while you have a point (that total pollutants are the issue), the devil is always in the details.
Apart from the accuracy of your figures (looks like it's 70% from total fossil sources, not 90% from coal alone, so your figure is sorta, well, useless) and the fact that something like natural gas burns very clean, while coal does not, you also have the issue of just how efficient the total deal is - would it, for example, be more sensible to burn natural gas directly in a car than to convert it to electricity? Well, that's up to the engineers (and also the economists who have to figure for distribution, etc.) and that's where a free market economy is damned handy, so that issues like logistics are less likely to be hijacked by people with political agendas.
Nukes, of course, are neat, except for that nasty-assed radiation stuff, and while the Soviets were certainly sloppier than us, there was this thing called 3 mile island that suggests that even True & Loyal Americans can fuck things up sometimes. Radiation sickness is bad shit, you know? http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
Yes, economics are a good thing, and so are checks & balances.
The whole hybrid car craze is just another marketing tool. It makes people feel better about themselves. If every car in America became a hybrid tomorrow the world's fuel demand would not change. The demand is due to China, India, etc. becoming industrialized nations.
You guys don't want to drill in Alaska for reasons that make absolutely no sense. Caribou populations explode in areas where there is drilling. And there is nothing "prestine" about dead, frozen ground. But very well. The reality is you don't want us to drill in our own country but you don't want us to be dependant on foreign sources.
How about nuclear power? If we went nuke (like Frnace and Japan) that would take care of an estimated 70% of energy demand. The reasons it was opposed in the 70s and 80s were based on hysterics. Chernobyl was due to the fact that the USSR was in the Dark Ages when it came to that kind of technology. Asia and Europe have proven that it is safe and efficient. We could drive our Hummers and flib the bird to the Middle East.
"The demand due to China, India".....Don't forget the stress that the Washington/Hollywood phonies put on the oil supply as they whip around on private jets, flying around to lecture us peons about fuel consumption and the environment. Al Gore burns more petroleum in one year than my whole town does.
is going to want to know what it means "to flib".
I agree totally on the nuke line. Although I do think that non-petroleum based vehicles make sense for everyone at some point. It's all just a matter of technology and costs (dare I say economic forces). Driving electric cars when 90% of the electricity is made from coal, cleans up nothing.
while you have a point (that total pollutants are the issue), the devil is always in the details.
Apart from the accuracy of your figures (looks like it's 70% from total fossil sources, not 90% from coal alone, so your figure is sorta, well, useless) and the fact that something like natural gas burns very clean, while coal does not, you also have the issue of just how efficient the total deal is - would it, for example, be more sensible to burn natural gas directly in a car than to convert it to electricity? Well, that's up to the engineers (and also the economists who have to figure for distribution, etc.) and that's where a free market economy is damned handy, so that issues like logistics are less likely to be hijacked by people with political agendas.
Nukes, of course, are neat, except for that nasty-assed radiation stuff, and while the Soviets were certainly sloppier than us, there was this thing called 3 mile island that suggests that even True & Loyal Americans can fuck things up sometimes. Radiation sickness is bad shit, you know? http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
Yes, economics are a good thing, and so are checks & balances.
wrong about what?
The 90% that I was originally thinking, (which I corrected, had you bothered to look) was based on memory of total engery comsumption not electricity consumed. Fossil fuels account for almost 90% of all U.S. energy consumption (actual estimate is 86% in 2005). This accounts for hydrocarbon produced energy directly for uses including electric and non electric energy (vehicles, home heating, etc.) It does not include the use of petroleum and NG for non energy uses such as mfg. all those other materials (synthetics, fertilizer, lubricants, etc.). So you see, hydrocarbon energy IS that big a deal right now. It's wonderful that you know that natural gas more easily burns more cleanly. It's equally important to know that coal reserves amount to about 85% of all U.S. hydrocarbon fuel reserves. That's a huge energy supply waiting to be cleanly tapped. I'm glad that you will leave the details for people like me to work out, because you see, I am an engineer. I have been serving as one for 30 years. I guess I could borrow a phrase from someone I know and ask that you not stick your nose into such technical details until you get your degree....
but I won't.
and you would know that the accuracy of those numbers determine what should be done. No self-respecting engineer would expect anybody to accept conclusory allegations that energy conversion rates are identical in all applications, so that your thesis (that electrical cars are per se pointless) isn't necessarily true.
You didn't say anything about total energy consumption, only autos - and I realized you corrected yourself, but with inapplicable data.
Your presentation casts serious doubts on your usefulness as an engineer. Get back to us when you can explain yourself.
Nonetheless, you have resorted to typical tactics. Distort the facts, debate the distortions and then attack me.
I never made any of the claims you attribute to me. Ok, my claim that electric cars clean up nothing was a bit of a flat assertion, but then it was aimed at the thoughtless majority that believes that electric cars are 100% clean. I never said they were pointless as you attributed. Even though they still pollute, they can do so without using petroleum thus conserving something in more scarce supply.
Also, I never made any assertions one or the other about energy conversion methods and associated efficiencies. Frankly, I don’t have the time (nor the desire) to present any sort of details to try to convince you of any of the things that you so artfully claim that I attempted.
Like claiming that you're talking about cars only, or all electrical power; or mixing coal and other fossil fuels, then claiming it's all coal, when your links contradict you.
Don't do that if you expect to be believed.
so I'm not channeling Nancy's psychics, and that's why I don' always know the answer before I know the question. I guess Republicans get some kind of group discount on massive BS, or something.
From 2003
Conventional Thermal (coal, natural gas, propane, fuel oil, etc) = 71%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydroelectric = 7%
Other (Geothermal, solar, waste conversion, etc) = 2%
Unfortunately, the "arrogantsia"; the elitist, purist, superiorites, leftist, pseudo-intellectuals don't give a rat's ass about anything except controlling the lives of the peasants (everyone else). They have succumbed to one of the great human afflictions, the craving to be a tyrant. They aren't even interested in being a benevolent tyrant.
However; Leftist OR Rightwing doesn't apply to the "Machine".
"Despotic" would have been the better adjective.
LFA
You sound like a Sex Pistols song.
often recognize the very ills that plague the mainstream.
and fall in behind the stupidest program you can find.
Humans have been evolving toward the specialized adaptations that require increased intelligence and control of their environment. You, on the other hand, rightly reject tradition, in favor of LESS intelligence, MORE stupidity. If it works for cockroaches, who can argue? Don't let us make you feel bad about it, it's your call.
"us"? do you mean your arrogant pink comrades? I don't know much about cockroaches but I am guessing that they can outwit a pink. The only thing I "rightly reject" is the ignorance flowing from the arrogant left.
aggressive stupidity, insider market manipulation, or the various brands of chickenhawkery that are almost exclusively the province of the right. Televangelism is of course a subset of the 1st.
and WE in the enlightened age had our 3-mile island incident due to human error that can't be avoided....So it wasn't just hysterics!BTW,were you around when it happened?