jlisenbe: Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!

Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if the government OUTLAWED every electric powered vehicle tomorrow.....along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.

---

No steering wheel, no accelerator, no brake. 25 mph and under.

Quote:

---

V7 -- along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!

---

My Ohio farmer friend had solar panels put on his house's roof last summer. He hasn't had to pay an electric bill since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...vanna_2004.jpg

Quote:

---

Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!

---

It's possible that you are right, but if electrics come along, and I think they will, that are considerably more economical to drive than the gas burners, then they will catch on. I am open to the idea that the marginal global warming which has occurred is caused, at least in part, by a build up of CO2. If that turns out to be the case, then people will more and more call for a decrease in fossil fuel usage. Now what to turn to? Windmills? Solar panels? None of those are economical or reliable. It is a tough question. Maybe nuclear?

I'm sure they are economical and reliable in some regions, just see my post above. Maybe run a line to one of those regions.

So what happens on those days when the wind is too slow or stopped?

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

---

Now tal I thought you are a died in the wool liberal opposed to those dastardly coal plants what is predictable is hot air blowing from the east

Quote:

---

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

---

So we have to keep double the number of generating facilities open to get the same amount of electricity we have now? That does not sound like much of a plan to me.

You might be missing something, because they are indeed doing it, and more of it as time goes by. It's a simple equation, the more you use alternative the less coal you use. Wind dies down, sun runs away kick the coal into gear until they come back and the wind blows at night too! Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.

Quote:

---

Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.

---

You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

---

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophy

Quote:

---

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophy

---

I would agree with that.

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.

Quote:

---

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.

---

What would that same engineer say to the titanically crazy idea of running both the coal plant AND a bunch of windmills, and so doubling the expense of producing the same amount of power? It would be the same thing as needing one coal plant, so we'll build two and run them both. Makes no sense at all.

Talaniman: You are correct: Ups and downs with a coal generating plant is near impossible and prone to reliability issues, as well.

Personally, I like NUCLEAR in power: Just have to make a national commitment! And one hell of a sales job to the "Doubting Thomas'" out there.....Need someone with charisma and an acute engineering knowledge to do that sale: Too bad Jimmy Carter is so old now....but someone like him...he was a very, very good Engineer and I say that even if I didn't agree with him politically.

Look at it this way. If you want to produce, for example, 500KW of power, you could build a coal plant, or you could build a wind farm. What you are proposing is to build BOTH of them, and yet still only produce 500KW of power. So you go to the expense of building and operating both of them, and yet still only get 500KW of power? How on earth does that make any sense?

Vac, for you to say that coal plants have "ups and downs" and are prone to "reliability issues" is really a stretch. They are utterly, wildly reliable relative to wind farms. Now I could go along with the nuke option when you answer the question of why we would want to shut down perfectly good, up and running fossil fuel plants and start what would be an enormously expensive program of replacing them with nukes. Why would we do that? If you believe in catastrophic, man made global warming, then that would be your answer. If you don't, then why would we go to all that expense and trouble?

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.

As for nuclear there are 450 plants world wide and while clean it's also expensive, and the most dangerous to utilize. An expensive clean up and storage proposition we are undertaking for older plants as it is.

https://sciencing.com/pros-cons-nucl...s-4779089.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...e-mess/560945/

Quote:

---

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.

---

Actually, you don't see it at all. You are suggesting we build two facilities because of the certainty that one of them (wind) is unreliable. So you are still building two plants to only get the capacity of one of them. It's the nuttiest idea I have heard in a long time. It's just like buying two table saws but only running them one at a time. And you've already said that the coal plant, in your scenario, would be run at low capacity. Why would anyone with half a brain build a coal plant and then run it at low capacity most of the time just to support a wind farm? So I'll ask it again. Why not just build the coal plant? It's totally reliable and you'd get the same amount of power at half the cost.