the whole project was handled was terrible, but it was a different time and every project back then was handled terribly. There's no pride here, I was only stating (what I thought) was fact. I had nothing to do with any hydropower production anywhere in the world so there's nothing for me to be proud of. In any case, I was wrong because I had forgotten about Brazil's relatively recent surge in capacity (and I applaud them for it, I wish every country was doing the same).
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
Scavenger, you should know by now that I NEVER discuss in bad-faith. It's just not my way because I consider it to be a waste of time. I'm just not one to spew BS because I would consider it embarrassing.
I absolutely do know that. I like the thought of 2 opposing thoughts posting differing research points. It truly is a back and forth worth having.

Having said that I am looking forward to reading what you found to gather more info, but it may be a little while before I have the time.
My fingers now officially hurt.
You deserve it :D
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,505   +1,732
TechSpot Elite
Not going to argue the political agenda you brought up, not really interested in that, nor where New Brunswick gets their electricity and from what sources.

However to white wash the science behind methane and CO2 being released by hydroelectric reservoirs as propaganda is a vast misrepresentation of science that is still in its infancy.
That's not my intent at all, I promise you. I have no interest in whitewashing anything when it comes to stopping climate change. The thing is, when people believe something that comes from a less than reputable source of information, it can cause just as much harm as whitewashing does. The idea that a hydro dam puts out more greenhouse gases than coal-burning is kinda nuts. I mean, you can see the tons of crap coming out of the smokestacks on those plants (there used to be one in my city but they demolished it over a decade ago) and there's a lot of it which makes it extremely easy to see.

To get a similar effect from a dam, you'd have to see bubbles constantly floating to the top of the reservoir and that's just not the case. That's why I think that some less-than-scrupulous (and let's face it, people like that are ALL-TOO-COMMON) interests have been trying to smear hydro because they see it as the biggest threat to them. Unlike wind and solar, hydropower is constant just like fossil fuels. Since they can't use the "it's not always putting out enough power" argument, they try to overstate the emissions from hydro dams themselves.

I would point out that at no time did I say that dams do not emit greenhouse gases because that would be dishonest and any discussion that isn't honest is a complete waste of time at best. Yes, clearly they get algae and plant matter at the bottom does rot into methane but to say that they emit more than coal and/or natural gas-fired thermal plants is a barefaced lie. You'll see in my other post how I deconstructed those arguments.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
You're a class act my friend. ;)
Well thank you and I feel the same about you. And not just for the kind words.
No matter how strong a disagreement I get into I always take none of the bickering with me onward to the next thread\article. No 2 people disagree on everything and I take that with me.

I have always seen that you are the same way and I have never seen you carry a grudge.
2 UP brother 👍👍
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,394   +1,285
TechSpot Elite
I have more info from a few local Dealerships and Ford.

1. As of Thursday pre-orders in 12 days have reached 70,000. So if I do decide on an F-150 EV it is going to be awhile before I can get one.
2. It will have Level 3 capabilities. (That is for trips)
3. It is very possible the range will be approximately 450 miles and the reason is Ford submitted testing with a half ton of cargo for the initial figure of 300 miles.
4. No Super Duty EV yet.
5. 0-60 from low to mid 4's. Which is faster than the Raptor.
6. Standard range Horsepower will be 426. Extended range will be 563 and of course both will have 775 lb.-ft. of torque.

porky-pig-haunted-holiday-acclaim-e-018.png