Do you live in a red state? Biden et al don't care about your job.

I certainly agree, but money isn’t the issue at hand. The push for electric vehicles is sold as a way to clean up the environment, reduce emissions, stop “global warming”, yada yada. Having things operate off of electricity accomplishes none of that, and we’re nowhere close to having the technology to power the country with renewables. As President Trump correctly stated last night, it’s a pipe dream.

My favorite part of electric cars is having to sit in a parking lot for an hour waiting for it to charge so I can drive another 200 miles and do it all over again.

Tesla's even better about it - "Oh, you didn't pay the extra money to enable the fast charging feature? Oh you're not the first owner? Enjoy taking 3 hours to charge."

I'd buy a tesla and figure out how to disable the satcom and enable all the features they charge extra for (fast charging, fuel economy, etc is all controlled by software), but despite all the flashy shit Elon puts in them, he still can't figure out how to make them not leak like a sieve. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Did you hear stupid Joe's comment during the debate last night. He said he would put 50,000 (thats is correct fifty thousand) recharging stations on the interstate highways.

So a drive to St. Louis from Kansas City would require two stops to recharge. That would be 3 hours x 2 or a six hour delay plus the time to wait in line at the recharging station.

Idiots should not argue about the exact time. For driving any distance at all, electric cars are stupid.

While we are one this type of discussion: I attended an EPA conference several years ago. A lawsuit was made against a group of gas stations about not really delivering a gallon of gas per what was suppose to be a gallon. The result was millions of dollars awarded to the "people of Missouri" which the state took to mean the various governments of Missouri. Because it was fuel related they decided that it would be a good idea to use the money to purchase natural gas conversions for government vehicles.

There is no tax on the use of natural gas for highway funding, as there is with gasoline.

Another rip-off by the government. Let the little people pay for the highways while the government uses it.

DamnDemocrats.

My favorite part of electric cars is having to sit in a parking lot for an hour waiting for it to charge so I can drive another 200 miles and do it all over again.

Tesla's even better about it - "Oh, you didn't pay the extra money to enable the fast charging feature? Oh you're not the first owner? Enjoy taking 3 hours to charge."

I'd buy a tesla and figure out how to disable the satcom and enable all the features they charge extra for (fast charging, fuel economy, etc is all controlled by software), but despite all the flashy shit Elon puts in them, he still can't figure out how to make them not leak like a sieve. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Did you hear stupid Joe's comment during the debate last night. He said he would put 50,000 (thats is correct fifty thousand) recharging stations on the interstate highways.

So a drive to St. Louis from Kansas City would require two stops to recharge. That would be 3 hours x 2 or a six hour delay plus the time to wait in line at the recharging station.

Idiots should not argue about the exact time. For driving any distance at all, electric cars are stupid.

While we are one this type of discussion: I attended an EPA conference several years ago. A lawsuit was made against a group of gas stations about not really delivering a gallon of gas per what was suppose to be a gallon. The result was millions of dollars awarded to the "people of Missouri" which the state took to mean the various governments of Missouri. Because it was fuel related they decided that it would be a good idea to use the money to purchase natural gas conversions for government vehicles.

There is no tax on the use of natural gas for highway funding, as there is with gasoline.

Another rip-off by the government. Let the little people pay for the highways while the government uses it.

DamnDemocrats.

That's actually hard to argue with, especially the "Tiny, you're a good poster" part. I'd point to gnadfly's post, minus the unhinged part. More money will go into solar and the price per kilowatt hour will continue to come down, without big subsidies. Same for the cost of electric vehicles, and their range before charging will increase and time to charge will decrease. Our experience with government pumping huge amounts into solar energy hasn't turned out well. It only accounts for 1.7% of total electricity generated in the U.S. during 2019. EV's were only 1.9% of total vehicle sales in 2019.

Among other the economic costs, a problem in the short and medium term is that storing electricity is crazy expensive. You need fossil fuel and nuclear generating capacity for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. And as I said earlier, the reduction in CO2 emissions from shutting down oil and gas production on U.S. federal lands won't be a drop in the bucket compared to worldwide emissions. But the cost in terms of jobs lost and capital stranded will be large. Originally Posted by Tiny

More money will go into solar

The damndemocrats have really pushed the solar shit. Guess who has made the major investment in solar energy - the shithead Obama. I don't know about the other shit for brains - Biden, but it would be a good guess.

Nuclear has been such a non-talking point that I'm actually curious what new efficiencies or technologies have been developed for it.

For example, what are the differences between Nine Mile Point 1 in NY, which opened in 1969, and Watts Bar Unit 2, in TN, which opened in 2016? Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Not sure, but the Energy Information Administration has estimates for 2025 here,

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf...generation.pdf

See page 7. The total capital and operating cost to produce electricity for a new nuclear plant built in 2025 is estimated to be $81.65 per megawatt-hour. Combined cycle natural gas, geothermal, onshore wind, and solar are all projected to be substantially cheaper.

Although of course with the wind and solar you've got intermittent sources. Add in costs for electricity storage and it's a different story.

Fact, not opinion:

There are so many people upset with the damndemocrats and so concerned that maybe, just maybe, Biden will win that the sales of ammunition and guns is unbelievable. I personally have talked to several guys that are into guns over the last three months. All of them have purchased additional weapons and ammo. 60,000 new rounds purchased each seems to be a common figure, with 9mm bullets the most popular. (that means handguns). The second most favorite round is for the AR-15 the most popular rifle.

Talking to the clerks at Cabela's indicated that guns are being sold out as soon as a truckload arrives.

It makes me start to worry because I have not invested in a lot of new ammo. I have a few hundred rounds; but not 60,000 to 100,000 that a lot of guys have. I was at one gun shop two months ago, looking for a smaller 380 piston because I gave the one I had to my son. Well, the clerk and I got to talking. They got a whole truck load of 9mm in and sold 60,000 rounds in two hours. The whole truck load was gone within a few days after the word got out that they had some.

People are stocking up for self protection, just in case Biden gets elected by the people in New York and California.

I hate what is happening in this country, and believe that Trump is our hope for the future. But if Biden wins, I have not been thinking of stocking up ammo to kill the democrats. But, as I learn more, I am starting to worry about the future of the good old USA.

It turns out I am a much better shooter at the rifle range than Lee Harvey Oswald. Simper Fi.

Not sure, but the Energy Information Administration has estimates for 2025 here,

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf...generation.pdf

See page 7. The total capital and operating cost to produce electricity for a new nuclear plant built in 2025 is estimated to be $81.65 per megawatt-hour. Combined cycle natural gas, geothermal, onshore wind, and solar are all projected to be substantially cheaper.

Although of course with the wind and solar you've got intermittent sources. Add in costs for electricity storage and it's a different story. Originally Posted by Tiny

I know the facts, and the bull shit about wind energy. The cost for wind energy that has been thrown at us is a lie because the cost of maintenance is not a part of the calculations. Guess what, the maintenance cost for the windmills that generate electricity is very high. Plus the fact that the wind is not always blowing and these units must be shut down at times.

President Trump mentioned the problem with windmills and bird deaths last night. This is true, it has been in the environmental news for years. It is a major environmental concern that these machines kill birds, and a lot of them, especially during the migratory seasons of the spring and fall.

We could collect up the dead birds and eat them, since nobody will be able to afford groceries due to paying 10k a month to heat their house.

We could collect up the dead birds and eat them, since nobody will be able to afford groceries due to paying 10k a month to heat their house. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

That might be an option depending on how much birds fart. AOC was looking to ban cows and pigs because they emit methane, a greenhouse gas, when they fart. Seriously. Not sure whether she'll extend that to birds as well.

The total capital and operating cost to produce electricity for a new nuclear plant built in 2025 is estimated to be $81.65 per megawatt-hour. Combined cycle natural gas, geothermal, onshore wind, and solar are all projected to be substantially cheaper.

Although of course with the wind and solar you've got intermittent sources. Add in costs for electricity storage and it's a different story. Originally Posted by Tiny

I know the facts, and the bull shit about wind energy. The cost for wind energy that has been thrown at us is a lie because the cost of maintenance is not a part of the calculations. Guess what, the maintenance cost for the windmills that generate electricity is very high. Plus the fact that the wind is not always blowing and these units must be shut down at times.

President Trump mentioned the problem with windmills and bird deaths last night. This is true, it has been in the environmental news for years. It is a major environmental concern that these machines kill birds, and a lot of them, especially during the migratory seasons of the spring and fall. Originally Posted by JRLawrence

I don't think I'm making myself clear. Here are some government projections for the cost of storing electricity from intermittent sources like wind and solar:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73222.pdf

See Figure ES-2 on page 5 of the .pdf. Currently you're looking at $0.375 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale 4 hour lithium battery storage. The "mid" case projects the cost will be $0.150 per kilowatt hour in 2050. Four hours doesn't seem like a lot of time to me. These numbers are off the chart compared to the cost of generating electricity from natural gas, which is as low as 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour, including capital costs to pay for the plant. And you can run the gas plant 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, night and day.

We could collect up the dead birds and eat them, since nobody will be able to afford groceries due to paying 10k a month to heat their house. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

As feeble as dementia joe is. Whenever he goes outside his bunker the buzzards circle! Death is near for that guy!

Electric cars do jack shit to reduce reliance upon fossil fuels, morons who promote this idea apparently missed 4th grade science. That electricity isn’t created out of thin air or cow farts, it’s generated using.........FOSSIL FUELS. In fact, since there’s yet to be created lossless transmission, as that is impossible according to basic laws of physics, MORE energy is required to convert the raw material to electricity.

Of course this is all moot if we were to smarten up and build nuclear power plants, easily the cleanest and most efficient source of electricity, but we’re not allowed to do that either. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

nuclear isn't banned. its just more expensive to comply with the onerous regulations that impose a 10-20 year build plan.

that is why there hasn't been much interest in building more nukes due the regulations.

It doesn't make sense to build new nuclear plants with the price of natural gas where it is. You save money on fuel with nuclear, but the capital costs to build the plants are very high. Natural gas power generation plants cost a lot less to build. Of course if fracking is banned, natural gas prices will go sky high and nuclear starts to make a lot of sense.? Originally Posted by Tiny

compliance with onerous & dubious nuclear regulations makes it expensive to build one. the regs are designed to discourage and frustrate engineers from building one.


Canada & south korea do not have this issue and the build time is 4 - 6 years as compared to 10 - 20 to build one.

Nuclear has been such a non-talking point that I'm actually curious what new efficiencies or technologies have been developed for it.

For example, what are the differences between Nine Mile Point 1 in NY, which opened in 1969, and Watts Bar Unit 2, in TN, which opened in 2016? Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I think they use the same technology.

remember it takes 10 - 20 years to build a nuclear reactor that is in compliance with nuclear regulations.

just looked at Watts. wow. I didn't think they took this long to complete it.

construction started in 1973 for Units 1 & 2. Unit 1 was completed in 1996. Unit 2 was completed in 2016.