Nothing to see here, move along

[321BAR]

LOL,

Our governments are only out to line their pockets, It's time for us to stand up and vote them out. I really don't need anybody's money, I can fend for myself. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is all I expect.

spammer

Love this country while hating our government!

It's obvious the current Governments can't solve this problem. Please send me 30% of all of your incomes and I will personally figure this problem out.
If you feel that you can't afford this offer, maybe I can payoff enough politicans to make it law.

Good day everyone, Don't Freeze, Don't Burn.

Contributions can be sent to, and will be accepted at: I'magovclone.com (Mastercard and Visa is accepted)

Thanks for the contributions, Your saving the planet.

spammer

contributions can be falsified...

[mechanic]

.

The question really is that have we reduced pollution overall or have we just moved it elsewhere.

 

[CAP1]

The report and company you cited were specifically debunked in the first article I posted.  Further debunks here:

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

CMW's report is not peer reviewed, which means they aren't releasing the data that supports their conclusions, nor are they allowing other scientists to review their work. Peer review is an important part of validating any paper, and the fact that CMW is skipping this process makes their conclusions suspect.  Further, the mileage used in the calculations is biased in favor of the hummer.  The Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379000 lifetime miles, while the Prius is assumed to travel only 109000 miles.  This is an unfair comparison.  On top of that, the conclusions are in conflict with several other papers on the subject. In a nutshell, CMW is cooking the results and a simple statistical analysis can prove it.

Oh, and lithium batteries can explode, but so can lead batteries. I didn't find any information as to which is more unstable, but they will both explode if shorted, heated, or overcharged.  Most of what I read on lithium stated the chances of such things occurring are relatively small. 

lead acid batteries will not explode without an ignition source. lithium batteries can.

 read the rest of the reports in that link. i saw the prius vs hummer paper, and didn't read that one.

 there are other links in there also....one in particular concerning something as simple as the construction of a nimh battery.

[gunnss]

Grin,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you might consider this. Batteries are not eternal; I run a five+ megawatt power plant with two and a half megawatts of battery backup. My batteries are in a climate controlled room, and are pampered, with continuous monitoring, and maintence. I still have a complete replacement of batteries every five years. That electric car will need all new batteries in three to six years, and it is going to cost nine to fifteen thousand dollars. That will be well over half the recommended resale value of the car, in reality no one will buy the boat anchor.

I don't care about the Green thing, I just can't afford to buy a new car every five years, you might as well invest in Hula Hoops.

My 76 Comet still runs great, and parts are still common, well except for that right side parking light fixture, going to have to make one for my self. My truck is soon to be converted to steam, where I can burn anything I want for fuel, wood pellets any one? (Grin)

Regards,
Kevin

[Eagler]

batteries are great until you have to charge them...

[CAP1]

batteries are great until you have to charge them...

something i've said in another thread. as someone else said,  we're not fixing anything....simply moving the problem to another source...a much dirtier source.

 kevin........

 i've already sent 3 customers back to the dealer for new battery packs in their priuses. the oldest one was 4 years old. that customer with the 4 year old prius was the only one that bought a new battery pack. he said it cost him $4500 installed.
 on the plus side, i think toyota does have a fairly complete recycling program for their old batteries.....but then again, how much energy is used to recycle these things?
 the other two traded their cars in and bought normal cars. they were the smart ones.

[Melvin]

This thread reminds me of the impression I got from our raid on the treehuggers.

Poor hippies are so blinded with their green glasses on that they literally can't see the forest for the trees.

Oh well, my '87 Chevy pickup is all steel and runs like a champ. With regular maintenance it should go another 20+ years.

<S> Melvin

[Fishu]

i've already sent 3 customers back to the dealer for new battery packs in their priuses. the oldest one was 4 years old. that customer with the 4 year old prius was the only one that bought a new battery pack. he said it cost him $4500 installed.
 on the plus side, i think toyota does have a fairly complete recycling program for their old batteries.....but then again, how much energy is used to recycle these things?
 the other two traded their cars in and bought normal cars. they were the smart ones.

I''d be interested to know how much the mileage costs are for gas and electric cars. If the electricity per mile is cheaper than gas then the $4500 battery pack could still be cheaper overall. Also the electric engine is simplier in construction.

[CAP1]

I''d be interested to know how much the mileage costs are for gas and electric cars. If the electricity per mile is cheaper than gas then the $4500 battery pack could still be cheaper overall. Also the electric engine is simplier in construction.

it won't be no matter what.

during that time, you've still got the standard maintenance costs. tires. brakes. oil changes.....which are much harder on hybrids. suspension components.

 read up to the post i put a bunch of links in.

[dedalos]

people tell me i'm nuts when i say this. but the factr is that what you've typed above is 100% true and correct

Problem is, you can follow the money both ways.  Some people just choose to only follow it one way 

Not directed at you btw

[Vulcan]

The report and company you cited were specifically debunked in the first article I posted.  Further debunks here:

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

CMW's report is not peer reviewed, which means they aren't releasing the data that supports their conclusions, nor are they allowing other scientists to review their work. Peer review is an important part of validating any paper, and the fact that CMW is skipping this process makes their conclusions suspect.  Further, the mileage used in the calculations is biased in favor of the hummer.  The Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379000 lifetime miles, while the Prius is assumed to travel only 109000 miles.  This is an unfair comparison.  On top of that, the conclusions are in conflict with several other papers on the subject. In a nutshell, CMW is cooking the results and a simple statistical analysis can prove it.

Errrrr their website answers these questions? Did you not take time to look at it? For example anyone with half a brain knows different types of vehicles have different life spans and different utlisation levels.

[CAP1]

Problem is, you can follow the money both ways.  Some people just choose to only follow it one way 

Not directed at you btw

yea i know it can. but i try to actually think a little.

in the grand scheme of the earth, we are nothing more than a speck on the planet. for us to think that we can(in the normal course of our lives) cause the planet to warm enough to make major problems is very cocky, and unrealistic.

the sun heats us, the earth wobbles on its axis, our orbit is eliptical, and i would venture that it is not a steady orbit either. top that off with the fact that more than likely our orbit around the sun may be decaying ever so slightly, and a lot of answers become evident. it is the sun.

 it is not carbon dioxide(which greenery and plankton need to live on and provide us with oxygen).

[Lepape2]

yea i know it can. but i try to actually think a little.

in the grand scheme of the earth, we are nothing more than a speck on the planet. for us to think that we can(in the normal course of our lives) cause the planet to warm enough to make major problems is very cocky, and unrealistic.

the sun heats us, the earth wobbles on its axis, our orbit is eliptical, and i would venture that it is not a steady orbit either. top that off with the fact that more than likely our orbit around the sun may be decaying ever so slightly, and a lot of answers become evident. it is the sun.

 it is not carbon dioxide(which greenery and plankton need to live on and provide us with oxygen).

Yup, the main question is that we don't know if CO2 levels are dependent on the average temperature values or if its the opposite. And that, only time will tell and I'm guessing not in our life time. Another graph shows just how in the last 40 years CO2 levels have become much higher than any natural top average for the last 400k years at least. Compare the Vostok graph to this graph below.



I have never been a tree hugger and never will be but when our short existence is well noticed from space (deforestation, artificial basins, cities, roads), I find it is "possible" (thus "possibly unlikely") that the natural levels have been altered at a point where "if" temperatures change at the same rate as this graph shows, then we have our answer. Still, 400,000 is a REALLY SMALL number in geological and global weather terms but there is still an obvious short term pattern in the Vostok graph which I am showing here again for ease of navigation.

(This one reads from RIGHT TO LEFT by the way)



I am not wasting more time on this because this guy has it all figured out.

I quote the guy's conclusion as being also mine:
"If global warming IS occuring - it is helping somehow keep us from the inevitable tip into the next ice age ... "

[CAP1]

i had totally forgotten about deforestation. that is a way(probably the main) that we can/do effect co2 levels. no trees to give us o2........but then we get more(i think) of our o2 from plankton than trees/

[Lepape2]

i had totally forgotten about deforestation. that is a way(probably the main) that we can/do effect co2 levels. no trees to give us o2........but then we get more(i think) of our o2 from plankton than trees/

Yes, but the way I have it figured, we should more be concerned about finding another source of energy based on the fact we don't have enough to finish off this century without starting WWIII rather than about warming/cooling this planet's atmosphere. I still think its a good thing the technology is evolving in the way it is now, but just not for the right reasons (at least in the head of the common people). Can say just the same about water/food supplies but that's another topic.