Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

 

[Bfgrn]

The statement you have a problem was ---



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

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

Very funny dude..

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

page 202

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

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

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



Let's read on......

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

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

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

From the summary...

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

'

And the "tar sands" claim???

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

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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

page 202

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

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

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



Let's read on......



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

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

From the summary...

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

'

And the "tar sands" claim???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JoeBlam]

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

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

 

[DiamondDave]

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

page 202

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

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

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



Let's read on......



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

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

From the summary...

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

'

And the "tar sands" claim???

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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

Or have you just not posted yet?

 

[Freewill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW how many Volts do you own?

 

[Freewill]

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

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

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

Not in the OP link..

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The conservative dream America...

False outrage and fear mongering.

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[Intense]

Moved to Energy.

 

[Bfgrn]

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



Let's read on......



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

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

From the summary...

'

And the "tar sands" claim???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moonglow]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[bripat9643]

The conservative dream America...

yes--only conservatives drive cars

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

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

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

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Freewill]

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[Bfgrn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you THAT dense?

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you THAT dense?

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

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

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

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

Doesn't EVER happen in science.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you THAT dense?

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

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

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

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


So, who is being dense then?

 

[Bfgrn]

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

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

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

Are you THAT dense?

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

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

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

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

Doesn't EVER happen in science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motor technology:

Japanese researchers develop EV motor not reliant on rare earth metals

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

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

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

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

Here's a segment:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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