Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why do you find it necessary to respond to a post about an article that you didn't even read? Can we say, "Jumping to conclusions"? Right or wrong, you should read the original article before jumping on the poster.From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...
"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a clean energy source."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!
How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.
Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.
The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.
Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.
double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.
Small wind turbines like those actually damage the environment.
From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...
"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a clean energy source."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!
How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.
Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.
The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.
Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.
double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.
Oh lordie, more delusional garbage from someone too retarded to bother learning anything about this subject or even bothering to read the OP. LOL. So tell everybody, little clueless retard, just what are these "fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions" that you're talking about there? Driving electric vehicles using only solar and wind power? Something that is actually being done in many places around the world right now? That's what you're talking about? LOLOL. Just as an example close to home, there are a growing number of people here in California right now who have solar panels on their garages and/or homes that supply all of the power their electric vehicle needs for daily use. In many areas, a combination of home solar pv and wind generators can give ordinary people real energy independence in their homes as well as their cars. Why are you supposedly 'fiercely independent conservatives' so opposed to that? Do you not crave freedom from the centralized control of grid power and constantly rising prices? Do you like paying a big part of our national income to foreign nations who don't much like us?
Solar power for the home is dropping in price and increasing in efficiency. New developments abound.
Small scale wind power for the home is developing at an extraordinary rate as well. Several recent advances promise to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of wind energy. Here's one fairly new one for the home that can draw energy from very low wind speeds. There's some neat video evidence for that claim [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko-_zAXNvYk&feature=player_embedded"]here[/ame].
New Honeywell Wind Turbine Coming to Hardware Stores, Rooftops Near You
New gearless wind turbine from WindTronics and Honeywell said to generate electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine.
February 1, 2010
(excerpts)
The Honeywell Wind Turbine is lighter and quieter than turbines of comparable size. (Image: Windtronics)
The fan-like Honewywell WT6500 wind turbine can generate about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually for a home with a strong wind resource; and up to 2,700 kWh for a location with a strong (class 4) wind resource. Depending on wind speed and energy use, a single unit can be expected to generate up to 20 percent of the annual electricity for the average American home.
But what sets the Honeywell Wind Turbine apart from others of similar size is that it starts spinning at winds of just 1 mph and generating electricity at 2 mph; generating power in low wind conditions, when others do not. In fact, Michigan-based WindTronics say it generates electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine (in both class and size). A gearless turbine harnesses energy from the tips of the turbine blades, where they are moving the fastest. The low-vibrational impact of the gearless wind turbine means that the 95-pound, 6-foot diameter unit can be mounted on a pole, a rooftop, or even attached to a chimney .
Let's put some home use numbers on the 2000 KW-H unit. 2000 KW-H/8760 hours per year give an average power of 230W full time. If you're careful with your usage this could be a significant supplement to your usage but not quite enough to run your house on.
The wind only blows in democrat web posting fairy-tails 24/7/365=8760 hours per year. 
Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com
"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."
Both true and so obvious, it's hardly worth mentioning. Why call the facts the "same old story"? What do you imagine that means?OK, I read it. same old story of how an electric car is only as clean as the power it is being run onWhy do you find it necessary to respond to a post about an article that you didn't even read? Can we say, "Jumping to conclusions"? Right or wrong, you should read the original article before jumping on the poster.I didnt read the OP article but I assume
Wrong. Just more of your crazy unsupported denier cult myths. Solar and wind are quite viable as alternatives to our current energy sources and they are indeed easily "scalable". Here's a good recent study on just how to do it.wind and solar are no panacea and they are not scaleable to our needs, and they have undesirable side effects that many people choose to ignore.
Steve baby, gonna shut you down!
Welcome to Plasma Boy Racing, home of White Zombie, the world's quickest street legal electric door slammer in the 1/4 mile drag.
Welcome to the White Zombie History page. From it's humble beginning back in 1994 to today's low 10 second car, everything it took to make Plasma Boy's White Zombie the first street legal electric car to run a 10 second quarter mile, is chronicalled here. You can also view classic videos of White Zombie (and other Plasma Boy EVs) by clicking on the 'Videos' button. The latest and most popular videos of this high powered electric car taking out muscle cars and hot import drag racers, can be viewed on 'Youtube' by searching 'electric drag racing'. For the visual details of the various improvements we've done along the way, click on the 'Photos' button and navigate to 'Plasma Boy's various Electric Vehicles, then the sub album 'White Zombie'.
Both true and so obvious, it's hardly worth mentioning. Why call the facts the "same old story"? What do you imagine that means?OK, I read it. same old story of how an electric car is only as clean as the power it is being run onWhy do you find it necessary to respond to a post about an article that you didn't even read? Can we say, "Jumping to conclusions"? Right or wrong, you should read the original article before jumping on the poster.
Wrong. Just more of your crazy unsupported denier cult myths. Solar and wind are quite viable as alternatives to our current energy sources and they are indeed easily "scalable". Here's a good recent study on just how to do it.wind and solar are no panacea and they are not scaleable to our needs, and they have undesirable side effects that many people choose to ignore.
A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
Scientific American
October 26, 2009
......which almost invariably leads to faulty thinking.
