What are you trying to say , Bob ?
Printable View
What are you trying to say , Bob ?
I don't buy the Tesla being superior technology to the Volt for a few basic reasons. ONE, Car and Driver; Road and Track; and yes, even the sometimes off the chart TV show "Top Gear" have all tested the Tesla, and not ONE of them got the range Tesla claims. I humbly will have to say Tesla can say what they like, but if their car worked half as well as they claim, they wouldn't be able to build them fast enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
The truth is the electric car is barely feasible in harsher climates outside of the US south and the more temperate parts of Europe and the like. It is not efficient in how it keeps it's occupants warm/cold and since A/C, defrost or heater functions ALL are a drag on battery life. Tesla's little sports car likely would have almost NO range at all on a very cool day around these parts.
Furthermore, GM isn't stupid and isnt' filled with myopic engineers bent on keeping the Electric car down to help the petrochemical industry. On the contrary, the first car maker that truly makes a very good electric car that doesn't have electric car drawbacks for a price people can afford will find they cannot build them fast enough. The market is wanting a truly real car powered by electricity. Toyota's Prius and now the Volt and Nissan Leaf are the best efforts so far. The auto industry is so fierce right now, there is every incentive in the WORLD to create a truly useful electric car.
If I hear one more story of how stupid GM is over the EV 1 is, I will scream. The car didn't work. People who took them were practically begging GM to take the cars back once summer came. No A/C was the story and the cars were used in So Cal and Arizona. Think about driving one of those fish bowls in that heat with No A/C. Totally useless.....
GM lost their shirt on that deal, and GM doesn't do things like that to lose money. They wanted to work. The technology was not ready. They are a lot closer with the Volt.....but it truly isn't really an electric car in the traditional sense either. The technology doesn't not give the modern electric car the range it needs to be anything more than an urban toy. Well cars are far too expensive to only be one trick ponies, hence the slow sales and demand.
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....
It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
The Green's are not in power, but the idea that we all must be GREEN and the GREEN economy is driving a lot of policy on the surface. One only has to look at the billions that idiot running Ontario is going to spend on GREEN, and the reality is, it is in the form of large wind farms run by multinational's making a fortune off the naive idiot paying 5 to 10 times the going rate for power for them to produce. The loser is the consumer in Ontario who is also the taxpayer subsidizing the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
Small scale house by house green efforts would make SO much more sense. Bagwan is going "off the grid" for power, and the government and the huge power producers are scared of it. They cant make money off Bagwan and anyone else who does this. Cant have people having independence or freedom....
It isn't the opposition that makes the plant safe. It is common sense. The engineers who designed and built the CANDU's in Pickering and Darlington, not to mention Bruce all live in those communities. No one is going to willingly build a ticking time bomb in their back yard. Most of the opposition is either ill informed, or willingfully twisting things to their point of view for their political agenda. The few intelligent and skeptical people who participate in the process often are lost in the shuffle. All of these people have the right to question things, the right to protest and within reason, participate in the process (chaining oneself to a table in the EA hearing room screaming at the people to stop the plant isn't participating, but Greenpeace doesn't believe it). No, it isn't the opposition that makes these plants safe, it is common sense, and the the cool reality that most politicians when helping strike legislation to help regulate the nuclear industry are doing so with the best interests of society at heart. Naive assumption I am making there I am sure, but I do think on some level, no political party in this country would be stupid enough to give carte blanche to any industry that could wreak the havoc a nuclear accident can. However, as I said, the people running the plants are not suicidal and they are not stupid.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rah
The greens don't even get a seat at the debate . Sad .
We had the turbines first .
Now , we have Microfit panels all over .
So , they've screwed with wind , pitting neighbour on neighbour , municipality against province , and the public for and against it .
And , now , I drive down to the local dairy and see about 15 solar set-ups on the way .
Not one is allowed to use the power , even if the grid goes down .
Those set-ups cost between $75 and $125 k , when 2.8kw can be had for about $20k , and I'll never pay again .
Twas and is still a no-brainer , even for me .
By the way , how much was that bridge , if you don't mind me askin ?
I think its naive in the extreme to believe that those reactors were designed by the local community and that safety standards will be strictly adhered to merely because the people who commission and work in the reactor live next to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Human nature is universal. There is a long list of industries, not just nuclear, that are happy to pollute and destroy the same region that those who own, manage and work in them are drawn, endangering lives of their own kin if it means that a quick buck can be made.
There are plenty of nuclear reactors in the former Warsaw Pact located very close to major cities which are built to standards that would not have been acceptable at any point in the West, yet they were commissioned by people who by Canadian standards live next door to them. According to your theory that wouldn't have happened.
A review of the root causes of why Chernobyl ended up being built with known design flaws that eventually lead to the disaster there might be useful. You might be interested to know that the local Ukrainian administration pushed for the reactor to be built against the advice of engineers sent from Moscow who recommended a fundamental redesign in order for it to be safe. The latter were overruled by the locals who were more interested in getting awards for bringing the project in on time and on budget. So much for the local community not willingly building a time bomb in their own back yard.
While I am a strong advocate of nuclear power I am under no illusions whatsoever that their design, construction and even location need to be scrutinised long and hard by independent bodies. In an open society the drive to have that degree of scrutinisation often comes from the anti-nuclear body and I'm all for it. If that means that nuclear reactors have a long lead time, might be cancelled due to re-reviews and generally end up very expensive because of all the safety features required by governing bodies then thats a price worth paying.
I am not worried about the safety of nuclear reactors in democratic open societies where there are strong social and political pressures to ensure safety. My concern is with opaque unaccountable societies such as China and Russia where there is also a strong element of corruption at work, which are also the countries that happen to be building the largest number of new reactors.
Exactly. The two cars are very different. The Tesla has three times the battery capacity than the Volt and is about a third lighter. Also the Tesla is purely electric whereas the Volt is a hybrid (despite the GM blurb) and therefore doesn't rely purely on its battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstgear
The Tesla also won't reach anywhere near 300 miles when driven at supercar speeds, just as supercars won't get anywhere near their official economy figures when driven as they are designed to be.
That said both are important in different ways, the Tesla as a technology innovator with new software to manage the batteries better (which is the biggest single problem electric car designers face when trying to improve economy) whilst the Volt brings a new angle to the hybrid market.
The people who use the farce name "green" taut batteries as "green", well that article makes getting the components for the "green" batteries far more destructive than all the carbon bs yet spewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Of course the people who prattle on about carbon and the green house effects are liars or fools, so I guess their ignoring reality is not to be a surprise.
--------------------------------
http://thecontrail.com/profiles/blog...he-ozone-scare
Here is another turd on the greenie plate:
By Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons)
Political Analyst
23rd August 1999
As with Greenhouse Effect, the Ozone Hole scare has been a victim of political and corporate interests, media bias and pseudoscience. Again, the media has left many of us in the dark, recycling lies and half-truths while giving rise to unwarranted alarm.
No doubt, many readers will be familiar with the theory of CFCs obliterating the ozone layer. However, as we will see later, this theory rapidly crumbles when we separate science from political deception. The ozone depletion theory originated from Mario Molina in December 1973 despite that Molina knew nothing about the stratosphere or stratospheric chemistry; his expertise was in chemical lasers[1]. Molina came to Sherwood Rowland, another scientist with no expertise in stratospheric chemistry and they worked together producing what scientists commonly know as Rowland and Molina's Theory[2]. The theory assumed CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks[3]. They assumed ultraviolet radiation breaks up CFCs in the stratosphere whereby freeing a chlorine atom. The theory goes on to assume this chlorine reacts with ozone producing diatomic oxygen and a highly reactive compound, chlorine monoxide. Molina predicted the chlorine monoxide would break up, thus setting up a catalytic chain reaction destroying between 20 and 40 percent of the ozone layer[4]. The chemical reactions as hypothesised by Molina can be seen below for the common refrigerant CFC-12.
CCl2F2 + ultraviolet radiation ----> Cl + CClF2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Unfortunately, many environmentalists conveniently omit scientific evidence that does not fit their perceived vision of environmental cataclysm. Firstly, the chance of many CFCs finding their way up to the stratosphere is very remote considering CFCs, depending on which compound is being measured, are four to eight times heavier than air[5]. Secondly, it is only natural for ozone levels to oscillate in the stratosphere; they are simply a function of the solar sunspot cycle[6]. Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s[7]. However, the Ozone Trends Panel's starting date was chosen at 1969 when ozone levels were at a peak[8]. This deceptive graphical plot hides the fact that back in 1962 there was also an "ozone hole."[9] It is also a curiosity that the ozone hole forms over Antarctica, when in fact most CFCs are emitted from the Northern Hemisphere.
Norwegian scientists Søren Larsen and Thormod Henriksen have analysed the Arctic ozone layer back to the year 1935 and conclude:[10]
"The data from long-term ozone measurements reveal periods of several years with a negative trend [decrease] and other periods with a positive trend [increase]. The combined results up to 1989 give no evidence for a long-term negative trend of the Arctic ozone layer...."[11]
http://www.sunsmart.com.au/about_us/...ts_at_a_glanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Skin cancers account for about 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year in Australia. Each year, Australians are 4 times more likely to develop a common skin cancer than any other form of cancer
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/sk...ntent/fact-2#5
Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, with approximately 430,000 new cases estimated to have been diagnosed in 2008
Those rates according to the ABS Book of Statistics have been steadily on the rise on a per 100,000 basis since 1965.
I note that Jeremy Beck is a Political Analyst and as such, has probably been commissioned to write this piece by a lobby group.
I also note this "Another rarely publicised point is that global ozone data exists back as far as the 1930s". Really? When did the first satellites go up? The truth is that there were zero satellites above the atmosphere montoring anything until at least 1957, and specifically the Nimbus satellites were the first to go up in 1964.
Halogens do destroy ozone. You can prove it in a lab. The article you've linked to is so worthless as to be laughable.
Yes, they have stuffed rats with sugar till it was linked to cancer also, such laboratory results are as worthless as you the article is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The Chicken-Little types have been exposed as the self-righteous scam artists they are.
One can only hope the general populace finds this information as today's educators are part of the Chicken-Little society.
There is no proof, just opinions based on egos.