… for the all-electric F-150:
A coal and natural gas powered f150. Cool .
Sorry, I’m a cynic. But, to my defense:
- Natural gas accounted for about 80% of Mississippi’s electricity net generation in 2020 and was the primary fuel used at 9 of the state’s 10 largest power plants.
Gasoline production will fall. With petroleum companies still produce other products?
Changes aren’t made overnight. Your comments seem like a glass half empty rather than half full. It will take a great long time, if ever, for renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel sources. In the meantime, methane is better than coal or oil since it takes less time to turn those plants on when renewable sources are at lower production levels due to weather.
In 2020, natural gas and nuclear power accounted for 90% of New Jersey’s total electricity net generation, although natural gas-fired generation in the state was down one-fourth from 2019 as COVID-19 mitigation efforts resulted in many offices scaling back their on-site operations and employees worked from home.
New Jersey was the nation’s sixth-largest producer of electricity from solar energy in 2020 and ranked third in generation from small-scale solar generating systems, such as rooftop solar panels. Overall, solar power accounted for 6.5% of in-state electricity.
By mid-2021, New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities had approved 3,700 megawatts of offshore wind power capacity, putting the state on track to meet almost half of its goal to obtain 7,500 megawatts of wind power by 2035.
6.5% of “in state” electricity and they’re the nation’s sixth largest solar producer…
What is your point, or were you agreeing with mine?
I don’t really follow your thoughts with methane either:
“Methane is a major constituent of natural gas, but its chemical and physical characteristics also make it a powerful greenhouse gas and worrisome contributor to global climate change.”
My point is that, between solar and wind power, my state is rapidly reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. It will take many years before it gets to a major stage, but–it is growing at a rapid rate.
Ok, I didn’t really get that from the info you provided. My point is (if anyone cares to know), you might as well charge your electric car battery with a natural gas powered generator in the meantime. Electric cars are a cart before the horse scenario right now. But, I think I’ve stated that before.
I’ll bow out. Carry on.
I am actually in the minority in my neighborhood by not having solar panels on my roof. I’m also not interested in owning an EV. But, for my largely solar-powered neighbors, one would make a lot of sense.
I’d be curious how much of the power they use is actually solar. A few panels on the roof doesn’t necessarily mean a huge percentage of the power they consume is solar.
I’m genuinely curious on that. Wouldn’t mind having a few panels myself, if the cost / benefit ratio was there. Lots of trees around my house, though. That might ruin it for me anyway.
I’m not unhappy at all to finally see my subscription to Motor Trend finally come to an end. All they have pushed for at least the last couple of years is electric motors, so I now understand why it is not called “Engine Trend”. They were ahead of their time when they named the magazine.
Their latest is declaring the Rivian truck their Truck of the Year. At $74,000 they say it is a delight with all of the fine details like storage compartments. A truck for the “new” way trucks are used. OK, then the range. 300 miles and they say that should be just fine for the way most people use trucks and the 1700# payload and 11,000# towing capacity.
I can get 1700# on my trailer for less than $1000 new. My latest trip to Ohio would mean stopping for a recharge 100 miles this side of Chicago, then again somewhere past Indianapolis. Then repeat for the return trip. Not even going to think about the overnights and charging delays for my upcoming 1600 mile trip. Just plain insanity as GM re-imagines themselves into a tech company instead of a car company.
Maybe just maybe, if those solar panels work so good when it’s 20 below out, for $74,000 they should have solar panels on the top or a wind mill to re-charge along the way. Onward onward to the elimination of millions of vehicles which I think is the back story in the first place.
Motor Trend lost me as a subscriber several years ago when they kept “directing” me toward the website for additional info or articles. I pay for the paper magazine because I don’t want to read stuff on a screen…
Having said that… I’d love to have an electric F-150. I’m one of those that hasn’t had a Ford, or a truck, in a long time. The F-150 got my attention.
There is no cart, there is no horse. It’s incremental. People will buy electric vehicles if they want to and for their own reasons. My point earlier was that we must have fossil fuel plants because there is no way to change to renewable electric power immediately. If you think EVs are a bad idea because there aren’t renewable electric resources universally available, then that’s a glass half empty. Viewing EVs and battery operated tools (instead of gasoline powered) as a start on a long and difficult road to implementation is the glass half full.
Our opinions differ there. Not a problem.
Yes. Look around, so many things are made from petroleum products. Modern life is not possible without products containing petroleum products. Toss in natural gas… Hydrogen made from natural gas is used in food products, medical products and more.
Heck, you can’t even build a Tesla without petroleum products.
Even a parttime employee at the Better Business Bureau would ask a new aspiring Entrepreneur have you done your product research?
Where are all these trucks boing to be charged and does the electrical grid (especially California…) support the extra drain on these critical resources?
Only Electro Man can help…
The frog in the frying pan is incremental. In fairness though, I’ve caught a lot of frogs and never found one that would sit still long enough in one spot.
Lack of electricity is partially what killed the electric car in 1920. While electricity was mostly available for recharging in cities, rural areas were only 5 to 10 percent electrified. Widespread rural electrification did not even gain traction until after the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
You can’t sell EVs to people with no electricity.
Also didn’t help that the first electric starters were installed in 1912 and every gas car maker jumped on that device shortly after.
An electric car is run off of a battery. Batteries never make power. They store power that was obtained elsewhere. So it seems blaringly obvious to me that an electric car does zero for the environment one way or the other in and of itself. It all depends on where the power comes from in the first place. Yet they are marketed as “zero emission vehicles”. I mean they could be. But they absolutely are not. For all I (and you) know, they never could be. How many windmills and solar panels would have to be constructed to eliminate fossil fuels (if it even really matters, considering the totally arbitrary target cut off for temp rise is 1.5 degrees, whereas the projected “do nothing” temp rise is 3 degrees). That’s what gripes me. Are people that gullible or do the majority of people just take someone else’s word for it? I said I’d bow out lol. But the marketing is so misleading. What else is new, eh?