No cost to reducing emmissions?

[M.Dancer]

Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver.

Which in itself, given that I would at least sleep 8 hours (from Toronto......)

[B. Max]

Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver.

Which in itself, given that I would at least sleep 8 hours (from Toronto......)

I would hope you would sleep a lot more than that. However that 8 hours of charging is not all at one time. It's 3.5 hours every 250 miles.

[M.Dancer]

Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver.

Which in itself, given that I would at least sleep 8 hours (from Toronto......)

I would hope you would sleep a lot more than that. However that 8 hours of charging is not all at one time. It's 3.5 hours every 250 miles.

Well, that looks to me like 39 hours of juice time....I wonder what the cost per mile in alberta is........

[geoffrey]

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

time for you to wake up to reality

How many more coal plants or high voltage transmission lines do you want to build?

Why not just make a coal fired car that pollutes massively? Same thing as an electric one.

[Riverwind]

Why not just make a coal fired car that pollutes massively? Same thing as an electric one.

Don't forget the toxic waste from the batteries that wear out every 100,000 kms or so. Electrical cars are better than gasoline when it comes to smog because pollution control devices on consumer vehicles wear out or get disabled - a small number of coal plants are easier to monitor.

You could make the same argument for GHGs if large scale carbon sequestering was an option. I do not believe it is at this time.

Carbon sequestering is probably the only effective way to tackle the problem since any conservation and lifestyle changes would be cancalled out by the population increases in developing countries.

[Guthrie]

We have it right now. We just need to adjust the government corporate welfare and we can pick among fuels - electric car can be cheaper to own and run than gas powered. So can biodiesel or propane.

Electric cars are really nothing more than glorified golf carts. That's the only reason they might be cheaper. From a practical stand point they're not worth a damn.

time for you to wake up to reality

I'll add expensive snake oil to my original comment.

Two hundred and fifty miles to the charge. I'm going to assume that's not driving it at night or with the heater or air conditioning running. How far does it go then. Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver.

I posted up the URL for the Tesla in response to the moronic claim that electric cars are no "nothing more than glorified golf carts"

The Tesla is more like a Ferrari race car than a golf cart

charging time? night driving? well, check the URL for that too - but be prepared for a surprise --- the claim Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver. - is sadly misinformed:

...

Charge At Home or On the Road

Plug your Tesla Roadster into the at-home charging unit, and you’ll be fully charged in under four hours. But we consider this a “worst case” for someone starting with a completely dead battery. Even after a 100-mile trip, you can be completely charged in under two hours.* And should you need to charge on the road, packed away in the trunk is an optional mobile-charging kit that lets you charge from standard electrical outlets while away from home.

...

So, that deals with the dumbass golf cart comments

now, about the price --- considering the performance of the car, it is IMHO priced competitively for it's class - however, with positive govt involvement, tax breaks, subsidies, investment in technology ...

that price could easily be cut in half, even today ---- bottom line is, we can have, in very short order - a variety of different vehicles which run pollution free

all that is necessary is the will to do so --- and an electorate smart enough to demand help from our governments

[M.Dancer]

We have it right now. - electric car can be cheaper to own and run than gas powered. So can biodiesel or propane.

...Unless of course you are up to the task of finding a dealer of electric cars who right now, as you say, has a product that is cheaper to own, if not run.

So in other words woody, you were full of it, once again? Perhaps if we could only harness the power of your methane posts.....

[stignasty]

that price could easily be cut in half, even today ---- bottom line is, we can have, in very short order - a variety of different vehicles which run pollution free

Well, except for the pollution caused when we generate electricity. Will acid rain take the shine off of an electric car?

[M.Dancer]

charging time? night driving? well, check the URL for that too - but be prepared for a surprise --- the claim Even if it those items weren't running it would take 8 hours of charging on the way, just to drive it one way to Vancouver. - is sadly misinformed:

...

Charge At Home or On the Road

Plug your Tesla Roadster into the at-home charging unit, and you’ll be fully charged in under four hours. But we consider this a “worst case” for someone starting with a completely dead battery. Even after a 100-mile trip, you can be completely charged in under two hours.* And should you need to charge on the road, packed away in the trunk is an optional mobile-charging kit that lets you charge from standard electrical outlets while away from home.

...

It would take 39 hours of juice time for me to drive to Vancouver

[Guthrie]

that price could easily be cut in half, even today ---- bottom line is, we can have, in very short order - a variety of different vehicles which run pollution free

Well, except for the pollution caused when we generate electricity. Will acid rain take the shine off of an electric car?

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

Why do you guys have to make the ugliest and dumbest arguments in defense of poisoning the planet.

Acid Rain? stop making it - and that's just as easy as making vehicles clean - it just requires the political will to do so - we have the technology already

[M.Dancer]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

Methinks Woody also believes in perpertual motion machines........

[Riverwind]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs.

We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term.

[stignasty]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs.

We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term.

We could always start building nuclear power plants again. They're safe and clean (I saw it on a TV commercial, it must be true).

[ScottSA]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs.

We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term.

I'm going to open a combination windfarm and birdburger factory.

[Guthrie]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs.

We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term.

Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution. Denials of it are not just false but show a real ignorance of what is going on in the world.

[Guthrie]

http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headline...ils.cfm?id=1525

...Pollution Free(SM)electricity from Green Mountain Energy Company. This new electricity product is made from wind and water generation sources and is 100 percent pollution free. Additionally, the new Pollution Free product is priced at the local incumbent utility's "Price to Beat," so residential customers in Texas' competitive markets can now purchase clean, affordable electricity at no additional cost over the price charged by their local electric utility.

...

[ScottSA]

The simple answer is that we should generate electricity without causing pollution.

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs.

We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term.

Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution. Denials of it are not just false but show a real ignorance of what is going on in the world.

Woody, you're about to step in a hole well over your head. Why do you never learn? Any idea which forms of energy generation don't produce pollution? Before you answer, think about the tech tail that goes into making and maintaining them. Then think about the capabilities of those forms of electrical generation. Speaking of ignorance...

[Riverwind]

Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution.

We can produce some power with with wind, however, wind power is unreliable and can never replace capacity generated from conventional sources. The supply of hydropower is limited and not sufficient to replace our current needs (nevermind the huge additional capacity that would be required to support electric cars).

The bottom line is we cannot create enough electricity to meet our needs without creating pollution. So which do you prefer: GHGs from coal and gas, radioactive waste from nuclear plants or toxic waste from spent solar cells?

[M.Dancer]

Yeah that's it...Woody believes in perpetual motion and has a certificate exempting him from the laws of thermodynamics.....

[Guthrie]

Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution.

We can produce some power with with wind, however, wind power is unreliable and can never replace capacity generated from conventional sources. The supply of hydropower is limited and not sufficient to replace our current needs (nevermind the huge additional capacity that would be required to support electric cars).

The bottom line is we cannot create enough electricity to meet our needs without creating pollution. So which do you prefer: GHGs from coal and gas, radioactive waste from nuclear plants or toxi waste from spent solar cells?

again, flat out wrong --- the real bottom line is we can create enough electricity to meet our needs without causing pollution - and what is it that keeps us from doing so? fools who are trapped in backward thinking and luddite devotion to technologies that no longer serve, but in fact, hinder and hold back mankind

[ScottSA]

Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution.

We can produce some power with with wind, however, wind power is unreliable and can never replace capacity generated from conventional sources. The supply of hydropower is limited and not sufficient to replace our current needs (nevermind the huge additional capacity that would be required to support electric cars).

The bottom line is we cannot create enough electricity to meet our needs without creating pollution. So which do you prefer: GHGs from coal and gas, radioactive waste from nuclear plants or toxi waste from spent solar cells?

Neither solar nor wind generation can come close to supplying even a significant fraction of current demand under current technology, and my understanding is that it will take a quantum breakthrough before it becomes possible. My further understanding is that nuclear is the best bet to capably replace fossil fuels and cut back on emmissions in electrical generation, and that doesn't start to address transportation. Woody thinks all we have to do is make a few laws and throw some corporate welfare out there and everything will get like Star Trek. You have to realize the intellectual level at which Woody operates...

[M.Dancer]

I read recently that the pollution caused by some wind farms is creating an environmental catastrophe....

That the srain of production of ethanol is causing hunger and poverty.......

In short, everything has an impact

....Woody will deny that of course, because it doesn't fit into his programme

[Riverwind]

again, flat out wrong --- the real bottom line is we can create enough electricity to meet our needs without causing pollution

Why don't you provide specific examples and explain how the limitations of the technology today will be overcome? What about the problems that only show up when a technology is used on a massive scale?

100 years ago people thought that the automobile would make our cities cleaner because horses had a nasty habit of dumping crap every where. We know today that such thinking was naive and all we did was replace one type of pollution with another.

There is no such thing as a free lunch - any energy source pollutes. We have to decide what kind of pollution we can live with.

[stignasty]

Posted 1/4/2005 11:17 PM Updated 1/5/2005 3:23 PM

Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

By John Ritter, USA TODAY

ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. — The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.

By Ben Margot, AP

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...ills-usat_x.htm

[Guthrie]

it's getting laughable in here

too bad the issue is one of life and death for the planet