Senate Global Climate Change

Wind farms are cheaper and less prone to extreme stresses than tidal hence they get used more but otherwise yes.

 

Wind is my least favorite while Tidal/Hydro is the best, IMO. Im about 3 hours from Niagara Falls, NY and those falls can CRANK out the juice! Clean, natural, efficient and reasonable cost. The best of everything. Solar is also a good secondary option but has more caveats than tidal. I looked into solar panels for my own house and its not quite cost effective yet but its getting there.

Wind? Ehhh. Ugly, big, higher maintenance costs & not super efficient. Just not that popular. They end up being a "NIMBY" thing where residents might have interest but then of course its "Not In My Back Yard type of thing. We have a few out by me and they are just awful looking.

Best post ever. My point exactly. I *wonder* if its because its the hardest to monetize and line some rich peoples pockets with? Think about it. . Hydro IMO is the way to go.

Are they? I wouldnt have though that. Maybe cheaper upfront but long term? I dunno, I'd have to research more although on the internet you'll find pro-windmill sites that pimp those and downplay the negatives. I guess thats the same for the other types. But hydro looks to be the best of the bunch, IMO.

 

Ah yes, we should have "favorite" means of clean energy based on how they look.

 

I actually like windfarms, I think they look graceful across the skyline with the slow rotation of the blades

 

Thats cool - I guess Im not a fan but they wont be the only thing we use. Hydro is the prettiest! I mean.... Niagara Falls is amazing and so are any other falls like that.

 

Hydro is easier to hide a lot of the time because it can be underwater and in underground water pipes.
Or casually floating on the surface of the sea.

As for cost effectiveness - I don't see how having to build more of something cheap with lower output is better than building less of something with higher and more efficient output that also doesn't take up as much space or obscure views.

 

It's long term maintenance costs.

Wind has a single barrel rotating a turbine (simplistically speaking)

Hydro has issues with corrosion, if it's in salt water its even more pronounced and repairs need highly skilled people able to operate underwater in a lot of cases.
Plus building something at sea or in water in general is significantly more expensive than on land

 

True - but with upfront cost using the right metals we can avoid corrosion or keep it infrequent. Windmills can also suffer corrosion & other maladies. I just know that id rather have a hydro factory nearby or solar panels on my roof/yard than a big turbine in my backyard!

 

So basically what you're saying is YOU'RE the Nimby you were talking about. Got it.

 

People bring up concern about birds with windmills, but hydro power, dams specifically, have actually caused species of migratory fish like the giant Chinese Paddlefish to go extinct.

 

I think it's appalling that we haven't moved more towards fail-safe nuclear power plants combined with standard designs to drive down costs. Unfortunately, we're still living with both stigmatization of nuclear and much of the development not being towards cost effectiveness. But with a more easily replicated design, they could be build wherever would be best for all considerations, and not be as subject to external factors (as wind, solar, and hydroelectric are)

I think we can certainly expect a shifting away from reliance on dams in many areas because of the impact it has to local environment, that there's major maintenance costs otherwise there can be catastrophic failures, and vulnerability to drought: https://e360.yale.edu/features/after-a-long-boom-an-uncertain-future-for-big-dam-projects
I would not be surprised if we see another dam failure (at least partial) in the next ~10 years or so.

 

Well, I didnt bring up birds....but it is a concern for some, yes. Im sure the dams issue & fish is also a potential problem. So, what are we saying then? Maybe we just have to stick with good old coal and stuff? . Im sure some of that can be mitigated regarding animals and surrouding environmental effects. Or, go all-in with solar? No animals to worry about there unless I missed something.

 

Studies show that electric cars are always cleaner no matter the energy source or nearly always cleaner:


One study: The Union of Concerned Scientists has just crunched the latest numbers to find the answer. The results depend on where in the US you live and drive, but in general battery boosters can breathe easy.

“For the US overall, an electric vehicle is much cleaner than a gasoline vehicle, even when you take into account the emissions from natural gas, coal, or however else you’re generating the electricity,” says Dave Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the nonprofit's clean vehicles program. And as the electric grid moves away from dirty fuel sources, the gap is widening. The UCS study looks beyond driving-related emissions to consider the entire supply chain that goes into making cars go. For the gas guys, that means all the emissions associated with extracting crude oil are included. For electrics, the UCS uses power plant emissions data from the EPA, and includes the environmental cost of mining coal, for example. Because different chunks of the country make power in different ways, the results vary by region.

To put everything on the same scale, the researchers turned their calculations into a familiar format: miles per gallon. An electric car driver in renewable-happy California is doing as much damage to the environment as a gas car that gets 109 miles per gallon. In Texas, that number drops to 60 mpg. In the center of the country, around Illinois and Missouri, it’s just 39 mpg. Nationwide, under this system, electric cars produce the same emissions as cars that get 80 mpg—making them several times cleaner than the average economy of regular cars, which hovers around 28 mpg.

In 2009, when the UCS started running these figures, an electric car in California would get only 78 mpg. In Kansas and Colorado, they’d be lucky to hit 35—now those areas have jumped to 46 mpg. Credit the increase to the country's shift away from coal, which in 2009 made half the nation's electricity, and now makes about a third, and toward renewables, which now account for 10 percent of electricity generation. “Even used EVs that are out there are getting cleaner over time, and that doesn’t happen with a gas car,” Reichmuth says.

The engineer stresses that his figures are based on the average electric car, but all EVs are not created equal. A big, heavy electric SUV won't get as many miles from its electrons as a small, aerodynamic car. Reichmuth says the most efficient cars are currently the Hyundai Ioniq EV, the Tesla Model 3, and the Toyota Prius Prime (when it's in electric-only mode). Driving one of those cars would equate to getting 147 mpg in California.

The global picture isn’t quite so clear, but the same principles will apply. If the bulk of your energy production comes from coal (looking at you, India, Russia, and China), then driving an electric car won’t bring the same benefits. Norway, on the other hand, with 98 percent renewable energy generation, makes California look like a smog-covered dump.



Another study: Media reports have questioned if electric cars are really “greener” once emissions from manufacture and electricity generation are counted. The research concludes that in most places electric cars produce fewer emissions overall - even if generation still involves fossil fuels.

Other studies warn that driving overall must be reduced to hit climate targets.

The new research from the universities of Exeter, Nijmegen - in The Netherlands - and Cambridge shows that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the climate than a petrol car.

The only exceptions are places like Poland, where electricity generation is still mostly based on coal.

The researchers say average “lifetime“ emissions from electric cars are up to 70% lower than petrol cars in countries like Sweden and France (where most electricity comes from renewables and nuclear), and around 30% lower in the UK.

They say the picture for electric cars will become steadily more favourable as nations shift to clean electricity.




My bet is that electric cars fare worse in Poland than in US regions dependent on coal because the US has stricter rules for coal-burning power plants. There's no such thing as "clean coal" (a coal power plant that recaptures 100% of its climate change gases) but there are ways to make coal plants less awful, and it seems that only where there are very worst coal plants in the world would electric cars come out a little behind gas cars.

 

Public transportation, walking, and cycling should be emphasized over cars in planning and developing. Electric or not, personal vehicles are expensive, kill more people in accidents, take a lot of resources, take up a lot of road/parking space for relatively few people, have climate and other ecological impacts, and the mining of the materials for batteries has implications for the Global South (see: the 2019 coup in Bolivia allegedly being motivated in part by lithium).

 

Thats a great goal but public transportation, walking and biking everywhere doesnt work for those of us that dont live in the center of or close to cities. I believe thats an issue that always gets people at odds with each other. Sure, we love our bikes and ride them during nice weather but its is simply not feasible, for example, for my wife to ride her bike to work 15 miles each way, each day whilst carrying stuff she needs. Oh and the weather, especially here in the North East pretty much makes it impossible like 8 months out the year anyways. Or, what if you live 20+ miles away from work? Or more? Works great if you live in a high-rise downtown and work two blocks away but thats not everyone.

Then, you have the other problem which is: We all dont work at the same time or leave at the same time. Again, in a big city there might be more places with similar hours or just a few major employers. But in the 'Burbs or Rural areas? What if I have to be at work at 7am or want to get there early? I have to wait for the public railway or bus? Nah. It doesnt work. You mention "planning" and thats important but what does that mean for non-city areas? I know there are some people that scoff at the suburbs or more open spaces. Its a waste of <whatever> but not everyone wishes to live in the city. We like our open spaces & room to breathe. So, you cant plan things around cities when most it wont work in any other areas. Im not saying that towns shouldnt prioritize making their areas walkable, bike friendly, etc. I also am all for a fully electric car as a daily driver or errand car. I want one! But Im not sure if it will work as an only option for enough people. At least yet.

 

If you're poor and living in the suburbs? You still end having to do that anyways.
There are people whose travel time including waiting for public transportation are upwards of two hours for an 8 hour job - because you don't have another choice. And here's the thing - in many cases, regular folk who work in a city live in the suburbs to begin with. So yes, city planning does have to factor in the suburbs.
Rural areas are their own issues, mainly related to employment and the lack of alternatives if the major employer in the area goes under, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

Exactly.
Years ago, I was amazed when I visited my friend down in West Palm Beach that you could take a light rail and get down to Fort Lauderdale in no time at all. Naturally, that light rail is long gone at this point.
Central Florida has a light rail system now, but the problem with it is that the stations were all built in locations where it was the cheapest, i.e. nowhere near anything, and because our public transportation system here is garbage, it's absolutely pointless to use.

 

Public transport should be a major investment by government and should be free. In terms of emissions it’s not rocket science to work out that having one large electric vehicle carrying 100 people to work rather than 100 small electric vehicles carrying 100 people to work is going to have a cleaner outcome. I drive 60km to work and back each day because public transport is absolutely **** where I live but it doesn’t have to be that way, it’s just an example of the failure of planning and clear thought in all levels of government in my country in relation to this issue.

 

Of course you’re not a fan. The windmills are a fan.

 

The fundamental problem is of course that our society is not geared to accept sacrifice. We generally accept the proposition that our consumption is not sustainable but we are not willing to go without. Of course there are individuals that are willing to and do go without but it is not a social norm.

How can we give up our cars and just use public transport when there is a billion dollar car industry telling us to buy more cars and incentivising government to spend tax dollars elsewhere. All they are doing is switching from gas to electric motors but the underlying consumption model remains the same. Buy buy buy. Why have one car when you can have three???

Whilst the transition to renewables and other clean forms of energy are absolutely necessary I feel we are just buying a bit more time but really the fundamental issue is our consumer culture and selfishness and absolute rejection of personal sacrifice for the common good. I’m guilty as well so no high horse here just venting my thoughts on the matter.

 

No.

 

And in a country that claims to favour choice, the US compares poorly with many other industrialised nations when it comes to commuting options.

I've never owned a car. Living in London and Barcelona, it would have been mad to do so, and the public transport options were myriad. Less so here in Cairns, but the centre of the city is sufficiently compact that I have always been able to commute to work and into the CBD by foot or on my bike.

The lesson really is that if the alternatives to cars are good (efficient, well-designed, affordable public transport, and safe cycle lanes), then people will use them. There are of course tons of examples of this around the world, as well as examples such as @blackmyron's in Florida, where you don't provide that option if the design is inherently flawed.