Are electric cars powered by coal-based electricity any benefit?

First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.

Second, the statement that I initially questioned had little to do with finance, rather dead birds and noise pollution. However, I'd appreciate a response from your finance perspective on the social and environmental costs (literal costs) from this. As an engineer (and consultant), I work on a very small portion of what power plants do, and in that small portion, we deal with social and environmental costs of impacts to society and the environment. Any thoughts?

The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed. However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns. Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. Birds fly into the vanes, and there's no practical way to prevent this. The EPA has more or less written off dead eagles and other endangered birds; quite a callous view of conservationism. Does this excuse the problems with fossil fuels? No, but those are constantly worked on by power companies installing smoke stack scrubber and filters, and the constant agency (of all types) monitoring of nuclear power systems.

Right now, fossil and nuclear power sources are by and large contained within finite areas, and their impact has been long studied and acted upon by the companies themselves, or through government regulation. People are comfortable around fossil power, not as much nuclear (although imminently safe).

One of the things I learned with the Three Mile Island incident, was that the operators there did not believe what their instruments were telling them, thereby creating a man-made problem.

I'm not naive to believe that any power solution doesn't have its assets and liabilities, but the panic caused by those wanting immediate conversion to "eco-friendly" solutions seem content with the crushing cost of those conversions, and little known real benefits.

Folks generally know little of the "war" between Tesla and Edison over power generation. The money spent by Edison's allies for DC power spared little in the way of outlandish propaganda to push a system which could not scale upward as demand grew.
Windmills do not create much noise pollution. Generally, wind turbines are no closer than 300 yards/meters to homes. At that distance a wind turbine generates about 43 decibels. Most home refrigerators generate about 40 decibels and the average air conditioner creates 45 decibels. At 500 yards/meters the sound drops to 38 decibels which is below the average background noise which ranges from 40 - 45 decibels. Under those circumstances the wind turbine noise is completely masked by the background.

You mentioned a lack of studies/vetting regarding renewable energy.

"I'm a skeptic about any "systems" which tout advantages without proper vetting. "Green" energy is one of those which purports to be a panacea, replacing fossil-based and nuclear energy, but has to be propped up using tax credits and government subsidies. Not one of the statements I've read has done an end-to-end fully costed analysis."


Just because you haven't read any reports/publications does not mean they do not exist. In California, the Environmental Impact Reports, CEQA court cases, public hearings, energy studies sponsored and researched by governments, private sector and universities can possibly filled the entire Library of Congress. As an environmental consultant and a former environmental commissioner for the City of Los Angeles, I have seen, read and personally contributed to plenty.

PS- The wind turbines in California generally exceed that 300 yards/meters distance. Have you ever been up close to a wind turbine?
 
Last edited:
I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil. In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.


Trump isn't doing long term with policies in respect to coal and oil.
Which is why many U.S. States are taking the lead both individually and collectively. California government officials have entertained and visited the EU and China and together they are formulating green initiatives and moving forward with international designs/plans/requirements/regulations/et al ... sans Trump.
 
Last edited:
The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed. However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns. Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...
I recall visiting a friend in Indiana. They live in the middle of nowhere but cornfields. You can hear the hum of the distant turbines all day and all night long. If you do a quick google that hum is a growing problem if turbines are near residences.
In rural areas, the background noise is about 30 decibels, which requires about a miles of distance from a wind turbine not to be heard.

wind_turbine.jpg
 
The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed. However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns. Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...
I recall visiting a friend in Indiana. They live in the middle of nowhere but cornfields. You can hear the hum of the distant turbines all day and all night long. If you do a quick google that hum is a growing problem if turbines are near residences.


Im not some enviro freak I'm simply saying that there are down side and downsides.
One man's poison is another man's meat. Nothing is perfect. I personally don't have a big problem with nuclear. For me, apart from the waste (which is a serious concern) ... when something goes wrong with a nuke plant, all hell can break loose. How much hell can be generated if a wind turbine farm goes down?
 
Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.
 
You remind me of the guy who lives next to a track that ran a train by at 3:00 a.m. every day. One day the train didn't run and the guy woke up saying "What was that!"
 
Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.
I don't think "You'll get used to it ..." is a viable mitigation action. :cool-98:
 
You remind me of the guy who lives next to a track that ran a train by at 3:00 a.m. every day. One day the train didn't run and the guy woke up saying "What was that!"
 
Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.
I don't think "You'll get used to it ..." is a viable mitigation action. :cool-98:

Of course not.

But...sometimes I think people prevent progress on good ideas because something in their lives might change as a result.

Maybe they could save on their attorney’s fees and adapt.
 
Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.
I don't think "You'll get used to it ..." is a viable mitigation action. :cool-98:
One time I heard an engineer try to positive spin a power plant reducing nearby property values as a good thing, because their taxes might go down as a result of their reduced property value. So, it'll be cheaper for them.

People are a-holes.
 
There is a community to the south of LAX called El Segundo. Gary and family were looking at a very nice home which was priced far lower than what one would think such a home would cost. Gary was speaking to the real estate agent when a jet roared overhead. I yelled to the agent a remark about the noise and the agent looked at me and said "What jet?"
 
Haven't read the entire discussion, but see it's recent trend towards noise concerns...

These arguments are always interesting to me as I live maybe 100 yards from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and have done so for the last 10 years. I simply do not recognize that trains pass anymore unless its a freighter that literally shakes the house.

People who visit do notice them, and they always ask how we cope. I tell them the same thing. I think sometimes outsiders to situations assume that things are a bigger deal than they really are.

A couple of obvious caveats that I will admit to:

A. We chose to live there. I suppose people who live in rural areas of Indiana aren't necessarily signing up for these renewable resources, and I don't know if they are directly benefiting their community.

B. We live in a city, so background noise levels are obviously higher. But we don't notice the ambulances that come screaming by (as we are a block from the hospital) or the helicopters coming to land or even really the music from the bar down the street either.
I don't think "You'll get used to it ..." is a viable mitigation action. :cool-98:
One time I heard an engineer try to positive spin a power plant reducing nearby property values as a good thing, because their taxes might go down as a result of their reduced property value. So, it'll be cheaper for them.

People are a-holes.
I have a beef when people move next to an airport, then complain about the noise.
 
I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil. In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.
You got most of it all wrong. Government did not invent the automobile, telephone, airplane, computer, fracking, film, film and digital cameras, Google Maps, Nikon 850, etc. These were invented by private individuals and companies who competed against established methodologies and technologies. The only place government advanced technologies for the most part is in arms like tanks, battleships, missiles, and jet fighters because individuals and companies don't need them and wouldn't buy them.

Most of the money spent by government on 'green" energy goes to companies that gave campaign donations to politicians. Also, tax credits and rebates for green energy were reimbursed to people like Trump and other real estate developers who construct buildings. Other credits go to rich individuals who buy expensive cars like the Tesla, unaffordable by most people. It's the poorer people who can't afford these vehicles and pay for it with their taxes although the benefits go to the rich.

Government misallocates wealth by playing favorites instead of allowing free markets to operate. It's free markets that create wealth. Government only dissipates it. Look at Venezuela.
 
The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed. However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns. Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. ...
I recall visiting a friend in Indiana. They live in the middle of nowhere but cornfields. You can hear the hum of the distant turbines all day and all night long. If you do a quick google that hum is a growing problem if turbines are near residences.
In rural areas, the background noise is about 30 decibels, which requires about a miles of distance from a wind turbine not to be heard.

wind_turbine.jpg
The sound pressure level is not the ultimate measurement, though. There are also the concerns with the low level sound frequency, measured in Hz. There's enough anecdotal evidence that this phenomenon needs further serious study. The graph also ignores the total exposure time to those listed noises. Lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, etc., do not run at those levels 24/7 (not that wind generators do, either).

Exposure to sound at levels above 85 dB will eventually cause hearing loss, and is painful when exposed long enough at one time. The human body never "gets used" to constant noise levels, no matter how "small". People learn to live with it, but it's not healthy.

PS - If my refrigerator ran at 40 dB, I'd be buying a new one.
 
I also don't have a problem with government subsidies for renewable energy and LEED projects. We ALL benefit from cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner soil. In a pure market based economy it is very very difficult to compete against established methodologies and technologies. I think it is good government which takes a long-term, non-profit, pro-community/people view/approach in attempting to create a world/community/society which is healthy and sustainable, for the people the government represents.
You got most of it all wrong. Government did not invent the automobile, telephone, airplane, computer, fracking, film, film and digital cameras, Google Maps, Nikon 850, etc. These were invented by private individuals and companies who competed against established methodologies and technologies. The only place government advanced technologies for the most part is in arms like tanks, battleships, missiles, and jet fighters because individuals and companies don't need them and wouldn't buy them.

Most of the money spent by government on 'green" energy goes to companies that gave campaign donations to politicians. Also, tax credits and rebates for green energy were reimbursed to people like Trump and other real estate developers who construct buildings. Other credits go to rich individuals who buy expensive cars like the Tesla, unaffordable by most people. It's the poorer people who can't afford these vehicles and pay for it with their taxes although the benefits go to the rich.

Government misallocates wealth by playing favorites instead of allowing free markets to operate. It's free markets that create wealth. Government only dissipates it. Look at Venezuela.
I never said the government invented any of those things.

To clarify, the government is attempting to get green technology established by offering incentives. Private sector tax incentives are provided to all. Private sector incentives are designed to make new green technologies as affordable as older cheaper less energy efficient and dirty technologies. All people directly benefit from clean air, clean water and clean soil.

Please provide concrete examples and data supporting your unsubstantiated claims and I will either agree or I will disagree and post examples and data to substantiate my disagreement(s).
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top