# Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles



## Freewill

Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.

BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.

Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.


Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com


----------



## DiamondDave

This has been known for a while...

The manufacture, maintenance, etc of the cars, batteries, etc are worse polluters.. plus they have to use existing power sources...
And the fact that cars now are far less polluting than ever

But the enviro-nazis will still preach at the pulpit of the electric or hybrid vehicle


----------



## Bfgrn

The conservative dream America...


----------



## martybegan

Bfgrn said:


> The conservative dream America...



Looks like fog to me. CARS CAUSE FOG ZOMG!!!


----------



## dilloduck

Bfgrn said:


> The conservative dream America...



yes--only conservatives drive cars


----------



## RDD_1210

The title of the article is "Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles"

Yet, the link provided contains no study. Why is that?


----------



## RDD_1210

Not only is there no actual study, there isn't a single piece of data or fact presented in the entire article. This doesn't matter to any of you?


----------



## Bfgrn

dilloduck said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
Click to expand...


No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...


----------



## martybegan

Bfgrn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
Click to expand...


more fog.


----------



## dilloduck

Bfgrn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
Click to expand...


Only problem is that you lie---I know of no one who has a vision like that for America. It's just old fashioned political mud slinging.


----------



## JoeBlam

Beware of researchers named "Ozzie".  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I happen to think the VOLT is an AWESOME automobile.  It probably should have been marketed as a Cadillac because of it's sticker price.  It's remarkably quick, 8 airbags, KILLER Bose sound system, and if kept within it's e-range can recoup it's price by avoiding gas stations.  And if you must travel long distances, it has a 400 mile range with it's gas motor charging the electric-traction motor.  It makes the Nissan Leaf look like a golf cart.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
Click to expand...


Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.


----------



## RDD_1210

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
Click to expand...


What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.


----------



## Bfgrn

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more fog.
Click to expand...


Your tiny little brain is in a fog....

People don't wear breathing protection from FOG...


----------



## martybegan

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more fog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tiny little brain is in a fog....
> 
> People don't wear breathing protection from FOG...
Click to expand...


I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution.

Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

RDD_1210 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.
Click to expand...


Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum


You have to be smarter than the computer you sit at. Seems the error in the report sits between your chair and monitor.


----------



## Bfgrn

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> more fog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little brain is in a fog....
> 
> People don't wear breathing protection from FOG...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution.
> 
> Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.
Click to expand...










BBC NEWS | Europe | Report outlines Russia's deadly pollution


----------



## Freewill

Bfgrn said:


> The conservative dream America...



The liberal response to a non-political post...lies.

Your response is so off topic and so ridicules it really makes me wonder how low a low information voter can go.


----------



## nodoginnafight

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## martybegan

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little brain is in a fog....
> 
> People don't wear breathing protection from FOG...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution.
> 
> Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Europe | Report outlines Russia's deadly pollution
Click to expand...


Yes russia has pollution, but that doesnt tie the picture to a smog event. Got data for the day in question?


----------



## Vox

It has been known long time that EV re not the panacea for the environment or people but a real one for the pockets of selected groups.

"it's the money, stupid" - just paraphrasing


----------



## Freewill

nodoginnafight said:


> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.



You are correct, it is your opinion.  Think about the "opinion" presented in the OP.  Does it make sense to you?  Does it make sense that charging a battery using todays electric grid cause pollution?  Does the by-products of making batteries and the disposal of those batteries cause pollution?  Both logically are yes.

Those who dismiss the OP are doing so because they want electiric to be feasible, so do I.  But reality is reality.  When 4 9V batteries cost 10 bucks I am thinking batteries are not the way to go.


----------



## Freewill

TakeAStepBack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
> 
> 
> You have to be smarter than the computer you sit at. Seems the error in the report sits between your chair and monitor.
Click to expand...


They want to believe so badly that rational discussion is impossible.


----------



## Duped

Let the market decide which is greener, and if it gives a shit.


----------



## Bfgrn

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution.
> 
> Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Europe | Report outlines Russia's deadly pollution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes russia has pollution, but that doesnt tie the picture to a smog event. Got data for the day in question?
Click to expand...


You right wing turds always create some hurdle that allows an escape. Hey moron, maybe we can consult the United States Environmental Protection Agency to provide the air quality index for Russia...


----------



## jwoodie

Bfgrn said:


> The conservative dream America...



Looks like SMUG.  (Liberals can't smell their own farts.)


----------



## Bfgrn

Freewill said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal response to a non-political post...lies.
> 
> Your response is so off topic and so ridicules it really makes me wonder how low a low information voter can go.
Click to expand...


REALLY? If all those vehicles were battery powered the air would be crystal clear. Are there any environmental concerns with batteries? Yes. Do batteries create a daily smog filled with carcinogens that causes severe respiratory problems, cardiac arrests and KILL people prematurely and exacerbates chronic diseases like asthma? NO.

Cars, Trucks, & Air Pollution

Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the United States. It caused over half of the carbon monoxide, over a third of the nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons in our atmosphere in 2006.¹ With the number of vehicles on the road and the number of vehicle miles traveled escalating rapidly, we are on the fast lane to smoggy skies and dirty air.

Clean vehicle and fuel technologiesincluding improved fuel efficiency, better biofuels, and advanced vehicle designscan significantly reduce this air pollution from our cars and trucks and put America on a path to cut projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years.
*
The Ingredients of Air Pollution*

Air pollution is associated with the full life-cycle of cars and trucks. This includes air pollution emitted during vehicle operation, refueling, manufacturing, and disposal. Additional emissions are associated with the refining and distribution of vehicle fuel. Motor vehicles cause both primary and secondary pollution. Primary pollution is emitted directly into the atmosphere; secondary pollution results from chemical reactions between pollutants in the atmosphere. The following are the major pollutants from motor vehicles:


*Particulate matter (PM).* These particles of soot and metals give smog its murky color. Fine particles, PM that is less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair, pose the most serious threat to human health as they can penetrate deep into lungs. In addition to direct emissions of fine particles, automobiles release nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and sulfur dioxide, which generate additional fine particles as secondary pollution.


*Hydrocarbons (HC).* These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground level ozone, a primary ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.


*Nitrogen oxides (NOx).* These pollutants cause lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. In addition, they assist in the formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter.

*Carbon monoxide (CO).* This odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and is emitted primarily from cars and trucks. When inhaled, CO blocks the transport of oxygen to the brain, heart, and other vital organs in the body. Fetuses, newborn children, and people with chronic illnesses are especially susceptible to the effects of CO.


*Sulfur dioxide (SO2).* Power plants and motor vehicles create this pollutant by burning sulfur-containing fuels, especially diesel. Sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and poses the largest health risk to young children and asthmatics.


*Hazardous air pollutants (toxics).* These chemical compounds, which are emitted by cars, trucks, refineries, gas pumps, and related sources, have been linked to birth defects, cancer, and other serious illnesses. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the air toxics emitted from cars and trucks account for half of all cancers caused by air pollution. Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene are examples of toxic air pollutants associated with motor vehicle emissions.


*Greenhouse gases.* Motor vehicles also emit pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to global climate change. The transportation sector currently accounts for over a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## flacaltenn

RDD_1210 said:


> The title of the article is "Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles"
> 
> Yet, the link provided contains no study. Why is that?



I read that article a couple weeks ago.. It's from the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE)  -- one of my prof. orgs. They (we) SHOULD know a thing or two about electric cars and electrical power generation... 

It DID cite SEVERAL studies including one from the National Academy of Sciences.. I'm sure that should be easy to find..


----------



## flacaltenn

nodoginnafight said:


> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.



And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)

 More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article. 
*<<<<<EDIT -- my apologies on the next page.. The quotes below are from the article quoted BUT NOT LINKED in the OP >>>*

Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them.. 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed


> For instance, *Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry *provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britain&#8217;s carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.&#8217;s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies &#8220;will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nation&#8217;s vehicle fleet over the next several years.&#8221;
> 
> Others are more supportive, including the *Union of Concerned Scientists*. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled &#8220;State of Charge,&#8221; notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The report&#8217;s senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: &#8220;We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.&#8221;
> 
> *One study (linked HERE) attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 *and overseen by two dozen of the United States&#8217; leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.It&#8217;s worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isn&#8217;t that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committee&#8217;s vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. &#8220;Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle,&#8221; she points out.
> 
> *In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers *calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.
> 
> The National Academies&#8217; assessment didn&#8217;t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles&#8217; lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!


----------



## nodoginnafight

Freewill said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, it is your opinion.  Think about the "opinion" presented in the OP.  Does it make sense to you?  Does it make sense that charging a battery using todays electric grid cause pollution?  Does the by-products of making batteries and the disposal of those batteries cause pollution?  Both logically are yes.
> 
> Those who dismiss the OP are doing so because they want electiric to be feasible, so do I.  But reality is reality.  When 4 9V batteries cost 10 bucks I am thinking batteries are not the way to go.
Click to expand...


So your position is based on economics - not the science of which is more polluting?
Same can be said for most on that side of the issue - I applaud you for being up front about that.

Of course both methods have an environmental impact. But without hard numbers it is impossible to say one method pollutes more than the other. Wanting to believe something can be the problem - when wanting to believe becomes more important than the best information available.

IMHO: Our technology is nowhere near the point of being able to supply our demands for power without some environmental impact. Maybe we will never get to that point. And we do have to balance environmental impact with economic impact. But let's stop pretending we are making an environmental choice when we are really making an economic one.


----------



## JoeBlam

Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT.  Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided.  So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.  

_Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far? 

The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.

Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.

Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.

Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.

p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.  _


----------



## FA_Q2

RDD_1210 said:


> What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.





nodoginnafight said:


> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.


No offense but your opinion is completely unsubstantiated while his is.  I will give you a study though: 
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use

This would be the conclusion that study made as it pertains to the TOTAL pollutant effect of various vehicles as well as some projections with changing tech/law.  It is a fairly in depth look at the issue and is a total of 506 pages but page 350 sums up this thread nicely.  After that, they give some actual recommendations.


Now, we have several studies, noe linked in this post, would all of you naysayers like to actually discuss the TOPIC now rather than deny that there are studies showing this reality.


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeBlam said:


> Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT.  Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided.  So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.
> 
> _Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?
> 
> The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.
> 
> Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.
> 
> Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.
> 
> Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.
> 
> p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.  _



So many errors.. So little time.. 

1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>

461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>

No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town.. 

MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour.. 
*HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*??? 


I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...


----------



## nodoginnafight

flacaltenn said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT.  Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided.  So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.
> 
> _Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?
> 
> The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.
> 
> Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.
> 
> Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.
> 
> Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.
> 
> p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...
Click to expand...


Your math (and electrical engineering) blows.


----------



## nodoginnafight

FA_Q2 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense but your opinion is completely unsubstantiated while his is.  I will give you a study though:
> Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
> 
> This would be the conclusion that study made as it pertains to the TOTAL pollutant effect of various vehicles as well as some projections with changing tech/law.  It is a fairly in depth look at the issue and is a total of 506 pages but page 350 sums up this thread nicely.  After that, they give some actual recommendations.
> 
> 
> Now, we have several studies, noe linked in this post, would all of you naysayers like to actually discuss the TOPIC now rather than deny that there are studies showing this reality.
Click to expand...


I'd have to purchase the article you linked to review it. No thanks.
Have anything else? I'll be happy to take a look.


----------



## flacaltenn

HOLY CRAP FOLKS.. I APOLOGIZE to RDD and nodog... I screwed up... 

The OP was quoting the guy who wrote the IEEE article I snipped.. I THOUGHT the OP was linked to the IEEE article directly -- but it's NOT... 

ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

Not in the OP link.. 

I'm going now for an EEG to find out why FlaCalTenn had a rare error of comprehension. Wish me luck.


----------



## JoeBlam

flacaltenn said:


> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...



Bullshit.... anything else?


----------



## nodoginnafight

The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)
> 
> More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.
> 
> Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, *Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry *provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britains carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nations vehicle fleet over the next several years.
> 
> Others are more supportive, including the *Union of Concerned Scientists*. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled State of Charge, notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The reports senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.
> 
> *One study (linked HERE) attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 *and overseen by two dozen of the United States leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.Its worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isnt that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committees vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle, she points out.
> 
> *In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers *calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.
> 
> The National Academies assessment didnt ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeBlam said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.... anything else?
Click to expand...


Please correct my math and factual errors then..


----------



## JoeBlam

nodoginnafight said:


> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)



This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.


----------



## JoeBlam

flacaltenn said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.... anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please correct my math and factual errors then..
Click to expand...


Nope, you've created a completely false scenario and I've played (and won) this game before....not interested.


----------



## nodoginnafight

JoeBlam said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.
Click to expand...


The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average. I have absolutely no doubt that better numbers can be achieved.


----------



## JoeBlam

16 October, 2012
By Nathan Bomey

Free Press Business Writer 


General Motors plans to build the all-new Cadillac ELR extended-range electric vehicle at its Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant. 

The automaker expects to start production of the luxury coupe in late 2013, GM North America President Mark Reuss was set to announce today at the SAE Convergence conference in Detroit. 

The ELR will vault Cadillac into direct competition with other luxury electric vehicles like Fisker Automotive&#8217;s Karma and Tesla Motors&#8217; Model S. 

The vehicle, based on the same extended-range electric powertrain as the Chevrolet Volt, is based on the Cadillac Converj concept vehicle that was introduced at the 2009 North American International Auto Show in Detroit. 

GM said it would spend $35 million to upgrade equipment at the Detroit-Hamtramck plant, which already produces the Volt and is gearing up to make the redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Impala. A spokesman said the automaker does not plan to add any jobs to the 27-year-old plant&#8217;s 1,400 hourly and 160 salary employees. 

Production volumes for the two-door, four-seat ELR are expected to be relatively low. GM hasn&#8217;t revealed pricing or details on the vehicle&#8217;s electric-only range. The $40,000 2013 Volt&#8217;s T-shaped lithium-in battery pack allows the vehicle to travel 38 miles on a single charge of electricity before a gasoline engine-generator kicks in and powers an electric motor. 

The ELR will similarly rely on an extended-range system that provides all-electric drive with the option to switch to gasoline. 

Reuss hinted that GM would reveal the production version of the ELR at the 2013 Detroit auto show. 

&#8220;The ELR will be in a class by itself, further proof of our commitment to electric vehicles and advanced technology,&#8221; Reuss said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. &#8220;People will instantly recognize it as a Cadillac by its distinctive, signature look and true-to-concept exterior design. 

The news comes as GM is also expected to unveil a redesigned Cadillac Escalade in 2013 after delivering the all-new Cadillac ATS compact sedan and Cadillac XTS large sedan in 2012. 

&#8220;ELR will contribute mightily to the brand momentum of Cadillac, as it continues a big product push in the global luxury market,&#8221; Reuss said


----------



## flacaltenn

nodoginnafight said:


> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)



Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons? 

Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?

Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?

None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........


----------



## thanatos144

Green agenda the new way for fascism.


----------



## JoeBlam

nodoginnafight said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average.
Click to expand...


Well, you have to factor in where you're buying your electricity, when you're powering up the battery-pack, the amount of tire-spin on wet or icy surfaces, the terrain you drive on, and how often you have your foot into it.  I've never seen numbers offered by any source not HOSTILE to the car because of the bailout.  So, I'm almost hostile to attempts to paint it in a negative light.  I've driven one and would tell you it's like riding in a space-ship.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)
> 
> More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.
> 
> Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, *Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry *provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britains carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nations vehicle fleet over the next several years.
> 
> Others are more supportive, including the *Union of Concerned Scientists*. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled State of Charge, notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The reports senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.
> 
> *One study (linked HERE) attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 *and overseen by two dozen of the United States leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.Its worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isnt that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committees vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle, she points out.
> 
> *In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers *calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.
> 
> The National Academies assessment didnt ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?
Click to expand...


The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....


----------



## nodoginnafight

flacaltenn said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?
> 
> Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?
> 
> Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?
> 
> None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........
Click to expand...


Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.

But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.


----------



## nodoginnafight

So anyone producing a link to a study I can read without paying for?


----------



## flacaltenn

nodoginnafight said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT.  Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided.  So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.
> 
> _Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?
> 
> The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.
> 
> Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.
> 
> Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.
> 
> Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.
> 
> p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.  _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your math (and electrical engineering) blows.
Click to expand...


REALLY?? Please correct it.. Let's make it easy.. Numbers taken from the Nissan Leaf. 75mi range and 29KWhrs battery capacity to go that far.. Average household draw is about 1KW.. The rest is elementary school math.. Go for it.... 

I'll reserve the normal epithets and ad hominems until you check my work and correct me.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

battery cars will become useless after Obama shuts down coal and then natural gas....unless you got a windmill...


----------



## flacaltenn

JoeBlam said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you have to factor in where you're buying your electricity, when you're powering up the battery-pack, the amount of tire-spin on wet or icy surfaces, the terrain you drive on, and how often you have your foot into it.  I've never seen numbers offered by any source not HOSTILE to the car because of the bailout.  So, I'm almost hostile to attempts to paint it in a negative light.  *I've driven one and would tell you it's like riding in a space-ship.*
Click to expand...


Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----






Good fun for a dime eh???


----------



## nodoginnafight

flacaltenn said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors.. So little time..
> 
> 1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr       <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>
> 
> 461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00.         <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>
> 
> No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..
> 
> MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
> At 40mph,  ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
> *HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this*???
> 
> 
> I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your math (and electrical engineering) blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY?? Please correct it.. Let's make it easy.. Numbers taken from the Nissan Leaf. 75mi range and 29KWhrs battery capacity to go that far.. Average household draw is about 1KW.. The rest is elementary school math.. Go for it....
> 
> I'll reserve the normal epithets and ad hominems until you check my work and correct me.
Click to expand...


already did.


----------



## flacaltenn

nodoginnafight said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?
> 
> Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?
> 
> Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?
> 
> None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.
> 
> But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.
Click to expand...


Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man? 

I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...

BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to... 

ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum


And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...


----------



## FA_Q2

nodoginnafight said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.
> 
> And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.
> 
> I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
> 
> Just my humble opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense but your opinion is completely unsubstantiated while his is.  I will give you a study though:
> Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
> 
> This would be the conclusion that study made as it pertains to the TOTAL pollutant effect of various vehicles as well as some projections with changing tech/law.  It is a fairly in depth look at the issue and is a total of 506 pages but page 350 sums up this thread nicely.  After that, they give some actual recommendations.
> 
> 
> Now, we have several studies, noe linked in this post, would all of you naysayers like to actually discuss the TOPIC now rather than deny that there are studies showing this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to purchase the article you linked to review it. No thanks.
> Have anything else? I'll be happy to take a look.
Click to expand...


You don&#8217;t need to buy the article.  That is if you want the entire thing in paper.  If you click the top link second tab (table of contents) you can view the article for free.  Or, conversely, under the buy button there is a read button that states &#8220;or read this article for free.&#8217;  Summery is on page 350.


----------



## nodoginnafight

flacaltenn said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?
> 
> Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?
> 
> Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?
> 
> None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.
> 
> But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man?
> 
> I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...
> 
> BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to...
> 
> ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
> Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
> 
> 
> And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...
Click to expand...


you linked a news stoiry - it included links to studies that concluded: 
Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled State of Charge, notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles."

Of copurse the news article assumed bias because it was partially funded by auto comapnies that produce hybrid and electric cars. But those companies also produce gas cars, so why is there an assumed bias against gas??? Doesn't make sense.

OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????

Still haven't seen one.

And if you missed my correction to your erroneous electrical engineering assumptions and math - you weren't paying attention. Your bad - not mine.


----------



## FA_Q2

nodoginnafight said:


> OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????
> 
> Still haven't seen one.



I gave you one.  You dont have to pay for it.  Check the post above the one I quoted.


----------



## JoeBlam

flacaltenn said:


> Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good fun for a dime eh???





I compiled a damn DOSSIER on electrical costs/ratios/comparisons a year ago and can't find it.  It's an ageless game sucking an opponent into an unsourced math quiz, denying any refutation, and then declaring victory.  I got the jump on ya with this one is all. 

As to the spaceship comment, there is literally NO NOISE...no engine noise, no tire noise, no wind noise....no noise.  Folks walk out in front of the VOLT often enough that a beep-sensor is being installed on them near crosswalks.  Drive one....it's free and you'll see what I'm talking about....and it's got muscle car low-end torque....take it from a guy who's first ride was a '64 389 Tempest GTO....the VOLT is fun as hell.


----------



## Old Rocks

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
Click to expand...


There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JoeBlam said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good fun for a dime eh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I compiled a damn DOSSIER on electrical costs/ratios/comparisons a year ago and can't find it.  It's an ageless game sucking an opponent into an unsourced math quiz, denying any refutation, and then declaring victory.  I got the jump on ya with this one is all.
> 
> As to the spaceship comment, there is literally NO NOISE...no engine noise, no tire noise, no wind noise....no noise.  Folks walk out in front of the VOLT often enough that a beep-sensor is being installed on them near crosswalks.  Drive one....it's free and you'll see what I'm talking about....and it's got muscle car low-end torque....take it from a guy who's first ride was a '64 389 Tempest GTO....the VOLT is fun as hell.
Click to expand...


yeah.....the Volt is a real hot item.....in more ways than one....


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Old Rocks said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeBlam

Cool...more fake "fire" pics and links to the dreaded COAL....hey, stick with 1970's technology...me, I'm looking to the future and it just arrived.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JoeBlam said:


> Cool...more fake "fire" pics and links to the dreaded COAL....hey, stick with 1970's technology...me, I'm looking to the future and it just arrived.



what...?  did you just buy a Volt and take advantage of their 'please-buy-me' cashback offer....? 

the future...? hardly...Volt sales are up only about 1.5%....they've sold about 7,000 so far.....while regular car sales are booming...

Volt Joins Electric Car Price War


----------



## buckeye45_73

Bfgrn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
Click to expand...

 

The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.

Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I'm looking pretty hard at a Honda Insight.
Plugging in my particulars (driving distances and habits, kWh rates, etc.) I'll save about 50% over my small, gas-only car.

There are definitely trade offs and I'd never suggest that one-size-fits-all, but I do believe the benefits merit incentivizing EVs and hybrids. I don't think we are anywhere near "forcing" people into driving one and the hyperbole to that effect makes me laugh.


----------



## auditor0007

Freewill said:


> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com



I can believe this for the most part.  I'm not sure that will remain that way though, and I don't think we should completely abandon the idea of electric based vehicles.  At the same time, I agree that we should be doing more with gas powered vehicles.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

RDD_1210 said:


> The title of the article is "Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles"
> 
> Yet, the link provided contains no study. Why is that?



Yes, the article is totally devoid of fact. It's just a collection of bald statements.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

I really, really like the idea of solar electricity for homes.  It frees us, at least partly, from the tyranny of the grid. Batteries can and should be recycled.  The more self-reliant we become, the better off we are.


----------



## JoeBlam

ScreamingEagle said:


> what...?  did you just buy a Volt and take advantage of their 'please-buy-me' cashback offer....?
> 
> the future...? hardly...Volt sales are up only about 1.5%....they've sold about 7,000 so far.....while regular car sales are booming...
> 
> Volt Joins Electric Car Price War



7,000 eh?  Odd, I guess you've been in jail or a coma for the last year, eh? 

_
Chevy Volt sales are cranking up. General Motors sold three times as many Chevrolet Volts in 2012 as it did in 2011, which was the car's first full year on the market.

*GM sold 23,461 Volts in 2012* compared with just 7,671 in 2011. While it's an impressive jump, the Volt is still one of Chevy's lowest-selling cars. However, *the Volt greatly outdid the Corvette, *for instance, of which only 14,000 were sold last year. 

Its 2012 sales also put the Volt well ahead of its nearest competitor, the Nissan Leaf. *Nissan sold about 9,800 Leafs in 2012,* an increase of just 1.5% over 2011. Still, Nissan pointed out, it was a record year for Leaf sales. 

The single biggest factor driving the sales increase, according to both GM and industry analysts, was the Volt's increased popularity in car-clogged California. Sales there jumped thanks to a few engineering tweaks that made the Volt eligible for California's highly desirable carpool lane stickers for the first time. 

"More than half of all Volt sales are in California," said Alec Guitierrez, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book. The car has also been catching on in other markets, however, including Michigan and in the Chicago area, according to GM. 

Besides the carpool lane stickers, the Volt has also been helped by aggressive leasing incentives offered in 2012. Last year, GM was offering the car for $289 a month with a $2,800 down payment. That was far less than a car with the Volt's nearly $40,000 purchase price would ordinarily lease for, even factoring in a $7,500 plug-in car tax credit. 

"The math on the Volt starts to make sense to the masses at those prices," said Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the auto pricing Web site Truecar.com. 

Chevy Volt owners routinely report getting triple-digit gas mileage, according to the Web site Voltstats.net._ 

Chevy Volt sales triple - Jan. 3, 2013


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)
> 
> More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.
> 
> Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....
Click to expand...


Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.


----------



## Bfgrn

buckeye45_73 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.
> 
> Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.
Click to expand...


So citizens dying prematurely is 'freedom'? WOW, then Hitler would be your patron saint.

Forget climate change. You right wing communists don't even want to stop pollution.


----------



## ScienceRocks

buckeye45_73 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.
> 
> Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.
Click to expand...


-Batteries of 4-10 times per density are being developed. You could look at a shit load of technology to see how this works. 
-It's only as "clean" as its power plant powering it. True! This is why we need nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, wave, etc. Some states are far cleaner like Oregon, Washington then southeastern states. 
-Lastly, do you want to throw stuff on the ground like the Chinese or Indians do? Think about it.


----------



## flacaltenn

nodoginnafight said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.
> 
> But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man?
> 
> I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...
> 
> BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to...
> 
> ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
> Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
> 
> 
> And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you linked a news stoiry - it included links to studies that concluded:
> Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled State of Charge, notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles."
> 
> Of copurse the news article assumed bias because it was partially funded by auto comapnies that produce hybrid and electric cars. But those companies also produce gas cars, so why is there an assumed bias against gas??? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????
> 
> Still haven't seen one.
> 
> And if you missed my correction to your erroneous electrical engineering assumptions and math - you weren't paying attention. Your bad - not mine.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to question your ethics and morals here. There were FIVE studies given in that IEEE link. And the most supportive of the OP was the study from the National Academy of Sciences.. Did ya SKIP THAT PART? It's all justified there and its totally linked back to study.. Try again... 

The same way you SKIPPED the corrections that you made to my arguments about JoeBlam faking numbers? Give me a post number where you corrected my math please... 

IEEE is NOT funded by the car companies or big oil.. THey are funded by practicing MEMBERS like me. 

UCScientists is probably right about CO2.. Except on this planet -- it's not a pollutant except in the mind of bureaucrats with a political agenda..


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflections.  Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.
Click to expand...


Did that.. Back about a page and a half ago.. OP quoted from IEEE article but linked to something else. Search this thread for IEEE and you'll find the analysis and the links to the original studies.. I know I know that's tooo hard for you...


----------



## flacaltenn

flacaltenn said:


> HOLY CRAP FOLKS.. I APOLOGIZE to RDD and nodog... I screwed up...
> 
> The OP was quoting the guy who wrote the IEEE article I snipped.. I THOUGHT the OP was linked to the IEEE article directly -- but it's NOT...
> 
> ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
> Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
> 
> Not in the OP link..
> 
> I'm going now for an EEG to find out why FlaCalTenn had a rare error of comprehension. Wish me luck.



One more time.. For all of you who don't read the thread.. I'm quoting myself.. ALL of the links to the studies are in this IEEE article.. Including the Nat. Academy of Science link.. 

Don't know why the OP poster boy isn't answering the question of where are the links. Aint my thread.. 

It's all THERE --- no more whining about no studies eh??


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.
Click to expand...


The statement you have a problem was ---



> The National Academies assessment didnt ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!



Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it... 

Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages??? 

Very funny dude..


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement you have a problem was ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Academies assessment didnt ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...
> 
> Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???
> 
> Very funny dude..
Click to expand...


Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet. 

page 202

The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.

However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you have a problem was ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Academies&#8217; assessment didn&#8217;t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles&#8217; lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...
> 
> Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???
> 
> Very funny dude..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.
> 
> page 202
> 
> The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.
> 
> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.
Click to expand...


Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was 



> damages attributable to the *operation*



Let's read on...... 



> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full
> life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions
> from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the
> fossil fuels used in these plants. *As shown in Table 3-13, when the damages
> attributable to other parts of the life cycle were included, especially
> the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity
> production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric
> vehicles became comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from
> gasoline*.



Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.

Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit... 

From the summary... 



> Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor production&#8212;being energy- and material-intensive&#8212;added up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing.


'

And the "tar sands" claim??? 







All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...

Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??


----------



## Freewill

JoeBlam said:


> Beware of researchers named "Ozzie".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think the VOLT is an AWESOME automobile.  It probably should have been marketed as a Cadillac because of it's sticker price.  It's remarkably quick, 8 airbags, KILLER Bose sound system, and *if kept within it's e-range can recoup it's price by avoiding gas stations. * And if you must travel long distances, it has a 400 mile range with it's gas motor charging the electric-traction motor.  It makes the Nissan Leaf look like a golf cart.



You do understand that you do not avoid charging the battery?  You do understand that electicity prices set a record this summer?  Or do you propose stealing electricity making the car worth 40000.  The Volt is basically a compact car that if it had just a gasoline engine it would sell for under 20000.  The difference in prices certainly would buy a whole bunch of gasoline.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RDD_1210 said:


> Not only is there no actual study, there isn't a single piece of data or fact presented in the entire article. This doesn't matter to any of you?


Ok...
Watch this everyone...
Question: with which materials are batteries made?
Question: upon expiration of the life of a battery what processes are required for disposal/recycle?
Question: what are the raw materials used in the manufacture or batteries, protective cases, etc.?
Question: how much energy is used and how is this energy generated/produced to manufacture batteries?
Question: from which sources is the energy required for a battery to be charged derived?


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement you have a problem was ---
> 
> 
> 
> Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...
> 
> Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???
> 
> Very funny dude..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.
> 
> page 202
> 
> The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.
> 
> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was
> 
> 
> 
> Let's read on......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full
> life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions
> from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the
> fossil fuels used in these plants. *As shown in Table 3-13, when the damages
> attributable to other parts of the life cycle were included, especially
> the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity
> production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric
> vehicles became comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from
> gasoline*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.
> 
> Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit...
> 
> From the summary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor productionbeing energy- and material-intensiveadded up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> And the "tar sands" claim???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...
> 
> Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??
Click to expand...


Dishonest? Me?? REALLY??? First of all where does it dismiss my claim: "You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion"?

But if you REALLY want to talk about dishonest? How about dishonest, ignorant and downright moronic? You right wing turds totally deny greenhouse gases are pollution...UNTIL...those same greenhouse gases are factored in as negative externalities in clean energy technology...THEN...they ARE pollution.

The same scientists you call hacks and enviro-NUTS suddenly become America's premiere scientists.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.
> 
> page 202
> 
> The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.
> 
> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was
> 
> 
> 
> Let's read on......
> 
> 
> 
> Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.
> 
> Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit...
> 
> From the summary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor production&#8212;being energy- and material-intensive&#8212;added up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> And the "tar sands" claim???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...
> 
> Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonest? Me?? REALLY??? First of all where does it dismiss my claim: "You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion"?
> 
> But if you REALLY want to talk about dishonest? How about dishonest, ignorant and downright moronic? You right wing turds totally deny greenhouse gases are pollution...UNTIL...those same greenhouse gases are factored in as negative externalities in clean energy technology...THEN...they ARE pollution.
> 
> The same scientists you call hacks and enviro-NUTS suddenly become America's premiere scientists.
Click to expand...


You not only ignored "coal burning plants" to pluck a favorable quote from that report. You had to ignore the ENTIRE fuel choice and it's ENTIRE lifecycle costs of externalities. What do you want these guys to do -- to dismiss that Coal fires 40% of our electrical capacity so that YOU can win an argument? 

That's what your selected snipping did. *How you want to pin that shady act on me* --- I have no f'ing idea... 

You got proved wrong. No misrepresentation in the IEEE Spectrum article that you asserted. Are we at an impasse again? No. But you are.. Again...


----------



## JoeBlam

Freewill said:


> You do understand that you do not avoid charging the battery?  You do understand that electicity prices set a record this summer?  Or do you propose stealing electricity making the car worth 40000.  The Volt is basically a compact car that if it had just a gasoline engine it would sell for under 20000.  The difference in prices certainly would buy a whole bunch of gasoline.



See, this is what I spoke to earlier.....you know nothing about the AMERICAN technology that's inside a VOLT, nor do you care to look into it.  You drive some rice-burner riveted piece of tin and molded plastic and look down on a Detroit product like a sniveling girl.  I've run the numbers...you haven't and that's where we are.  So stick with your todyoDa...(that's how the founder's name is spelled) until the throttle-advance sticks and sends you flying off into a cornfield....who gives a shit?


----------



## DiamondDave

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.
> 
> page 202
> 
> The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.
> 
> However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was
> 
> 
> 
> Let's read on......
> 
> 
> 
> Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.
> 
> Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit...
> 
> From the summary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor productionbeing energy- and material-intensiveadded up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> And the "tar sands" claim???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...
> 
> Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonest? Me?? REALLY??? First of all where does it dismiss my claim: "You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion"?
> 
> But if you REALLY want to talk about dishonest? How about dishonest, ignorant and downright moronic? You right wing turds totally deny greenhouse gases are pollution...UNTIL...those same greenhouse gases are factored in as negative externalities in clean energy technology...THEN...they ARE pollution.
> 
> The same scientists you call hacks and enviro-NUTS suddenly become America's premiere scientists.
Click to expand...


Lookie lookie... BFGRN shifting the goalposts and deflecting again.. LMAO


----------



## FA_Q2

nodoginnafight said:


> OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????



So, when one was provided, you have decided to ignore the thread?

Or have you just not posted yet?


----------



## Freewill

JoeBlam said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that you do not avoid charging the battery?  You do understand that electicity prices set a record this summer?  Or do you propose stealing electricity making the car worth 40000.  The Volt is basically a compact car that if it had just a gasoline engine it would sell for under 20000.  The difference in prices certainly would buy a whole bunch of gasoline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is what I spoke to earlier.....you know nothing about the AMERICAN technology that's inside a VOLT, nor do you care to look into it.  You drive some rice-burner riveted piece of tin and molded plastic and look down on a Detroit product like a sniveling girl.  I've run the numbers...you haven't and that's where we are.  So stick with your todyoDa...(that's how the founder's name is spelled) until the throttle-advance sticks and sends you flying off into a cornfield....who gives a shit?
Click to expand...


What do I need to know about the technology of the Volt to know it cost 40000 dollars and is basically a compact car?  Sure it may have great technology but the fact of the matter is that only the rich can afford such an expensive impractical car.  I am not looking down on it but facing reality.  Stick with what you want to believe over reality.  I offered two alternatives that make more sense then batteries.  Natural gas and putting money into a super capacitor, which may not be fesible.  Another alternative is fuel cells and hydrogen.  But batteries, too expensive, too polluting, and the weight to power ratio is too small.

So the problems I see, RIGHT NOW, with electric cars solve these problems and I think you are on to something:

1. Gasoline is easy.  5 minutes to recharge the gas tank, verses 30 minutes at best for the LEAF.  That is if you could find a 480V charging station.

2. the government meddling into the industry.  Right now the sales for the cars are only to those who can afford to by a Tesla at 6 figures or Leaf or Volt at less but much more then a similar sized gasoline model.  So to entice people to buy what they don't want the government offers 7500 in rebate.  That means ALL of us help pay for what someone else buys.  What happens to sales if the government stops with the incentives?  Do you think they will go up or down?

3. Pollution is a problem as this thread is discussing.  Right now our electric grid is powered mostly by coal burning stations.  You don't have to like that fact but it is fact none the less.  Even if we look at other energy sources they too are not without pollution, even nuclear.  Wind only works when the wind blows and with the EPA and clean water acts hydro is pretty much done.

4. We have discussed the cost comparisons.  The Chevy Cruze and the volt are about the same size.  The Volt sells for 30000 more dollars.  Even with the 7500 dollar government incentive there is still a about a 15000 dollar difference.  at 4 dollars a gallon a person can buy about 3750 gallons of gasoline which gives a range of about 97500 miles at the low end of the Cruze's fuel economy (26 mpg).  Who know that in those 97500 miles how many batteries will need changed and in the case of the Volt how much gasoline it will use to achieve any kind of acceptable range.

5.  The time it takes to charge a battery is a concern.  At 120 volts it takes all night if not longer.  At 480V it takes about 30 minutes to charge a Leaf.  Do you have 480 in your home?  So to get any kind of range there needs to be large infrastructure change.  We can't maintain our infrastructure that is already built do you think we should take money needed for that maintenance and put it into new technology that is iffy at best?  The charging time is why I think we need to do a whole lot of research into super capacitors.  Right now they are impractical and may never have promise.  But if they could be developed they SHOULD be cheaper then batteries and be able to be charged faster, at least in my imagination.

6.  The range is the biggest problem with EVS.  No matter what you say people want to be able to get in their cars and drive any where they want, even if they don't.  If you buy a Volt and use the gasoline engine to achieve the range then why not just buy a Cruze?

I can afford any car I should want to buy.  I own two.  I own a small Chevy truck that gets pollution checked once a year and passes every year (does your car get checked?).  I also have a Ford Jeep which doesn't get great gas mileage but it is in the mid to upper 20s and serves our purpose.  So no I don't drive rice burners.

BTW how many Volts do you own?


----------



## Freewill

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY CRAP FOLKS.. I APOLOGIZE to RDD and nodog... I screwed up...
> 
> The OP was quoting the guy who wrote the IEEE article I snipped.. I THOUGHT the OP was linked to the IEEE article directly -- but it's NOT...
> 
> ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
> Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
> 
> Not in the OP link..
> 
> I'm going now for an EEG to find out why FlaCalTenn had a rare error of comprehension. Wish me luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time.. For all of you who don't read the thread.. I'm quoting myself.. ALL of the links to the studies are in this IEEE article.. Including the Nat. Academy of Science link..
> 
> Don't know why the OP poster boy isn't answering the question of where are the links. Aint my thread..
> 
> It's all THERE --- no more whining about no studies eh??
Click to expand...


Don't need to post a link, you did it for me boy.

An opinion was expressed in the OP it is up to those who disagree to post links as to how and why, in my opinion.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Bfgrn said:


> The conservative dream America...



False outrage and fear mongering.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlam said:


> You drive some rice-burner riveted piece of tin and molded plastic and look down on a Detroit product like a sniveling girl.  I've run the numbers...you haven't and that's where we are.  So stick with your todyoDa...(that's how the founder's name is spelled) until the throttle-advance sticks and sends you flying off into a cornfield....who gives a shit?



Update you calendar, you old fool. This is not the 1980s.


----------



## Intense

*Moved to Energy.*


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was
> 
> 
> 
> Let's read on......
> 
> 
> 
> Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.
> 
> Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit...
> 
> From the summary...
> 
> '
> 
> And the "tar sands" claim???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...
> 
> Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest? Me?? REALLY??? First of all where does it dismiss my claim: "You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion"?
> 
> But if you REALLY want to talk about dishonest? How about dishonest, ignorant and downright moronic? You right wing turds totally deny greenhouse gases are pollution...UNTIL...those same greenhouse gases are factored in as negative externalities in clean energy technology...THEN...they ARE pollution.
> 
> The same scientists you call hacks and enviro-NUTS suddenly become America's premiere scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You not only ignored "coal burning plants" to pluck a favorable quote from that report. You had to ignore the ENTIRE fuel choice and it's ENTIRE lifecycle costs of externalities. What do you want these guys to do -- to dismiss that Coal fires 40% of our electrical capacity so that YOU can win an argument?
> 
> That's what your selected snipping did. *How you want to pin that shady act on me* --- I have no f'ing idea...
> 
> You got proved wrong. No misrepresentation in the IEEE Spectrum article that you asserted. Are we at an impasse again? No. But you are.. Again...
Click to expand...


You are the one at an impasse. You have used "America's premiere scientists" for your own regressive agenda; to protect the REAL Doctors of Doom, coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. 

But now you will have to jettison "America's premiere scientists" to go on talking about environmental policies and protecting polluters.

WHY? Because "America's premiere scientists" all agree that climate change and global warming are caused by man. They all agree that the excess CO2 produced by man is a danger to our environment.






*Authors - "America's premiere scientists"*
America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council

*Description*

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change.

Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So tell me Einstein, are they STILL "America's premiere scientists"???


----------



## Moonglow

Freewill said:


> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com



Hey braniac!? What do you think a capacitor is? It's is a component that holds and electrical charge and disperses that electricity to allow a steady flow of electricity in a circuit. So a capacitor is like a battery.


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative dream America...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes--only conservatives drive cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.
> 
> The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...
Click to expand...


The 2nd picture was taken in Moscow.  It also looks like fog.  Lying about about environmental issues is standard operating procedure for environmental fanatics like you.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest? Me?? REALLY??? First of all where does it dismiss my claim: "You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion"?
> 
> But if you REALLY want to talk about dishonest? How about dishonest, ignorant and downright moronic? You right wing turds totally deny greenhouse gases are pollution...UNTIL...those same greenhouse gases are factored in as negative externalities in clean energy technology...THEN...they ARE pollution.
> 
> The same scientists you call hacks and enviro-NUTS suddenly become America's premiere scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You not only ignored "coal burning plants" to pluck a favorable quote from that report. You had to ignore the ENTIRE fuel choice and it's ENTIRE lifecycle costs of externalities. What do you want these guys to do -- to dismiss that Coal fires 40% of our electrical capacity so that YOU can win an argument?
> 
> That's what your selected snipping did. *How you want to pin that shady act on me* --- I have no f'ing idea...
> 
> You got proved wrong. No misrepresentation in the IEEE Spectrum article that you asserted. Are we at an impasse again? No. But you are.. Again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one at an impasse. You have used "America's premiere scientists" for your own regressive agenda; to protect the REAL Doctors of Doom, coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.
> 
> But now you will have to jettison "America's premiere scientists" to go on talking about environmental policies and protecting polluters.
> 
> WHY? Because "America's premiere scientists" all agree that climate change and global warming are caused by man. They all agree that the excess CO2 produced by man is a danger to our environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Authors - "America's premiere scientists"*
> America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council
> 
> *Description*
> 
> Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
> 
> As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change.
> 
> Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So tell me Einstein, are they STILL "America's premiere scientists"???
Click to expand...


You do realize that climate change with respect to electric vs. gas vs. other fuels was EXTENSIVELY addressed in that study.  Not just current realities either.  The study takes into account the changing infrastructure across the nation in the coming years with regard to how we generate the power that will charge those cars on to 2030.  

They are STILL greater polluters.  If you are refuting the evidence because they are climate change skeptics then you have failed, they are not.  If you are rejecting them because they are not then you are being disingenuous as you prescribe to climate change.

I have to ask then, why even bring that up as it was extensively addressed in the link.


----------



## Freewill

Moonglow said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey braniac!? What do you think a capacitor is? It's is a component that holds and electrical charge and disperses that electricity to allow a steady flow of electricity in a circuit. So a capacitor is like a battery.
Click to expand...


Batteries operate on a chemical reaction to create electrons.  Charging them is nothing more then reversing the chemical reaction.  That is why they take so long to charge   Capacitors store electrons on plates, they are not the same the only similarity is electrons and for the most part they are direct current devices.  You shouldn't throw rocks when you are obviously so low information.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You not only ignored "coal burning plants" to pluck a favorable quote from that report. You had to ignore the ENTIRE fuel choice and it's ENTIRE lifecycle costs of externalities. What do you want these guys to do -- to dismiss that Coal fires 40% of our electrical capacity so that YOU can win an argument?
> 
> That's what your selected snipping did. *How you want to pin that shady act on me* --- I have no f'ing idea...
> 
> You got proved wrong. No misrepresentation in the IEEE Spectrum article that you asserted. Are we at an impasse again? No. But you are.. Again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one at an impasse. You have used "America's premiere scientists" for your own regressive agenda; to protect the REAL Doctors of Doom, coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.
> 
> But now you will have to jettison "America's premiere scientists" to go on talking about environmental policies and protecting polluters.
> 
> WHY? Because "America's premiere scientists" all agree that climate change and global warming are caused by man. They all agree that the excess CO2 produced by man is a danger to our environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Authors - "America's premiere scientists"*
> America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council
> 
> *Description*
> 
> Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
> 
> As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change.
> 
> Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So tell me Einstein, are they STILL "America's premiere scientists"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that climate change with respect to electric vs. gas vs. other fuels was EXTENSIVELY addressed in that study.  Not just current realities either.  The study takes into account the changing infrastructure across the nation in the coming years with regard to how we generate the power that will charge those cars on to 2030.
> 
> They are STILL greater polluters.  If you are refuting the evidence because they are climate change skeptics then you have failed, they are not.  If you are rejecting them because they are not then you are being disingenuous as you prescribe to climate change.
> 
> I have to ask then, why even bring that up as it was extensively addressed in the link.
Click to expand...


Are you THAT dense? 

flacaltenn is forwarding the National Academy report on The Hidden Costs of Energy as Gospel. As a matter of FACT, flacaltenn says it was written by "America's premiere scientists".

But when "America's premiere scientists" say "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems." they are no longer "America's premiere scientists", and no longer of ANY use to flacaltenn. NOW they return to being hacks and enviro-NUTS.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one at an impasse. You have used "America's premiere scientists" for your own regressive agenda; to protect the REAL Doctors of Doom, coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.
> 
> But now you will have to jettison "America's premiere scientists" to go on talking about environmental policies and protecting polluters.
> 
> WHY? Because "America's premiere scientists" all agree that climate change and global warming are caused by man. They all agree that the excess CO2 produced by man is a danger to our environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Authors - "America's premiere scientists"*
> America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council
> 
> *Description*
> 
> Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
> 
> As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change.
> 
> Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So tell me Einstein, are they STILL "America's premiere scientists"???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that climate change with respect to electric vs. gas vs. other fuels was EXTENSIVELY addressed in that study.  Not just current realities either.  The study takes into account the changing infrastructure across the nation in the coming years with regard to how we generate the power that will charge those cars on to 2030.
> 
> They are STILL greater polluters.  If you are refuting the evidence because they are climate change skeptics then you have failed, they are not.  If you are rejecting them because they are not then you are being disingenuous as you prescribe to climate change.
> 
> I have to ask then, why even bring that up as it was extensively addressed in the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you THAT dense?
> 
> flacaltenn is forwarding the National Academy report on The Hidden Costs of Energy as Gospel. As a matter of FACT, flacaltenn says it was written by "America's premiere scientists".
> 
> But when "America's premiere scientists" say "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems." they are no longer "America's premiere scientists", and no longer of ANY use to flacaltenn. NOW they return to being hacks and enviro-NUTS.
Click to expand...


All that carthartic whining is getting you closer BFgrn.. You're on the verge of a revelation about the diff between "consensus" and "power" in politics and how science and engineering actually work.. This is hopeful.. 

Even a 5-4 decision at the Sup. Ct. --- although it is LAW ---- is not a settled issue. Folks can learn a lot by reading the dissident opinion.. Problem with the legal system is ---- THEY NEED immediate resolution.. So the 5 mug the 4 -- and we proceed.. 

Doesn't EVER happen in science. 

The reason I appealed to "power" and "consensus" was simply to piss BFgrn off.. Truly !!!
I was aware of all these facts we discussed WAAAAY before I knew there was a NAScience paper on the topic. But my viewpoint is --- some of these findings are SECONDARY to formulating a CORRECT energy/environmental policy for this country. So -- I accept the facts presented and WEIGH the larger tradeoffs to obtain "my opinion".. 

Which is --- if the manufacturing cycle of EVehicles contains MORE societal costs in terms of materials and energy to produce -- I still might want EVehicles that run on HYDROGEN fuel cells in order to structure a better energy market.

Now if YOU'RE upset that you got dumped in the skeptic camp on this dustup -- you're job is to contact the "resistance" movement and suggest REAL alternative views without trying to subvert the facts in evidence. That's exactly what I do on the AGW topics. 

There is no appeal to "prestige" or "power" or "consensus" allowed.. Just a lot of dam study and PERSONAL work to be done on "your opinion".. 

My avi tag line demonstrates that. This is NOT a spectator sport. And placing bets on the outcome of these technology driven topics -- shouldn't be arrived at simply by the "credentials" or "prestige" or "numbers" of the players in the game.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> Are you THAT dense?
> 
> flacaltenn is forwarding the National Academy report on The Hidden Costs of Energy as Gospel. As a matter of FACT, flacaltenn says it was written by "America's premiere scientists".
> 
> But when "America's premiere scientists" say "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems." they are no longer "America's premiere scientists", and no longer of ANY use to flacaltenn. NOW they return to being hacks and enviro-NUTS.



All I see is more complaints ABOUT the source, whining that Flat challenges some of their findings and does not blindly accept the research without taking a critical look at it.  Not to mention tired ad homonyms.  

You know what IS missing from your monologue?  Actual challenges of the data and its conclusions yourself.  Simply demanding that they are not true is insufficient when you have been provided a comprehensive report.  Try actually challenging the positions that it takes and data that it collected.  Otherwise, you are just throwing stones without any real thought.


So, who is being dense then?


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that climate change with respect to electric vs. gas vs. other fuels was EXTENSIVELY addressed in that study.  Not just current realities either.  The study takes into account the changing infrastructure across the nation in the coming years with regard to how we generate the power that will charge those cars on to 2030.
> 
> They are STILL greater polluters.  If you are refuting the evidence because they are climate change skeptics then you have failed, they are not.  If you are rejecting them because they are not then you are being disingenuous as you prescribe to climate change.
> 
> I have to ask then, why even bring that up as it was extensively addressed in the link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you THAT dense?
> 
> flacaltenn is forwarding the National Academy report on The Hidden Costs of Energy as Gospel. As a matter of FACT, flacaltenn says it was written by "America's premiere scientists".
> 
> But when "America's premiere scientists" say "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems." they are no longer "America's premiere scientists", and no longer of ANY use to flacaltenn. NOW they return to being hacks and enviro-NUTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that carthartic whining is getting you closer BFgrn.. You're on the verge of a revelation about the diff between "consensus" and "power" in politics and how science and engineering actually work.. This is hopeful..
> 
> Even a 5-4 decision at the Sup. Ct. --- although it is LAW ---- is not a settled issue. Folks can learn a lot by reading the dissident opinion.. Problem with the legal system is ---- THEY NEED immediate resolution.. So the 5 mug the 4 -- and we proceed..
> 
> Doesn't EVER happen in science.
> 
> The reason I appealed to "power" and "consensus" was simply to piss BFgrn off.. Truly !!!
> I was aware of all these facts we discussed WAAAAY before I knew there was a NAScience paper on the topic. But my viewpoint is --- some of these findings are SECONDARY to formulating a CORRECT energy/environmental policy for this country. So -- I accept the facts presented and WEIGH the larger tradeoffs to obtain "my opinion"..
> 
> Which is --- if the manufacturing cycle of EVehicles contains MORE societal costs in terms of materials and energy to produce -- I still might want EVehicles that run on HYDROGEN fuel cells in order to structure a better energy market.
> 
> Now if YOU'RE upset that you got dumped in the skeptic camp on this dustup -- you're job is to contact the "resistance" movement and suggest REAL alternative views without trying to subvert the facts in evidence. That's exactly what I do on the AGW topics.
> 
> There is no appeal to "prestige" or "power" or "consensus" allowed.. Just a lot of dam study and PERSONAL work to be done on "your opinion"..
> 
> My avi tag line demonstrates that. This is NOT a spectator sport. And placing bets on the outcome of these technology driven topics -- shouldn't be arrived at simply by the "credentials" or "prestige" or "numbers" of the players in the game.
Click to expand...


WOW, an awful lot of chest beating there. You are a real legend...

What I find hard to understand is the amount of joy you right wing regressive turds get from siding with polluters who bring death and destruction to society. And liberals who always put human beings, life, and the right to breathe clean air first and foremost are called eco-fascists. 

I have said all along there is no ONE energy source that will replace fossil fuels. We need an all hands on deck approach. It seems you want to put all your eggs in one basket and dump EVs...not very wise IMO.  

Are EVs viable? You had a tantrum when I presented some 'qualifiers' in the National Academy report, but they are paramount to deciding if an approach or technology is viable. There is nothing in the report that recommends dumping EVs. And my point about coal burning power is that it should not be held against the EV. Yes, it is a present day reality, but it should be a huge wake up call to make a concerted effort to get away from coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. And it is a clarion call for a national energy policy. 

In terms of science, that National Academy report is ancient history. It was published before modern EVs were really on the road. Many of the costs have come down in manufacturing EV's. Battery technology continues to evolve:

Author Claims Electric Vehicles Are a Green Illusion | Autopia | Wired.com

 A few years ago, EV batteries were costing roughly $900 per kilowatt-hour, he says. Today they are around $400. Estimates by numerous analysts have that cost reduced to about $250 per kilowatt-hour by 2015, notes Chambers. So weve already seen the cost drop by more than 50 percent in the last few years and, if predictions hold true, well see a 70 percent drop by 2015. If, as Zehner says, batteries cost so much because of their fossil fuel intensive construction, how can they drop in price so quickly even as the cost of oil has risen?

Motor technology:

Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals

Japanese researchers working out of Tokyo University of Science, have built what they describe as a motor for electric cars that does not require so-called rare earth metals; a move that could drive down the costs for such vehicles.

America needs to continue to support progress in all avenues and possibilities. I still believe America can lead in this new frontier, just like we led and won the race to the moon 50 years ago.

There were plenty of deniers and cynics back in 1962. No one other than a few wise men could foresee all the innovations and knowledge gained from throwing our hat over the wall of space. Every single life on this planet has benefited from that glorious venture.

President John F. Kennedy gave his last speech in San Antonio, TX on November 21, 1963 at the Dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. It was about the future...a future that would vanish for him within 24 hours.

Here's a segment:

  "Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.

    This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all those who labor in the space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side."



One of my favorite speeches by President Kennedy was at Rice Stadium on September 12, 1962. It is famously called the Moon Speech. In it he gives a fantastic synopsis of how fast the pace of knowledge and technology has accelerated.  

"We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you THAT dense?
> 
> flacaltenn is forwarding the National Academy report on The Hidden Costs of Energy as Gospel. As a matter of FACT, flacaltenn says it was written by "America's premiere scientists".
> 
> But when "America's premiere scientists" say "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems." they are no longer "America's premiere scientists", and no longer of ANY use to flacaltenn. NOW they return to being hacks and enviro-NUTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that carthartic whining is getting you closer BFgrn.. You're on the verge of a revelation about the diff between "consensus" and "power" in politics and how science and engineering actually work.. This is hopeful..
> 
> Even a 5-4 decision at the Sup. Ct. --- although it is LAW ---- is not a settled issue. Folks can learn a lot by reading the dissident opinion.. Problem with the legal system is ---- THEY NEED immediate resolution.. So the 5 mug the 4 -- and we proceed..
> 
> Doesn't EVER happen in science.
> 
> The reason I appealed to "power" and "consensus" was simply to piss BFgrn off.. Truly !!!
> I was aware of all these facts we discussed WAAAAY before I knew there was a NAScience paper on the topic. But my viewpoint is --- some of these findings are SECONDARY to formulating a CORRECT energy/environmental policy for this country. So -- I accept the facts presented and WEIGH the larger tradeoffs to obtain "my opinion"..
> 
> Which is --- if the manufacturing cycle of EVehicles contains MORE societal costs in terms of materials and energy to produce -- I still might want EVehicles that run on HYDROGEN fuel cells in order to structure a better energy market.
> 
> Now if YOU'RE upset that you got dumped in the skeptic camp on this dustup -- you're job is to contact the "resistance" movement and suggest REAL alternative views without trying to subvert the facts in evidence. That's exactly what I do on the AGW topics.
> 
> There is no appeal to "prestige" or "power" or "consensus" allowed.. Just a lot of dam study and PERSONAL work to be done on "your opinion"..
> 
> My avi tag line demonstrates that. This is NOT a spectator sport. And placing bets on the outcome of these technology driven topics -- shouldn't be arrived at simply by the "credentials" or "prestige" or "numbers" of the players in the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, an awful lot of chest beating there. You are a real legend...
> 
> What I find hard to understand is the amount of joy you right wing regressive turds get from siding with polluters who bring death and destruction to society. And liberals who always put human beings, life, and the right to breathe clean air first and foremost are called eco-fascists.
> 
> I have said all along there is no ONE energy source that will replace fossil fuels. We need an all hands on deck approach. It seems you want to put all your eggs in one basket and dump EVs...not very wise IMO.
> 
> Are EVs viable? You had a tantrum when I presented some 'qualifiers' in the National Academy report, but they are paramount to deciding if an approach or technology is viable. There is nothing in the report that recommends dumping EVs. And my point about coal burning power is that it should not be held against the EV. Yes, it is a present day reality, but it should be a huge wake up call to make a concerted effort to get away from coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. And it is a clarion call for a national energy policy.
> 
> In terms of science, that National Academy report is ancient history. It was published before modern EVs were really on the road. Many of the costs have come down in manufacturing EV's. Battery technology continues to evolve:
> 
> Author Claims Electric Vehicles Are a Green Illusion | Autopia | Wired.com
> 
> A few years ago, EV batteries were costing roughly $900 per kilowatt-hour, he says. Today they are around $400. Estimates by numerous analysts have that cost reduced to about $250 per kilowatt-hour by 2015, notes Chambers. So weve already seen the cost drop by more than 50 percent in the last few years and, if predictions hold true, well see a 70 percent drop by 2015. If, as Zehner says, batteries cost so much because of their fossil fuel intensive construction, how can they drop in price so quickly even as the cost of oil has risen?
> 
> Motor technology:
> 
> Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals
> 
> Japanese researchers working out of Tokyo University of Science, have built what they describe as a motor for electric cars that does not require so-called rare earth metals; a move that could drive down the costs for such vehicles.
> 
> America needs to continue to support progress in all avenues and possibilities. I still believe America can lead in this new frontier, just like we led and won the race to the moon 50 years ago.
> 
> There were plenty of deniers and cynics back in 1962. No one other than a few wise men could foresee all the innovations and knowledge gained from throwing our hat over the wall of space. Every single life on this planet has benefited from that glorious venture.
> 
> President John F. Kennedy gave his last speech in San Antonio, TX on November 21, 1963 at the Dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. It was about the future...a future that would vanish for him within 24 hours.
> 
> Here's a segment:
> 
> "Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.
> 
> This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all those who labor in the space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side."
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite speeches by President Kennedy was at Rice Stadium on September 12, 1962. It is famously called the Moon Speech. In it he gives a fantastic synopsis of how fast the pace of knowledge and technology has accelerated.
> 
> "We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
> 
> Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.
> 
> No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
> 
> Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
> 
> This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
> 
> So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.
> 
> William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
> 
> If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.
> 
> Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
> 
> We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
> 
> There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
> 
> We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
Click to expand...


Yes, all conservatives side with the 'polluters'..
Typical chicken little sky is fallin liberal crap.
And I suppose your definition of 'polluter' is any business you don't like.
The problem is you lefty enviro wackos cannot define what pollution is. In fact you just pick whatever business pisses you off or 'makes too much profit'..


----------



## flacaltenn

From that great motivational speaker BFGrn.. 



> William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.



This just makes me giggle. There is some elitist snobbery here that displaces all substance in our technical discussions.. When drowning in unchartered waters, (like Bradford's wife did) you should mount the bully pulpit and proclaim wonderous words about gallant deeds and claim the high moral mount of truth as your own... 

This thread ain't about Showboating... It's about Electric Vehicles.. 

But I always adore another FDR or Eisenhower quote anytime...


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that carthartic whining is getting you closer BFgrn.. You're on the verge of a revelation about the diff between "consensus" and "power" in politics and how science and engineering actually work.. This is hopeful..
> 
> Even a 5-4 decision at the Sup. Ct. --- although it is LAW ---- is not a settled issue. Folks can learn a lot by reading the dissident opinion.. Problem with the legal system is ---- THEY NEED immediate resolution.. So the 5 mug the 4 -- and we proceed..
> 
> Doesn't EVER happen in science.
> 
> The reason I appealed to "power" and "consensus" was simply to piss BFgrn off.. Truly !!!
> I was aware of all these facts we discussed WAAAAY before I knew there was a NAScience paper on the topic. But my viewpoint is --- some of these findings are SECONDARY to formulating a CORRECT energy/environmental policy for this country. So -- I accept the facts presented and WEIGH the larger tradeoffs to obtain "my opinion"..
> 
> Which is --- if the manufacturing cycle of EVehicles contains MORE societal costs in terms of materials and energy to produce -- I still might want EVehicles that run on HYDROGEN fuel cells in order to structure a better energy market.
> 
> Now if YOU'RE upset that you got dumped in the skeptic camp on this dustup -- you're job is to contact the "resistance" movement and suggest REAL alternative views without trying to subvert the facts in evidence. That's exactly what I do on the AGW topics.
> 
> There is no appeal to "prestige" or "power" or "consensus" allowed.. Just a lot of dam study and PERSONAL work to be done on "your opinion"..
> 
> My avi tag line demonstrates that. This is NOT a spectator sport. And placing bets on the outcome of these technology driven topics -- shouldn't be arrived at simply by the "credentials" or "prestige" or "numbers" of the players in the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, an awful lot of chest beating there. You are a real legend...
> 
> What I find hard to understand is the amount of joy you right wing regressive turds get from siding with polluters who bring death and destruction to society. And liberals who always put human beings, life, and the right to breathe clean air first and foremost are called eco-fascists.
> 
> I have said all along there is no ONE energy source that will replace fossil fuels. We need an all hands on deck approach. It seems you want to put all your eggs in one basket and dump EVs...not very wise IMO.
> 
> Are EVs viable? You had a tantrum when I presented some 'qualifiers' in the National Academy report, but they are paramount to deciding if an approach or technology is viable. There is nothing in the report that recommends dumping EVs. And my point about coal burning power is that it should not be held against the EV. Yes, it is a present day reality, but it should be a huge wake up call to make a concerted effort to get away from coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. And it is a clarion call for a national energy policy.
> 
> In terms of science, that National Academy report is ancient history. It was published before modern EVs were really on the road. Many of the costs have come down in manufacturing EV's. Battery technology continues to evolve:
> 
> Author Claims Electric Vehicles Are a Green Illusion | Autopia | Wired.com
> 
> &#8220;A few years ago, EV batteries were costing roughly $900 per kilowatt-hour,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Today they are around $400.&#8221; Estimates by numerous analysts have that cost reduced to about $250 per kilowatt-hour by 2015, notes Chambers. &#8220;So we&#8217;ve already seen the cost drop by more than 50 percent in the last few years and, if predictions hold true, we&#8217;ll see a 70 percent drop by 2015. If, as Zehner says, batteries cost so much because of their fossil fuel intensive construction, how can they drop in price so quickly even as the cost of oil has risen?&#8221;
> 
> Motor technology:
> 
> Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals
> 
> Japanese researchers working out of Tokyo University of Science, have built what they describe as a motor for electric cars that does not require so-called rare earth metals; a move that could drive down the costs for such vehicles.
> 
> America needs to continue to support progress in all avenues and possibilities. I still believe America can lead in this new frontier, just like we led and won the race to the moon 50 years ago.
> 
> There were plenty of deniers and cynics back in 1962. No one other than a few wise men could foresee all the innovations and knowledge gained from throwing our hat over the wall of space. Every single life on this planet has benefited from that glorious venture.
> 
> President John F. Kennedy gave his last speech in San Antonio, TX on November 21, 1963 at the Dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. It was about the future...a future that would vanish for him within 24 hours.
> 
> Here's a segment:
> 
> "Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.
> 
> This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all those who labor in the space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side."
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite speeches by President Kennedy was at Rice Stadium on September 12, 1962. It is famously called the Moon Speech. In it he gives a fantastic synopsis of how fast the pace of knowledge and technology has accelerated.
> 
> "We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
> 
> Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.
> 
> No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
> 
> Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
> 
> This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
> 
> So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.
> 
> William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
> 
> If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.
> 
> Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
> 
> We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
> 
> There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
> 
> We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all conservatives side with the 'polluters'..
> Typical chicken little sky is fallin liberal crap.
> And I suppose your definition of 'polluter' is any business you don't like.
> The problem is you lefty enviro wackos cannot define what pollution is. In fact you just pick whatever business pisses you off or 'makes too much profit'..
Click to expand...


Typical right wing parrot chirp. Pollution is any substance emitted that causes harm to human, fish or fowl. 

You right wing enviro-facsists have been fighting for a decade to prevent coal burning power plants from compliance to the law and installing pollution controls. We KNOW how deadly and toxic the pollution coal burning power plants produce.

But human, fish and fowl are WAY down the list for you folks. It's profit before people.

And the teapublican House of Reprehensibles is: 

The Most Anti-Environment House In History

House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."

The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011 &#8211; 22% &#8211; were votes to undermine environmental protections.


----------



## flacaltenn

Yes --- requiring farmers to count the number of cowfarts they are responsible for is a BAD IDEA.. 

SHOULD be voted down at every opportunity... 

"Cut the GWarming studies by $100M" ---- My bet is --- it wasn't ever even a cut. Just Washington speak for "they didn't want to increase it".. 

You quoting WAXMAN as an unbiased auditor of who voted for what? Sorry man.. I'd be skeptical if it were YOUR research.. But with Waxman -- I can easily dismiss this as complete BS..

Anything else that's NOT generalization and partisian horseshit? Want to discuss EVs some more?? 

*What's the public policy wisdom of spending 10s of $$Mill on telling folks to turn off their lights and pull 1Watt chargers out of their walls on ONE CHANNEL ---- and on the other --- be ENCOURAGING and subsidizing the adoption of plug-in Electric cars that drive 75 miles consuming MORE than the daily useage of an average household... *

Can't wait for you to explain that to me in the words of Henry Clay... 

You like math?? Nissan Leaf (not picking on it) driving at 40mph.. Every 4 minutes consumes the equivalent of an HOUR of an average household electricity.. That every 2.6 miles it drives. 

Is electrical generation BAAAAAAAD --- or do you welcome this extraordinary expansion and cost of generators and grid?


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Yes --- requiring farmers to count the number of cowfarts they are responsible for is a BAD IDEA..
> 
> SHOULD be voted down at every opportunity...
> 
> "Cut the GWarming studies by $100M" ---- My bet is --- it wasn't ever even a cut. Just Washington speak for "they didn't want to increase it"..
> 
> You quoting WAXMAN as an unbiased auditor of who voted for what? Sorry man.. I'd be skeptical if it were YOUR research.. But with Waxman -- I can easily dismiss this as complete BS..



Of COURSE. You always side with the polluters. It has become undeniable.

There is a link from to the 53 page report 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
I. Blocking Efforts to Prevent Climate Change................................................................. 10
A. Votes to Reject Scientific Findings .................................................................................. 10
B. Votes to Block Action to Reduce Carbon Pollution ........................................................ 14
C. Votes to Block International Action on Climate Change ................................................. 16
D. Votes to Block Adaptation Planning ............................................................................... 17
II. Undermining the Clean Air Act...................................................................................... 19
A. Vote to Repeal the Clean Air Acts Health-Based Standards............................................ 19
B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants ........................................... 19
C. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Incinerators and Industrial Boilers........... 22
D. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Cement Plants ......................................... 24
E. Votes to Curtail Regulation of Emissions from Offshore Drilling Operations................. 25
F. Votes to Block Regulation of Particulate Emissions from Mines and Other Sources....... 27
III. Undermining the Clean Water Act.................................................................................. 29
A. Votes to Repeal EPAs Authority to Set Water Quality Standards and Enforce Discharge Limits................................................................................29
B. Votes to Block Oversight of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining ................................... 30
C. Votes to Block Protections for Wetlands and Tributaries................................................ 31
D. Votes to Block Other Pollution Protection Initiatives ..................................................... 32
E. Votes to Cut Water Quality Funding............................................................................... 33
IV. Removing Protections for Public Lands, Fish, and Wildlife......................................... 34
A. Votes to Block Protection of Forests and Other Wilderness Areas.................................. 34
B. Votes to Block Protection of Salmon and Other Wildlife................................................ 34
C. Votes to Transfer Federal Lands to a Private Mining Company ...................................... 36
V. Weakening Safety Requirements for Offshore Drilling................................................. 37
A. Votes to Expedite Drilling without Regard to Safety ....................................................... 37
B. Votes to Approve New Offshore Drilling without Environmental Review ..................... 37
C. Votes to Preserve an Oil Royalty Loophole and Cut Funding for Drilling Oversight ...... 38
VI. Cutting Support for Clean Energy Technologies and Programs.................................. 40
A. Votes to Cut Funding for Clean Energy Programs .......................................................... 40
B. Votes to Block Energy Efficiency Standards ................................................................... 42
VII. Allowing Unsafe Disposal of Toxic Coal Ash ................................................................ 43
VIII. Curtailing Review of the Keystone XL Pipeline............................................................. 45
IX. Reducing Funding for Environmental Protection......................................................... 47
A. H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 .............................................. 47
B. The Ryan Budget ............................................................................................................ 48
C. FY2012 Appropriations Bills........................................................................................... 49
X. Obstructing the Regulatory Process ............................................................................... 50
A. The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010)............................................................... 50
B. The REINS Act (H.R. 10)............................................................................................... 50
C. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527)................................................ 51
XI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, an awful lot of chest beating there. You are a real legend...
> 
> What I find hard to understand is the amount of joy you right wing regressive turds get from siding with polluters who bring death and destruction to society. And liberals who always put human beings, life, and the right to breathe clean air first and foremost are called eco-fascists.
> 
> I have said all along there is no ONE energy source that will replace fossil fuels. We need an all hands on deck approach. It seems you want to put all your eggs in one basket and dump EVs...not very wise IMO.
> 
> Are EVs viable? You had a tantrum when I presented some 'qualifiers' in the National Academy report, but they are paramount to deciding if an approach or technology is viable. There is nothing in the report that recommends dumping EVs. And my point about coal burning power is that it should not be held against the EV. Yes, it is a present day reality, but it should be a huge wake up call to make a concerted effort to get away from coal, the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised. And it is a clarion call for a national energy policy.
> 
> In terms of science, that National Academy report is ancient history. It was published before modern EVs were really on the road. Many of the costs have come down in manufacturing EV's. Battery technology continues to evolve:
> 
> Author Claims Electric Vehicles Are a Green Illusion | Autopia | Wired.com
> 
> A few years ago, EV batteries were costing roughly $900 per kilowatt-hour, he says. Today they are around $400. Estimates by numerous analysts have that cost reduced to about $250 per kilowatt-hour by 2015, notes Chambers. So weve already seen the cost drop by more than 50 percent in the last few years and, if predictions hold true, well see a 70 percent drop by 2015. If, as Zehner says, batteries cost so much because of their fossil fuel intensive construction, how can they drop in price so quickly even as the cost of oil has risen?
> 
> Motor technology:
> 
> Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals
> 
> Japanese researchers working out of Tokyo University of Science, have built what they describe as a motor for electric cars that does not require so-called rare earth metals; a move that could drive down the costs for such vehicles.
> 
> America needs to continue to support progress in all avenues and possibilities. I still believe America can lead in this new frontier, just like we led and won the race to the moon 50 years ago.
> 
> There were plenty of deniers and cynics back in 1962. No one other than a few wise men could foresee all the innovations and knowledge gained from throwing our hat over the wall of space. Every single life on this planet has benefited from that glorious venture.
> 
> President John F. Kennedy gave his last speech in San Antonio, TX on November 21, 1963 at the Dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center. It was about the future...a future that would vanish for him within 24 hours.
> 
> Here's a segment:
> 
> "Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.
> 
> This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all those who labor in the space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side."
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite speeches by President Kennedy was at Rice Stadium on September 12, 1962. It is famously called the Moon Speech. In it he gives a fantastic synopsis of how fast the pace of knowledge and technology has accelerated.
> 
> "We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
> 
> Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.
> 
> No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
> 
> Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
> 
> This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
> 
> So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.
> 
> William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
> 
> If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.
> 
> Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
> 
> We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
> 
> There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
> 
> We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all conservatives side with the 'polluters'..
> Typical chicken little sky is fallin liberal crap.
> And I suppose your definition of 'polluter' is any business you don't like.
> The problem is you lefty enviro wackos cannot define what pollution is. In fact you just pick whatever business pisses you off or 'makes too much profit'..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical right wing parrot chirp. Pollution is any substance emitted that causes harm to human, fish or fowl.
> 
> You right wing enviro-facsists have been fighting for a decade to prevent coal burning power plants from compliance to the law and installing pollution controls. We KNOW how deadly and toxic the pollution coal burning power plants produce.
> 
> But human, fish and fowl are WAY down the list for you folks. It's profit before people.
> 
> And the teapublican House of Reprehensibles is:
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
Click to expand...

Yer kidding, right?..All substances?
Look genius, contrary to left wing enviro nazi belief, no one wants the earth to be fouled.
You people are extremists. 
For example....The unlawful taking of property from the rightful owner because an allegedly endangered rodent was found upon the land. 
The Northern Spotted owl debacle. After all the legal wrangling, destruction of property and the loss of thousands of jobs, the owls were discovered to be nesting in such places as neon signs on the facades of department stores.
All you people know is "shut it off".."Shut it down"....
Meanwhile not a single one of you walk the walk. 
I don't see you giving up your vehicles. Or stopping the use of products which are created with the use of petroleum derivatives.
I don't see you giving up electricity. You are all full of shit. 
I have to laugh my ass off when I see a large SUV with a fucking Green Peace sticker on the bumper.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes --- requiring farmers to count the number of cowfarts they are responsible for is a BAD IDEA..
> 
> SHOULD be voted down at every opportunity...
> 
> "Cut the GWarming studies by $100M" ---- My bet is --- it wasn't ever even a cut. Just Washington speak for "they didn't want to increase it"..
> 
> You quoting WAXMAN as an unbiased auditor of who voted for what? Sorry man.. I'd be skeptical if it were YOUR research.. But with Waxman -- I can easily dismiss this as complete BS..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE. You always side with the polluters. It has become undeniable.
> 
> There is a link from to the 53 page report
> 
> Table of Contents
> Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
> I. Blocking Efforts to Prevent Climate Change................................................................. 10
> A. Votes to Reject Scientific Findings .................................................................................. 10
> B. Votes to Block Action to Reduce Carbon Pollution ........................................................ 14
> C. Votes to Block International Action on Climate Change ................................................. 16
> D. Votes to Block Adaptation Planning ............................................................................... 17
> II. Undermining the Clean Air Act...................................................................................... 19
> A. Vote to Repeal the Clean Air Acts Health-Based Standards............................................ 19
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants ........................................... 19
> C. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Incinerators and Industrial Boilers........... 22
> D. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Cement Plants ......................................... 24
> E. Votes to Curtail Regulation of Emissions from Offshore Drilling Operations................. 25
> F. Votes to Block Regulation of Particulate Emissions from Mines and Other Sources....... 27
> III. Undermining the Clean Water Act.................................................................................. 29
> A. Votes to Repeal EPAs Authority to Set Water Quality Standards and Enforce Discharge Limits................................................................................29
> B. Votes to Block Oversight of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining ................................... 30
> C. Votes to Block Protections for Wetlands and Tributaries................................................ 31
> D. Votes to Block Other Pollution Protection Initiatives ..................................................... 32
> E. Votes to Cut Water Quality Funding............................................................................... 33
> IV. Removing Protections for Public Lands, Fish, and Wildlife......................................... 34
> A. Votes to Block Protection of Forests and Other Wilderness Areas.................................. 34
> B. Votes to Block Protection of Salmon and Other Wildlife................................................ 34
> C. Votes to Transfer Federal Lands to a Private Mining Company ...................................... 36
> V. Weakening Safety Requirements for Offshore Drilling................................................. 37
> A. Votes to Expedite Drilling without Regard to Safety ....................................................... 37
> B. Votes to Approve New Offshore Drilling without Environmental Review ..................... 37
> C. Votes to Preserve an Oil Royalty Loophole and Cut Funding for Drilling Oversight ...... 38
> VI. Cutting Support for Clean Energy Technologies and Programs.................................. 40
> A. Votes to Cut Funding for Clean Energy Programs .......................................................... 40
> B. Votes to Block Energy Efficiency Standards ................................................................... 42
> VII. Allowing Unsafe Disposal of Toxic Coal Ash ................................................................ 43
> VIII. Curtailing Review of the Keystone XL Pipeline............................................................. 45
> IX. Reducing Funding for Environmental Protection......................................................... 47
> A. H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 .............................................. 47
> B. The Ryan Budget ............................................................................................................ 48
> C. FY2012 Appropriations Bills........................................................................................... 49
> X. Obstructing the Regulatory Process ............................................................................... 50
> A. The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010)............................................................... 50
> B. The REINS Act (H.R. 10)............................................................................................... 50
> C. The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527)................................................ 51
> XI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................
Click to expand...


Since you didn't have the decency to include my questions about the OP topic or my questions to you about Electric Vehicles --- I'll take it as a no -- No --- you don't want to discuss EVehicles anymore...


----------



## Bfgrn

thereisnospoon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all conservatives side with the 'polluters'..
> Typical chicken little sky is fallin liberal crap.
> And I suppose your definition of 'polluter' is any business you don't like.
> The problem is you lefty enviro wackos cannot define what pollution is. In fact you just pick whatever business pisses you off or 'makes too much profit'..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right wing parrot chirp. Pollution is any substance emitted that causes harm to human, fish or fowl.
> 
> You right wing enviro-facsists have been fighting for a decade to prevent coal burning power plants from compliance to the law and installing pollution controls. We KNOW how deadly and toxic the pollution coal burning power plants produce.
> 
> But human, fish and fowl are WAY down the list for you folks. It's profit before people.
> 
> And the teapublican House of Reprehensibles is:
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yer kidding, right?..All substances?
> Look genius, contrary to left wing enviro nazi belief, no one wants the earth to be fouled.
> You people are extremists.
> For example....The unlawful taking of property from the rightful owner because an allegedly endangered rodent was found upon the land.
> The Northern Spotted owl debacle. After all the legal wrangling, destruction of property and the loss of thousands of jobs, the owls were discovered to be nesting in such places as neon signs on the facades of department stores.
> All you people know is "shut it off".."Shut it down"....
> Meanwhile not a single one of you walk the walk.
> I don't see you giving up your vehicles. Or stopping the use of products which are created with the use of petroleum derivatives.
> I don't see you giving up electricity. You are all full of shit.
> I have to laugh my ass off when I see a large SUV with a fucking Green Peace sticker on the bumper.
Click to expand...


Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?

B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants

Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right wing parrot chirp. Pollution is any substance emitted that causes harm to human, fish or fowl.
> 
> You right wing enviro-facsists have been fighting for a decade to prevent coal burning power plants from compliance to the law and installing pollution controls. We KNOW how deadly and toxic the pollution coal burning power plants produce.
> 
> But human, fish and fowl are WAY down the list for you folks. It's profit before people.
> 
> And the teapublican House of Reprehensibles is:
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> 
> 
> Yer kidding, right?..All substances?
> Look genius, contrary to left wing enviro nazi belief, no one wants the earth to be fouled.
> You people are extremists.
> For example....The unlawful taking of property from the rightful owner because an allegedly endangered rodent was found upon the land.
> The Northern Spotted owl debacle. After all the legal wrangling, destruction of property and the loss of thousands of jobs, the owls were discovered to be nesting in such places as neon signs on the facades of department stores.
> All you people know is "shut it off".."Shut it down"....
> Meanwhile not a single one of you walk the walk.
> I don't see you giving up your vehicles. Or stopping the use of products which are created with the use of petroleum derivatives.
> I don't see you giving up electricity. You are all full of shit.
> I have to laugh my ass off when I see a large SUV with a fucking Green Peace sticker on the bumper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?
> 
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants
> 
> Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.
Click to expand...

Because the regulations are draconian ,make zero sense and drive up the cost of energy to the point where federal subsidies would have to be created so people can afford gas for their cars and power to heat their homes...
The proposals are political garbage and have nothing to do with reducing 'pollution'...A word you refuse to define as it applies to this issue.
This is the cleanest industrialized country on the planet. Take you environmental hand wringing to China or India.


----------



## flacaltenn

Hey thereisnospoon.. 

If you want to continue with BFgrn on anything close to ANY OP topic that he can't swing his way.. 

You're gonna need this.. It's my BFGrn redirection device.. Very handy...


----------



## Freewill

Bfgrn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right wing parrot chirp. Pollution is any substance emitted that causes harm to human, fish or fowl.
> 
> You right wing enviro-facsists have been fighting for a decade to prevent coal burning power plants from compliance to the law and installing pollution controls. We KNOW how deadly and toxic the pollution coal burning power plants produce.
> 
> But human, fish and fowl are WAY down the list for you folks. It's profit before people.
> 
> And the teapublican House of Reprehensibles is:
> 
> The Most Anti-Environment House In History
> 
> House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing *191* votes to weaken environmental protections.
> 
> "The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless. In bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health. The Republican anti-environment agenda is completely out-of-touch with what the American public wants."
> 
> The House of Representatives averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session in 2011, according to the report. More than one in five of the legislative roll call votes taken in 2011  22%  were votes to undermine environmental protections.
> 
> 
> 
> Yer kidding, right?..All substances?
> Look genius, contrary to left wing enviro nazi belief, no one wants the earth to be fouled.
> You people are extremists.
> For example....The unlawful taking of property from the rightful owner because an allegedly endangered rodent was found upon the land.
> The Northern Spotted owl debacle. After all the legal wrangling, destruction of property and the loss of thousands of jobs, the owls were discovered to be nesting in such places as neon signs on the facades of department stores.
> All you people know is "shut it off".."Shut it down"....
> Meanwhile not a single one of you walk the walk.
> I don't see you giving up your vehicles. Or stopping the use of products which are created with the use of petroleum derivatives.
> I don't see you giving up electricity. You are all full of shit.
> I have to laugh my ass off when I see a large SUV with a fucking Green Peace sticker on the bumper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?
> 
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants
> 
> Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.
Click to expand...


The answer is, because they love you.  They don't hate you for your use of fossil fuels and then bad mouthing the same people who have provided you the energy you so much enjoy.


----------



## flacaltenn

Freewill said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yer kidding, right?..All substances?
> Look genius, contrary to left wing enviro nazi belief, no one wants the earth to be fouled.
> You people are extremists.
> For example....The unlawful taking of property from the rightful owner because an allegedly endangered rodent was found upon the land.
> The Northern Spotted owl debacle. After all the legal wrangling, destruction of property and the loss of thousands of jobs, the owls were discovered to be nesting in such places as neon signs on the facades of department stores.
> All you people know is "shut it off".."Shut it down"....
> Meanwhile not a single one of you walk the walk.
> I don't see you giving up your vehicles. Or stopping the use of products which are created with the use of petroleum derivatives.
> I don't see you giving up electricity. You are all full of shit.
> I have to laugh my ass off when I see a large SUV with a fucking Green Peace sticker on the bumper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?
> 
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants
> 
> Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is, because they love you.  They don't hate you for your use of fossil fuels and then bad mouthing the same people who have provided you the energy you so much enjoy.
Click to expand...


That's an appropriate possibility.. Could also be because they don't want to tear down 40% of the nations' electrical generation with NOTHING ELSE TO REPLACE IT WITH.. 

OR -- could be because there are too many exemptions under CURRENT law to make much of a diff making the law tighter.. It's the same logical thinking that stems from the 80/20 rule of hiway pollution. 20% of the cars provide 80% of the pollution.. Go after the 20% jerk-off enviro-nuts and leave the 80% alone until you get the balls to ENFORCE existing law !!!! 

Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE laws -- before you figure out how to enforce the ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE? Math and logic are NOT their strong suite.


----------



## Freewill

flacaltenn said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?
> 
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants
> 
> Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is, because they love you.  They don't hate you for your use of fossil fuels and then bad mouthing the same people who have provided you the energy you so much enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an appropriate possibility.. Could also be because they don't want to tear down 40% of the nations' electrical generation with NOTHING ELSE TO REPLACE IT WITH..
> 
> OR -- could be because there are too many exemptions under CURRENT law to make much of a diff making the law tighter.. It's the same logical thinking that stems from the 80/20 rule of hiway pollution. 20% of the cars provide 80% of the pollution.. Go after the 20% jerk-off enviro-nuts and leave the 80% alone until you get the balls to ENFORCE existing law !!!!
> 
> Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE laws -- before you figure out how to enforce the ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE? Math and logic are NOT their strong suite.
Click to expand...


I agree except you should have stopped with "Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE..."


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of talking about your anecdotal parrot squawk, how about angering WHY House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants?
> 
> B. Votes to Block Regulation of Emissions from Power Plants
> 
> Power plants, especially old coal-burning power plants, are the single largest source of air pollution in the United States. They are the largest source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the largest source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and the largest source of toxic mercury emissions. Regardless, House Republicans voted repeatedly to block EPA regulation of emissions from power plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is, because they love you.  They don't hate you for your use of fossil fuels and then bad mouthing the same people who have provided you the energy you so much enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an appropriate possibility.. Could also be because they don't want to tear down 40% of the nations' electrical generation with NOTHING ELSE TO REPLACE IT WITH..
> 
> OR -- could be because there are too many exemptions under CURRENT law to make much of a diff making the law tighter.. It's the same logical thinking that stems from the 80/20 rule of hiway pollution. 20% of the cars provide 80% of the pollution.. Go after the 20% jerk-off enviro-nuts and leave the 80% alone until you get the balls to ENFORCE existing law !!!!
> 
> Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE laws -- before you figure out how to enforce the ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE? Math and logic are NOT their strong suite.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.

And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.

Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death? 

What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?





Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is, because they love you.  They don't hate you for your use of fossil fuels and then bad mouthing the same people who have provided you the energy you so much enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an appropriate possibility.. Could also be because they don't want to tear down 40% of the nations' electrical generation with NOTHING ELSE TO REPLACE IT WITH..
> 
> OR -- could be because there are too many exemptions under CURRENT law to make much of a diff making the law tighter.. It's the same logical thinking that stems from the 80/20 rule of hiway pollution. 20% of the cars provide 80% of the pollution.. Go after the 20% jerk-off enviro-nuts and leave the 80% alone until you get the balls to ENFORCE existing law !!!!
> 
> Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE laws -- before you figure out how to enforce the ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE? Math and logic are NOT their strong suite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.
> 
> And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.
> 
> Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death?
> 
> What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.
Click to expand...


How's the view from that high ground BFGrn??  Can I put up a graph of the number 
of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?

I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course.. 






Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air.. 

Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants.. 



> TVA credits pollution reduction at power plants for clearer air in the Smokies | timesfreepress.com
> 
> The mountains of East Tennessee are getting back to being more smoky and less smoggy because the Tennessee Valley Authority has spent a combined $5.3 billion since the 1970s curtailing air pollutants created at its 11 coal-burning power plants, TVA officials say.
> 
> Two big ozone-producing culprits -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- have been reduced by more than 90 percent from peak levels. And with more planned coal plant closures -- and another $2.2 billion slated for emission control -- those levels are expected to continue to decline, said Duncan Mansfield, a spokesman for TVA.
> 
> By 2017, nearly 30 units at its coal-burning power plants will be closed, converted or cleaned up with emission-reducing "scrubbers" as part of an agreement with the Environment Protection Agency, Mansfield said.



Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done... 

Let us know what he says...


----------



## flacaltenn

BTW:  I aint' gonna sabotage this thread by redirecting the OP this far off topic.. So if anyone wants to discuss pollution --- I suggest they start their own thread.. 

Apologies to the OP for following BFGrn down his burrow...


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an appropriate possibility.. Could also be because they don't want to tear down 40% of the nations' electrical generation with NOTHING ELSE TO REPLACE IT WITH..
> 
> OR -- could be because there are too many exemptions under CURRENT law to make much of a diff making the law tighter.. It's the same logical thinking that stems from the 80/20 rule of hiway pollution. 20% of the cars provide 80% of the pollution.. Go after the 20% jerk-off enviro-nuts and leave the 80% alone until you get the balls to ENFORCE existing law !!!!
> 
> Isn't that the Democrat Modus? Ask for MORE laws -- before you figure out how to enforce the ONES YOU ALREADY HAVE? Math and logic are NOT their strong suite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.
> 
> And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.
> 
> Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death?
> 
> What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's the view from that high ground BFGrn??  Can I put up a graph of the number
> of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?
> 
> I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air..
> 
> Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize *WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt* who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TVA credits pollution reduction at power plants for clearer air in the Smokies | timesfreepress.com
> 
> The mountains of East Tennessee are getting back to being more smoky and less smoggy because the Tennessee Valley Authority has spent a combined $5.3 billion since the 1970s curtailing air pollutants created at its 11 coal-burning power plants, TVA officials say.
> 
> Two big ozone-producing culprits -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- have been reduced by more than 90 percent from peak levels. And with more planned coal plant closures -- and another $2.2 billion slated for emission control -- those levels are expected to continue to decline, said Duncan Mansfield, a spokesman for TVA.
> 
> By 2017, nearly 30 units at its coal-burning power plants will be closed, converted or cleaned up with emission-reducing "scrubbers" as part of an agreement with the Environment Protection Agency, Mansfield said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done...
> 
> Let us know what he says...
Click to expand...


Once a liar always a liar. Provide links to back up you claims. I don't see any TVA plants on any worst lists.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.
> 
> And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.
> 
> Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death?
> 
> What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's the view from that high ground BFGrn??  Can I put up a graph of the number
> of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?
> 
> I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air..
> 
> Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize *WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt* who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TVA credits pollution reduction at power plants for clearer air in the Smokies | timesfreepress.com
> 
> The mountains of East Tennessee are getting back to being more smoky and less smoggy because the Tennessee Valley Authority has spent a combined $5.3 billion since the 1970s curtailing air pollutants created at its 11 coal-burning power plants, TVA officials say.
> 
> Two big ozone-producing culprits -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- have been reduced by more than 90 percent from peak levels. And with more planned coal plant closures -- and another $2.2 billion slated for emission control -- those levels are expected to continue to decline, said Duncan Mansfield, a spokesman for TVA.
> 
> By 2017, nearly 30 units at its coal-burning power plants will be closed, converted or cleaned up with emission-reducing "scrubbers" as part of an agreement with the Environment Protection Agency, Mansfield said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done...
> 
> Let us know what he says...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once a liar always a liar. Provide links to back up you claims. I don't see any TVA plants on any worst lists.
Click to expand...


Gonna cost ya. I don't like to be constantly called a liar by folks who don't really respond to the hard work I've done here. Read my tagline again.. I don't think you got the message yet about "lying"... 

I'm tempted to just neg you.. We shouldn't even be discussing this here. But your ignorance and combatness and just plain bullying --- they ALL need some fixin'... 



> Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) | PolluterWatch
> 
> Coming in a distant fourth is the U.S. Government with 77 million tons. This might seem odd at first glance, but Uncle Sam is the official owner of the power plants operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority.



Of course, that's only CO2 --- but YOU consider that a pollutant dontcha? 



> 6 TVA coal plants named among dirtiest
> 
> Six Tennessee Valley Authority coal plants are among the 50 dirtiest in the nation, a study by a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group shows.
> 
> TVA is implementing a $6 billion program to curb air pollution at its coal plants but still had plants in Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee cited for being among the biggest polluters of the nation's 359 power plants.
> 
> TVA's worst plants for sulfur dioxide pollution linked with acid rain included the Johnsonville and Kingston plants in Tennessee. Using different pollutants measured during 2004 by the Environmental Protection Agency, both plants produced more than twice as much sulfur pollutants per unit of electricity generated than the average plant, the study showed



That's better.. A list you haven't seen or disregarded no doubt... 



> EIP Report: TVA, One of Nation's Top Polluters, Should No Longer Be Allowed to... -- WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
> 
> EIP Report: TVA, One of Nation's Top Polluters, Should No Longer Be Allowed to Exploit Federal Status to Evade Environmental Laws and Marketplace Competition
> 
> 
> Eight decades after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to bring power to the southeastern United States, the TVA should no longer be exempt from federal environmental enforcement and the healthy influence of competition in its region, according to a major new report released today by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).
> 
> In a separate letter to the White House, EIP and leading national and southeastern U.S. environmental organizations urged the Obama Administration and Congress to take action to reform the TVA. (See below.)
> 
> 
> Although both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the TVA Inspector General (IG) have documented numerous violations of environmental law, the Justice Department has never taken this utility to court. Although this utility is virtually independent, completely self-financing, and responsible under the law for its own legal defenses, it has been allowed to hide behind legal doctrines meant to protect federal agencies and U.S. taxpayers.



Recently new EIP report naming TVA as one of the nations top polluters.. 



> Obama's moment to overhaul the TVA - CSMonitor.com
> TVA is the nation's largest utility. Federally owned, it is an icon of the New Deal, and yet it has the worst environmental record of any utility in the nation. Three days before Christmas, a sludge dam at its Kingston coal-fired steam plant failed, inundating houses and hundreds of acres with 5 billion gallons of watery ash, and filling the Emory River with coal waste and heavy metals.



Wow --- "worst environmental record of any utility in the nation".. EXEMPT from litigation by special favors. SLOW to clean up it's own act while chastizing others. Your Dear Leader has some 'splainin' to do huh? 

Now go get in the GOVT'S face --- not mine. And DEMAND they stop polluting...

And don't forget to read my footer.......


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's the view from that high ground BFGrn??  Can I put up a graph of the number
> of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?
> 
> I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air..
> 
> Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize *WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt* who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants..
> 
> 
> 
> Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done...
> 
> Let us know what he says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once a liar always a liar. Provide links to back up you claims. I don't see any TVA plants on any worst lists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonna cost ya. I don't like to be constantly called a liar by folks who don't really respond to the hard work I've done here. Read my tagline again.. I don't think you got the message yet about "lying"...
> 
> I'm tempted to just neg you.. We shouldn't even be discussing this here. But your ignorance and combatness and just plain bullying --- they ALL need some fixin'...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that's only CO2 --- but YOU consider that a pollutant dontcha?
> 
> 
> 
> That's better.. A list you haven't seen or disregarded no doubt...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EIP Report: TVA, One of Nation's Top Polluters, Should No Longer Be Allowed to... -- WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
> 
> EIP Report: TVA, One of Nation's Top Polluters, Should No Longer Be Allowed to Exploit Federal Status to Evade Environmental Laws and Marketplace Competition
> 
> 
> Eight decades after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to bring power to the southeastern United States, the TVA should no longer be exempt from federal environmental enforcement and the healthy influence of competition in its region, according to a major new report released today by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).
> 
> In a separate letter to the White House, EIP and leading national and southeastern U.S. environmental organizations urged the Obama Administration and Congress to take action to reform the TVA. (See below.)
> 
> 
> Although both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the TVA Inspector General (IG) have documented numerous violations of environmental law, the Justice Department has never taken this utility to court. Although this utility is virtually independent, completely self-financing, and responsible under the law for its own legal defenses, it has been allowed to hide behind legal doctrines meant to protect federal agencies and U.S. taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recently new EIP report naming TVA as one of the nations top polluters..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's moment to overhaul the TVA - CSMonitor.com
> TVA is the nation's largest utility. Federally owned, it is an icon of the New Deal, and yet it has the worst environmental record of any utility in the nation. Three days before Christmas, a sludge dam at its Kingston coal-fired steam plant failed, inundating houses and hundreds of acres with 5 billion gallons of watery ash, and filling the Emory River with coal waste and heavy metals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow --- "worst environmental record of any utility in the nation".. EXEMPT from litigation by special favors. SLOW to clean up it's own act while chastizing others. Your Dear Leader has some 'splainin' to do huh?
> 
> Now go get in the GOVT'S face --- not mine. And DEMAND they stop polluting...
> 
> And don't forget to read my footer.......
Click to expand...


I really don't care what your footer says, you are a cynical lying sack of shit. You have constantly and at times vehemently protected polluters and have never stated or even hinted at support for protecting citizen's rights to breathe clean air and drink clean water. 

Where you and I differ is I don't care if the polluter is the government or a private corporation. They should be held to the SAME standard. But you right wing regressive turds see ONLY government as evil, and private polluters as just shrewd and prudent entrepreneurs.

ALL polluters can only continue to pollute by malfeasance of the free market. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

Sound environmental policy is identical to sound economic policy. They are not at odds. The free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution is waste. The free market encourages us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully.  

We need to stop treating the planet as if were a business in liquidation by trying to convert our natural resource to cash as quickly as possible, to have a few years of pollution-based prosperity, which is only an illusion of a prosperous economy. Because our children are going to pay for our joyride. They're going to pay for it with muted landscapes, poor health, and huge cleanup costs that are going to amplify over time, and that they will never, ever be able to pay off. Environmental injury is deficit spending. It's a way of loading the cost of our generation's prosperity onto the backs of our children.

Here is a footer for you to read.



> "We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
> Lakota Sioux Proverb


----------



## Politico

I only care which one is cheaper.


----------



## KissMy

Freewill said:


> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com



Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.

If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.

[youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]


----------



## FA_Q2

KissMy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Click to expand...


More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.

So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented.  Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.

Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?

If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it.  With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.

Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed &#8216;lie&#8217; that flat has posted.  I find that extremely unlikely tbh.  Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.


----------



## Freewill

KissMy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Click to expand...


Living that way is a great alternative to living in their dad's basement.


----------



## Freewill

Link to articles concerning alternative vehicles


----------



## KissMy

FA_Q2 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
> 
> So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented.  Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
> 
> Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
> 
> If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it.  With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
> 
> Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed &#8216;lie&#8217; that flat has posted.  I find that extremely unlikely tbh.  Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
Click to expand...




Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. Zehner would not & could not answer that. 

Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving beyond a doubt the statement I have made before. Forget climate change, you right wing turds don't even believe pollution is harmful to human, fish and fowl.
> 
> And besides confirming that you side with polluters you are a fucking liar. On a previous thread you claimed you support cleaning up coal burning plants...a LIE.
> 
> Do you have a cartoon for liars and regressive turds who support giving a pass to entities that cause human injury and death?
> 
> What kind of morals would someone have who supports killing fellow citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven forbid we require coal burning power plants to obey the law that is over a decade old. Many of the power plants did obey the law and install the pollution controls. But there are still many who have not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's the view from that high ground BFGrn??  Can I put up a graph of the number
> of botched surgeries expected from operating under flaky wind power? Or the decline in education that will occur under solar power when kids can't read or do their homework?
> 
> I DID say that I thoroughly believed there was a such a thing as clean coal technology... It OUGHT to be given a thorough shake-out on NEW generators.. NOT --- wasting money trying to retrofit 50 and 60 yr old facilities that have done the best they can to lower emissions.. Am I right about that?? Of course..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the 80/20 rule applies here as well.. New plants built about 1990 or so are an order of magnitude CLEANER than the BULK of the old clunkers.. Build NEW plants.. Close old ones == much cleaner air..
> 
> Now what really makes your grandstanding obnoxious is that you don't realize *WHO OWNS and OPERATES the oldest dirtiest plants in the nation.. Yup -- the US of A govt* who wants to bully OTHERS about their coal fired electrical generators.. Even TVA has made progress on these old plants..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TVA credits pollution reduction at power plants for clearer air in the Smokies | timesfreepress.com
> 
> The mountains of East Tennessee are getting back to being more smoky and less smoggy because the Tennessee Valley Authority has spent a combined $5.3 billion since the 1970s curtailing air pollutants created at its 11 coal-burning power plants, TVA officials say.
> 
> Two big ozone-producing culprits -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- have been reduced by more than 90 percent from peak levels. And with more planned coal plant closures -- and another $2.2 billion slated for emission control -- those levels are expected to continue to decline, said Duncan Mansfield, a spokesman for TVA.
> 
> By 2017, nearly 30 units at its coal-burning power plants will be closed, converted or cleaned up with emission-reducing "scrubbers" as part of an agreement with the Environment Protection Agency, Mansfield said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick QUick now Squirrel Dog --- RUN to your Dear Leader and Shout in HIS FACE about the number of heart attacks due to "pollution".. Not mine.. Tell him you don't wanna WAIT til 2017 for HIM to get it done...
> 
> Let us know what he says...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once a liar always a liar. Provide links to back up you claims. I don't see any TVA plants on any worst lists.
Click to expand...


Yesiree....Typical lib bullshit repsonse. 
In the face of overwhelming factual material, libs turn to the "liar card"...
Fucking weak ass shit.


----------



## FA_Q2

KissMy said:


> Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. Zehner would not & could not answer that.
> 
> Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.



Guess what, that means the research is based in real world terms, not fantasy land where all our power is generated by renewables.

You want to reject research that is based on facts in order to lean on research that ignores the reality of todays AND the near futures power grid?  

That is what is 


When the power grid is comprised of mainly clean forms of energy THEN we can push electric cars.  Right now, those cars are WORSE than their gas cousins and will be filling landfills long before they able to utilize your imaginary grid.  

The side benefit there is that if we fix the grid first, electric car technology might have finally advanced to the point where purchasing one would actually be worth it.  When you are fucking with the market to force the green tech (that is actually black) this is what you end up with.  A product that does worse than its competition in the field that is supposed to be its strength (green) and underperforms against its competition in virtually every other metric.  I guess they are quite, thats worth 40K is it not?


----------



## flacaltenn

KissMy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
Click to expand...


In this case -- I think not. IEEE is favorable to things Green, but not really political. The magazine Spectrum is one of the finest tech mags on the planet. 

I don't find these studies to be fatally damaging to EVehicles. Because proper public policy will weigh those costs against other parameters and ideas.. It's IMPORTANT to account for these costs -- but the problem we are addressing is how to shift energy for transportation from oil to other sources. It's bigger than using "rare earth" minerals and current fads like battery "powered" EVehicles. You can use hydrogen and fuel cells to power the SAME EV tech.. And that is a whole other opportunity waiting to happen.


----------



## KissMy

FA_Q2 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. *Zehner would not & could not answer that.*
> 
> Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, that means the research is based in real world terms, not fantasy land where all our power is generated by renewables.
> 
> You want to reject research that is based on facts in order to lean on research that ignores the reality of todays AND the near futures power grid?
> 
> That is what is
> 
> When the power grid is comprised of mainly clean forms of energy THEN we can push electric cars.  Right now, those cars are WORSE than their gas cousins and will be filling landfills long before they able to utilize your imaginary grid.
> 
> The side benefit there is that if we fix the grid first, electric car technology might have finally advanced to the point where purchasing one would actually be worth it.  When you are fucking with the market to force the green tech (that is actually black) this is what you end up with.  A product that does worse than its competition in the field that is supposed to be its strength (green) and underperforms against its competition in virtually every other metric.  I guess they are quite, thats worth 40K is it not?
Click to expand...


Peer reviewed studies prove we have been subsidizing oil with our military at a rate of over $1 a gallon since 1970 just to keep oil & gas transport routs open. Plus we prop up leaders in key oil countries, supply forces to insure the supply in oil producing countries.

Idiot's like you believe we should not subsidize viable alternatives to get off the ground in a subsidized oil economy.  Once we have a small percent of viable renewable up & running we can shove it in the face of OPEC as a bargaining chip. If they restrict supply & raise oil prices, market forces will switch to alternatives. They can't shut down our country or economy with their oil. We won't be standing around with our dick in our hand when there is no oil to build the alternative energy economy. Once built it will provide the energy to keep on building itself. 

Texas Wind And Solar Are Highly Competitive With Natural Gas



> Texas ERCOT found that if you use updated wind and solar power characteristics like cost and actual output to reflect real world conditions, rather than the previously used 2006 assumed characteristics, wind and solar are more competitive than natural gas over the next 20 years.  This might seem a bit strange since weve been told for years by renewable energy skeptics that wind and solar power cant compete with low natural gas prices.
> 
> the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year].  This means that when real-world assumptions are used for our various sources of power, wind and solar are highly competitive with natural gas. In turn, that competition from renewables results in lower power prices and lower water use for Texas.
> 
> As state leaders look for ways to encourage new capacity in the midst of a drought, its important to realize that renewable energy is now competitive over the long term with conventional resources.  The fact that renewable energy resources can reduce our water dependency while hedging against higher long-term prices means that however state leaders decide to address the energy crunch, renewables need to be part of the plan.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards.  Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.
> 
> BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
> 
> Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.
> 
> Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [youtube]v6uVnyjTb58[/youtube]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
> 
> So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented.  Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
> 
> Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
> 
> If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it.  With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
> 
> Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed lie that flat has posted.  I find that extremely unlikely tbh.  Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
Click to expand...


The facts are this:

EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.

Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.

The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.

The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.

So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate. 

So WHAT should we do?


----------



## Bfgrn

A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...

Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.


----------



## FA_Q2

KissMy said:


> Peer reviewed studies prove we have been subsidizing oil with our military at a rate of over $1 a gallon since 1970 just to keep oil & gas transport routs open. Plus we prop up leaders in key oil countries, supply forces to insure the supply in oil producing countries.
> 
> Idiot's like you believe we should not subsidize viable alternatives to get off the ground in a subsidized oil economy.  Once we have a small percent of viable renewable up & running we can shove it in the face of OPEC as a bargaining chip. If they restrict supply & raise oil prices, market forces will switch to alternatives. They can't shut down our country or economy with their oil. We won't be standing around with our dick in our hand when there is no oil to build the alternative energy economy. Once built it will provide the energy to keep on building itself.


Idiots like you cant keep to the point and keep bouncing all over the place on other subjects.  This post has nothing to do with the topic.  I realize that your argument is entirely lacking, that happens when you base it on insults and no data, but that is no reason to fill these pages with other topics.  Start another thread on oil subsidies if you want to discuss that.  You will likely find that all those idiots that dont want to subsidize alternatives actually dont want to subsidize oil either.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Researcher Ozzie Zehner's agenda is for everyone to move into small apartments in government controlled densely packed cities riding electric trains. He wants energy taxed, population control, government healthcare, less consumption by everyone.
> 
> If we give up on the idea of getting more power from other sources, then all of us will have to spend more & consume less & less as days go by. You have to give up on cars & the American dream.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
> 
> So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented.  Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
> 
> Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
> 
> If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it.  With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
> 
> Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed &#8216;lie&#8217; that flat has posted.  I find that extremely unlikely tbh.  Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are this:
> 
> EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
> 
> Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
> 
> The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
> 
> The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
> 
> So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
> 
> So WHAT should we do?
Click to expand...

Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.  

Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.

Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.


Bfgrn said:


> A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
> 
> Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. &#8220;It&#8217;s something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog.&#8221; he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. &#8220;So what they&#8217;re trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road,&#8221; Zehner says.


No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.

All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More ad homonyms, attacking the researcher and not the research.
> 
> So far, bfg in this thread has done a good job at producing meaningless claims against Republicans for not being green enough, attacks against flat, calling people liars and other posters have attacked the source but NO ONE has addressed the actual facts presented.  Most of them, like nodog, claimed to be interested and then stopped posting as soon as the links asked for were provided.
> 
> Is ANYONE going to actually address the facts the researchers present showing that electric cars produce more pollution than standard gas vehicles and will likely do so through 2030?
> 
> If anything, this thread is making that argument stranger as not one person has been able to find the counter to it.  With so many here that would jump on anything found, that is a good case in itself.
> 
> Edit: I would not mind seeing the supposed lie that flat has posted.  I find that extremely unlikely tbh.  Particularly considering that the one claiming that flat is such a liar is bouncing all over the place, using personal attacks and not addressing any of the information presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are this:
> 
> EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
> 
> Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
> 
> The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
> 
> The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
> 
> So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
> 
> So WHAT should we do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
> 
> Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
> 
> Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
> 
> Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
> 
> All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
Click to expand...


So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.

A utopia...


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are this:
> 
> EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
> 
> Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
> 
> The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
> 
> The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
> 
> So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
> 
> So WHAT should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
> 
> Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
> 
> Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
> 
> Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
> 
> All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
> 
> A utopia...
Click to expand...


tell me something genius if an electric car put up more pop pollution enough cash car why should be keeping electric cars for the environment


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
> 
> Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
> 
> Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
> 
> No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
> 
> All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
> 
> A utopia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tell me something genius if an electric car put up more pop pollution enough cash car why should be keeping electric cars for the environment
Click to expand...


Can you speak English?


----------



## FA_Q2

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are this:
> 
> EVs emit zero pollution when driving down the road. The pollution attached to EVs come from the manufacturing process, the recharging process and the disposal process.
> 
> Most of the manufacturing pollution is the same for conventional fossil fuel vehicles. Where EVs are different is instead of building an internal combustion engine, the motor is electric. And instead of a battery for starting, batteries are the fuel source.
> 
> The R&D in motor technology and battery technology is progressing rapidly.
> 
> The real 'pollution' problem with EVs is the recharging process. Creating electricity using fossil fuels creates tons of pollution.
> 
> So the REAL pollution is the same pollution that will continue to exist even if every EV on the planet were to evaporate.
> 
> So WHAT should we do?
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
> 
> Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
> 
> Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
> 
> Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
> 
> All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
> 
> A utopia...
Click to expand...


No.  None of that, whatsoever, can be inferred from my post.  You are grasping again.

I figured that you didnt actually want an answer to the what do we do then question.  It seems you have no interest in actually addressing the topic whatsoever outside of demanding that everyone is wrong. 

You have been given the information and the topic; I am no longer going to play your childish games of insulting and diverting.  If you really do want to discuss the topic, then do so and bring some data or research that backs you up.  Otherwise, I simply will not engage with you again in this thread.


----------



## flacaltenn

KissMy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ozzie Zehner only believes electric cars & alternatives are dirty because we are using a fossil fueled economy to make them. When asked if we used wind & alternatives to build them wouldn't they be cleaner than today. *Zehner would not & could not answer that.*
> 
> Bottom line is wind & solar have way higher EROEI than oil sands or oil fracking. Ozzie Zehner has thrown out bias research to push his minimalist Marxist, biodiversity, depopulation of useless human eaters agenda. Wind energy is more sustainable than hydrocarbons. Texas is producing more wind energy than their power grid can use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what, that means the research is based in real world terms, not fantasy land where all our power is generated by renewables.
> 
> You want to reject research that is based on facts in order to lean on research that ignores the reality of todays AND the near futures power grid?
> 
> That is what is
> 
> When the power grid is comprised of mainly clean forms of energy THEN we can push electric cars.  Right now, those cars are WORSE than their gas cousins and will be filling landfills long before they able to utilize your imaginary grid.
> 
> The side benefit there is that if we fix the grid first, electric car technology might have finally advanced to the point where purchasing one would actually be worth it.  When you are fucking with the market to force the &#8216;green&#8217; tech (that is actually black) this is what you end up with.  A product that does worse than its competition in the field that is supposed to be its strength (green) and underperforms against its competition in virtually every other metric.  I guess they are quite, that&#8217;s worth 40K is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peer reviewed studies prove we have been subsidizing oil with our military at a rate of over $1 a gallon since 1970 just to keep oil & gas transport routs open. Plus we prop up leaders in key oil countries, supply forces to insure the supply in oil producing countries.
> 
> Idiot's like you believe we should not subsidize viable alternatives to get off the ground in a subsidized oil economy.  Once we have a small percent of viable renewable up & running we can shove it in the face of OPEC as a bargaining chip. If they restrict supply & raise oil prices, market forces will switch to alternatives. They can't shut down our country or economy with their oil. We won't be standing around with our dick in our hand when there is no oil to build the alternative energy economy. Once built it will provide the energy to keep on building itself.
> 
> Texas Wind And Solar Are Highly Competitive With Natural Gas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas ERCOT found that if you use updated wind and solar power characteristics like cost and actual output to reflect real world conditions, rather than the previously used 2006 assumed characteristics, wind and solar are more competitive than natural gas over the next 20 years.  This might seem a bit strange since we&#8217;ve been told for years by renewable energy skeptics that wind and solar power can&#8217;t compete with low natural gas prices.
> 
> &#8220;the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices in many hours [of the year].&#8221;  This means that when real-world assumptions are used for our various sources of power, wind and solar are highly competitive with natural gas. In turn, that competition from renewables results in lower power prices and lower water use for Texas.
> 
> As state leaders look for ways to encourage new capacity in the midst of a drought, it&#8217;s important to realize that renewable energy is now competitive over the long term with conventional resources.  The fact that renewable energy resources can reduce our water dependency while hedging against higher long-term prices means that however state leaders decide to address the energy crunch, renewables need to be part of the plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wind is NOT an "alternative".. I'll let the following chart speak for itself... 






THAT -- is not gonna bring troops home.. Not even gonna save us from building REAL generators to back it up... 
BTW: October thru March OUGHT TO BE the height of wind production.. They spared us from the summer doldrums.

Here is the Daily ERCOT wind production chart.. 

http://www.windbyte.co.uk/ims/windpower/ng_winter0910_wind_demand.jpg

Note it's the GREEN line on the plot.. And that plot RARELY exceeds 30% of the INSTALLED capacity of Texas Wind. Which is why this strange sentence is found in your quote above.. 



> &#8220;the added renewable generation in this sensitivity results in lower market prices *in many hours *[of the year].&#8221;



Youre kidding me right? Many hours of the year? Sad but true..


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> A little more about Ozzie and his solutions. I am SURE flat and the rest of the right will fully embrace them...
> 
> Zehner says that instead of automakers, governments and consumers pouring large sums into getting a small numbers of EVs on the road, putting the money into initiatives he sees as more effective, such as *more stringent emissions monitoring*, would be more effective. Its something that has been used in Europe: *remote monitoring stations set up along freeway entrance ramps that monitor emissions particulates from vehicles and identify vehicles that are giving off a lot of smog. he says. Pictures of the license plates of offending vehicles are snapped and officials send notices to owners to have their cars repaired or pay a fine.* Zehner claims that 20 percent of cars of the road are responsible for 80 percent of air pollution problem. So what theyre trying to do there is get those vehicles off the road, Zehner says.



Don't even see why this is neccessary.. Can you name a state that DOESN'T have annual or biannual REQRD emission controls inspections? 

The problem is NAILING non-compliance and I can take MOST of the pollution off the road by just STOPPING vehicles with oily smoke pouring out the back.


----------



## Bfgrn

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Certainly we should not be focusing on building and subsidizing cars that are worse for the environment than the ones they replace.  How about focusing that on the actual power generation in this nation rather than the cars that people drive.
> 
> Once that is under better conditions; then electric cars might be worth the effort.
> *
> Then there is also getting better tech, particularly in the battery as that is the main reason that electric cars are untenable atm.  Focusing on bringing down the price and pushing current electric cars DOES NOT help build new technology in that market.  All that does is assist in making the current tech the status quo.
> 
> No, I am sure they would not.  Then again, this is even more attacks against the researcher and not the actual research.  Focus here, Zehner political ideology is meaningless when simply discussing the fact that his research shows electric vehicles are higher polluters than gas vehicles.
> 
> All this other crap that is being posted here is a futile effort to close all your eyes to that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
> 
> A utopia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  None of that, whatsoever, can be inferred from my post.  You are grasping again.
> 
> I figured that you didnt actually want an answer to the what do we do then question.  It seems you have no interest in actually addressing the topic whatsoever outside of demanding that everyone is wrong.
> 
> You have been given the information and the topic; I am no longer going to play your childish games of insulting and diverting.  If you really do want to discuss the topic, then do so and bring some data or research that backs you up.  Otherwise, I simply will not engage with you again in this thread.
Click to expand...


Your reply is pretty naive. You speak as if America is some communist country with central planning deciding what to develop. Many independent companies are working on R & D in all these areas. Auto manufacturers and other companies. To just stop it and wait for the grid to catch up is really a dumb idea.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Reasons to shift off oil/gasoline
-Less dependent on other countries
-no need to truck/train resources to *one area to the next*
-No mining or pumping shit out of the ground that cost money

Using Nuclear, fusion, wind, solar, geo-thermal and wave would allow us to not only power our homes but also our vehicles. Powering them within a way that would allow us to take advantage to endless resources to power our society.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the solution is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
> 
> If we cease and desist this fool-hearty eco-nut EV venture it will end the mining of rare earth metals, the building of batteries and no one will have to burn another lump of coal.
> 
> A utopia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  None of that, whatsoever, can be inferred from my post.  You are grasping again.
> 
> I figured that you didnt actually want an answer to the what do we do then question.  It seems you have no interest in actually addressing the topic whatsoever outside of demanding that everyone is wrong.
> 
> You have been given the information and the topic; I am no longer going to play your childish games of insulting and diverting.  If you really do want to discuss the topic, then do so and bring some data or research that backs you up.  Otherwise, I simply will not engage with you again in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply is pretty naive. You speak as if America is some communist country with central planning deciding what to develop. Many independent companies are working on R & D in all these areas. Auto manufacturers and other companies. To just stop it and wait for the grid to catch up is really a dumb idea.
Click to expand...


Maybe because our current interference in tech and the markets REEKS of Central Planning?

Instead of asking the question "Where can we help the most number of start-ups and venture funded operations and BASIC R&D -- the govt RUSHES checks and support to a SELECT few who represent their extremely naive view of future dreams. Thus creating a HIGHER BARRIER for their potential competitors. Many of whom had better ideas... 

That's how you get funding for billionaires making trophy vehicles for millionaires and gimmicky solar companies that blow their generous govt wad on a production palace that never opened for a product that had no inherent advantage in the market..


----------



## Sallow

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> more fog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little brain is in a fog....
> 
> People don't wear breathing protection from FOG...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution*.
> 
> Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.
Click to expand...


Betcha have no idea why that's done.


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  None of that, whatsoever, can be inferred from my post.  You are grasping again.
> 
> I figured that you didnt actually want an answer to the what do we do then question.  It seems you have no interest in actually addressing the topic whatsoever outside of demanding that everyone is wrong.
> 
> You have been given the information and the topic; I am no longer going to play your childish games of insulting and diverting.  If you really do want to discuss the topic, then do so and bring some data or research that backs you up.  Otherwise, I simply will not engage with you again in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply is pretty naive. You speak as if America is some communist country with central planning deciding what to develop. Many independent companies are working on R & D in all these areas. Auto manufacturers and other companies. To just stop it and wait for the grid to catch up is really a dumb idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because our current interference in tech and the markets REEKS of Central Planning?
> 
> Instead of asking the question "Where can we help the most number of start-ups and venture funded operations and BASIC R&D -- the govt RUSHES checks and support to a SELECT few who represent their extremely naive view of future dreams. Thus creating a HIGHER BARRIER for their potential competitors. Many of whom had better ideas...
> 
> That's how you get funding for billionaires making trophy vehicles for millionaires and gimmicky solar companies that blow their generous govt wad on a production palace that never opened for a product that had no inherent advantage in the market..
Click to expand...


That's because everyone else in the world is stupid, except for you.

Yea, I'm sure that is what the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Europeans are doing.


----------



## flacaltenn

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply is pretty naive. You speak as if America is some communist country with central planning deciding what to develop. Many independent companies are working on R & D in all these areas. Auto manufacturers and other companies. To just stop it and wait for the grid to catch up is really a dumb idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because our current interference in tech and the markets REEKS of Central Planning?
> 
> Instead of asking the question "Where can we help the most number of start-ups and venture funded operations and BASIC R&D -- the govt RUSHES checks and support to a SELECT few who represent their extremely naive view of future dreams. Thus creating a HIGHER BARRIER for their potential competitors. Many of whom had better ideas...
> 
> That's how you get funding for billionaires making trophy vehicles for millionaires and gimmicky solar companies that blow their generous govt wad on a production palace that never opened for a product that had no inherent advantage in the market..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because everyone else in the world is stupid, except for you.
> 
> Yea, I'm sure that is what the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Europeans are doing.
Click to expand...


The Japanese and the Koreans are eating our sushi lunch for us with wasabi because THEY focus on industry consortiums that tell the government WHERE the R&D money is best spent. And then these R&D developments are spawned off to the benefit of ALL... 

The CHinese are just stealing crap.. And tossing wads of cash at infrastructure to support all the foreign dupes coming there and BUILDING factories and GIVING them the plans to all their advanced products.. It's a wonderful trap. Kinda like a pedophile organization opening a kiddy amusement part..


----------



## Bfgrn

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because our current interference in tech and the markets REEKS of Central Planning?
> 
> Instead of asking the question "Where can we help the most number of start-ups and venture funded operations and BASIC R&D -- the govt RUSHES checks and support to a SELECT few who represent their extremely naive view of future dreams. Thus creating a HIGHER BARRIER for their potential competitors. Many of whom had better ideas...
> 
> That's how you get funding for billionaires making trophy vehicles for millionaires and gimmicky solar companies that blow their generous govt wad on a production palace that never opened for a product that had no inherent advantage in the market..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because everyone else in the world is stupid, except for you.
> 
> Yea, I'm sure that is what the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Europeans are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese and the Koreans are eating our sushi lunch for us with wasabi because THEY focus on industry consortiums that tell the government WHERE the R&D money is best spent. And then these R&D developments are spawned off to the benefit of ALL...
> 
> The CHinese are just stealing crap.. And tossing wads of cash at infrastructure to support all the foreign dupes coming there and BUILDING factories and GIVING them the plans to all their advanced products.. It's a wonderful trap. Kinda like a pedophile organization opening a kiddy amusement part..
Click to expand...


SO...Japan focuses on industry consortiums that tell the government WHERE the R&D money is best spent...

Analysis: Japan the leader in electric vehicle readiness

July 2012: According to McKinsey & Companys electric vehicle index, Japan is the most prepared to support an electric vehicle industry.  The index assesses a nations electric-vehicle readiness in terms of both supply (i.e. vehicle models, share of total production, and government support for infrastructure and R&D) and demand (i.e. driving experience, share of total sales, and government support for consumer purchases).  After Japan, the US, France, Germany, China rounded out the top five. 


Government policy & the development of hybrid and electric vehicles in Japan

This fifth case study looks at the development of hybrid, electric and low emissions vehicles in Japan between the 1970s and the 1990s.

Japans dominance of the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) market is the result of a conscious decision by the Japanese Government and automakers to invest in an area of strategic national interest, exploit an area of comparative advantage and commit to a programme of technology development spanning over 3 decades.


----------



## Old Rocks

Prior to the last round of battery development, I thought that we would develop hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles. However, the batteries have come so far, and the research is going so well, in developing a very high capacity battery is very long life, and at a price that will compete head on with the ICE, that the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is just another layer of unneeded complexity. 

The EV's are the wave of the future, and will be the primary vehicles on the road in a bit over a decade.


----------

