Featured Toyota's Anti-Electric Car Marketing Scam Gets Banned In Norway

you're going to get on someone's ignore list if you're not careful. I do feel sorry for poor Greta having parents that would scare her over climate change. She ought to read articles that go back ½ century - all talking about how cataclysmic events would happen within the next 10 years, kind of like a promise of hydrogen cars.
It's always disappointing when people want to preach their side, without any objections, else they face the name calling.
.

 

I know - and they're entirely wrong about doing that.

 

L

the folks that advocate coal continually talk about a 'fix' - CO2 sequestration & ways to manage the toxic ash. Does the USA actually have any Coal Fired plants that adequately manage these issues? The reason the dialogue might want to answer this, is because often, anti-electric car folks will tell me, "you are just moving the tailpipe". That presumed no one has sufficient solar or wind in their area, or as we do, enough to run our cars and home.

 

My understanding is an experimental plant in Texas is (was?):
America’s first ‘clean coal’ plant is now operational — and another is on the way - The Washington Post

The first large scale U.S. “clean coal” facility was declared operational Tuesday — by the large energy firm NRG Energy and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp.

Their Petra Nova project, not far outside of Houston, captured carbon dioxide from the process of coal combustion for the first time in September, and has now piped 100,000 tons of it from the plant to the West Ranch oil field 80 miles away, where the carbon dioxide is used to force additional oil from the ground. The companies say that the plant can capture over 90 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the equivalent of a 240 megawatt, or million watt, coal unit, which translates into 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day or over 1 million tons per year. They’re calling it “the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture system.”
. . . ​

It still makes no thermodynamic sense to me. Just because something can be built does it mean it should be built except as a "lessons learned" ... DON'T DO THIS!

Bob Wilson

 

The US sequesters the most CO2 in the world. About 90% or more is done to get more oil out of the ground though.

 

There are companies specializing in clean coal development and processing byproducts.

Here is a company that not only will come in to help coal power plants clean up their act but has technology that uses byproducts for making concrete and construction materials

Clean Coal | Clean Coal Technologies | RPM Solutions - Lexington, KY

It seems like a win win situations. Coal power plants are not going to disappear soon and electricity generation by wind and solar is not without environmental impact as many experts on waterfowl migration and naturalist who are studying the impact on decreasing bat numbers are speaking out about. Some environmentalist decry the habitat loss when giant solar farms are built as well as micro climate changes from the land footprint of these developments. Even water turbines interrupt the natural flow of water and when dams are built destroy entire ecosystems ex: The Hover Dam

I think the saying you don't get something for nothing is aptly applied to energy generation. Man has been interacting with Nature since he first appeared on earth changing it to best suit his needs. Something tells me this will not change anytime soon. Probably the best we can do is to minimize our impact as best we can when we interact with nature. I haven't meant an individual yet who didn't breathe in air and breathe out carbon dioxide or didn't have the need to eliminate waste from his body into the surrounding environment.

 

Holy crap - anyone look up just how much C02 humans exhale?

An average human exhales 2.3 lbs a day. Multiply that by 7 billion & you get: 16,100,000,000 lbs of C02 exhaled by humans a day..... Maybe, just maybe there are too many humans? Because honestly, that's an insane number.

Wait, not finished. What about methane, as in farts? I've not looked that up yet, but I'll bet its up there too.

{edit} - well nevermind. Apparently it's so low (as in 72cc) on an average of 30 farts per day (which is apparently normal?) So more Beer & Funyuns for everyone. Or a 10 sack of White Castle!

 

For cows and such, yes.

 

lol

But I refuse to give up Steak, Hamburger, Beef Stew, Cubed Steak & gravy and all the fixings that go with it. I also like a dab of cream in my coffee, and a nice glass of milk when I eat a slice of cake. Yeah, I'm not giving up on cows. Not gonna happen.

Anyone else grow up around cattle like me? I grew up around dairy cattle & those girls were like pets. They even knew the sound of my car. If they were near the gate when I pulled in the drive, you'd have to stop by to scratch their noses or they'd let you know they weren't happy with that by bawling at you. They even had favorites in the milk house. Some would go to John and John only - other to me and me alone.

Good old days gone... Sucks getting old

 

Kill the cows!

Bob Wilson

 

5 reasons cow farts matter (and could destroy the world)
.

 

Yup, still not giving up on cows. The brutal truth is that there is just too many people on this planet.

 

I've been reading off-topic posts for about 2 pages. Give way to proper discussions please.

 

yeah, i checked out awhile ago. some convo's out to go pm

 

I don't understand that statement at all. The ccs coal plants in Texas and Canada are proofs of concepts. Thermo dyanmic sense? Of course they produce a lot more electricity per unit of co2 than conventional coal or natural gas plants.

Without a penalty for carbon dioxide though they don't make economic sense. What the US is doing mainly replacing coal with natural gas and wind is economically less expensive than carbon capture coal until you put a high price on carbon.

Japan, China, and India are still building coal plants. Getting the technology to be less expensive might make their new power less carbon intense.

 

The other countries are building ‘super’ plants running at ~900-1000 C versus our legacy plants at ~600 C. They burn less per kWh and lower emissions and ash.

Bob Wilson

 

I empathize with the denigration theme inasmuch as my participation adds to the notion. It's ESPECIALLY the nature of the beast when the OP's topic somewhat flames Toyota/Lexus. That brings fans to the rescue.
But PC and the Prius (regular & plugin) evokes several sub themes, after high MPG topics.
Great mileage
Save fuel (legacy for subsequent generations)
Geo-political potentials
Save money (my favorite)
Lower pollution
Lower greenhouse gas
(and whatever i missed)
Toyota/Lexus 'Marketing'
Soooo . . . . there will always be folks who uber-emphasize their favorite, and invariably it ruffles differing views & creates opposition.
Take post #61 as a perfect example ... here is a person who obviously is concerned about man-made global warming as well as Toyota advertising. On these topics, we are allies! Here are my two solar inverters, which read out how much CO2 has not been generated over the decade-plus that they have been running;



add the 2 together & that's 2,076,702 pounds of CO2 ... well over 1,000 Tons.
But solar for saving money was/is the objective. CO2 is a collateral benefit - for us. That PV gives us electricity for free now. Running our plugins AND our home's electricity for free is great ... so ... that's just what works .... so we push it .... lo & behold ... that'll generate push-back. No big deal.
Now -the op gave himself the luxury of bringing up his favorite teenage CO2 anti-advocate (off topic) and yet refuses to hear any differing opinions - & put yours truly on a block list - and hurled a few insults this direction, on the way out. (sigh)
Why? Because I truncated the notion - that a lot of carbon was created by her trip to the United States? Really? If you took a multi-million-dollar racing yacht across the Atlantic while your support crew flies? I'm sorry, that's the same as flying. It's on your tab.
EQUALLY CO2 important? Modernly - jets fully loaded can get ~ 60mpg when calculated per passenger & luggage. That's better than a prius! And jet engines continue to improve.
Environmental impact of aviation - Wikipedia
& Yet ..... we will likely continue to disagree & agree on so many points.
Now, and lastly . . . . . why do people have to announce to their favorite forums, that "I am putting you on MY ignore list". Just do it, without the drama - if disagreeing is so painful & shocking - jeez. Believe it or not ... lots of extreme views/view givers get ignored. It's not like our forums get read by a significant portion of the viewing world.
how's that for adding to the tangents here (& sorry to those offended)

More cow fun facts ... spoiler - it's not just farts

Do cows pollute as much as cars? | HowStuffWorks
personally - it's the feed lot's urine / sump / runoff that creeps me out


likely - they're not all this bad
and btw ... we're grilling ribs tonight ... but still, we try to eat enviro/healthy most of the time
i admit my hypocrisy ... we do the best we can ... and try not to flame & ignore or hurt feelings of opposition.
.

 

How true this is...at least for the general america public. As old as Hybrid tech is, the general public still ask these questions. So in a way, I get how it can be viewed as false advertising. However, if the general public is uneducated and think they already know hybrids need to be plugged in, then what better way to correct their misinformation than making adds that say, "self charging"? i can't say how the general public thinks in Norway, but maybe the general public's thinking isn't to different from Americans.

Mean, even from my personal experience; from friends, family, coworkers. I'm asked if my car needs to be plugged in, what do I do when it runs out of charge, and so on.

 

Saying you don't need to plug in and charge it is one thing.
But the ad was showing BEVs charging or getting stranded, with no mention of gasoline or other car types shown. That gives a different impression than saying owning a hybrid is just like owning the ICE car you are use too because neither need to be plugged in. The message was that a hybrid is better than a plug in because it didn't need to plug in. Toyota put it out because they were losing hybrid sales to the growing plug in segment, and didn't have a product to compete.