Simple question on electric vehicles, where does the electricity to recharge them come from?

[Leo123]

-sigh-

This topic is very much above your pay grade. If you would like you could always read "Cadillac Desert" if you want to learn about water politics in SoCal.

Your idea is not far off though: get rid of the dams and collapse the water infrastructure not just in LA but in the entire Central Valley. Oopsy! There goes YOUR grocery bill. Yup, a huge chunk of our agriculture is in the Central Valley. It's how you get cheap lettuce wherever you live in whatever godforsaken hellhole.

I'm all for lowering the population in SoCal (it's unsustainable) but I'm guessing you haven't a clue how you will be impacted. It's not gonna be fun.

Oh, so now only certain dams should be torn down?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Oh, so now only certain dams should be torn down?

I didn't say anything about that. I suggested a book for you to read. But I bet "books" are just not your thing are they?

 

[elektra]

-sigh-

This topic is very much above your pay grade. If you would like you could always read "Cadillac Desert" if you want to learn about water politics in SoCal.

Cadillac Desert is a bit dated, today. Unless they had a recent revision.

China Town, and The Two Jakes, tells the story much better. More fun to watch Jack Nicholson.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does it surprise you that America has dropped CO2 emissions???? I'm genuinely curious why this confuses you.

I'm not confused. Not even a little.
Still waiting for your explantion of why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BTW: If you need help understanding a graph let me know. I can explain them to you. No matter how little math you have in your background (which appears to be VERY little)

Don't pull a hamstring.

 

[Blues Man]

I never said I would give my personal information online. As such if I am to meet YOUR demand I will have to have your social security number. Thanks.

So you can't prove that you have any patents.

Like I said I I didn't think you could

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Don't pull a hamstring.

OK, don't worry.

The graph you posted is called a "time series" because the x-axis (that's the one that is horizontal!) is in time units. The y-axis (that's the one that's up and down) is the CO2 emissions.

You can see they go up and then come back down.

Why does this happen? For a number of reasons not least of which includes de-industrialization as we offshore our manufacturing to cheap labor markets like China and Indonesia. There is also a move to reduce our carbon foot print in America (that's what the graph is related to...AMERICA...that's the country you and I live in! Can you find it on a globe? Do so now!)

Now there's some information MISSING from your graph! Do you know what it might be? The Y-axis (remember that's the one that goes up and down!) is "emissions" measured in millions of something. The graph is not clearly labeled. If one goes by the title it would seem to be "millions of kilotons of CO2" but that would be quite a bit (do you know what a million thousand is?)

It is also quite interesting how SHORT A TIME FRAME THIS REPRESENTS! Did you look at the x-axis? (that's the one that is horizontal). Note it is between 1990 and 2019. That's not a lot of time which really causes one to start looking more closely as to HOW MUCH OF A CHANGE does the graph represent? Well at it's peak it is 5.8 and at it's lowest it is 4.8. That amounts to only a change of 1.8 units (in this case "Millions" of something or millions of kt).

It would be REALLY interesting to see a much longer time-frame which might put this in more context.

There. Hope I cleared it up for you and I look forward to your incredibly insightful response.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Cadillac Desert is a bit dated, today. Unless they had a recent revision.

China Town, and The Two Jakes, tells the story much better. More fun to watch Jack Nicholson.

Yeah, cuz readin' is HARD man! 'Specially books with big words and almost no pichurs in 'em.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK, don't worry.

The graph you posted is called a "time series" because the x-axis (that's the one that is horizontal!) is in time units. The y-axis (that's the one that's up and down) is the CO2 emissions.

You can see they go up and then come back down.

Why does this happen? For a number of reasons not least of which includes de-industrialization as we offshore our manufacturing to cheap labor markets like China and Indonesia. There is also a move to reduce our carbon foot print in America (that's what the graph is related to...AMERICA...that's the country you and I live in! Can you find it on a globe? Do so now!)

Now there's some information MISSING from your graph! Do you know what it might be? The Y-axis (remember that's the one that goes up and down!) is "emissions" measured in millions of something. The graph is not clearly labeled. If one goes by the title it would seem to be "millions of kilotons of CO2" but that would be quite a bit (do you know what a million thousand is?)

It is also quite interesting how SHORT A TIME FRAME THIS REPRESENTS! Did you look at the x-axis? (that's the one that is horizontal). Note it is between 1990 and 2019. That's not a lot of time which really causes one to start looking more closely as to HOW MUCH OF A CHANGE does the graph represent? Well at it's peak it is 5.8 and at it's lowest it is 4.8. That amounts to only a change of 1.8 units (in this case "Millions" of something or millions of kt).

It would be REALLY interesting to see a much longer time-frame which might put this in more context.

There. Hope I cleared it up for you and I look forward to your incredibly insightful response.

Now there's some information MISSING from your graph! Do you know what it might be? The Y-axis (remember that's the one that goes up and down!) is "emissions" measured in millions of something. The graph is not clearly labeled.

I was able to find it. Is there an adult nearby you could ask?

If one goes by the title it would seem to be "millions of kilotons of CO2"

Congrats! I wasn't sure you'd be able to figure that out. Wow!

but that would be quite a bit

Yeah, our emissions are quite a bit. Congrats again!

(do you know what a million thousand is?)

Yes, I do.

 

[elektra]

Yeah, cuz readin' is HARD man! 'Specially books with big words and almost no pichurs in 'em.

It is a 30 year old book, and that is the revision. Irrelevant in regards to politics and the wests water today.

Here is what you will learn if you read the book. You can not build a dam today that will return its cost providing electricity.

Dams are bad for electricity. Today water politics, useless.

 

[jc456]

In the time it took you to write and post all of this...........you could have googled the answers.

where's the fun in that?

 

[jc456]

Where do you think it comes from? And what's the point of such a stupid question?

Try acting like a liberal. Instead of playing dishonest stupid question games, state your point simply and directly.

Think you can handle it?

when's your OP coming?

 

[jc456]

No, but better ways to transport should be the main focus from better rail system that uses different ways to operate to local production for mAjor Cities.

they were installing pipelines to carry oil, but demofks shut them down now requiring trucks to haul oil. I think that's stupid. Just my opinion though. stay stupid is a demofk.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It is a 30 year old book, and that is the revision. Irrelevant in regards to politics and the wests water today.

Here is what you will learn if you read the book. You can not build a dam today that will return its cost providing electricity.

Dams are bad for electricity. Today water politics, useless.

History is how we learn. Yes it is more than 30 years old now. The history is still valuable.

Hey! As an aside: have you figured out what are of earth science was your specialty?

 

[jc456]

We aren't going to be building any new hydro plants.

No one has the desire or the will to have giant, expensive dams constructed in this country anymore.

We need to go all in on small modular thorium reactors

exactly

 

[jc456]

History is how we learn. Yes it is more than 30 years old now. The history is still valuable.

Hey! As an aside: have you figured out what are of earth science was your specialty?

Why do demofks want to destroy history then? I realize they didn't learn from it.

 

[jc456]

Why is it a stupid question? If the electricity used to charge your vehicle is coming from a coal fired power plant it isn't a significant improvement over burning gasoline. I'm sure there's some efficiencies that make it less "bad".

In some cases, like mine, I charge mostly on solar which is a much greener alternative overall.

when do all of those free solar panels start making their way into the public?

 

[jc456]

Yes, I am very aware of all that seeing I have done a few threads on this subject in the Energy forum, so do me a favor and research before preaching to me about subjects I have already posted on.

The fact is Nuclear and Hydro electric along with other technology can benefit humanity and nothing is perfect.

With Nuclear you could have another three mile island incident and with Hydro you run the risk of failure of water become scarce.

In the end it will take a combination of things and let me be clear Oil will deplete sooner or later, so we better start looking hard at the alternative ways to lower ourselves.

cause that's what we do before we post is research every poster on the board prior to posting. hahahahahhahhahaha

Can't make up a demofks insanity at any time.

 

[jc456]

The point is that the OP's question, rhetorical as it might be, is exceedingly stupid. We all know where it comes from and a few of us even know how its generated. But even the worst case scenario doesn't support the contention you're attempting to make.

how much energy has been added to the grid to handle an influx of millions of EV vehicles?

 

[jc456]

Unlike YOU I've got patents to my name

we're happy for you.