Home   |  Message Board   |  Information   |  Classifieds   |  Features   |  Video  |  Boat Reviews  |  Boat DIY
would you buy an electric car now? - Page 12 - Walleye Message Central
Walleye Message Central

Go Back   Walleye Message Central > Walleye Message Central > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 02-02-2021, 04:34 PM
Hot Runr Guy Hot Runr Guy is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Chicago, IL, USA.
Posts: 15,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspencreek View Post
Ironically Its not because they don't like the power distribution, it's because the tree huggers don't like the looks of the line. They are OK with wind turbines, and acres and acres of prime cropland covered with solar panels, but not a string of hi power lines to make them useful.
I imagine they'll consider using abandoned oil and NG pipelines as a conduit for underground wires,,,,,

HRG
__________________
"I've got a car with a trailer hitch, and a pocket full of money. Do you want to sell that boat today, or not?"
My Mentor, Bill Michalek, circa 1975
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #112  
Old 02-02-2021, 05:24 PM
parker23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't agree with some of the statements about nuclear power. They are much more costly than most people realize.. They get tremendous amounts of government money which people have a hard time understanding that we still pay for with your taxes. Yes I know, so does the petroleum industry however most people are not aware of the other costs associated with nuclear power plants. A lot of hidden ancillary costs. One thing we have very little if any raw material and are at the mercy of foreign pricing.

The cost of mining the raw material also is expensive and going higher and higher. We will pay for that one way or another. In then the cost of building a nuclear power plant is huge. Based on just these factors alone if you would to build one nuclear power plant and dissolve the rest of the world away to only the area that they could supply power to in the 25 or 30 years that a plant life, is every family would have to come up with $30-$40,000 BESIDES the cost of electricity. Guess who will pay for that?

Then there's this dismantling cost that hasn't been figured in to this equation. It actually may cause more than the cost of building the plant by the time the 25 years goes by. That cost will have to be figured in to the cost of running the plant also. Then there's the problem of the waste material storage. The industry tries to say that perhaps they might be able to reuse some of that material as a selling point to get more plants built , but a number of top scientists say that will not be anywhere close to cost-effective.

Remember when the industry said you might not have to put any meters on our houses anymore with nuclear power? That selling propaganda didn't work either. These are just some of the arguments against nuclear power I could go on but most people hear what they want to hear. You CAN store wind power during idle times there are no wind ,.there number of ways. You CAN store solar power when the sun is not out ,again, there are number of ways. More than half of our power now is lost in transmission lines. Cryogenic lines can reduce that to almost nothing.

It's been estimated that less than hundred square miles in either the Arizona or New Mexico desert could run the nation with solar power. A group of MIT scientists say the same thing for about hundred square miles in parts of the Dakotas can do the same.

not figured in the cost of fossil fuels are the pollution and resulted illnesses from that.its in the billions in "just money" . For now,. if all/most of the cabs and delivery trucks in cities were converted to electricity would do a lot for reducing this pollution
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-03-2021, 04:57 AM
kzoofisher's Avatar
kzoofisher kzoofisher is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kalamazoo, Mi
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspencreek View Post
I drove past a wind farm in SW WI today out of the over 30 we counted 27 were not turning 3 barely, why....no wind.
Further down the road is a solar farm that the combined utility companies were supposed to build from a fed grant. All the panels were there sitting in packaging that is decaying from being exposed to the weather for the last 3 yrs they have been in the field. How much longer they are going to sit is anyone's guess, but it was supposed to be operational by july of this year.
But the funny thing about all this is that there is a public movement in the SW area of WI to prevent the Utilities from building a hi wire transmission line thru the area from the Madison area to Dubuque, that would collect this created power and distribute it. Ironically Its not because they don't like the power distribution, it's because the tree huggers don't like the looks of the line. They are OK with wind turbines, and acres and acres of prime cropland covered with solar panels, but not a string of hi power lines to make them useful. But they wouldn't be producing much power today or for the last month for that matter. I can count less that 10 sunny days last month, if that.

And an article in the local paper asked why WI was falling behind putting up more wind turbines, compared to say IA and MN. Turns out it's because of geography, not space. It seems WI has about 5 prime sites to fit the criteria, MN has over 30, and IA even more.


Shows the lack of overall planning and a national program to develop for the future. Why would anyone build capacity if they can’t distribute it? The short sighted view of “I don’t need this right now, it can wait” doesn’t help either. Building and maintaining infrastructure is kind of like retirement planning, you can’t wait until you need it. Building wind farms in the plains states to supply the needs of Wisconsin is a no brainer. Well, it’s a no brainer if you think all states are part of the same union. If you think every state is in competition with the others you’re better off making Wisconsin unlivable.

To be fair to the rural people who objected to the initial proposals for the power lines, it was a little absurd. The power company wanted to run across vacant land rather than following existing lines and they wanted a three mile wide easement. They’ve settled for 300’. You gotta wonder what plans they had for the extra mile and a half on either side of their power lines.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #114  
Old 02-03-2021, 07:53 AM
Aspencreek Aspencreek is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 2,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Runr Guy View Post
I imagine they'll consider using abandoned oil and NG pipelines as a conduit for underground wires,,,,,

HRG
That would be a good idea if there were any, which I'm betting there might not be. Oil pipelines usually don't run between cities if they are not feeding a refinery or other user, and there is no refinery around Madison or Dubuque that I know of. There is an active pipeline that runs across WI north of Madison, but that is being used and maintained. And as far as Natural gas lines, I don't know of any of those that are not being used.

The original plan for the Power Lines had 4+ routes, some made way more sense than others so it was pared down. The specifics were cloudy at best, but it was mainly to run along side Hwy 151 (which is a 4 lane hwy the entire route) with some deviations due to geography and logistics. A similar line was put up that ran along I90-94-39 from Madison to I think it's terminus in the LaCrosse area. It's been over 5yrs now and honestly you don't even notice it unless you are looking for it.

My point is simple, progress has obstacles to overcome, progress requires patience, diligence, and forethought. And progress makes mistakes along the way.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-03-2021, 06:00 PM
DW DW is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,223
Default

parker23,

The greatest challenge facing expansion of nukes in the US is dispelling the misconceptions of future modular nuclear power plants. Everything is different as compared to old plants. They are less expensive to build and operate;safer; and are smaller scale so they have broad application. They simply do not present the hazard of turbines. They can be placed near demand, rather than where the wind energy is high, etc.

Its going to come down to selecting between affordable small scale modular units with reliable output vs building hazardous, intermittent turbines.

Full disclosure: I am retired, and have no financial interests in the energy sector. My interest is informed public policy regarding alternatives to fossil fuels. Green advocates call my point of view backward, or ignorant. I call it smart!
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 05-17-2021, 02:15 PM
Dereck Lewisson's Avatar
Dereck Lewisson Dereck Lewisson is offline
Minnow
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3
Default

I would buy one but after Musk's tweets on crypto I understood how manipulative this person is and changed my mind to invest in this industry my money. Of course there are a lot of other electric cars but in my opinion Tesla is a pioneer among them in terms of technologies.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.