wiyosaya
Posts: 11,586 +12,681
Some states, notably HI among others, have already implemented what amounts to an EV Ownership tax. IMO, HI's is excessive, but I don't live there.
Used electric vehicle prices now lower than comparable gas cars
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,586 +12,681
Yes, lets kill easy to set up and pay for energy sources because they obstruct a certain person's "view" and build nuclear or coal instead. Maybe the smog from coal will obstruct that same person's view even more than a "Wind Farm." When the US falls behind nations like China, we will have him to thank.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 7,884 +8,182
Why are we grouping nuclear with coal?!?
Nuclear is clean and awesome… coal is dirty and awful…
While solar and wind are great, they don’t work in places with limited sun or no flat windy areas…
It's not hard to determine what kind of person someone is that prefers this:
Over this:
But I am a pro nuke power guy.
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,586 +12,681
Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to build. Wind and solar are relatively inexpensive and can be brought on-line in a much shorter time than either Nuclear or Coal.
With nuclear, you have the problem of spent fuel disposal, and you might as well call that a form of pollution that is just as hard to mitigate as any waste from coal or other fossil fuels. With wind and solar, chances are you've paid for them by the time the installation is built.
That said, you don't need flat areas for wind. In fact, Wind velocity and energy increases as a function of height above sea level, thus allowing a wind turbine at a higher altitude to produce more electricity the farther above sea level it is erected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient My area has lots of hills, and you can see wind turbines erected on at least some of the hills.
And I've often stated this that even on a cloudy day, there is still usable sunlight that reaches the ground.
And finally, with coal, there are some out there that want to maintain the use of fossil fuels - coal is one such fossil fuel that some would like to maintain.
Personally, I'm not against nuclear provided it is one of the more modern technologies and not the technology used at TMI, Fukishima, or Chernobyl..
Revolution 11
Posts: 386 +676
All perfectly accurate information but I will add to it for those who don't care about carbon emissions at all. I believe that solar and wind will win regardless of the culture war around the environment because AI demands a huge amount of energy and every day that amount grows faster and faster.
Nuclear is expensive and most importantly, it takes a long time to build nuclear plants. Even the newer SMR technology will take several years to build and very few have proven themselves to be commercially viable.
Coal is expensive to run, the economics of opening a new coal plant and running it to its max capacity wastes a lot of money vs cheaper options. Natural gas is a decent option here but the wait-list to get a combined cycle turbine is years long at this point.
If you want cheap abundant energy, solar is still the cheapest, fastest, and easiest power generation method to install and use.
BadThad
Posts: 1,791 +2,045
Some states are already doing that. In Ohio they EV tax you at the BMV every time you renew.
BadThad
Posts: 1,791 +2,045
I don't want them to stop manufacturing electric cars, I want them to keep pace with actual demand. In the end, they're going to f-up the market and hurt themselves. Bankruptcy is very popular among car manufacturers.I think you'll find that regardless of which way the political wind is blowing, the industry has a mind of its own. Manufacturers have invested a considerable amount of money into EV production, and I don't think they'll turn back anytime soon. To quote Kosh from Babylon 5 - "The avalanche has started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote."
Yeah, the engine and transmission are the most expensive parts of the car, and not everyone is a DIY person who will go to a scrap yard to buy an engine should their car need one. In an EV, the "engine" and the "transmission" are typically not complicated and can be maintenance free. No oil changes, etc.
Despite your speculations, EV ownership is, overall, less expensive due in part to substantially lower maintenance costs.
Like I said, I highly doubt manufacturers will turn away from EV production just because the current administration would like to take the US back to the year 500 or so.
Turning political? I want an administration that does not demand/force us into buying an EV through legislation, I prefer FREEDOM of choice for all. An administration that believes in the ALL OF THE ABOVE approach like we currently have.
I saw this yesterday, and it made me wonder why we rarely hear about geothermal.
So I read up on it since then and I can't believe we aren't trying to take advantage of this.
It does come with a very small amount of water and air pollution. I'm not sure, but honestly it seems it is negligible. From what I have learned so far its biggest drawback by far is the plants are so expensive to build, but I would imagine that would level off as we perfected the process.
Check this out. I think it covers it best so far (Unless you know this stuff already, then if you have time tell me what you think):
From now on I'm wind\solar\nuke and now pro geothermal.
MUCH better looking and cleaner than a coal\oil plant.
MUCH less space needed than a wind farm or solar array.
Plus, if there is a technical problem, we don't have to worry about our wieners falling off.
Last edited:
Squid Surprise
Posts: 7,884 +8,182
It’s hard to drill deep enough to find magma… it works in Iceland and places that have magma relatively close to the surface - but they’ve also had major explosions when attempting to tap into magma at far distances.I saw this yesterday, and it made me wonder why we rarely hear about geothermal.
So I read up on it since then and I can't believe we aren't trying to take advantage of this.
It does come with a very small amount of water and air pollution. I'm not sure, but honestly it seems it is negligible. From what I have learned so far its biggest drawback by far is the plants are so expensive to build, but I would imagine that would level off as we perfected the process.
Check this out. I think it covers it best so far (Unless you know this stuff already, then if you have time tell me what you think):
From now on I'm wind\solar\nuke and now pro geothermal.
MUCH better looking and cleaner than a coal\oil plant.
MUCH less space needed than a wind farm or solar array.
Plus, if there is a technical problem, we don't have to worry about our wieners falling off.
So I was reading on that, and it is amazing there have been so many accidents linked to geothermal. Yet I don't remember hearing about any. But yeah, **** can get dangerous.
Geothermal Explosion Highlights a Downside of a Leading Alt-Energy Source
A geothermal energy systems failure causes a stir, with a well explosion disrupting Geodynamics’ ambitious clean energy project.
www.discovermagazine.com
Just a few years ago.
Fatal incident at Indonesian geothermal plant
Release of toxic gas kills one at Dieng facility, which is set for expansion
I still think this is something very much worth pursuing though.
Last edited:
Revolution 11
Posts: 386 +676
EV demand is growing worldwide and the best way to go bankrupt for US automakers will be to restrict EV offerings to satisfy a single market (the US) while you get steadily pushed out of markets with foreign EVs in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America, not to mention Mexico and Canada. The longer you put off trying to sell your cars to the entire world, the more noncompetitive your products and your company will be.
Is there a case for slowing some EV manufacturing in the US? Yes there is, although most of this is due to tariffs and politics. A smarter administration would not be penalizing automakers for pursuing EVs.
Is there a case for slowing EV R&D or non-US EV production? Not at all unless you are ok with giving up the long-term game to Chinese EVs.
I clicked the link, & got 403 forbidden as a result. Might be my VPN.I saw this yesterday, and it made me wonder why we rarely hear about geothermal.
So I read up on it since then and I can't believe we aren't trying to take advantage of this.
It does come with a very small amount of water and air pollution. I'm not sure, but honestly it seems it is negligible. From what I have learned so far its biggest drawback by far is the plants are so expensive to build, but I would imagine that would level off as we perfected the process.
Check this out. I think it covers it best so far (Unless you know this stuff already, then if you have time tell me what you think):
From now on I'm wind\solar\nuke and now pro geothermal.
MUCH better looking and cleaner than a coal\oil plant.
MUCH less space needed than a wind farm or solar array.
Plus, if there is a technical problem, we don't have to worry about our wieners falling off.
Being uninformed on such topics, I was thinking that if enough geothermal plants were in use, maybe the controlled release of pressure/heat might reduce the occurrence of earthquakes & volcanic eruptions. Though I have read that the drilling is not into the magma, but just the heated rocks above it.So I was reading on that, and it is amazing there have been so many accidents linked to geothermal. Yet I don't remember hearing about any. But yeah, **** can get dangerous.
That is from 16 years ago so it looks like thing were rough early on.Geothermal Explosion Highlights a Downside of a Leading Alt-Energy Source
A geothermal energy systems failure causes a stir, with a well explosion disrupting Geodynamics’ ambitious clean energy project.
Just a few years ago.
Fatal incident at Indonesian geothermal plant
Release of toxic gas kills one at Dieng facility, which is set for expansionwww.upstreamonline.com
I still think this is something very much worth pursuing though.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 7,884 +8,182
It would take a LOT of geothermal plants to reduce pressure enough for that… of course, if true, the reduction of pressure would also make the actual plants less useful as well!
Could be it is still working for me.
I thought the exact same thing yesterday. I wonder how\if a plant can relieve enough pressure to lower the risk. If so, we need to start building these around Yellowstone. Well hell, thanks for that downer! But I'm sure if that could happen we could strike a balance.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 7,884 +8,182
Well, geothermal basically works by “poking a hole” into the earth and using the pressurized water as energy… if you poke tons of holes, eventually the pressure itself would disappear…. But it would take a LOT of holes… I think we’d run out slower than we would burn fossil fuels…
Revolution 11
Posts: 386 +676
Lol, it is not degrading batteries at all. It is the fact that every year, you can get a better new EV for the same price. Why would a used car ever hold value if the rate of improvements is high?
If EV progress was not happening (a EV in 2020 was the same price and performance as in 2030), used car prices would be dropping a lot slower.
While battery complaints are quite overblown, the time is finally near when those concerns will have to go away. New batteries are much cheaper, and dropping steadily:
EV Batteries Got 20% Cheaper Last Year
The good news: Cheaper batteries mean cheaper EVs, according to a new study from the International Energy Agency. The bad news: China is still moving faster.
insideevs.com
But what I think is even better news, while complete failure of even early 2010 era EV batteries is extremely rare, there is finally enough old stock that the remanufactured batteries are available and MUCH cheaper than new:
What is EV battery remanufacturing and why it matters | Autocraft Solutions Group
Learn about how EV battery remanufacturing can unlock the value of sustainable EV battery repair and servicing.
autocraftsg.com
Think about it. Once remanufactured EV batteries are as easy to obtain as any remanufactured vehicle part, that will be a huge blow to the smoke pumps.
Similar threads
