# Is Green Energy and Sustainability a Hoax?



## Alligatorob

I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps.  I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.  

I just watched a Michael Moore produced documentary "Planet of the Humans" that makes the case for it all being hoax.  Now I have never trusted Moore, some of his work is funny, but I always thought he had a strong bias.  However in the documentary I do see a thread of truth.

His theme is that the environmental movement has largely been coopted by big business and politicians in a way that dupes a lot of people.  I suspect some truth to this.  

He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy.  I am sure he gets some things wrong, but I do believe this is something we need to look more closely at.


----------



## Don M.

Alligatorob said:


> I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps.  I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.
> 
> I, too, would like to see a transition to a cleaner environment....however, it seems that present plans are more "corporate" driven than effective.


Solar power is great, in regions where sunshine is abundant.  However, individual homes going "off the grid" can cost $20K, and about the time they break even, the panels and batteries need to be replaced....thus, starting all over.

Methane from cows and pigs creates almost as much greenhouse gas as fossil fuels....should we all become vegetarians?

The addition of Ethanol to gasoline is a Scam, IMO.  The Ethanol reduces fuel mileage, resulting in little or no overall reduction in emissions.  The Only ones benefitting from Ethanol production are the farmers...growing huge crops of corn.  However, the energy consumed in corn production almost negates any benefits.  

The ONLY "theory" I've heard of that makes Long Term Sense might be a transition to Hydrogen power.  Solar power could generate the electricity needed to break water down to its hydrogen/oxygen components, which when burned would return the exhaust to water.  However creating the infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel, and transitioning vehicles to such a fuel would take decades, and probably cost trillions of dollars.  

I doubt that any real progress will be made in the next few decades....meanwhile, the planet will continue to warm, oceans will continue to rise, and we will All feel the results.


----------



## Alligatorob

Don M. said:


> The ONLY "theory" I've heard of that makes Long Term Sense might be a transition to Hydrogen power. Solar power could generate the electricity needed to break water down to its hydrogen/oxygen components, which when burned would return the exhaust to water.


That may make sense, however we would need to do a real honest trade off.  

It takes energy to make and maintain solar cells and hydrogen generation equipment.  Do we really know how much, if any, net energy is saved?  And solar cells on such a large scale will take a lot of space, where will that space come from and what will the environmental impacts of it be?

Right now solar is benefiting from a combination of the feel good thing, and politicians and big business feeding and benefiting from that feel good public support.  We need hard answers, but they will be hard to come by.

I am hoping something like your solar/hydrogen approach will make sense, but am not convinced.


----------



## Jeni

The solar/ wind etc is certainly not producing the amount we are using and each day some gadget and gizmo will need more... 
The sun light ( in some states)  is hardly enough to support those lawn lights etc let alone a household.... the cost of install and maintain it takes decades to break even.   
Many IMO do not see the problems their "solutions" create if we are all to change to electric cars then what? 

States have gone back to create yearly  taxes for electric and hybrid cars to pay for roads as they are not paying those attached to fuels. 

Now as seen below California is trying to scale back incentives to "go Solar" and a hookup charge to pay fro grid maintenance..... $60 a month for just a hook-up to grid even if you were able to produce enough for your own use. 

California's new dilemma: 
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/01/20/big-decision-rooftop-solar-california-off-table-for-now
_The plan slashes, by about 80%, how much residents get paid for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels and proposes steep grid access charges, about $60 a month for a typical solar customer.

It essentially negates most of the financial incentives for homeowners to pay thousands of dollars to add solar panels to their roofs.
The utilities argue it fixes a cost shift where solar owners do not pay their fair share of grid maintenance costs, which are shifted to non-solar customers.
But the solar industry argues that the changes will likely cause demand for rooftop solar to dry up and throw thousands of solar installers out of work.
_


----------



## Aunt Bea

A lot of money will change hands, but I'm not sure that an individual or a single nation will be able to make any real or sustainable progress.

It's a global issue without a global commitment or solution.


----------



## Alligatorob

Jeni said:


> States have gone back to create yearly taxes for electric and hybrid cars to pay for roads as they are not paying those attached to fuels.


You make a good point, historically we have allowed the economy to sort out good ideas from bad.  If a new technology of any kind really makes sense it will be cheaper or better than the alternative and people will buy it.  

Subsidies like not taxing electrical cars for road use skews that process and can lead to energy inefficiency and greater environmental impact.  

I can see some subsidies to help develop new technologies, but that support should be done carefully and not very long term.  Our government has not proven very good at knowing what makes sense.


----------



## Jeni

Alligatorob said:


> You make a good point, historically we have allowed the economy to sort out good ideas from bad.  If a new technology of any kind really makes sense it will be cheaper or better than the alternative and people will buy it.
> 
> Subsidies like not taxing electrical cars for road use skews that process and can lead to energy inefficiency and greater environmental impact.
> 
> I can see some subsidies to help develop new technologies, but that support should be done carefully and not very long term.  Our government has not proven very good at knowing what makes sense.


if people remember the whole Solindra  fiasco .... these alternative energy items have been propped up by tax breaks and grants etc and are not providing as much as was once thought so far .... the idea of we are close if only we had a few more millions of dollars for research .... it might work.
The impact on wildlife and birds in these solar and wind farms is being hushed up as well.


----------



## AnnieA

Alligatorob said:


> He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy.



Not many people consider the astronomical amounts of petroleum products that go into producing solar panels, windmills (esp installation) and the like.  If you've ever seen a windmill farm in development, it's full of heavy equipment.  Windmills also have have a limited lifespan of 20-25 years which is already generating vast piles of discarded turbines that at present cannot be recycled. We need to find a way to produce and install green energy components with green energy factories and equipment as well as increase longevity. 

Green energy components and their longevity issues leads to the next stumbling block which is the use of rare earth minerals in lithium batteries.  At present, we're raping Africa for these...often with the exploitation of small children as workers.  Lithium batteries have a lifespan of appx 10 years so they also become waste. Until we develop better battery tech, we're not doing Earth a huge favor.

The word "nuclear" freaks people out because of the safety issues and waste of conventional nuclear power plants.  However, Generation IV Nuclear technology mitigates most of those issues. Europe is leading the way with Gen IV power plants and I hope they prove to be a viable solution until the kinks are worked out with turbines and battery storage.

.


----------



## Alligatorob

AnnieA said:


> The word "nuclear" freaks people out because of the safety issues and waste of conventional nuclear power plants.


Absolutely, ignoring the waste problem, nuclear is hands down the only currently proven and viable "Green Energy" source.

I believe we can find ways to safely manage the nuclear waste technically.  The problem is we will be leaving behind a long term risk in need of management.  But I think that problem is small compared to things like green house gases and habitat destruction.  I am less sure we can do it politically.


----------



## AnnieA

Alligatorob said:


> Absolutely, ignoring the waste problem, nuclear is hands down the only currently proven and viable "Green Energy" source.
> 
> I believe we can find ways to safely manage the nuclear waste technically.  The problem is we will be leaving behind a long term risk in need of management.  But I think that problem is small compared to things like green house gases and habitat destruction.  I am less sure we can do it politically.



Some Gen IV plants are designed to use waste from earlier tech nuclear plants.   They also produce a smaller amount of waste that is radioactive for several hundred years rather than the thousands of years produced by conventional plants.


----------



## AnnieA

More about Gen IV nuclear tech from Energy.gov

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

Thirteen nations (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States)  plus the EU are currently working together on Gen IV nuclear tech.

https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public

.


----------



## Packerjohn

Alligatorob said:


> I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps.  I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.
> 
> I just watched a Michael Moore produced documentary "Planet of the Humans" that makes the case for it all being hoax.  Now I have never trusted Moore, some of his work is funny, but I always thought he had a strong bias.  However in the documentary I do see a thread of truth.
> 
> His theme is that the environmental movement has largely been coopted by big business and politicians in a way that dupes a lot of people.  I suspect some truth to this.
> 
> He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy.  I am sure he gets some things wrong, but I do believe this is something we need to look more closely at.


Thanks for posting.  I have started watching this film and will finish it this afternoon or tonight.  I have always said that we cannot keep increasing more and more.  I think the planet is doomed.  All that stuff about sustainability and Green Planet is just a bunch of bull.  eg.  Sustainability travel.  There are just too many people.  Trouble is that business people like more and more people because it means more and more money for them.  I can't imagine what the world will be like in 100 years.  Apparently the Americans and Russians have enough nuclear power to kill every living thing on this planet 3 or 4 times over.  Not a very nice thought!


----------



## Alligatorob

AnnieA said:


> More about Gen IV nuclear tech from Energy.gov


Thanks, that is interesting and encouraging.  

I know its old, but I always liked this bumper sticker.


----------



## HoneyNut

Alligatorob said:


> I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps


It would be nice to know the best approach, but on the other hand usually the mis-steps and poor performance of first products improve later, and I don't know how we can advance if we have to achieve a high level of perfection right off the bat.  But I do wish we'd have some sort of trustworthy ROI for turning green, there are a lot of variables.  I was reading (or maybe watching a youtube) that said for a cloth grocery bag to have less impact on the environment than the little plastic grocery bags, a person would need to use the cloth bag 1000 times.   
We have a public power company in the city I live near and they are using a bunch of wind and solar and their rates seem pretty good to me (though that might be more because they are 'public' and not a private company that has to reap tons of profits).
My opinion is that more things need to be public, I've worked my whole career for big private corporations and they just lie and cheat and there is no real oversight.  As far as I can tell, whatever work they get their hands on will be exploited for them to get large gains for the upper management while providing c#@p product.


----------



## 1955

I watched the video and Michael Moore is good at what he does. In my book it’s an attempt to convince you of a problem without having to do your own research and he’s good at convincing you of that. So I’m not willing to accept everything he says on face value and I’m not sure what his agenda is.

That being said we do have a lot of problems but there are a lot of scientist that are working on these. The trick is getting the politicians and big business to do the right thing and this is difficult because there are so many conflicts of interest.

There are key industries that produce most of the CO2 that no one is talking about yet scientist have good solutions that never see the light of day. Two key examples are concrete production & methane (cow farts).

Also, AnnieA has some very good points too.


----------



## jakbird

Don M. said:


> The Only ones benefitting from Ethanol production are the farmers...growing huge crops of corn.  However, the energy consumed in corn production almost negates any benefits.


I asked a corn farmer about ethanol back when I worked for an agricultural company here in Ethanol Central, eastern Nebraska.  Turns out it isn't that great a deal for farmers either.  The best strain of corn for alcohol production is genetically modified seed stock.  The corn doesn't taste as good as natural corn for human consumption, so it's a one customer crop.  Add on that most years commodity contract prices for regular corn are better than grown to purpose ethanol corn, plus the hassles of preventing cross-contamination of regular crops by ethanol plant pollen, and grain elevators don't want to store ethanol corn.  About the only time it works out is a slump in commodity pricing, like a boycott from China (one of the largest buyers of US corn), when regular corn is diverted to alcohol production.  Boycotts don't last long because US corn is the cheapest in the world, and the easiest to ship, as the Chinese found out when they tried to go to Brazil.

The real profiteers are the oil companies who have to meet California standards.  A side effect is cheap gas/ethanol mix here in Nebraska due to all the plants overproducing industrial alcohol (no, it isn't sipping whiskey).  I believe the mixes are 85% (E85) gas, or the more common 92% mix, though no alcohol is also available for better mileage.  Alcohol does lower the combustion temperature in a car engine, a tiny bit less wear and tear, with fewer nasty SOx and NOx byproducts.


----------



## Alligatorob

HoneyNut said:


> It would be nice to know the best approach, but on the other hand usually the mis-steps and poor performance of first products improve later, and I don't know how we can advance if we have to achieve a high level of perfection right off the bat. But I do wish we'd have some sort of trustworthy ROI for turning green, there are a lot of variables.


I agree, and knowing the best approach is particularly difficult.

When trying to develop new technologies and ideas lots of things have to be explored and experimented with for every one that works out.  Probably at least 100 good ideas for every success. 

For that reason I can see subsidizing the exploration of new ideas, problem is knowing when to let go.  When to let the technology sink or swim on its own.  We have many years of experience now with solar, wind, ethanol, etc.  Surely we should be able to make some smart choices about what to let go of. 

By let go when it comes to energy things I mean to stop the subsidies, and see if they can make it in the market unsupported.  Ethanol for example, if it is a good idea there should be no need for the government to require its use.

I would not however trust the government, politicians, or big industry with that decision...  Not sure who that leaves.  But hey, we are smart people we should be able to figure it out.


----------



## David777

There is a lot of manipulative negative media targeting renewable energy.  Ironically in California, those controlling most of the environmental organizations for two decades have been against large scale solar developments, nuclear, and wind. However ordinary people that consider themselves environmentalists and people that actually live in locations solar farms are built, generally do approve such energy sources and even liberal politicians know that.  

Sierra Club has fought against solar farms most everywhere, weakly pointing to habitat destruction, instead promoting urban rooftop solar installations. They point to wind farms killing birds.  Nuclear has waste storage and warm outflow pipe issues. Solar's biggest issue is developing night time energy storage. There are now ways to mitigate all those issues.  And note, the same organizations are against seawater desalination.  Most of their argumentation has some value but tends to exaggerate, point to older negatives and ignores new improved designs and solutions.

The below link shows the vast amount of solar that has come on line in just a few years.  

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


----------



## Lewkat

I've heard friends who lived near wind farms bitterly complain about the noise.  The earth does go through many cycles of warming and freezing.  We do need carbon for life and there simply isn't one solution for all.  Solar power in sunny climes is certainly idea.  My son lives at the Jersey shore and you see solar roofs all over the place.  It's open and flat, so it works well for them.  In hilly and forested areas that simply isn't feasible at all, so nuclear power is a great alternative.  That has some major drawbacks, but if handled correctly, it also works.  My electric company uses it.  Somehow, I still think super conductors using magnetism is not fully explored.  That would be uber expensive to implement, but in the long run would aid in saving energy costs.  Whatever, the argument will no doubt go on ad infinitum.


----------



## jakbird

David777 said:


> Sierra Club has fought against solar farms most everywhere, weakly pointing to habitat destruction


Wastelands are a fragile environment.  Solar farms in eastern Wyoming have severely impacted the habitat of the western horned rabbit, better known as the jackalope.  These majestic animals who once freely roamed the plains are all but extinct due to loss of habitat to solar and wind farms.  I hope organizations such as the Sierra Club will be able to force legislation to provide federal reserves to save an integral part of US heritage.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Great thread which I'll do best to just read and learn from.


----------



## Packerjohn

I watched the entire 100 minutes of the film yesterday and it's certainly educational.  The closing scenes with the poor orangutans climbing the lone tree after all the jungle has been destroyed should be seen by everyone.  I was surprised to learn that battery powered cars and solar panels only last about 10 years and that it takes a lot of energy to make them.  Mos to this energy comes from non renewable energy.  I have a relative who works for the provincial hydro utility and he says that it is impossible to have all the cars being charged each day.  That says a lot since my province has a lot of hydro power.

The problem is this idea of business that we have to keep producing more and more and more.  More people, more cars, more houses, more highways, more airports, more shopping malls, more, more, more.  I think the world is doomed unless the business world and the very few rich are brought into a new way of thinking.  There are just too many people in this world.  Maybe Mr. Putin has a plan to get rid of some of them but then his plan isn't the best because we will all suffer.

Anyway, I wish there were more films like, "The Planet of the Humans" rather than "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Teen Wolf" but maybe most people don't want to think too deeply.


----------



## MountainRa

I realize this thread is referring to active solar energy rather than passive solar energy but wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
 I live in a house designed for passive solar energy. While there are things we’d do differently , I still think, when designing living spaces, it’s best to work with Nature rather than against. 

Obviously some locations are easier to use passive solar than others.  It might be difficult to work around the multi level house next door that blocks your solar gain in winter. Or there are not enough sunny days. Apartments and condos are rarely designed with passive solar in mind.

I was told to think of a passive solar design in percentages. Maybe a house has only 10% passive features. Or 80% passive features. Passive solar applies to landscaping as well. And it’s not just heat you’re looking for from the Sun but light as well.

Passive solar doesn’t have the answers to all our issues in designing spaces economically and sustainable but it’s another tool to consider. If the homeowner does nothing but consider where the Sun will be shining on the east side of the house in December they’ve touched on passive design. 

I’ll admit it’s easy for me to be a proponent of passive solar. I live in the southern USA. Our house is earth bermed on the north. The south  side has a large expanse of windows. The eaves of the house allow winter Sun inside but block the summer Sun from entering. Flooring is designed to store solar gain as is one block wall. We have no neighbors so I don’t worry about covering those South facing windows.

We built our house in the 1980’s and since then there have been more innovations in windows, construction material , etc that make passive solar worth considering. 

I will step off my soap box now!


----------



## David777

Packerjohn said:


> ...  I was surprised to learn that battery powered cars and solar panels only last about 10 years and that it takes a lot of energy to make them.  Mos to this energy comes from non renewable energy...



A great example of how solar and other renewable energy detractors will spew statistics they know are manipulated for their agenda.  Sadly, in this Internet era, it is wise to be suspicious of all manner of news, especially political.   So 10%? Sure in the earliest solar era some were that bad.  How convenient in that 2020 video, not mentioning why they used that number in the video.  

https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/
snippet:

_A 2012 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that, on average, solar panel output falls by _
*0.8 percent each year *_. This rate of decline is called solar panel degradation rate. Though this rate of decline metric will vary depending on which panel brand you buy, premium manufacturers like SunPower offer degradation rates as low as _
*0.3% *_. Solar panel degradation rates are constantly improving as solar panel technology gets better over the years, and degradation rates below 1% are common throughout the industry. In the years since this 2012 study was conducted, more efficient technologies have been developed and many newer panels have just a 0.5 percent yearly decline in energy output (or better!).

What does panel degradation rate mean exactly? For the above example, a 0.8% degradation rate means that in year two, your panels will operate at 99.2 percent of their original output; by the end of their 25-year “useful lifespan,” they will still be operating at _*82.5%. *_A slightly more durable panel with a degradation rate of 0.5% will likely produce around 87.5% as much electricity as it did when it was first installed. To determine the projected output of your solar panels after a certain number of years, you can simply multiply the degradation rate by the number of years you are interested in and subtract that number from 100%._


----------



## Alligatorob

MountainRa said:


> Our house is earth bermed on the north. The south side has a large expanse of windows. The eaves of the house allow winter Sun inside but block the summer Sun from entering. Flooring is designed to store solar gain as is one block wall.


That is impressive, wish my house was something like that.


----------



## Alligatorob

David777 said:


> A great example of how solar and other renewable energy detractors will spew statistics they know are manipulated for their agenda. Sadly, in this Internet era, it is wise to be suspicious of all manner of news, especially political.


That is a real problem, and the Michael Moore film is certainly guilty of some of that.

It seems to me the best way to see how real solar, or any other energy source, is would be to let the market sort it out.  If solar can indeed compete there should be no need for government subsidies and involvement.  Except perhaps on the regulatory side.  


David777 said:


> study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)


NREL is part of the DOE lab system, and I do have some familiarity with them.  DOE labs are government labs supported primarily by government money.  The system dates back to the Manhattan program that developed atomic weapons.  

DOE labs do have some very good people, and they have done some good work.  However they are first and foremost a government bureaucracy who's primary goal is always getting more money.  So they strive to continue researching issues, sometimes long past the reasonable end.  Just like all other information sources you have to recognize the bias.


----------



## Jeni

Alligatorob said:


> DOE labs do have some very good people, and they have done some good work. However they are first and foremost a government bureaucracy who's primary goal is always getting more money. So they strive to continue researching issues, sometimes long past the reasonable end. Just like all other information sources you have to recognize the bias.


I see research for no real results but to justify continued research...... is often to keep money flowing..... 
Big money in "research" these days.


----------



## 1955

Convenience & one-time use are the bane in our society. Industry bends over backwards to this end and I see no end in sight. Reminds me of the WALL-E movie.


----------



## AnnieA

1955 said:


> Convenience & one-time use are the bane in our society. Industry bends over backwards to this end and I see no end in sight.



We're definitely part of a consumers' house of cards.   I think....to a lot of people that hold the most power in this world regardless of their ideological shellacking...that our consumption is now the primary value of humans.


----------



## Alligatorob

jakbird said:


> Solar farms in eastern Wyoming have severely impacted the habitat of the western horned rabbit, better known as the jackalope. These majestic animals who once freely roamed the plains are all but extinct due to loss of habitat to solar and wind farms.


Sad indeed!  To think the jackalope once roamed by the thousands from horizon to horizon.

... or was that buffalo?


----------



## Jeni

jakbird said:


> Wastelands are a fragile environment.  Solar farms in eastern Wyoming have severely impacted the habitat of the western horned rabbit, better known as the jackalope.  These majestic animals who once freely roamed the plains are all but extinct due to loss of habitat to solar and wind farms.  I hope organizations such as the Sierra Club will be able to force legislation to provide federal reserves to save an integral part of US heritage.


 I saw a documentary on a huge solar farm think it is at California/ Arizona border and the heat off all the panels etc instantly incinerate any bird that flies by.


----------



## Capt Lightning

I often  see energy companies claiming to supply 100% 'Green' energy.  This is strange, because we're all supplied from the same grid and the electricity it supplies comes from a whole range of sources.   What they really mean is that they pay a 'green' producer for X amount of electricity, and then charge their customers according for how much power they use - no matter who produced it.  I suppose it gives people a 'warm' feeling to think they're being environmentally friendly.


----------



## Murrmurr

I'm convinced we have a serious environmental problem but I'm also convinced the government lacks the willingness and motivation to make a real difference.

For example, most of your recycling doesn't actually get recycled.


----------



## SeniorBen

Don M. said:


> Solar power is great, in regions where sunshine is abundant.  However, individual homes going "off the grid" can cost $20K, and about the time they break even, the panels and batteries need to be replaced....thus, starting all over.
> 
> Methane from cows and pigs creates almost as much greenhouse gas as fossil fuels....should we all become vegetarians?
> 
> The addition of Ethanol to gasoline is a Scam, IMO.  The Ethanol reduces fuel mileage, resulting in little or no overall reduction in emissions.  The Only ones benefitting from Ethanol production are the farmers...growing huge crops of corn.  However, the energy consumed in corn production almost negates any benefits.
> 
> The ONLY "theory" I've heard of that makes Long Term Sense might be a transition to Hydrogen power.  Solar power could generate the electricity needed to break water down to its hydrogen/oxygen components, which when burned would return the exhaust to water.  However creating the infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel, and transitioning vehicles to such a fuel would take decades, and probably cost trillions of dollars.
> 
> I doubt that any real progress will be made in the next few decades....meanwhile, the planet will continue to warm, oceans will continue to rise, and we will All feel the results.


With hydrogen fuel, wouldn't putting all that water vapor, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere contribute to anthropogenic climate change? Plus storing hydrogen might be dangerous. If someone was to get into a serious car crash with a tank of hydrogen on board, that could create quite an explosion.


----------



## Don M.

SeniorBen said:


> With hydrogen fuel, wouldn't putting all that water vapor, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere contribute to anthropogenic climate change? Plus storing hydrogen might be dangerous. If someone was to get into a serious car crash with a tank of hydrogen on board, that could create quite an explosion.


Any water vapor coming from such an exhaust would likely be like a bit of steam or fog.  It might raise the humidity, and cause more frequent rains....which would be a good thing in the Western US., but it would certainly be far less damaging to the environment than any other fuel sources.   

Yes, it might be dangerous in a major collision....depending upon how the fuel tank was built and located.  But then, even gas and diesel can cause major fires/explosions in a wreck.  

At any rate, current technology and plans to replace fossil fuels are mostly "speculation", and would require massive infrastructure investments, etc., to become reality....and decades to fully accomplish.  

The current "plans" to transition to EV's are quite "optimistic", IMO.  EV's would be practical if/when they have a range of 250+ miles, and can be recharged in just a few minutes.  And, we would need half a million charging stations, to avoid dozens of vehicles waiting in line to recharge.  Then, we would need a lot more electric generating resources....wind, solar, nuclear, etc., to provide the increased electrical demand.  

Then, too, most EV's seem to be powered from Lithium batteries....most of which seems to be supplied by China....another thing that would put us as the mercy of that regime....unless there is some huge resource of that element in the U.S. that is Not being mined.  And, apparently Lithium batteries have their own "risk" of overheating and burning...everything from Tesla's to laptop PC's.   

Bottom line, IMO...EV's are great, but we are a LONG way from such a transition.


----------



## SeniorBen

Don M. said:


> The current "plans" to transition to EV's are quite "optimistic", IMO.  EV's would be practical if/when they have a range of 250+ miles, and can be recharged in just a few minutes.  And, we would need half a million charging stations, to avoid dozens of vehicles waiting in line to recharge.  Then, we would need a lot more electric generating resources....wind, solar, nuclear, etc., to provide the increased electrical demand.


One possible solution for the charging time problem is, rather than wait for your battery to be charged, it would simply be swapped out with one that's fully charged. An attendant might be needed to swap out the battery since they're heavy, although it definitely could be automated. Theoretically, it could be like these Blue Rhino propane tank exchanges, only instead of exchanging an empty tank, you'd exchange your battery.


----------



## Don M.

SeniorBen said:


> One possible solution for the charging time problem is, rather than wait for your battery to be charged, it would simply be swapped out with one that's fully charged. An attendant might be needed to swap out the battery since they're heavy, although it definitely could be automated. Theoretically, it could be like these Blue Rhino propane tank exchanges, only instead of exchanging an empty tank, you'd exchange your battery.



Yes swapping the batteries would be an option....IF all cars used the same battery, and there wasn't a mile long line of cars waiting to be swapped.  Plus, the labor/recycling charges involved with a "swap" would probably drive the cost of driving sky high.  

The government has issued a mandate that vehicles sold after 2025 need to get 40 mpg,  That should pretty much eliminate most models being sold today....IF they can make that the rule.  That will turn auto production upside down....no more large SUV's and pickups, etc.???

The Only vehicles that maeke sense, anymore, with these upcoming rules, might by a small hybrid car/SUV...where a small gas engine can continue to recharge the battery while driving.  However, these vehicles carry a pretty hefty price, IF you can find one on the dealers lots.  It's almost going to be that many people may need to take out a 2nd mortgage to be able to afford a new car.


----------



## SeniorBen

Don M. said:


> The government has issued a mandate that vehicles sold after 2025 need to get 40 mpg,  That should pretty much eliminate most models being sold today....IF they can make that the rule.  That will turn auto production upside down....no more large SUV's and pickups, etc.???


No, not all vehicles must get 40 mpg; new vehicles, overall, must _average _40 mpg. So for every gas guzzler that comes off the assembly line, manufacturers need to produce an energy efficient vehicle so the average is 40 mpg. That's doable. 

Once the price of batteries comes down a little further, an EV should cost less than it's internal combustion engine counterpart since there are a hell of a lot fewer parts in an EV. But, like the CD when it replaced vinyl, the price was higher even though it cost less to manufacture. Corporations will gouge us simply because it's new technology.


----------



## Alligatorob

Murrmurr said:


> I'm convinced we have a serious environmental problem but I'm also convinced the government lacks the willingness and motivation to make a real difference.


You know that is really us, we elect the government's leaders.  We get what we deserve.


SeniorBen said:


> One possible solution for the charging time problem is, rather than wait for your battery to be charged, it would simply be swapped out with one that's fully charged.


Unless battery/recharge technology changes drastically I think that is the only way EVs will ever go mainstream.  Is anyone working on it?


----------



## Timewise 60+

jakbird said:


> Wastelands are a fragile environment.  Solar farms in eastern Wyoming have severely impacted the habitat of the western horned rabbit, better known as the jackalope.  These majestic animals who once freely roamed the plains are all but extinct due to loss of habitat to solar and wind farms.  I hope organizations such as the Sierra Club will be able to force legislation to provide federal reserves to save an integral part of US heritage.



Jackbird, you cannot fool and old fool, like myself!  Those Jackalopes are caused by those A-bombs they lit off back in the late 40's and early 50's...

I used to see a lot of 'stuffed Jackalopes' in western stores up in the mountains of Colorado.  The 'old timers' told me all about them and how they migrated up into the mountains....that's why they all died, it is to darn cold in the high mountains for them to survive.

Yep, I am not fooled.....at all!


----------



## Timewise 60+

The more you research on global warming, the more you begin to question if it this is a lie.  I believe the data has been manipulated, multiple times.  Peer review, nothing yet that I accept as a true review of an original experiment.

When I research the primary energy sources considered as possible replacements for current energy sources, I can find nothing that is not currently problematic, as noted in many posts above.  Only through advances in technology will any of these prove to be viable.  But as long our government subsidizes these energy sources (Solar, Wind, etc.), you can bet that few new dramatic advances will be developed.  That is not how a Free Market works, it works when government stays out of it...think about it!


----------



## AnnieA

Alligatorob said:


> Unless battery/recharge technology changes drastically I think that is the only way EVs will ever go mainstream.  Is anyone working on it?



OmGosh, yes, they are and I'd love to have a crystal ball to predict who will get there first.  Talk about earning millions on a dollar invested...  

Currently, lithium battery tech isn't what I'd call truly sustainable due to the 10ish year lifespan and the need for rare earth minerals.


----------



## Don M.

SeniorBen said:


> No, not all vehicles must get 40 mpg; new vehicles, overall, must _average _40 mpg. So for every gas guzzler that comes off the assembly line, manufacturers need to produce an energy efficient vehicle so the average is 40 mpg. That's doable.
> 
> Once the price of batteries comes down a little further, an EV should cost less than it's internal combustion engine counterpart since there are a hell of a lot fewer parts in an EV. But, like the CD when it replaced vinyl, the price was higher even though it cost less to manufacture. Corporations will gouge us simply because it's new technology.



In order to achieve a 40MPG average in just a few years, the automakers would have to turn out millions of downsized Mini-Coopers...and convince customers to buy those little things.  

Yes, EV's should be cheaper to produce, due to far fewer parts, but the hassle of recharging will remain an issue unless a means can be found to do so quickly.  

Even if a major share of the vehicles were EV, we still have the issue with electrical generating capacity to charge millions of vehicles daily.  Some parts of the country have so little excess generating capacity that any "glitch" in the system quickly puts many households into Blackout.  The Texas outages, last Winter, and the ongoing scattered outages in California clearly show that there is little or no "backup".  

At present, I have NO desire to change vehicles, but if I did, I would ONLY consider a hybrid.  I often look at some dealer web sites, and those vehicles sell out faster than houses in todays real estate market....and usually for a premium price well above "sticker".


----------



## squatting dog

Interesting thread, so I started looking up battery replacement cost for these green vehicles. Here's what I found  for just a few models so far...

The average cost for a Honda Insight hybrid high voltage battery replacement is between $3,030 and $3,101. Labor costs are estimated between $270 and $341 

Replacing a Toyota Prius battery will usually cost between $2200 and $4100. Depending on labor costs, the price may be even higher.

The current list price of a Chevy Bolt EV HV battery pack is $15,734.29   

16 kWh Chevy Volt batteries cost ~$4,000 to replace,

Nissan Leaf The 30 kWh pack prices range from $3,500 to $4,500, while 40 kWh packs vary from $6,500 to $7,500. However,Getting a 62 kWh battery pack to increase driving distance demands $8,500 up to $9,500.
If could be worse... if you're in the virgin Islands, and need a battery pack replacement, Nissan will charge 
you $35,636.36 for a new one. 

So, for me..................


----------



## SeniorBen

I'm replacing my internal combustion engine powered lawnmower with one powered with an electric motor. Just a few years ago, that would have been prohibitively expensive. Electric lawnmowers are now fairly reasonably priced due to advances in battery technology and competition. Many tool manufacturers are now manufacturing lawn mowers along with traditional lawn equipment manufacturers.

As more companies enter the automobile market and technology continues to advance, prices will continue to come down. Many are already available for under $40k and there are a few for under $30k, so they're not all that much more than a gas powered vehicle.

One of the things I'm looking forward to with an electric lawnmower is, there's no oil to change and no gas needed (ok, that's two things). And they're quiet! I'll be able to listen to audiobooks while mowing the lawn!


----------



## squatting dog

Seems to me that we could spend more time and money perfecting the internal combustion engine. No matter what you call it, oil is actually the most renewable source on the planet. If anyone still thinks that today's oil came from dead and decaying dinosaurs, then
My argument is all things decaying in the earth create oil, therefore, oil is always going to be renewable. 
I would think that given the proper incentive, automobile engines could be improved not only mileage wise, but, emission wise also.


----------



## Alligatorob

squatting dog said:


> Seems to me that we could spend more time and money perfecting the internal combustion engine.


I can see some logic to that.  So long as we burn hydrocarbons the internal combustion engine will be with us.  And burning them directly to create energy is probably more efficient that burning them in power plants and converting to electric.  It would be interesting to see an honest analysis of that.

Until we are able to replace hydrocarbons, and I don't see that happening anytime soon, we need to do the best with what we have.


squatting dog said:


> oil is always going to be renewable.


True, but I believe we are burning it a lot faster than it's being "renewed".  

The thing that will keep us going is that we have only scratched the surface of available hydrocarbons.  So far our technology for figuring out how to get more and more out of the earth has kept pace with demand.  I suspect that will continue, at least until a competitive alternative arises.


----------



## Don M.

squatting dog said:


> I would think that given the proper incentive, automobile engines could be improved not only mileage wise, but, emission wise also.
> 
> I tend to agree.  Engines are much more efficient than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and some of the small turbo charged engines today give excellent mileage without sacrificing much power.
> 
> We certainly need to transition away from fossil fuels, but so much of what we are seeing today is little more than "knee jerk" attempts without considering long term implications, IMO.
> 
> EV's are certainly more environmentally friendly, but without the infrastructure to support them, and batteries that cost thousands of dollars to replace, they could easily cost the consumers more than they are worth.


----------



## Aunt Bea

squatting dog said:


> Seems to me that we could spend more time and money perfecting the internal combustion engine. No matter what you call it, oil is actually the most renewable source on the planet. If anyone still thinks that today's oil came from dead and decaying dinosaurs, then
> My argument is all things decaying in the earth create oil, therefore, oil is always going to be renewable.
> I would think that given the proper incentive, automobile engines could be improved not only mileage wise, but, emission wise also.


I think it should be one of many options.

IMO the government shouldn't be picking the winners and losers.

The government should be setting goals and encouraging innovation that allows manufacturers to come up with cost-effective solutions.

I think this could be a serious option for short commutes.

Maybe a school bus?


----------



## squatting dog

There is another major problem with wind power that seems to get lost in the shuffle. (Green? my uncle's butt). Seems that are just getting tossed in a landfill... In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under. “The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” said Bob Cappadona, chief operating officer for the North American unit of Paris-based Veolia Environnement SA, which is searching for better ways to deal with the massive waste. “Most landfills are considered a dry tomb.” 
More here;
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...ling-up-in-landfills?utm_source=pocket-newtab


----------



## Nathan

> Is Green Energy and Sustainability a Hoax?



No.  There's always the hustlers and naysayers, but in the long run alternative energy sources are going to be an important part of mankind's future.  "Sustainability" has become a buzz word, but it has real life relevance, if something is *un*-sustainable then it cannot continue without degradation or some kind of depletion.


----------



## ElCastor

Out here in California we have devised two "Green" ways to kill birds by the tens of thousands. In the Bay Area's Altamonte Pass we chop them up with wind turbines, and in the Mojave Desert they are incinerated with focused beams of light in a solar farm. There is always a new method that is going to stop the slaughter, but the slaughter continues, if on a somewhat smaller scale.

But there is a real possibility of a clean non-polluting solution that is making the news, nuclear fusion.

"Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633

"Nuclear fusion just made a massive leap towards energy generation"
https://thenextweb.com/news/nuclear-massive-leap-towards-energy-generation


----------



## Don M.

ElCastor said:


> But there is a real possibility of a clean non-polluting solution that is making the news, nuclear fusion.
> 
> "Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy"
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633
> 
> "Nuclear fusion just made a massive leap towards energy generation"
> https://thenextweb.com/news/nuclear-massive-leap-towards-energy-generation


That's for Sure!  If/When Nuclear Fusion can become a reality, we would have a virtually unlimited supply of electricity with little or no pollution.  

However, "delivering" that electricity is increasingly becoming problematic as our ancient infrastructure is failing more and more, every year.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/storms-batter-aging-power-grid-030809555.html

If we are ever going to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to begin investing huge amounts of time and money into supporting such a transition....and the steps being taken today are miniscule compared to what will ultimately be needed.


----------



## squatting dog

Don M. said:


> That's for Sure!  If/When Nuclear Fusion can become a reality, we would have a virtually unlimited supply of electricity with little or no pollution.
> 
> However, "delivering" that electricity is increasingly becoming problematic as our ancient infrastructure is failing more and more, every year.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/storms-batter-aging-power-grid-030809555.html
> 
> If we are ever going to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to begin investing huge amounts of time and money into supporting such a transition....and the steps being taken today are miniscule compared to what will ultimately be needed.


If they ever perfect Nuclear Fusion, I hope they would return to Tesla's original idea. With today's technology, I'm certain they could solve any problems transmitting  it.
In the year 1891, Serbian-American inventor Nikola Tesla designed the Tesla coil, a unique device that worked on the principle of electrical resonance, and was able to transmit electricity without wires. However, the coil could conduct electricity wirelessly over short distances only, and due to its limited potential, it didn’t turn out to be a practical application for wireless electricity transfer.


----------



## squatting dog

I'm curious if anything came of the wireless energy experiment in New Zealand back in 2021.
Energy startup Emrod will soon test a prototype   wireless energy infrastructure setup in New Zealand. If the test is successful, this would be a great push to the New Zealand government’s plans for setting up wireless energy transmission throughout the country.


----------

