Why Is Our Government Pushing Electric Vehicles??

[Guest]

Newscasts frequently contain announcements made with great pride about the production of electric of electric trucks and cars. The latest such was the President’s announcement of a new line of electric trucks during his speech in Elkhart. These announcements are usually accompanied by claims that these vehicles are ‘zero emission’ vehicles and will help curtail greenhouse gases. This sounds wonderful, but violates one of the basic laws of physics – the conservation of energy.

The electrical energy used in these vehicles has to come from somewhere. The somewhere is a power station. Today, in the United States, we have three primary sources of electrical energy – hydroelectric power, nuclear power and fossil fuels. Since hydroelectric sources are essentially used up, and new nuclear is years away, this leaves us burning more fossil fuel to generate the additional needed electricity.

Without going into the details of steam generation, let it suffice to say that the efficiency of energy conversion is significantly less than 50%. After that, you must consider the losses in transmission, voltage conversion and battery storage. At the end of the day, the power station will have to use approximately ten times as much fossil fuel as the vehicle would require if the fuel were used directly to fuel the vehicle. This is analogous to the preference for gas water heaters to electric. They cost less to operate.

Why are we embarking on programs that will increase our use of fossil fuels, increase our dependence of foreign oil and reduce the usefulness of our trucks and cars? Can someone explain the logic to me, please?

[Guest]

Newscasts frequently contain announcements made with great pride about the production of electric of electric trucks and cars. The latest such was the President’s announcement of a new line of electric trucks during his speech in Elkhart. These announcements are usually accompanied by claims that these vehicles are ‘zero emission’ vehicles and will help curtail greenhouse gases. This sounds wonderful, but violates one of the basic laws of physics – the conservation of energy.

The electrical energy used in these vehicles has to come from somewhere. The somewhere is a power station. Today, in the United States, we have three primary sources of electrical energy – hydroelectric power, nuclear power and fossil fuels. Since hydroelectric sources are essentially used up, and new nuclear is years away, this leaves us burning more fossil fuel to generate the additional needed electricity.

Without going into the details of steam generation, let it suffice to say that the efficiency of energy conversion is significantly less than 50%. After that, you must consider the losses in transmission, voltage conversion and battery storage. At the end of the day, the power station will have to use approximately ten times as much fossil fuel as the vehicle would require if the fuel were used directly to fuel the vehicle. This is analogous to the preference for gas water heaters to electric. They cost less to operate.

Why are we embarking on programs that will increase our use of fossil fuels, increase our dependence of foreign oil and reduce the usefulness of our trucks and cars? Can someone explain the logic to me, please?

Isn't using government and logic in the same sentence an oxymoron?

Actually I do understand what you've said on this topic, now and in past posts. My thinking is to produce hydrogen from renewable sources for auto fuel. Solar, wind, bio fuel (not from a food crop) come to mind as sources of power to produce hydrogen. The oil that we do consume not only has to be conserved, but should be used for products that there is no substitute for oil in it's manufacture.

[Guest]

Newscasts frequently contain announcements made with great pride about the production of electric of electric trucks and cars. The latest such was the President’s announcement of a new line of electric trucks during his speech in Elkhart. These announcements are usually accompanied by claims that these vehicles are ‘zero emission’ vehicles and will help curtail greenhouse gases. This sounds wonderful, but violates one of the basic laws of physics – the conservation of energy.

The electrical energy used in these vehicles has to come from somewhere. The somewhere is a power station. Today, in the United States, we have three primary sources of electrical energy – hydroelectric power, nuclear power and fossil fuels. Since hydroelectric sources are essentially used up, and new nuclear is years away, this leaves us burning more fossil fuel to generate the additional needed electricity.

Without going into the details of steam generation, let it suffice to say that the efficiency of energy conversion is significantly less than 50%. After that, you must consider the losses in transmission, voltage conversion and battery storage. At the end of the day, the power station will have to use approximately ten times as much fossil fuel as the vehicle would require if the fuel were used directly to fuel the vehicle. This is analogous to the preference for gas water heaters to electric. They cost less to operate.

Why are we embarking on programs that will increase our use of fossil fuels, increase our dependence of foreign oil and reduce the usefulness of our trucks and cars? Can someone explain the logic to me, please?

Never underestimate the power of the green people. The religion of environmentalism is a movement to be scared of as they try to steer the trends and economy to their way of thinking. Many theories on what makes them tick. Some say it is a substitute for religion as many of them are atheists. Some theories go so far as to say they are self-righteous and think they can dictate their morals to every one. Guilt is a great motivator.
When they tell you that you are hurting mother nature...guilt out- weighs logic.

[Guest]

Newscasts frequently contain announcements made with great pride about the production of electric of electric trucks and cars. The latest such was the President’s announcement of a new line of electric trucks during his speech in Elkhart. These announcements are usually accompanied by claims that these vehicles are ‘zero emission’ vehicles and will help curtail greenhouse gases. This sounds wonderful, but violates one of the basic laws of physics – the conservation of energy.

The electrical energy used in these vehicles has to come from somewhere. The somewhere is a power station. Today, in the United States, we have three primary sources of electrical energy – hydroelectric power, nuclear power and fossil fuels. Since hydroelectric sources are essentially used up, and new nuclear is years away, this leaves us burning more fossil fuel to generate the additional needed electricity.

Without going into the details of steam generation, let it suffice to say that the efficiency of energy conversion is significantly less than 50%. After that, you must consider the losses in transmission, voltage conversion and battery storage. At the end of the day, the power station will have to use approximately ten times as much fossil fuel as the vehicle would require if the fuel were used directly to fuel the vehicle. This is analogous to the preference for gas water heaters to electric. They cost less to operate.

Why are we embarking on programs that will increase our use of fossil fuels, increase our dependence of foreign oil and reduce the usefulness of our trucks and cars? Can someone explain the logic to me, please?

I say the same thing about golf carts when people say they are more economical than gas carts. They gotta pay for the electricity and that means more has to be generated and round and round we go. I don't know or profess to know what it is, but there's gotta be a solution somewhere.

[Guest]

The solution IS Nuclear Energy. It is the lowest emission energy source we have and we don't have to rely on foreigners. If we had continued building nuclear plants we would already be in compliance with the Kyoto Accords, if you care. We've got to get the environmental wackos out of the driver's seat of our energy needs. Maybe we can get our European Socialist "friends", of whom our administration is so envious of, to help us convince the American sheeple to readjust their thinking.

[Guest]

When all other logic fails - follow the money.

There are only a handful of companies that are involved in the battery technology and manufacturing business. Their lobbyists, board of director members and various investors have a lot riding on all of this.