Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby WTFO » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:47 pm

Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions
Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors TSLA -0.36%. This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.

------------------

Way to go, idiots. You're destroying the planet with your ignorant arrogance.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby terroraustralis » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:27 am

everyone knows environmentalists are fuckwits. even environmental scientists think environmentalists are fuckwits.

the key, is knowing the difference between an environmental scientist, and an environmentalist. sadly most people dont know the difference, which is why so many people think that global warming is environmentalist bullshit, when its actually environmental SCIENCE.

and its pretty obvious to everyone that the government is completely f***ing retarded when it comes to technology and science.

that 5.5 billion would be better off being spent on research into new technologies, rather than pushing incomplete technologies onto people
DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.
DONT LIKE GUNS? DONT BUY ONE.
DONT LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS? THATS TOO F***ING BAD.

FREEDOM IS NOT HAVING TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THE WAY SOMEONE ELSE THINKS YOU SHOULD LIVE YOUR LIFE. THE COST OF FREEDOM IS NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO LIVE THE WAY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD LIVE.

DONT LIKE THE PRICE OF FREEDOM? GET THE F*** OUT OF AMERICA, PROBLEM SOLVED!
terroraustralis
User avatar
PolitiMaster
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby Jrock » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:30 am

Jrock
User avatar
PolitiSeedling
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby romneyisatool » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:58 pm

WTFO wrote:Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions
Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors TSLA -0.36%. This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.

------------------

Way to go, idiots. You're destroying the planet with your ignorant arrogance.


You think environmentalists ARE THE ONES destroying the planet?

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Image
romneyisatool
User avatar
PolitiNoob
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby terroraustralis » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:22 pm

environmentalists are the ones screaming "HURR DURR ENVIRAHMENDT!", which motivates uneducated, but otherwise normal people to ignore them, AND ignore the environmental scientists who ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

so yes, environmentalists ARE destroying the environment, in the exact same way that the republican party is destroying the legitimacy of libertarianism and conservatism.

the tendency for republicans to appear f***ing moronic, which makes most rational people dislike being associated with them

and the tendency for most environmentalists to be deluded, propaganda spouting fucktards who have no rational understanding of how nature actually works, that makes people doubt EVERYTHING that they say.

i know, it seems f***ing stupid when you first read it, but the people who dont know how f***ing retarded environmentalists can be sometimes, DEFINETLY know how f***ing retarded republicans can be sometimes.
DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.
DONT LIKE GUNS? DONT BUY ONE.
DONT LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS? THATS TOO F***ING BAD.

FREEDOM IS NOT HAVING TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THE WAY SOMEONE ELSE THINKS YOU SHOULD LIVE YOUR LIFE. THE COST OF FREEDOM IS NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO LIVE THE WAY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD LIVE.

DONT LIKE THE PRICE OF FREEDOM? GET THE F*** OUT OF AMERICA, PROBLEM SOLVED!
terroraustralis
User avatar
PolitiMaster
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby crankyhead » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:39 am

WTFO wrote:Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions
Bjorn Lomborg



.....Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car......




Estimates say that there's between 1 Billion and 1.7 Billion cars in operation worldwide. So let's take the median, 1.35 Billion, and multiply that by 8.7 tons.

Now, over a 20 year lifespan of a car, how much CO2 is that, per annum, that's not contributing to global warming?
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby terroraustralis » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:43 pm

8 billion tons per year was the total in 2009, that number is likely much bigger for 2013

per year, if every car on earth was electric, it would reduce the global output by less than 5 percent.

do the math if you dont beleive me.

now are you convinced that its a waste of money?

if we put the same amount of money into fusion research we'd be able to cut the carbon output by more than 40%, and by using fusion to provide energy for everything else we'd cut the output by 80%
DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.
DONT LIKE GUNS? DONT BUY ONE.
DONT LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS? THATS TOO F***ING BAD.

FREEDOM IS NOT HAVING TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THE WAY SOMEONE ELSE THINKS YOU SHOULD LIVE YOUR LIFE. THE COST OF FREEDOM IS NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO LIVE THE WAY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD LIVE.

DONT LIKE THE PRICE OF FREEDOM? GET THE F*** OUT OF AMERICA, PROBLEM SOLVED!
terroraustralis
User avatar
PolitiMaster
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby WTFO » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:45 pm

More proof that the enviro-nazis don't give a damn about the environment? Sure thing.
---------------
Windmills Are Killing Our Birds
One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources

By ROBERT BRYCE

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.
--------------
Typical double standard from the left-wing morons.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby romneyisatool » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:29 pm

WTFO wrote:Image


TRANSLATION (WTFO): Better put my tampon on, I'm having another whiny breakdown since Obama won and I'm trying to take it out on liberals.
romneyisatool
User avatar
PolitiNoob
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Enviro-nazis do more damage to the planet

Postby terroraustralis » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:51 pm

TRANSLATION: "HAHA! WE WON THE ELECTION! NOW WE GET TO BE AS RETARDED AS THE REPUBLICANS! WE NO LONGER HAVE ANY REASON OR OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE THINKING FOR OURSELVES! YAY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF DERP!"
DONT LIKE ABORTIONS? DONT GET ONE.
DONT LIKE GUNS? DONT BUY ONE.
DONT LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVING EITHER OF THOSE THINGS? THATS TOO F***ING BAD.

FREEDOM IS NOT HAVING TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THE WAY SOMEONE ELSE THINKS YOU SHOULD LIVE YOUR LIFE. THE COST OF FREEDOM IS NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE OTHERS TO LIVE THE WAY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD LIVE.

DONT LIKE THE PRICE OF FREEDOM? GET THE F*** OUT OF AMERICA, PROBLEM SOLVED!
terroraustralis
User avatar
PolitiMaster
 
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:45 pm

Next
Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Options

Return to PolitiChat

cron