New range of plug-in hybrids from Volvo and Saab

[Roadie]

      Think of all the heat your car generates. Heat out the exhaust,
heat out the radiator, heat from friction, heat from braking...that is
all wasted energy. Stationary power plants waste much less fuel as lost
heat (often recovering it as cogenerated steam), and transmission losses
are only about 10%. Cars have to run under all kinds of less than
optimal conditions, while power plants can run at close to maximum
efficiency just about all the time. It adds up.

(...)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Burning fossil fuel at a remote plant to generate electricity which is
then transmitted long distaances by grid does not strike me as a
particularly Eco Friendly or Green substitute for buring fossil fuel
locally.

 

[mjc13]

Burning fossil fuel at a remote plant to generate electricity which is
then transmitted long distaances by grid does not strike me as a
particularly Eco Friendly or Green substitute for buring fossil fuel
locally.

That's because you aren't recognizing how much more efficiently the
power plant uses the fuel.

 

[Roadie]

    That's because you aren't recognizing how much more efficiently the
power plant uses the fuel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Coal fired power plants are the most common and are not exactly an eco-
friendly source of power given the immense amount of air-borne mercury
and other pollutants that they create.

 

[mjc13]

Coal fired power plants are the most common and are not exactly an eco-
friendly source of power given the immense amount of air-borne mercury
and other pollutants that they create.

Note where, much earlier, I wrote that the benefit from using
coal-derived electricity is much smaller. It isn't hard to find out how
your power is generated, and most places you can 'sponsor' alternative
power in the amount you use.

 

[Roadie]

    Note where, much earlier, I wrote that the benefit from using
coal-derived electricity is much smaller. It isn't hard to find out how
your power is generated, and most places you can 'sponsor' alternative
power in the amount you use.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no net benefit to converting energy from one source to
electrical, moving it hundreds of miles then charging up a battery.
There are different sources of energy, but the only way to define a
clear winner is to ignore indirect costs and losses of the one you
favor. As with the the arguments for corn-based substitutes for oil
and hydrogen-based fuel cells.

 

[Stephen Henning]

There is no net benefit to converting energy from one source to
electrical, moving it hundreds of miles then charging up a battery.
There are different sources of energy, but the only way to define a
clear winner is to ignore indirect costs and losses of the one you
favor. As with the the arguments for corn-based substitutes for oil
and hydrogen-based fuel cells.

There is a net benefit to the environment if the process doesn't create
either of the greenhouse gasses: methane and carbon dioxide. Solar,
nuclear, hydro-electric and wind produced electrical energy satisfy this
condition. That is why Sweden and much of the rest of the world is
moving in this direction.

 

[Roadie]

There is a net benefit to the environment if the process doesn't create
either of the greenhouse gasses: methane and carbon dioxide.  Solar,
nuclear, hydro-electric and wind produced electrical energy satisfy this
condition.  That is why Sweden and much of the rest of the world is
moving in this direction.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
    Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
    The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
 http://rhodyman.net/homevo.html

Which benefit are we now talking about. Is it financial cost,
pollution or both. Realize that there are signficant side-costs to
the first three sources of energy you mentioned.

For example the process to build solar cells results in some really
nasty chemicals. And the single country that produces most of those
cells is not known for their record of proper pollutant disposal.

 

[mjc13]

There is no net benefit to converting energy from one source to
electrical, moving it hundreds of miles then charging up a battery.
There are different sources of energy, but the only way to define a
clear winner is to ignore indirect costs and losses of the one you
favor. As with the the arguments for corn-based substitutes for oil
and hydrogen-based fuel cells.

You are mistaken. There is a benefit if the conversion is
efficient enough to exceed transmission losses and still be higher than
the low conversion efficiency of crude oil to automobile motion. Believe
me or not as you choose.

 

[Stephen Henning]

Which benefit are we now talking about. Is it financial cost,
pollution or both. Realize that there are signficant side-costs to
the first three sources of energy you mentioned.
For example the process to build solar cells results in some really
nasty chemicals. And the single country that produces most of those
cells is not known for their record of proper pollutant disposal.

The benefit is environmental. Greenhouse gases are very damaging.
Chemicals that are not water borne nor air borne are easy to remediate.
I worked in the semiconductor industry and we had a very small
environmental footprint. Nuclear is also able to operate very safely as
long as people get over this not-in-my-backyard attitude. Hydroelectric
in New Zealand and other areas has a very small environmental footprint
because the plants are located underground and don't interfere with any
streams.