One of my favorites from the LvMI George Selgin; http://mises.org/media/5705/A-Century-of-Failure-Why-Its-Time-to-Consider-Replacing-the-Fed
The OP appears equally guilty of coming from one side. The above quote is not true if you simply use the numbers even the EPA publishes. The leaf gets 100 miles on 34 kwh's. A coal plant emits .6 ton to 1 ton of CO2 per megawatt hour. Gasoline emits 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon when running through a car. All well published numbers from EIA.gov, etc. Using these figures, it doesn't take a genius to come to the sad conclusion that, on coal-fired juice, the Nissan Leaf, or for that matter, the Chevy Volt are responsible for more CO2 in their first 5 miles than the miles any other car gets from its first gallon of gas. I sincerely wish it weren't this way. Politically, the Republican refrane will be all over the way I've put it, above. "Hah, hah, poo, poo on the EV's, miss-guided government policy, blah, blah". Even if you take the average natural gas and coal mix in this country, EV's won't get 10 miles away before they've indirectly spewed the 20 pounds of carbon that burning one gallon of gas emits. How to respond? Two ways. One is that if it weren't for the abuse of the filibuster, this democracy would have taken a baby step in reigning in this countries coal addiction. Two, would be the unanimity with which Republicans stood to be sure this country's price for carbon dioxide stayed at zero. Take your pick. As much as I may be a fiscal libertarian and car fan, I know which side I'm on.
Hmm, interesting first post. Problem is, you're still using data points in which you have already "silenced the debate" as to whether or not CO2 is a pollutant at all. Remember the equation for photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6CO2 --> C6H12O6+ 6O2 So six water molecules, and six carbon dioxide molecules make a single molecule of sugar, and six of oxygen. The output is what we need to stay alive. I really wish the greens would brush up on basic chem / biology before making wild and unproven (since disproven) assertions that somehow plant food which creates animal food, recycling the process, somehow will destroy the planet. WE MUST REMOVE "CARBON FOOTPRINT" FROM OUR URBAN VERNACULAR POST HASTE. CO2 has been PROVEN to trail changes in global temps. Global temps have been proven to have been manipulated by the IPCC and CRU at UEA. US Naval data has shown that polar ice sheets are expanding. The neoliberal fascists continue to change their story in that global warming needed to be called "climate change" to squelch the fact that we weren't warming - and numerous hypocrisies have arisen very recently in which supposed experts on warming theory have had to change their story as to whether or not climate change would cause less severe weather, to more severe weather, as their predictions have again proven to be wrong, and they must make their "science" fit the situation in order to sell it to a dupable public which will clamor for more to be done, which increases grants for their respective, but disrespectable, coccoons of snake oil salesmanship. I'm confounded by "fiscal libertarian". Not sure how you can be classified as a Libertarian of any type if you advocate solutions at the government level? At any rate, you referred to us as a "democracy". I might do well to remind you, we are in a representative Republic.
Your logic might make someone question why we ever used catalytic converters in cars? The atoms coming out become less harmful than the ones going in. Does that make the molcules safe on both sides? Maybe you can patent some massive sugar plants, gather all that CO2 up and sell the stuff to kids. That ought to buy you a nice ride, if you can pull it off. I am certainly not attempting to silence the debate, and I'm no scientist either. But I do know and trust some scientific methods which perhaps you deny. I do trust, and have no trouble believing that the rise to 380PPM during industrialization is being influenced by the billions of tons of CO2 we are releasing each year. Where do you get this stuff? It raises the stakes on my poor attempt at calling small-purse government "fiscal libertarian". Would you be cutting and pasting?
Since when were catalytic converters intended to capture CO2? They are, as far as I understood, particulate traps. I also never said that industrialization did not cause a rise in CO2. The causal link between a rise in CO2 THEN a rise in temps has been proven to be false. The double hockey stick nonsense that everyone seems to love to reference clearly shows the CO2 rise comes AFTER temperature rise. Furthermore, the buffoon that created the model, Mann, is the major person at the center of the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. For crying out loud, think about the statistic itself. 380PPM, that means barely more than one third of one percent. Hell, there's thrice as much Argon, and 60 times as much Oxygen, with the majority (78%) of the remainder being nitrogen. Oh no, with all that nitrogen, the world may just explode! Cutting and pasting what? I sure don't think so, but an even better second post. Why am I even wasting the time on what appears to be a troll? You're not "trolling" are you? Good grief.
You played molecules with carbon to rearrange it into something harmless. Cats do the same thing with harmful gas, just not with carbon. My point was we won't be sequestering CO2 as sugar any time soon. I am glad you aren't denying the rise in CO2, but think about what you, yourself, are putting forward. CO2 ranged between 200-280PPM for thousands of years and in the last 100, or so, its gone to 380PPM. Did temps go up a third to preceed this? Maybe you would suggest a small rise in temps can lead to a big rise in CO2, as consistent with the lag effect you mentioned? On second thought, you are the one who appears to be "silencing the debate" about how small changes, or "barely more than one third of one percent" can do anything. The truth is you don't know what it's doing, and its gone up a lot. And its done so with the very coincident release of carbon by man. I came here to dispell a "green" view that suggested that the Leaf is responsible for putting out less carbon than gas powered cars. I'm interested in the truth, where I can find it, and the best science I can get my hands on before I believe something. You don't seem to struggle with this at all. I guess you just know.
Sigh, I wonder if there is ever going to be any point in you being on this board. I can't believe that somehow you got me on the defensive, but I haven't "rearranged" anything, and you are correct, you are NO scientist. It seems you are attempting to connect a catalytic converter with the process of photosynthesis? I'm talking about a natural process, sir. One that requires only the elements listed in the formula I've stated. The sugars are in the leaves, or other parts, of the plant. When you eat a fruit, do you have any idea that it has these naturally derived sugars which in turn aid in your bodies' functioning? Yeah, CO2 has been lower, and has also been HIGHER in history, prior to humans being here at all. So tell me this, I've seen the graphs plotting CO2 levels over the last century, and did not see any trendline break in the 1970's. So, why is it that at that time, measured surface temps were trending downward so far as to cause a global cooling scare? It was enough, in fact, that world leaders SERIOUSLY considered putting coal dust, or something like that, on ice caps in order to melt them and warm the atmosphere. It truly IS a concidence, as a matter of fact, that CO2 is rising, and doing so after temperature adjustments. The point is, that it's not a straight up, nor a straight down, and any doof that can run a correlation coefficient can see that the data points do NOT suggest correlation, let alone a predictability level that would lead to further investigation. I've done YEARS of research on this, and I'm not going to be able to condense it, let alone give you all my data points and source cited bibliography, which is what you are attempting to get me to do with your straw man. It's a car chat site. I'm not going to hold your hand through a goog search. But why not start by taking the names I've mentioned? Mann University of East Anglia IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and, add "Climategate" That should get you started. Hell, just start with this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ I'm done.
Oh Holy One, All you've proven to me is that your idea of research is filled with references to anything political. Al Gore, Fox news, feable stories from some crook who broke into a university and words like "neoliberal fascist". You are clearly NO scientist either, my friend. So, you can stop with the Taurean BS about your "YEARS of research". I can be civil enough to say I differ with you over whether the "plants" are going to eat all that carbon, or not, and suggest that maybe we do something more than zero. Trust me when I say this, I am going to be melting tires and getting deep into single digit MPG's this season. I don't bring up carbon on Porsche sites because its too much a battle on a subject that brings out all the pig heads and sheep. Your response proves my point.
Directed to any other readers of this thread: I hope this serves as a reminder to disengage from those that would rather pour insults into a so called debate than point to any relevant information to back up their claims.
I just sold a Hybrid and bought an Audi TDi. Fantastic gas mileage, sporty, and an overall fun drive. I recently got over 600 miles on a 15 gallon tank and the engine isn't even broken in yet. I also found out about resale on Hybrids. Every buyer fears expensive repairs are being passed onto them and actual selling prices end up way below kbb values.
I have sold almost 1,300 cars, mostly new Hondas, in the past 6-1/2 years. Customers sometimes mention concern about the hybrid battery replacement, which is happening in some cases with our 10 year old hybrids. I haven't seen that fears about expensive repairs has had a bearing on a hybrid's resale value. What I am seeing is that resale on hybrids is soft right now because new hybrids are languishing at dealerships - we've gotten used to $3.50/gallon for fuel. Resale hybrid and new hybrid car prices go up when gas prices spike upward. You couldn't keep them on the lot when gas prices went up above $4 a couple years ago. We expect the same thing to happen when gas prices go to $5 a gallon.
I just saw the car segment on King5 featuring the Leaf. I had to chuckle at the final statement. Tom Voelk said it was like an ordinary car with a 3-4 gallon gas tank that takes 7 hours to fill.
Consumer reports recently tested some 10 year old Priusi against new ones and found no battery degredation. The old ones were within 1-2% of the brand new ones.
And hybrids aren't languishing anymore. We're having a shortage now because of what happened in Japan on March 11th.
The sad part is that he walks away from this discussion thinking he won the argument. He has no proof but believes the man made global warming fraud hook line and sinker. Kai
Fraud my ass. If you look at the pseudo-science used to refute man-made warming, you will see some real fraud. Well over 90% of climatologist/earth scientists world wide agree we have some thing to do with it, the small percentage of dissenters prolly believed in the rapture as well.
Do you have sources for any of those claims. I do not believe in the rapture and have a great degree of skepticism about claims that we understand the causes and effects of climate changes. The climate has been changing for much longer than we have been studying. -sc
Well, the degree of "something" is quite important, isn't it? I for one am not willing to waste trillions of Dollars to influence the temperature .5 degree Celsius 100 years from now which is the best case scenario of the IPCC. How idiotic must one be wanting to do that? The draconian requirements of control needed to achieve these useless goals will make Orwells 1984 look like adventure camp. Kai
For all you environmental, tree hugging eco whacks, the late great George Carlin; [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtrT5oG_IVc[/ame]
That doesn't make any sense to me. What am I missing, here? Using YOUR numbers from above: Electric Car: 0.8 tons = 1,600 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. That's 0.0016 pounds of CO2 per watt hour. It takes 34 kilowatt hours to go 100 miles, or 34,000 watts. 34,000 watts * 0.0016 pounds per watt is 54.4 pounds of C02 per 100 miles Or 0.544 pounds per mile. Gas Car: 25 miles per gallon = 0.04 gallons per mile. 1 gallon = 20 pounds of CO2. 0.04 gallons * 20 pounds per gallon = 0.8 pounds per mile. Using your numbers, the gasoline car emits almost 50% MORE CO2 than the electric car. So how do you conclude that:
I'd bet that if you counted the total cost in infrastruture from end to end, raw material to out the tailpipe, it would be a wash. I'm talking the cost to environment - dams affecting salmon, cost to transport oil, cost to dig coal/build dams/refineries/material for batteries, cost to build and clear land for transmission & wind towers and roads, blah, blah, blah, etc... It's plain ridiculous to think the electric cars are more "pure" than gasoline cars. As of yet there is no magic bullet. It's like butter vs margarine - die of heart disease or cancer - either way you're going to die. I'll go with butter. The George Carlin piece was a classic - I hadn't seen that. Great way to make a point.
