Comments on: Is coal a legitimate plug-in problem? I wish

By: Marco Gahring

Marco Gahring — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:49:32 +0000

They can also appeal your case or have probation terminated early. And if you should ever find yourself on the wrong end of action taken by the government, you will find that the ability to resort to the law to defend yourself will be critical.

By: dahcredyns

dahcredyns — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:23:13 +0000

i don’t know if anybody except the greens is interested as well, and while the greens make up a politically powerful force, their numbers are relatively small. likewise, interest in issues like global warming is on the decline, although I’m sure this will eventually change.

nevertheless, in america, coal is not a problem for plug-in vehicles. millions of evs per year will have to be produced before coal emissions offer the potential to become a real negative issue. thus, until then, coal is not a legitimate plug-in problem and much can be done to clean up this problem in the interim.

By: TireTiger

TireTiger — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:52:38 +0000

we have to burn something to get energy- either petroleum or coal (or something). this is the essence of human technology since steam engine discovery, though a lot has changed. so the question will always be to harm more or harm less until this pattern changes. well i don’t know how far the scientists can go in this field and whether anybody except the greens is interested.

By: dahcredyns

dahcredyns — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:38:35 +0000

yeah, shecky, pain does seem to be our primary catalyst for change.

it’s just sad, though. we’re on the verge of a new industrial revolution that is keenly focused around energy, yet we’re so disinclined to embrace it, and even when embraced, it’s largely embraced in an inefficient matter.

somehow, it seems to me, if we could put the power of the purse – the real savings from efficiency – more directly into the hands of the people, perhaps a grassroots movement could be developed. otherwise, it seems it will all come down to pain.

By: sheckyvegas

sheckyvegas — Fri, 21 May 2010 00:16:27 +0000

Sorry, meant “You’re”, there.
Gotta getta Spellcheck…

By: sheckyvegas

sheckyvegas — Fri, 21 May 2010 00:15:52 +0000

Your on the ball with that one. When gas went through the roof, overall consumption of petroleum fell, both in the commercial and consumer sectors. According to research, that drop in usage was enough to extend the time frame of our “cheap oil scenario” about 2-3 years. Before the crash, 2012 was the beginning of the end.
If history proves anything, is we humans are a doggedly stupid group. The big crash of the last couple years served as a wake-up call on many levels. But once we go through one such crash, we tend to “tolerate” the next one, and so forth.
My gut tells me when oil prices start to rise, only a few will ask the hard questions and the rest will “ride it out.” Only they’re going to be surprised to find there is no more riding. Gas prices will continue upward and when the pain REALLY starts to hurt, only then will you find the general public getting truly involved for the Great Leap Forward.

By: dahcredyns

dahcredyns — Thu, 20 May 2010 19:17:34 +0000

Just today I read a report from a company that specializes in automotive battery applications and they are predicting no more than 1 percent market penetration for pure EVs by 2020. If we hit 10 percent by 2020 I’ll be happily surprised. My guess however is about 3 – 7 percent by 2020, largely dependent upon tax credits and other EV incentives.

Still, I hope you are right, but 20 percent by 2020 seems largely impossible to me. The price of battery supply chain commodities alone would skyrocket if demand went that high that quickly. That could actually increase EV costs even as they scale simply because of demand for rare metals, lithium, copper, etc. at the same time the economy is getting hammered by higher oil prices, which will push the costs of everything higher.

In 2008, for instance, during that energy spike, commodities pricing on many hybrid components started skyrocketing and was beginning to become a major issue until the crash hit.

In such conditions, which would actually be much worse in your scenario, according to the studies so far, consumers would seek to spend less on transportation, particularly up-front costs. I know that sounds almost oxymoronic, but that is what the current research suggests in both the US and Europe.

By: sheckyvegas

sheckyvegas — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:00:26 +0000

We really won’t have a choice but to go EV, once the cheap oil officially runs out. 10% may seem the highest forecast, but I see it going to 20-25% by 2020.
You may have noticed all these EV technologies slowly rising at the same time – smart grid deployments in the US and Europe; rising solar, wind and wave technology; ECOtality’s mass deployment of charging stations in the US, and the same happening in Europe, Asia, and South America; more automobile manufacturers slowly bring hybrid and EV’s to market; etc.
You see, it all has to happen at the same time. No one aspect of this “rising infrastructure” can get ahead of the others, or else the whole shebang gets stymied and stalled.
The major powers of the world are steadily bringing us into the era of EV transportation and alternative fuels. They’re not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, nor are they doing this for strong financial incentives, nor are they doing this because of public opinion. They are doing this because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
Cheap oil is gone. Wave ‘bye-’bye. We got about ten years to get our shit together on this planet and virtually nobody knows about it.

By: dahcredyns

dahcredyns — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:01:54 +0000

I’m not against coal-powered EVs, at least not in the US based on current forecasts. In China, such vehicles could be a pretty bad idea, but I’d need more evidence before making that claim.

At 10 percent penetration in the US I think EVs still could be CO2-reducing – with smart charging of course – but without smart charging, charging costs will make EVs less cost-effective. Thus, I think off-peak charging will be the norm. On the other hand, if 20 or 30 percent penetration could be achieved by 2020, then coal might start becoming a serious problem. I wish we could be having that kind of conversation. Even then I wouldn’t be against coal-powered EVs, but I’d want a more coherent plan as to how coal-powered emissions can be mitigated, especially over time.

Still, as you also point out, 10 percent penetration by 2020 – about the highest forecast out there compared to as low as 1 percent by other forecasters – still achieves very little. The legacy effects of our guzzlers will take decades to offset. That’s why I think Greenpeace has a point. If the plug-in vehicle is the only hope to reducing CO2 emissions and foreign oil dependency then we are 3 – 4 decades away from having a serious impact upon either CO2 or oil dependency.

Can we really wait that long?

That’s not an argument against plug-in vehicles. It’s just proof that we can’t put all our eggs in the EV basket just yet.

By: Zen

Zen — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:44:33 +0000

Generally I would agree with you but as I watch events unfold in the Gulf, maybe coal powered EV’s aren’t such a bad idea. Sadly, at 10% EV penetration, not much will change.