I thought Ford was done with a small EV pickup? [⚠️ ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[Snox801]

The charge time is better in some EVs but the charge time is really only an issue on a road trip. If you have a single family home a 240v plug will charge it, depending on the charger, will charge it while you sleep. Quicker is better but on the occasional road trip i take after 5.5 hours or more of driving I'm ok with a 20 minute bladder discharge and snack. If you drive as much as you maybe a different story.

I’d be curious if it would make more or less sense for me to go natural gas or ev. I can get NG crazy cheap. The pump would replace the charger at home takes a few hours to fill. And is very clean compared to an ev in my area. All our power is cola at the moment.
Plus we have two stations that fill NG faster than regular.
I was very tempted to go that route about two years back or so.

Sponsored

 

[Gonzo chris]

I’d be curious if it would make more or less sense for me to go natural gas or ev. I can get NG crazy cheap. The pump would replace the charger at home takes a few hours to fill. And is very clean compared to an ev in my area. All our power is cola at the moment.
Plus we have two stations that fill NG faster than regular.
I was very tempted to go that route about two years back or so.

NG does burn cleaner

 

[Snox801]

I was listening to reports today on how most ev’s in areas where coal is burned to produce power are actually more dirty than gas counterparts. When factoring in production. I could see that but man we have so much Ng in the this country we could switch them all over. Or of course use the real answer in nuclear. Then we would all have more electricity than we need and it would be clean

 

[Snox801]

Well that's why I say it's about balance. You don't want to take away all the profits. That would be ridiculous. The reality is corporations in the United States have more money than they have ever had sucked away. When they get a tax break they just do stock buybacks and, as I would expect them to and I don't blame them, they try to pay people as little as possible. Possible. That's why you need to counterbalance of some sort of bargaining or labor laws. The average worker doesn't have the leverage and the average person is exactly that average.
I thought the contract raised wages by 25% over 4 years. Either way, the average worker is exactly that average. This is why when we ran this experiment in the early days of the industrial revolution, we ended up with a very small percentage of carnegies and Vanderbilt's and the vast majority of people work their asses off 60 hours or more a week and lived in basically abject poverty. Nobody is saying that, at least nobody reasonable, that someone at Starbucks should make executive pay. But guess what? What? I dropped out of college for my job and I'm making $100,000 a year at this point. Of course. I've been working here 34 years and I have gotten a good bit of education in my job that's specific to it.
I don't live like a doctor either. By the way, my wife works with doctors and the one doctor currently lives in a house worth 1.2 million. Little bit more than mine lol. But again it is about balance. Once we did get some of a labor movement in the United States, we went from having a small percentage of wealthy and most people being poor to having a decent middle class. That middle class has declined right along with the labor movement. Then corporate propaganda then takes the people who have lost out and point at the few ,Union workers perhaps, who still have it a little better than them and say " why do those slugs deserve more than you!" As they jet off to their chateau somewhere......

I just don’t believe anyone should be involved in wages beside the two parties. Employers and employees. The fact that in the past few years the government or unions have not needed to step in. Companies were and still are competing for workers. One could argue that that even better and has lead to very good deals for employees.
I believe it to hard for a government or body to be fair. Government could and does pick winners and losers. Which I don’t believe they should. But I may be wrong with the mass influx of illegals the companies are back in the drivers seat.

 

[Gonzo chris]

I was listening to reports today on how most ev’s in areas where coal is burned to produce power are actually more dirty than gas counterparts. When factoring in production. I could see that but man we have so much Ng in the this country we could switch them all over. Or of course use the real answer in nuclear. Then we would all have more electricity than we need and it would be clean

Actually even with coal producing the electricity an EV is cleaner over its lifetime, it'll just take more mileage to overcome the higher emissions to build the EV. Also coal is declining, last year renewables actually made up more of the US electrical grid than coal for the first time, 21% vs 19% coal. Nuclear was also 19% so 40% was clean. NG is a lot cleaner and more prevalent than coal as well

 

[Snox801]

Man I’m not sold on the wind and solar but nuke and hydro I think are the way to go. I think that would eliminate a lot of concerns from people.

 

[The Real Maverick]

Man I’m not sold on the wind and solar but nuke and hydro I think are the way to go. I think that would eliminate a lot of concerns from people.

There's not many places that can do big scale hydro. And about 90% of the capacity is already built out.

Windmills are a pretty decent option. You only need about 9 mph to turn those 2 and 3 megawatt units. What you really need is space. I've been to all 50 states and half of Canada. It's mostly empty space out there. Transmission is the challenge to move the power to populated areas.

California has some days, just a few, usually in the Spring and Fall when heating and cooling are both at minimums, where during mid-day 100% of the grid is renewable energy.

It's a start. Also Iowa makes more ethanol in a year than the entire state's yearly consumption of gasoline and diesel. Again, it's a start.

It will take a variety of precesses. One single solution won't work anywhere.

 

[Snox801]

There's not many places that can do big scale hydro. And about 90% of the capacity is already built out.

Windmills are a pretty decent option. You only need about 9 mph to turn those 2 and 3 megawatt units. What you really need is space. I've been to all 50 states and half of Canada. It's mostly empty space out there. Transmission is the challenge to move the power to populated areas.

California has some days, just a few, usually in the Spring and Fall when heating and cooling are both at minimums, where during mid-day 100% of the grid is renewable energy.

It's a start. Also Iowa makes more ethanol in a year than the entire state's yearly consumption of gasoline and diesel. Again, it's a start.

It will take a variety of precesses. One single solution won't work anywhere.

Nuclear will. I would want nothing to do with Ca power grid and should never be pointed to for example. They have massive rolling blacks outs and are constantly out. Those outages cause deaths. Quite a few deaths. I can’t accept any death when it could easily be avoided for the most part with fossil fuel or nuclear. The last major outage that caused deaths from heat wave in Ca. Even newson went on and explained that it was because the renewable grid. His explanation was because of the draught they had less capability to produce hydro power because the reshoots were low. So during 100 degree heat they had blackouts.
That simply to me is disgusting. Being stuck so heavily on being green that you are willing to accept that and the consequences is disturbing. Can this happen with normal grid yes but far far less. And if the government would approve more power plant and nuclear ones we would be far better off.
That seems better than the current idea some deaths are acceptable now to save some down the road. That all assumes that we are at all able to affect climate down the road.

 

[MaverickEVwouldBeNice]

Nuclear will. I would want nothing to do with Ca power grid and should never be pointed to for example. They have massive rolling blacks outs and are constantly out. Those outages cause deaths. Quite a few deaths. I can’t accept any death when it could easily be avoided for the most part with fossil fuel or nuclear. The last major outage that caused deaths from heat wave in Ca. Even newson went on and explained that it was because the renewable grid. His explanation was because of the draught they had less capability to produce hydro power because the reshoots were low. So during 100 degree heat they had blackouts.
That simply to me is disgusting. Being stuck so heavily on being green that you are willing to accept that and the consequences is disturbing. Can this happen with normal grid yes but far far less. And if the government would approve more power plant and nuclear ones we would be far better off.
That seems better than the current idea some deaths are acceptable now to save some down the road. That all assumes that we are at all able to affect climate down the road.

Irony is dead

The use of fossil fuels and its associated pollution is unarguably responsible for millions of deaths annually worldwide.

Transitioning the US grid to clean alternatives can save 50,000 lives annually.

I am not saying that your data is incorrect. Unfortunately people died during those heatwaves. As they do in many places that are not named California, every year.

I am saying you are directing your ire in the wrong direction.

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...es-that-clean-energy-could-save-by-u-s-state/

 

[The Real Maverick]

Nuclear will. I would want nothing to do with Ca power grid and should never be pointed to for example. They have massive rolling blacks outs and are constantly out. Those outages cause deaths. Quite a few deaths. I can’t accept any death when it could easily be avoided for the most part with fossil fuel or nuclear. The last major outage that caused deaths from heat wave in Ca. Even newson went on and explained that it was because the renewable grid. His explanation was because of the draught they had less capability to produce hydro power because the reshoots were low. So during 100 degree heat they had blackouts.
That simply to me is disgusting. Being stuck so heavily on being green that you are willing to accept that and the consequences is disturbing. Can this happen with normal grid yes but far far less. And if the government would approve more power plant and nuclear ones we would be far better off.
That seems better than the current idea some deaths are acceptable now to save some down the road. That all assumes that we are at all able to affect climate down the road.

Except your post is not real(ality).

One "brown out" affecting 1% of the population for 30 minutes in 2006.

One "brown out" affecting 1% of the population for 30 minutes in 2020.

Not good at fact checking are you?

They do say "be prepared" for them, but they rarely RARELY occur.
Less often than tornados, hurricanes, blizzards.


Have fun in your bunker.

 

[Gonzo chris]

Nuclear will. I would want nothing to do with Ca power grid and should never be pointed to for example. They have massive rolling blacks outs and are constantly out. Those outages cause deaths. Quite a few deaths. I can’t accept any death when it could easily be avoided for the most part with fossil fuel or nuclear. The last major outage that caused deaths from heat wave in Ca. Even newson went on and explained that it was because the renewable grid. His explanation was because of the draught they had less capability to produce hydro power because the reshoots were low. So during 100 degree heat they had blackouts.
That simply to me is disgusting. Being stuck so heavily on being green that you are willing to accept that and the consequences is disturbing. Can this happen with normal grid yes but far far less. And if the government would approve more power plant and nuclear ones we would be far better off.
That seems better than the current idea some deaths are acceptable now to save some down the road. That all assumes that we are at all able to affect climate down the road.

The massive failure of the grid in Texas had nothing to do with renewables, the plants themselves failed as they were not equipped for that weather. Neither was the grid. Since then Texas has gonevery big on wind. They're the largest wind powered state in the United States. The failures of the grid in California have nothing to do with solar or wind power and everything to do with too much regulation, forest fires taking out transmission lines and transmission lines starting fires. You're arguing for hydro, but a lack of hydro is one of the problems they had in California. They didn't have a lack of sun. They also have a lot of people who don't want to spend any money fixing up infrastructure like the grid or building anything near where they live. Renewables make the grid more robust as every rooftop with solar is a power generator and many homes now have battery backup to go with their solar. I know one guy who can run his house for almost 3 days when the power is out just on his batteries. They charge generally during the day, obviously more when it's sunny, and he runs his house off of them overnight regularly. Regularly. This doesn't mean he doesn't pull any power from the grid ever, but think about how much less demand there is on the power plant. Utilities have also started retiring coal and installing battery storage. I forget where it was. I think Indiana they shut down a coal plant like 10 years earlier than planned because it was so much cheaper to put solar up and have battery backup. You can still have power plants If needed, they just use a lot less of whatever they burn to run. Your conserving the resources for the future. That way. They are simply engineering challenges. There is no way that a thousand years from now humans are going to be driving the same kinds of vehicles or generating electricity the same way. They didn't get it right 80 years ago for eternity. This is the same country that went from the Wright brothers to being on the moon in less than 70 years.

 

[Gonzo chris]

Man I’m not sold on the wind and solar but nuke and hydro I think are the way to go. I think that would eliminate a lot of concerns from people.

Technically the sun is nuclear. But there is a place for nuclear power, especially now that they can make it a bit safer. But if you just look at the history, there are concerns regarding that as well. Chernobyl, Fukishima, I live east of Three Mile Island, etc. hydro is difficult because you have to flood areas out and if it's in a highly developed area that means getting rid of people's houses. Highly developed areas are where you need electricity. Also. Yes you can do a Hoover dam type thing and running long transmission lines but then if they go down then power is lost. One of the beauties of solar is if it's residential rooftop the power is being generated right where it is used. I don't have it yet, I will admit I have a fundamental hesitation putting holes in a brand new roof, but I do like that sunflower solar thing I saw on this old house a few years back. If you have the yard space for it, they plant a column into the ground and multiple solar panels are mounted like the pedals on a flower and they automatically turned to face the sun in a 90° angle to maximize power generation and it is run to your house through underground conduit. Pretty cool. Also, do you have to factor in the efficiency of solar panels is going up every year and unfortunately this seems to be another industry that the old industries in the west are willing to give to China. At least until recently we have started finally correcting that a bit and making them here more. That's one area where I have a bit of a difference of opinion on the government picking winners and losers. In a perfect world where we weren't competing internationally and there wasn't massive amounts of money needed to make a shift or transition, I would agree but left to its own devices. The market would have us just burning coal and pumping it into the air while other nations take over entire areas of technology and economics. Sometimes the market needs to be steered in my opinion. I understand people who have a fundamental dislike for that and it's not my preference but the world's more complicated today. It's like the highway system, if we just let it grow organically with private companies making their own toll roads it would be a nightmare.
California's blackouts was almost entirely about transmission line failures. Most of their power is generated from natural gas.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/case-study-california-blackouts/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...ckouts-power-grid/story?id=89460998#cobssid=s

 

[dalola]

For those interested in educating themselves on the US electrical grid, and it's relationship/challenges with various sources of fuel, and to some extent, even some of the global energy challenges we are currently facing, as it relates to electrical generation, read as much as you care to from a guy known as the "Planning Engineer", Russ Schussler. I've found his insights to be fascinating, and on-point.

 

[dalola]

Technically the sun is nuclear.

No, the sun is based on "fusion" technology. Nuclear is "fission" based.....completely different processes.

If (when) we can harness "fusion" based energy, our world will have one less problem to solve. It's coming along, with some scale already happening. This is true "planet/humanity saving" technology. It's a shame (and telling) government/media choose to mostly ignore the subject.

 

[Snox801]

Irony is dead

The use of fossil fuels and its associated pollution is unarguably responsible for millions of deaths annually worldwide.

Transitioning the US grid to clean alternatives can save 50,000 lives annually.

I am not saying that your data is incorrect. Unfortunately people died during those heatwaves. As they do in many places that are not named California, every year.

I am saying you are directing your ire in the wrong direction.

https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/...es-that-clean-energy-could-save-by-u-s-state/

That same fuel is also the main reason civilization has exploded and we live lives we never could without it.
Vastly more people are around than before fossil fuels.
So wait your resources are take and Harvard. Ya I’ll believe those in a hurry. Since they can’t seem to go 5 min without someone in the administration getting caught for you known “cheating”
Simply no way to argue that fossil fuels are a net good. Do they pollute sure but as we find better ways to do it it comes along. It’s the best we have now.

Sponsored