Electirc cars pollute MORE than gas poweered cars!!!

[westwall]

There was a study done a while back that proved the Toyota Prius actually puts out more emmisions over its lifetime when you consider the manufacturing of the batteries.

I would imagine though, that over time if electric cars would become the norm, the battery production would become more efficient as companies refined their manufacturing process, so that eventually electric cars would become (1) better for environment, and (2) cheaper for consumers to use, because they no longer have to pay for gas, just added electric costs (which will be cheaper than gas because you don't have to maintain gas stations, gas transport networks, ect, you just need powerlines).

Actually the lithium used in the hybrids batteries is far more uncommon than oil will ever be. If the wet dream of the greenies was to come true the world would run out of Li in a very few years. Talk about a non renewable fuel...you're looking at it. And its name is lithium.

 

[westwall]

plus, the internal combustion engine, as great as it is, is the reason the middle east has so much power internationally.

Only because our government won't allow us to drill for our own oil.

Once again we have our resident liar demostrating that he is either an ignoramous or a tool of the energy corporations.

Sure, we aren't drill enough, and don't have enough refinery capacity. That is why gasoline and diesel have become our biggest export. 500,000 wells in the US, versus under 40,000 in the Middle East.

And yet, you can never point to a lie I've made. You neglect to point out that those 500,000 wells are old. So old in point of fact that most are capped.

 

[Old Rocks]

plus, the internal combustion engine, as great as it is, is the reason the middle east has so much power internationally.

Only because our government won't allow us to drill for our own oil.

Once again we have our resident liar demostrating that he is either an ignoramous or a tool of the energy corporations.

Sure, we aren't drill enough, and don't have enough refinery capacity. That is why gasoline and diesel have become our biggest export. 500,000 wells in the US, versus under 40,000 in the Middle East.

Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export

NEW YORK (AP) – For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.

By David J. Phillip, AP
In this Nov. 10, 2010 file photo, oil refineries are shown in this aerial view, in Deer Park, Texas. For the first time, the top export of the United States is fuel.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn't even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America's top export was aircraft

 

[Old Rocks]

Only because our government won't allow us to drill for our own oil.

Once again we have our resident liar demostrating that he is either an ignoramous or a tool of the energy corporations.

Sure, we aren't drill enough, and don't have enough refinery capacity. That is why gasoline and diesel have become our biggest export. 500,000 wells in the US, versus under 40,000 in the Middle East.

And yet, you can never point to a lie I've made. You neglect to point out that those 500,000 wells are old. So old in point of fact that most are capped.

Easy. "So old in point of fact that most are capped". That is obviously a lie by the article below. Just as the prevention of drilling is a lie.

And you claim to be a geologist.


February 2012 - 2012 Forecast: U.S. oil well counts rise in all regions

The total number of producing oil wells in the U.S. increased at a steady pace in 2011, reflecting stepped-up drilling programs spurred by $100/bbl prices. World Oil’s estimate of producing wells, based on surveys of state agencies and company sources, indicates a rise of over 16,000 wells to 535,951.

 

[Old Rocks]

There was a study done a while back that proved the Toyota Prius actually puts out more emmisions over its lifetime when you consider the manufacturing of the batteries.

I would imagine though, that over time if electric cars would become the norm, the battery production would become more efficient as companies refined their manufacturing process, so that eventually electric cars would become (1) better for environment, and (2) cheaper for consumers to use, because they no longer have to pay for gas, just added electric costs (which will be cheaper than gas because you don't have to maintain gas stations, gas transport networks, ect, you just need powerlines).

Actually the lithium used in the hybrids batteries is far more uncommon than oil will ever be. If the wet dream of the greenies was to come true the world would run out of Li in a very few years. Talk about a non renewable fuel...you're looking at it. And its name is lithium.

Real dumb, Walleyes. First, lithium is just one of the materials that the batteries of the future will be composed of. Secondly, once you burn a barrel of oil it is gone. Lithium does not disappear when the battery will no longer take an adaquete charge, it is there to be recycled and put into another battery.

Do you really think that everybody is as stupid as you seem to be?

 

[skookerasbil]

You want to see more total CRAP from this fraud president of ours...................

Check out what he wants Americans putting into their gas tanks when they pull up to the pump..............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwyFrLBeFVA]Obama Algae - YouTube.avi - YouTube[/ame]


These liberals are fantasy assholes who are so full of CRAP its beyond the level of absurd!!!

Thankfully, we have just 7 more months and can then finally nmothball this jerkoff ideology for two generations.

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, given the GOP has done it's best to alienate women, latinoes, blacks, and anybody with a scientifc education, it will be lucky to retain a majority in the Congress, let alone win back the Senate or Presidency. In fact, by the time the present lineup of clowns get done talking, I would not be surprised if they have not managed to alienate old fat white bastards.

 

[RollingThunder]

Who knew??!!!!

Leave it to the Chinese.................."more fine particle pollution]"........"more harmful to overall health".......... than gas powered cars.

Study shows impact of electric cars is worse than petrol-powered vehicles | Mail Online

The internal combustion engine RULES!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....and another hilariously insane and very retarded (duplicate) thread from the forum's resident retard. One of the ol' kookster's fellow denier cultists name of 'misty' tried to start another thread based on the same inaccurate and deliberately misleading headlines and got immediately shot down and debunked. Both of them are too retarded to actually understand the original scientific study the stories were based on and the kookster never manages to actually read the propaganda he parrots so he often is left looking like a fool when his sources don't support his specious pseudo-points.

In this case there is an additional interesting point in the article he cites that refutes a lot of nonsense the denier cultists spew about how electric vehicles will never work. Check this out first.

Electric cars in Pudong, Shanghai: In China
electric cars now outnumber conventional vehicles
two to one​

Some excerpts from the article the kookster cited:

They found that the electricity generated to power electric cars caused more particulate matter pollution than that caused by an equivalent number of petrol driven vehicles. In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal. The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emitted fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles.

"The study emphasizes that electric vehicles are attractive if they are powered by a clean energy source," Professor Cherry said. "In China and elsewhere, it is important to focus on deploying electric vehicles in cities with cleaner electricity generation and focusing on improving emissions controls in higher polluting power sectors."

The researchers estimated health impacts in China using overall emission data and emission rates from literature for five vehicle types — gasoline and diesel cars, diesel buses, e-bikes and e-cars. E-cars' impact was lower than diesel cars but equal to diesel buses. E-bikes yielded the lowest environmental health impacts per passenger per kilometer. "Our calculations show that an increase in electric bike usage improves air quality and environmental health by displacing the use of other more polluting modes of transportation," said Professor Cherry. "E-bikes, which are battery-powered, continue to be an environmentally friendly and efficient mode of transportation."

(source: DailyMail - online)​

So.....in fact, electric vehicles are so much cleaner that even when the juice comes from the dirtiest possible source, electric cars are still cleaner than diesel IC engine cars and electric bikes are still best.

Of course, the obvious truth in this is that electric vehicles can be completely 'clean' and non-polluting if the electricity comes from clean renewable sources like solar and wind. As was made clear in that other thread.

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."

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.

 

[westwall]

I would imagine though, that over time if electric cars would become the norm, the battery production would become more efficient as companies refined their manufacturing process, so that eventually electric cars would become (1) better for environment, and (2) cheaper for consumers to use, because they no longer have to pay for gas, just added electric costs (which will be cheaper than gas because you don't have to maintain gas stations, gas transport networks, ect, you just need powerlines).

Actually the lithium used in the hybrids batteries is far more uncommon than oil will ever be. If the wet dream of the greenies was to come true the world would run out of Li in a very few years. Talk about a non renewable fuel...you're looking at it. And its name is lithium.

Real dumb, Walleyes. First, lithium is just one of the materials that the batteries of the future will be composed of. Secondly, once you burn a barrel of oil it is gone. Lithium does not disappear when the battery will no longer take an adaquete charge, it is there to be recycled and put into another battery.

Do you really think that everybody is as stupid as you seem to be?

There is far less Li on this planet than there is oil. Li recycling is incredibly expensive. So far Li is the prefered element. I grant you that technology will change. Amazing how you ignore technology when it has to do with fossil fuels...which are STILL far more efficient at producing energy than ANY green system.

Until that situation changes green power will be a afterthought and only able to survive thanks to the largesse of the taxpayers of the world. In other words so long as the greenies can leech off of the producers things are fine. When they can't they fail. Just like we are seeing worldwide.

It's amazing you're not smart enough to realise that.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually the lithium used in the hybrids batteries is far more uncommon than oil will ever be. If the wet dream of the greenies was to come true the world would run out of Li in a very few years. Talk about a non renewable fuel...you're looking at it. And its name is lithium.

Real dumb, Walleyes. First, lithium is just one of the materials that the batteries of the future will be composed of. Secondly, once you burn a barrel of oil it is gone. Lithium does not disappear when the battery will no longer take an adaquete charge, it is there to be recycled and put into another battery.

Do you really think that everybody is as stupid as you seem to be?

There is far less Li on this planet than there is oil. Li recycling is incredibly expensive. So far Li is the prefered element. I grant you that technology will change. Amazing how you ignore technology when it has to do with fossil fuels...which are STILL far more efficient at producing energy than ANY green system.

Until that situation changes green power will be a afterthought and only able to survive thanks to the largesse of the taxpayers of the world. In other words so long as the greenies can leech off of the producers things are fine. When they can't they fail. Just like we are seeing worldwide.

It's amazing you're not smart enough to realise that.

LOLOLOL. Just more of the walleyedretard's usual clueless bullshit.


U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan
June 13, 2010
(excerpts)
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves...The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.


Bolivia and its Lithium: The Next Saudi Arabia?
June 28, 2011
(excerpts)
...the lithium rich Salar de Uyuni, a 10,000 square km salt flat perched high in the Bolivian Altiplano. Below the pink flamingos and vicuñas that inhabit this glistening pale-blue salt crust, rests a bountiful treasure of “milky brine.” Though the palatability of this brew may be questionable, its inherent wealth – a stiff cocktail of sodium, potassium, magnesium, borax and, most importantly, lithium – is undeniable. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Bolivia holds 5.4 million tons of lithium, more than half of the world’s reserves. It is these reserves, valued at USD 1.1 trillion that hold the potential to transform South America’s poorest nation into the next Saudi Arabia.

Military Applications Could Increase Lithium Demand
Mar 1, 2012
(excerpts)
Last week, South Korean steelmaker POSCO announced positive results from the company’s lithium extraction technology. “The technology developed can make battery grade lithium from brine in a month compared to 12 months at present and has an extraction rate of 80 percent versus the maximum 50 percent under existing processing methods,” a Research Institute of Industrial Science and Technology researcher said in the company’s press release. Since securing a lithium supply in Bolivia, which holds the world’s largest reserves, POSCO has begun planning a lithium extraction plant in the country.



Lithium America's Cauchari-Olaroz lithium-potash project in Argentina
Feb 28th, 2012
(excerpts)
The company's Cauchari-Olaroz lithium project comprises a significant portion of two adjacent Argentinean salt lakes, Cauchari and Olaroz, covering 82,498 hectares located in the "Lithium Triangle" region of South America. Cauchari-Olaroz is considered the third-largest deposit of lithium in the world. The property has a total lithium and potash resource of 8.0 million tonnes and 25.4 million tonnes, respectively. Major automotive players Mitsubishi Corp and Magna International are shareholders of the company, in addition to them both having off-take arrangements with Lithium Americas. In late 2011, Mackie Research said that the company was "on track to becoming a leading player in the lithium market". Indeed, an April 2011 preliminary economic assessment (PEA) completed by ARA Worley Parsons defined an operation with an eventual operating capacity of 40,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate per year, having an operating cost of $1,434 per tonne - considered to be among the most competitive costs of any lithium operation in the world.


New European lithium source?
30 November 2010
(excerpts)
Finland may soon become a viable source of lithium minerals as new reserves are identified that could help ease Europe's reliance on countries such as China for supplies of the material. Keliber, the Finnish subsidiary of Norwegian company Nordic Mining, has found promising additional resources of lithium bearing spodumene pegmatite in Ostrobothnia in western Finland. Spodumene (LiAl(SiO3)2is a source of lithium used in batteries. 'It would appear that the quantity of ore is significantly larger than earlier thought and the impact of this on our lithium projects is significant,' said Ivar Fossum, managing director of Nordic Mining. Demand for lithium minerals has grown in recent years driven by the importance placed on lithium-ion batteries as next-generation power sources for technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles. But manufacturers are largely dependent on sources in Chile, Argentina and China.

 

[editec]

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

Now if we could develop a truly pollution free source of electricty THEN e;lectric cars would be pollution reducing policy.

FWIW, hydrogen cars are even WORSE overall pollutors, since the manufacture of hydrogen creates requires more energy than the hydrogen energy they store, and that creates still more pollution in the manufacture pof hydrogen.

If we want to reduce overall pollution, we have to either reduce energy use or find a pollution-free way to capture energy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmmm...........but the dummies on the left post this crap up and 100% of the time, conveniently ignore the science of the marketplace.


And heres the poop..............

How many Nissan Leaf's and Chevy Volts were sold in February of 2011?


Ready for this................281 Volts and 67 Leafs!!! ******* astounding #'s there!!!


And the industry indicates that it is going to have to sell 50X that number for it to make economic sense to sell electiic cars, thus, the February numbers need to be about 17,500 units.

Electric car sales watch: 281 Volts and 67 Leafs sold in US during February -- Engadget



GOOD LUCK ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

Now if we could develop a truly pollution free source of electricty THEN e;lectric cars would be pollution reducing policy.

FWIW, hydrogen cars are even WORSE overall pollutors, since the manufacture of hydrogen creates requires more energy than the hydrogen energy they store, and that creates still more pollution in the manufacture pof hydrogen.

If we want to reduce overall pollution, we have to either reduce energy use or find a pollution-free way to capture energy.

We allready are reducing the energy consumption. Gasoline usage has been dropping for at least five years now. The same for diesel. Electricity usage on the other hand is on the rise and will continue to do so until the population stabalizes or falls. That's a simple fact.

The last time I checked there is no such thing as non polluting energy creation. To create energy requires some level of pollution. That's why fossil fuels are so good. You get more bang for your buck with the least amount of pollution. And, technology is getting ever better. The ICE has been around for well over 100 years. It is what you call a mature technology. All that will happen is it will continue to get better and better and less and less polluting.

Eventually (hopefully) something better will come along. And when it does we will change to whatever that is. Battery powered cars are not that breakthrough. They are (IMO) a technological cul-de-sac. They too are over 100 years old and are little better than they were back then. There must be some better technology for us to find that will make all of this moot.

 

[RollingThunder]

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.

Now if we could develop a truly pollution free source of electricty THEN e;lectric cars would be pollution reducing policy.

What? Are you blind? We have developed a number of virtually pollution free sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power has been tapped for well over a century now and accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption. Geothermal electricity production began on a very limited scale about a century ago in Italy and is now producing power in 24 different countries. Iceland is planning to power their entire country on geothermal and hydroelectric power. Building any kind of power plant or system involves some kinds of 'pollution' during construction but once they are in place fossil fuel power plants continue to pollute at a very high rate whereas solar and wind power systems are virtually pollution free. We have developed these sources, we just haven't deployed them yet in sufficient quantities to supplant the older fossil fuel high pollution power plants. The process has begun though and is accelerating.

FWIW, hydrogen cars are even WORSE overall pollutors, since the manufacture of hydrogen creates requires more energy than the hydrogen energy they store, and that creates still more pollution in the manufacture pof hydrogen.

You're not keeping up with developments. Scientists have been working for some time on ways to produce hydrogen cheaply without using electricity to crack the molecular bonds. Two such ways are Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting (PEC) and Solar Thermal Water Splitting. PEC development was being hampered by the high cost of the catalysts that had been discovered that would do the job but just recently scientists developed a new and much cheaper catalyst that will almost certainly cause the cost of hydrogen to plummet in the fairly near future. One company, Hyper-Solar, using a bit different system that also purifies wastewater, claims to have a production unit already in operation. Several other somewhat similar systems are also under development. Not only will the cost of hydrogen as a fuel go down a lot soon but there will be virtually zero pollution and no carbon emissions associated with its production.

If we want to reduce overall pollution, we have to either reduce energy use or find a pollution-free way to capture energy.

We already have found pollution free ways to capture energy. Now, in order to switch over to them from our current expensive high pollution energy sources, we just need to overcome the resistance and sabotage coming from those with a vested interest in continuing the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels.

 

[westwall]

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.

Now if we could develop a truly pollution free source of electricty THEN e;lectric cars would be pollution reducing policy.

What? Are you blind? We have developed a number of virtually pollution free sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power has been tapped for well over a century now and accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption. Geothermal electricity production began on a very limited scale about a century ago in Italy and is now producing power in 24 different countries. Iceland is planning to power their entire country on geothermal and hydroelectric power. Building any kind of power plant or system involves some kinds of 'pollution' during construction but once they are in place fossil fuel power plants continue to pollute at a very high rate whereas solar and wind power systems are virtually pollution free. We have developed these sources, we just haven't deployed them yet in sufficient quantities to supplant the older fossil fuel high pollution power plants. The process has begun though and is accelerating.

FWIW, hydrogen cars are even WORSE overall pollutors, since the manufacture of hydrogen creates requires more energy than the hydrogen energy they store, and that creates still more pollution in the manufacture pof hydrogen.

You're not keeping up with developments. Scientists have been working for some time on ways to produce hydrogen cheaply without using electricity to crack the molecular bonds. Two such ways are Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting (PEC) and Solar Thermal Water Splitting. PEC development was being hampered by the high cost of the catalysts that had been discovered that would do the job but just recently scientists developed a new and much cheaper catalyst that will almost certainly cause the cost of hydrogen to plummet in the fairly near future. One company, Hyper-Solar, using a bit different system that also purifies wastewater, claims to have a production unit already in operation. Several other somewhat similar systems are also under development. Not only will the cost of hydrogen as a fuel go down a lot soon but there will be virtually zero pollution and no carbon emissions associated with its production.

If we want to reduce overall pollution, we have to either reduce energy use or find a pollution-free way to capture energy.

We already have found pollution free ways to capture energy. Now, in order to switch over to them from our current expensive high pollution energy sources, we just need to overcome the resistance and sabotage coming from those with a vested interest in continuing the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels.

What are those "pollution free" methods of "capturing" energy?

 

[RollingThunder]

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.




What? Are you blind? We have developed a number of virtually pollution free sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power has been tapped for well over a century now and accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption. Geothermal electricity production began on a very limited scale about a century ago in Italy and is now producing power in 24 different countries. Iceland is planning to power their entire country on geothermal and hydroelectric power. Building any kind of power plant or system involves some kinds of 'pollution' during construction but once they are in place fossil fuel power plants continue to pollute at a very high rate whereas solar and wind power systems are virtually pollution free. We have developed these sources, we just haven't deployed them yet in sufficient quantities to supplant the older fossil fuel high pollution power plants. The process has begun though and is accelerating.





You're not keeping up with developments. Scientists have been working for some time on ways to produce hydrogen cheaply without using electricity to crack the molecular bonds. Two such ways are Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting (PEC) and Solar Thermal Water Splitting. PEC development was being hampered by the high cost of the catalysts that had been discovered that would do the job but just recently scientists developed a new and much cheaper catalyst that will almost certainly cause the cost of hydrogen to plummet in the fairly near future. One company, Hyper-Solar, using a bit different system that also purifies wastewater, claims to have a production unit already in operation. Several other somewhat similar systems are also under development. Not only will the cost of hydrogen as a fuel go down a lot soon but there will be virtually zero pollution and no carbon emissions associated with its production.

If we want to reduce overall pollution, we have to either reduce energy use or find a pollution-free way to capture energy.

We already have found pollution free ways to capture energy. Now, in order to switch over to them from our current expensive high pollution energy sources, we just need to overcome the resistance and sabotage coming from those with a vested interest in continuing the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels.

What are those "pollution free" methods of "capturing" energy?

I just listed them, you poor blind retard.

 

[westwall]

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.




What? Are you blind? We have developed a number of virtually pollution free sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power has been tapped for well over a century now and accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption. Geothermal electricity production began on a very limited scale about a century ago in Italy and is now producing power in 24 different countries. Iceland is planning to power their entire country on geothermal and hydroelectric power. Building any kind of power plant or system involves some kinds of 'pollution' during construction but once they are in place fossil fuel power plants continue to pollute at a very high rate whereas solar and wind power systems are virtually pollution free. We have developed these sources, we just haven't deployed them yet in sufficient quantities to supplant the older fossil fuel high pollution power plants. The process has begun though and is accelerating.





You're not keeping up with developments. Scientists have been working for some time on ways to produce hydrogen cheaply without using electricity to crack the molecular bonds. Two such ways are Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting (PEC) and Solar Thermal Water Splitting. PEC development was being hampered by the high cost of the catalysts that had been discovered that would do the job but just recently scientists developed a new and much cheaper catalyst that will almost certainly cause the cost of hydrogen to plummet in the fairly near future. One company, Hyper-Solar, using a bit different system that also purifies wastewater, claims to have a production unit already in operation. Several other somewhat similar systems are also under development. Not only will the cost of hydrogen as a fuel go down a lot soon but there will be virtually zero pollution and no carbon emissions associated with its production.








We already have found pollution free ways to capture energy. Now, in order to switch over to them from our current expensive high pollution energy sources, we just need to overcome the resistance and sabotage coming from those with a vested interest in continuing the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels.

What are those "pollution free" methods of "capturing" energy?

I just listed them, you poor blind retard.

For someone who claims to be so smart you still havn't figured out that all of that has to be manufactured. Manufacturing causes pollution of some sort you poor delusional nincompoop!

That was the fact that you felt blazing over your poor little pinhead. Twit!

 

[RollingThunder]

What are those "pollution free" methods of "capturing" energy?

I just listed them, you poor blind retard.

For someone who claims to be so smart you still havn't figured out that all of that has to be manufactured. Manufacturing causes pollution of some sort you poor delusional nincompoop!

That was the fact that you felt blazing over your poor little pinhead. Twit!

I called you a "poor blind retard" and you immediately confirm that judgement. LOLOL.

From my post that you just quoted but were apparently unable to comprehend (see: 'retard'):

Now if we could develop a truly pollution free source of electricty THEN e;lectric cars would be pollution reducing policy.

What? Are you blind? We have developed a number of virtually pollution free sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power has been tapped for well over a century now and accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption. Geothermal electricity production began on a very limited scale about a century ago in Italy and is now producing power in 24 different countries. Iceland is planning to power their entire country on geothermal and hydroelectric power. Building any kind of power plant or system involves some kinds of 'pollution' during construction but once they are in place fossil fuel power plants continue to pollute at a very high rate whereas solar and wind power systems are virtually pollution free. We have developed these sources, we just haven't deployed them yet in sufficient quantities to supplant the older fossil fuel high pollution power plants. The process has begun though and is accelerating.

You are such a stupid shithead, walleyed. All power plants, or any other kind of heavy industry or manufacturing, involves some level of 'pollution' in their construction or component manufacturing so there is no net gain or loss on that end between using old or new style power systems but in the long term operation there are enormous differences between the nominal 'pollution', but more explicitly the 'carbon emissions', that these different kinds of power plants produce. Fossil fuel plants emit large quantities of a number of different kinds of environmental pollutants and massive amounts of CO2 every hour that they are in operation whereas solar, wind and other renewables generally emit almost no conventional 'pollution' and no CO2 for as long as they are in operation, probably decades.

Y'know, you'd see the world a lot clearer if you'd just pull your head out of your ass once in a while.

 

[editec]

Quote: Originally Posted by editec

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.

Silly?

You just supported my point exactly.

Electric cars are only net pollition reducersIF the electricity they use is coming from nonpolluting sources.

Sadly very littel electricity being produced today is produced by non-polluting sources.

When (if) our energy production is non-polluting THEN, electric cars make sense.

Until then?

Electric cars do NOT solve our energy OR pollution problems.

 

[RollingThunder]

Quote: Originally Posted by editec

Electric cars create pollution stemming from the source of electrictity that powers them, plus whatever pollution is associated with their manfuacture and eventually salvage.

Electric cars can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution.

That's just silly. Electric cars can be very helpful in reducing both local and overall pollution if the electricity they're using is coming from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, or geothermal sources. The only really significant pollution associated with electric vehicles comes from burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity.

Silly?

You just supported my point exactly.

Sorry, but no I didn't. You claimed that electric vehicles "can only be useful in preventing LOCAL pollution when and where they are being used, but they are not especially helpful in reducing overall pollution" and that is just not true. Electric vehicles do reduce overall pollution almost everywhere on Earth that isn't using the very dirty, unscrubbed coal fired plants that the Chinese are using. In the USA and Europe, the electricity from modern coal fired power plants with pollution control equipment, while still 'dirty', is nevertheless cleaner than the cumulative output from all of the exhaust pipes on all of those IC engine cars. In some parts of the country, a significant part of the electricity already comes from non polluting sources. Hydroelectricity currently accounts for 16 percent of global electricity consumption and 15% of the electricity used in my home state of California. Solar and wind power systems are being deployed at increasing rates and will soon replace a significant part of the fossil fuel produced electricity. In some parts of the country, consumers can already choose to get all of their power from clean sources, for a slight premium on their bill. Perhaps even more importantly, people now have the ability in most places to utilize home solar and/or wind power systems to 'refuel' their electric vehicles, thus making them virtually 100% pollution free to run. The price of doing that is falling even as gas prices keep rising. With increased mass production, the prices on electric vehicles will also fall. New battery technology has been developed and will soon be in production and these new batteries will not only dramatically lower the cost of EV batteries, they will extend the range one can drive on a charge to 3 or 4 hundreds miles and last the lifetime of the vehicle. The new cheaper, high capacity batteries will also allow for the home storage of daytime solar power production for use at night or for charging the cars.

Electric cars are only net pollition reducersIF the electricity they use is coming from nonpolluting sources.

Wrong again. Electric cars are indeed net pollution reducers any time the electricity they use comes from any source that produces less overall pollution than the equivalent number of IC engine vehicles that the electric cars replaced. Since cars are very inefficient and waste something like 80% of the energy in the gasoline whereas fossil fuel fired power plants are much more efficient at turning the fuel into useful energy and considering the fact that electric cars are very efficient and convert almost all of the electricity they use into motion, electric vehicles can be net pollution reducers even when the electricity is coming from polluting sources.

Sadly very littel electricity being produced today is produced by non-polluting sources.

That is sad, considering how much better we could be doing by now in using clean energy sources if the fossil fuel industry hadn't used it's power to bribe Congress to block so many programs that would have helped us make the transition faster and sooner.

When (if) our energy production is non-polluting THEN, electric cars make sense.
Until then?
Electric cars do NOT solve our energy OR pollution problems.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Electric vehicles are helping even now to reduce air pollution in our cities and, more importantly, overall CO2 emissions.