Hoping for Good Gas News....

In your dreams maybe... Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements. Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US.

Totally apples:oranges, eh? I suggest that the best comparison for the sake of my billfold is $/mile; just ignoring environmental impact.

Scrubbers exist that do, as you kinda said, clean up the exhaust air from power plants. But until the government forces or coerces all coal and oil-fired power plants to deploy the technology, many will continue to spew forth tons of pollution.

That would be what we in the biz call a CDD landfill. Construction & Demolition Debris. The controls on them for some reason aren't very tight. With the current price of cement several operators of concrete recycling plants have opened up.

One of the biggest problems in the past used to be the cost of reusing, recycling, and remanufacturing the stuff we throw away. The tide is being to turn on the economics of a lot of that.

Recycling is one of the great lies that have been told to Americans for years. The story was that it was the natural resources that we were trying to conserve by recycling. That was a bunch of bull. What we were trying to conserve was landfill space. It has almost always been cheaper to make stuff from virgin materials then recycled ones.

And what is your point? You willing to turn-off your lights and move into a cave?

The current law states that; All new plants, or major additions to existing plants, regardless of size or location need to adhere to New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs). These are standards determined by the EPA considering cost, environmental effects, and state of the art technology. After the EPA sets the standards, it is the responsibility of the state to issue permits and enforce them. New sources in non-attainment areas are required to adhere to the lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) which is the lowest emissions rate achieved by a similar source or the lowest rate for a similar source in a SIP anywhere in the country. A new source wishing to enter a PSD area needs to use the best achievable control technology (BACT) which is based on a maximum amount of achievable reductions once cost and technology are considered. These standards, LAER and BACT, need to be at least as strict as NSPS.

Why isn't the above happening if it is the law? I'll tell you why. There is one little phrase "once cost and technology are considered" in the above law. In most places the cost of electricity is highly regulated. The power generation companies are not allowed to pass on the cost of these new technologies to their customers.

There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel generated electricity, the problem is we Americans don't want to pay the up front price for the R&D & installation. The average Joe Blow American could be running most of their homes power needs with energy produced right on their own little plot of land via solar, wind, or even fuel cell technology.

They state a refill will cost 1.5 euros and that will be good for 200km. That equates to 1.5 cents per mile for fuel cost. Taking that and the fact my Explorer gets 18 mpg on a good day that is a cost of 27 cents per equivalent gallon of gasoline (1.5 x 18). I'm sure a larger vehicle like an SUV will be less efficient but a larger vehicle can carry multiple or larger air tanks to increase range. Even if an SUV takes twice the amount of fuel that still is a bargain at 54 cents per equivalent gallon of gas.

Actually until the local governments allow the energy producers to pass the cost of these new technologies on to the end customer it isn't going to happen either. There is one phrase in the latest clean air act that stops most of this from happening "once cost and technology are considered". Current producers are allowed to simply shrug their shoulders and say "Well it'll cost this much, and we need to raise our rates to this" and the states immediately back off any demands to improve air quality. No politician wants to be accused of being the guy who caused electrical costs to go up.

I work for a governmental authority that produces electricity. We do it 105% in full compliance with the law and are monitored like a Hawk eyes its prey. The cost of compliance is significant and we can only charge per megawatt generated what the state will allow us. Because of these costs our Board consistently wants to shut us down because of operating costs. Our only saving grace is that our fuel is garbage which solves another problem that is also regulated to hell & gone, waste disposal and we are running out of land available for landfill space. Why? Because of other governmental regulations concerning wetlands.

The American public is going to have to wake up one day and realize that can have it all good, fast, and cheap. Only two of the three can ever exist at one point in time.

How are women & cars similar? Sometimes in the winter time when it is really, really cold out. No matter on how badly you need them, sometimes you just can't get them to turn over.

Ever since the invention of the automobile we've focused on the $/mile part of the equation and ignored the environmental impact. As my Daddy once said; "It ain't wise to shit where you eat". This mentality is already coming back to bite us on the ass. Would you rather have the cheapest $/mile transportation and walk around with an oxygen tanks strapped to your back in order to breath?

Just imagine if any one of us treated their own homes the way we collectively treat the planet that is all of our homes?

Don't get me wrong I ain't no tree hugger or even anything close to it, but in most cases it is usually cheaper in the long run to do something right then to clean up the mess from doing it wrong. At the beginning of the industrial revolution we didn't know any better. We sure as hell know better today, we just are to cheap to pay the freight of doing it right.

One day in the future, not in any of our lifetimes (and that is part of the problem) we'll have consumed all of this planets natural resources and F'd it up so badly that we will have to reach into space like a herd of locusts to find another world to consume. Hey that sounds like a movie of the week.

Well, IMO, gravitating toward electric powered vehicles eliminates a great deal of pollution by the end user. It is much more efficient to burn the fossil fuel at a central plant than in millions of combustion engines. How much electricity could be generated from the amount of gasoline that is burned by vehicles everyday? Definitely more that required to run those cars. That is a net savings of money and pollution.

So that makes it easier to control pollution since it is generated at one point and not from millions of tail pipes. What about those cars that get their electricity from nuclear, hydro and clean fossil fuel plants? How much pollution is prevented from those cars not burning fossil fuels?

Not if the power is coming from clean burning fossil fuel, hydro or nuclear plants and wind farms. By your definition of "dirty" (ie burning fossil fuel without scrubbers) this must be clean electricity, relatively speaking, of course.

Burning fuel in a power plant verses an internal combustion engine reduces the quantity of pollution and makes it easier to apply new technologies to the benefit of everyone. Like I mentioned earlier, burning the gasoline we use in our vehicles everyday would generate more than enough electricity to run electric powered cars for that day. Moving to electric cars will not eliminate pollution right now but it is a step in the right direction. We can't make one big move to a new technology and solve all the problems at the same time. A big advantage for electricity is it can be generated in a variety of ways. This flexibility is a good thing and can actually give us the ability to become energy independent. It also makes the end user clean which in turn allows focus at one point to improve efficiency and pollution reduction (ie at the power plant).

This is still no reason to keep electric cars from the market. They will allow for a reduction of pollution whether power plants are revamped or they stay the same.

I swear my blender doesn't pollute when I turn it on. Maybe you should revise your statement to say "XX% of electricity GENERATION today is not clean". ;)

No, we will start mining the landfills for all that "valuable" garbage. Plus when you look at the volume of iron, aluminum, copper etc. in the Earth's crust I doubt we will ever exhaust that supply of raw material. What we will likely do is use up all the energy sources like oil, coal, natural gas etc. IMO, energy consumption/production will be the biggest issue we face in the future. How we handle this problem will determine whether we have a clean planet to live on or a cesspool.

You state that as fact, I have never read or seen anything to support that statement.

I believe that the emission standards of modern cars, and subsequently the percentage of total cars on the road have vastly outpaced fuel fired electrical generation plants (remember that 77% figure?) in the area of pollution reduction.

First of all, unless they are using "clean" electricity from some source OFF the grid, there is no way to distinguish clean from dirty, it is all mixed together and dirty.

And I don't even want to get started with the polution aspects of nuclear, if you haven't kept up, try doing some searchs for Hanford Nuclear Site Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests.

Weather it is or is not, doesn't change the fact that there is no way to make that distinction with power from the grid. Hoping that our electricity is generated with less pollution in the future, doesn't alter the fact that currently fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US. If you use electricity from the power grid, its production is the largest source of air pollution in the US, you can't put the Genie back in the bottle, electricity is NOT CLEAN.

Moving to new technologies and moving toward eliminating a lot of pollution is a good idea. Energy independence is a great goal. I'm actually looking into charting the wind on my property in the hopes of harnessing it for electrical generation. I can't wait to start cashing my checks from the power company. :-) But you still can NOT say that using electricity today in the US does not pollute. That is blatantly UNTRUE.

Maybe you should revise your statement to say my blender does pollute, at the other end of the wire, at the polluting power plant, when I turn it on. Just imagine your house running off a 15K diesel generator just outside in the driveway..

Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN.

Who is this "they"? If you want to fairly compare the cost of a vehicle operating on gas and a comparable vehicle operating on compressed air, you will need some examples of commercial compressed air filling stations and commercially-sold vehicles that use compressed air. I suspect that "they" are comparing something real (gas cars and filling stations) with with something that is only projected from lab-based models.

So, do "they" have any examples of commercial compressed air operations, operating in a real political environment, complete with regulations and taxes?

I don't argue with your viewpoint, but that is not the point on which I was attempting to focus.

Of course they are comparing lab based models against an existing system. I don't think anyone is disputing this. Fitting a gas station with compressors would be fairly easy and the "product" being sold is already on location waiting to be compressed (ie air). It looks to me like getting an infrastructure up and running for compressed air would be pretty easy and simple. It wouldn't be that hard to install a unit at your house.

They have running prototypes but commercial sales of the vehicles have not happened yet. Hell, I don't know if it will take off but the engineer in me sees many advantages of using compressed air over fossil fuel. Maybe this is just one of what will eventually be many alternatives to gas powered vehicles. All I can say is that I'm tired of not having a choice of fuels and sending billions of dollars to other countries instead of spending it here.

Since you also haven't seen anything to disprove it, then what are you disputing?

Then why is LA still having major air quality problems if cars are so clean?

Some people are using "clean" electricity. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There you go throwing the baby out with the bath water again.

If a percentage of out electricity is generated while creating little pollution who cares if it is "mixed" with so called "dirty" electricity? So I can say that "X" percent of the electricity I use is clean and therefore my hypothetical air powered car is "X" percent clean "on the other end".

I said it doesn't pollute at the end user.

I will state it again, my blender does not pollute the air. No revision needed.

Electricity is an inherently clean form of energy. Producing electricity can be done with little to no pollution and it can also cause pollution. Your statement is not true because electricity by itself does not pollute when used. You should insert the word "production" into your statement. Then it would be partly true.

Since you are unable to provide any source of information to support you statement, we will toss it aside as more of your senseless bull shit.

I didn't say they were "so clean" I said there has been more progress toward cleaner cars, than there has been toward cleaner fossil fuel fired electrical power plants.

You are aware of the meteorological and topographical factors of air pollution, a low inversion layer keeps pollution concentrated close to the ground over Los Angeles (cool air trapped by warm air above it keeps pollution from dispersing).

Not if they are using electricity off the grid.

Are you serious, just ignore the pollution and then you can say dirty power production is pollution free?

Anyone who wants to truly be honest about the pollution produced along with their electricity, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. You can claim electricity is pollution free until you are blue in the face, but we both know that is bullshit.

That is not what you said! You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute."

Producing electricity can be done with little to no pollution, but the vast majority IS NOT. No matter how you try to twist it around to fit your original FALSE statement.

My statement IS absolutely true, you can not separate the production of electricity from the electricity itself. Without the dirty production part there is no pollution free use part. Damn!

Do you realize how silly the distinction you are trying to make is? That's like trying to say the heat from a wood burning fire is smoke free...

Well if you are going to barge into a thread and say I am wrong then at least have the ambition to prove it.

Any proof of this? If not then I guess "we will toss it aside as more of your senseless bull shit". ;)

I'm well aware of it but meteorological and topographical conditions aren't causing the pollution, the vehicles are the cause. I guess that means they aren't "clean". Those blenders churning out thousands of margaritas every day aren't adding to the problem though and neither are those electric powered cars.

We might as well stop all production of electricity using environmentally friendly means since it becomes "dirty" electricity if it travels the same wire as an electron leaving a coal fired plant? If we don't get electricity off the grid where will we get it? Flying kites in the back yard during thunder storms? Assuming you ever do produce excess electricity at your home and push it into the grid, I guess it will be "dirty" electricity too?

You are the one speaking in absolutes, not me.

Well now I see you are confused because I never said the production of electricity was 100% pollution free. Now you are arguing with yourself because it certainly isn't me.

You do realize the "it" I was referring to was the air powered car? Even if I meant the compressor it would still be an accurate statement because the compressor doesn't pollute either.

What exactly was my false statement? You have been bouncing around like a pinball and I lost track of your point.

LOL! This statement is crazy on so many levels I don't know where to start picking it apart. So what you are saying is that all the production of electricity from clean sources is just a wasted effort?

Not nearly as silly as the one rattling around in your head.

Well if wood is burned under certain conditions it can be nearly smoke free but let's not go there.

You can't truly be this thick, can you?

As it applies to how much pollution is or isn't being produced because of environmentally friendly electricity, yes it is only a small drop in a large bucket, and stopping it wouldn't make any discernible difference. If you were to shut off all of the "dirty" electricity there wouldn't be enough "clean" electricity to run anything...

No matter how you twist it, if you use electricity off the grid, there was pollution produced in the generation process. As to environmentally friendly electricity, you are talking about a couple percent of all electric power in this country, 95+% of all commercial electricity generated causes allot of pollution. Clean renewable energy (geothermal, wind, and solar) provided an average of 1.4 percent of all electricity generated in California during the 15-year period from 1985 to 1999. The largest source was geothermal energy, averaging 7.3 percent over the 15-year period. Next was biomass at 2.6 percent, wind at 1.2 percent, and solar at 0.3 percent.

You keep acting like you are off your meds or something, the fact is when you use electricity from the power grid, for any reason, more than 95% of that electricity was generated in very "dirty" polluting power plants.

If I ever do produce excess electricity at my home and push it into the power grid, it won't do a damn thing to offset all the pollution being produced generating the electricity you are using. The only thing it is going to offset is my own power bill...