Plug-in or Full-Electric Vehicles? bad idea

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
Here's a link to an article in Auto News about the batteries for the Chevy Volt. "GM, government backers show off first Volt battery"

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100107/OEM05/301079953/1186#

But what is especially interesting is a post in the comments section by Thomas Kucknicki. He reposts an article by John Peterson, a stock analyst for battery and alternative energy companies. It is worth a read, IMO.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plug-in Vehicles, Unconscionable Waste and Pollution Masquerading as Conservation

Posted: 06 Jan 2010 03:51 AM PST

John Petersen

For eighteen months I've been blogging about the energy storage sector and discussing the current and potential markets for batteries and other manufactured energy storage devices. A recurring theme that I've discussed many times is the unrecognized but undeniable truth that while plug-in vehicles masquerade as conservation measures at an individual level, they're incredibly wasteful at a societal level. The conclusion is counter-intuitive and my articles on the subject invariably draw heated criticism from self-anointed defenders of the faith. Their arguments, however, do not change the inescapable truth that plug-in vehicles are one of the most wasteful concepts ever foisted on gullible government officials and an unsuspecting public.

Today I'm going to do my level best to simplify the numbers and expose the plug-in fraud for what it is. If you want to delve into more detail, you should visit my article archive at Seeking Alpha.

On December 31, 2009 Forbes published an opinion piece titled "System Overload" that questioned whether the lithium-ion battery industry was overbuilding global manufacturing capacity. The third paragraph said:

"By 2015 the new factories will have the global capacity to produce 36 million kilowatt-hours of battery capacity, enough to supply 15 million hybrid vehicles, or 1.5 million fully electric cars, says Deutsche Bank."

The article then went on to question whether there would be buyers for all those vehicles. I firmly believe that every battery manufacturer that brings an automotive battery to market within the next few years will have more demand than it can satisfy. That being said there is no denying the fact that fully electric cars and plug-in hybrids are unconscionably wasteful.

In America, the average car owner drives about 12,000 miles per year. To power a car for that distance, he'll need about 400 gallons of gasoline for a conventional internal combustion engine; 240 gallons of gasoline for a Prius class HEV; and no gasoline for a fully electric vehicle. The eco-religious among us are beside themselves with glee over the appealing but patently absurd idea that fully electric vehicles are the best way to slash dependence on oil imports and protect mother earth. The numbers tell an entirely different story.

If we stick with the Deutsche Bank numbers quoted in the Forbes article, 1.5 million fully electric cars would save 600 million gallons of gasoline per year. That's a very impressive number until you realize that 15 million Prius class HEVs without plugs would save approximately 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year. In my book, the difference of 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline per year is subsidized waste on a massive scale.

While the gasoline consumption comparisons are miserable, the CO2 emission comparisons are nothing short of tragic.

Each gallon of gasoline used in an internal combustion engine releases 20.35 pounds of CO2. While fully electric vehicles are cleaner, they're not CO2 free because the power plants that generate the electricity release a national average of 9.68 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline equivalent. Returning to the Deutsche Bank numbers, 1.5 million fully electric cars would cut annual CO2 emissions by 2.9 million tons, another very impressive number. In comparison, 15 million Prius class HEVs without plugs would slash annual CO2 emissions by a whopping 24.4 million tons. In my book, the difference of 21.5 million tons of CO2 emissions per year is subsidized pollution on a monumental scale.

The final nail in the coffin comes from purchase price comparisons. Toyota's (TM) base sticker price for a 2010 Prius is $22,400. In comparison the base sticker price for the planned GM Volt will be about $40,000. While Federal tax credits of $7,500 are expected to reduce the end-user cost of the Volt to $32,500, it will still cost the consumer $10,000 more than a Prius. The last time I checked, a $10,000 purchase price difference is important to the average consumer, particularly when study after study reports that the Volt is not expected to pay for the price difference in fuel savings.

On a micro-scale, fully electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are feel good eco-bling for the emotionally committed and the mathematically challenged. On a macro-scale they use more gasoline, emit more CO2 and are more expensive than established HEV technology. At this point I have to wonder, does anybody in Washington DC have a calculator?

I'm a lawyer, a battery guy and a policy geek. I know that six billion people on our planet would like to have a piece of the lifestyle that 600 million of us have and take for granted. I also know that as a result of the information technology revolution, about half of the 6 billion have access to electronic data and understand for the first time in history that there is more to life than subsistence. Even if we assume that they will only become consumers at 5% to 10% of purchasing power parity, the increased pressure on water, food, energy and every commodity you can imagine will be immense beyond imagining. The big challenge will be creating enough room at the table so that we can avoid the unthinkable consequences of inaction.

I love HEV technology because it minimizes waste of both gasoline and other natural resources. I'd love it even more if it were tied to a compressed natural gas fuel system that would eliminate dependence on imported oil, but that's a different discussion. I'm also a big fan of micro- and mild-hybrid technologies that use less robust electric motors and simpler batteries from companies like Johnson Controls (JCI), Exide Technologies (XIDE) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) to reduce waste for drivers who can't afford to upgrade to a Prius class HEV. I am offended by the P.T. Barnum class hucksters at Ener1 (HEV), A123 Systems (AONE), BYD Company (BYDDF.PK) and others that use the false promise of fully-electric vehicles to maintain bloated market capitalizations and lead investors down a garden path that will almost certainly end in massive losses once the market understands the true costs and illusory benefits.

Disclosure: Author is a former director of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and has a substantial long position in its stock. He also holds a small long position Exide Technologies (XIDE).
(end of Auto News comment post)

The complete Forbes article can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/opinions-ethanol-solar-wind-electric-heads-up.html
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
This article quotes a figure very confidently:

"Each gallon of gasoline used in an internal combustion engine releases 20.35 pounds of CO2. While fully electric vehicles are cleaner, they're not CO2 free because the power plants that generate the electricity release a national average of 9.68 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline equivalent."

On what basis was this calculated?

Gasoline engines are what, 25% efficient?
Electric motors are something like 92% efficient at converting electricity to motion.

It's not hard to find some articles of this type. Many people want to cling to the past when petroleum seemed unlimited with no possibility of shortages or contending with other nations for the dwindling supply. Did this author take into account the huge flow of petroleum from Canadian Tar Sands where the CO2 released during extraction is 3 times that of pumping petroleum out of the ground? This is due to the huge amounts of natural gas used to cook the tar from the sand.

Our petroleum based transportation will draw down to an end. Along the way, the switch to other forms of energy can either be planned and less painful or... we can deny reality until we are simply forced to switch, which will be more painful. The choice is ours as a society.

I love my diesel (almost 7 years and over 130,000 miles) but I want my next ride to be electric drive. For those that don't like the idea of electric drive, I'll be expecting them to propose a viable alternative to fossil fuels for transportation. The very name is should give us a clue; "fossil" fuels.
 

thebigarniedog

Master of the Obvious
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
Fail Command (Central Ohio)
TDI
1998 Jetta tdi
The US needs a redo on it's power grid. Regional power grids powered primarily by nuclear power plants is the only "green" solution. The uber small plug in vehicle is the future, especially for big city dwellers and ball-less politicians that do not understand that 20 pounds of potatoes cannot fit in a five pound sack.

GM cannot be taken for anything other then a failure in automotives. The volt is just another chapter in their continuing saga of fail. What Honda and Toyota does or can do is of more interest to me.
 

roadhard1960

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Location
Covington, Ga.
TDI
2003 Jetta wagon GLS 5 speed
You can do some math based on web pages like this. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=about_energy_units How dirty you are depends on where your power comes from (oil, coal, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and whether you consider a pound of nuclear waste to be pollution. Would you store your nuclear fuel waste you consumed in your back yard?) and if you consider how dirty the manufacturing of your car is. Also factor in how dirty your existing car is and how much more pollution was made to make your new car.

So that leads me to this question. Is your house energy efficient? Do you have low E windows? Do you highly insulated walls and ceilings? Do you have a geothermal heat pump? Do you live in house big enough to live in or do you have a Gore mansion? Do you go on far from home vacations or do you stay at home when you have time off? What if folks had a huge energy surcharge for all the energy they use? Would it cause any people to reduce their energy consumption in all aspects of their life? In the US many if not most folks never seem to look at the energy impact of their home choice. Few insist or know what an energy efficient house is. Now I know some folks will start their rant about dirty indoor air from over insulated and sealed houses. That can be addressed if the house is properly built.
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
thebigarniedog said:
...GM cannot be taken for anything other then a failure in automotives...What Honda and Toyota does or can do is of more interest to me.
Really? Nihongo dekiru mono desu ka? Gohan wa skui no?
 

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
I believe that electric cars will not do well until fuel cell technology (or some other new tech) will allow the electricity to be generated IN the car. The big weakness in current (and future) all electric cars is range. Americans do not want to have to own two cars - one for short range commuting, and another for long range travel (like vacations). Hybrids overcome this limitation by using a motor to drive a generator to keep the batteries recharged, but an all electric car's range is limited by their battery capacity. I fear we will see a lot of older electric cars dead on the side of the road, because their batteries are getting old and losing capacity. This will not be good for the electric car business. You can always add more batteries, but this also adds weight and adversly affects performance. This is the big compromise that all electric cars must currently live with.

This reminds me of the old joke about the guy who claimed to drive an electric car from California to Florida for only $0.50 worth of electricity, however it cost him over $100.000.00 for the extension cord.

IMHO, for an all electric car to make it in the real world, there MUST be some efficient (and clean) electricity generating capacity on board, and this technology is still too experimental and expensive.

Have Fun!

Don
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
I do not much care about the carbon dioxide issue, so I won't be drawn into any debates on that.

Forbes is a reputable publication, so I suspect the numbers in the article are somewhat reliable -- enough battery capacity to build 15 million hybrids or 1.5 million fully-electric cars? The resources to build even more batteries must come from somewhere, there must be even more mining of copper and lead, or else lowered production of other products that use these resources.

I am not interested in subsidizing the purchase of a $40,000 Volt by my neighbor. Even for you, Ikendu. But, I heard the other day that animal shelters are seeing more horses being dropped off because their unemployed owners can no longer care for them. So there's a non-polluting transportation alternative (well, except for the occasional methane emission).
 

Kiwi_ME

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1999
Location
New Zealand
TDI
'18 Kona EV, ex '03 Golf TDI, '82 Rabbit Diesel
I believe his math is intentionally misleading. There is no reason for Forbes to check or be responsible for those numbers. His only valid point is that if batteries were in short supply they would be better used in Prius-class hybrids.
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
If you want to have some fun, Google "China" and "rare earth metals"...

Those are the winners in the battery game, not us who have to pay for the batteries, the car, the electricity and the extra taxes.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
Lug_Nut said:
What's the opposite of "fossil"?
Not sure if this is a serious question or not... if serious:

Fossil fuels: Hydrocarbons made from captured sunlight millions of years ago (with no hope of a new shipment of such fuels to Earth anytime soon).

"Fuels" that aren't "fossil"?

Solar (based on fusion in the Sun)
Wind (driven by solar)
Geothermal (driven by radioactive decay in the Earth's core)
Tidal (based on the gravity interaction with our moon)
Wave (based on winds)
Biomass or Biofuels (based on solar)
Nuclear
- Fission (based on high concentration uranium ore... 40 yrs left?)
- Fusion (been just around the corner for decades now)

There are other nuclear sources: Thorium, Plutonium based breeder reactors (also just around the corner for decades with no working models that I am aware of), etc.

All of the fossil source eventually become scarce.

Look at wood. It used to be how people heated their homes. Once demand began to outstrip supply, people had to switch to something else (coal, natural gas and electricity).
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
ikendu said:
Look at wood. It used to be how people heated their homes. Once demand began to outstrip supply, people had to switch to something else (coal, natural gas and electricity).
Just like all other renewable energy sources, like whale oil.

What happens is that when one source becomes scarce, its price rises in relation to less-scarce energy sources. So people switch to the cheaper alternatives. It does not make sense for government to artificially increase the price for some energy sources, because it distorts the marketplace and increases the total cost. It's other countries that benefit, because when the demand for abundant sources is artificially lowered in the US then everyone else in the world gets that abundant energy at a lower price!

If the US suddenly stopped using crude oil, everyone else in the world could buy crude for a lower price. Their economies would benefit enormously. It is absurd to think that the US would also benefit, when it would pay significantly more for each unit of energy than every economic competitor.
 

mrGutWrench

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 29, 2002
Location
Carrboro, NC
TDI
'03 Jetta Wagon, 5-speed, 563K Miles (July '23)
Powder Hound said:
Yeah, but what does it take to make the electricity?
__. That's a good point, Hound (electricity generation is notoriously inefficient) but another is that *transmitting* that electricity and using it for battery charging is also highly inefficient. Add it up and the author is exactly right about electric cars being a stupid idea (even in uses where they're remotely practical, which is rare).
 

NB_TDi

Vendor
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Location
NB, Canada █♣█
TDI
2014 Jetta SE
The whole idea of power generation has to change. Our houses should be able to sustain themselves. Maybe a mix of everthing from wind, solar and fuel cell. Heck even a natural gas genny when things get rough.

Take all that and when every goes to sleep at night and power usage is at a low our vehicles can charge up.

Power grid? So 20th century :p
 

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (PARTED); 2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue (SOLD); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (SOLD)
NB_TDi said:
The whole idea of power generation has to change. Our houses should be able to sustain themselves. Maybe a mix of everthing from wind, solar and fuel cell. Heck even a natural gas genny when things get rough.

Take all that and when every goes to sleep at night and power usage is at a low our vehicles can charge up.

Power grid? So 20th century :p
How will government be able to tax energy consumption, if people are able to generate their own electricity? In Los Angeles, how will the authorities be able to tell if you're running an HD TV that is bigger than permitted? How can they tell if you're thermostat is set too high in the winter? The answer is, you will be forced to hook up to the grid, if only so your energy use can be monitored.
 

thebigarniedog

Master of the Obvious
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
Fail Command (Central Ohio)
TDI
1998 Jetta tdi
TornadoRed said:
How will government be able to tax energy consumption, if people are able to generate their own electricity? In Los Angeles, how will the authorities be able to tell if you're running an HD TV that is bigger than permitted? How can they tell if you're thermostat is set too high in the winter? The answer is, you will be forced to hook up to the grid, if only so your energy use can be monitored.
Wasn't Oregon floating the idea of taxing miles via gps not that long ago to make up for lost road tax due to better mpg? Never lose sight of the fact that it is about revenue to the Government whether we are talking about Cigarettes, gas/diesel/energy, health care etc..
 

SD26

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Location
WI
TDI
1998 Jetta TDI 5sp, 2002 Jetta TDI 5sp
ikendu said:
All of the fossil source eventually become scarce.
Really?

Current scarcity stems from regulation. The concerns for scarcity are pushed by two main groups: those that go and get the resource (keeps prices higher?) and environmental groups (eco-fascists).

ikendu said:
Look at wood. It used to be how people heated their homes. Once demand began to outstrip supply, people had to switch to something else (coal, natural gas and electricity).
So, you are saying that civilization ran out of wood? Or do you rationally recognize that coal and natural gas, both of which are used to make electricity too, are more efficient in producing power/heat in addition to being less expensive, please read again as more efficient, to harvest?
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
ikendu wrote: All of the fossil source eventually become scarce.

SD26 said:
Really?

Current scarcity stems from regulation. The concerns for scarcity are pushed by two main groups: those that go and get the resource (keeps prices higher?) and environmental groups (eco-fascists).
Yes. Really. Let's imagine that there is no regulation of "harvesting" (interesting term to use for something that once you "harvest" it, the resource is gone for all time) fossil fuels what-so-ever. Are you thinking that no matter what, they will never become scarce? Harvest bees wax for candles. As long you have bees, there will be more bees wax for more candles. "Harvest" petroleum (captured sunlight from 60 million years ago with sequestered carbon from the same time) for kerosene lamps and once you have burned it, it is basically gone for all time (well, we might get some more after another 60 million years).


SD26 said:
So, you are saying that civilization ran out of wood? Or do you rationally recognize that coal and natural gas, both of which are used to make electricity too, are more efficient in producing power/heat in addition to being less expensive, please read again as more efficient, to harvest?
We had more wood demand than there was supply (and not due to "regulation"). European cities had to switch to something else. Sure natural gas is a "wonder fuel". I heat my home with it. Burns clean, easy to move around, no requirement to go downstairs and "stoke" the furnance. Wonderful. Right at the moment, there is an abundant supply of natural gas, due to the new "fracking" technology to get gas previously trapped in rock.

As I type this, it is -10 F outside. Yet I am warm due to the wonderful energy delivered by natural gas. Some forms of "natural gas" are even renewable. I toured an ethanol facility that was powered by methane gotten by "harvesting" manure from a large cattle operation. As long as they have cattle, they could get more "natural gas".

Unfortuately, a lot of the energy from natural gas we enjoy was captured sunlight over millions of years. Once we burn it, most of that won't be replenshed any time soon. I guess we can all enjoy our nice fossil fuels for now and let our children worry about the fact that we used up all of the "easy to get" energy. Just my opinion, that is what it seems to me you are advocating.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
A little more about light for our homes...

Electric lighting is a wonderful advance; way better than bees wax or kerosene. It is clean, no fumes, no toxic chemicals and available at the flip of a switch. I sure like mine.

But... we can generate that electricity a variety of ways (truly a "flex fuel" technology).

Let's look at two; coal and wind (which is really just another form of solar).

At the switch, they both look the same.

With coal, we are releasing sunlight and carbon captured 300 million years ago. To get it, we either dig mines deep in the Earth or blow the tops off of mountains to expose the seams (meanwhile destoying the streams and forest in the area leaving the entire area vulnerable to flash flooding ...which of course, most of us don't understand or know about, and, consequently, don't really care about).

We cause permanent damage to our ecology to get a one-time, relatively brief, release of fossil fuel energy. Once released, never to be replenished for a 1000 generations (if ever).

With wind, we can harvest (in the true sense of re-harvesting every new season) "solar energy". Once we use it to power our lights, we can get more. Why? Because the Sun keeps making it and sending it to us; fresh energy every 9 seconds!

With coal... we use up a resource that will never be available to our children.

With wind... we build "harvesting facilities" that (with maintenance) will leave a permanent, on-going, dare I say... renewable, souce of energy that our children and all of their children can enjoy for generation after generation.

So... coal that takes away a resource from our children (kind of like gambling away their inheritance... yes?) or wind where we create a legacy that we can will to our children and they can continue to enjoy for a very long time.

Now... wind is hardly perfect. It only makes electricity when the wind blows; just like solar installations only make electricity when the Sun shines. Wouldn't it be nice to get most of our power from renewable source and just use our non-renewable sources to "fill in the gaps" between the two? I guess that would stretch out the time our fossil fuels are available for a very long time. Maybe even long enough to figure out even better storage facilities for wind and solar so that storage could fill in the gaps. Heck, we already operate something like 25 "pumped water" storage facilities in the U.S. Maybe we should be expanding those.
 
Last edited:

Beardrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Location
Calgary
TDI
2009 Platinum/Anthracite Jetta wagon
OK, I'm all for reducing our carbon footprint! Was one of the factors for buying a TDI in the first place. However...

Losses stated for an electric car never seem to include electrical transmission losses or touch on the means of generation. In our area those hypothetical electric cars will be powered indirectly by coal. Talk about irony!Almost stepping back 100 years.

Waiting eagerly for algae derived diesel...
 

Ski in NC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Location
Wilmington, NC USA
TDI
2001 Jetta ALH 5sp stock
The problem with increasing supply from non-fossil sources boils down to cost per kWh. Wind, solar and nuclear are more expensive sources than running existing coal plants. The cost differential has to be made up by either government subsidies, or by consumers writing bigger checks. The government is running itself broke, and so are many consumers. Neither is likely to finance such a large scale industrial project with dubious payback.

So we will end up with some smaller scale wind and solar projects, and the coal plants will keep running.

Over time, some more forward thinking and aggressive countries will refine these technologies on an industrial scale, and we can buy the equipment from them. If we were not broke.

Storage of electricity will always be an expensive process, be it on the utility scale, or on the automotive scale. It is a form of energy that simply does not lend itself to inexpensive or efficient storage.

It's a shame nuclear is not getting much of a boost in this energy climate. It is a process for generating electricity that fits very well with today's needs. The problems with nuclear are political, not technical.

So the coal plants will keep running.
 

NB_TDi

Vendor
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Location
NB, Canada █♣█
TDI
2014 Jetta SE
Ski in NC said:
It's a shame nuclear is not getting much of a boost in this energy climate. It is a process for generating electricity that fits very well with today's needs. The problems with nuclear are political, not technical.

So the coal plants will keep running.
We're a nuclear Province, we're actually in the middle of rebuilding our reactor and in the works of adding another.

Problem is they're over 16 months behind on the rebuild. Sort of scares away the other uses of the same CANDU reactor from wanting to rebuild. Few weeks ago they ran into another problem with the reactor, can't get some parts out. Always something with AECL. I'm all for nuclear power, but the feds here in Canada sure do love the red tape.
 

AndyBees

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2003
Location
Southeast Kentucky
TDI
Silver 2003 Jetta TDI, Silver 2000 Jetta TDI (sold), '84 Vanagon with '02 ALH engine
In my opinion Nuclear is the future for our energy needs.

We can flood the face of the Earth with wind mills and solar panels and still have a tremendous energy shortage. We can (or can we) double or triple the pump storage facilities and not put a dent in our energy needs.

In my opinion the "Carbon Foot Print" thing is a way to brainwash the public in an effort to pass legislation to bleed the financial resources of the consumer for more government spending. Spending that will not be well placed.

Coal mining in East Kentucky does not involve "blowing off" the top of mountains. Mining involves a permitting process. That process requires paper work (engineering and planning) that delinates the method(s) of addressing numerous things, such as soil storage, roads, erosion control (during and after mining), use of explosives, noise control, sediment pond locations, reclaimation (replacing the soil back in accordance with the approved permit) and vegetation coverage. (Eplosions are controlled in a fashion that no burden is "shot" into the air.)

Sure, the reclaimation process doesn't leave it "exactly" as it was previously, but neither does any kind of development, i.e. farming in Kansas, orchards in Florida, sky scrapers along beach fronts, urban developments (sub-divisions with houses 10' apart), etc. However, the mining and subsequent reclaimation doesn't totally wipe-out the surrounding native vegetation either. The temporary vegetation put in place, as part of the reclaimation process, gradually gives way to the native varieties.

The arguement/debate can go on and on. However, it is a fact that during the last 50 years, great strides in improved mining techniques, reclaimation, use of the coal, etc., have taken place.

I see continued improvements into the future with coal and other fossil fuels being the primary contributor.
 
Top