How to take advantage of ESS effectively.

[GARRIGA]

I agree nuclear has become much safer over time. However, nuclear is technically a non-renewable resource and requires extensive development to produce, which is in itself bad for the environment. Also, the byproduct of nuclear material is extremely hazardous and remains radioactive for centuries creating a storage issue. Other considerations are the excessive amount of concrete used in modern nuclear facilities which is also terrible for emissions. Finally, as safe as nuclear has become we have learned issues are not completely avoidable. For instance, natural disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) and unfornately terrorist attacks.

I posted this a few pages back regarding solar and wind:

“Renewable resources, especially solar and wind, are cheaper options for energy production than fossil fuels. However, there are issues with using renewables at this time. The US power infrastructure is terribly out of date and inefficient. Consumer power demand requires production to fluctuate so when more power is needed we simply light another natural gas plant to meet the rise. For renewable energy to replace natural gas/coal plants there needs to be technological advances in energy storage (batteries). Presently the manufacturing of these “batteries” are also bad for the environment so it does become moot. Other countries such as Germany, Sweden, and UK territories have successfully upgraded their power grids and have gone without any fossil fuel usage for energy production. But this has not been a focal point domestically unfortunately. Eventually this will trickle down to automobiles but in the meantime any step in the right direction helps with preparedness.

An interesting side note which illustrates this: In Europe the power plants have television schedules. You can literally see power demand spike during tv commercial breaks because so many people heat tea, make popcorn, etc.. They can adjust output for a few minutes until the tv program comes back on. It’s like if everyone flushed their toilets at the same time water pressure would plummet.”

Everything carries a cost. We just need to weight the pros vs the cons and go forward. Problem is us. We have agendas. We concern ourselves with now and hope later works itself out. I’m old enough to no longer care. Nothing will be solved in my lifetime. I’m just going to buy a Jeep and smile until I’m gone. Don’t care if it has ESS. Not going to stress over little things. Except DPF. That’s stressing the crap out of me. I want my diesel. So all can hear me coming and see me smiling.

Sponsored

 

[BumpyTrail]

Everything carries a cost. We just need to weight the pros vs the cons and go forward. Problem is us. We have agendas. We concern ourselves with now and hope later works itself out. I’m old enough to no longer care. Nothing will be solved in my lifetime. I’m just going to buy a Jeep and smile until I’m gone. Don’t care if it has ESS. Not going to stress over little things. Except DPF. That’s stressing the crap out of me. I want my diesel. So all can hear me coming and see me smiling.

I won’t see significant change in my lifetime but when I hold my granddaughter I pray nothing I’ve done will negatively affect her future or her grandkids future, God willing!

 

[GARRIGA]

Obama was president in 1975?

“Congress first established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, largely in response to the 1973 oil embargo. CAFE standards set the average new vehicle fuel economy, as weighted by sales, that a manufacturer's fleet must achieve”

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy-basics.html#.WwSLubQpBvI

The only thing the previous administration did was try to bring U.S. standards more inline with other developed nations.

Didn’t you know. It’s all Obama’s fault.

 

[GARRIGA]

I won’t see significant change in my lifetime but when I hold my granddaughter I pray nothing I’ve done will negatively affect her future or her grandkids future, God willing!

Agreed

 

[Biscuit]

Hijack mode on: Green energy is an oxymoron. Currently, green and clean energy is neither green nor clean.

Solar collection sites require land, and a lot of it, at the expense of the native plants and animals that depend on it. And let's not forget the millions of taxpayer dollars that Obama pissed away on failed solar companies and projects.

Wind turbines also require large expanses of wildlife habitat on both land and sea. They generate noise pollution and they're eyesores if you live near them. They kill thousands of wildfowl, including protected, threatened and endangered birds. The federal government gives the owners and operators a free pass. If you or I did it, we'd be fined and jailed.

Ethanol's contribution is insignificant, if it exists at all - except for the megafarms/corporations growing, producing and selling it while also being subsidized with the taxes you pay.

Poorly conceived hydroelectric power projects have decimated wildlife and habitat on a masssive scale, destroying fisheries and driving species to the verge of extinction.

Nuclear energy is not clean. It generates heat pollution from the water used to cool the reactors if that water isn't isolated from the surrounding environment. And I doubt that anyone here wants the spent radioactive byproducts stored in their neighborhoods.

Fact is, the environmental impact from so-called green and renewable resources isn't much different from that of fossil fuel.

Don't get me wrong; I'm 100% in favor of exploring and exploiting alternative energy sources if they're well-conceived and thought out. To date, however, I've seen nothing that meets that criteria.

Hijack mode off.

 

[GARRIGA]

Digging a hole in the ground not an eye sore? Oil rigs on land and sea? Black and grey smoke over processing plants?

Back to jeeps?

 

[bobzdar]

Hijack mode on: Green energy is an oxymoron. Currently, green and clean energy is neither green nor clean.

Solar collection sites require land, and a lot of it, at the expense of the native plants and animals that depend on it. And let's not forget the millions of taxpayer dollars that Obama pissed away on failed solar companies and projects.

Wind turbines also require large expanses of wildlife habitat on both land and sea. They generate noise pollution and they're eyesores if you live near them. They kill thousands of wildfowl, including protected, threatened and endangered birds. The federal government gives the owners and operators a free pass. If you or I did it, we'd be fined and jailed.

Ethanol's contribution is insignificant, if it exists at all - except for the megafarms/corporations growing, producing and selling it while also being subsidized with the taxes you pay.

Poorly conceived hydroelectric power projects have decimated wildlife and habitat on a masssive scale, destroying fisheries and driving species to the verge of extinction.

Nuclear energy is not clean. It generates heat pollution from the water used to cool the reactors if that water isn't isolated from the surrounding environment. And I doubt that anyone here wants the spent radioactive byproducts stored in their neighborhoods.

Don't get me wrong; I'm 100% in favor of exploring and exploiting alternative energy sources if they're well-conceived and thought out. To date, however, I've seen nothing that meets that criteria.

Hijack mode off.

Yeah, nothing's perfect, thanks captain obvious. It's not like fossil fuels magically remove themselves from the ground and with no bad byproducts, come on. The destruction from mining coal, drilling for oil and fracking are way worse than that done by installing solar, hydro or wind, not to mention what they do to the air when burned.

It's like not putting a cast on a broken leg because it itches. Yeah, itching sucks, but having a busted leg is way worse.

 

[Biscuit]

Yeah, nothing's perfect, thanks captain obvious.

Says the guy who drives three gas-guzzling, CO and CO2 belching vehicles, according to his profile.

You're welcome, .

 

[bobzdar]

Says the guy who drives three gas-guzzling, CO and CO2 belching vehicles, according to his profile.

You're welcome, .

I have 8 vehicles, those are just the jeeps. They range from 35mpg to around 10mpg for the grand wagoneer. I plan to sell the yj and gw, replaced with the jlur that gets 19-20mpg, so a pretty large improvement. But we put the most mileage on the mini clubman to the tune of 20k+ miles per year that gets 35mpg, so try again. I think I put 500miles combined on the jeeps last year.

 

[BumpyTrail]

Hijack mode on: Green energy is an oxymoron. Currently, green and clean energy is neither green nor clean.

Solar collection sites require land, and a lot of it, at the expense of the native plants and animals that depend on it. And let's not forget the millions of taxpayer dollars that Obama pissed away on failed solar companies and projects.

Wind turbines also require large expanses of wildlife habitat on both land and sea. They generate noise pollution and they're eyesores if you live near them. They kill thousands of wildfowl, including protected, threatened and endangered birds. The federal government gives the owners and operators a free pass. If you or I did it, we'd be fined and jailed.

Ethanol's contribution is insignificant, if it exists at all - except for the megafarms/corporations growing, producing and selling it while also being subsidized with the taxes you pay.

Poorly conceived hydroelectric power projects have decimated wildlife and habitat on a masssive scale, destroying fisheries and driving species to the verge of extinction.

Nuclear energy is not clean. It generates heat pollution from the water used to cool the reactors if that water isn't isolated from the surrounding environment. And I doubt that anyone here wants the spent radioactive byproducts stored in their neighborhoods.

Fact is, the environmental impact from so-called green and renewable resources isn't much different from that of fossil fuel.

Don't get me wrong; I'm 100% in favor of exploring and exploiting alternative energy sources if they're well-conceived and thought out. To date, however, I've seen nothing that meets that criteria.

Hijack mode off.

Apologies in advance for hijacking your hijack. Most people whom argue your talking points are smart and logically see how these cons come into play. So I just want to state facts so you may also logically consider and come to your own personal conclusion. (Also, I see you’re from NE Ohio, I am from Columbus so the last thing I want to do is offend a fellow Buckeye, Brownie, Cav or Tribe follower.)

On land consumption for both solar and wind:

It has been proven that the land use for limited natural resources are worse. Meaning if we were to take to total land use for oil, gas, and coal and instead install renewables on the same land we would create more energy.

http://cleantechies.com/2015/07/06/study-proves-fossil-fuels-way-worse-for-land-use-than-renewables/

On impact to native plants and animals:

What you’re referring to is an “ecosystem”. It has also been proven that coal, oil, and gas is also worse for ecosystems than renewable resource collection. A side note: this study doesn’t take into consideration accidents. For instance, offshore (ex; Deepwater Horizon’s accident and resulting oil contamination), onshore (ex; Mountrail County N.D. Pipeline spill), natural gas leak (ex; California’s Aliso Canyon SoCalGas blowout), and coal mine disasters (ex; Scofield min explosion). If included the numbers would inevitably be even more lopsided.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6233/401.full

On wind turbines causing noise pollution:

Yes, wind turbines do create noise pollution. There is a noticeable “whoosh” sound which can annoy people. However, it only effects residents within 1 mile of the turbines and has been proven to be quieter than average “city noise”.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a20/

On wind turbines effect on wildfowl:

Yes, wind turbines kill birds (wildfowl). A recent study concluded 214,000 - 368,000 birds are killed annually by wind turbines. That number is big, but you should consider 6,800,000 birds are killed by cell and radio towers and 1,400,000,000 - 3,700,000,000 birds are killed by cats annually for perspective.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...l-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/

On ethanol:

Ethanol has several benefits but how we get ethanol has several consequences. The fact is just growing corn in general has a rather large environmental impact. Air pollution, water management, pesticide run-off and soil degradation from growing access corn. Also, ethanol reduces fuel efficiency so it increases fuel consumption.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_for_environment

On hydroelectric plants impact on ecosystems:

Yes, hydroelectric plants definitely negativity effect ecosystems but pale in comparison to offshore oil spills. I would also argue what is worse for the environment in regards to hydroelectric plants is the extensive use of concrete. Concrete is terrible for the environment!

https://response.restoration.noaa.g...s-animals-and-plants-marine-environments.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete

On nuclear power plants heat pollution:

Nuclear power plants cause water vapor (think steam) to rise in the atmosphere. Interestingly the physics of water vapor has a positive correlation with airborne pollutants. The more CO2 in the air the more water vapor can be stored in the air. Water vapor is the engine driving climate change but it’s a byproduct of pollution. If you read my other posts I couldn’t agree with you more on the waste material from nuclear energy. Little known fact nuclear is not a renewable resource also.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ShipTracks/ship_tracks_2.php

I apologize if this comes across as obnoxious. I have the privilege of taking courses at The Ohio State University (most universities allow older folks like me to take courses for free) and I just took an Environmental Science course on Climate Change. I’ll admit I was skeptical but I learned way more than I ever thought I would. The peer vetted scientific data is overwhelming.

 

[Jeepsterfreak]

From the Jeep Informant

 

[Gregodav]

Let's all agree to disagree.

 

[Biscuit]

Apologies in advance for hijacking your hijack.

Kudos to you for being civil and rational in your discussion.

 

[GARRIGA]

28 pages on something that can be disabled at start up. Imagine how many when we start complaining about FAD.

 

[Biscuit]

I'm annoyed by the pop-up on this site that wants me to disable my ad blocker, but I just close the pop-up and carry on.

Sponsored