backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by kyleb2112.. on Nov 8 at 7:11 AM


Obama called on Republicans to back EV efforts at a post-election press conference.  (Source: YouTube/The White House)

In his speech Obama essentially agreed to drop plans to legislate cap and trade, an "anti-global warming" scheme that would have cost over $1T USD and cut American farmers profits by as much as 57 percent by 2035.  (Source: FreePeople Blog)

He hopes that in exchange for cooperation on warming, Republicans will contribute financial support to EV makers like GM, who launches the Chevy Volt EV this year.  (Source: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
President essentially agrees to drop warming cap and trade carbon legislation in exchange

Speaking at a post-election press conference at the White House on Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama called on his political rivals the Republican Party (also know as the GOP, short for Grand Old Party) to join him in supporting electric vehicles.  He said that while the pair sparred on many issues, that he hoped electric vehicles would be something that the two parties would see eye to eye on.

The President will need GOP cooperation if he hopes to push further grants for the EV industry.  While the Democratic Party hung on to control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans seized a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama is trying to sell Republicans on his plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets by 2015.

Automakers have been partially supportive of Obama's plan.  They've lauded the $5B USD in special battery and EV technology loans and grants that he's lavished them with.  The legislation to fund these grants did enjoy a degree of bipartisan support, with some Republicans jumping on board.

However, $10B USD more in proposed EV loans and grants for the EV industry was torpedoed during President Obama's first two years in office.  Opposition came primarily from the Republican party, but also from some fiscally conservative Democrats.

Obama tried to drum up support for more EV grants among both parties at the conference, stating, "There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries.  That gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together."

Many of the big Japanese and U.S. automakers are preparing to release electric vehicles this year or next.  Nissan will release its LEAF EV and General Motors Company will release the Chevy Volt.  Next year the Ford Focus Electric and the Toyota Prius Plug-in will launch.

Automakers have asserted that grants will be greatly helpful in ensuring that the expensive research needed to develop electric vehicles -- a radically different internal architecture -- moves head at a sufficient pace.  

But while they have praised the "carrot" side of Obama's EV approach, they have noisily criticized the "stick" side of his plans -- a proposal to mandate a 62 mpg average light vehicle efficiency by 2025.  Automakers were forced to begrudgingly accept a 34.1 mpg mandatory fuel efficiency increase that must be reached by 2016.

Perhaps acknowledging that he faces an uphill battle to pass more electric vehicle legislation, Obama took an apologetic tone about the broader bailout, stating, "[Some voters] started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed. We thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach."

Very significantly, the President also essentially agreed to drop plans to pass "cap and trade" legislation which would spend billions (if not trillions) in taxpayer money to set a hard limit on the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit, in a bid to fight the supposed "global warming" crisis, which some researchers claim mankind is causing.

The President acknowledged that the bill wouldn't pass the House due to Republican opposition and argued that he only tried to push it because of the Supreme Court decision that found greenhouse gases a danger to public health.  That decision mandates the EPA to adopt some sort of action to fight GHG emissions in the U.S.

Obama said that there's plenty of alternatives to cap and trade, though -- including promoting lower-emission EVs (centrally produced power, even with transmission losses is typically lower emissions than small internal combustion engines).  He states, "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problems."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Slight adjustment
By bug77 on 11/4/2010 10:15:38 AM , Rating: 3
The plan should aim to put 1M EV in the streets in China. Cause that's where the jobs are and that's where the money goes. It's a bit tougher selling a $5k premium to a jobless american, imho.

On a more serious note, did anyone check whether 1 million americans actually want to buy an EV?




RE: Slight adjustment
By inighthawki on 11/4/2010 10:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
With roughly 300M people in the US, that would be 1 in every 300 people wanting one, and to be honest out of every 300 people I know, there are quite a few that would want want. My parents are looking to buy a new car soon, and they would love something like that that gets great mileage, but not at a 50%+ price hike.


RE: Slight adjustment
By bug77 on 11/4/2010 11:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
But there is a price hike and you have to find 1 in 300 willing to go for it. And the mileage is laughable, so they'd have to go for that, too. 1 in 300 - assuming the children may also buy cars.


RE: Slight adjustment
By inighthawki on 11/4/2010 11:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1 in 300 - assuming the children may also buy cars.

Well, if we assume that buyers are people over the age of about 20-25, that's still over 2/3 of the population, so 200M.

quote:
But there is a price hike and you have to find 1 in 300 willing to go for it.

But that's my whole point, there are a lot of people WILLING but unable/won't because of the price hike. You simply said if anyone knew if 1M Americans wanted one, and I'm saying that there likely is that demand, just not at the current prices.


RE: Slight adjustment
By bug77 on 11/4/2010 11:57:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But that's my whole point, there are a lot of people WILLING but unable/won't because of the price hike.


A lot of people willing to buy something that does not exist isn't saying much, is it? Hence my original question: did anyone look if there's a market?


RE: Slight adjustment
By safcman84 on 11/5/2010 4:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
Surely the point of giving the EV companies subsidies is to help reduce cost of vehicles?

Plus, EV will be best suited to city dwellers who do less mileage but get stuck in more traffic (which is where petrol cars are even less efficient than on the open road)


RE: Slight adjustment
By Cypherdude1 on 11/5/2010 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Plus, EV will be best suited to city dwellers who do less mileage but get stuck in more traffic (which is where petrol cars are even less efficient than on the open road)
That's true. Furthermore, not every corner in suburban areas is going to have a charging unit. In addition, is there even a standardized charging plug or are they going to be all different for each manufacturer?

Is there even enough lithium to go around for 1 MILLION EV's? I read on this very site how China wishes to reduce lithium exports. The President and his environmental backers have the idea that EV's are the best route for reducing the USA's oil dependence. In reality, EV's carry their own problems. I still say that very high mileage diesel cars are the answer. Volkswagen is working on such vehicles. Even with government EV subsidies, I believe Volkswagen will still be the winner in the marketplace.

Finally, and most importantly, Cap and Trade was already dead. There was never any chance it was ever going to pass in the Senate and I'm glad because it would've meant a 50% increase in my electric bill. In reality, the President isn't really giving anything because it was never going to pass anyway. With the new, smaller Democratic majority in the Senate and the new Republican-controlled House, there is little chance anything of real substance is going to pass now. The Republicans are in no mood to cooperate and their only goal is to see Obama is a one term President.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Mint on 11/8/2010 3:26:38 AM , Rating: 3
Diesel is NOT the way to go.

You need to understand that if you increase worldwide diesel consumption, then you will necessarily increase gasoline consumption, too, because crude produces a roughly fixed fraction between the two.

Prices will adjust to always maintain the consumption ratio between the two. The only case for more diesel cars is if you think the loss of efficiency of trucks/trains switching to gasoline is less than the increase of cars. I find that hard to believe.

PHEV is the way to go. Forget about GHG. Urban air pollution is a much deadlier problem, and not even biofuels can solve that.


RE: Slight adjustment
By davepermen on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Slight adjustment
By kattanna on 11/4/2010 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
while there is a price hike, there is a long term price reduction thanks to nearly no fuel-cost.


you will still have to pay for the electricity to recharge your new EV, while cheaper will still be a cost.

the thing is that someone who will be buying an EV already doesnt have much of a commute anyways so doesnt burn a lot of gas to begin with, else an EV wouldnt be a viable thing, unless its pure ECO-BLING for them.

will the cost savings eventually pay off with the price premium of the new EV? im doubting initially they will. when they start to be made in mass and prices fall, then most assuredly.

also most pure EV's "should" have a lot less maintenance needed, but battery replacement could be a real killer ECO and $$$ wise. we will see


RE: Slight adjustment
By Fanon on 11/4/2010 1:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
My electricity rate is $0.13 per kWh. Assuming a 1kWh power draw and a 10 hour charge time, that's $1.30 a day or $39/month. That doesn't take into account the price of gasoline needed for the onboard engine.

I can fill up my 2001 Toyota Camry for $40ish/month. There's not a "long term" long enough to be considered a "long term price reduction" or cost savings--especially if you take battery replacement into account.

So no, it doesn't save you any money... at all.


RE: Slight adjustment
By MrTeal on 11/4/2010 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Well of course it doesn't, when you just make up numbers. The Volt will use up to 10kWh of its charge, which should give you around 40 miles. Your numbers for cost would be valid if you drive that 40 miles a day, every day.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably aren't driving 40 miles a day every day (1200 miles) in your 2001 Camry for $40 a month. Not unless you buy $1/gallon gas or your car gets 90 MPG.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Bruneauinfo on 11/4/2010 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 3
just a note: would you tap your battery out every day and need a full recharge?


RE: Slight adjustment
By SactoEngr on 11/5/2010 12:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
But how many total miles could you get on that $40/month with each technology? Perhaps for folks who hardly use the car ($40 a month suggests miniscule usage), perhaps a gas vehicle is more economical.


RE: Slight adjustment
By MrTeal on 11/4/2010 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 3
Year to date in 2010 (after Oct) there's been about 5M cars sold in the US. If you say 6M are sold a year, that for the 5 years 2011-2015 that would mean 1 in 30 cars would have to be EV.

How many pure EVs are offered right now? The Leaf? Even if they fulfill all their preorders in 2011, that's 20,000 units. Who's going to set up and deliver 980,000 EVs onto US streets in 2012-2015? Who's going to buy them?

Obama can want all he likes, it's not going to happen in 5 years unless he starts adding PowerWheels into the numbers.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Dorkyman on 11/4/2010 1:34:43 PM , Rating: 1
The Messiah in the White House is an excellent example of a person blinded by ideology.

Hey, Messiah, as the pundits are saying today after watching your press conference, you really ARE clueless. We didn't vote the way we did because we are scared, or because you didn't sell your vision clearly enough; we voted the way we did because we utterly reject your vision.

That's YOUR vision, not ours. Please go away. Just go away.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 9:57:41 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah people talk about the "religious Right" being scary. But I'm more scared of a President who thinks he's god.

It might be a cliche', but I've never seen someone with more of a God complex than Obama.


RE: Slight adjustment
By farquaid on 11/5/2010 8:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah people talk about the "religious Right" being scary. But I'm more scared of a President who thinks he's god.


Compared to George W Bush, he Is God.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Dorkyman on 11/5/2010 12:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Says you.

W went to Yale and got better grades than that other intellectual giant of the left, Kerry.

And Messiah? He went to various schools, all right. But he frantically guards against any release of his school records. Makes folks very curious as to why.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Targon on 11/4/2010 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
The cost of electric power is already very high in many places, and it can be debated how much of an impact widespread EV usage would have on the price of electricity.

You may(or may not) remember the battle between electric, oil, and natural gas for heating a home, and how the price of each of these will cause shifts from one to another. Right now, there is a perception that plug-in EV cars will be cheaper to operate(if not buy), but if the price of electricity jumps due to increased demand, or if there are blackouts caused by increased demand in the summer months, that feeling would probably shift to being anti-EV.

The 2012 Focus is already rated at 40 miles per gallon highway with the air conditioning going, so that looks much better to me. The EV method would include paying an extra $6000 for a car that would only go 200 or so miles on a single charge, with a big question mark if there would be a charging station at convenient points on a longer trip.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Mint on 11/8/2010 3:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
An electricity price jump will never make the per-mile cost higher than gas, even where electricity is expensive. It's a good factor of 5 in favor of electricity right now. Besides, you charge a car during off-peak hours, and marginal cost for electricity is very low then, especially since generation capacity won't have to grow.

Nobody is talking about strictly pure EV. PHEV will fall under the umbrella of these goals, and it has the same range as a regular car.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Dr of crap on 11/4/2010 10:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
China doesn't have the big incomes to buy one of these EVs. Yes they have higher incomes than a few years ago, but not enough for EVs.
And as far as what I read here and on Gasbuddy.com, not very many will shell out the cash to buy an EV.
Right now it's a premium car that only those with extra cash can buy.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just the cost of the EV. If people REALLY wanted one they could get one. I think it's more of the fact that they know they would still have to own, pay for, and maintain an ICE car as well. Going 100% EV just is NOT feasible until battery tech allows for charging in minutes, not hours.


RE: Slight adjustment
By davepermen on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Slight adjustment
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 5
I don't want to hear it, ok? I'm just telling you how it is. Deal with it. Every poll and consumer sampling points to it. Anyone with half a brain can look at market trends and figure this out.

For some people, yes, EV's do just fine. That's why their sales are so low, because you don't market to "some" people if you want massive market saturation.

Obama and the Green's believe you can point your fingers and magically make it so. So far the only man I know who can do that is Jean Luc Picard. And he's no politician.


RE: Slight adjustment
By thurston on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Slight adjustment
By FITCamaro on 11/5/2010 8:45:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obama and the Green's believe you can point your fingers and magically make it so. So far the only man I know who can do that is Jean Luc Picard. And he's no politician.


That made me laugh.


RE: Slight adjustment
By bug77 on 11/4/2010 12:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're confusing EVs with hybrids. Last I checked there weren't "a lot of people right now" commuting in their Tesla.


RE: Slight adjustment
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/4/2010 12:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, Teslas and the Leaf are the only two EVs out there right now, except for fleet vehicles. The Volt is just a parallel hybrid, as it turns out.


RE: Slight adjustment
By acer905 on 11/4/2010 1:03:00 PM , Rating: 3
Well... based on it's fancy new transmission the Volt really seems to be a "Series-Parallel Hybrid" gas-electric hybrid. Since the power from the generator can be put to the weels, or pass throguh the transmission without noticable losses to recharge/maintain the battery.


RE: Slight adjustment
By gregpet on 11/4/2010 3:37:11 PM , Rating: 1
Which can only happens when you exhaust your 40 miles of EV range.


RE: Slight adjustment
By goku on 11/6/2010 4:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
Or if you go above 70mph... or if it's especially cold, or if the range is reduced because of weather and driving habits (volt says official range is 25-50 miles now)..


RE: Slight adjustment
By MrBungle123 on 11/4/2010 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it's feasible for a lot of people right now. not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).


You have got to be kidding me... Until the EV has roughly the same characteristics as my Gas powered vechilce I'm not buying it. That includes everything price/range/refuling time/capabilities

Me and the vast majority of the rest of the population are not going to pay more money to lower our standard of living for some stupid crusade led by a bunch of lemmings that drank the global warming koolaid.


RE: Slight adjustment
By maverick85wd on 11/5/2010 2:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
good play.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Nfarce on 11/4/2010 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).


I get so sick and tired of you bed wetting neo-fascists telling the rest of us what we should drive and how we should live. It is none of your business how someone else chooses to spend their money on a vehicle or anything else for that matter.

Maybe you Europeans love your government controlling all aspects of your lives, but we Americans do not. And we just handed the Democrats their collective asses on a plate this past Tuesday proving it.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Targon on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Slight adjustment
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 4:58:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
While the number of seats that went Republican was high, the percentages would not call it a landslide. A 45% to 55% loss may be a loss of a seat, but that isn't a huge win when that is a difference of only 6000 votes or less between candidates. There were many more 48 to 52 type of Democratic losses than there were BIG wins.


Hear that at MSNBC? I know the race to downplay the scope of the Democratic defeat is on, but you have got to be kidding me. This was a landslide, no way around it. The biggest landslide in 60 something years! Not just in Congressional seats, but 20 State legislatures that were controlled by Democrats flipped Republican. The Democrats lose control of 20 states overnight and a truckload of Congressional seats, LOSE the Speaker of the House, and you say it's not a landslide?

You can play the percentage game all you want, it's laughable. No matter who wins, in a sport or politics or business, there is always one bitter guy bringing up massaged statistics as to why the other side didn't really "win". Congratulations, you're that guy.


RE: Slight adjustment
By rdawise on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Slight adjustment
By Nfarce on 11/4/2010 8:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny how you refer to the other guy as bitter.


Well when the Dems - who rammed through a LOT of things American vehemently rejected mind you (starting with Obamacare) - trot out the lawsuit machine because they lost, what else would you call it other than being bitter?

And here's something so many on the left seem to just not seem to get through the propeller on top of the beanie cap: America does NOT want socialism and government nanny-statism telling them what do drive, what to eat (that's you Michelle Obama), and telling them what kinds of light bulbs to use.

And you can include the hyper EV wave, Cap & Trade, and other "green" nonsense government (at least under Dem rule anyway) is/was attempting to ram down our gullets and the gullets of US corporations and private enterprise.

So yes, Politics IS a part of this thread and many others. Wasn't Obama mentioned in the freaking title?

Thought so.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 9:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s.


Yes it is. I don't know why you people keep repeating this, or do you just pick it up on TV and run with it? The 90's? This was the biggest partisan shift in Congress since 1948! This stuff is easy to look up, so do it. Stop being ignorant.


RE: Slight adjustment
By 91TTZ on 11/5/2010 11:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s. I am not sure if you are new to politics or not, but this happens every election cycle.


I heard the same thing on CNN.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Nfarce on 11/4/2010 8:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that massive beatdown of Republican gain on Governorships, RC77. Don't forget that.

http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/#/Governor/2010


RE: Slight adjustment
By Nfarce on 11/4/2010 8:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting Targon - when Republicans win big, liberals whine that it's not that big of a deal (or at worst claim the vote was stolen). The main stream DNC media is all too good at doing that. I can name you MANY states where the election that Obama won was close (and I won't go into how that idiot Al Franken stole the election in Minnesota). But go ahead and downplay the Republican wins. It was a referendum against Democrat socialist neo-fascism nanny-statism. Plain and simple.

But back to your point on topic, you can "penalize" me for owning a car/truck "I don't need" until hell freezes over, Mr. Fascist. I'll pay it, gladly. And you can have your cute little EV car for whatever you want to do with it. Don't tell ME what to buy, jack.


RE: Slight adjustment
By FITCamaro on 11/5/2010 8:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
See what we gotta do is just crash our big cars into their tiny cars. Enough of them will get killed while we'll be fine and then we just solve the problem of stupid people the old fashioned way. ;)


RE: Slight adjustment
By cruisin3style on 11/5/2010 3:27:46 PM , Rating: 3
I've considered myself a democrat for a good long while. Relatively recently I started thinking of myself as an independent after paying really close attention to politics and whathaveyou for the last few years. On Tuesday I voted republican because we really need to fix some things that have happened recently in Washington.

Personally I think you are doing everyone a disservice and would prefer if you and others didn't try to downplay what happened. I think what some republicans said in their victory speeches was great. That is to say, it was not a night for republicans or against democrats as much as it was a night to realize the American people are fed up with how things are going in Washington.


RE: Slight adjustment
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a more serious note, did anyone check whether 1 million americans actually want to buy an EV?


If we don't want to its because we're too stupid to know we need them. Just like we just killed his parties majority in the House and reduced it in the Senate because we're too stupid to know what's good for us.


RE: Slight adjustment
By Brian23 on 11/4/2010 7:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
That made me laugh. :-)

I seriously hope that was a joke, because it was funny. :-)


RE: Slight adjustment
By Boze on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Slight adjustment
By ekv on 11/5/2010 1:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just that we're too stupid, it's you-know-who's-fault ....


RE: Slight adjustment
By marvdmartian on 11/5/2010 10:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
It may be a moot point anyway, if China continues to limit the rare earth materials they're exporting to Japan and the USA. Without those materials, they're going to have to come up with new materials to use to make the EV's, that likely won't work as well, and will contribute to a lower efficiency for those vehicles.....meaning there will be less reason to buy one.


RE: Slight adjustment
By douggrif on 11/5/2010 1:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
How about we get rid of the subsidies (our tax money) for EVs that are not competitive and that for which very few are willing to pay full price? While we are at it why not get rid of the EPA and let our U.S. manufacturers free of useless regulation? Don't worry about global warming as science says there have been several cycles of warming and cooling be mankind every was on the planet, much less driving steam engines and cars.


Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2010 10:20:14 AM , Rating: 4
Dear Mr. President,
While I appreciate your concern for us adopting electric vehicles, and applaud your future efforts to drop cap and trade, I do have a couple of worries that I would like to share with you. First and foremost, I do not feel the United States has a sufficient power grid to provide enough electricity to recharge a country full of electric vehicles. Your encouragement of "clean coal" in the past to me, at least, seems that you will not provide enough push in the areas that can actually provide us the power that we need.

Mr. President, you have said that you want to help us build a nuclear future--a future which will help us provide clean, renewable power for centuries to come, yet, I see only slow rumblings in the infrastructure indicating still, far off change to make this viable once more. I urge you, Mr. President, to turn aside your ears to any tones of dissent towards nuclear power and pass legislation making it far easier for companies to begin construction and even complete that construction of nuclear facilities. Furthermore, I encourage you as well to pass legislation to allow these facilities, which, per U.S. engineering philosophy, have measures to provide for decreasing output if "Homer" falls asleep at the wheel, to allow them to ramp up production rapidly after completing construction rather than forcing them to sit idle due to red tape.

Wind Power is nice, so is tidal power, even solar power for that matter, but we all know in order to reach the output goals we desire, Nuclear can be rapidly proliferated throughout our nation without negatively impacting local communities. If you want to help out education in our Nation, do so in the sciences and engineering so more of us will become knowledgeable of the reality of things rather than letting superstition drive our actions.




RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 10:36:59 AM , Rating: 4
To summarize:
Spend tax money on things that will add value to the nation, not on stuff that will make us feel good because it's "green".


By The Raven on 11/4/2010 11:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hear, hear!

Even Al Gore-oss thinks that clean coal is a pipedream. Let's stick with what we know while we seek out new tech. And not make policy decisions based on vaporware.


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By davepermen on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
To me, it seems that most "green" things that politicians push are more to appease the peasents/spread FUD/smear the competition/etc. than any actual effort to improve the environment.
If my tax dollars are going to be thrown away, I'd at least like to get an awesome new jet fighter or something :)


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By Targon on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/5/2010 8:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
So we need multiple engines! Genius!

/sarcasm


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By Chudilo on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By kattanna on 11/4/2010 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
would you live within an eyesight of one


sure would. having a nice clean & quiet neighbor, who wouldnt?

oh yeah, those who have irrational fears of something they dont understand, like you.


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By rcc on 11/4/2010 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sign me up.


By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 3
You idiots keep saying this.

And we keep saying yes. I personally would in fact live as close to one as is allowed (which is not right up against it). It's not like they build these things in the middle of a neighborhood. Like all power plants they're a few miles outside of the main part of town.

Shit I went to a college with an abandoned nuclear research reactor in the basement of one of our science buildings. You could walk down the stairs to the entry way which had since been filled in with concrete and see where the water they had filled the room with had seeped through.

How about you stop asking the same damn question because you don't have any other argument as to why nuclear power shouldn't be adopted.


By Masospaghetti on 11/4/2010 12:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I would.

It might make me feel better about humanity to see one of the greatest technological marvels, every day.


By MrBungle123 on 11/4/2010 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
Stick one in my town we could use the jobs!


By Anoxanmore on 11/4/2010 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
I to would love to live next to one. No more annoy neighbors like yourself. :)


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 2:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
What a moronic argument. So what if I don't want to live within eyesight of a nuke plant?
Here's a list of other things I don't want to live within eyesight of:
- a solar plant
- a field of wind turbines
- a huge dam
- a sewage recycling center
- an airport
- those people across the street who play loud music at night

That said, I know of a lot of people who are pretty happy owning houses on the lake used as a resevoir for the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station.


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By gregpet on 11/4/2010 3:40:09 PM , Rating: 1
If I had to choose between living next to a coal fired plant or a nuke plant I'd choose the nuke plant every time! I will admit that I'd rather not live next to either one...


By Fenixgoon on 11/4/2010 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 1
i live 10 miles from one (calvert cliffs nuclear plant). can't wait until they put in a 3rd reactor.


By kyleb2112 on 11/8/2010 7:11:55 AM , Rating: 3
Let's make a REAL deal. Everyone within eyesight of a nuke plant gets free electricity. There would be a land rush to live by them.


Sounds like a rerun...
By GreenEuropean on 11/4/2010 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
America will stand still, technology and efficiency wise it wont move. And the US will lose more jobs, government need to bailout the 2 (3) big again after nobody but americans buy their cars.

American businesses will lose competition needing more energy and resources vs foregin companies.

Ye, great thing. Sounds like the usual pee in the pants politics. Avoid the unpopular now, get a disaster later.




RE: Sounds like a rerun...
By 91TTZ on 11/5/2010 11:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
America will stand still, technology and efficiency wise it wont move. And the US will lose more jobs, government need to bailout the 2 (3) big again after nobody but americans buy their cars.


Reality says otherwise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/andrew-clark-on...


over my dead body
By dgingeri on 11/4/2010 10:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I am not willing to pay $50k for some little 3 or 4 cylinder engine based car that barely reaches 60mph, but that's what Obama is aiming for. He is really trying to get people to hate him, isn't he?




By BernardP on 11/4/2010 10:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
When he tries to reach a compromise with Republicans on this and other related subjects, Mr. Obama will also find it necessary to stretch out beyond 2016 the date at which the 34.1 mpg CAFE target has to be reached.

2016 is 5 years down the line, which is about one product cycle for car manufacturers. It's simply too much, too fast.




Dreams are expensive
By drycrust3 on 11/4/2010 12:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is trying to sell Republicans on his plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets by 2015.

The current US Debt is about $13.7T and increasing while the US$ is devaluing. Currently the Australian dollar is stronger than the US Dollar, and more currencies will be stronger soon.
While the US$ is the currency for trading oil, it may not be long before another currency e.g. Euro or the Chinese RMB, will take over, and when that happens the US $ will drop even more.
This will affect the price of fuel, so cars will be expensive to run, and while the idea of converting to electric seems attractive, the cost of components and manufacturing will push the price of electric cars up.
So that leaves bicycles.




What He Doesn't Bother to Say...
By mmatis on 11/4/2010 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
is that he just plans to have the EPA create the regulations and fines WITHOUT any legislation. Hopefully they'll have his ass in jail on multiple charges by next June. With most of his Administration to follow shortly.




Audacity of a Dope
By menace on 11/4/2010 3:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
"I'll give up this thing 90% of Americans think is foolhardy, 90% of economists say will destroy the economy, that our partly couldn't jam thru with a 60 seat house majority and filibuster proof senate majority if you'll give me..."

That's what progressives call bipartisan compromise.




It's amazing...
By Beenthere on 11/4/2010 10:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
...that Bama hasn't been impeached for treason by now. EV's are the least of our worries.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/117956/Ind...




Still not convinced
By SactoEngr on 11/5/2010 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as I saw the phrase "supposed global warming' crisis," I downwardly revised the credibility of the author and will be wary of future postings from him. "Facts are stubborn things," said John Adams.




Looks like it worked
By cruisin3style on 11/5/2010 1:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
I literally just moments ago listened to Mitch McConnell on c-span say plug in electric vehicles and increasing fuel efficiency in automobiles were two issues republicans would be willing to work with democrats on.




What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By kattanna on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By FITCamaro on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 11:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall Obama saying something like "Uhhh the Republicans put the car in the ditch. We got it out of the ditch, but they can still ride with us. Just maybe in the backseat"

Yeah please, this Obama that would "lead from the center" was a media fantasy, he never existed. He's never compromised, never listened to the other side, and NEVER even tried to work with Republicans.

You know what's really funny? It's not the Republicans that's his leading opposition. They never had the votes until now. It was his OWN party. That's what killed Cap and Trade. That's why they had to use a dirty illegal trick to get Health Care passed. His own party, with a huge majority in Congress, wouldn't give him the votes. He's so radical and uncompromising his own party is turning against him.


By cruisin3style on 11/5/2010 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
What Obama said was that republicans put us in the ditch, democrats worked to get the car out while republicans commented on how democrats were doing it wrong but wouldn't help democrats get it out of the ditch, and then once democrats got the car out of the ditch republicans wanted to drive again.

He also said, much to my amusement, the following:

We want to go forward, not backward. And what do you do to go forward in a car? You put it in D, not R. So we're gonna put it in D!

just to clarify, that word is amusement not agreement...before people jump on this

ALso just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this. I believe Obama tried to work with Republicans at first. But then when he saw that wasn't happenening the way he wanted it to happen he just decided to do whatever he felt like


RE: What a bunch of crap article
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 3
Obama is "abandoning" it because he doesn't plan to pass it through the legislature. The plan for a while has been to have the EPA implement it via regulations.

One of the conservative agendas is to reduce the power of the EPA so it cannot do this by making all regulations agencies pass subject to review by Congress.


Republicorps Doing something?
By Belard on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
Some scientists say global warming is man made?
By Amedean on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
By BernardP on 11/4/2010 10:41:24 AM , Rating: 1
Faith can move mountains. Recommended downloads:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-...


By kattanna on 11/4/2010 10:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about almost virtually all scientists!


cute, but not true.

quote:
If you cant explain some stuff in a single snappy page then to the mass (stupid people) it does not exist


all you see from some of these climate scientists are COMPUTER MODELS. albeit far more sophisticated then the old DOS game simearth, but none the less still only a limited model.

and sadly, none of the models can predict anything in real life, or even agree with each other.

in any other field such models would be ridiculed, yet within climate circles they are held up as "evidence"

CO2 is NOT the primary driver of climate and more and more research is starting to say exactly that.


RE: Some scientists say global warming is man made?
By mooty on 11/4/2010 12:13:59 PM , Rating: 1
These models are used to predict trends in the climate, not the exact weather 2 months from now. Models are continually improved upon, and tested.
ClimatePrediction.net , which uses BOINC to distribute the workload to test some of these models have amassed over 90 million years worth of CPU time so far. Some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers are used in testing climate models.

There are many factors that control climate trends, greenhouse gases are one of them. CO2 is one of these. It is the second most important greenhouse gas after water vapor in our atmosphere.

CO2 levels are steadily rising ever since reliable recording of it started in 1960. It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.

We introduce the CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and this output is controllable by us.

One doesn't have to be sensationalist about this. We put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. Models and predictions only disagree by how much at this point.

We can take steps to reduce CO2 and other harmful emissions. It is in our best interest to do so. It doesn't mean the economy has to be gutted, but not recognising the issue, and not taking _any_ steps is irresponsible at best.

The problem is that without sufficient incentive (mostly financial) people are content to do nothing, especially since these changes happen very slowly.


By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.


Lie.


By mooty on 11/4/2010 12:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's so easy to just dismiss it as a lie...

quote:
A study by Thomas F. Stocker of the Physics Institute at the University of Bern, in Switzerland, and colleagues describes Dome C core data that reveal the relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the period 390,000 to 650,000 years before present (Science 2005, 310, 1313). The data indicate that the current concentration of CO2, at 380 ppm, is 27% higher than the preindustrial level and higher than any level attained during the past 650,000 years.


The EPICA project's overview article in Nature : http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=...


RE: Some scientists say global warming is man made?
By wolrah on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Some scientists say global warming is man made?
By Schrag4 on 11/4/2010 1:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.


Thanks, I needed a laugh! WHEN CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today, the planet was MUCH greener than it is today. I'm sorry, but calling CO2 anything but a "green" gas is intillectually dishonest. Saying its atmospheric levels have never been as high as they are right now is an outright lie. If you really, truly believe that then I suggest you do about 60 seconds of research on google.


RE: Some scientists say global warming is man made?
By mooty on 11/4/2010 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
I've never said CO2 levels were never as high as today. What I said is that it's never been this high in the past 800,000 years, as observable in air packets trapped in ice.

Much of the carbon that once was atmospheric has been "bound" in coal, oil, and limestone. In the era when it was 10 times higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there were no land plant life.


By kattanna on 11/5/2010 10:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the era when it was 10 times higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there were no land plant life


now thats not true either.

by the Silurian period the earth was covered in large plants. it wasnt for another 80-100 million years later at the beginning of the carboniferous where CO2 levels plunged down to 1,000 or so PPM from the ~4,000 PPM

you seem to be filled with selective science, interesting


By Mint on 11/8/2010 3:55:36 AM , Rating: 1
That doesn't make AGW a lie or a fraud. CO2 does warm the earth, whether manmade or natural.

It just tells you how the dire consequences predicted by environuts are a pile of bullshit.


By kattanna on 11/4/2010 1:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ClimatePrediction.net , which uses BOINC to distribute the workload to test some of these models have amassed over 90 million years worth of CPU time so far. Some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers are used in testing climate models.


yes i know. i currently have multiple CPU's across a few machines running it and other BOINC tasks. i have been an active member for them specifically since july 2005 and for SETI FAR FAR longer. I have nothing against the models per se as they can be useful, but they are not hard evidence as some would claim.

quote:
CO2 levels are steadily rising ever since reliable recording of it started in 1960. It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.


and here is where people start to fall into self made traps about how it has "never" been higher.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/o...

quote:
Estimating past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for periods older than those sampled by ice cores is difficult and is the subject of continuing research. Most estimates agree that there was a significant decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere from more than1000 ppm at 50 million years ago (during the Eocene) to the range recorded in the ice cores of the past 800,000 years22.


here we clearly have science showing past records far higher, and this is only one example. i can go on with more.

also we are getting more and more current research that is showing temps rising BEFORE CO2 levels have risen

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/fu...

quote:
Marine and continental records1 show an abrupt negative shift in carbon isotope values at ~55.8?Myr ago. This carbon isotope excursion (CIE) is consistent with the release of a massive amount of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and was associated with a dramatic rise in global temperatures termed the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Greenhouse gases released during the CIE, probably including methane, have often been considered the main cause of PETM warming. However, some evidence from the marine record suggests that warming directly preceded the CIE2, 3, 4, raising the possibility that the CIE and PETM may have been linked to earlier warming with different origins. Yet pre-CIE warming is still uncertain. Disentangling the sequence of events before and during the CIE and PETM is important for understanding the causes of, and Earth system responses to, abrupt climate change. Here we show that continental warming of about 5?°C preceded the CIE in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Our evidence, based on oxygen isotopes in mammal teeth (which reflect temperature-sensitive fractionation processes) and other proxies, reveals a marked temperature increase directly below the CIE, and again in the CIE. Pre-CIE warming is also supported by a negative amplification of d13C values in soil carbonates below the CIE. Our results suggest that at least two sources of warming—the earlier of which is unlikely to have been methane—contributed to the PETM.


more and more research from various none climate scientist per se are starting to say the same thing

quote:
We put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. Models and predictions only disagree by how much at this point


and here we get to a funny thing. by that very logic as we continue to put more and more CO2 into the atmosphere the temp should continue to go up every year, yet by the very temp records made and used by the people of climateprediction.net the UK's met office, the one at the middle of "climategate" their own records have not shown increasing temps since 1998. only when you use NASA/GISS methods of extrapolating temps northwards from canada to the arctic do we "see" these rising temps you hear about in the media.

and thats without even beginning to talk about GISS having to pull a satellite recently due to people finding it was reporting temps over lake michigan to be almost 400 deg F, yet those temp readings still remain in the records. and there is public record showing faulting sensors on the satellite going back many years.

and these models all simplify the environment often purposely not including various positive and negative feedbacks because they simply dont know how to implement them. yet we are supposed to take at face value models that are incomplete?

quote:
One doesn't have to be sensationalist about this.


the problem is that thats all the warming alarmist crowd IS doing.


By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
These guys always look at 1960 and beyond. They somehow forget in the early 1900s, there was similar melting to that of the late 90s/early 2000s. I guess we're supposed to believe the extremely small amount of industry in the world compared to today was responsible for it all?

And then it got colder, and then hotter, and then colder, and then hotter again. And now it appears to be getting colder again. It's only early November and its in the 60s here in South Carolina. We're supposed to have temps in the 30s this weekend.


By Schrag4 on 11/4/2010 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can take steps to reduce CO2 and other harmful emissions. It is in our best interest to do so. It doesn't mean the economy has to be gutted, but not recognising the issue, and not taking _any_ steps is irresponsible at best.


"Not taking _any_ steps" is actually a more responsible approach if you haven't carefully weighed the consequences of your actions vs doing nothing at all. Consequences of doing nothing? Well, it might get a little warmer. Beyond that, there is no concensus at all. This planet has had warmer periods before that were arguably better suited for supporting life than our current, relatively cool period.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki