JRscooby
Indepmo
Senior Member
Joined: 06/10/2019
View Profile
 Offline
|
wnjj wrote:JRscooby wrote:KD4UPL wrote:It's amazing how someone can think their way of life needs to imposed on everyone else even though they don't understand other people's way of life.
Yes, the whole world must comply with our way of life, no matter if our grandkids have no clean air or water
The 1970’s called. They want their clean air and water argument back.
Back in the '60s, working in fields about 50-60 miles from downtown KC. Week-10 days without rain, we could see the haze over the city. Pollution controls started, and we witched about "ruining our life" Mid '70s, running OTR, I saw the haze over cities all over the country. 3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel.
For at least a hundred years the American standard of living has been based on US using more resources as a percentage of the population then the rest of the world. And most of the energy we have used has been burning fuels, degrading air world wide. We can't keep forcing our way of life on the rest of the world.
|
Lynnmor
Red Lion
Senior Member
Joined: 07/16/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
JRscooby wrote:
For at least a hundred years the American standard of living has been based on US using more resources as a percentage of the population then the rest of the world. And most of the energy we have used has been burning fuels, degrading air world wide. We can't keep forcing our way of life on the rest of the world.
For at least a hundred years America produced much of the goods consumed by the world. Now we have shifted much of that production, wealth and pollution to Asia. We can't just beat our liberal chests and proclaim all the wonderful things we have done.
Now we are engaged in shifting energy production so we can dump on rural areas and say how pretty our cities are. Some can't see the woods for the trees.
|
Groover
Pulaski, TN
Senior Member
Joined: 10/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."
I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.
I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.
|
JRscooby
Indepmo
Senior Member
Joined: 06/10/2019
View Profile
Offline
|
Groover wrote:"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."
I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.
I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.
I see irony in saying we should have slow change. For example you youngsters may not know it, and likely will not read what I say because history is not taught in schools, and is not allowed on this site. But at one time a evil organization called OPEC proved to the world they could pretty much destroy the economies of the world. The man that was president at that time put solar panels on the roof of the White House. How much more developed would the solar industry be if a major consumer like US government put it's power behind it for 40 years? Where would the EV industry be now if the next president would of said "In 10 years 25% of cars bought by Gov will be EV. Any company that can't supply the EVs will not supply the ICE vehicles? That would of made a market for millions of EVs every year for the last 30 years.
But instead, remove the panels from WH, and make sure the power of OPEC is returned to the oil companies.
|
Groover
Pulaski, TN
Senior Member
Joined: 10/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
JRscooby wrote:Groover wrote:"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."
I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.
I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.
I see irony in saying we should have slow change. For example you youngsters may not know it, and likely will not read what I say because history is not taught in schools, and is not allowed on this site. But at one time a evil organization called OPEC proved to the world they could pretty much destroy the economies of the world. The man that was president at that time put solar panels on the roof of the White House. How much more developed would the solar industry be if a major consumer like US government put it's power behind it for 40 years? Where would the EV industry be now if the next president would of said "In 10 years 25% of cars bought by Gov will be EV. Any company that can't supply the EVs will not supply the ICE vehicles? That would of made a market for millions of EVs every year for the last 30 years.
But instead, remove the panels from WH, and make sure the power of OPEC is returned to the oil companies.
I am very flattered that you think that I am a youngster. If that fits me then you must be geriatric. OPEC is the primary organization that I referred to as the beneficiary of the poor decisions that were made in the 1970s. That same President that put up the solar panels on the White House as a symbolic move made a lot of other poor decisions that led to both a lot global warming and his removal after one term, even though the two weren't yet connected.
The way I see it is that our nation has a phobia of attacking the
root source of much of our problems which simply put is fuel consumption. The best way to do that is through a fuel tax, not in addition to other taxes but in lieu of them. Then let capitalism work. Virtually every other nation has done that and has a lot more to show for their efforts than we do.
* This post was
last
edited 02/24/21 05:15pm by Groover *
View edit history
|
|
|
JAC1982
Colorado
Senior Member
Joined: 08/21/2013
View Profile
Offline
|
I'm a big ol' liberal and even I can recognize that electric vehicles, as things stand now, are not practical for everyone. The initial cost is one thing. But the infrastructure to support them is another.
I think of families who live in large apartment complexes or buildings. Where would they all charge their vehicles? Who is going to pay for the charging units to be installed in these places? Who will be maintaining them? Will the apartments charge the tenants to use them? What about at large employers like warehouses or factories, is the employer going to pay to install 100 charging stations for employees to use?
As for the cost, even for non-electric cars, it's difficult to find a brand new car that is sub-20k anymore. Especially for a family with more than 2 kids. And the long term reliability of the current electric vehicles is still too much of an unknown to make the used market super viable, whereas a lower income family can probably find a mostly-reliable used gas vehicle.
I have a friend with a Tesla. He likes to take road trips where he just wanders around to explore. He's limited to where he can go now because of the need for charging the car. He has acknowledged that buying the Tesla probably wasn't the best idea for him and his hobby. I have another friend who would love to have one, but to install a charging station at her house would be quite costly (she does not have electric at all where they park their vehicles at their house). Might work out in the long run vs the cost of gas, but it's a big up front expense.
Now, some of this will probably be figured out in 10 years... but there's still a long way to go to make them viable for the vast majority of the population.
2020 Keystone Montana High Country 294RL
2017 Ford F350 DRW King Ranch
2021 Ford F350 SRW Lariat Tremor
|
IdaD
Idaho
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2014
View Profile
|
If we're going to transition ground transportation to electricity, we're going to need to generate a lot more of it and beef up the grid to handle the extra workload. It isn't simply a matter of adding charging stations. I have no idea how much fossil fuel goes into ground transportation or how that energy would translate to electricity but it's probably significant. I would also say that unless that extra electricity comes from green energy, I'm not sure we're netting out much benefit. Although I suppose there's some value in beginning the transition.
2015 Cummins Ram 4wd CC/SB
|
Reisender
NA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/09/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
IdaD wrote:If we're going to transition ground transportation to electricity, we're going to need to generate a lot more of it and beef up the grid to handle the extra workload. It isn't simply a matter of adding charging stations. I have no idea how much fossil fuel goes into ground transportation or how that energy would translate to electricity but it's probably significant. I would also say that unless that extra electricity comes from green energy, I'm not sure we're netting out much benefit. Although I suppose there's some value in beginning the transition.
On the BC Hydro website they indicate that if every personal vehicle in the province were to magically become electric overnight the grid load would increase by 19 percent. So space that out over a few decades and it’s not such a big deal. There are still new Dams coming online in the next few years that would cover that easily... for BC at least.
Jmho. Not an expert.
|
IdaD
Idaho
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2014
View Profile
|
Reisender wrote:IdaD wrote:If we're going to transition ground transportation to electricity, we're going to need to generate a lot more of it and beef up the grid to handle the extra workload. It isn't simply a matter of adding charging stations. I have no idea how much fossil fuel goes into ground transportation or how that energy would translate to electricity but it's probably significant. I would also say that unless that extra electricity comes from green energy, I'm not sure we're netting out much benefit. Although I suppose there's some value in beginning the transition.
On the BC Hydro website they indicate that if every personal vehicle in the province were to magically become electric overnight the grid load would increase by 19 percent. So space that out over a few decades and it’s not such a big deal. There are still new Dams coming online in the next few years that would cover that easily... for BC at least.
Jmho. Not an expert.
Does the 19% include commercial or is that just personal vehicles? An 80,000 lb or more semi is going to chew up a lot more juice than a typical small EV. I would agree that over time it's still doable, but it's a a big process to not just generate that much more electricity but also distribute it. I live in the northwest US so I benefit a lot from hydro but I also don't see that as a very viable long term green energy source given the environmental concerns associated with it.
|
Reisender
NA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/09/2018
View Profile
Offline
|
IdaD wrote:Reisender wrote:IdaD wrote:If we're going to transition ground transportation to electricity, we're going to need to generate a lot more of it and beef up the grid to handle the extra workload. It isn't simply a matter of adding charging stations. I have no idea how much fossil fuel goes into ground transportation or how that energy would translate to electricity but it's probably significant. I would also say that unless that extra electricity comes from green energy, I'm not sure we're netting out much benefit. Although I suppose there's some value in beginning the transition.
On the BC Hydro website they indicate that if every personal vehicle in the province were to magically become electric overnight the grid load would increase by 19 percent. So space that out over a few decades and it’s not such a big deal. There are still new Dams coming online in the next few years that would cover that easily... for BC at least.
Jmho. Not an expert.
Does the 19% include commercial or is that just personal vehicles? An 80,000 lb or more semi is going to chew up a lot more juice than a typical small EV. I would agree that over time it's still doable, but it's a a big process to not just generate that much more electricity but also distribute it. I live in the northwest US so I benefit a lot from hydro but I also don't see that as a very viable long term green energy source given the environmental concerns associated with it.
I don't know. Its kind of vague. I doubt it includes heavy trucks.
![[image]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49831525958_ba59f92eaf_c.jpg)
|
|
|
