Batteries Included: No War Required

Nubo said:

Careful. There are some folks out there who confuse a desire for peace with a putdown of America.

I think the Leaf itself already pushes some hot-buttons just because it isn't using petroleum, doesn't pollute, etc.... How un-American! That's why I wouldn't want anything on the car shouting out "zero emissions", etc.. Wouldn't want anyone keying it in retaliation to my "smugness". I was actually thinking of debadging the thing.

Click to expand...

I agree on some level. I was interviewed by the local paper (San Jose Mercury News) about being ready to reserve a leaf (this was the week before 4/20). The reporter asked why i wanted to buy an electric car, and i explained a couple of things such as my desire to not use oil, the environment, etc. One thing i did say was that i had a little bit of guilt for using gas in this day and age.

The paper In the "comments" that the general public gets to put in the mercury news website, I was completely flamed pretty severely by a bunch of people for the guilt comment (you know, standard "you liberal asshole", "damn Al Gore Worshipers", "why don't you kill yourself if you're feeling guilty for living")

On one level, it was entertaining to see people get so worked up over a simple comment, but it's also a sad sign of the times, and it may make sense not to rub it in too much.

On the flip side i have a slogan that I'm planning on using for my electric motorcycle conversion (and maybe the leaf too). I'm getting the plate frame printed, so i'll post it when it's done.

Nubo said:

Careful. There are some folks out there who confuse a desire for peace with a putdown of America.

Click to expand...

Personally, I won't be cowed down by such people. The day we all stop saying things because of the fear is the day democracy would have died here.

BTW, atleast around here I don't see any problems with "no war" signs.

I wonder where the U.S. would be today if instead of spending $1000B on oil war II, we had instead invested that kind of money on solar farms and wind farms?

evnow said:

Nubo said:

Careful. There are some folks out there who confuse a desire for peace with a putdown of America.

Click to expand...

Personally, I won't be cowed down by such people. The day we all stop saying things because of the fear is the day democracy would have died here.

BTW, atleast around here I don't see any problems with "no war" signs.

Click to expand...

Exactly why I wear my t-shirts..... never been confronted yet.
BUTT my poor defenseless Leaf would be just the type of target
that these chickenhawk pansies would deface.

Yodrak said:

Doesn't use [mostly foreign] petroleum - right.
Doesn't pollute - wrong.

You won't be charging your Leaf by flying a kite in a thunderstorm. As for solar and wind, what little of that there will be for quite a while to come, you know those coal and natural gas generators that are backed down by solar and wind generation? They're going to crank back up again when the Leafs plug in.

EVs will pollute less, using primarily domestic fossil fuels, but in the overall scheme of things electricity is not a pollution free energy source.

Click to expand...

Just as it's wise to stay clear of 'always' and 'never', beware of applying national statistics to Leafers.

While a macro statistic suggests that the 'nation' uses 44.9% coal, the San Antonio mix is 38% coal, 33% nuclear, about 15% wind, and natural gas.

Drilling down one more step, I subscribe to a wind-only plan for 100% of my power.

So...while SOME Leafs might rely on coal, don't trivialize all the renewables that folks will use - either from their own PV and/or wind or from programs with local power companies.

As for 'right' and 'wrong' - those are just judgments. Sure, skip 'pollution' and 'global warming/climate change' if you want to get on fox 'news' or make friends with your local Republicans, but feel free to tell the truth the rest of the time. :lol:

indyflick said:

I wonder where the U.S. would be today if instead of spending $1000B on oil war II, we had instead invested that kind of money on solar farms and wind farms?

Click to expand...

That would be a lot of jobs here instead of there

smkettner said:

indyflick said:

I wonder where the U.S. would be today if instead of spending $1000B on oil war II, we had instead invested that kind of money on solar farms and wind farms?

Click to expand...

That would be a lot of jobs here instead of there

Click to expand...

You're probably right.

Unfortunately, folks, when the US economy goes places in handbaskets, the military is there to provide jobs and security to families that would be running out of unemployment benefits about now. There are smart folks that expected we'd have reinstated the draft by now - instead a sour economy improved recruitment numbers. As much as my heart is behind pulling our troops out of foreign oil fields, I understand a least a little of how complex a web our economy really is.

Even the wind power hang-up we have right now isn't the lack of open slots on 'turbine planting parties' - it's in the lack of transmission infrastructure. So even if folks were back in the US, they'd be cooling their heels until the politicians pulled their heads out. And that's not likely from the 'grand obstructionist party' anytime soon.

Bloody sad overall.

AndyH said:

smkettner said:

indyflick said:

I wonder where the U.S. would be today if instead of spending $1000B on oil war II, we had instead invested that kind of money on solar farms and wind farms?

Click to expand...

That would be a lot of jobs here instead of there

Click to expand...

You're probably right.

Unfortunately, folks, when the US economy goes places in handbaskets, the military is there to provide jobs and security to families that would be running out of unemployment benefits about now. There are smart folks that expected we'd have reinstated the draft by now - instead a sour economy improved recruitment numbers. As much as my heart is behind pulling our troops out of foreign oil fields, I understand a least a little of how complex a web our economy really is.

Even the wind power hang-up we have right now isn't the lack of open slots on 'turbine planting parties' - it's in the lack of transmission infrastructure. So even if folks were back in the US, they'd be cooling their heels until the politicians pulled their heads out. And that's not likely from the 'grand obstructionist party' anytime soon.

Bloody sad overall.

Click to expand...

Wait a second Andy. There's a big difference between soldiers joining the military and their mission once they are in the military. The latter is a policy matter and oil war II was a war of choice. The $1000B price tag is the cost to move the soldiers and equipment to the middle east, fight the war, post war nation building, and moving the soldiers and equipment out.

Well, personally I am a Tree Hugger. I love them all. Cyanobacteria, Ferns, Angiosperms, Gymnosperms, Grasses -- wait, is Corn grass? (OB: MST3K reference).

Anyway, I don't mind sharing that with y'all on this forum but my point is there's no need to fight it on the green front. The LEAF lessens our dependence on petrol products from places like Saudi Arabia, a country where the Bin Laden family got rich off the stuff and one of their sons planned something awful with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I think every American can get behind that sentiment.

Also, from a political point of view, I don't like Ethanol and the reason is simple: using corn for gasoline means the price of corn rises which means the cost of the most staple food of Mexico rises which causes mass starvation in Mexico which causes instability in Mexico which causes a secondary, black economy to be created which, as anyone on the other side of Heroica Nogales and Tijuana can tell you means a lot more drugs and guns. Not saying the price of mais is the only reason for this, but it is one of the primary factors.

It's all about National Security, folks!

A version of this appears in my blog: http://aecn.timehorse.com/2010/09/its-matter-of-national-security.html

If one legalizes the non-legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, gasoline, and chocolate are already legal), and taxes them heavily (we need revenue), there is no more black market to fight.

Keeping the in-demand things illegal just creates the market that gangs and mobs use as an income stream. Much like gasoline being so "in demand" feeds (and "fuels") the world's more visible "mobs".

That is the truly stunning thing about the republican move
away from alternatives when our vulnerability had just been
emphasized so strongly. (hostage / gas crisis)

Soooo "national security" is their catch phrase while stuffin
away all the cash that they can steal is their true god.

garygid said:

If one legalizes the non-legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, gasoline, and chocolate are already legal), and taxes them heavily (we need revenue), there is no more black market to fight.

Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir, sir! I like the way fierce Libertarian Penn Jillette puts it: Legalize it even though I'd never use it.

indyflick said:

AndyH said:

smkettner said:

That would be a lot of jobs here instead of there

Click to expand...

You're probably right.

Unfortunately, folks, when the US economy goes places in handbaskets, the military is there to provide jobs and security to families that would be running out of unemployment benefits about now. There are smart folks that expected we'd have reinstated the draft by now - instead a sour economy improved recruitment numbers. As much as my heart is behind pulling our troops out of foreign oil fields, I understand a least a little of how complex a web our economy really is.

Even the wind power hang-up we have right now isn't the lack of open slots on 'turbine planting parties' - it's in the lack of transmission infrastructure. So even if folks were back in the US, they'd be cooling their heels until the politicians pulled their heads out. And that's not likely from the 'grand obstructionist party' anytime soon.

Bloody sad overall.

Click to expand...

Wait a second Andy. There's a big difference between soldiers joining the military and their mission once they are in the military. The latter is a policy matter and oil war II was a war of choice. The $1000B price tag is the cost to move the soldiers and equipment to the middle east, fight the war, post war nation building, and moving the soldiers and equipment out.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, Indy - and as a retired Airman I'll strongly confirm that our military works hard in many areas outside of the Persian Gulf region. I'm absolutely not part of the group that suggests we can retire our entire military once we finish pulling out of Iraq.

I agree completely - it comes back to policy. I guess I'm interested in learning where the American people's threshold is - how much 'stress' are they/we willing to take before we start whacking our politicians in the nose with a rolled up newspaper? <shrug>

Be equally cautious of thinking that all Leafers are San Antonians, and Californians. At least we hope that EVs will make inroads in all parts of the country - don't we?

As for the San Antonio generation mix,
- Nuclear plants do not follow load, within narrow limits they run flat out no matter what the load is so as to make the most efficient use of their fuel.
- Wind and solar generation also do not follow load, they follow their energy source. Wind turbines generate when the wind is blowing. They do not increase output when someone plugs in an EV, they do not decrease output when someone un-plugs an EV.
- It's the coal and natural gas generators that increase and decrease output when load changes. When someone turns on a light, or their AC kicks in, or they plug in a Leaf, it's the coal and natural gas plants that increase output to serve the increased load.

That being said, I agree that it's as incorrect (or as 'unfair', depending on whether one takes an analytical point of view or an emotional point of view) to say that EVs will be charged only by burning fossil fuels as it is to say that they will be charged only by renewable sources such as wind. Rather, the best way to look at it is to recognize that the electric supply system is like a big cistern, with many sources feeding in and many loads drawing out. Each load draws from the mix of sources. There's no way to direct one source to one load, even for a grid-connected homeowner with their own WTG or PV array, unless the one source is dedicated and connected only to the one load.

Also, since we do hope and expect that EVs will not be just a local or regional phenomenon, it's every bit as valid to look at the forest as well as at the individual trees to determine the impact on the environment.

AndyH said:

Just as it's wise to stay clear of 'always' and 'never', beware of applying national statistics to Leafers.

While a macro statistic suggests that the 'nation' uses 44.9% coal, the San Antonio mix is 38% coal, 33% nuclear, about 15% wind, and natural gas.

Drilling down one more step, I subscribe to a wind-only plan for 100% of my power.

So...while SOME Leafs might rely on coal, don't trivialize all the renewables that folks will use - either from their own PV and/or wind or from programs with local power companies.

As for 'right' and 'wrong' - those are just judgments. Sure, skip 'pollution' and 'global warming/climate change' if you want to get on fox 'news' or make friends with your local Republicans, but feel free to tell the truth the rest of the time. :lol:

Yodrak said:

Doesn't use [mostly foreign] petroleum - right.
Doesn't pollute - wrong.

You won't be charging your Leaf by flying a kite in a thunderstorm. As for solar and wind, what little of that there will be for quite a while to come, you know those coal and natural gas generators that are backed down by solar and wind generation? They're going to crank back up again when the Leafs plug in.

EVs will pollute less, using primarily domestic fossil fuels, but in the overall scheme of things electricity is not a pollution free energy source.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AndyH said:

Absolutely, Indy - and as a retired Airman I'll strongly confirm that our military works hard in many areas outside of the Persian Gulf region. I'm absolutely not part of the group that suggests we can retire our entire military once we finish pulling out of Iraq.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your service.

AndyH said:

I agree completely - it comes back to policy. I guess I'm interested in learning where the American people's threshold is - how much 'stress' are they/we willing to take before we start whacking our politicians in the nose with a rolled up newspaper? <shrug>

Click to expand...

Those in the administration who promoted the Iraq war as well as those in congress who voted "yea" will have that stain on their record for history to judge. I would be in favor of erecting a 50 by 50 foot granite wall with every member of the administration who pressed for the war and every member of congress who voted "yea" or "nay" engraved on the wall to preserve the record for future generations.

Unless your PV will be serving only your EV - will not be generating any electricity except to charge your EV - I have to disagree. If your PV will be grid connected, reducing your draw from the utility and perhaps even at times feeding back into the utility system, then what your PV output will be doing is reducing output from fossil-fueled power plants on the utility grid.

This is a very good thing, I agree, don't misunderstand me on that. I'm simply recognizing the fact that when you or anyone else plugs in their EV it's a fossil fuel power plant that is going to increase output to provide the electricity to do the charging. Your PV is not going to increase it's output - it's already generating whatever it can based on the sun light it's receiving.

Beyond that, I'm curious about two things:
- For most utilities, off-peak hours are not during the day when the sun is shining, except perhaps on weekends. Off-peak hours are primarily overnight.
- You, apparently, will be leaving your Leaf at home to charge during the day, and do your driving at night? Like most people, I work during the day and will not have access to a place to charge my Leaf. My charging will be done primarily overnight, when the sun is not shining and my PV array is dormant.

I'm sure that you are not unique in your situation, but you are in a minority.

leaffan said:

I can't speak for everyone, but for others on here and myself, we will be using our pvs. I'll be using them during the day at off-peak hours, so yes, it WILL be zero emissions.

Yodrak said:

Doesn't use [mostly foreign] petroleum - right.
Doesn't pollute - wrong.

You won't be charging your Leaf by flying a kite in a thunderstorm. As for solar and wind, what little of that there will be for quite a while to come, you know those coal and natural gas generators that are backed down by solar and wind generation? They're going to crank back up again when the Leafs plug in.

EVs will pollute less, using primarily domestic fossil fuels, but in the overall scheme of things electricity is not a pollution free energy source.

Nubo said:

I think the Leaf itself already pushes some hot-buttons just because it isn't using petroleum, doesn't pollute, etc.... How un-American! That's why I wouldn't want anything on the car shouting out "zero emissions", etc.. Wouldn't want anyone keying it in retaliation to my "smugness". I was actually thinking of debadging the thing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not a tree hugger, but I like your pragmatism. EV's will reduce our dependence on petroleum, most of which comes from unstable and unfriendly areas of the world, and that's a very good thing.

I also don't like the idea of using corn to make ethanol for fuel, but for additional reasons beyond that corn is too valuable as a food source:
- it takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get back from the ethanol - a net increase in energy consumption, counter-productive yes?
- there are more efficient crops than corn that can be used to make ethanol, specifically sugar cane. Brazil has got it right in this regard. But wait - US farmers don't grow much sugar cane, do they? US farmers grow corn. Guess that's why the US gets most of its sweeteners, as well as its ethanol, from corn. And yes, both corn and sugar cane are grasses.

TimeHorse said:

Well, personally I am a Tree Hugger. I love them all. Cyanobacteria, Ferns, Angiosperms, Gymnosperms, Grasses -- wait, is Corn grass? (OB: MST3K reference).

Anyway, I don't mind sharing that with y'all on this forum but my point is there's no need to fight it on the green front. The LEAF lessens our dependence on petrol products from places like Saudi Arabia, a country where the Bin Laden family got rich off the stuff and one of their sons planned something awful with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I think every American can get behind that sentiment.

Also, from a political point of view, I don't like Ethanol and the reason is simple: using corn for gasoline means the price of corn rises which means the cost of the most staple food of Mexico rises which causes mass starvation in Mexico which causes instability in Mexico which causes a secondary, black economy to be created which, as anyone on the other side of Heroica Nogales and Tijuana can tell you means a lot more drugs and guns. Not saying the price of mais is the only reason for this, but it is one of the primary factors.

It's all about National Security, folks!

A version of this appears in my blog: http://aecn.timehorse.com/2010/09/its-matter-of-national-security.html

Click to expand...

deleted - double post

Yodrak said:

I also don't like the idea of using corn to make ethanol for fuel, but for additional reasons beyond that corn is too valuable as a food source:
- it takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get back from the ethanol - a net increase in energy consumption, counter-productive yes?
- there are more efficient crops than corn that can be used to make ethanol, specifically sugar cane. Brazil has got it right in this regard. But wait - US farmers don't grow much sugar cane, do they? US farmers grow corn. Guess that's why the US gets most of its sweeteners, as well as its ethanol, from corn. And yes, both corn and sugar cane are grasses.

Click to expand...

Well, the main issue with Sugar is that it's hard to grow under most U.S. climates. Plus, one wonders how much of the Amazonian Rain Forest Brazil had to cut down to achieve that independence. But I agree with, of all people, Mr. Geo-Thermal, George W. Bush that other grasses, like switchgrass are perfect for the use as Midwestern crops. I've also heard that fast-growing trees like Poplar could be engineered to be petrochemical producers. It's all a matter of taking advantage of the land you have and the crops you have, and not the land and crops you wish you had.

As for grasses, I look forward to the day 100 million years from now when the planet is covered by bamboo forests for miles and miles. Grasses: the Eocene's gift to mankind!

Yodrak said:

Be equally cautious of thinking that all Leafers are San Antonians, and Californians. At least we hope that EVs will make inroads in all parts of the country - don't we?

As for the San Antonio generation mix,
- Nuclear plants do not follow load, within narrow limits they run flat out no matter what the load is so as to make the most efficient use of their fuel.
- Wind and solar generation also do not follow load, they follow their energy source. Wind turbines generate when the wind is blowing. They do not increase output when someone plugs in an EV, they do not decrease output when someone un-plugs an EV.
- It's the coal and natural gas generators that increase and decrease output when load changes. When someone turns on a light, or their AC kicks in, or they plug in a Leaf, it's the coal and natural gas plants that increase output to serve the increased load.

That being said, I agree that it's as incorrect (or as 'unfair', depending on whether one takes an analytical point of view or an emotional point of view) to say that EVs will be charged only by burning fossil fuels as it is to say that they will be charged only by renewable sources such as wind. Rather, the best way to look at it is to recognize that the electric supply system is like a big cistern, with many sources feeding in and many loads drawing out. Each load draws from the mix of sources. There's no way to direct one source to one load, even for a grid-connected homeowner with their own WTG or PV array, unless the one source is dedicated and connected only to the one load.

Also, since we do hope and expect that EVs will not be just a local or regional phenomenon, it's every bit as valid to look at the forest as well as at the individual trees to determine the impact on the environment.

Click to expand...

Nice job Yodrak! I hate it when 'reality' gets in the way of common accounting practices! :lol:

I guess the only folks that really have the right to feel superior about their EV charging are the folks that don't have a grid connection for car charging.

My long term goal is to be completely off grid - and last week's back-of-napkin calculations for Leaf charging was a 'reality check'. My refrigerator is a constant 42 watt 'bulb' burning away in the kitchen...a Leaf will use a bit more power than that.

Andy