13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

WOW! Who would have thought......

by seasoned
12 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
That ELECTRIC cars create MORE pollution!?!?!?

OK, Denmark DOES make cars! I saw one they made in 1989. It was ELECTRIC! So what does a DANISH person say about electric cars?


OH YEAH, here is Steve again. SO WHAT? WHO on earth is Bjørn Lomborg ANYWAY!? From wikipedia:

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒˀw]; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and environmentalist who is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (a non-profit think tank), and a former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature.[1]
YIKES!

Steve
  • Profile picture of the author irawr
    Banned
    I'm pretty sure the Koch brothers financed that.

    He contradicts himself and carefully uses facts in a misleading way. There's a lot of information that's intentionally left out as well, such as technology that can drastically reduce co2 emissions from coal power plants that is available today but it's usage is not currently required by law. Also, notice how he fully discloses that there is a general increase in the utilization of renewables, but only after citing a forecast for the number of deaths caused by an increase of electric cars. That's cool how he did that, so the two forecasts could be independent to make numbers seem as shockingly large as possible.

    To be clear about this: I don't have the qualifications that are required to have a respectable opinion on this matter, but I've seen enough people twist facts to be able to identify that's whats going on in that video.

    Edit: Also his statement about the cost of cutting one ton of co2 emissions being 7$ is not how that works. That's a complete lie.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

    Edit2: I suggest you go read about the trading system, after reading about how it works that person has absolutely zero credibility in my mind. None. Complete Liar.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10528735].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by irawr View Post

      I'm pretty sure the Koch brothers financed that.

      He contradicts himself and carefully uses facts in a misleading way. There's a lot of information that's intentionally left out as well, such as technology that can drastically reduce co2 emissions from coal power plants that is available today but it's usage is not currently required by law. Also, notice how he fully discloses that there is a general increase in the utilization of renewables, but only after citing a forecast for the number of deaths caused by an increase of electric cars. That's cool how he did that, so the two forecasts could be independent to make numbers seem as shockingly large as possible.
      A number of plants HAVE used technology to help contain CO2, but you can't really just get rid of it. Plants are probably the BEST way. And he DOES show that the increased adoption of solar power is MINOR! MY GOD! In the 1970s, they HAD photovoltaic cells that looked like, and were apparently about as efficient as, the ones they have TODAY! They had INVERTERS, like they do today! I even had a solar powered calculator in the late 1970s! By the 1980s, they had CHEAP promotional solar powered calculators that companies were literally GIVING away as premiums or simple advertising pieces. But that was 35 years ago! And wind turbines? In the US they are AT LEAST that old! Alcohol used in cars and engines? I've heard it is OLDER than GASOLINE(Petrol in the UK). Regardless, I KNOW it has been used in model aircraft for over 45 years! HECK, the US pentagon has a "solar farm", and has for at least 13 years or so, but likely much longer. HOW LONG do you think it will take for this to REALLY catch on?

      To be clear about this: I don't have the qualifications that are required to have a respectable opinion on this matter, but I've seen enough people twist facts to be able to identify that's whats going on in that video.
      Sounds to me like YOU are twisting facts.

      Edit: Also his statement about the cost of cutting one ton of co2 emissions being 7$ is not how that works. That's a complete lie.
      WHAT do you think he is talking about?

      1. Raw materials? NON SEQUITOR which would make this MEANINGLESS! BESIDES, WHY would he be talking about it?
      2. Producing it? WHY? Production has always been ****FREE****! THAT is the problem!
      3. Being ALLOWED to create it? NOPE! DUMB IDEA! OOOPS, WAIT A SECOND! A little organization calling itself the "UN"(AKA United Nations) several years ago proposed a STUPID tax partially implemented that the US generally calls a "Carbon tax". Now this is a REALLY dumb idea, and they have NO way of determining what can work, but they DID allow it to be *****TRADED*****, so a company can SELL their allowance to another company!

      HEY, do you think the TRADING could be what they are talking about on the EUROPEAN TRADING SYSTEM? Whether talking about filters, cleansing, or a TAX, the result is the same. There is some ONGOING COST. After all, the carbon has to go, or be contained, SOMEWHERE. With PLANTS, there is the plants mass, sugar, etc.... And DON'T FORGET! only a MINISCULE portion of CO2, whether by volume, mass, or weight, is CARBON! MOST of the mass, weight, and volume is the much heavier OXYGEN! In CO2, carbon is about 12, and oxygen is about 32, so over like 62% of the weight is OXYGEN! So a ton of CO2 is only like 760lbs of carbon, and one wonders how they can be sure how much CO2 you created. After all, the exhaust could be almost anything. Hey, there is a relatively unknown song the beatles made! You want to hear it?


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

      Edit2: I suggest you go read about the trading system, after reading about how it works that person has absolutely zero credibility in my mind. None. Complete Liar.
      GEE, do you have ANY idea how many books have been written on such subjects? Such things only have a few things going for them:

      1. NEED! RARE, and not to be depended on. If run by need, markets of today would plummet a LOT! Come on! HOW many people need diamonds, or even GOLD? Ironically, most diamonds bought because of NEED are bought DIRT CHEAP anyway!
      2. DESIRE! RARE, and unpredictable. AGAIN, if run by desire, markets would FALL! Yeah, like the time Warren buffet WANTED to have a company provide him VIP airline service, and he thought the idea of sharing was good. He bought netjets. How often do you figure that happens? Even when it is POPULAR, it isn't that common. And even HE was looking for some sort of bargain, and had parameters.
      3. BELIEF! This tends to become rare, because people quickly find out they are wrong, or lose the ability. Look at the belief in the ROARING TWENTIES! It was SKY HIGH! It came to a screeching halt in 1929!
      4. ******UNCERTAINTY******! DING DING DING! We have a WINNER! Listen to all the big places that sell gold in their ads. They speak of inflation, etc... Listen to the stock market, bonds, mutual funds, HEDGE FUNDS, INSURANCE! They basically say BUY IT NOW, EVEN if it is high priced because LATER, when you NEED it, it may be GONE!

      So don't think some set price is definite. A company may have a limited time allowance and want to sell it, and have limited buyers.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10530177].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author irawr
        Banned
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Sounds to me like YOU are twisting facts.
        Yeah, me as an anonymous marketer, I have a really big pro renewable energy agenda on a forum infested with newbie marketers. That's the real reason I'm here. I swear, it's not to help people out.
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        HEY, do you think the TRADING could be what they are talking about on the EUROPEAN TRADING SYSTEM? Whether talking about filters, cleansing, or a TAX, the result is the same. There is some ONGOING COST. After all, the carbon has to go, or be contained, SOMEWHERE. With PLANTS, there is the plants mass, sugar, etc.... And DON'T FORGET! only a MINISCULE portion of CO2, whether by volume, mass, or weight, is CARBON! MOST of the mass, weight, and volume is the much heavier OXYGEN! In CO2, carbon is about 12, and oxygen is about 32, so over like 62% of the weight is OXYGEN! So a ton of CO2 is only like 760lbs of carbon, and one wonders how they can be sure how much CO2 you created. After all, the exhaust could be almost anything. Hey, there is a relatively unknown song the beatles made! You want to hear it?

        GEE, do you have ANY idea how many books have been written on such subjects? Such things only have a few things going for them:

        1. NEED! RARE, and not to be depended on. If run by need, markets of today would plummet a LOT! Come on! HOW many people need diamonds, or even GOLD? Ironically, most diamonds bought because of NEED are bought DIRT CHEAP anyway!
        2. DESIRE! RARE, and unpredictable. AGAIN, if run by desire, markets would FALL! Yeah, like the time Warren buffet WANTED to have a company provide him VIP airline service, and he thought the idea of sharing was good. He bought netjets. How often do you figure that happens? Even when it is POPULAR, it isn't that common. And even HE was looking for some sort of bargain, and had parameters.
        3. BELIEF! This tends to become rare, because people quickly find out they are wrong, or lose the ability. Look at the belief in the ROARING TWENTIES! It was SKY HIGH! It came to a screeching halt in 1929!
        4. ******UNCERTAINTY******! DING DING DING! We have a WINNER! Listen to all the big places that sell gold in their ads. They speak of inflation, etc... Listen to the stock market, bonds, mutual funds, HEDGE FUNDS, INSURANCE! They basically say BUY IT NOW, EVEN if it is high priced because LATER, when you NEED it, it may be GONE!

        So don't think some set price is definite. A company may have a limited time allowance and want to sell it, and have limited buyers.

        Steve
        That's a really big wall of text from somebody who completely missed the point: The emissions market is for emitters, each unit represents a permit to produce emissions. You and I can not go to that market place and buy emissions. It's not a "free market" for everyone. So, if I own a coal power plant and decide it's not worth it to produce as much energy, I can sell my emissions to another emitter. Buying and selling of emissions does not reduce or increase emissions, that's the purpose of the cap and trade system that we are talking about. Edit: I've read your post several times and I'm not really sure what you are talking about to be 100% honest about this.

        The cost of a drivers license does not represent the cost of driving ...

        The guy is a liar and he completely misrepresented how it works to make a point. I'm not going to do any more research, he claims to be a pretty intelligent person and I'm sure he is, but he's preying on people who are unknowledgeable or who won't go do their own research.

        I don't care what side you are on or what you believe. I think the man's point is valid to a certain extent. But he's a liar, so you can not use the information he provided to come to a definitive conclusion. I hope you understand the point I am trying to make.

        I hope you have enough intelligence to know that you should not allow yourself to be influenced by people who are completely full of shit.

        Edit:
        Electric cars are coal-powered cars. Their carbon emissions can be worse than gasoline-powered cars. And today the Prius has a very expensive battery. Real change needs to meet the “Chindia price.” That’s the price at which people in India and China will use your product without subsidies. Unless your technology can achieve unsubsidized competitiveness against the market and fossil fuels, you’re just a toy. We have five projects trying to change the cost structure of batteries. If we can develop a battery that costs $2,000 instead of $20,000, that car meets the Chindia price. We also have a company called Ecomotors. Our approach is: What if an internal-combustion engine could be twice as efficient as today’s engine for the same price? Nobody else is trying to reinvent the engine. We are. I’m envisioning a future with 75 percent less electricity use for the same light or air-conditioning, and 75 percent less oil consumption for the same car.
        http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...khosla/308684/

        That quote has a very different meaning in context, it's was made to help people understand that current technology is ineffective and needs to improve. That's why Vinod Khosla has 5 projects trying to tackle those problems and has invested 1 billion dollars into the green energy sector. The statement is also incorrect. Fact: Electric cars are powered by electrons. If somebody plugs their electric car into a solar panel, is it powered by coal? No. Is it powered by the sun? No it's isn't. The solar panel converts the sun's energy into electricity and that's what powers the car.

        The way the person in the video used that quote may not be a lie, but I don't think many people feel that using it in that way is "honest."

        Only edited this post because while I was exercising I thought to myself: "man I really hate scum bag liars, I bet he used that quote in a way that's totally unfair."

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        HOW LONG do you think it will take for this to REALLY catch on?
        That's really up to government. My opinion in this matter is about as irrelevant as the amount of emissions conserved by a solar powered calculator.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10530335].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author butters
    Coal is a dying fuel... Seems like if the world moves away from coal, which it is, his argument is rubbish.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10530274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yep, an electric car COULD be powered by anything, but waste wise, lithium batteries ARE inefficient. The ONLY thing they have going for them is a capacity to hold high power energy for a long use period, and release it at a steady high rate. The record for size, quick charge, lifetime, and a high power to size ratio is almost certainly STILL the lead acid. THAT is why it is used so many places where that capacity is needed. It WOULD be used in electric cars also, as it is in other cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc... , but the draw period is too long, so it becomes impractical, and the power would gradually drop. Still, lithium batteries are SO inefficient that processor companies have tried to make CPU simulators, and LOW POWERED processors, etc... to try to make batteries last longer. Manufacturers have made ODDLY formatted packs to try to fit as much surface area in the products as possible. And electric car manufacturers have LARGE arrays of batteries. OH, and they are SO dangerous that some time ago the FAA mandated that spare used lithium batteries be kept out of cargo holds of passenger aircraft. One company fashioned their batteries poorly causing MANY computers to catch fire, or even EXPLODE, and some people have achieved the same, via incompetence, by shorting them out.



    And solar cells are ALSO not steady or high power. In car races they have traditionally done things to reduce the need for power, decrease drag, and increase inertia, and I think they STILL have some batteries to help stabilize things. But THAT is impractical for current roads and usage patterns.

    And THAT is why places speak of power outlets at parking lots, etc.... Getting rid of coal is a lot easier said than done, and, as I showed earlier, OBAMA knows it! He ADMITTED it! You have wind, impractical in so many ways. You have hydraulic, really needs a LOT of infrastructure, so forget it. Solar is ALSO inefficient. There is petroleum products, that are expensive, etc... In many ways WORSE than coal today. You have wood, which can also be bad. You DO have NUCLEAR! HIGH POWER, EFFICIENT, LONG LIFE, etc.... Alas, with the quality of things today, and the "competence" of so many today, THAT seems to have no hope. Look at that japanese incident. Some are saying it could be DECADES for the world to start feeling the full effects because some idiot built a nuclear plant in one of the WORST places on the planet! REALLY? You build a plant that is NOT earthquake safe in an area KNOWN for LARGE earthquakes, and a bay in an area that is KNOWN for its potential to suffer severe floods and drops in the water level? And you store high quantities of heavy nuclear material in that place? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukush...clear_disaster

    UNREAL! So then even GERMANY, one of the better producers of nuclear power plants decided to abandon THEIR plans!

    Nuclear Power in Germany - World Nuclear Association

    All these arrangements were thrown into doubt when in March 2011 the government declared a three-month moratorium on nuclear power plans, in which checks would take place and nuclear policy would be reconsidered. Chancellor Angela Merkel decreed that the country's nuclear power reactors which began operation in 1980 or earlier should be immediately shut down. Those units then closed and were joined by another unit already in long-term shutdown, making a total of 8336 MWe offline under government direction, about 6.4% of the country's generating capacity. This decision was not based on any safety assessment, and did not result in removal of the nuclear fuel tax.
    And guess what one of the leading contenders is? Over 16% of their power, and GROWING! Do you give up?


    COAL!

    BTW this WILL also mean that the historic ideal that people like Jules Verne, and many others discussed, about having vehicles powered by nuclear power is unlikely. Even in "back to the future", and "the bionic X(man, woman, etc....)", have spoken of using nuclear power. If not for the radiation and criticality risk, it would be near perfect. It is as close to perpetual as anyone has come. The US will NEED to have nuclear submarines to balance out things like the chinese having them, but otherwise, this might be abandoned by almost everyone everywhere.

    So if we don't use the current fuel to power the most efficient plants, what CAN we use?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10530800].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author irawr
      Banned
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Even in "back to the future", and "the bionic X(man, woman, etc....)", have spoken of using nuclear power.
      OOOOOHHHHHH, I SEE.

      You get your information from "THE SOURCE."

      OOOOHHHKAAAYYY.

      I SEE....

      Moving away slowly now.

      Nothing to see here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10530849].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
        Originally Posted by irawr View Post

        OOOOOHHHHHH, I SEE.

        You get your information from "THE SOURCE."

        OOOOHHHKAAAYYY.

        I SEE....

        Moving away slowly now.

        Nothing to see here.
        Moving back slowly, LOL, you are learning!

        Signature
        Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10531317].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author irawr
          Banned
          Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

          Moving back slowly, LOL, you are learning!
          Never turn your back.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10532708].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
            Originally Posted by irawr View Post

            Never turn your back.
            Yes, some discussions here can turn into a seagull, chip eating frenzy.

            But it is the ones that start attacking the other gulls, for the chip that you need to be wary of!

            Signature
            Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10532728].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author irawr
              Banned
              Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

              Yes, some discussions here can turn into a seagull, chip eating frenzy.

              But it is the ones that start attacking the other gulls, for the chip that you need to be wary of!
              Initially all I read was

              Yes, some discussions here can turn into a seagull
              and was going to say that at some point you just need to haul your ass out of there.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10532740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dvduval
    Also note that fossil fuels are getting dirtier and dirtier. We have already extracted the good stuff, and now more and more we have to use things like tar sands which are among the worst of all. Renewables are getting cleaner and cleaner. This is just Koch propaganda and some will believe it I'm sure.
    Signature
    It is okay to contact me! I have been developing software since 1999, creating many popular products like phpLD.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10534058].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by dvduval View Post

      Also note that fossil fuels are getting dirtier and dirtier. We have already extracted the good stuff, and now more and more we have to use things like tar sands which are among the worst of all. Renewables are getting cleaner and cleaner. This is just Koch propaganda and some will believe it I'm sure.
      Actually, they have come up with ways to make a lot of the fossil fuels cleaner. What renewables are you talking about? WOOD? Give me a break! If anything, it is getting dirtier, with the GMO stuff to try to create toxins. Are you talking about alcohol? How do you make it cleaner? Hydro? They seem to be leaving that. Wind? AGAIN, manufacture is more artificial, etc... Solar? Solar Panel Efficiency - Pure Energies But HEY, I went to a supplier that was BRAGGING of 19%! Still, CRAZY! How about nuclear? OH YEAH, I already said why that is in trouble.

      But OK, that tsunami, the stories of the illness, closing down parts of japan, etc... was all a MYTH and some weird conspiracy. HECK, Logan airport is literally BRAGGING about being one of the cleanest airports because, supposedly, 20% of their business is through mass transit, and they have busses running on CNG. BTW I believe CNG IS considered a fossil fuel.

      I have a feeling that we might FINALLY be where the computer industry was in maybe 1970, but even with THAT, it took a decade before people started to recognize it, and 5 years after that before the world got used to the idea, and another 5 years before it became ubiquitous in the business world, and another decade before most homes had them. And another decade before it got where kids were wondering how anything was done earlier without them.

      But lets look at how it works with the computer industry. It was over a decade before people thought about power consumption. It was like another decade before many really did anything, and like another decade before the big players latched onto the idea. STILL, they are oscillating because every advance means taking a step back in performance. People have to CHOOSE between power efficiency, and ability. Most still pick ability.

      If not for the fantastic advances in data storage, drives would be huge, high power, and slow, etc... It wasn't due to an attempt to lower power consumption. If anything, it was trying to fit the old shugart standards, and the newer standards to have a decent sized laptop.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10534572].message }}

Trending Topics