Scientific American sent me an advertisement containing a link to this "interactive presentation":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=interactive-plug-in-hybrids&sc=SA_20100621
It might be worth having a look at!
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Who's new
- eric01
- Norberto
- sarim
- Edd
- OlaOst
Support V is for Voltage
Yup, one of the myths being trotted out against EV's.
The video I posted a few days ago from Robert Llewellyn had a great comeback about that ... if they're going to demand a long tailpipe analysis of an EV they must also look at the long tailpipe analysis of gasoline or diesel vehicles.
- David Herron, The Long Tail Pipe, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
What's that? you dare (snort!) challenge an article in the Scientific American?!!
Let me tell you, the pollution from the oil in the tires of an EV alone will kill any number of endangered species! far more birds, and other cute cuddly and irreplaceable wildlife will be killed by the power lines needed to provide electricity for your dangerous EV contraptions!
Why I've heard ole Jeb at the bar I drink at tell me those solar panels folk put on their roofs attract terrorists, and he should know, he was in the Navy!!
Yes sir, I got me a real freedom 7.9 litre V8, with NRA stickers and I trust the great American institutions like Exxon and the Coal Cartels! Why I kin prove ......
marcopolo
Having fun?
I'm all for having a long tailpipe analysis. FWIW I own longtailpipe.com - haven't done anything with it, making it one of the couple dozen domains I've collected over the years meaning to do something with the domain. I am sure that that a key to understanding the best solution is to understand the full implications.
Driving gas cars have a lot of externalities that aren't priced into the driving experience. What if those externalities were priced at the pump?
BTW your silly suggestion about the long tailpipe effects of tires is a wash. EV cars use the same tires as gas cars making the impact equivalent.
Power lines killing wildlife? eh? Maybe you're referring to the solar power project being delayed in southern california due to environmentalists concern? It's kinda strange ... seeing environmentalists opposing clean energy installations but it just goes to show that there are different camps in any movement. You have your environmentalists pushing for clean energy, others pushing for wildlife habitat preservation, others pushing for clean oceans, etc. And sometimes the concerns of two camps collide. But what does that have to do with EV's?
- David Herron, The Long Tail Pipe, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
You've had all this about longtailpipes all this time and DONE NOTHING???? Well, I guess we know who REALLY killed the elecric car, Mr. Coverup. Besides, emissions don't count when it's for something we want for our own convenience.
Next you'll be telling me that clean coal isn't clean at all, that there's the same emissions from plants using it as nonclean coal, that the government only pretends it's clean and subsidizes it's use simply because we have it and there'll be jobs for coal miners, etc. George W. Bush said it's clean. I suppose you want to say that he's a liar.
One thing I'll go along with, if you want to make gas engines cleaner by using shorter tailpipes than the government should give you a grant to try it.
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Er,..I didn't think anyone would take me seriously!
The purpose of my attempted humour was to display the foolishness of the argument that EV's are environmentally harmful due to coal/oil fired electricity generation.
The issue of EV vs Fossil fuelled vehicles will become indisputable once EV's can deliver the same standard of comfort and practicality as ICE competitors. This scenario doesn't even need an environmental argument. Joe Public will accept and eagerly embrace superior technology.
The debate about how power is generated is a separate issue. To that extent, the author of the Scientific American article has a point.
But in reality who cares?
The pedantic may argue "I'm greener than thou", but the consumer will buy EV's based on the same familiar buying decisions. Ideology, is not really important in the EV debate, if the technology is adequate, the vehicle attractive and reflects the drivers aspirations, it will prove a successful. If not it will fail!
That is the fate of all new products seeking a place in any market. The Prius Hybrid is a success because of Toyota's reputation and the vehicle ability to compete and in some ways exceed it's ICE rivals.
Prius (and other Hybrids) have paved the way for the general acceptance of the viability of EV technology.
Oddly, the greatest enemy of the Hybrid was not the ICE Automakers, but the usual gaggle of environmentalist detractors who venously attack any environmentally friendly technology that might actually prove acceptable to the general public!
Such people naturally arouse the ire of curmudgeons and ultra-conservatives, who resent being lectured by a bunch sanctimonious leftist cranks, with poorly constructed ideology, and no ability to accomplish anything except waste other peoples money!
Economic need and enrichment of the quality of life, drives change in the public's consumer patterns. Their lifestyles and aspirations, not those of ideologues. Shouting loudly, hectoring and pontificating sanctimoniously only breeds resentment and resistance.
(BTW, EV's use the same tyres as ICE? Now there you go? And here was me thinking my EV hovercraft had no Tyres!)
marcopolo
Sometimes I'm way too serious for my own good....
- David Herron, The Long Tail Pipe, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
Breaking News!......
BP,HALIBURTON AND TRANS-OCEAN CLEARED OF ALL WRONGDOING !!!
Today Pres.Obama announced an amazing development in the Gulf Oil Spill disaster!
In a week of unparralleddrama, the Presidential spokesman revealed a series of highly dawn raid (pre-emptive strike) federal agents assisted by the units of the US Military, on undisclosed residences and universities across the USA, resulted in more than 641 arrests and 58 fatalities!
The success of these raids has dealt a motal blow to the major terrorist group known as 'MR. Cover-up and the Greeenie Conspirator's Band'.
These activities of these ruthless terrorists, were described by former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, (currently head of the presidents hastily convened 'Special Task Force to Vindicate Big Oil)as a "Code Red" threat to USA security. Cheney pointed out how fortunate it was that Guantanamo Bay, was still available as a place to hold such desperate traitors.
Pres.Obama stated that he had been assured by the department of Minerals and Energy and the CIA, that this dangerous terrorist organisation, including many seeming harmless 'Global Warming conspirators', would be hunted down and neutralised!
"there evidence is now conclusive that these group were responsible for the Gulf Spill,Exxon Valdez and other mysterious 'environmental' disasters. More seriously, plans detailing the skyjacking of yesterdays Air disaster that killed Vice-President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton and 52 Democrat members of Congress, we found in 'MR. Cover-up and the Greeenie Conspirator's Bands' garage headquarters.
Mr Cheney wept as he described how the agents were just too late to prevent the air disaster, and the simultaneous fire that destroyed the Congressional building yesterday afternoon.
General Mac Crystal vowed to bring the arsonist to justice.
The President went on to announce, very, very very, seriously, that members of the 'MR. Cover-up and the Greeenie Conspirator's Band' terrorist group who escaped to sanctuary in Iran, are definitely about to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Mr Cheney announced "as a result of positive evidence that these Weapons of Mass Destruction, having been traced to Iran, The president has decided, in order to preserve the peace and freedom of the entire world, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ..ER , Sorry correction, the USA and other western nations, have been forced to launch a full scale military defencive incursion into Iran. This is essential measure to rescue the oil, ah sorry,... I meant restore democracy!
The Presidents announcement was met with thunderous applause from the newly created 'Secretary for Media Information' Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch announced a temporary news ban for reasons of National Security and invoked the Patriot Act.
Secretary Murdoch promised the lifting of Martial Law, as soon as the safety of innocent US children could be once more guaranteed!
A suspicious looking, journalist from Rolling Stone who claimed that 'MR. Cover-up and the Greeenie Conspirator's Band' appeared to be nothing more than a rather out of tune teenage garage band, was hustled away by security agents, and a search of his apartment later revealed he was in possession forged tape recordings of middle eastern origin, containing "forged" statements supposedly made by high ranking US Military personnel. The tapes were designed to create the impression of disharmony in the US Command.
The journalist is currently assisting US law enforcement and is expected to make a full and public confession at his trial, naming other "GW" conspirators.
A Spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that any disagreement between the Military and the President was untrue, in fact anybody could see they had never been closer! This was obviously true as the General seemed to be supporting his President by one arm while Secretary Murdoch held the other!
A middle aged woman who claimed to know the 'weird drummer' of the so-called, 'MR. Cover-up and the Greeenie Conspirator's' Band, said " I always suspected there was something wrong, he was very dark looking, and could have been of middle eastern origin, or at least Spanish." "Well", she confided, " they're just not the same as us, are they?". She went on to say that she and her husband Earl were proud, patriotic Americans, and proud of their new jobs at Haliburton. Husband Earl stated," I hope they get the chair"!
President Obama looked tired and oddly lethargic as he was led away under heavy Military and Security escort, obviously in response to the threats of terrorist retaliation for this great victory.
LATEST: The war in Iran is progressing well. The troops of our valiant ally, Mr Putin, have overcome nearly all Iranian resistance and have sincerely promised to withdraw to the designated demarcation line any time soon.
More from FOX NEWS "God Bless America"
marcopolo
Just in case this wasn't sarcastic...
I would never say that clean coal isn't clean at all. I would say that clean coal doesn't exist at all. The government is subsidizing its development. Theoretically if there was a way to extract coal from the ground in an environmentally benign way, burn the coal with little to no emission, and permanently sequester all the carbon this wouldn't be a bad stop-gap technology on the way to sustainable energy. Personally I think fusion is much more likely, and I don't think that's likely at all.
"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"
Yeah, can't risk a true believer in clean coal going unrebuked.
But the whole falacy of "Clean Coal" is to pretend there's been some improvement in the emissions so it's not longer merely carbon dioxide, it's Scientifically Treated Dioxide. (Let's just call it an STD.) And so increditbly successful was the treatment that there wasn't even a single test required to confirm that it worked before the government decided to SUBSIDIZE the use to clean ccal. That's right, the government pays part of the cost, so if we all built coal powered generators for our electric scooters, think of how cheap the coal would be.
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
I'm not sure exactly what it is you guy's expect from the governments of those countries with commercial coal deposits.
Leave it in the ground?
US, Canada,Australia, Russia, Europe, PRC, Africa, South America all rely on coal for nearly 50% of the worlds power production. The export of coal is a very strategic part of the worlds economy. Australia exports coal to Vietnam, this allows Vietnam to manufacture goods to export to the US etc..etc..
Since this industry is not going to cease any time soon, isn't any harm minimisation valuable?
The trouble with green politics is it's so damn absolute and moralistic!It's the politics of the fanatically rabid puritans!
The coal industry acknowledges the problems of carbon based fossil fuel energy sources, but what is the alternative? Solar, wind, Geo-thermal, etc may have potential, but governments must provide for the needs of all the people, right now! Even more difficultly, they achieve this democratically. The green movement does great disservice by wild, exaggerated, sanctimonious, abusive, intolerant propaganda.
Such propaganda only serves to create more sceptic's, with creditable arguments based on the discrediting of green disinformation.
All technology that assists to mitigate an otherwise unresolvable problem, should be embraced and applauded.
marcopolo
I was the one that brought up the dangers of unsubstantiated claims by the greenies. This is not unsubstantiated.
What we expect them to do is to lie to us.
We expect they will lie to us and pretend there is "Clean Coal" when there is not.
We expect that when the U.S. government continues to pay someone to use "Clean Coal" the government will know there's nothing clean about it. And because it's so cheap when the government pays them to use the coal, there will be no incentive to develop something else more economical, and CLEANER. Basically causing us to lose a lot of money using coal.
We expect that when the government sets these emissions standards based on that clean coal having lower emissions than they really do, we won't meet those standards and the government will point the finger every which OTHER way.
We expect after the taxes we pay to subsidize this phony clean coal, we'll be forced to pay even more for additional government boondoggles related to the pollution that the government is pretending isn't caused by the phony clean coal. And that the taxes for the government spending will continue to destablize our economy.
And we expect that when the proof is offered that clean coal is not clean, the government will continue to lie to us and pretend it is clean.
We expect to be breathing the air.
That's what we expect. We don't want it that way, but we expect it. I can't believe you didn't know that. What did you THINK we expected?
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
I don't think you can lay claim to have originated the concept that greenies make unsubstantiated claims!
Gee, I dunno a Little commonsense and rationality would be good!
Nobody, well no more than usual, is lying. Coal started the industrial revolution, and to a certain extent, still plays a vital role in energy production.
As usual, you offer no practical alternatives,yet you rant irrationally against harm minimisation. No coal? Better get used to Nuclear energy! Better, but still not perfect technology. Nations will not abandon a proven, viable power source like coal, to gamble on impractical, unproven, and enormously expensive alternatives, that may never be realised.
Coal is here, it exists! The world economy is not going to abandon a highly reliable power source on the advice of a bunch of hysterical doomsday prophets, nor will the general populace permit such an event.
Ok, clean coal, isn't really clean coal, but it just might be CLEANER coal! Isn't that better? Shouldn't the technology be encouraged?
Look at the recent fate of the Australian PM! Here was a guy leading a first term centre leftist government, after twelve years of conservative rule. He was unceremoniously and unanimously dumped by his own party for trying to tackle the mining/resource sector, while pushing hard for green policies.
His own party and the trade unions became terrified at the disastrous polling results when the general population realised what the economics of such programs would entail. His former deputy,(now successor, wiping the blood from her hands,) was proud to sign a huge export contract of Australian brown coal to Vietnam!
No lies! The simple truth is, unless we switch to Nuclear rapidly, coal will remain too economically valuable to abandon!
marcopolo
Suppose you are at a picnic and you feel a sudden pain in the center of your chest. Do you have someone drive you to the hospital immediately? There is a cost. You'll miss the rest of the picnic. You'll freak a few people out. You have to pay for the hospital visit. Is it worth it? If you are 20, in peak physical condition, and had just downed four tobasco burgers in the space of fifteen minutes probably not. If you are 65 in a family where all the men die of heart attacks in their 50's, and you're having trouble catching your breath, and the pain is radiating down your left arm whether to go to the hospital or not probably wouldn't even be a question no matter what the cost.
I think everyone pretty much agrees on the chest pain part. Global sea levels have risen measurably, the temperature is up about 1C from 50 years ago, the north pole has melted through, and the south pole is melting at an accelerating rate. If you don't accept these as established facts then say so and I'll stop trying. Suppose you do accept the pain part, how bad is it? What cost is worth being paid to try to make the best outcome possible?
Of course sustainable energy is more expensive. If it was cheaper and more convenient we wouldn't have to promote it. So is it worth it? I suppose it depends on how bad you believe it is going to get. Everything I read says the most pessimistic estimates of five years ago were wrong by not being pessimistic enough. I'm convinced of this. What would it take to convince you? Would anything? If not then again this discussion is pointless.
(To answer the question I just begged: yes I could become unconvinced. Someone would have to come up with a better explanation for existing data or show that current trends will reverse themselves. I haven't seen anything like this yet.)
"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"
Your post illustrates the frustration of the entire debate! You make a series of assumptions that are simply untrue!
Obviously,"pretty much everyone agrees" is not correct! By this remark, you only mean people like you! But, you arrogantly dismiss all those with differing viewpoints. Isn't it obvious that they (the majority), not you, control the levers of power.
Your 'conviction' allows you to make sweepingly inaccurate assumptions which you attempt to pass off as facts! "of course sustainable energy is more expensive" ! No, it's not just expensive, it's logistically unattainable! Without a nuclear option, "sustainable energy" is neither feasible nor attainable for the needs of the world population.
Because you are waiting for a Utopian dream to arrive, you refuse to support, or even acknowledge any practical solutions that may achieve some realistic hope of harm minimisation.
Yours, is the argument, of the Puritan. The damaged done to US society by Andrew Volstead, and Wayne Wheeler, should have served as a sufficiently painful lesson to avoid this sort of thinking, but evidently, not.., there are always those Utopian Puritans, still crying out for impossibly simplistic solutions on every issue!
Wild-eyed explanations of a perceived problem accompanied by vague, impractical solutions, has always be the prerogative of extreme left/right propaganda.
You ask what it would take to convince me? OK, If you have a practical solution, please enlighten? (Please include the logistics and feasibility).
marcopolo
Well, that one statement by you says most but not all. It does leave a lot that important unsaid. Doesn't say why you say I ranted when I didn't. Doesn't say why I'd be the one offering the alternatives when I'n not a scientist, or when I said that subsidizing the use of coal discourages development of ANY alternatives. (A reminder of the topic, which you avoided.)
Doesn't say why you said 'Get used to nuclear power' when I've been used to nuclear power my whole life. What I LIKE about nuclear power is that the navy stopped using other things to power ships, and develop the poeple they need to run the equipment. Just wish they'd develop more so they could go take the jobs in industry, where less care is put into the training.
And it doesn't say why you're so far afield from the whole part of the thread you jumped in to discuss, the fact that 'Clean Coal' is a fraud and yet we're paying our tax dollars to make it more profitable for people who use it. NOT cleaner, perhaps DIRTIER. However, it DOES work well in your misdirecting on the subject of 'Harm Minimalization.' It's making things worse, not better. If they'd be using coal anyway, the get a subsidy anyway. If they'd have shifted away from coal without the subsidy, they're brought back to it. Millions of dollars annually that could be used constructively are instead being used for a fraud. (That's just me staying on topic while you've gone far away from it.)
And it doesn't say why you think we'd expect common sense: Anyone who has ever paid attention to politics doesn't expect that.
It's a seepingly inaccurate assumption that sustainable energy is unattainable, just as it was sweepingly inaccurate to say powered flight was unattainable at the beginning of the 20th century, and many WERE INDEED saying that. Just because it couldn't be done that day doesn't mean it couldn't be done. I could tell of you of all the people who are KNOWN to be SORT OF flying powered aircraft dating back to 1890, and there was must reporting of flights by Gustave Whitehead 2 years before the Wright Brothers, though he didn't publicize himself the way they did. But while the Wright Brothers flew, they never flew well, it took the work of many many others to get aviation where was even 20 years later. Just as it will take the time, effort, and MONEY (Such as the phony clean coal gets without generating results) to make alternative energy work. But if alternative energy was succeeding but needed a subsidy to be in use, it doesn't say if you would rail about that while supporting the FAILED clean coal to have a subsidy. (Sticking to the topic like glue.) And subsidizing the FRAUD of pretending there's clean coal is committing to UNSUSTAINABLE energy, rather than working on replacing it with something that is sustainable. Say it. And that IS what the people on this board can bring to a practical solution, unless there's some PhD around I don't know about.
I'll give you one thing; yeah, they don't agree. Dave should have said 'Pretty much everyone REALIZES. . . .' Just because they realize doesn't mean they'll agree. Remember the dog in 'Gumby' that said 'No' to EVERYTHING? There are always those who feel they can gain something by saying 'I don't agree,' or 'I don't know that. . . .' It's supposed to let them off the hook. But they know. I wish I could remember the book and author, but a 1964 publication about rightwingers had this great quote about unwillingness to accept even what they've seen with their own eyes if it's not what they want to believe, but will demand that the most threadbare, unsubstantiated reasoning of their own must be treated as absolute proof. You know, the Rush Limbaugh crowd. But they know. They REALLY already know. If only we could get them to learn the importance. . . .
Oh, and it doesn't even say if you admit that YOU ARE the one ranting.
You can't learn what you don't already know.'
-Socrates or at least Plato CLAIMED that Socrates said that, I don't know.
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Pick two. There is copious data for all of these claims, but I don't want to turn this thread into a link farm.
I will provide one to get the ball rolling. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) has the ability to weigh the poles. Isn't that cool? We can actually measure the mass of the poles! Data doesn't not get any more direct than this. This satellite has been showing results consistent with ground based data collected over the last few decades.
--
I am not opposed to nuclear power on principle nor am I really opposed to nuclear power at all, but I think if you do some reading you'll find it is probably more expensive than the alternatives. People view nuclear as more mainstream because there are nuclear plants all over the world, but they only exist because of intense government subsidies. Also nuclear plants suffer from climate change as well. Current designs need large sources of fresh, cold water. As the rivers run lower and warmer some nuclear plants are having to throttle back.
"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"
Goodness me, It's not often that I observe such a excellent example of a free-flowing, full blown rant! Well done!
But sifting through all the excess verbiage, your position seems to be that Clean Coal subsidies are harmful, and this somehow inhibits the promotion of other alternate energy sources?
Firstly, it may come as a shock to you, coal is not an energy source unique to the USA! There are other places in the world you know! The subsidies you speak of, are not universal! However, even if they were, Clean coal is not a fraud! (Well, only if you take it to a ridiculous standard of purity).the term 'Clean Coal' was invented by the media. The Coal Industry does not use the term "clean coal', but I suppose, in layman's terms, 'cleaner coal' might be more accurately descriptive.
What is a fact, is the entire world uses coal as a major source of energy! Over 46% of world energy is derived from coal. In many poorer countries, the only power source is provided by coal. No one, not even the coal industry, believes this is a particularly beneficial state of affairs, but the only viable alternative is Nuclear.
It's pointless raving and ranting against the research to develop harm minimisation for a proven reliable energy source, without advancing a feasible alternative. No one is advocating the cessation of R&D into alternate energy, but governments are responsible for the welfare, prosperity and livelihoods of citizens. How long do you imagine a government would last, if it told it's citizens they can starve and sink into abject poverty, all for some ideologically driven Utopian ideal?
If a wealthy, environmental conscious, and advanced nation like Australia can reject such ideology so dramatically, most third world nations would tear any politician foolish enough to advance such nonsense, to pieces. (and quite rightly)
The PRC, is currently building 821 enormous new Coal fired power stations, in addition to the 1400 in existence. This is being matched by India, etc etc...
These will be built, and commence emitting, regardless of your opinions! Don't you think any technology that would assist to minimise the harm from these emissions, is worth pursuing?
No, I guess you, and your ilk, don't! You deal in hyperbole, not realistic logic! Again, I challenge anyone to advance any logistically sound, acceptable, practical alternate energy source, apart from nuclear to immediately replace Coal?
It's no good mumbling on about changing lifestyles, etc.. this is just fiddling with the deck chairs! It ain't gunna happen! To effect change, it has to be realistic, achievable and acceptable economically.
Sorry to puncture your dream, but this is the real world, not some Californian new age commune!
Put up, or shut up!
marcopolo
America is a hurricane, and the only people who do not hear the sound are those fortunate if incredibly stupid and smug White Protestants who live in the center, in the serene eye of the big wind.
Norman Mailer
Once again, there's an actual SUBJECT here. . . .
There's that line from 'Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn' where Captain Kirk calls Kahn a 'Poor marksman, hitting everything but the target.' You wouldn't have that problem if you would just STAY ON TOPIC. Instead of using the generic, NON APPLICABLE ATTACKS you committed yourself to using before you ever even found this board. But then feeling he wins something without making a point by flinging insults is of course the ranters reward. Is it pleasant? I woudn't know, I don't rant.
Harm minimalization. In the U.S. we use the word euthanasia. There are those that argue for harm minimalization in the gulf and demanding that the birds and sea creatures that are being rescued should instead be killed. Some people like the idea of just not having to think about it. And they used the phrase 'Harm minimalization.' Perhaps that's where you heard it.
So long as the coal does NOT have improved emissions, claiming there is scientific improvement IS a fraud. As long as our Government is PAYING for something for us that we're not getting, we're being defrauded, and efforts are being diverted AWAY from improvements. And since the TOPIC is the electric car is causing all these increased emissions through the use of more coal int he powerplants. . . .Oh, I'm just trying to get you on topic again, aren't I?
Excess verbage is NOT present when it's all on topic, which I made of point of REMINDING you you need to be. But you of course were committed to ranting and pretending that there was something wrong with our posts before you ever knew this board existed, so that is inevitable in your posts. As my friend Ernie loves to say, when you point your finger, you have three more pointing back at you. And the truth of that is so much more evident in reading and rereading your own posts, ("No, I guess you, and your ilk, don't! You deal in hyperbole, not realistic logic! Again, I challenge anyone. . . .") your own random hand grenade tossing domonstrates more than any analysis I might make of it. Once again, really not on topic.
Oh, they'll build all sorts of coal burning plants around the world. China almost had to cancel the Olympics because their air was so bad, and it'll get worse. Said from right here in the U.S., where we have the world's cleanest cars, and a lot more than anyone else. Take ours off the road for 2 weeks and the air won't change all that much. Though it would be nicer. Oh, the harm minimalization at work in getting more coal out there. Reminds of Ronald Reagan, who used his radio show prior to becoming President of the U.S. to say "93% of all smog is caused by green plants and trees." It would be nice to say that the headlines this made for during his campaign, when he ranted and repeated the claim, along with insistance that burning sulfur in the air has long created good health, brought people to learn the truth when people who KNOW what they're talking about explained the truth about how the green plants and trees help CLEAN UP the air. But the people who want to ignore problems only listen to the loud, crazy people who say what THEY want to hear.
There's all sorts of alternative energy that would already be working if it had the subsidies that nuclear power and phony clean coal does. But listen to people scream at the suggestion. People like. . . .(Do your OWN finger pointing on that one.) It's okay to shell out money for things that are risky, but when something like switchback grass could work just as well with a little help, the hysteria breaks out. Mainly because there's people who just don't want to deal with change.
I remember when I was 16, coming home from school on a hot day, and ole Sean says "This would be a REAL scorcher if the smog and haze wasn't keeping the heat out." And through the thick California haze sp common in my formative years I could see the horizon basically disappearing in the distance and fading to brown sky, and I said I'd take the scorcher over this; to which he agreed. I wondered then if I'd ever see blue sky in my home town. A few months later I took the State test to get the California Smog Equipment Installer/Adjuster license, as I was living in the first state to set its' own emission standards. Not a half bad job for a teenager to have while getting through college, I might add. And I was helping my friends to be able to register their cars that the would otherwise have driven without current tags while the emissions from such old vehicles were so bad. These emissions standards were the beginning of California's annual air quality improvements: At one point there were 17 consecutive years that were better than the last. Oh, the upset when that string was broken by a slight downturn a few years ago.
So I have this yard where I maintain a larger than usual amount of, you guessed it, green plants and trees. I also have what I either haven't fixed or haven't sold yet of the motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, etc. that I get back on the road. It's definitely not a money maker, most of the people I hear doing the whining about wanting it just given to them are hoping to sell it for more than they pay for it. But they sure to reduce the use of gas (Especially the electrics) and reduce the emissions (If the electrics had their own coal generator with the government paying part of the cost of the coal. . . .) and sure does help balance out matters such as my racecar. Oh, and don't forget the rebalancing on all the petrodollars that are paying for this, after so many refused to heed my warnings about George W. Bush while I was (Ahem) getting my portfolio positioned. (Work is slow, I'm not posting while I'm on the job.) Getting people into cleaner/more efficient transportation, helping them learn about the big picture, and of course not letting people like (Insert finger pointing here) drag me to (Pointer) level, is all a part of my making the world a better place, while (Pointer) are not. And beneath the now BLUE SKIES of my lifelong hometown, my friends are telling me I'm just living the life. And I guess they're right, although it's got a long way to go to be Utopia.
So anyway, Dave has made all these points and you have yet to make even one proper response to him, what with you throwing out all your preconceived arguments and insults you'd thought up before you ever read his posts. As you have done with me. He's already won, and so have I. We will continue with the debate you keep trying to stifle, and you will hang on every word as we continue. I'm not sure how much we'll be reading of you, as you've acknowledged before even you don't think anyone takes you seriously. (The poor moderator had to, it's his job.) If you really want to think of yourself as "He who must be read" YOU BETTER GET ON TOPIC! Oops, that almost sounded like a rant worthy of (Pointer).
Oh, by the way. Since you said "Put up or shut up" without a clue of whom you're speaking to in the case of any of us, explain to us what YOU are doing to prevent cleaner air and to ensure the unsustainability of energy, besides just talking. I mean, if you have nothing to offer as far as making things worth, how did (Pointer) POUT it? 'It's no good mumbling on about retaining lifestyles, etc.. this is just fiddling with the deck chairs! It ain't gunna happen! To prevent change, it has to be unrealistic, unachievable and unacceptable economically.'
I don't want to sound smug but I am reasonably satisfied with how it's gone. I think it's fine.
-Colin Firth
God knows how many things a man misses by becoming smug and assuming that matters will take their own course.
-Loren Eiseley
We must NOT be the change we want to prevent.
-(Insert pointer here)
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
Amazing! I love the illustrations and quotes!! I used to have a buddy like you at University. Great guy! funny as hell. Interesting! Rambled on about everything and anything, spent hours with him! no one better to get stoned with!
Sadly, we both graduated and returned to our home towns, I lost contact, and many years later I came across him, and was shocked to discover he had become a colourless, narrow minded, bitter, State Prosecutor.
So, I'm partial to eccentric ranters!
However, I believe if you express an opinion, thats cool, you don't have to substantiate your opinion, unless you say somebody else is wrong. Then you are required to substantiate your proposition.
Threads often wander off subject, that's the fun!
However since you seem obsessed by this aspect. let's see if this comparison is accurate.
A criticism of EV's is that they are not environmentally beneficial since they only transfer the creation of environmental harm from the vehicle, to the power station?
So far, on topic?
My reply is, so what? Ev's are exciting new technology, and possess many other environmental advantages. The power source is a separate issue.
I then responded to your assertion that 'clean coal' technology is a fraud and should be prevented as it is a deception to prevent other alternate energy sources being adopted.
So far, on topic?
I say, 'clean coal' is a media, not industry term, and should be properly described as 'cleaner coal'. I also maintain that coal is currently indispensable to the survival of the majority of the planet' population. Furthermore,given the logistical and political impossibility of stopping all coal production, any technology that can assist to reduce the environmental impact of coal, must be worthwhile pursuing.
So far still on topic?
Now, you vehemently disagree with this fairly moderate assertion. So, I ask you to state clearly, what alternate energy source can you cite (apart from nuclear) that can replace nearly 50% of the world energy needs? I say only Nuclear. This is not that silly, as much of the world is already quite comfortable with nuclear power, and new plants can be built that lack the capacity to create weapons.
Since you so adamantly disagree with me, it's only courteous for you to state your alternative power source in a rational, practical, reasoned manner?
Still on topic?
In all the thousands of words you have written, I have not heard any viable alternative power sources from either Dave(s), or you, that would invalidate my reasoning!
We all want to see sustainable power technology flourish, but you can't advocate stopping what exists without any replacement! ('cept Nuclear). Get you have the temerity to rant against a practical, if not perfect, effort to accomplish something positive.
If all you have is hopes and dreams, that ok! Just don't expect anyone to abandon what's practical for your concept of utopia!
Still on Topic?
marcopolo
@Marcopolo
You have mentioned elswhere that you drive a hybrid, have you considered converting it to be a plugin with battery range of 30K's.
If you power your charging source from 100% green power then would the installation cost be worth it?
@Scientific American media release - What a load of "HOG WASH"
They admit that they are cleaner but throw dirt at the plug-in because the media has promoted them as too clean.
SA are the part of media, and aand they are just putting up titles that make us all bite, but also dirty the plug=in concpet in the public view.
Currently in Australia getting 100% green power to your home only costs $150 to $400 extra http://www.greenenergywatch.com.au/statevic.php
I'm sure USA and canada have these options for consumers, can someone confirm.
Energy storage options haven't really develooped much yet because we need to get the Zeroo-emmiting energy production over the 30% mark.
No point storing energy at this point as their is so much carbon based electricty to displace from the grid.
But on the concept of energy storage, electrosys of Water at very high pressures at high tempertures such as at deep water depths with Hydrogen in under see storage could be an option. Hey the process could help reoxegenate the water from all the CO2 and methane that we are realsing into it.
You make some interesting observations. Obviously, if you erect a sufficiently large solar panels on your charging station, (Home, office or commercial recharging point), then your PIEV would be free from the criticism in the Scientific American.
In several locations in the world we have incorporated this sort technology in our premises, and encourage our staff to utilise the benefits of a 'free' power source for EV's.
The problem I have in Australia is I travel very high mileages, beyond the range of any useful EV technology.
I realise that owning a large hybrid is, at best, token, but you would be surprised at how many people become interested, and accepting of EV technology, after experiencing the performance of a luxury hybrid!
On a commercial level, we are getting to the point where, with building design incorporating renewable power generation, it is possible to feed solar back to a grid, and draw power for Commercial EV charging at night. The logistics and economics are not there yet, but every little helps, and inspires others to think about and accept a reduction of fossil fuel usage.
Oddly enough the biggest resistance to this 'do-what-is-possible' approach, comes from radical greenies. Although on a hobby level they adopt a 'Greener than thou approach', they bitterly oppose any practical or viable large scale technology to mitigate the effects of fossil fuel consumption, because this doesn't fit in with their political/philosophical agenda.
Every technology should be explored and evaluated, without the shrill cries from the conspiracy theorists.
marcopolo
You don't need have your own rewable power generator, you can just buy it off the grid via a competitive market.
The technology for solar to grid is at least 20yrs old.
The issue is that the article suggests PHEV and EVs are dirtier than Hybrids powered from Oil sources.
What are they going on about .. routine tasks ..
Yep just disregard nuclear and renewables from your analysis .... They even say that this is 25% of the supply, you can't disregard it.
The results showing that PHEV or EV's are dirtier in a few states based on approximations for 2020 is so marginal that it holds no weight.
The article only needs to mention that their are some very dirty coal power plants that are very old.
Answer .. Shut them down if they cant clean them up, like you did with the cash for clunkers.
When they say Hybrid which one are they refering to, only the Prius?
What have "radical greenies" got to do with this article?
I'm worried you think that anyone that thinks humans have an effect on the planet is a "radical greenie"
There seems to be claims that there are conspiricy theorists on both sides,
Its those that have worked in the industries and seen things shoved on the shelf when they are ready to be comercialized, that need to be listened too.
I'm supprised you of all people would say some thing is "free" unless of course you have extra solar power generation thats not being utilised. But as we are taking about grid charging, the power generated at premisis could always be used to wind your meter back.
I don't buy the argument that "driving high milages, beyond the range of any useful EV technology" makes having 30mile range plug-in pack not worth while.
If you drive more than 200ks every time the PHEV is used then the return is reduced.
Many PHEV's use removable battery modules so you don't have to lug around the extra weight.
If the porsche SUV'ish hybrid was PHEV I'm sure their would be a market for those wanting to buy flashy gold and diamond encrusted tokens.
If you could just take the hybrid you already own and add to it, like we do with LPG because its greener and finacially better for our budgets.
I'm still trying to find some public Joe to give some real world fuel consumption for the different hybrids. I'm sick of the filtered information that is feed into the media machine.
I have no idea, but I imagine the cost of converting a Lexus 450h and invalidating the Toyota warranty, wouldn't justify the expense. What brand EV is manufactured with removable batteries available?
This technology is not available everywhere in the world.Even in Australia, the scheme seems to be very vague on actual details. Lot's of exclusion clauses. Mostly seems to be a gimmick, if a well intentioned one. But I may be judging too harshly.
This maybe possible in certain locations, but not in the vast majority.
I think the author of the article is trying to argue that PiEV's PHEV's are dirtier because the the emissions form the ICE component of a modern Hybrid are far less than the emissions of coal fired power stations. I am not sure how this could be accurately measured and who cares? A more relevent issue is how to effect cleaner energy. We are entering the post cheap-oil era. The world will need more, not less energy. This must be produced by some method that is environmentaly acceptable, but economically viable.
This maybe possible if you live in a nation blessed with abundant nuclear or hydro, or a very wealthy nation, but this is not economically possible for the majority of the world.
I have no idea, but probably when the study was compiled only Honda and Toyota were mass producing hybrids. (If you don't count Ford commercials)
Sigh, what do they have to do with anything! but the do, they do.. It's opposition form the ultra green lobby that prevents any real progress to solving environmental problems. they condemn attempts to reduce coal fired power emmissions by technology, and protest loudly if the subject of nuclear power is suggested. The truth is that PRC, India and other emerging industrial nations don't care about emmissions, and wil simply ignore carbon tax schemes. The West will impoverish itself, to no effect. The solution is to embrace new all technologies that actually work. But, we must also be practical, just wishing a technology is practical, doesn't make it so!
The term 'radical', should indicate that I am referring to irrational fanatics, not the mainstream environmental movement.
I'm supprised you of all people would say some thing is "free" unless of course you have extra solar power generation thats not being utilised. But as we are taking about grid charging, the power generated at premisis could always be used to wind your meter back.[/quote]
Free refers to the cost to my staff of the power usage for private EV transport.
I see you live in Melbourne, Australia. You are very fortunate! For the last five years you have been able to purchase a fully developed, well built, mass produced, EV. The blade Electron. This 4 door, 4 seater, hatchback is available brand new, with a Hyundai 5 year warranty, or even second hand with factory warranty. Not only that, but its cheaper than the Nissan or iMev. just buy one, drive home, and plug-in!
You can test drive a Blade Electron at the NECO store in the melbourne suburb of Blackburn!
Do you own one? If not why not? What are you Aussies waiting for? You live in a country with 240 volt power, and from what you tell me, renewable energy, straight from the plug.
I have driven the Electron and the iMev, although the Blade Electron is not quite as flash as the iMev,it compares very favourably on price. I will arrange free Renewable power if you work in either the Melbourne CUB or Burwood.
Oh, and incidently, there is a Porche SUV hybrid due for release! Personally, I dislike the whole concept of urban SUV's. They would have to be one of the more stupid fashion statements.
marcopolo
Vizzini: 'Inconceivable!'
Diego Montoya: 'You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it does.'
-From 'The Princess Bride'
What's even MORE amazing is a book called a 'Dictionary,' where you can look up the meaning of the words you throw around because you think it makes you look kewl. Rant, for example, explained as "To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave." Exclamatory can be included, and boy you love to use those exclamation points. And bombast.
Marco Polo: "I guess you, and your ilk. . .It's no good mumbling on. . .without the shrill cries from the conspiracy theorists. . .Although on a hobby level they adopt a 'Greener than thou approach'. . .Because you are waiting for a Utopian dream to arrive. . .It's the politics of the fanatically rabid puritans. . .Yours, is the argument, of the Puritan. . .You make a series of assumptions that are simply untrue. . . Sorry to puncture your dream, but this is the real world, not some Californian new age commune!"
But enough rubbing your face in it. THERE is your response. All that you just CLAIMED was your response is just untrue. And let's not forget your obsessive attacks in and of themselves are OFF TOPIC, since the subject is NOT whether Dave and I are covered in your list of insults you drew up in 1983. Largely this alone debunks so much. . . .
Clean coal ia NOT a media term, it's the government term, it's the socalled inventors term. The media only repeats it. The topic is whether or not the electric are is more polluting than gas if their are coal power plants out there, and NOT that we're a bunch of hippies on this board. Since that's not the subject matter, it's only courteous for you to start ANOTHER THREAD to discuss that on, rather than hijacking this one. But then, considering the LACK of courtesy in indulging in the attacks it's then a little much to expect. . .But expectatons has already been covered, hasn't it?
But the subject isn't this phantom power source you insist I'm keeping as some secret either, so I guess when you ask 'So far, on topic?' the answer is NO.
They can only build so many nuclear power plants not only because of the water Dave menntions but because the fissle material is expected to be running out by 2050 at the current pace of useage. Bring about a dramatic upswing in use and you won't be recovering your investment in the reactor you just built. Why do you think there ceased to be widespread support for nuclear power? It is the ONLY powersource that nature isn't creating more of. It would be courteous to know things like that before you rant about the bright future of nuclear power. Replace 50% of our power? (Sardonic laugh) If it were up to me what little fissle there is would be saved for the military, so they can go on putting 50 years of fuel to last the life of the vessel onboard before they launch the ship, and inusre they won't be stuck going back that awful coal they were so happy to quit using 100 years ago.
So I doubt you went to the trouble to learn that coal WAS projected, when use was lower, to last as much as a decade past 2100. But now that he work on extracting liquid fuels, etc., and all these new coal firing power plants you're (Ahem) RANTING about, that projection is expected to be shortened. Combined with the theory that when that projection was made they didn't realize just how much coal had to be left in the mine because of recovery problems, and let's not forget how much they burn at the mine to produce their own power and of course what's lost when there's an underground fire they can't put out for decades and all the coal in the mine is lost as is the entire county or two above it that the people are forced to leave. Let's not forget that not all that 100 year supply is automatically a mineable grade. We might run out of coal before we run out of nuclear power.
When the less knowledgeable insist that there's 250 years of coal, they are said to not be taking into consideration that it takes 2,100 years or more for nature to create a USEABLE grade of anthracite, so much of what they're counting is centuries away, etc. Keep in mind this isn't from my personal experience, it's only from my being so courteous to READ about subject matters before I insist on discussing them as though I know what I'm talking about. I'll never be caught makeing a mistake like saying "Clean coal is a creation of the media" because I LEARN before I speak, and I'll certainly never try to INSULT my way out of the embarassment in being caught making the mistake. I'm too courteous to depend on your "Esoteric truths of the ancient past, which are concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe and the spiritual realm," or whatever you're divining your 'Facts' from when you make them up as you go. (Now that LAST sentence was a rant, just so you can see what it would be like if I did it. And mine is kewler than yours.) I'll take the word of. . .Pretty much anyone else on this board talking about this over yours, after the way you've been carrying on.
Meanwhile, you aren't planning to live that long and it's not your problem, I know, I KNOW. But it would at least be courteous of you to shut up and let the people who do know and CARE about this to talk peacefully and stop your text equivilent of screaming at Dave when he mentions the (Ahem) inconvenient truth you wish to deny.
So we may be into peak oil, but I haven't reached peak information yet. I'm still have serious reserves. If you insist on continuing to baffle everyone with bull, keep in mind I can further blind you with brilliance.
Oh, just in case anyone has forgotten after the intensity of corrections here, the vocabulary deficiency also included the use of 'Harm minimalization' in referring to the most harmful approach of all: Subsidizing the use of coal. Harm minimalization is mixing ethanol in gasoline, but only in cars capable of using it without burning up. It is extracting the petroleum wastes of algae (Did you know where oil REALLY came from?) which apparently works just fine in our petroleum products. It is the solar panels on the roof with the reverse meter (Taking it off your bill at least in California and Texas) that sends unused power back into the grid which could power the electric cars. It is doing anything that reduces the strain on the environment and on the resources we are currently so dependent on and cannot produce enough of. It is NOT putting an increased strain on both by subsidizing the worst activites.
Knowledge is (Superior fire)power.
-Me
WHo dares, WINS!!!!
You have excelled yourself! A really world class rant! Although, reference to punctuation and spell-check would make it more decipherable. keep up the good work!
marcopolo
That was a bit of a ramble (my last post), bit frustrating trying do diseminate the sources of information linked to the article.
I do think people need to know what source of power the EV's or PHEV comes from and that some carbon burning power stations could possibly be worse than burning petrol in an efficient hybrid. The power stations can emit all sorts of nasty chemicals if the burning and exhaust is not processed well.
The source emmisions and transfer efficiency need to be available for the electricicty used to charge the batteries.
But I'm still not satisfied this media blurb has proven this.
The emissions of getting the fuel to the car need to be considered too.
Since I don't subscribe to SciAmer I cant get the source article.
(Edit My earlier comment about storage of hydrogen under water hasn't considered environmental impacts. release of oxygen in the water coloumn is something that I'd like to know more about too.)
No, not at all, I didn't think you rambled. The article in the SA wasn't terribly scientific! Many of the points you made are valid and worth considering.
Criticism of EV's because of the power source seems to me to be pretty pointless. Carbon reduction is only one benefit of EV adoption. For that matter you could purchase an EV and have your own solar charging regime and be completely emission free. The pendant might argue that there is some environmental harm in the manufacture and disposal of tyres, batteries, solar panels etc,.. etc,.. ad nauseum. I think that when London's Lord Mayor, Boris Johnson, exhoted people "to buy an EV just because, it's exciting new technology, a step closer to a better future for the planet, and is fun to own, right now!", is very good advice.
The quibbling over PHEV as opposed to EV or Hybrid, should be left to the anorak crowd who revel in the minutia of any new technology.
BTW, you didn't give us your opinion of the Hyundai/Blade Electron? I can't believe that so few Australians have taken advantage of owning the first mass production EV. You live in the State where they are produced.
I am often critical of the USA, but hell, if a US State had a successful, world first, production EV, they would be promoting it like crazy. Remember, Vectrix lost nearly a Billion dollars, and sold less than 2000 bikes, mostly, with a lot of defects.(ask mik). In contrast, the Blade owner enjoys a nationwide warranty from Hyundai. The Blade electron is a tough, hard working EV, well finished and totally reliable.
So, why doesn't a environmentally aware guy like you own one?
The Blade has sold more vehicles than Tesla, but mainly in NZ. It's true, "A prophet has no honour in his own country"!
marcopolo
Were you around when the first Hyundai cars were dumped into this world? The pieces of crap, that after less than 1000 miles, burned a quart of oil per 100 miles and/or leaked a quart per day. They had a "nationalwide warranty then, too. If you every run into someone who was able to get satisfaction with this warranty, please publish the details. We were there and saw our friends with their shiny new worthless Hyundai's go through hell. We also saw many of the dealerships shut down or change brands. We will never buy a Hyundai at any price.
Since Hyundai’s launch in Australia back in 1986, Hyundai has sold over 700,000 cars and light commercials. Hyundai is the second most sought after dealership in Australian after Honda. Hyundai has been chosen three of the last five years by the peak Australian motoring bodies, including RACV, VACC, NRMA, RAVQ as the best economy vehicle of the year!
The Hyundai group is a world leader in building everything from ships to microchips, including consumer electronics, oil rigs and massive infrastructure projects. It's true that some of Hyundai's styling choices reflect Korean rather than European tastes, but I think you must be confusing Hyundai with British Leyland!
Every year since 1992 Hyundai have dramatically increased sales, market share and reputation in Australia.
If even a quarter of what you claim was true, this wouldn't be the case!
In response to your claim, " If you every run into someone who was able to get satisfaction with this warranty, please publish the details." The most recent AC Nielson poll of satisfaction in Australians Car owners stated:
"Hyundai, the Korean maker once considered an economy only maker, finished ahead of Volkswagen, Renault, Holden and Ford. Hyundai's overall performance in Australia was second only to Lexus.
The result tallies with Hyundai's strong performance in quality surveys in the United States. Hyundai ranked third in the 2006 JD Power survey behind Porsche and Lexus"!!
Well it looks like a huge number of people don't agree with you!!
Try living in the present, not thirty years ago!
Who killed the Electric Car? People like you! Here is a real maker, with a functioning product. What support does he recieve? Just people like you who publish disinformation and then whinge on with absurd conspiracy theories! It wouldn't even be so bad , if you had been and test driven a Hyundai Blade Electron, and then formed a rational assessment.
Oh no, you just rant irrelevent rubbish!
marcopolo