Save the planet - buy an electric car

[Rigby5]

But the reality is that gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, and hydrogen combustion for transportation produce far less emissions than electric vehicles.

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores.

What makes you think EPA ignores it?

Do you know how MPGe is estimated and have specific objections we can adjust those numbers by? Where do you get all these assertions from, just top of your head?

I know how to calculate efficiency. I has a bachelor's degree in physics. While external combustion is slightly more efficient than internal combustion, it is only slightly. And that is more than offset by the increased weight of batteries.
You can tell they are fudging the number also because they don't allow people to realize only bio fuel actually reduced emissions and does not add any at all.
One of the reasons their numbers are invalid is that fossil fuel is cheating in that no one pays for the original energy. It is essentially free, from the sun. That actually is no different than solar or wind. We could easily make fossil fuels as clean as we wanted, but we just don't want to spend the money. Using the fossil fuels to make electricity is not the best at all, but just what car makers want for profits. Hydrogen makes more sense in terms of utility and being clean.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.
First of all, most electricity is actually made from burning coal, so is the dirtiest fuel use possible.
Sure you can claim 134 mpg if you could use wind generators, but that is not practical.
Second is that they do not count the inefficiency when producing the electricity, transmitting it, storing it, retrieving it, or converting it back to kinetic energy.
The reality is that with all those layers of loss, you need to actually produce over 5 times as much electricity as you actually use.

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

You have an old, out of date list. I live in Mesa County. Cameo and Nucla are in Mesa County. Both no longer have Coal Fired power plants. Both have been shut down years ago. The list is from 2012. In fact, the list was already out of date in 2012 since Cameo was shut down in the early 2000s. You want to visit Cameo today?
About Cameo Shooting and Education Complex


There is a lot of things going on there including industry but not one bit of coal is being shipped there anymore. And not one KW of power is generated there as well.

Does not matter. CO still produces more electricity with coal than anything else, and within 20 years will have to switch to ALL coal. Natural gas is not cleaner since fracking releases way too much into the atmosphere and water table. And we have 10 times more coal than natural gas and oil combined.

There is nothing to argue about.
Coal simply is the ONLY long range alternative, unless we invent fusion or something we don't have yet.

It's funny, not one single updated list is out there to be had. The most recent one is from 2013 yet there has been a whole bunch of coal plants shut down since then. There is a very good reason. If the shutdowns had not or did not happen,Colorado would have failed the EPA air standards test in 2020. Here is a state that brags about clean air and yet it couldn't even meet air quality standards any better than NYC. I remember the Coal Fired Industries in Western Colorado before they got rid of the Coal. If you believe the air was clean, go out after a heavy snow. The Snow would be black.

In the early 1970s, they forced Holly Sugar (I worked there before being forced into the Military like many others) to convert to Natural Gas. Then the price of Natural Gas went way up and they were told they could go back to Coal except they would have to install scrubbers to meet the clean air standards. The cost of installing and operating the scrubbers were not cost effective and the cost of operating Natural Gas at the time was not cost effective either. Of course, the price for natural gas went way down later. They shut the factory down and it put the entire 130 miles of farm land into a death spiral. Then the Coal industry was hit and hit hard, there went the rest of it. If it weren't for Tourism that whole area would have blown away.

Coal is a viable source except to clean it up, the scrubbers are too expensive to use. You have to filter out the really nasty chemicals that it puts out. You can do it with filters of some kind but that gets really expensive. Or you can do it without the filters and breath the black air and eat the black snow.

Black snow is NOT dangerous emissions.
Particulates are heavy, so quickly settle out and do almost no harm at all.
The dangerous emissions are the ones you can't see and never leave, like CO2 that will essentially last forever, and accumulate. About the only way to remove CO2 is by photosynthesis.

And by the way, scrubber are NOT too expensive to use.
They are for collecting sulfur, which is then sold for a profit.

Natural gas is still not cost effective, but they simply are not yet paying for all the harm fracking does.
Coal burning is 10 times cleaner than fracking.

 

[Rigby5]

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Even that list is out of date. Cameo was completely disassembled in 2007. It was shut down in 2003. That was the year the Truck stop there shut it's motel and diner down. The Gas Station or quick stop is still there but that's about it. Those dates are disassembly dates, not shutdown links. Most were converted to Natural Gas. But when you had a multiple of plants clustered, you normally would convert one and shut the rest down since one Natural Gas Plant was much more efficient than multiple coal plants.

Irrelevant.
Natural gas is not at all cleaner because of the emissions from fracking.
And there simply is not enough natural gas.
We will all be back to coal in 20 years.

Then I guess they had better get busy on some of the other alternate energy ideas. LockMart has a pretty good one that should be online before than that pretty well does away with Coal, Natural Gas and others. Fusion Energy is working in small models and only has to be scaled up. Yes, Dorathy, Science Fiction does become real.

I am unaware of any Lockeed Martin energy achievement breakthroughs?
I also have never heard of fusion being viable yet?

I suspect the reason fusion is not being allowed to be viable is that they need to find a way that could not then also be used as a weapon. For example, if they found a way to do Mr. Fusion in a suitcase like in "Back to the Future", like with a laser, how easy would it be to make a weapon out of that?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Lol I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you if you really belive that.

Model 3 has 134 MPG equivalent.
Civic (a much lower powered car) gets 30mpg.

So what you are saying is straight nonsence.

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

You say it's not accurate? Ok explain why you think that.

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores.

What makes you think EPA ignores it?

Do you know how MPGe is estimated and have specific objections we can adjust those numbers by? Where do you get all these assertions from, just top of your head?

I know how to calculate efficiency. I has a bachelor's degree in physics. While external combustion is slightly more efficient than internal combustion, it is only slightly. And that is more than offset by the increased weight of batteries.
You can tell they are fudging the number also because they don't allow people to realize only bio fuel actually reduced emissions and does not add any at all.
One of the reasons their numbers are invalid is that fossil fuel is cheating in that no one pays for the original energy. It is essentially free, from the sun. That actually is no different than solar or wind. We could easily make fossil fuels as clean as we wanted, but we just don't want to spend the money. Using the fossil fuels to make electricity is not the best at all, but just what car makers want for profits. Hydrogen makes more sense in terms of utility and being clean.

Sorry, I don't have a degree in Physics or even a Degree in Agricuture Engineering. I only spent the first 19 years of my life doing i. Bio Fuel is not free either. For instance, Growing Corn is an ecological Disaster if done at a high rate. With Ethanol being added to gasoline from 10 to 20% for each gallon sold, there is a disappropriate amount of corn that has to be grown. And it's a huge cash crop. Short term solution to farmers but it pays so good. Sort of like growing too much soybeans when the market is bananas when trading with China. Sooner or later you will have to let the ground rest and then get another type of crop in to offset the affects the corn has taken from the soil. Fertilizer only slows down the process.

If Corn were allowed to grow wild (it would die) it would be a beneficial crop. It has a high CO2 absorbsion rate. The problem is, to get a viable crop you need to add nitrates and burn a lot of fossil fuels to get it to grow. That means the benefits are far outweighed by the negatives for the environment. Someone sold us all a bill of goods on adding ethanol to gasoline was cleaner to the environment. By the time you take into all the factors of corn production and refining ethanol, it's a dirtier fuel than Gasoline. And it takes 20% more per gallon to get the same output. Biofuel is NOT the answer. It brings up more questions than viable solutions.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In the state of Colorado, we have ONE, count it, ONE Coal Fired Power Plant left and it's on the chopping block. One out of hundreds. You mean that by law, we all have to drive to just outside Craig,Colorado so we can plug our EVs in and not use the Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind or Natural Gas plants to recharge? I know there are some laws out there to try and kill the electric car but that must be the hardest one of all.

You have to be just parroting what an Oil Company handler told you to say because it's BS from the word go. Coal has been in large decline for the last few years and continues to decline being replaced by the other energy sources. Even today, for Electricity Generation, there is a decline in Natural Gas but Natural Gas still dominates the market. But it's slowly losing ground. Much like Coal did in the 70s to Natural Gas. Right now, Colorado uses about 20% for Solar and Wind for electric power on the grid. Every year, it gets a bigger cut in the market as more and more sites are constructed. This also includes people that have their own systems for their homes where they are linked to the grid and do zero energy or less in a 24 hour period.

As for the energy loss, you are just a little bit correct. But not even close to 5 times. My vehicles run anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient. Meaning, the power going it, you get at least 80% power energy out. You really need to get a better Oil Company Handler. The one you have is an idiot.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

You have an old, out of date list. I live in Mesa County. Cameo and Nucla are in Mesa County. Both no longer have Coal Fired power plants. Both have been shut down years ago. The list is from 2012. In fact, the list was already out of date in 2012 since Cameo was shut down in the early 2000s. You want to visit Cameo today?
About Cameo Shooting and Education Complex


There is a lot of things going on there including industry but not one bit of coal is being shipped there anymore. And not one KW of power is generated there as well.

Does not matter. CO still produces more electricity with coal than anything else, and within 20 years will have to switch to ALL coal. Natural gas is not cleaner since fracking releases way too much into the atmosphere and water table. And we have 10 times more coal than natural gas and oil combined.

There is nothing to argue about.
Coal simply is the ONLY long range alternative, unless we invent fusion or something we don't have yet.

It's funny, not one single updated list is out there to be had. The most recent one is from 2013 yet there has been a whole bunch of coal plants shut down since then. There is a very good reason. If the shutdowns had not or did not happen,Colorado would have failed the EPA air standards test in 2020. Here is a state that brags about clean air and yet it couldn't even meet air quality standards any better than NYC. I remember the Coal Fired Industries in Western Colorado before they got rid of the Coal. If you believe the air was clean, go out after a heavy snow. The Snow would be black.

In the early 1970s, they forced Holly Sugar (I worked there before being forced into the Military like many others) to convert to Natural Gas. Then the price of Natural Gas went way up and they were told they could go back to Coal except they would have to install scrubbers to meet the clean air standards. The cost of installing and operating the scrubbers were not cost effective and the cost of operating Natural Gas at the time was not cost effective either. Of course, the price for natural gas went way down later. They shut the factory down and it put the entire 130 miles of farm land into a death spiral. Then the Coal industry was hit and hit hard, there went the rest of it. If it weren't for Tourism that whole area would have blown away.

Coal is a viable source except to clean it up, the scrubbers are too expensive to use. You have to filter out the really nasty chemicals that it puts out. You can do it with filters of some kind but that gets really expensive. Or you can do it without the filters and breath the black air and eat the black snow.

Black snow is NOT dangerous emissions.
Particulates are heavy, so quickly settle out and do almost no harm at all.
The dangerous emissions are the ones you can't see and never leave, like CO2 that will essentially last forever, and accumulate. About the only way to remove CO2 is by photosynthesis.

And by the way, scrubber are NOT too expensive to use.
They are for collecting sulfur, which is then sold for a profit.

Natural gas is still not cost effective, but they simply are not yet paying for all the harm fracking does.
Coal burning is 10 times cleaner than fracking.

If it comes down black in the snow, you are breathing it. And you are breathing in other things as well. Tell you strump employer that one old coal country boy ain't buying the line.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.
{...
Colorado has 33 operating coal-fired power units at 14 locations totaling 5,308 megawatts (MW).
...}
Category:Existing coal plants in Colorado - SourceWatch
And people who think we are going to get rid of coal are not thinking.
Not only does fracking natural gas product many times more pollution than coal, but we have less than 20 years of natural gas and oil left, while we have many hundreds of years of coal.

Solar and wind can NEVER be more than 20% because it is not reliable. There are too many conditions that make it so you can't count on it. Sunlight and wind come and go. They are not alwys there.

And you are clearly wrong. Electric motors are only 80% efficient. Each step from generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting back to kinetic are all only about 80% efficient. So you have to multiply them all together for total waste. And total is less than 50%, which diesels can easily beat. Also diesels can use biol fuel, like palm oil, which is less than ZERO emissions, and actually makes the air cleaner. Even hydrogen made from electricity like Iceland does is better than cars lugging around heavy, expensive, and slow to recharge batteries.

From your link:

• This page was last edited on 1 September 2012, at 01:39.

Sample coal plants from your link:

Arapahoe Station - The plant was retired in 2013.

Cameo Station - The coal plant was retired in 2010.

Cherokee Station - Units 1-2 of the plant were shut down in 2011-2012 and will be replaced with a 530 MW combined cycle natural gas plant, planned to come online in 2015. Unit 3 was shut down in 2015.[1] Unit 4 was converted to natural gas in 2017.[2]

Even that list is out of date. Cameo was completely disassembled in 2007. It was shut down in 2003. That was the year the Truck stop there shut it's motel and diner down. The Gas Station or quick stop is still there but that's about it. Those dates are disassembly dates, not shutdown links. Most were converted to Natural Gas. But when you had a multiple of plants clustered, you normally would convert one and shut the rest down since one Natural Gas Plant was much more efficient than multiple coal plants.

Irrelevant.
Natural gas is not at all cleaner because of the emissions from fracking.
And there simply is not enough natural gas.
We will all be back to coal in 20 years.

Then I guess they had better get busy on some of the other alternate energy ideas. LockMart has a pretty good one that should be online before than that pretty well does away with Coal, Natural Gas and others. Fusion Energy is working in small models and only has to be scaled up. Yes, Dorathy, Science Fiction does become real.

I am unaware of any Lockeed Martin energy achievement breakthroughs?
I also have never heard of fusion being viable yet?

I suspect the reason fusion is not being allowed to be viable is that they need to find a way that could not then also be used as a weapon. For example, if they found a way to do Mr. Fusion in a suitcase like in "Back to the Future", like with a laser, how easy would it be to make a weapon out of that?

You are thinking of Fission which is already used as a weapon. Fussion is a lot tougher to be used for a weapon. Fission, once started, goes and goes and goes until it runs out of fissionable matter. Fusion goes until it runs out of external energy that keeps it going. The Sun is fusion. Lockmart has announced a release date of 2025 for a commercial system. Yes, Dorathy, 2025 is going to be a magical year for a lot of things including solid state batteries and Fusion Power. It's some peoples wet dream and others,like you, worst nightmare.

 

[Markle]

That is totally foolish and you clearly did not even read any of the articles to the end.
The dispute had absolutely nothing at all to do with mileage, and no one disputes that VW was easily getting 56 mpg with the lowest carbon emissions in the world.

What the dispute was about was ONLY the amount of NOx emitted.
And NOx is not even clearly an emissions concern in reality.
There is no nitric acid rain.
The only acid rain was from gasoline engines producing sulfuric acid

Obviously, you did not read the articles I posted. The Volkswagon case involved their mpg as well. Is this article a lie?


November 04, 2015 12:00 AM
VW scandal widens to fuel consumption figures
FRANKFURT (Reuters) -- Investors wiped another 3 billion euros ($3.3 billion) off Volkswagen Group's market value today after the automaker said it had understated the fuel consumption of some cars, opening a new front in a scandal that initially centered on rigging emissions tests.

VW said on Tuesday it had understated the fuel usage and CO2 emissions of up to 800,000 cars in Europe, meaning those vehicles affected are more costly to drive than their buyers had been led to believe.

It wasn't immediately clear if any cars in the U.S. would be involved in the latest revelations.
[...]
VW scandal widens to fuel consumption figures

 

[Markle]

Irrelevant.
Natural gas is not at all cleaner because of the emissions from fracking.
And there simply is not enough natural gas.
We will all be back to coal in 20 years.

Please show us your reliable source and working link showing the huge emissions from fracking and the limited amount of natural gas.

You're simply a troll with an intent to only stir the pot.

 

[Markle]

Natural gas is still not cost effective, but they simply are not yet paying for all the harm fracking does.
Coal burning is 10 times cleaner than fracking.

I'm sure it was an oversight so please provide us with your reliable source and working link supporting your allegations. Thank you, thank you so much!

 

[WillMunny]

The very concept of "saving the planet" just shows how jaw-droppingly arrogant liberals are. Do they seriously believe that us humans are a danger to essentially an 8000 mile wide (25000 mile circumference) ball of iron which has existed for 4+ billion years? Earth has been through far more disastrous cataclysms that any pollution humans leave on the surface.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Truth hurts

Being a ranting dumbass like you hurts.

I answered, you ignored.

Lithium recycling is a much much much much much smaller problem than all the polution from petroleum extraction, transport and combusting.

Not only that, battery tech is still in infancy. Solid state batteries for automotive use are in the works (Tesla just bought Maxwell)

...... Battery tech is still in infancy? Says who?

The first battery was made in 1800 (although some argue they made one in 250BC, read up on Baghdad Battery).

The first lithium was made in the 1970s.

I don't know how you call that infancy, when we've been pouring research into batteries for decades now.

Once again, showing you seem to know very little, and try and compensate it by speaking your ignorance boldly.

I'm all for new batteries. If something new comes up, great. But to try and base national economic policy on "something good could happen" is the thought process of a fool. Funny how a greek fable writer in 650 BC understood "don't count your chickens before they hatch", but left-wing idiots want to push national economic policy based on technology that doesn't exist yet.

Well while you were advocating sitting on our hands National economic policy was grants and tax credits for alternative energy tech like electric cars - which are now a well proven concept and a successful product that all of major manufacturers are trying to jump on. Something good already DID happen.

So why don't you just stfu already about someone being an ignorant regressive and get back to eating that shoe.

No one was 'sitting on their hands'.

umm yes, as I said, your prescription to sit on our hands when it came to national policy on electric cars was ignored.

You were really going to mandate at the time people buy these? It was after all the best technology out there.

.

 

[WillMunny]

Being a ranting dumbass like you hurts.

I answered, you ignored.

Lithium recycling is a much much much much much smaller problem than all the polution from petroleum extraction, transport and combusting.

Not only that, battery tech is still in infancy. Solid state batteries for automotive use are in the works (Tesla just bought Maxwell)

...... Battery tech is still in infancy? Says who?

The first battery was made in 1800 (although some argue they made one in 250BC, read up on Baghdad Battery).

The first lithium was made in the 1970s.

I don't know how you call that infancy, when we've been pouring research into batteries for decades now.

Once again, showing you seem to know very little, and try and compensate it by speaking your ignorance boldly.

I'm all for new batteries. If something new comes up, great. But to try and base national economic policy on "something good could happen" is the thought process of a fool. Funny how a greek fable writer in 650 BC understood "don't count your chickens before they hatch", but left-wing idiots want to push national economic policy based on technology that doesn't exist yet.

Well while you were advocating sitting on our hands National economic policy was grants and tax credits for alternative energy tech like electric cars - which are now a well proven concept and a successful product that all of major manufacturers are trying to jump on. Something good already DID happen.

So why don't you just stfu already about someone being an ignorant regressive and get back to eating that shoe.

No one was 'sitting on their hands'.

umm yes, as I said, your prescription to sit on our hands when it came to national policy on electric cars was ignored.

You were really going to mandate at the time people buy these? It was after all the best technology out there.


View attachment 261893

.

That obvious piece of shit looks like a toy that would become an instant, automotive coffin in any accident. In any vehicle, I feel a bit safer when I'm surrounded by heavy metal.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Word from Musk is Tesla may be in financial trouble. I say good, the company drove the cost of Reno housing too high.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Yup, buy an electric car to save the planet and save on fossil fuel. Oh wait, it may cost you a few extra bucks to buy the vehicle, and a few more bucks to support the State.

Illinois might start charging $1,000 per year to own an electric vehicle: 'It's outrageous'

Sounds more like a tax on the rich. The problem is, middle class should be driving these. And putting a huge increase like that defeats the purpose. How about raising the cost to operate a gas guzzler instead. Or tax more on those things that pollute the air and water.

The Electric car is the future but not if only the rich can afford them.

No they aren't. You people are losing it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

...... Battery tech is still in infancy? Says who?

The first battery was made in 1800 (although some argue they made one in 250BC, read up on Baghdad Battery).

The first lithium was made in the 1970s.

I don't know how you call that infancy, when we've been pouring research into batteries for decades now.

Once again, showing you seem to know very little, and try and compensate it by speaking your ignorance boldly.

I'm all for new batteries. If something new comes up, great. But to try and base national economic policy on "something good could happen" is the thought process of a fool. Funny how a greek fable writer in 650 BC understood "don't count your chickens before they hatch", but left-wing idiots want to push national economic policy based on technology that doesn't exist yet.

Well while you were advocating sitting on our hands National economic policy was grants and tax credits for alternative energy tech like electric cars - which are now a well proven concept and a successful product that all of major manufacturers are trying to jump on. Something good already DID happen.

So why don't you just stfu already about someone being an ignorant regressive and get back to eating that shoe.

No one was 'sitting on their hands'.

umm yes, as I said, your prescription to sit on our hands when it came to national policy on electric cars was ignored.

You were really going to mandate at the time people buy these? It was after all the best technology out there.


View attachment 261893

.

That obvious piece of shit looks like a toy that would become an instant, automotive coffin in any accident. In any vehicle, I feel a bit safer when I'm surrounded by heavy metal.

It was the 6th largest car company in America at the time

 

[NoVote]

Coal is likely cleaner than fracking natural gas.

It's obvious you have zero idea what Fracking even means. LOL

FRACKING is oil field talk for "fracturing" a layer of stone several thousand feet under ground. To do it, you drill down to the layer where gas or oil is, drill a little below that, then put a concrete plug in the bore hole to plug it up, then the liquid nitrogen trucks come in and pump liquid nitrogen down the hole to freeze it, so it's brittle. Then you send down the explosive torpedo to the layer and detonate it, which fractures that layer and releases the gas or oil all around that bore hole so it can then be pumped out. LOL, I worked on rig platforms that did this kind of drilling for years. It was great work, cause those Frac crews know how to work, they have caterers come out and feed everyone steak and good food. LOL Good work. It's a 24 hour a day operation and takes about 3 to 5 days.

 

[WillMunny]

That car in that pic is so ugly, it reminds me of the ugliest car I've ever seen: those French-built Citreons I used to see back in the '80s. Trust me, those misshapen, snaggle-toothed Citreon cars were so hideous, they were the only car that looked like it was in a crash even before it left the factory. I believe that if you look at a French Citreon car long enough, it will cause cancer.

 

[AntonToo]

Being a ranting dumbass like you hurts.

I answered, you ignored.

Lithium recycling is a much much much much much smaller problem than all the polution from petroleum extraction, transport and combusting.

Not only that, battery tech is still in infancy. Solid state batteries for automotive use are in the works (Tesla just bought Maxwell)

...... Battery tech is still in infancy? Says who?

The first battery was made in 1800 (although some argue they made one in 250BC, read up on Baghdad Battery).

The first lithium was made in the 1970s.

I don't know how you call that infancy, when we've been pouring research into batteries for decades now.

Once again, showing you seem to know very little, and try and compensate it by speaking your ignorance boldly.

I'm all for new batteries. If something new comes up, great. But to try and base national economic policy on "something good could happen" is the thought process of a fool. Funny how a greek fable writer in 650 BC understood "don't count your chickens before they hatch", but left-wing idiots want to push national economic policy based on technology that doesn't exist yet.

Well while you were advocating sitting on our hands National economic policy was grants and tax credits for alternative energy tech like electric cars - which are now a well proven concept and a successful product that all of major manufacturers are trying to jump on. Something good already DID happen.

So why don't you just stfu already about someone being an ignorant regressive and get back to eating that shoe.

No one was 'sitting on their hands'.

umm yes, as I said, your prescription to sit on our hands when it came to national policy on electric cars was ignored.

You were really going to mandate at the time people buy these? It was after all the best technology out there.


View attachment 261893

.

...wtf?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The very concept of "saving the planet" just shows how jaw-droppingly arrogant liberals are. Do they seriously believe that us humans are a danger to essentially an 8000 mile wide (25000 mile circumference) ball of iron which has existed for 4+ billion years? Earth has been through far more disastrous cataclysms that any pollution humans leave on the surface.

How about 5 almost total extinctions of life on earth in it's history. Mother Nature can be forgiving and She can be cruel.

5 Extinctions That Wiped Much of Life off Planet Earth

by Aliya Whiteley

The more we get to know about the history of the Earth, the more incredible it becomes. Our planet formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion years it was without life. Then organic molecules began to form simple cells.

It’s tempting to think that from those first cells the business of evolution took hold and created the plants and animals we see today, but this simplified version overlooks some of the most catastrophic developments that happened along the way. Five mass extinction events have wiped out nearly every living thing on this planet. So the next time you’re feeling less than brave, remind yourself that you are descended from some seriously tough survivors. You’re already one of nature’s great success stories.

1. ORDOVICIAN-SILURIAN EXTINCTION—445 MILLION YEARS AGO
Most life forms were still living in the oceans at the time of the first mass extinction. There are many theories as to how that happened: global cooling that brought on an ice age, volcanic gases, or maybe changes in ocean chemistry. Whatever the cause, about 85 percent of species were wiped out.

2. LATE DEVONIAN EXTINCTION—375 MILLION YEARS AGO
The oceans recovered and teemed with life once more, and that diversity had begun to spread onto land at the time of the second mass extinction, when 79–87 percent of all species died due to environmental change. A series of several extinction events spread over approximately 40 million years wiped out most of the life on earth. The cause is unclear, but some scientists have theorized that the sudden increase in plant life could have triggered a period of anoxia (lack of oxygen). Other suggestions include volcanic eruptions on a huge scale, or another ice age.

Although plants may have triggered the destruction, it was the marine life that was hardest hit. Armored fish died out completely. Reef ecosystems vanished from the seas and were not seen again for the next 100 million years. But there were some who benefited: Into these gaps in the oceans’ ecosystems came some of nature’s hardiest survivors—the sharks.

3. PERMIAN-TRIASSIC EXTINCTION—250 MILLION YEARS AGO
This is also known as the Great Dying, and with good reason: 70 percent of land species and 90 percent of marine species disappeared, including half of all marine families. Plant life also suffered; only a few forests remained. It’s the only event in which insects also died out en masse. The devastation to life was so thorough, this mass extinction event is known as the Great Dying.

The culprit was, once again, environmental change. An enormous volcanic event in an already hot, dry climate led to a massive increase in carbon dioxide, and as ice sheets melted, methane escaped into the atmosphere, adding to the problem. These greenhouse gases led to the creation of anoxic conditions in marine habitats once more.

4. END-TRIASSIC EXTINCTION—200 MILLION YEARS AGO
After the Great Dying, it took approximately 20 million years for the Earth to recover. Unfortunately, soon after the Earth returned to its previous level of diversity, the next mass extinction came along and nearly wiped out the dinosaurs just as they were getting started. But it was the mammal groups who really suffered this time around, along with large amphibians: 76 to 84 percent of all species died out. The culprit may have once again been volcanic activity.

But dinosaurs managed to recover remarkably well, becoming the dominant creatures on the planet after this particular extinction event. And so they might well have remained, if it wasn’t for what happened next …

5. END-CRETACEOUS MASS EXTINCTION—66 MILLION YEARS AGO
This is the event we all know about. Many experts theorize that a large asteroid hit the Earth and contributed to rapid environmental changes. Sea levels plummeted, volcanic activity threw ash and poisonous gases into the air, and 71 to 81 percent of all species died. All non-avian dinosaurs perished, leaving the way clear for the small mammals that managed to survive.

BONUS: HOLOCENE EXTINCTION—10,000 BCE to ONGOING
And here we are today, having evolved from those small mammals. Are we in the grip of the sixth mass extinction of life on our planet? It's unclear how many species we're losing annually—one widely cited estimate is 140,000 species per year [PDF]—but it’s difficult to be sure of the size of the problem, as less than 3 percent of species on the planet are thought to have been formally assessed for risk.

The growth of humanity may be causing a loss of biodiversity, but the good news is that we have developed to the point where we might be able to do something about our own impact on the planet. We’re already aware of the problem—and there might even still be time to fix it.

 

[Rustic]

The very concept of "saving the planet" just shows how jaw-droppingly arrogant liberals are. Do they seriously believe that us humans are a danger to essentially an 8000 mile wide (25000 mile circumference) ball of iron which has existed for 4+ billion years? Earth has been through far more disastrous cataclysms that any pollution humans leave on the surface.

How about 5 almost total extinctions of life on earth in it's history. Mother Nature can be forgiving and She can be cruel.

5 Extinctions That Wiped Much of Life off Planet Earth

by Aliya Whiteley

The more we get to know about the history of the Earth, the more incredible it becomes. Our planet formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion years it was without life. Then organic molecules began to form simple cells.

It’s tempting to think that from those first cells the business of evolution took hold and created the plants and animals we see today, but this simplified version overlooks some of the most catastrophic developments that happened along the way. Five mass extinction events have wiped out nearly every living thing on this planet. So the next time you’re feeling less than brave, remind yourself that you are descended from some seriously tough survivors. You’re already one of nature’s great success stories.

1. ORDOVICIAN-SILURIAN EXTINCTION—445 MILLION YEARS AGO
Most life forms were still living in the oceans at the time of the first mass extinction. There are many theories as to how that happened: global cooling that brought on an ice age, volcanic gases, or maybe changes in ocean chemistry. Whatever the cause, about 85 percent of species were wiped out.

2. LATE DEVONIAN EXTINCTION—375 MILLION YEARS AGO
The oceans recovered and teemed with life once more, and that diversity had begun to spread onto land at the time of the second mass extinction, when 79–87 percent of all species died due to environmental change. A series of several extinction events spread over approximately 40 million years wiped out most of the life on earth. The cause is unclear, but some scientists have theorized that the sudden increase in plant life could have triggered a period of anoxia (lack of oxygen). Other suggestions include volcanic eruptions on a huge scale, or another ice age.

Although plants may have triggered the destruction, it was the marine life that was hardest hit. Armored fish died out completely. Reef ecosystems vanished from the seas and were not seen again for the next 100 million years. But there were some who benefited: Into these gaps in the oceans’ ecosystems came some of nature’s hardiest survivors—the sharks.

3. PERMIAN-TRIASSIC EXTINCTION—250 MILLION YEARS AGO
This is also known as the Great Dying, and with good reason: 70 percent of land species and 90 percent of marine species disappeared, including half of all marine families. Plant life also suffered; only a few forests remained. It’s the only event in which insects also died out en masse. The devastation to life was so thorough, this mass extinction event is known as the Great Dying.

The culprit was, once again, environmental change. An enormous volcanic event in an already hot, dry climate led to a massive increase in carbon dioxide, and as ice sheets melted, methane escaped into the atmosphere, adding to the problem. These greenhouse gases led to the creation of anoxic conditions in marine habitats once more.

4. END-TRIASSIC EXTINCTION—200 MILLION YEARS AGO
After the Great Dying, it took approximately 20 million years for the Earth to recover. Unfortunately, soon after the Earth returned to its previous level of diversity, the next mass extinction came along and nearly wiped out the dinosaurs just as they were getting started. But it was the mammal groups who really suffered this time around, along with large amphibians: 76 to 84 percent of all species died out. The culprit may have once again been volcanic activity.

But dinosaurs managed to recover remarkably well, becoming the dominant creatures on the planet after this particular extinction event. And so they might well have remained, if it wasn’t for what happened next …

5. END-CRETACEOUS MASS EXTINCTION—66 MILLION YEARS AGO
This is the event we all know about. Many experts theorize that a large asteroid hit the Earth and contributed to rapid environmental changes. Sea levels plummeted, volcanic activity threw ash and poisonous gases into the air, and 71 to 81 percent of all species died. All non-avian dinosaurs perished, leaving the way clear for the small mammals that managed to survive.

BONUS: HOLOCENE EXTINCTION—10,000 BCE to ONGOING
And here we are today, having evolved from those small mammals. Are we in the grip of the sixth mass extinction of life on our planet? It's unclear how many species we're losing annually—one widely cited estimate is 140,000 species per year [PDF]—but it’s difficult to be sure of the size of the problem, as less than 3 percent of species on the planet are thought to have been formally assessed for risk.

The growth of humanity may be causing a loss of biodiversity, but the good news is that we have developed to the point where we might be able to do something about our own impact on the planet. We’re already aware of the problem—and there might even still be time to fix it.