Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Carolyn please

Speaking of bugs, whatever happened to bug screens? Everybody used to have them.

Speaking of this forum, how long do you think Ford would have lasted selling the Model T? If Edsel hadn’t done what he did in defiance of his dad, would they have lasted another 5-10 years. Maybe with the war making airplanes but don’t think there would have been much market for a 1945 model T. Of course there are still businesses just selling Model T parts but they aren’t exactly thriving. Just think sometimes original purposes need to be a little flexible as times change. Henry was so sure that no one would ever need or want anything but the Model T and prohibited anyone saying anything different. Lots of bones of businesses following the same path over the past century.

Old Henry might have been a mechanical genius, but he was a certifiable loony-bird by the time that he got to middle age.

Witness his virulent anti-Semitism, his “fear” of hydraulic brakes, his reluctance to use any type of suspension other than a transverse leaf spring, and his superstition regarding six-cylinder engines. Without the vision of Edsel, the company would have died, and until Henry himself died, the company’s technology was largely stagnant.

Hydroelectric is already played out in the USA. Do you really want to put West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Illinois, and Indiana out of business? They produce 80% of the coal in the US. I would rather see additional pollution equipment mandated. That will mean a higher cost for electricity, but it will lower health costs for the users. Over time, I expect that wind/solar will be combined with natural gas to provide much of the power for the USA. When wind and solar are unavailable, power is augmented with natural gas.

I wonder what the electoral totals are of those six states? Is no one else concerned about the increased use of natural gas? I know right now there is a lot of it, but 20 years from now? I really think it is fool hardy to burn up natural gas producing electricity when there are other options available like nuclear for pure power generation. Wind and solar is a joke for large scale power production and simply political. Certainly we can deal with cleanly burning coal. If it were up to the current EPA, the only pollution we’d need to deal with would be horse droppings. All other modern conveniences would be outlawed without consent of Congress.

I just flagged all the posts that did not mention the topic at all. kinda made me feel like a jerk.

@wesw–You saw fit to flag my post, but you didn’t flag Bing’s post to which I was responding.
If you are going to be vindictive toward long-term forum members, at least you should be consistent in that vindictiveness.

I was just joking silly. and I got one of bings too. the one above this actually. I m removing the flags now. just making a point about not limiting the site. I value your, and almost everyone s, off topic wisdom

correction, I just removed your flag for now. I ll wait and see if anyone else gets mad. :slight_smile:

@jtsandsers There already is all the technology available to make coal a clean burning fuel. The issue is that coal which is mostly carbon generates twice as much CO2 when it burns than natural gas, which is CH4. That’s why we have this coal witchhunt.

There is a coal fired plant in North Dakota, I believe, called “Antilope valley” which has stack gas scrubbing that produces Gypsum from the sulfur in the coal, and this is used for making wallboard (drywall). The plant is squeaky clean and even looks great with its light blue color, picked out by the president’s wife.

Unfortunately it does generate twice the CO2 per KW hour that an equivalent gas fired plant would produce.

Ever since the EPA has been allowed to call CO2 a pollutant and regulate it, we will see the gradual demise of coal as a boiler fuel. Since we now have very large gas resources, the change over will be relatively painless, but it will increase your electric bill in the future. Solar and wind will really add to electric energy costs when used in higher quantities.

There is not enough hydro-electric potential in the US to make a significant contribution to take over from coal. Coal made the industrial revolution possible, and gave us our high standard of living. We will have to find a new way to “clean coal” (reduce the carbon dioxide generated) if we are to use it in the future

According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.

Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

And according to MADD, one person is injured every minute of every day by a drunk driver in this country. That amounts to 60 people every hour, 1,440 people a day, 10,080 people a week and 524,160 people a year. And those statistics do not include the people who died from their accident injuries.

Hmmm… Sounds like we should do away with coal fired power plants…And alcohol.

The original post was about having a special area on the cartalk forums for “off topic” conversation.

So my off topic post is actually on topic… Funny how the mind can justify almost anything.

Burn the alcohol for power.

Solar and wind are viable in some areas, not all. There is no universal solution. Even in the Southwest where most days are sunny, you still need night time power and it does rain during the winter months. Natural gas is the most reasonable alternative for no-Sun times since methane power plants can be turned on and off quicker than other types.

Nah, I never meant to imply that you were for or against coal @WheresRick‌. Just took your bait about having a flat-out debate about it. And I was serious about getting an education about coal burning.

I know something like half of the power in the US comes from coal, but I still don’t understand all the whys of it. I know coal fired the industrial revoution with everything from steel plants to locomotives crossing the country. But I don’t know why we’ve stuck with it so long. I’m sure the reasons are as political as anything. Locomotives used to be coal fired but long ago switched to diesel-electric. Why haven’t coal power plants gone to a more modern technology? Is there a more modern technology?

Build a dam. Once you’re done the thing sits there running itself making electricity. (OK, not really). But it sure seems a lot easier and cleaner than burning stuff.

I pay about 8 cents per kwh for electricity. There are no coal fired plants in this state. Seems like hydroelectric is a pretty good deal.

As for my personal cars: 2001 Silverado, 2002 Astro, 2002 Sable, 2006 Town Car. The Sable might get close to 30mpg on easy highway driving, the Town Car may break into the low 20s. I drive these for the same reason we still have coal powered electric plants–it’s what I have and they suit my needs and they’re paid for.

the only problem with dams is the damage they do to fish populations, interrupting their spawning runs. they do make turbines designed to work with the tide and flow of rivers that leave the fish pop. relatively unharmed

Hi Folks,

I just wanted to briefly join the fray here, with a few thoughts.

First, know that while we don’t comment a lot (other than Carolyn, whose job it is to oversee the CTC), many of us at Car Talk Plaza do watch the community closely and follow the discussions. It’s a great asset to the web site, and very much in line with our hopes of being a reasonably useful/somewhat time-killing place on the internet, with a general focus on cars and being a useful resource. We appreciate all that you guys do-- many of whom have been here almost as long as some of us at Car Talk Plaza. (Read: two decades, since our UBB boards. Some of you remember that first forum, I think?)

We see the site, and the community by extension, very much in the same way we see the show. Sure, we’ve take calls about relationships, but when we have, it’s always automotive-related in some way. Barely so, sometimes. But, it is.

So, like the show, we ask that the discussions be at least broadly car related, in some way, shape or form. All of us-- including, yes, Tom and Ray-- have empowered Carolyn to keep an eye on the forums, and make sure they broadly represent the spirit of Car Talk. We hope you can respect that guidance from this end. Other than that, it’s all yours to be a community as you see fit, within our Terms of Service, of course.

We are still active on lots of fronts, including Tom and Ray, on such projects as the web site, newspaper column, and more. They may have stepped back from the taking new calls on the weekly NPR show, but we continue to meet regularly on a variety of projects. We hope the forums will continue to be a useful, vibrant part of the web site.

All Best,

Doug Mayer

then again the puzzlers often have nothing at all to do with cars…

As we shift to electric cars, the debates about how to generate and distribute all that electricity are nothing if not relevant to the automotive world of the future.

that was…insightful!

If you want to serve one little niche,then so be it-Kevin

Well to relate coal to cars, the Stanley Steam car could be fired with coal, and wasn’t Rudolf Diesels’ prototype run on coal dust and peanut oil?