GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From Sierra Club email:

-------------
SoCalGas has a responsibility for public safety and to using public dollars for things that are in the public interest. But they're not doing that.
Instead, they're using your money to support their own agenda -- advocacy for compressed natural gas fleet vehicles. They're completely ignoring both the public health benefits and air quality advantages of electric vehicles and zero emission technology.

Join the Sierra Club at the SoCalGas Public Participation Hearing on June 21 in Riverside to tell the utility to stop using your rate-payer funds to push misconceptions and doubts about the readiness of zero-emission trucks and buses.

This is the time to speak up. SoCalGas is currently undergoing its "General Rate Case," where it requests the Public Utilities Commission to approve the total revenue the utility wants to collect in rates from its customers over the next three years. SoCalGas is required to explain in detail how they will spend the money they are requesting.

Let your voice be heard and support the transition towards a clean energy and transportation future!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Since we're using this forum for political purposes...

Please take action to preserve stable reliable power for our vehicles and secure good American jobs with the fuel of our future, coal: http://www.countoncoal.org/



It's the fuel that built this country and the fuel that will propel us into the future of economic prosperity.

Today's coal provides:
Grid Resiliency - Stable, reliable power to propel our economy and the fleets of electric vehicles that are coming
New Technology - New clean coal technologies are being tested and proven every day
Consumer Savings - Coal lowers costs to consumers through grid diversity
Efficiency & Emissions - Coal Sulfur and Metal emissions are much lower than the past and continue to drop
Strong American Jobs - Mining provides wages well above the national average

Count on Coal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
I don't know if you are be facetious or not about coal. Coal is dying because of market forces, it's an obsolete technology so there is no reason to shed a tear about it's demise. It's not simply about the price of fuels that makes coal uncompetitive with natural gas, it's the cost of running the power plant. Coal plants require vastly more workers than gas plants because coal requires a lot of preparation before you can burn it and the plant requires much more maintenance.

It's the loss of nuclear plants that we should worry about. The newest nuclear plant in the US is 40 years old, failure to build new ones means that we are losing the expertise to ever build a plant. The only reactors that have been built in the US in recent decades are naval reactors, if we ever want to build a civilian reactor in the future we will probably be stuck buying it from China. Nuclear is carbon free and reliable, the only other power source that's as clean and reliable is hydro and we can't build anymore dams, we've already dammed every suitable river. Solar and wind mills don't run 24/7, they require a lot of storage to smooth them out and for now there isn't a great solution to the storage problem. As nuclear plants start to be decommissioned because of their age the grid is going to get dirtier because they will be replaced with natural gas plants.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Coal isn't any more obsolete than any other fuel source. All of it is still burnt to heat water to drive turbines. The only real "clean" renewable power source is hydroelectric power from dam and tide driven pumps.

Nuclear is a different animal, in that it could be clean. But its been hamstrung and fear has driven much of how waste is processed and stored instead of transporting it safely to somewhere it can be stored. All the radiation was already buried underground somewhere. There's been several new nuclear plants built or approved to be built, some painfully. There are 18 on the list right now being built or expanded in the US.

The real breakthough for energy is when we can utilize it directly rather than wasting a vast majority of it as heat.

Energy from fission is astronomical, Fusion is exponentially better and proton or neutron decay would let 1 gram of water generate more power than a thermonuclear bomb. If we ever got there, we could then harness quantum point energy and turn atomic movement into mind boggling unlimited power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
... Fusion is exponentially better and proton or neutron decay would let 1 gram of water generate more power than a thermonuclear bomb. If we ever got there, we could then harness quantum point energy and turn atomic movement into mind boggling unlimited power.
We already have a free fusion reactor! Free for everyone whose radiation falls on their land. All we need are grid scale affordable batteries to store the converted energy into electricity! There are also technologies that can harness this fusion power for a baseload supply using molten salts while waiting for grid scale batteries to come down in prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
As for coal mining, it doesn't employ many people for the same amount of invested money or subsidies. Coal is expensive to use than the given alternative energies right now. Gas is the one that's killing coal, but solar and wind are now starting to chip away at gas.
 
G

·
60 year old nuclear technology isn't the be all and end all. There is now new nuclear technology that can come out of the lab to the industrial scale. In the US every plant was a custom built plant (read expensive). France did them on a modular basis, each one was the same giving economies of scale to building a nuclear plant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Since natural gas is what they sell I'm not surprised that they would advocate compressed natural gas for feet vehicles. While compressed natural gas is slightly better for the environment and fuel costs, these advantages pale in comparison against fleet operated on electricity. If you check out web sites for fleet truck operators the big news is the rapid emergence of electric propulsion. The reason is not the environment but instead much lower life cycle costs. Sounds like a win for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I can see how compressed natural gas might more sense as a gasoline alternative for things like long haul trucking than EVs do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Since natural gas is what they sell I'm not surprised that they would advocate compressed natural gas for feet vehicles. While compressed natural gas is slightly better for the environment and fuel costs, these advantages pale in comparison against fleet operated on electricity. If you check out web sites for fleet truck operators the big news is the rapid emergence of electric propulsion. The reason is not the environment but instead much lower life cycle costs. Sounds like a win for everyone.
I can see how compressed natural gas might more sense as a gasoline alternative for things like long haul trucking than EVs do.
Ironically, when you charge your electric vehicle around these parts (and a number of other places) you're primarily using natgas as your energy source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
Ironically, when you charge your electric vehicle around these parts (and a number of other places) you're primarily using natgas as your energy source.
That is ironic, although I think at least it's a more efficient use of natural gas than burning it directly in a vehicle.

Also electricity is already being distributed right to your home. So compressed natural gas does not have to be trucked to fueling stations, which of course burns more fuel. And you don't have the cost and inconvenience of driving to those stations and fueling up.

Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
That is ironic, although I think at least it's a more efficient use of natural gas than burning it directly in a vehicle.

Also electricity is already being distributed right to your home. So compressed natural gas does not have to be trucked to fueling stations, which of course burns more fuel. And you don't have the cost and inconvenience of driving to those stations and fueling up.

Jon
Natgas can be compressed right at the fueling station where distribution through pipes is the common method, as it is here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
That is ironic, although I think at least it's a more efficient use of natural gas than burning it directly in a vehicle.

Also electricity is already being distributed right to your home. So compressed natural gas does not have to be trucked to fueling stations, which of course burns more fuel. And you don't have the cost and inconvenience of driving to those stations and fueling up.

Jon

I think they were pushing it for fleet use, not personal vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
I think they were pushing it for fleet use, not personal vehicles.
Yes I figured. Nice they can compress it right at the station too. I was just trying to point out that it is still easier and more efficient to have an EV for personal use even if the electricity is generated by natural gas, vs a natural gas vehicle. So ironic, but still more efficient .

Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,426 Posts
I wonder what the well to wheels efficiency is for gas powerplant to EV vs a natural gas hybrid. Power plants are incredible efficient, GE claims 62.5% thermal efficiency on their latest powerplant turbines, however you have losses in transmission and then conversion from electricity to battery. The maximum theoretical efficiency of an internal combustion engine isn't nearly as high as that of multistage steam turbine system but you also don't have the transmission losses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
If you are one of the around 50% of US households who have natural gas. Compared to around 100% who have electricity. So there is that.

You make a good point though that not everyone has to drive to a station to refuel a cng vehicle.

We are still left with the fact that an EV is far more efficient, when powered by electricity from natural gas, than a CNG vehicle.

Jon
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
CNG works for me. It's far better than gas or diesel from both an environmental and national security standpoint. For long haul trucking CNG makes way more sense than batteries. So bring on those fleets of natural gas vehicles.

Why anyone would champion coal at this point is beyond me. Hard to find a reason not to get rid of it. Mining it destroys the environment, it burns dirty (more radioactive material from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant), and it's expensive.

Unfortunately nuclear plants just aren't economical. They always take too long and too much money to build, always cost to much to operate, always have too much downtime, and always produce too little electricity.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
21,121 Posts
CNG works for me. It's far better than gas or diesel from both an environmental and national security standpoint. For long haul trucking CNG makes way more sense than batteries. So bring on those fleets of natural gas vehicles.

Why anyone would champion coal at this point is beyond me. Hard to find a reason not to get rid of it. Mining it destroys the environment, it burns dirty (more radioactive material from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant), and it's expensive.
Don't forget the extra mercury you get in your coal diet. I can never get enough mercury...
 
G

·
Why anyone would champion coal at this point is beyond me. Hard to find a reason not to get rid of it. Mining it destroys the environment, it burns dirty (more radioactive material from a coal plant than from a nuclear plant), and it's expensive.
You can't make steel without coal. If you did away with coal you'd have to do away with steel. Steel content needs carbon in it.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top