http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.

[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.
In case you hadn't noticed, all American cars are taxpayer funded these days. I can't speak to the Volt, but I've been in a Nissan Leaf with 4 guys and the car was surprisingly powerful. And needless-to-say, the Tesla vehicles do not suffer from any kind of performance deficiency. So go ahead, laugh it up while you're paying $4-5 for a gallon of corn juice that'll carry you about 20 miles or so. Meanwhile, the electric car owners will spend $4-5 on a full charge of a 200 mile battery pack.


[edit] I don't know why, but I was thinking the Volt was all electric. Screw these hybrids, Detroit. Spend some damn R&D money on battery energy density.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.


Are you mental in what way does your comment make sense ?

electric from nuclear coal gas or whatever is as tax funded as the oil people put in cars It might even be the case that oil requires and consumes more tax funding if you include military expenses required to keep oil coming.

electric cars specifcaly might be tax funded projects but evan then when you calculate all involved costs I'm sure its negligible or comparable to the tax oil industry receives or other industries have received for RND.


Also why would it be inherently bad for things to be tax funded? even if electric cars are a bag of shit at this point in time and the technology might be debatable, at least if it did work out it would move america away from international dependencies which is what most conservatives, liberationists and liberals want.

Because you haven't made a coherent point your comment is redundant.

Just make sure your ammo is in a fireproof box in your coal-powered, taxpayer-funded, rolling electroturd.

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:
You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...
That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!
I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.


Go back and read my arguments again, you claim that I "argue water vapour is the cause of current warming". I never said that. I talked about the percentage of our planet's greenhouse effect that is attributed to 2 gases, CO2 and H2O.

The greenhouse effect is not 'warming' it is not 'cooling', it is just the ability of various gases in the atmosphere to absorb energy and has been happening for millenia and barring absolute catastrophic disaster will continue to do so for millenia. Among the greenhouse gases climatologists estimate 70% of energy absorbed is done by H2O and 30% by CO2.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood even the most basic parts of what I've said. Go back and look closer, or if your not comfortable, get your chem prof to look and get him to explain it. My statements are in keeping with established science, most of it comes directly from articles like those in the links you yourself provided, like Mann et al's team(the hockey stick guys).

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.


You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:

You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...

That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!

I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Darkhand:
CLEAN ENERGY IS DANGEROUS! WE NEED MORE COAL POWER!!!!

ahem You forgot to say the magic word: "Clean" Coal Power


My Overlords will never forgive me for forgetting to put Clean in there!!! THE LASHINGS THE LASHINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> ^Darkhand:

CLEAN ENERGY IS DANGEROUS! WE NEED MORE COAL POWER!!!!

*ahem* You forgot to say the magic word: "Clean" Coal Power

CLEAN ENERGY IS DANGEROUS! WE NEED MORE COAL POWER!!!!

It's a bit yay-America/feel-good. It doesn't really answer the question of how and why not? If it's so good, why doesn't anyone do it? You don't need government support to deploy a small power station (although in the US, where almost all energy generation is subsidized). A decent-sized coal-power company could roll out a small test station, develop the tech further, patent the design and duplicate. Yet they don't. Hmmm.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a really divisive issue within the Green movement. Thought leaders like David Suzuki are definitely against it.


>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dag:
Despite the recent accidents in Japan - I still believe in nuclear power. I've seen the graphs on heavy metal released from coal plants, rare elements required for solar panels and think it's still our best, greenest hope for energy in the future. This puts me at odds with many of my friends.

This is still a very liberal, very green opinion. It just so happens that the nuclear power industry tends to be politically conservative. Nuclear power is our best option right now, especially since we lack the technology to replace it with renewable energy. What many so-called anti-nuclear "green" people don't understand is that right now distancing ourselves from nuclear power will mean more dependence on dirty coal power.
One could say your stance on nuclear power is right for leftist reasons.

>> ^dag:

Despite the recent accidents in Japan - I still believe in nuclear power. I've seen the graphs on heavy metal released from coal plants, rare elements required for solar panels and think it's still our best, greenest hope for energy in the future. This puts me at odds with many of my friends.


This is still a very liberal, very green opinion. It just so happens that the nuclear power industry tends to be politically conservative. Nuclear power is our best option right now, especially since we lack the technology to replace it with renewable energy. What many so-called anti-nuclear "green" people don't understand is that right now distancing ourselves from nuclear power will mean more dependence on dirty coal power.

One could say your stance on nuclear power is right for leftist reasons.

A gas explosion recently killed 9 people in America, nuclear doesn't have a single confirmed death in the US.
Coal is much, much worse.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.



Remember this fly ash accident, imagine how much radioactivity was dumped over the country then:

Fly ash flood covers acres
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/23/fly-ash-flood-covers-acres/

Workers face "several weeks' worth of work" to clean up 3.1 million cubic feet of fly ash dumped across hundreds of acres after a retention pond collapsed early Monday morning at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston steam plant.



More:

Bush administration hid coal ash dumps' true cancer threat
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/bush-administration-hid-coal-ash-dumps-true-cancer-threat.html
The Bush administration was reluctant to release information that suggested an alarmingly high cancer risk for people who live near landfills and lagoons used to store coal ash waste -- and now it turns out that it released only part of the data, hiding for years the full extent of the health threat from poorly regulated coal ash disposal.



More
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fly_ash

I'll stick to building coal power plants in the corners of my maps, thank you very much.

Yes, in terms of CO2 emissions, an electric car (coal powered) beats the crap out of combustion engines. (CO2 is a bullshit problem when you consider what the warming of the north atlantic will do... CO2 absorbtion/out gassing from the atlantic will make car emissions look like your penis sitting on top of Mt. Everest)

In the US, 50% of electricity generation is coal. 20% is nuclear, 15% is natural gas, 6% is petroleum.