90 amps for electric car charge!

Page 2 of 6  


Well I guess we'll soon find out how long it takes to build one based on this breaking news:
"President Obama traveled to Lanham, Md., today, to the headquarters of the IBEW Local 26, to announce that his administration plans to offer $8 billion in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power facility. And more loan guarantees for clean energy are on the way.
In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns about nuclear energy:
Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road. "On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," he said. "
I'm actually quite surprised that he's finally backing up his prior statements about new nukes with some positive action. The real test will come when we see if there is any action to stop endless court and political challenges from the usual environmental extremists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for implementing nuclear power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2010 4:14 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners of the companies building the goddamned things.
Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always used to say.
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

That's all changed. The best way to rob a bank now is to own it!
--
Virg Wall

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 12:29 PM VWWall spake thus:

>

Don't even have to do that; just become a derivatives trader.
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 6:35 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

You would still need to purchase the appropriate politicians because after you get really greedy you might loose money so you will want someone on your side who can pull money out of everyone else's pockets to cover your gambling losses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2010 3:29 PM, VWWall wrote:

And the Congress too of course. That way when your aggressive pirate activities screw too many people and things get wobbly you can summon Congress to launch an aggressive spin campaign that you are "to big to fail" and have them pull money out of everyone's pockets to help poor you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:41:23 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote Re Re: 90 amps for electric car charge!:

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

========================================================================================
Your math is incorrect. Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is 86Kwh of electricity. At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. Here in NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.
Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

Oh, and BTW, not to mention situations when the vehicle's lights are on, or when you need heating or even a/c;then the battery would be dead even sooner. (Or just turn the car radio on).
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands and sing Kumbuya.
I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with Carbon sequestration.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. But if you're saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 16, 1:46pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No, I think co2 is a problem. No matter what you call it. I'm saying that many of the new sources of electricity do not create more co2 and that's a good thing.
But more importantly I'm saying we can't just go on thinking that we're going to be able to get cheap gasoline forever. We're going to have to change something and electric appears to be the most viable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of government. In any country.
The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just about anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet regulated CO2.
Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only way the EPA can regulate CO2 or anything else is if it is indeed treated as a pollutant. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was whether the EPA in the Bush administration could refuse to consider CO2 a "pollutant" because it's naturally ocurring. That appears to be the losing argument that you are trying to make here, pretending it has not been decided otherwise.
Here's a Washington Post excerpt on the Supreme Court ruling with a direct quote from the ruling by Justice Stevens:
"The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new- vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued."
The court specifically ordered the EPA to make the determination if CO2 pollution was a problem, which they did. From the EPA:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
"(Washington, D.C. April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.
The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.
And internationally, nothing could be further from the truth that CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant. Just because it's naturally ocurring doesn't mean that spewing out too much of it isn't harmful. And again, note that I said it was decided by the Supreme Court and the EPA that CO2 was a pollutant, not that I'm convinced global warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the court's ruling:
"The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA had the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but didn't require the agency to find that it was a danger to public welfare and also didn't require the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA was required to "ground its reasons for action or inaction" within federal law."
So, here's the conclusions: 1. The EPA has the right to regulate CO2. 2. If it does not, if must give compelling reasons for declining to do so. 3. The EPA is NOT required to regulate CO2. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100213-700882.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
Here's the actual decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZO.html
This is a decision from August 2007. You'll note it is replete with justifications from the IPCC.
Aside: There is a fundamental principle in law that a plaintiff must have "standing" in order to place a matter before the court. That is, the litigant must have a dog in the fight. Interestingly, the five wild-eyed liberals on the court who were so exercised they painted themselves blue and began stabbing each other, saw fit to bypass this hallowed tradition so they could save the planet. Specifically:
"Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument [not one of the petitioners has demonstrable standing under Article III] and the absence of any conflicting decisions ... the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.... [and take up the issue]."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Everything you've just posted above is consistent with what I said from the start. Of course the Supreme Court did not thell the EPA that they HAD to regulate CO2. They told the EPA they could not ignore CO2 and had to determine if it was harmful in excess amounts as they have done with all the other pollutants. The EPA proceeded to do that and said, once again:
"(Washington, D.C. April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat."
So. like I said with my initial post, if you want to argue that CO2 emissions aren't a pollutant, you need to take it up with the Supreme Court and the EPA, at least as far as the USA is concerned. I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying any govt should or shouldn't be treating CO2 as a pollutant. Only that they are. I don't see how any rational and intelligent person today could say that CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant both by the USA and internationally.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

=============================================== Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................
Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen, essential for human life can be toxic!
And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health can be affected, even to death!.
It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right places. Correct?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth. (It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but not too much, of it.
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.