Save the planet - buy an electric car

[Daryl Hunt]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Yeah, propaganda is better than all that science 'nonsence'.

do you actually have a refute for what you quoted?

You say MPGe is “propaganda”? Ok prove it.

I am an expert since I built and have built for others EVs of 2 and 3 wheel varieties. Some get really lousy mileage for the larger, heavier NHTA legal 3 wheelers at an equiv of only 200 mpg. While the smaller ones go as high 800 mpg or higher. I don't need to do a cite on this one. I am a builder with more successful business than most of the "Experts" that people use for their cites.

If what I understand is that you are claiming to get the equivalent of over 200 mpg with an EV, that is not at all true.
That is a calculated figure that is not based on actually checking the amount of fuel and emissions when the electricity is produced, before it is transmitted, stored, retrieved, and re-converted by to kinetic energy.
Electric vehicles are far less efficient than what they claim.
And batteries are much heavier, expensive, and short lived than they admit.

You really don't want to compare the energy loss of the Gasoline before you actually pump it into your tank,do you. If you did, you wouldn't be voicing his nonsense. Your Oil Company Handler telling you what to say is an idiot. Get a different one.

 

[AntonToo]

Only you could come on here, and claim your policies proved a concept, that was already proven over 100 years ago, and then claim others are regressive.

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

 

[Rigby5]

Only you could come on here, and claim your policies proved a concept, that was already proven over 100 years ago, and then claim others are regressive.

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

 

[Rigby5]

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Yeah, propaganda is better than all that science 'nonsence'.

do you actually have a refute for what you quoted?

You say MPGe is “propaganda”? Ok prove it.

I am an expert since I built and have built for others EVs of 2 and 3 wheel varieties. Some get really lousy mileage for the larger, heavier NHTA legal 3 wheelers at an equiv of only 200 mpg. While the smaller ones go as high 800 mpg or higher. I don't need to do a cite on this one. I am a builder with more successful business than most of the "Experts" that people use for their cites.

If what I understand is that you are claiming to get the equivalent of over 200 mpg with an EV, that is not at all true.
That is a calculated figure that is not based on actually checking the amount of fuel and emissions when the electricity is produced, before it is transmitted, stored, retrieved, and re-converted by to kinetic energy.
Electric vehicles are far less efficient than what they claim.
And batteries are much heavier, expensive, and short lived than they admit.

You really don't want to compare the energy loss of the Gasoline before you actually pump it into your tank,do you. If you did, you wouldn't be voicing his nonsense. Your Oil Company Handler telling you what to say is an idiot. Get a different one.

Wrong. Oil refining does NOT take energy, but only uses the free energy already stored in the fossil fuel. In fact, you can see they deliberately have to waste some energy at refineries as they burn off some of the excess combustible gases they don't need or want.
There really is nothing more efficient or cleaner than diesel in the long run.
If one was going to go electric, then it would be a fuel cell or hydrogen, not batteries.
Batteries suck.
They are expensive, heavy, short life, and very slow refill.

 

[AntonToo]

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

 

[NoVote]

Buy an electric car for twice what a gas one costs. You know, one with a huge battery that will cost thousands. The 40 kWh Nissan Leaf battery costs $5,499 to replace plus a 3 h installation charge. That's $137 per kWh for just the battery. Then charge it daily from an electric plant that uses stinky, dirty coal to produce the electricity.

 

[Rigby5]

Only you could come on here, and claim your policies proved a concept, that was already proven over 100 years ago, and then claim others are regressive.

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

 

[Andylusion]

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.

 

[Rigby5]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Does not at all matter if it is 30 now instead of 33. The point is that in 20 years there will be NO gas or oil electric power plants because coal will be all that is left. And natural gas fracking not only allows almost half the natural gas to escape right to the atmosphere, but it also contaminates the water table with carcinogens like benzine and xylene. Coal is likely cleaner than fracking natural gas.

 

[Rigby5]

Buy an electric car for twice what a gas one costs. You know, one with a huge battery that will cost thousands. The 40 kWh Nissan Leaf battery costs $5,499 to replace plus a 3 h installation charge. That's $137 per kWh for just the battery. Then charge it daily from an electric plant that uses stinky, dirty coal to produce the electricity.

Exactly.
EVs are mostly fake marketing hype without substance.

 

[Rigby5]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.

When cars were required to have catalytic converters in 1974, almost all the mechanics in the shop came down with respiratory problems. We had to greatly increase the ventilation system to remove all the new toxins that catalytic converters were generating.

I saw the EPA targeting air cooled cars like VW and Porsche, and diesels. They were using NOx as their means to do this, because US makers did not make air cooled or small diesels. But yet clearly air cooled and diesels are far cleaner and safer. So the EPA was deliberately trying to cut foreign competition, while increasing emissions. We see that by all the low mpg SUVs US makers are selling now. If the EPA was even half honest, no one would be selling any SUVs because the EPA would not be allowing them. SUVs clearly use twice as much fuel. That has to be corruption. Way too obvious.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

You have an old, out of date list. I live in Mesa County. Cameo and Nucla are in Mesa County. Both no longer have Coal Fired power plants. Both have been shut down years ago. The list is from 2012. In fact, the list was already out of date in 2012 since Cameo was shut down in the early 2000s. You want to visit Cameo today?
About Cameo Shooting and Education Complex


There is a lot of things going on there including industry but not one bit of coal is being shipped there anymore. And not one KW of power is generated there as well.

 

[Rigby5]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

You have an old, out of date list. I live in Mesa County. Cameo and Nucla are in Mesa County. Both no longer have Coal Fired power plants. Both have been shut down years ago. The list is from 2012. In fact, the list was already out of date in 2012 since Cameo was shut down in the early 2000s. You want to visit Cameo today?
About Cameo Shooting and Education Complex


There is a lot of things going on there including industry but not one bit of coal is being shipped there anymore. And not one KW of power is generated there as well.

Does not matter. CO still produces more electricity with coal than anything else, and within 20 years will have to switch to ALL coal. Natural gas is not cleaner since fracking releases way too much into the atmosphere and water table. And we have 10 times more coal than natural gas and oil combined.

There is nothing to argue about.
Coal simply is the ONLY long range alternative, unless we invent fusion or something we don't have yet.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Even that list is out of date. Cameo was completely disassembled in 2007. It was shut down in 2003. That was the year the Truck stop there shut it's motel and diner down. The Gas Station or quick stop is still there but that's about it. Those dates are disassembly dates, not shutdown links. Most were converted to Natural Gas. But when you had a multiple of plants clustered, you normally would convert one and shut the rest down since one Natural Gas Plant was much more efficient than multiple coal plants.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Does not at all matter if it is 30 now instead of 33. The point is that in 20 years there will be NO gas or oil electric power plants because coal will be all that is left. And natural gas fracking not only allows almost half the natural gas to escape right to the atmosphere, but it also contaminates the water table with carcinogens like benzine and xylene. Coal is likely cleaner than fracking natural gas.

It's not 30, it's now 9 - meaning that in the last decade 24 coal plants closed up in Colorado.

Coal will be all thats left? What the fuck? Where will natural gas, water, sun and wind (50% of current electricity production on CO) disapear to?

 

[AntonToo]

Horsecrap, it was not untill a few years ago that we finally got a commercially viable electric car.

Tesla turns a profit in what Musk calls ‘a historic quarter’

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores.

What makes you think EPA ignores it?

Do you know how MPGe is estimated and have specific objections we can adjust those numbers by? Where do you get all these assertions from, just top of your head?

 

[Rigby5]

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Even that list is out of date. Cameo was completely disassembled in 2007. It was shut down in 2003. That was the year the Truck stop there shut it's motel and diner down. The Gas Station or quick stop is still there but that's about it. Those dates are disassembly dates, not shutdown links. Most were converted to Natural Gas. But when you had a multiple of plants clustered, you normally would convert one and shut the rest down since one Natural Gas Plant was much more efficient than multiple coal plants.

Irrelevant.
Natural gas is not at all cleaner because of the emissions from fracking.
And there simply is not enough natural gas.
We will all be back to coal in 20 years.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Does not at all matter if it is 30 now instead of 33. The point is that in 20 years there will be NO gas or oil electric power plants because coal will be all that is left. And natural gas fracking not only allows almost half the natural gas to escape right to the atmosphere, but it also contaminates the water table with carcinogens like benzine and xylene. Coal is likely cleaner than fracking natural gas.

It's not 30, it's now 9 - meaning that in the last decade 24 coal plants closed up in Colorado.

Coal will be all thats left? What the fuck? Where will natural gas, water, sun and wind (50% of current electricity production on CO) disapear to?

Wrong.
Natural gas and oil reserves in the US are less than 10% that of coal, and will be too expensive to use in less than 20 years.
Natural gas is essential to make nitrate fertilizers, with will get huge priority over electricity production.
Wind and sun can not possibly replace anything.
You have to have full power production at night, when there is no wind, etc.
You can only use wind and solar to augment to save a little fuel.
It is NOT a viable alternative to anything.

After 20 years there will still be some natural gas left, but at way too high a price.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

You have an old, out of date list. I live in Mesa County. Cameo and Nucla are in Mesa County. Both no longer have Coal Fired power plants. Both have been shut down years ago. The list is from 2012. In fact, the list was already out of date in 2012 since Cameo was shut down in the early 2000s. You want to visit Cameo today?
About Cameo Shooting and Education Complex


There is a lot of things going on there including industry but not one bit of coal is being shipped there anymore. And not one KW of power is generated there as well.

Does not matter. CO still produces more electricity with coal than anything else, and within 20 years will have to switch to ALL coal. Natural gas is not cleaner since fracking releases way too much into the atmosphere and water table. And we have 10 times more coal than natural gas and oil combined.

There is nothing to argue about.
Coal simply is the ONLY long range alternative, unless we invent fusion or something we don't have yet.

It's funny, not one single updated list is out there to be had. The most recent one is from 2013 yet there has been a whole bunch of coal plants shut down since then. There is a very good reason. If the shutdowns had not or did not happen,Colorado would have failed the EPA air standards test in 2020. Here is a state that brags about clean air and yet it couldn't even meet air quality standards any better than NYC. I remember the Coal Fired Industries in Western Colorado before they got rid of the Coal. If you believe the air was clean, go out after a heavy snow. The Snow would be black.

In the early 1970s, they forced Holly Sugar (I worked there before being forced into the Military like many others) to convert to Natural Gas. Then the price of Natural Gas went way up and they were told they could go back to Coal except they would have to install scrubbers to meet the clean air standards. The cost of installing and operating the scrubbers were not cost effective and the cost of operating Natural Gas at the time was not cost effective either. Of course, the price for natural gas went way down later. They shut the factory down and it put the entire 130 miles of farm land into a death spiral. Then the Coal industry was hit and hit hard, there went the rest of it. If it weren't for Tourism that whole area would have blown away.

Coal is a viable source except to clean it up, the scrubbers are too expensive to use. You have to filter out the really nasty chemicals that it puts out. You can do it with filters of some kind but that gets really expensive. Or you can do it without the filters and breath the black air and eat the black snow.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Even that list is out of date. Cameo was completely disassembled in 2007. It was shut down in 2003. That was the year the Truck stop there shut it's motel and diner down. The Gas Station or quick stop is still there but that's about it. Those dates are disassembly dates, not shutdown links. Most were converted to Natural Gas. But when you had a multiple of plants clustered, you normally would convert one and shut the rest down since one Natural Gas Plant was much more efficient than multiple coal plants.

Irrelevant.
Natural gas is not at all cleaner because of the emissions from fracking.
And there simply is not enough natural gas.
We will all be back to coal in 20 years.

Then I guess they had better get busy on some of the other alternate energy ideas. LockMart has a pretty good one that should be online before than that pretty well does away with Coal, Natural Gas and others. Fusion Energy is working in small models and only has to be scaled up. Yes, Dorathy, Science Fiction does become real.