Save the planet - buy an electric car

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

Many liberal infested states are looking for ways to tax the crap out of electric car owners. Nothing irritates a tax and spend liberal more than people paying less taxes.

You mean, insane states and not just liberal states. Many states are controlled by the Oil and Gas Industry and do do things to limit the electric car. In Texas, you cannot have a GM/Tesla dealership. But you can have a GM/Toyota dealership. Tesla has to have their own free standing dealerships not associated with any other dealerships. Not exactly a Liberal state. There are a few states with that law on the books. So don't play this party politics BS on this one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Manufacturing electric car batteries produces some of the most toxic waste on the planet. Riiiiight lets manufacture more of those because its 'green'.

Prove to us all that manufacturing a Lithium Batter is more toxic than the refining, transport and use of Gasoline. Good luck on that one.

 

[BluesLegend]

Manufacturing electric car batteries produces some of the most toxic waste on the planet. Riiiiight lets manufacture more of those because its 'green'.

Prove to us all that manufacturing a Lithium Batter is more toxic than the refining, transport and use of Gasoline. Good luck on that one.

Says the 'green' geniuses who banned paper bags to save trees thus creating a global catastrophic plastic bag pollution crisis.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Manufacturing electric car batteries produces some of the most toxic waste on the planet. Riiiiight lets manufacture more of those because its 'green'.

Prove to us all that manufacturing a Lithium Batter is more toxic than the refining, transport and use of Gasoline. Good luck on that one.

Says the 'green' geniuses who banned paper bags to save trees thus creating a global catastrophic plastic bag pollution crisis.

Paper Bags have never been banned. It was a business decision. Plastic Bags cost the businesses less. Wow, a Capitalist makes a business decision to make more money and it's obviously a Liberal Conspiracy, right? Today, we are banning Plastic Bags as we should be doing. Unless you want the plastic island in the Pacific to grow to the size of Texas instead of just the size of Rhode Island like it is today.

 

[BluesLegend]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

 

[BluesLegend]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

I lived in a Dem state that banned them moron. Do you understand the word "banned" as in paper grocery bags no longer allowed, by law, a law that green idiots on the left passed?

 

[Markle]

You mean, insane states and not just liberal states. Many states are controlled by the Oil and Gas Industry and do do things to limit the electric car. In Texas, you cannot have a GM/Tesla dealership. But you can have a GM/Toyota dealership. Tesla has to have their own free standing dealerships not associated with any other dealerships. Not exactly a Liberal state. There are a few states with that law on the books. So don't play this party politics BS on this one.

Tesla will not allow their dealerships to sell another brand. Much like Apple did in its beginning. Tesla does not want their experience to be lost in a sea of gas powered cars. It is not the states, but rather Tesla.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

I lived in a Dem state that banned them moron. Do you understand the word "banned" as in paper grocery bags no longer allowed, by law, a law that green idiots on the left passed?

Because you say so?/ Not good enough, cupcake. Okay, Skippy, what state to you live in other than the state of fantasy. I'll look it up myself since you don't seem to be able to.

Otherwise we just write you off as a liar.

 

[BluesLegend]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

I lived in a Dem state that banned them moron. Do you understand the word "banned" as in paper grocery bags no longer allowed, by law, a law that green idiots on the left passed?

Because you say so?/ Not good enough, cupcake. Okay, Skippy, what state to you live in other than the state of fantasy. I'll look it up myself since you don't seem to be able to.

Otherwise we just write you off as a liar.

Its not my fault you are ignorant. I'll give you some more rope then if I want to amuse myself I'll expose your ignorance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

[Paper Bags have never been banned.

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

I lived in a Dem state that banned them moron. Do you understand the word "banned" as in paper grocery bags no longer allowed, by law, a law that green idiots on the left passed?

Because you say so?/ Not good enough, cupcake. Okay, Skippy, what state to you live in other than the state of fantasy. I'll look it up myself since you don't seem to be able to.

Otherwise we just write you off as a liar.

Its not my fault you are ignorant. I'll give you some more rope then if I want to amuse myself I'll expose your ignorance.

Aw, you just made it up. That means you are a liar. Time to thin out the gene pool. Have a nice day, cupcake.

 

[BluesLegend]

You are a liar or ignorant.

Since I can't be expected to prove a negative, you prove the positive. Where have the Paper Bags been banned by the Government? Prove me wrong or we thin the gene pool again.

I lived in a Dem state that banned them moron. Do you understand the word "banned" as in paper grocery bags no longer allowed, by law, a law that green idiots on the left passed?

Because you say so?/ Not good enough, cupcake. Okay, Skippy, what state to you live in other than the state of fantasy. I'll look it up myself since you don't seem to be able to.

Otherwise we just write you off as a liar.

Its not my fault you are ignorant. I'll give you some more rope then if I want to amuse myself I'll expose your ignorance.

Aw, you just made it up. That means you are a liar. Time to thin out the gene pool. Have a nice day, cupcake.

Don't worry I remember all the stupid shit you libwits do and can remind you of your stupidity. Save the trees band paper grocery bags, go plastic that's what the left imbeciles advocated. Now that they made a giant global mess with their plastic bags they want to conveniently forget they supported plastic from the get go.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Electric cars do NOT have the equivalent claimed.

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

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

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.

When cars were required to have catalytic converters in 1974, almost all the mechanics in the shop came down with respiratory problems. We had to greatly increase the ventilation system to remove all the new toxins that catalytic converters were generating.

I saw the EPA targeting air cooled cars like VW and Porsche, and diesels. They were using NOx as their means to do this, because US makers did not make air cooled or small diesels. But yet clearly air cooled and diesels are far cleaner and safer. So the EPA was deliberately trying to cut foreign competition, while increasing emissions. We see that by all the low mpg SUVs US makers are selling now. If the EPA was even half honest, no one would be selling any SUVs because the EPA would not be allowing them. SUVs clearly use twice as much fuel. That has to be corruption. Way too obvious.

So, I spent 3 years in school, going through automotive tech.

It's true that NOx was what killed off most air cooled cars, and the tiny diesels. NOx is tied directly to smog and acid rain.

Diesels that run hotter (because they are smaller), are specifically problematic in producing NOx because of the air ratio to fuel.
Air cooled cars have the same problem because the cylinder walls are in fact too hot, which results in NOx emissions.

So the factual results that you pointed to, are dead on accurate. The question I have is whether this was an intentionally targeting of import cars, or just an over-zealous regulation to combat smog and acid rain.

Do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate targeting? Or is it possible it was just over zealous regulation, that resulting in collateral damage?

While NOx can contribute to what is known as the phototropic effect if there is high humidity in the air, that is only in coastal areas, and is not at all toxic.

But diesels do not run hotter.
That would imply they generate more heat.
They product much higher temperatures, from more intense explosions upon compression combustion, but the duration is far shorter, so the total heat is far less.
And it is these higher temperatures that do encourage more NOx then lower combustion temperature.
NOx is just a product of heat, and not part of the fuel or explosion.
But the key to reducing carbon emissions it the highest temperature possible.
A slower burn produces far less power, so you press more on the gas pedal, and consume far more fuel and produce far more emissions.

The reality is that no one has ever shown and negatives from diesel NOx.
NOx is produced by gas appliances, industry, agriculture, jet planes, etc., which dwarf diesel cars into insignificance.
If NOx really were a problem, then they would go after these large producers first.

 

[Rigby5]

...
by Aliya Whiteley

...

Al Gore certainly looks better than I expected with a pie in his face. He was the senile old fool who predicted that by 2016, both of Earth's arctic icecaps would be completely melted. Well, 2016 has come and gone and the icecaps still remain the same as always. These "climate change" idiots remind me of bible-thumping Rapture fanatics who keep predicting the end of the world by a certain date and are wrong every single time. There is no difference between them.

The North Pole had never melted enough for anyone to cross with a ship for tens of thousands of years until 2009.
Now we can easily cross the Arctic Circle every summer because about half the polar ice melts off now every summer.
Polar ice has NOT remained the same at all.

 

[Rigby5]

If we had kept going the direction we were going there was a good chance in our lifetime that his predictions would have come to play. But we have cleaned up much of our act and slowed it down. We haven't stopped it completely. Mother Nature is wounded though. And we have a ways to go. Each preventive step we have taken has been met with the same naysayers. But each time we have done what needs to be done. We do it a little a time. So go ahead and be a naysayer. It's natural. But we are still going to take it a few more steps to try and give Mother Nature a chance to heal her wounds that we have had a contribution in inflicting.

It's not time for us to do anything more until the rest of the world catches up. We're not the problem, as you know.

The Global Warming kooks here are raving about closing 10 coal plants in the US. Meanwhile, they ignore thousands being built around the world while the third world countries have billions using peat and dung to cook and heat.

That is not true, we are the problem.
Per person, countries like China and India produce far less emission than we do.
We produce more than 3 times what people in China do, per person, and more than 8 times what an individual does in India, per person.

We set the standard, and we are the most guilty of waste and unnecessary emissions.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

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

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.

When cars were required to have catalytic converters in 1974, almost all the mechanics in the shop came down with respiratory problems. We had to greatly increase the ventilation system to remove all the new toxins that catalytic converters were generating.

I saw the EPA targeting air cooled cars like VW and Porsche, and diesels. They were using NOx as their means to do this, because US makers did not make air cooled or small diesels. But yet clearly air cooled and diesels are far cleaner and safer. So the EPA was deliberately trying to cut foreign competition, while increasing emissions. We see that by all the low mpg SUVs US makers are selling now. If the EPA was even half honest, no one would be selling any SUVs because the EPA would not be allowing them. SUVs clearly use twice as much fuel. That has to be corruption. Way too obvious.

So, I spent 3 years in school, going through automotive tech.

It's true that NOx was what killed off most air cooled cars, and the tiny diesels. NOx is tied directly to smog and acid rain.

Diesels that run hotter (because they are smaller), are specifically problematic in producing NOx because of the air ratio to fuel.
Air cooled cars have the same problem because the cylinder walls are in fact too hot, which results in NOx emissions.

So the factual results that you pointed to, are dead on accurate. The question I have is whether this was an intentionally targeting of import cars, or just an over-zealous regulation to combat smog and acid rain.

Do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate targeting? Or is it possible it was just over zealous regulation, that resulting in collateral damage?

While NOx can contribute to what is known as the phototropic effect if there is high humidity in the air, that is only in coastal areas, and is not at all toxic.

But diesels do not run hotter.
That would imply they generate more heat.
They product much higher temperatures, from more intense explosions upon compression combustion, but the duration is far shorter, so the total heat is far less.
And it is these higher temperatures that do encourage more NOx then lower combustion temperature.
NOx is just a product of heat, and not part of the fuel or explosion.
But the key to reducing carbon emissions it the highest temperature possible.
A slower burn produces far less power, so you press more on the gas pedal, and consume far more fuel and produce far more emissions.

The reality is that no one has ever shown and negatives from diesel NOx.
NOx is produced by gas appliances, industry, agriculture, jet planes, etc., which dwarf diesel cars into insignificance.
If NOx really were a problem, then they would go after these large producers first.

They have but you don't believe in science so you won't confuse your self with facts.

 

[zaangalewa]

...Lol
It’s arrogant and foolish to believe man can change the climate...

It's arrogant and stupid to think no one is responsible in the eyes of the Lord. Climate warming is a fact, what every scientist worldwide is able to tell you. And every of this serios scientists is also able to tell you the reason for is the wrong behavior of human beings. Not to forget in this context: Human beings are even the worst danger for all other living species of gods creation on planet Earth. About a million species is in danger to die out, because we are the most criminal idiots under all animals of our planet. We are a criminal - and stupid - natural catastrophe.

"Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right."
Pope Francis

And not to forget in context of the theme here: In case we would use hydrogen (which is produced for example from solar power) for cars, then we could use this car in case of a power failure of the electricity providers at home for electric power. Take a cable and plug it in and your fridge has power again.

 

[Markle]

...
by Aliya Whiteley

...

Al Gore certainly looks better than I expected with a pie in his face. He was the senile old fool who predicted that by 2016, both of Earth's arctic icecaps would be completely melted. Well, 2016 has come and gone and the icecaps still remain the same as always. These "climate change" idiots remind me of bible-thumping Rapture fanatics who keep predicting the end of the world by a certain date and are wrong every single time. There is no difference between them.

The North Pole had never melted enough for anyone to cross with a ship for tens of thousands of years until 2009.
Now we can easily cross the Arctic Circle every summer because about half the polar ice melts off now every summer.
Polar ice has NOT remained the same at all.

Not true.

"The first explorer to conquer the Northwest Passage solely by ship was the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. In a three-year journey between 1903 and 1906, Amundsen explored the passage with a crew of six. Amundsen, who had sailed to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed the voyage in the converted 45 net register tonnage (4,500 cu ft or 130 m3) herring boat Gjøa."

It must have been the Global Warming caused by all those coal-burning power plants.

 

[Markle]

If we had kept going the direction we were going there was a good chance in our lifetime that his predictions would have come to play. But we have cleaned up much of our act and slowed it down. We haven't stopped it completely. Mother Nature is wounded though. And we have a ways to go. Each preventive step we have taken has been met with the same naysayers. But each time we have done what needs to be done. We do it a little a time. So go ahead and be a naysayer. It's natural. But we are still going to take it a few more steps to try and give Mother Nature a chance to heal her wounds that we have had a contribution in inflicting.

It's not time for us to do anything more until the rest of the world catches up. We're not the problem, as you know.

The Global Warming kooks here are raving about closing 10 coal plants in the US. Meanwhile, they ignore thousands being built around the world while the third world countries have billions using peat and dung to cook and heat.

That is not true, we are the problem.
Per person, countries like China and India produce far less emission than we do.
We produce more than 3 times what people in China do, per person, and more than 8 times what an individual does in India, per person.

We set the standard, and we are the most guilty of waste and unnecessary emissions.

Please show us the supporting facts for your allegations. Please show us what is not true about my display on the number of coal plants in existence and being built.

Is it not true that we (the US) have reduced our CO2 emissions and China has increased theirs?

How many hundred million people in China and India are still using peat and/or animal dung for heat and cooking? Are there any emissions from those open fires?

 

[Andylusion]

MPGe is a rating given by the EPA.

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

The EPA has been a corrupt corporate shill since they went with catalytic converters in 1974.
The MPGe rating says nothing about things like how far your charging station is from the power plant, and how much energy is lost by that transmission. The reality is that is likely about 20%. And there are many more factors like that the EPA ignores. Just like no car actually gets the EPA mileage figures. It should be obvious that when you add 1000 lbs of batteries to a car, it will require more energy, not less. And it also ignores the fact the major source of electricity in the US and the rest of the world is and will remain coal, which is the dirtiest. Those claiming electric power is going away from coal are lying because we have 10 times as much coal as we oil or gas, and fracking emits far more pollution than burning coal even.

I'm not sure if they are a corporate corporate shill... but I think they are doing the best that ignorant government bureaucrats can do, when they absolutely nothing about the auto industry, or how anything works.

When cars were required to have catalytic converters in 1974, almost all the mechanics in the shop came down with respiratory problems. We had to greatly increase the ventilation system to remove all the new toxins that catalytic converters were generating.

I saw the EPA targeting air cooled cars like VW and Porsche, and diesels. They were using NOx as their means to do this, because US makers did not make air cooled or small diesels. But yet clearly air cooled and diesels are far cleaner and safer. So the EPA was deliberately trying to cut foreign competition, while increasing emissions. We see that by all the low mpg SUVs US makers are selling now. If the EPA was even half honest, no one would be selling any SUVs because the EPA would not be allowing them. SUVs clearly use twice as much fuel. That has to be corruption. Way too obvious.

So, I spent 3 years in school, going through automotive tech.

It's true that NOx was what killed off most air cooled cars, and the tiny diesels. NOx is tied directly to smog and acid rain.

Diesels that run hotter (because they are smaller), are specifically problematic in producing NOx because of the air ratio to fuel.
Air cooled cars have the same problem because the cylinder walls are in fact too hot, which results in NOx emissions.

So the factual results that you pointed to, are dead on accurate. The question I have is whether this was an intentionally targeting of import cars, or just an over-zealous regulation to combat smog and acid rain.

Do you have any actual evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate targeting? Or is it possible it was just over zealous regulation, that resulting in collateral damage?

While NOx can contribute to what is known as the phototropic effect if there is high humidity in the air, that is only in coastal areas, and is not at all toxic.

But diesels do not run hotter.
That would imply they generate more heat.
They product much higher temperatures, from more intense explosions upon compression combustion, but the duration is far shorter, so the total heat is far less.
And it is these higher temperatures that do encourage more NOx then lower combustion temperature.
NOx is just a product of heat, and not part of the fuel or explosion.
But the key to reducing carbon emissions it the highest temperature possible.
A slower burn produces far less power, so you press more on the gas pedal, and consume far more fuel and produce far more emissions.

The reality is that no one has ever shown and negatives from diesel NOx.
NOx is produced by gas appliances, industry, agriculture, jet planes, etc., which dwarf diesel cars into insignificance.
If NOx really were a problem, then they would go after these large producers first.

Uh.... that contradicts 3 years of education. Diesels do run hotter. They have a higher air to fuel ratio, and have a much higher compression ratio.

It does not matter how short the duration is, because it is during that moment of the burn cycle that NOx is created. And yes, it is specifically due to the heat that creates more NOx.

There are no explosions by the way. And in fact, Diesel has a slower burn rate than gasoline. But in both cases, they are controlled burns. If you have a real explosion going on, we call that knocking, and those knocks, will tear your engine apart.

As for the NOx not really being a problem.... I'm up for that claim. Sounds plausible to me, but I haven't seen evidence yet, to support that claim.

It would make sense that NOx near water would be a bigger problem, but of course most left-wingers are near water. And left-wingers like to regulation. So I can see why they would make regulations based on their location, that doesn't make sense to the rest of the world.