View Single Post
Old 01-17-2009, 03:27 PM   #17 (permalink)
captainslug
Misanthropologist
 
captainslug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sterling, VA
Posts: 383

BORK! - '89 Volvo 240 DL Wagon
90 day: 21.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 24 Times in 13 Posts
Perpetuating myths or misunderstandings about the efficacy or relative cleanliness of power generation options will only further delay adoption of Battery-Electric Vehicles.

You have to fess up to that now and weigh the risks and benefits of either shifting more transportation to being powered from the electrical grid, or leaving them as ICE drive trains that continue to produce pollution at higher levels than the grid would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
Global climate change is a fact.
No, no it's not. At least not in the causation chain that is commonly suggested. The temperature records do not in any way show a causation between industrialization, global CO2 emissions, and temperatures records.

Global Meteorological trends are also far too complex for any single factor to be penultimately decisive. The natural ecology of this planet produces infinitely more CO2 than we ever possibly could.
Global warming as caused by us is not "fact".

And you need to learn how to use paragraphs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
With respect to Los Angeles,their pollution is photochemical,cooked from Nitrogen Oxidfes from their cars,and trapped in the L.A.Basin,and held there by inversion layers which hold the gases close to the ground.It has nothing to do with power plants.
You kind of just proved my point for me.
The emissions of power plants are far less toxic than the emissions of ICE motor vehicles. And the relative efficiency between fuel consumed, emissions produced, and energy output is not even comparable.

No matter what kind of power plant you are talking about, ICE drive train vehicles produce more emissions per KWh. And you're arguing about one particular type of power plant that accounts for only half of the power produced. And even though it accounts for half, that's still a half that's cleaner than any internal combustion engine made today.

What is there to argument here? This is a step towards lowered emissions. More money put towards the production of electricity also means more money towards researching and building more efficient power plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote X View Post
That valley used to be about a mile longer than it is now and I remember a huge rock on the top of the mountain that used to be back there that was called Indian rock.
I don't think we were talking about irresponsibly high-impact land-clearing, but localized effects of power plant emissions or coal transportation.

Last edited by captainslug; 01-17-2009 at 03:46 PM..
  Reply With Quote