Real-world experience on practicality of an alternate energy source

[Buccaneer]

Being a part of public utilities, energy policies are somethings I pay attention to. Here is a latest example of something that sounds good on paper but unpractical in the real-world. For the record, I am in favor of researching better technologies, including for alternate energy source but I am not in favor of having it become govt mandated, esp. when they are not economically feasible on a larger scale. I also remember our recent debate on nuclear energy as being a viable source (as well as other sources) and I thought this might be relavent.

The magic bus Electric shuttles show technology's shortfallsEditorial "The Gazette" Jan. 23, 2005Pie-in-the-sky has suffered a horrible head-on collision with bedrock reality in the city's electric bus experiment (“Electric buses have a few bugs in system,” Jan. 17 Gazette). Saying the system has “a few bugs” is an understatement; it's an infestation. As the story indicated, the battery powered shuttles that provide “free” rides downtown routinely but unpredictably run out of juice. This leaves riders stranded and requires that the five, $170,000 buses be towed back to a garage, where they're brought back to life by three, $15,000 charging machines. The buses can run only two to four hours on a charge, depending on a dizzying number of variables, and need twice that time (between 4 and 7 hours) to recharge — so one can understand the logistics challenge facing Springs Transit in keeping the shuttles running up to 16 hours a day, six days a week. It now supplements the electric fleet with two much more reliable diesel powered vans. We place quotes around the word “free” because that’s a misnomer. The program is largely funded with a three-year, $2 million federal grant, paid for by taxpayers. The Downtown Partnership (which also is funded with taxes) and Colorado College chip in, bringing the program's annual budget to roughly $420,000. So the rides are “free” in only one sense — that someone other than the rider pays the fare. We highlight the system's shortfalls not to humiliate the well-meaning people who put the shuttle service together and are struggling to make it work. We merely want to remind readers that the technologies routinely promoted as panaceas for the nation's energy challenges frequently offer fewer benefits than claimed, and that there's no such thing as a cost- or trade-off free energy solution. It's something to keep in mind when we debate energy policy options at the city, state or national level. One of the other illusions promoted by electric bus backers is that this is a cost and pollution-free technology. That just isn't true. From where, for instance, does the electricity come that recharges these buses? And what is that doing to Springs Transit's utility bill? The answer to the first question is that the electricity comes from a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, neither of which are pollution free. Generating the extra power required to re-charge the buses results in added power generation and pollution. Instead of coming out a tail pipe, it comes out a smokestack — which is true for most electric vehicles. The “cleanness” of such technologies, therefore, is largely a fiction. Moreover, powering the buses with electricity is far from free, as all who have gawked at their utility bills lately know. Springs Transit does not yet know what re-charging the buses is costing, but they require a “substantial draw” of electricity, according to one transit official we talked to. The idea of pollution-free and cost-free electric buses shuttling people around downtown has understandable public relations appeal. But it’s an illusion. The economist Milton Friedman won fame for pointing out that “there's no such thing as a free lunch” He might have added, “or a free ride.” Similarly, there's no such thing as a cost- or trade-off free energy technology.

[Airhog]

I dont believe that humans have advanced quite far enough to harness an alternate energy source. I dont think batteries are the route either. I believe that over the next 20 years we will see some breakthroughs in the area of Fuel cells, and this will push out fossil fuels.

[clintl]

Well, anyone who thought they would be "cost-free" is an idiot.

However, because electric motors are much more efficient that internal combustion engines, it could have reduced pollution substantially, even accounting for the pollution produced by the power plants (which are also much more efficient than internal combustion engines). It sounds like either someone didn't do their homework, or some new operating procedures need to be adopted, or the technology isn't quite ready yet.