While I'm glad they moved from coal to 86% natural gas/14% renewable, 86% NG is still makes for a lot of pollution. And producing it uses outrageous amounts of water. I would call it "less-dirty electricity".
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Lon12
Member
Are you saying I should get rid of my gas stove because of all the pollution it makes in my house? Water is renewable isn't it?
Obviously wind and solar will be the best option. It will just take time to get there.
Obviously wind and solar will be the best option. It will just take time to get there.
Huh? The way I read it Calgary is 86% NatGas. That is still dirty, just less dirty in terms of CO2. Here in Ontario we are about 85% hydro, nukes and wind and about 15% NatGas.
Scott-P
Member
Lon12
Member
Sorry about that. NG is definitely just less dirty. Dirty NG powered Tesla is what I'll be defending now until we can buy the Tesla roof tiles here. 
This has been educational for me. My whole life I just assumed natural gas was "clean" burning. Such a pretty blue flame and no smoke.
I'm surprised that they can still build and install gas ranges.
This has been educational for me. My whole life I just assumed natural gas was "clean" burning. Such a pretty blue flame and no smoke.
I'm surprised that they can still build and install gas ranges.
mknox
Well-Known Member
Sorry about that. NG is definitely just less dirty. Dirty NG powered Tesla is what I'll be defending now until we can buy the Tesla roof tiles here.
This has been educational for me. My whole life I just assumed natural gas was "clean" burning. Such a pretty blue flame and no smoke.
I'm surprised that they can still build and install gas ranges.
Natural gas is relatively clean burning. Remember, CO2 is not a "pollutant" (it's what we exhale, after all) but is a problem when emitted at the levels that our industrialized society does since in excess it is a heat trapping greenhouse gas.
It's a myth about what we breath out adding to CO2 levels. What we breath out is what we breath in, just combined. So it's balanced out.
What's bad about greenhouse exhaust is we're adding carbon to the atmosphere when was sequestered in the earth. Ancient sunshine, as one radio host puts it.
mknox
Well-Known Member
brucet999
Active Member
What, pray tell, do you breathe in that contains carbon? The O2 comes from air we breathe, the C from foods that we have eaten.
Still, your main point is correct in that the carbon ultimately comes from plants (either consumed directly or indirectly in meat from animals that have eaten plants) that had extracted it from CO2 in the air, so whatever CO2 we emit is balanced by CO2 that was taken up by plants. Same balance exists with release of CO2 from decay of dead plants and from forest fires, that's why suggestions to solve the increase of atmospheric CO2 by planting more trees would only provide temporary fixes lasting for the lifetimes of the newly planted trees. Maybe we should plant millions of sequoias, redwoods and bristlecone pine trees to capture CO2 for thousands of years before they die?
Phillip L
Gas Passer
Actually I often thought as I read of plans for machines to scrub CO2 from the air that a simpler way would be to plant millions of fast growing trees, cut them down, and store them in a place where they would not rot, like a desert. And repeat.What, pray tell, do you breathe in that contains carbon? The O2 comes from air we breathe, the C from foods that we have eaten.
Still, your main point is correct in that the carbon ultimately comes from plants (either consumed directly or indirectly in meat from animals that have eaten plants) that had extracted it from CO2 in the air, so whatever CO2 we emit is balanced by CO2 that was taken up by plants. Same balance exists with release of CO2 from decay of dead plants and from forest fires, that's why suggestions to solve the increase of atmospheric CO2 by planting more trees would only provide temporary fixes lasting for the lifetimes of the newly planted trees. Maybe we should plant millions of sequoias, redwoods and bristlecone pine trees to capture CO2 for thousands of years before they die?
There's a good response to Jim's articles here:
Electric Vehicles are coming – and that’s a good thing
Electric Vehicles are coming – and that’s a good thing
Lon12
Member
That helps.
Also need to let Kenzie know that Toronto will not "burn to the ground" with the added demand on the grid:
Electrical grid could handle millions of plug-in cars — but maybe not all at once
He repeats most of the false, misleading, or biased statements in two recent videos. I actually feel sorry for him, his grip on reality is rapidly slipping away.
According to Jim, the Mirai and the hydrogen version of the Tuscon are diesel's only competition. I don't even think Toyota. Hyundai, and diesel manufacturers believe that.
According to Jim, the Mirai and the hydrogen version of the Tuscon are diesel's only competition. I don't even think Toyota. Hyundai, and diesel manufacturers believe that.
I watched Kenzie's latest bit on fuel cells and how the rollout of stations would simple by using existing natural gas lines to make the hydrogen. Looking at the follow link indicates that the process actually results in high CO2. If the article is correct, then Kenzie has done little if any research into this before opening his mouth.
Producing Hydrogen Fuel from Natural Gas
Of course, he fails to remember that many places don't have gas lines, that it's primarily run out to higher density areas (cities as opposed to rural), so production hydrogen has to be shipped to outlying areas and stored in tanks that are durable for this to method to be viable. I'm unsure whether hydrogen produced via water is a scalable for enough vehicles on a regular basis, but frankly I've not spent a great deal of time researching hydrogen vehicles as a whole because it hasn't seriously taken off in the 20 odd years that I've known it to be tested.
Producing Hydrogen Fuel from Natural Gas
Of course, he fails to remember that many places don't have gas lines, that it's primarily run out to higher density areas (cities as opposed to rural), so production hydrogen has to be shipped to outlying areas and stored in tanks that are durable for this to method to be viable. I'm unsure whether hydrogen produced via water is a scalable for enough vehicles on a regular basis, but frankly I've not spent a great deal of time researching hydrogen vehicles as a whole because it hasn't seriously taken off in the 20 odd years that I've known it to be tested.
mrElbe
Active Member
In my simple world it looks to me like this:
Electric car:
- plug into outlet and charge battery.
Hydrogen fueled car:
- use electricity or other fuel to produce hydrogen
- truck hydrogen to filling station for storage
- use electricity to pump high pressure hydrogen into car
- use fuel cell to produce electricity to charge on board batteries.
Now what is simpler and produces less emissions?
Electric car:
- plug into outlet and charge battery.
Hydrogen fueled car:
- use electricity or other fuel to produce hydrogen
- truck hydrogen to filling station for storage
- use electricity to pump high pressure hydrogen into car
- use fuel cell to produce electricity to charge on board batteries.
Now what is simpler and produces less emissions?
Kenzie penned another dubious pro-hydrogen article.
Hyundai still leading in future technology | The Star
Let's start with the title. How can offering a limited number of hydrogen vehicles equate to now leading in anything?
And, when, if ever, was hydrogen leading in anything other than sucking up government grants?
“Hydrogen vehicles are the most promising type of alternative powertrain transportation in existence today,” says Don Romano, president and CEO of Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.
Gee, I guess the head of Hyundai Canada doesn't think much of the Kona or Ioniq electric vehicles.
Hydrogen is abundant everywhere on earth
Really, Jim? Where on earth does hydrogen exist outside of compounds?
Powering an electric motor with a fuel cell also has many advantages over batteries, prime among which is that refuelling takes no longer than a gasoline vehicle
Even Hyundai doesn't claim faster than five minutes for refueling, which is slower than gas vehicles when there is no wait at the pump. When Hyundai leased a handful of Tucson FCEV in BC in 2015, owners reported their refueling time was closer to ten minutes.
[charging] about a hundred times faster than using normal household current.
Good comparison, Jim. While you're off the local, convenient hydrogen station, everyone with an EV is slave to their 120V household receptacle.
A hydrogen NEXO has a range of some 570 km, which is about 45 per cent greater than a comparable battery-powered electric.
That is about 45% greater range than the smaller and less expensive Kona and Niro electric vehicles, but only 20% more than the Model X Long-range. The Nexo lists for $59,000 in the States, but if it's like the Mirai it will only be worth about $16,000 after three years. The X starts at $80,000 but will likely be worth over $40,000 after three years, so it's not really more expensive than the Nexo.
What’s more, fuel cell performance does not drop precipitously as the ambient temperature does. Not a big issue in Vancouver perhaps, but a problem in most of Canada where summer is defined as two weeks of bad skiing.
Naturally, he doesn't provide numbers to define "precipitously," but apparently fuel-cell vehicles defy the laws of physics. A big issue in most of Canada that he doesn't mention is that Hyundai doesn't appear to certify the Nexo to start when it's below -30C.
I'll stop there, but there's an unsupported claim in most paragraphs.
Hyundai still leading in future technology | The Star
Let's start with the title. How can offering a limited number of hydrogen vehicles equate to now leading in anything?
And, when, if ever, was hydrogen leading in anything other than sucking up government grants?
“Hydrogen vehicles are the most promising type of alternative powertrain transportation in existence today,” says Don Romano, president and CEO of Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.
Gee, I guess the head of Hyundai Canada doesn't think much of the Kona or Ioniq electric vehicles.
Hydrogen is abundant everywhere on earth
Really, Jim? Where on earth does hydrogen exist outside of compounds?
Powering an electric motor with a fuel cell also has many advantages over batteries, prime among which is that refuelling takes no longer than a gasoline vehicle
Even Hyundai doesn't claim faster than five minutes for refueling, which is slower than gas vehicles when there is no wait at the pump. When Hyundai leased a handful of Tucson FCEV in BC in 2015, owners reported their refueling time was closer to ten minutes.
[charging] about a hundred times faster than using normal household current.
Good comparison, Jim.
While you're off the local, convenient hydrogen station, everyone with an EV is slave to their 120V household receptacle. A hydrogen NEXO has a range of some 570 km, which is about 45 per cent greater than a comparable battery-powered electric.
That is about 45% greater range than the smaller and less expensive Kona and Niro electric vehicles, but only 20% more than the Model X Long-range. The Nexo lists for $59,000 in the States, but if it's like the Mirai it will only be worth about $16,000 after three years. The X starts at $80,000 but will likely be worth over $40,000 after three years, so it's not really more expensive than the Nexo.
What’s more, fuel cell performance does not drop precipitously as the ambient temperature does. Not a big issue in Vancouver perhaps, but a problem in most of Canada where summer is defined as two weeks of bad skiing.
Naturally, he doesn't provide numbers to define "precipitously," but apparently fuel-cell vehicles defy the laws of physics. A big issue in most of Canada that he doesn't mention is that Hyundai doesn't appear to certify the Nexo to start when it's below -30C.
I'll stop there, but there's an unsupported claim in most paragraphs.
DMC-Orangeville
Audi eTron & John Deere 5100E
Kenzie is a stooge. He will continue to *hate* electric vehicles, regardless of the evidence. Ignore him.
Frankly, most of what I'd describe as progressive media outlets (CNBC, The Toronto Star, New York Times) are blantantly anti-Tesla. It goes to show you that whatever ideology a media outlet professes allegiance to, at the end of the day... money still pulls people, no matter who they are. I'm especially sad to count the New York Times on this list, as their journalism really is excellent for the most part, just on this issue for some reason...
Similar threads
