GM to stop Manufacturing Gas & Diesel Vehicles by 2035

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

Wind farms are butt ugly to look at. Driving across Iowa and looking out at the landscape and you see these awful looking windmills. And those things are constantly down. About half of them seem to be doing anything. I can't even begin to imagine the beauty of the rocky mountains and look and see windmills. Already we have seen the elite get upset about it in the Northeast. Let alone all the birds they kill. Progress. I don't think so.

I agree that wind farms are unattractive, but most of us have had the luxury of not having to look at whatever is producing our electricity, the most we see is a power line. Perhaps they wouldn't look so bad in comparison to your land being flooded for hydro, having a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood, having your water supply threatened by oil sands developments, etc.

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by AZ camper

Wind and solar will take tremendous amounts of land. Their footprint is much larger than oil and gas and coal. Plus they totally inundate the land and render it totally useless for wildlife, unlike oil and gas. Plus when you factor in massive mining for metals, rare earth minerals, silica and oil drilling for plastics, I’m not sure you gain much.

Many don't like the look of windmills, but they don't have much of a footprint as far as land area goes. As I mentioned in a previous comment, there are plenty of roofs that could be covered by solar panels, and where they are installed in fields the land can still be used for grazing. Panels can also be installed on higher racks to allow crops to be grown beneath them. Some plants grow better in the shade, which can also reduce irrigation needs.

The land is far from "totally useless", and wind and sun are two things we won't run out of, unlike fossil fuels.

I agree that there are concerns about mining, especially in less developed nations, but those problems may be easier to solve than the effects of increased greenhouse gases. Those problems are no worse than those caused by fossil fuel extraction, and the end product is non-polluting once installed.

[KK4YZ]

Originally Posted by jcl

I saw that Kentucky is building a wind farm. And Texas has made a significant shift.

.

When I was working, not long ago, I traveled extensively through the desert outside of LA. There are more wind farms there than you can shake a stick at. There are places where you can see nothing but giant wind turbines as far as the eye can see.

In 2018 wind energy accounted for 7.2% of total energy production in CA. If All those wind turbines produce that small amount of energy it seems that relying much on wind power is not an effective way to power the country.

My guess is all those wind farms were put in place because of federal $$ to encourage their construction.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by DavidsonOverlander

I agree that wind farms are unattractive, but most of us have had the luxury of not having to look at whatever is producing our electricity, the most we see is a power line. Perhaps they wouldn't look so bad in comparison to your land being flooded for hydro, having a nuclear plant in your neighbourhood, having your water supply threatened by oil sands developments, etc.

Most of these plants are located in industrial areas; zoned industrial. Big difference from being in your back yard. And as far as hydro plants like the Oahe dam that land was not really useable for anything due to flooding and poor quality soil. before the Oahe dam was built, most of the area was in a flood plain that regularly flooded and which caused all kinds of destruction. Plus all the water opened up all kinds of irrigation possibilities which made the use of the land that was good productive. From a cost benefit analysis it had nothing but the upside, and it created a clean steady flow of electricity.

I see no upside to butt ugly wind mills strewn across the prairie, killing migrant birds, etc. And by the way along those dams are now beautiful homes that look across the expanse of the water. I don’t think we’ll see people building their homes to see solar panels and windmills.

This is not to say I am against EVs. But unless we use nuclear power I have no desire to see a bunch of solar panels and windmills covering the country.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by XCountry

I do. It’s about 0.6% of the total surface area of the country.

Another way to look at it is that’s less than 2% of the amount currently used for agriculture.

Or, less than that amount of land is currently used to grow corn which is immediately converted to ethanol.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01421508002796

So that means 1/4 the size of the land we use for agriculture is going to be used for solar panels. That is a LOT of land. And just where are you going to get that land? That land just can’t be anywhere either. It has to be in an area that gets constant sun light with little cloud cover. Where will that be? The desert? Going to cover the land of Arizona with solar panels? New Mexico? Texas?

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by DavidsonOverlander

Many don't like the look of windmills, but they don't have much of a footprint as far as land area goes. As I mentioned in a previous comment, there are plenty of roofs that could be covered by solar panels, and where they are installed in fields the land can still be used for grazing. Panels can also be installed on higher racks to allow crops to be grown beneath them. Some plants grow better in the shade, which can also reduce irrigation needs.

The land is far from "totally useless", and wind and sun are two things we won't run out of, unlike fossil fuels.

I agree that there are concerns about mining, especially in less developed nations, but those problems may be easier to solve than the effects of increased greenhouse gases. Those problems are no worse than those caused by fossil fuel extraction, and the end product is non-polluting once installed.

You really have no idea what you are talking about if you think farmers are going try and plant and raise cattle around solar panels. The farmers wouldn’t tolerate it. And do you think it is easy to maneuver big machinery around panels? Grow crops under solar panels? Go and talk to a farmer and see what they think about that.

[AZ camper]

Originally Posted by DavidsonOverlander

Many don't like the look of windmills, but they don't have much of a footprint as far as land area goes. As I mentioned in a previous comment, there are plenty of roofs that could be covered by solar panels, and where they are installed in fields the land can still be used for grazing. Panels can also be installed on higher racks to allow crops to be grown beneath them. Some plants grow better in the shade, which can also reduce irrigation needs.

The land is far from "totally useless", and wind and sun are two things we won't run out of, unlike fossil fuels.

I agree that there are concerns about mining, especially in less developed nations, but those problems may be easier to solve than the effects of increased greenhouse gases. Those problems are no worse than those caused by fossil fuel extraction, and the end product is non-polluting once installed.

Windmills take 700 times the land area of one natural gas well to produce the same amount of energy.

[XCountry]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

So that means 1/4 the size of the land we use for agriculture is going to be used for solar panels. That is a LOT of land. And just where are you going to get that land? That land just can’t be anywhere either. It has to be in an area that gets constant sun light with little cloud cover. Where will that be? The desert? Going to cover the land of Arizona with solar panels? New Mexico? Texas?

You misinterpreted what I said.
2% is 1/50th.

I think you tried to compare 0.6% and 2%, but that’s not a valid comparison.

A bit over 40% of the US is agricultural land, which is what you would compare to 0.6%, and that’s where “2% of agricultural land” came from.

Source on % of US land as agricultural:https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publicatio...d_Farmland.pdf

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

Most of these plants are located in industrial areas; zoned industrial. Big difference from being in your back yard. And as far as hydro plants like the Oahe dam that land was not really useable for anything due to flooding and poor quality soil. before the Oahe dam was built, most of the area was in a flood plain that regularly flooded and which caused all kinds of destruction. Plus all the water opened up all kinds of irrigation possibilities which made the use of the land that was good productive. From a cost benefit analysis it had nothing but the upside, and it created a clean steady flow of electricity.

I see no upside to butt ugly wind mills strewn across the prairie, killing migrant birds, etc. And by the way along those dams are now beautiful homes that look across the expanse of the water. I don’t think we’ll see people building their homes to see solar panels and windmills.

This is not to say I am against EVs. But unless we use nuclear power I have no desire to see a bunch of solar panels and windmills covering the country.

Every industrial area was once someone's backyard. It was agricultural or natural area before it was industrial. 300,000 people live within a 6 mile radius of the nuclear plant that is nearest to my home. I live on the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and major tourist attraction. I wouldn't want windmills built in my area either, but I also have to acknowledge that others are living near a nuclear plant so I don't have to look at windmills. Let's not pretend that we get something for nothing.

You're looking at the effect of the Oahe Dam through your own experience and ignoring the experiences of the indigenous people who were affected.
Read Oahe Dam Native American displacement if you're interested in learning more.

I'm not saying that wind farms are the answer, but everything has a cost and we can't always expect someone else to pay it.

Windmills might not seem so bad if the oil sands were in your neighbourhood...

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

You really have no idea what you are talking about if you think farmers are going try and plant and raise cattle around solar panels. The farmers wouldn’t tolerate it. And do you think it is easy to maneuver big machinery around panels? Grow crops under solar panels? Go and talk to a farmer and see what they think about that.

Well I'm just a guy who grew up on a farm and has a degree in Agriculture, so maybe not!

You're thinking inside the box! Modern farmers a very progressive, well-educated and creative group of people. The markets may be against them, the work is hard and they don't make a lot of money, but they don't shy away from a challenge, nor would they ignore a way to improve the environment while increasing their income. Consider that robots can milk and feed cows, there are farms on top of buildings in the city of Montreal, there are farms in shipping containers in the Arctic. Self-driving tractors are more advanced than self-driving cars. There's no question that crops can be grown under solar panels, and some crops do better when grown that way.

Farming crops under solar panels, a process called agrivoltaics, can boost food production, water savings, and the efficiency of electricity production, researchers report.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Direct maximum solar radiation (100% efficient) is .17 horsepower per square foot. You'll need about 80-120 horsepower average to tow and the theoretical efficiency of a Solar panel is 45% max so working into the foreseeable future you'd need 1,570 square feet of solar panels on your vehicle. If you want that to remain in one lane, that will be about 184 feet in length.

Future batteries will almost certainly be fuel cells that use a continuously replenished energy source (fuel) as an input and convert it directly to electricity to avoid the inefficiency of heat engines which can be quite inefficient as the practical theoretical max is maybe 40-50%. Fuel cells practical efficiency is on the order of 85% though current end to end efficiency is now 40-50%.

I couldn’t have quoted you the numbers, but, I was well aware that with even 100% efficient panels, it was impossible, and much more so for realistic panels. Regardless, there will be a transition away from fossil fuels into EVs eventually. For such to work, battery technology is going to be critical. My familiarity with fuel cells thus far have been hydrogen fuel cells, with readily available hydrogen usually coming from methane instead of electrolysis of water (which consumes too much power). But using methane doesn’t really solve what people are wanting solved, itself being just a different fossil fuel.

Climates change. 20,000 years ago, we had continental glaciers down to the Ohio River; 10,000 years ago they were well into retreating; by 5,000 years ago, the continental glaciers were were in the polar regions like Antarctica or Greenland, most glaciers left were alpine. 200 years ago, we had less glaciers than we’d previously had. It’s been warming for a long time.

But I don’t speak out about it: all of the things that are done to “fight warming” aren’t bad things to do, are usually good things for the environment: reduce/ reuse/ recycle, improve fuel efficiency of vehicles, more efficient heat pumps, reduction of CFC’s, LED lighting... the list just goes on and on. I think it’s wrong to ‘scare’ people into trying to do things ‘because of the climate’, just educate people to do what’s better anyway.

In the grand scheme of things, the globe needs to reach ZPG, and if we had reached it 50 years ago, things wouldn’t seem so last-minute on a precipice now. Sea levels will still be rising, but maybe more slowly. Maybe, we’ve actually prevented the next glacial advance from initiating. But, saying such things out loud is usually frowned upon.

[bcheever]

I think Tesla's solar home roof tiles are really interesting too. They look just like the normal roof tiles on your house but charge a Powerwall battery all day, which then charges your car when you get home at night.

https://www.tesla.com/solarroof

Can't wait to see a car with a Zamp port on the side of it : )

"People saying it can't be done are often interrupted by someone doing it"

Again this is all v.1 stuff, but it's not hard to see where this is going in 10-20 years. No need to argue about it now!

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by DavidsonOverlander

Every industrial area was once someone's backyard. It was agricultural or natural area before it was industrial. 300,000 people live within a 6 mile radius of the nuclear plant that is nearest to my home. I live on the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and major tourist attraction. I wouldn't want windmills built in my area either, but I also have to acknowledge that others are living near a nuclear plant so I don't have to look at windmills. Let's not pretend that we get something for nothing.

You're looking at the effect of the Oahe Dam through your own experience and ignoring the experiences of the indigenous people who were affected.
Read Oahe Dam Native American displacement if you're interested in learning more.

I'm not saying that wind farms are the answer, but everything has a cost and we can't always expect someone else to pay it.

Windmills might not seem so bad if the oil sands were in your neighbourhood...

Come on. The Oahe dam was built in 1960’. There were no indigenous people in the area. Have you ever been to the Oahe dam area.

The foot print of a nuclear power plant is much different than the footprint of a solar or windmill farm. Not even remotely the same. And that nuclear power plant puts out far more kilowatts.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by GetawA-S

The article I read specified “light duty”, and stated that medium and heavy duty trucks would still be available in the IC flavor. (The Hill)

Light duty generally means up to 8500 GVWR, eg 150/1500 class

I expect we will see mandated fuel efficiency and emissions standards increasingly applied to heavier light duty vehicles, eg up to 350/3500 models. Those may have ICE power, but perhaps more hybrids, and some non ICE models.

That is about availability from manufacturers. From a vehicle licensing standpoint, we will probably see more exclusion zone restrictions in denser urban areas.

[gator.bigfoot]

We've been working on the project for some time now. Hope to get it up and rolling in the new plant later this year. The battery electric truck BET will be a game changer. Make sure you order the off road package.

[Estone]

Why wait? I put a deposit on this: https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck Chose the dual engine with 10K pulling capacity which is plenty for my 22FB Caravel

[Barretta2]

I have placed my order for the Tesla Cybertruck. Tow capacity 14,000 lbs, range towing expected to be 250 miles and re-charge in about the same time it takes to fill a truck tank, maybe 2 minutes longer. Charging stations are a fast-growing industry, so I’m optimistic. A game-changer, for sure, but one we can LIVE with.

[DavidsonOverlander]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

Come on. The Oahe dam was built in 1960’. There were no indigenous people in the area. Have you ever been to the Oahe dam area.

Sorry to have to ask, but you do know that Indigenous is another term for "Indian", right? The dam flooded 160,000 acres of land on the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Reservations. Of course there were Indigenous people there.

[BayouBiker]

Passenger vehicle fuel delivery is about 12-14 gal per minute so 2-3 minutes to fill up. How long to charge that Tesla from fully depleted to fully charged? I show in real life supercharger tests (not theoretical claims) at no less than 60 minutes..... hmm

[DavidsonOverlander]

One of the things expected to change (if charging rates remain longer) is that chargers won't be like gas stations. Sometimes it may be unavoidable to have to wait for your vehicle to charge, but chargers will be installed where there are other things to do. We think of refueling as wasted time because we stand there looking at a gas station for 5 minutes, which is probably the most boring part of our day. If it takes 15 minutes or half an hour to charge then that could be done while we're eating, or shopping or going for a walk. Also, unless we're travelling a lot of miles in the day, a lot of that charging will take place at night. We have to look at this in terms of what can be accomplished in 5-10 years, not what we see right now. The first public charger to be installed in our town wasn't at a gas station, it was at a coffee shop.