# GM Volt! Is it the solution to Foreign Oil?



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Its a cool looking car that gets 230 miles to the gallon. However, the gas engine does kick into until after 40 miles. Meaning you run entirely gas/oil free for the first 40 miles. See below the average round trip commute is 32 miles, meaning most Americans would run gas free most days. Before they get home and are able to charge their cars! Obvious some in the city would be screwed, but this would help many Americans.

Its coming out in 2010, with a price tag of $40K with a $7,500 government credit the car will be $32.5K, which is affordable to most Americans, esp when you take gas prices out of the equations.
Chevrolet Volt's official fuel economy: 230 mpg - Aug. 11, 2009



> They report an average one-way commute time of 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles).


Poll: Traffic in the United States - ABC News


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

I think you combine this with the Volt and the electric car has taken a huge first step. A 5 seater, cool looking, family car.

Why it will sell:
(1) It looks sleek and cool. Image is important
(2) While $50K is expensive, its affordable to a lot of people in the upper middle class, 
(3) 300 mile range on a 45 minute charge. If you have a 20 mile commute, then you can go 15 days without charging. 45 min charge, is very short. Even outside salesmen can survive! Not too many people are going to do 300 miles in a day too often. 300 miles is more than enough for the vast majority of people!
(4) Family Car: It can fit 5 adults and 2 children (More likely, 2 up front and 3 in the back seat).
(5) More Cargo space than station wagons!
(6) 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds (Room, no gas, cool looking and very fast!)
(7) No Gas = No carbon Emission = No pollution! Many people think all 3 are important
(8) People will like the fact that they are delivering a great economic blow to Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc and start freeing America of foreign oil!
Model S FAQ

FOXNews.com - Tesla Introduces 7-Passenger Electric Car - Auto


> HAWTHORNE, California &#8212; Electric car start-up Tesla Motors Inc unveiled its newest, cheapest vehicle on Thursday, a four-door sedan that can carry five adults and could travel up to 300 miles per charge.
> 
> The Model S will cost $49,900, after a U.S. government tax credit of $7,500, Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said at the car's unveiling. It is slated to go into production in 2010 and will be manufactured in Southern California.
> 
> ...









Don't tell me the Model S doesn't look as prestigious, classy and cool as a Benz, BMW Lexus!


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Ghosn, though, focused on the practicalities, reiterating Nissan&#8217;s plan that the Leaf, which runs a 100 miles on a single charge, excluding the cost of the batteries, will cost no more to buy and run than a traditional gasoline-powered car. Zero-emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, he said, are a bonus. Charging time is seven hours, although a 30-minute quick charge can get batteries back up to 80% of full power.

Key to its success will be bringing down the cost of the batteries, which currently cost around $10,000 per car to make. Sensibly, Nissan plans to lease the batteries to customers rather than try to sell the car at an inflated price. Initially, the carmaker will share the burden by taking advantage of government subsidies and cheap loans to ensure sales are profitable from day one. The challenge will be to get costs down to a sufficient level by the time governments begin scaling back incentives
Introducing the Nissan Leaf Electric Vehicle - BusinessWeek







While the Tesla is a great looking car and is well along in the development process it is  very expensive at the moment and without a major  car company to market it. it will remain a niche car in the expensive mode.  The Volt  while  another nice car  is what GM is  putting a lot of it's marbles  and hopes  in. It would seem that Nissan will beat them to the punch when it comes to the low-cost and marketing to the general public. While the Volt is a very insteresting car it does seem that Government Motors has been outdone once again by both Tesla and Nissan in their well published Volt.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> While the Tesla is a great looking car and is well along in the development process it is  very expensive at the moment and without a major  car company to market it. it will remain a niche car in the expensive mode.  The Volt  while  another nice car  is what GM is  putting a lot of it's marbles  and hopes  in. It would seem that Nissan will beat them to the punch when it comes to the low-cost and marketing to the general public. While the Volt is a very insteresting car it does seem that Government Motors has been outdone once again by both Tesla and Nissan in their well published Volt.



According to their website they have 1,000 pre-orders requiring a $5K deposit. That is $5 mil alone in sales. New Mexico was considering purchasing 500 cars, until the auto plant was moved to CA.

Tesla Takes More Than 500 Model S Reservations in a Week

But I am glad to see Nissan jumping on board also!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

The Tesla S is a flat out BEAUTIFUL car no ands ifs or butts. It is aslo has VERY good capabilities. As more and more are sold the price will come down very fast.


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 11, 2009)

Will those pull my boat? Damn. Didn't think so.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Don't get me wrong here. if I had a choice it would be the Tesla hands down , it's beautiful in lines and performance no doubt.  I was pointing out though that from a marketing standpoint its one of availability and  brand name.  The  Tesla will need a Ford or  Toyota name attached to it to have a mass market of the scale that say a Leaf will be sold too. However if they tend to want to stay in a niche market there is no doubt they have come up with a simply  beautiful car.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> Will those pull my boat? Damn. Didn't think so.





So Malibu you just replace ONE of your household cars with a plug in electric.


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm all for better gas mileage cars. but if we all go to electric cars won't that drive up the demand for electric and pollution?  Can our current electrical system handle that? Electric bills go through the roof?

Seems like it might create even worse and more expensive problems to fix and worry about.  Are these good questions? hell I don't know. What say you?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfn1ziZjLJo]YouTube - Bryan Hansel, CEO of Smith Electric Vehicles U.S. Corp, on the Smith Newton[/ame]

I see this technology as  getting better and better , this one doesn't seem to me it would much of a problem in pulling a boat.


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 11, 2009)

The Tesla is a good looking car. Although I can't imagine taken my family of 5 on vacation in that thing.  Great drive around town car though.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Yes the grid can handle it because the VAST majority will be charged during "off peak" hours. I think adding 10-20 nuclear plants would be helpful to going plug in electric.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> I'm all for better gas mileage cars. but if we all go to electric cars won't that drive up the demand for electric and pollution?  Can our current electrical system handle that? Electric bills go through the roof?
> 
> Seems like it might create even worse and more expensive problems to fix and worry about.  Are these good questions? hell I don't know. What say you?



Thats one of the reasons why we need to have an all energy approach IMO Malibu when it comes to power generation. If we  just concentrate on a few technologies then the cost of these cars will be very high in the  rising costs of  utility bills.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Tesla S is a flat out BEAUTIFUL car no ands ifs or butts. It is aslo has VERY good capabilities. As more and more are sold the price will come down very fast.



Tesla is also coming out with their 3rd car, the Blue Star. They want to get the price down to $20-$30K! That is a car everyone in the middle class can afford.

Tesla's 'Bluestar' to be all-electric family car | Green Tech - CNET News

From the same technology base, Tesla intends to develop a series of vehicles including a minivan, coupe, and light pick-up truck which could be used in fleets, Straubel said.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Nearly ZERO maitinance is just one MORE of the benefits of plug in electric.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvzOdYVw6Pw]YouTube - Tesla Sedan Unveiled! Tesla Model S Hits the Road[/ame]


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> Will those pull my boat? Damn. Didn't think so.



Tesla's 'Bluestar' to be all-electric family car | Green Tech - CNET News



> From the same technology base, Tesla intends to develop a series of vehicles including a minivan, coupe, and light pick-up truck which could be used in fleets, Straubel said.



Maybe just keep your boat in water where its supposed to be!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Gawd I LOVE the Tesla S..........If I were in the market for a luxery sedan I would put down a deposit RIGHT NOW!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

I love the thought of blasting past an IC sports car w/o a SOUND


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> I'm all for better gas mileage cars. but if we all go to electric cars won't that drive up the demand for electric and pollution?  Can our current electrical system handle that? Electric bills go through the roof?
> 
> Seems like it might create even worse and more expensive problems to fix and worry about.  Are these good questions? hell I don't know. What say you?



Good questions, but its easier to solve electricity issues a stable sources such as power plants than its for 10s of millions of mobile sources.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

I see VERY few (ligitimate)objections to the Tesla.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

If you like the Tesla you like this one too...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKEijlYSm0U&feature=related]YouTube - Lightning GT EV[/ame]


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTKexaylnt4&NR=1]YouTube - Tesla Roadster Wins Four Car Drag Race[/ame]

Interesting that these EV cars can be fast as well.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Crap that video kept cutting out.........I do LOVE the idea of FOUR SEPERATE motors for each wheel. Can you imagine how sure footed that would be. You could INSTANTLY transfer upto 100% of the power to any one wheel.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHYZz9LzHY]YouTube - High Voltage? Chevy Volt Driven in Detroit[/ame]

This is Edmunds  eval on the Volt which is pretty impressive too.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 11, 2009)

you dont have a clue if you think most americans can afford 35 k for a car...


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> I'm all for better gas mileage cars. but if we all go to electric cars won't that drive up the demand for electric and pollution?  Can our current electrical system handle that? Electric bills go through the roof?
> 
> Seems like it might create even worse and more expensive problems to fix and worry about.  Are these good questions? hell I don't know. What say you?



I have a plan for that also!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1331597-post126.html


Here is the break down of our energy sources:


> Keep Our Fuel Mix Diverse
> Coal - 49%
> Natural Gas - 19.9%
> Nuclear - 19.4%
> ...




GHook's Energy Efficiency, Greenhouse gas reducing Plan:
(1) I agree with Boone, promote solar and wind and get it up at least 25% (up from 3%). I think we are tapped at 7% in hydro. So green renewables are at 32%. Eventually have solar, hydro and wind produce 50% (I know I hope for too much) 
(2) For god's sake increase Nuclear: Use more nuclear power. There is no reason nuclear power shouldn't constitute 50% of our power. Nuclear power produces no emission, no air pollution, no water pollution, no CO2 and produces a ton of energy! France uses it to power its country why don't we. We have plenty of Uranium. And there are methods of recycling toxic waste. I mean how many years are we going to let 3 mile Island scare us into not using nuclear energy.
(3) The last 18% should first be powered via natural gas and the remainder of coal. Therefore if we can get wind and solar to my pipe-dream 25%, keep hydro at 7% and get to what it should be at 50%, with natural gas at 18% you are talking about replacing the biggest culprit in Coal!
(4) I agree with Pickens, upgrade the electricity grid. Its need for a make over. Its vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Efficiency will save money. Ungrading it will provide many long-term high paying jobs. 
(5) Give home owner tax credits for attaching solar panels to their homes. We are already doing this and solar panel are becoming a booming business


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 11, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> MalibuMan said:
> 
> 
> > Will those pull my boat? Damn. Didn't think so.
> ...



LOL. I'm not that fortunate. I wish that was the case.  Norris lake TN is where it would stay.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 11, 2009)

okay lets take 35 k....no interest over 6 years the payment is 584 bucks.  you think that is affordable to the average american?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> The Tesla is a good looking car. Although I can't imagine taken my family of 5 on vacation in that thing.  Great drive around town car though.



Why they claim there is room for 5 adults and 2 children (probably a latch down in the trunk. They also claim its more room than a station wagon. What did they say 300 miles. That could get you a long way, except you better pray you find an outlet when you stop!


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Damn cool car. 0-60 in 4 sec, WOW! However, only 188 miles, only a 2 seater and a price tag of $120 pounds! This car is even more expensive than the Tesla Roadster.'

Lightning GT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Navy1960 said:


> If you like the Tesla you like this one too...
> 
> YouTube - Lightning GT EV


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

The right wingers will ALWAYS find some fault with plug in electrics. Does it fit 20 people? Can it tow a semi truck trailer? Can it go 5,000 miles w/o a charge? Can it FLOAT? Will it make my penis larger? et al.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> YouTube - Tesla Roadster Wins Four Car Drag Race
> 
> Interesting that these EV cars can be fast as well.



They all seem to be very fast, because they don't need to gear shift.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

That and they have 100% of torque from zero RPM.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> YouTube - High Voltage? Chevy Volt Driven in Detroit
> 
> This is Edmunds  eval on the Volt which is pretty impressive too.



I agree its a damn cool car and glup dare I say savior?

I just wish the guy doing the piece was a little more lively!


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The right wingers will ALWAYS find some fault with plug in electrics. Does it fit 20 people? Can it tow a semi truck trailer? Can it go 5,000 miles w/o a charge? Can it FLOAT? Will it make my penis larger? et al.



Wait wait, the electric car won't make my penis bigger, that's it I am jumping ship. Back to worshiping gas motors for me!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Oh I forgot it has to go 200MPH handle like a go cart one go from 100-0 in 20 feet. Oh it has to FLY because WTF would you buy a car that can't fly!!??


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Well cold I hate to burst your bubble here *laughs* but I'm a republican and see nothing at all wrong with these  EV cars and trucks in fact it's my belief that with this sort of technology in conjunction with the application of  an overall energy plan that uses nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, clean coal, and basically every other  energy source we have  it will give this nation finally a ticket to tell OPEC  goodbye. There are several things that are positive in this and one is the sheer number of jobs that such a plan would  bring to this nation should it be allowed to come online.  Still others, would be to take the power of funding away from these nations that don't like us so much.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Yeah for any truly MASCULINE man it has to be big as fuck get 2 MPG and has to make his penis bigger. For the rest of us who are SECURE in our masculinity just looking cool as hell and going 0-60 in under 4 seconds is enough.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Well cold I hate to burst your bubble here *laughs* but I'm a republican and see nothing at all wrong with these  EV cars and trucks in fact it's my belief that with this sort of technology in conjunction with the application of  an overall energy plan that uses nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, clean coal, and basically every other  energy source we have  it will give this nation finally a ticket to tell OPEC  goodbye. There are several things that are positive in this and one is the sheer number of jobs that such a plan would  bring to this nation should it be allowed to come online.  Still others, would be to take the power of funding away from these nations that don't like us so much.





I dare say you are the exception not the rule but I have to say I agree 100% with this post.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Had a guy complain that he likes the sound of a V-8........I told him I would put in a CD of a beefed up 12 cylinder and crank it up so he can hear me fly by him.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy.........I think the stim should have been ONLY for infrastructure improvements among them the Gov't should build 10-20 new NEXT GEN nuclear power plants and then lease them to power cos. What are your thoughts on this proposal?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

MalibuMan said:


> I'm all for better gas mileage cars. but if we all go to electric cars won't that drive up the demand for electric and pollution?  Can our current electrical system handle that? Electric bills go through the roof?
> 
> Seems like it might create even worse and more expensive problems to fix and worry about.  Are these good questions? hell I don't know. What say you?



Tesla Motors - environmental benefits
Tesla is stating that many of its Roadster customer install solar panels to there garage or where every they will store the car and power up their car via solar power!


----------



## MalibuMan (Aug 11, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Well cold I hate to burst your bubble here *laughs* but I'm a republican and see nothing at all wrong with these  EV cars and trucks in fact it's my belief that with this sort of technology in conjunction with the application of  an overall energy plan that uses nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, clean coal, and basically every other  energy source we have  it will give this nation finally a ticket to tell OPEC  goodbye. There are several things that are positive in this and one is the sheer number of jobs that such a plan would  bring to this nation should it be allowed to come online.  Still others, would be to take the power of funding away from these nations that don't like us so much.
> ...




I agree with both of you on this too.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Well cold I hate to burst your bubble here *laughs* but I'm a republican and see nothing at all wrong with these  EV cars and trucks in fact it's my belief that with this sort of technology in conjunction with the application of  an overall energy plan that uses nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, clean coal, and basically every other  energy source we have  it will give this nation finally a ticket to tell OPEC  goodbye. There are several things that are positive in this and one is the sheer number of jobs that such a plan would  bring to this nation should it be allowed to come online.  Still others, would be to take the power of funding away from these nations that don't like us so much.



I don't necessarily consider myself a Republican, but I voted Republican nearly across the board in the last election. And I plan to vote Republican in 2010 nearly across the board again!


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

There is a lot to be said to these small reactors and the development of  reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as well. If the Govt. spent the money to develop these and then let's say for example leased the power produced from them to the grid  and used that money as a means to pay for them as well as pay down any debt owed  it's my contention something like that is well within the framework of the Govts. power as it applies to interstate commerce.  The average nuclear facility employs  700 to 1000 people on a perm basis and  employs anywhere for  5 to 7000 in the construction phase.  If you apply some sort of solution like that along with let's say the application of  individual solar arrays in new home construction you have made a big dent.  This sort of thing is not pie in the sky thinking its  current technology and can be done with a little  vision on the part of those that represent us.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GzE089LiKc]YouTube - Mini Nuclear Power Generator[/ame]


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

We would untimately put millions back to work by having the cheapest energy in the world.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Just take a look at the sheer numbers involved with Palo Verde nuclear generating station, employee's , power generation etc.  Thats here in Arizona, and  supplies enough power for over 4 million homes.  If the Govt. invested  money in a reprocessing facility in conjunction with these new  nuke plants then stupid ideas like Yucca Mtn would never  be needed.  While I  am strong advocate for nuclear power whoever came up with the idea for spending  billions on Yucca Mtn, must work for the  economic planning dept. for Amtrak.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

This topic should be kept going.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

I have long advocated this  actually  Cold as a solution for our nation and it's energy needs.. What I also believe is that this will also satisfy those with environmental concerns as well as those that are not overly concerned with environmental issues but are with jobs.  It's my belief that we can as a nation come up with a solution to our energy needs  and do so in a safe  manner that does not require massive amounts of Govt. intervention rather  using Govt. as a partner to stimulate  this explosion of  technology that can happen should  Govt. just open the gates.  Let me cite an example of how Govt. does not act in a very smart way.  There a re literally 100's and 100's of farmers and  many more people that depend on water in California for irrigation. However because environmental groups have convinced the Govt. to shut off the pumps in favor of keeping minnows alive  , those  peoples lives are  in dire straights and can be fixed with one  line in a bill that says " pumps are hereby allowed to be turned on" . As long as we have these sorts of policies that do not have the best interests of the people in mind we will suffer at the hands of  nations belonging to OPEC.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 11, 2009)

I have to tell you Navy that we must be very careful allowing species to become extinct as it can have a cacading effect on larger animals in the eco-system.


I also think we could deal with a number of problems with farms by growing industrial hemp. It's a WEED grows like a weed but can be used for a great number of things including bio-diesel.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

While I understand the reasoning, IMO these sorts of things need to be tempered or at the very least looked at as  not only how they might be of a benefit to the animals they impact but the  people they impact. No offense but congress represents the interests of the people and any animals needs  takes a back seat to that interest and it's my belief that these environmental groups sometimes forget that in their zeal to save these eco-systems they have a real impact on real peoples lives.  If they truley meant to save the environment then they can do it through educating these farmers on how to farm in a more eco-friendly way rather than advocate ending their way of life, see what I mean?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 11, 2009)

Navy, we once took 2 million salmon out of the Colombia, and had no impact on the salmon. Today, a run in the tens of thousands is a reason for celebration. Those salmon are food. We have destroyed a major food resource.

Now, an electric car that had a home with a solar roof would allow the home owner to be his own fuel source. Cost, well, see the science and technology board for what a small company in Oregon is doing.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 11, 2009)

NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.

The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.

Currently the focus of the AGW theories is on CO2 emissions. Well, that's certainly a convenient devil, it's at least what, 18th on the list of greenhouse gases? Far behind the thousands of times more potent and dangerous NF3? But CO2 IS the one which is emitted by combustion of fossil fuels -- that evil oil and gas stuff.

Well, if the science is settled and there's no room for debate, let's get serious about it! Let's immediately ban ALL manufacture and use of CO2 for entertainment purposes -- fake "smoke" at rock concerts, sporting events, wrestling events, Hollywood special effects... Soda pop carbonation, paint ball guns, any and all toys... also for uses where it's been superseded, such as water treatment, fire fighting.... If it's REALLY so bad these are the cheapest, easiest and fastest ways to stop millions of tons of it from going into the atmosphere every year.

Lets just get the fuck off foreign oil by NOT buying it anymore! Let's do that NOW. The free marketplace will come up with viable, economic alternatives real fast, and we'll bankrupt our enemies instead of financing them.

Also while we're at it, let's get that NF3 stopped by redesigning manufacturing processes so they don't produce and emit this highly dangerous for the environment gas. NF3 -- nitrogen trifluoride -- is a compound used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, solar panels and is 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Also stays in the atmosphere 800 times longer than CO2, yet you never hear anything about it, because it's not a product of fossil fuels combustion.

THESE are things they would do, and be calling for, if they really truly themselves believed in their own cause. But they don't, the cause is simply an excuse to gain more control over people's lives.

The "science was settled" that the Jews were inferior and had to go, too. What a convenient devil they were to Nazi Germany! Those who fail to learn the hard lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

By far the most towering idiocy of environmentalism is the harm to the environment most all "alternatives" do:

*Lighting's dirty little secret*: The swirly florescent bulbs that will by law be required, as incandescent bulbs are banned? Mercury. Where's it all gonna go, from the billions of these discarded? Into the groundwater! Love it!

*Wind power's dirty little secret*: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!

Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!

*Dirty little secret of solar*: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more. 

*Dirty little secret of Hydrogen*: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...

*Dirty little secrets of Ethanol*: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!

*Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion*: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!

It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 11, 2009)

Don't get me wrong here Rocks, I understand the need to be  aware of  conservation when it comes to one's environment.  However I do think that it can be done  in such a way especially today that recognizes the economic impact of the citizens  as well as  the need to be good stewards of the the environment.  I am not a fan of this all or nothing mentality that basically does not take into consideration peoples lives especially when if these groups approached it  as an educational issue and worked together with the groups they wish to change habits i.e. farmers, they might find them more wiling  to change. see what I mean?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Now, an electric car that had a home with a solar roof would allow the home owner to be his own fuel source. Cost, well, see the science and technology board for what a small company in Oregon is doing.



LOL, that is what Tesla is promoting. The solar pannel business for residential and commerical building is actually a booming business.

With liberals in control of the government, how long until they require all new homes to have solar panels installed?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 12, 2009)

Are we just supposed to take your word for it! Refrigerators and air conditioners used to be made with CFCs, now they are not! Its called innovations! The first electric cars will have flaws no doubt, but wait until we have 10 years of electric cars and we will be set.



Midnight Marauder said:


> NO ONE wants a polluted planet. That fallacy is an ad-hom card the EnviroNazis love to play. If you're against AGW, you're a "denier" and like pollution. You don't care about the planet. All that rot. It's just typical attempts to quash debate. To squelch observations and even data. NONE of that is part of science, or the quest for knowledge.
> 
> The truth is, we do not know nor can we ever know all the effects of pollution. The ecosystem is so complex, our understanding of it is still in its infancy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 12, 2009)

The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 12, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.



Always happens with new technologies. They always start out very expensive and the price goes down at they start to perfect it. Remember the first cell phone! LOL, the first ones were 100 fold more expensive that they are now.

Take the Motorola Dyna TAC:
The DynaTAC's retail price, $3,995 and I believe they paid upward of $2 a minute!

Motorola DynaTAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








What you will see with the Volt, the Model S, Nissan's, Chysler, Ford's. Honda's, Mistubshi etc., in other words the first generation of electric cars, be bought up by the upper middle class and upper class people first. Second generation will be more middle classers. Third generation will all the middle class, with the lower class buying the used 1st generation autos. 

The revolution starts in 2010, the revolution will be completed by 2020! My kids will laugh at when I tell them stories about their old man's gas powered car and they will say I couldn't imagine such a thing! Probably the same thing when the generations started to switch from horse and buggy to cars!


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.
> ...



Oh I agree.  And with those big phones, they were so heavy and clunky AND expensive..  

I just love the look of that VOLT.  It's kind of small but it looks sturdy and so high tech.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Are we just supposed to take your word for it!


You can either do that or google it yourself. The result will be the same. However it's obvious you didn't even read what I posted.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 12, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.



The slated cost of the Nissan Leaf Sarah is around 28 to 34 K that puts it in the Toyota  Prius territory.  If this is true, then while if you ask me  thats still a lot, in the scheme of things considering your yearly fuel bill will be basically zero , and whatever the offset is in your utility bill is  it might not be all that bad. However, it's still a lot more expensive than  a lot of other high milage car's .


----------



## Sarah G (Aug 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.
> ...



You make a good point there.  I really like Nissan too...  

I see a lot of Prius cars on the road lately, have you looked at them?


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 12, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Are we just supposed to take your word for it!
> ...



I read your bullet points, but that was it. The person that makes the claim should back up the research with proof, not the other way around.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 12, 2009)

Sarah G said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



You might be surprised at the sheer number of hybrid  cars that owe their existance to technology developed  around the  Prius  platform Sarah.  In fact Ford spent quite a lot on toyota for it's own hybrid development.  While I honestly don't care  much for the looks of the Prius and the way it's laid out. I especially don't like the center layout of the instrument cluster because in my opnion it takes the drivers eyes off the road.  Actually when I see one we have sort of a running joke between my daughter and I on the Prius " there goes an upsidedown bathtub" .  It is however from a mechanical standpoint a well developed car and deserves all the accolades it gets.

The preliminary agreement between Ford and Aisin AW Co. marks a change in strategy for Toyota, whose U.S. partner up to now has been General Motors Corp. It also emphasizes the growing need among the world's top automakers to develop new partnerships to keep up with cost-cutting pressures and technological advances.

Aisin AW plans to supply Ford with electric motors for use in 10,000 to 20,000 gas-electric hybrid vehicles a year beginning in 2003, according to an Aisin AW spokesman, Hirotake Kondo. Mr. Kondo said that a final contract hasn't been signed. Aisin AW is a subsidiary of Aisin Seiki Co., a major auto-parts maker.
Ford To Buy Hybrid Engine Parts From Toyota Affiliate | Autoparts Report | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The Volt is an awesome car but too expensive right now.
> ...


Do you understand how stupid this analogy is?

You're _seriously_ comparing electronics with automobiles?

Automobiles haven't gotten any cheaper -- it's quite the opposite. They are also much more labor intensive to build, and they are far more complex than a cellphone.

If you _think_ for just a second, you'll realize you're not comparing apples to apples, you're comparing apples to the _human body_.

What a stupid, and intellectually sloppy comparison.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 12, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


There were no "bullet points" merely statements of fact which you cannot challenge, so you ignore them.

If you're going to take the time to respond to it, try actually READING what I said:

Clicky


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 12, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I'm comparing new technologies. Cell phones started very expensive and got cheaper very quick and then the price increased since then.

Same with any technology, starts out very expensive, then decreases and then starts the price up surge!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 12, 2009)

Hey any of you Neo-Cons want to tell us why having at least ONE of your houshold cars be a polug in electric ?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 13, 2009)

Nobody?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 13, 2009)

Well Cold I'm old so I don't know if the word neo ever applies to me  but I have been accused of being a republican a time or two * laughs* , so I will try an answer okay? I have no problems with  a plug-in hybrid in fact it's my opinion that these types of  car's are  indeed  a major part in finally  being able to tell the likes of OPEC to take  a long walk off a short pier. They represent one block in a number of blocks needed in a national enegry solution that's actually very seemless  in my opinion as far as  basica transportation goes. If it's a matter of styling and  speed that as many can see has been overcome with the likes of the TESLA and lightning.  So don't always assume that every republican or con is opposed to a  plug-in solution  in fact as I have had this conversation with you in the past,  you are aware  it's my contention that if thise nation promotes this, and an all-in program when it comes to domestic energy production and  does so by accepting all views rather than a narrow view then we will finally be able to control our own destiny as far as energy goes. I can't tell you in a lot of ways how may benefits this will have  not just obvious ones, but ones where we will no longer providing a financial source for organizations that fund terrorist groups around the world just to name a few.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 13, 2009)

Well Navy you used the term plug in HYBRID which is NOT what I am talking about. I HATE hybrids as they take an already complex IC engine and ties it to an electric motor. Plug in electric on the other hand is a VERY simple piece of equip as far as how many systems it has that have to work together as a whole. BATTERY, MOTOR, CONTROL UNIT, and basics like suspension brakes and so forth.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 13, 2009)

Well Cold after reading my post  assume there is an or between the  plug-in and the hybrid. As my posting applies to both of them. In fact you know and I know the TESLA and the Lightning  are both all EV's.  As for hybrids,  I see them as  bridge technologies  and as such these sorts of technologies  have a very useful purpose to bridge the time gap as the EV technology matures.  One other purpose it serves is while doing so, it allows for what I had posted previously to come about sooner rather than waiting. You know as well as I  that while about 50% of all driving is less that 100 miles , today most of the these EV's will go about 300 miles.  So while we wait to increase that some , these  Hybrids too serve a purpose.  So forgive the "or" omission there Cold.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh and by the way Navy you strike me as a moderate Rep which I have no problem with at all. I think you present you views in a calm and well reasoned fasion. I hope we have more discusions because discusion is what is so lacking on these forums.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 13, 2009)

Actually Navy I think the number of people who drive less than 100 miles a day is more like 80%.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 13, 2009)

I was taking that from some USDOT talking head. I'm sure it could be  higher  perhaps, would be an interesting stat. However if your GM you say the figure is more like 78%.  So perhaps it is, and if so thats a good thing in my opinion and a bigger selling point for these EV cars. 

A central factor in the Chevy Volt&#8217;s engineering design is that it can be driven for up to 40 miles on electric power only. A lot of electric car enthusiasts and manufacturers have come up with varying ranges for their vehicles. An example of this is the fact that the Tesla Roadster is designed to get about 250 miles on electric range.

Obviously GM wants to keep the Volt affordable and so arrived at a sweet spot figure of 40 miles. This distance was determined be achievable with a battery of 16 kWH weighing about 400 pounds in car similar in weight, size, and performance of the Chevy Cobalt.

GM cites the statistic that 78% of commuters drive less than 40 miles per day. The graphic above is the official GM slide referring to that data.I was able to locate the original study from which the information was gleaned.
How Did GM determine that 78% of Commuters Drive Less Than 40 miles per day? | GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site

I found that for you..

I personally cannot see any aversion in these EV cars, it would seem to me if people have no problem charging their cell phones, lap-tops, razors, etc, to transition to a car would seem not that much of a leap.  The one thing that would need to be done if these EV cars take off and it looks like they will is a big big upgrade  in the energy production in this nation and personally I can only see that as a positive thing.


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 13, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey any of you Neo-Cons want to tell us why having at least ONE of your houshold cars be a polug in electric ?



I hope its soon becomes all cars in the household!

Why is it good:
(1) No foreign oil! Foreign is one of the leading culprits of our trade deficit. We get strong armed by rogue nations like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia (although we don't receive oil from them) and Iran (ditto). Not to mention OPEC cripples us. Our oil addiction effects our foreign policy. Oil gives countries like Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela (honestly who would give a shit about Hugo Fat Ass's opinion if he didn't have oil) and Russia. No foreign oil would be like an economic nuclear bomb against these countries.

(2) No CO2 emissions with electric cars. Look I am becoming more and more skeptical on global warming, but it is still better to caution, esp if its something that won't hurt the economy, but will in fact help it.

(3) Oil is a commodity and when it goes up it effects everyone. No one foreign commodity should be so powerful that it can effect economy to such a great degree.

(4) Ending Oil ends Iran, Venezuela and Russia's economic power! Each one lives and dies with the price of oil. Imagine where they would be if oil decrease to less than a dollar? 

(5) Oil is a fossil Fuel and nonrenewable. Its will eventually be used up. Better to get off it now when we have plenty of it, rather than when we have none of it left!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2009)

Tech Esq, in the thread Game Changer points out that the answer for very much cheaper electrical storage may already be here. Should that be the case, the objections to the electrics will be moot. The only reason that people are not buying these in great numbers is cost. As cheap high efficiency solar appears to be in our immediate future, storage and generation both seem to be solved for the home owner.


----------



## Hemperor (Aug 14, 2009)

I NEVER WANT or NEED a COAL-POWERED CAR. 
Nor NUCLEAR-POWERED CAR. Do BRAKES CHARGE BATTERY YET ? Ju$t $pinning Wheels $HOULD CHARGE $ome

Nikola Tesla's Flying-Machione www DOT LOD DOT org
www DOT Hemp4Fuel DOT com

Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes/UK &#8216;must release&#8217; Iraq war files
UN official: Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes

Killing over a million people is Genocide.

Also there are the deaths an injuries suffered by the soldiers who were sent to the illegal war.

The list of crimes is quite extensive.

There is also the abuse of power. I would even call it treason.

No one should ever again, be allowed to commit these types of crimes and those who did, certainly should not go free. They are criminals.

David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster January 26, 2009

Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak told CNN&#8217;s Rick Sanchez that the US has an &#8220;obligation&#8221; to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

&#8220;We have clear evidence,&#8221; he said. &#8220;In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, &#8216;Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.&#8217; So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture.&#8221;

Asked during an interview with Germany&#8217;s ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: &#8220;I think the evidence is on the table.&#8221;

At issue, however, is whether &#8220;American law will recognize these forms of torture.&#8221;

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

There is a video at the source as well.

Source

UK &#8216;must release&#8217; Iraq war files

January 28, 2009

The British government has been ordered to release the minutes of crucial ministerial meetings from 2003 at which the United States-led invasion of Iraq was discussed.

The information tribunal, which hears appeals under Britain&#8217;s data protection act, backed a decision to disclose minutes of cabinet meetings from March 13 and 17, where ministers held talks about whether the decision to go to war was allowed under international law.

The tribunal said: &#8220;We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not&#8230; outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

The cabinet office has 28 days to decide whether to appeal against the ruling.

Announcing its decision on Tuesday, the tribunal said: &#8220;The decision to commit the nation&#8217;s armed forces to the invasion of another country is momentous in its own right, and&#8230; its seriousness is increased by the criticisms that have been made of the general decision-making processes in the cabinet at the time.&#8221;

A spokesman for Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said: &#8220;We are considering our response&#8221;.

Blair criticised

Tony Blair, prime minister at the time of the invasion, was widely criticised for backing George Bush, the then US president, in invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein despite failing to secure a second United Nations resolution on the matter.

Ministerial discussions focused notably on Peter Goldsmith&#8217;s, the then attorney general, advice on the legality of war.

Blair&#8217;s government strongly resisted demands for the advice of its most senior legal adviser to be made public, until a large section was leaked during the 2005 general election campaign.

Goldsmith then denied ministers pressured him into changing his mind to rule that invading Iraq would be legal in international law even without a second UN security council resolution.

The information tribunal said that &#8220;there has&#8230; been criticism of the attorney general&#8217;s legal advice and of the particular way in which the March 17 opinion was made available to the cabinet only at the last moment and the March 7 opinion was not disclosed to it at all.&#8221;

The tribunal ruling backed up an earlier decision by Richard Thomas, the information commissioner.

Thomas said: &#8220;I am pleased that the tribunal has upheld my decision that the public interest in disclosing the official cabinet minutes in this particular case outweighs the public interest in withholding the information.

&#8220;Disclosing the minutes will allow the public to more fully understand this particular decision.&#8221;

Source

Blair and his cohorts should be tried for war crimes as well.

Others in the Bush Administration as well as Bush, should also be charged with war crimes and crimes against Humanity.

The weapons alone that were used, are one good place to start.

The war was based on fabricated information and lies.

Torture was condoned. Killing over a million people is Genocide.

Also there are the deaths an injuries suffered by the soldiers who were sent to the illegal war.

The list of crimes is quite extensive.

There is also the abuse of power. I would even call it treason.

No one should ever again, be allowed to commit these types of crimes and those who did, certainly should not go free. They are criminals.

Obama Revokes Bush Executive Order on Presidential Archives
Obama shuts network of CIA &#8216;ghost prisons&#8217;
Indexed List of all Stories in Archives
Published in: crime waron at 4:02 am Comments Off
Tags: Bush, crimes against humanity, fabricated information, illegal war, lies, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, torture, UK, United Nations Special Rapporteur, war crimes,

weapons of mass desperation


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 14, 2009)

First Hemperor welcome to USMB, and second, perhaps the things you are stating would be better debated in a different thread other than one that is discussing  EV car's?  While your concerns on what sort of car you do not want are  yours, it' worth noting that as these  EV car's and trucks become more and more available  they will indeed be charged by the very technologies  that you have posted and there is no way to get around that. One of the things we have discussed on here is perhaps an overall solution that includes not only upgrading these technologies in conjunction with the introduction of these EV car's but also a concentrated effort on a grid that supports it. As for the other things you posted again, there are several threads on USMB that discuss the very things you posted and I'm sure many here would find  them worthy of debate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2009)

EEStor, the company behind the ultralight, ultra-efficient &#8211; and ultra secret &#8211; EEStor Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) that could change the electric car world, still isn't giving out much information about their product. But Ian Clifford, the CEO of Zenn Motors, is talking.

First, some numbers. The EESU could be a 52kwh pack that provides a 250-mile range and only weigh 280 pounds. ZENN now owns 10.7 percent of EEStor, up from 3.8 percent. Thanks to EEStor's recent permittivity announcements, ZENN has paid EEStor another $700,000. 

Now, the intangibles. Clifford told GM-Volt.com that he sees the EESU prototypes "on a regular basis" and is waiting for a production prototype to be delivered by the end of this year. Clifford said that there is a "full production facility" at EEStor's pilot production plant. Possible in-vehicle application of the EESU could be around 600V, which Clifford says, "increases the drive efficiency, it makes the components somewhat smaller, and ultimately less expensive and obviously for mass commercialization." He couldn't say if he's actually seen one of the production EESU's, claiming non-disclosure agreements. He did promise, "absolutely," that demonstrations will take place in 2010. Read more at GM-Volt.com.

EESTor update from ZENN CEO Ian Clifford; demonstrations coming in 2010 &mdash; Autoblog Green


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2009)

over 450 watt hours per kilogram and over 700 watt hours per liter, charge in minutes, and, for all practical vehicular purposes, last indefinitely.&#8221; As well the company said it expects to offer the EESU in &#8220;a variety of electric propulsion systems for use in electric bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, and three-wheeled vehicles.&#8221;

They say they plan to offer a bike with a 1 kwh EESU weighing less than 5 pounds that will propel the bike over 100 miles.

EEStor Rides Again, This Time on a Bike | GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2009)

I am looking at the weight and volume figures on Eestor's caps, and, if they can truly deliver on that, then it would make good sense to retrofit large vehicles like pickups and vans to electric power, using hub motors. For a unit with equal weight to the engine, transmission, driveline, and third member, one could have a range of well over 500 miles.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 14, 2009)

GHook93 said:


> Its a cool looking car that gets 230 miles to the gallon. However, the gas engine does kick into until after 40 miles. Meaning you run entirely gas/oil free for the first 40 miles. See below the average round trip commute is 32 miles, meaning most Americans would run gas free most days. Before they get home and are able to charge their cars! Obvious some in the city would be screwed, but this would help many Americans.
> 
> Its coming out in 2010, with a price tag of $40K with a $7,500 government credit the car will be $32.5K, which is affordable to most Americans, esp when you take gas prices out of the equations.
> Chevrolet Volt's official fuel economy: 230 mpg - Aug. 11, 2009
> ...



Until you can get around that whole thermodynamics thing, we will never be rid of foreign oil.

Though more gas milage is a good thing.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 14, 2009)

I thought you all might find this interesting  in the debate over fossil fuels. We all know that in the commercial aviation industry uses fossil fuels at a big rate. so I have two articles that I thought you all might enjoy that basically shows that technology does exist to move this nation away from owing it's life to OPEC and IMHO these are the sorts of things  that this nation needs to be investing in heavily to repidly move this nations energy production back to this nation..

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2009) &#8212; NASA and 11 other research groups are testing two non-petroleum-based jet fuels in the pursuit of alternative fuels that can power commercial jets and address rising oil costs.
Alternative Jet Fuels Put To The Test

On May 14, 1961, the world's first nuclear ramjet engine, "Tory-IIA," mounted on a railroad car, roared to life for just a few seconds. Three years later, "Tory-IIC" was run for five minutes at full power, producing 513 megawatts and the equivalent of over 35,000 pounds force (156 kN) thrust[citation needed]. But despite these and other successful tests the Pentagon, sponsor of the "Pluto project," had second thoughts; Intercontinental ballistic missile technology had proved to be more easily developed than previously thought, reducing the need for such highly capable cruise missiles. On July 1, 1964, seven years and six months after it was born, "Project Pluto" was cancelled.
Project Pluto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The  latter  technology existed over 40 years ago, and can you imagine how far along this nation could have been had these technologies been allowed to develop over a 40 year time span?


----------



## mdn2000 (Sep 27, 2009)

Hemperor said:


> I NEVER WANT or NEED a COAL-POWERED CAR.
> Nor NUCLEAR-POWERED CAR. Do BRAKES CHARGE BATTERY YET ? Ju$t $pinning Wheels $HOULD CHARGE $ome
> 
> Nikola Tesla's Flying-Machione www DOT LOD DOT org
> ...



This was a joke right.

again if you produce it you produced pollution you did not have to, build homes within walking distance of work, problem solved.

Every dollar you spend on a new vehicle is a dollar more of pollution you created, its that simple, its actually more pollution with the tax subsidies that hides the real cost.


----------

