A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

who killed the electric car



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 16th 06, 04:08 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

wrote in
ps.com:

> saw this movie "who killed the electric car" at sundance film fest.
>
> i have made it my mission to get the word out about this movie no
> matter how deep in the grass roots I have to go!




What's below the grass's roots? Bull****, that's what.

That movie leaves out quite a lot, and badly distorts what it does include.
Read more he
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/auto/topnews33.htm

Electric cars were -- and are -- a stupid, expensive, masturbatory,
environut wet dream.


--
TeGGeR®

Ads
  #12  
Old June 16th 06, 11:27 PM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car



> wrote in message
ps.com...
> saw this movie "who killed the electric car" at sundance film fest.
>
> i have made it my mission to get the word out about this movie no
> matter how deep in the grass roots I have to go!
>
> www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com
>
> a reviewer at the same screening I was at said this:
>
> I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car?" at Sundance and I agree with A.O.
> Scott's review in the NY Times: I haven't seen a crowd go that nuts in
> I don't know how long ... multiple standing ovations ... a woman who,
> during the Q&A with director Chris Paine, declared that she didn't
> actually have a question, but "damn you for making me cry over a car!"
>
> apparently the necessary science and technology is already available

to
> reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding

it.
>
> yet we the people have the power!
>
> the uplifting bit is about how a modern American Revolution, as well

as
> piecing the environment back together again, is possible through what
> all Americans are great at - consumerism!
>
> please tell everyone you know about this!
> and see it!
>
>
> to the health of our planet! - chris
>


http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848

Professor Bob Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, is a graduate of the University of
Otago
and Cambridge University. He has been Director of the Australian
Secretariat
of the Ocean Drilling Program, Chair of the Australian Marine Science
and
Technology Grants Scheme, and Chair of the Australian Research Council's
Panel for Earth, Engineering and Applied Sciences. Bob is the author of
many
scientific papers and articles on past environmental change, including a
recent paper in Science magazine which describes the longest (4 million
year-long)
continuous high-resolution climatic record available for the Southern
Ocean.

Email:
-----------------------------------------------

Alarmist computer models notwithstanding, a human-induced warming of
Earth's
atmospheric temperature has not yet occurred to a degree that can be
measurably distinguished from natural variations. More specifically, the
pattern of "global" surface temperature change over the last 100 years
does
not match the smoothly-increasing curve of atmospheric carbon dioxide
which
is so widely alleged to be the cause.

Additionally, the ancient climate record shows that in the past
increasing
temperatures preceded increases in carbon dioxide. This means that in
the
real world atmospheric carbon dioxide content cannot be the primary
cause of
global warming. In this regard, it should always be remembered too that
the
computer models which predict 1-60 C of future warming from greenhouse
gas
accumulation are no more nor less reliable than computer models which
predict the future of the stock market.

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

The IPCC's (and many scientists') fixation with judging modern climate
trends against the last 1000 years is intellectually lazy, if not
actually
dishonest. There is nothing whatever about the last 1000 years of Earth
history that has any especial relevance to judging contemporary climate
change.

When the ancient climatic record is examined on longer timescales of
thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, it is seen to encompass
many
occasions of rapid climate change.

During such an episode the temperature at a particular site can swing
from
almost full glacial to full interglacial conditions, or the other way
round,
in periods as short as one or two decades. The mechanism controlling
these
rapid swings remains unknown, and for all we know one could have started
yesterday. Reassuringly, perhaps, in the past rapid climate changes seem
to
have been commoner during glacial periods compared to warm interglacial
periods such as the one we live in today.

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

It has become increasingly apparent lately that the last 1,000-year
interval
which is the context for most IPCC advice and analysis is a completely
inadequate period over which to assess global climate change. The focus
of
discussion, therefore, is shifting away from the short-term mechanisms
studied by meteorologists and climatologists, to attending more to the
knowledge base for long term climate change which exists in the
geological
record.

In this regard, U.S. geologist Bill Ruddiman has recently shown that
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane) which are expected to have
declined in the atmosphere since the last glaciation instead show
increasing
trends from ~8,000 and 5000 years ago, respectively. He interprets these
reversals as human-caused, resulting from the clearing of trees and
development of agriculture.

Ruddiman's work has shifted the focus of the climate change debate
irrevocably. The key question now is not "is industrial-age,
human-caused
global warming occurring?", but rather "are we sure that the human
effect on
climate over the last 8,000 years has helped to prevent the occurrence
of
another glaciation?" Should the answer to that question be "yes", then
it
prompts the further question: "do we wish to maintain the human warming
effect, or instead to counteract it and allow Earth's climatic cycle to
drop
back into its next (natural) glacial episode?".

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

A typical computer model projection predicts that implementing the Kyoto
Protocol would reduce an expected temperature increase of 2.10 C by 2100
to
1.90 C instead. Put another way, the world would postpone until 2100 a
temperature increase which would otherwise occur in 2094. Adhering to
the
Kyoto Protocol will therefore have a negligible effect on reducing
climatic
warming.

Several trillion dollars, which is the estimated cost of the Kyoto
accord,
seems a lot of money to spend to buy just six years of breathing space.
As
Bjorn Lomborg never tires of pointing out, a better use of this money
would
be to spend it alleviating some of the much more acute global problems,
such
as starvation, sanitation and health services in less privileged
countries.

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

Contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon
dioxide
in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has
many
obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in
general,
and increased agricultural production in particular. And to maintain or
slightly increase
planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman
and
other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is
helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly
warm,
interglacial mode.

This news has yet to percolate up to the policy level within western
governments, most of whom are still preoccupied with the politics of the
Kyoto protocol, including in many cases advanced plans for carbon
trading
taxes on energy consumption. Even worse, however, major government
science
agencies, or senior scientists such as the U.K.'s Sir David King,
continue
to propagate the view that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are,
of
themselves, environmentally harmful.

There is an urgent need for governments to shake themselves free of the
partial advice provided by environmental advocacy groups and government
science agencies, all of whom have a strong and often undeclared
self-interest in most environmental matters. Nowhere is this need
greater
than in the debate over climate change.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #13  
Old June 17th 06, 12:33 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

it's funny because everyone i've ever met who drives an electric car
has sworn by them.

also, the EV1s weren't expensive and they didn't let off any emissions,
so....

i have no real idea what you could be talking about. i do understand
the word "bull****" though. great word. especially to throw around
when you have nothing solid to add.


TeGGeR® wrote:
> wrote in
> ps.com:
>
> > saw this movie "who killed the electric car" at sundance film fest.
> >
> > i have made it my mission to get the word out about this movie no
> > matter how deep in the grass roots I have to go!

>
>
>
> What's below the grass's roots? Bull****, that's what.
>
> That movie leaves out quite a lot, and badly distorts what it does include.
> Read more he
>
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/auto/topnews33.htm
>
> Electric cars were -- and are -- a stupid, expensive, masturbatory,
> environut wet dream.
>
>
> --
> TeGGeR®


  #15  
Old June 17th 06, 05:09 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

wrote:
>
> it's funny because everyone i've ever met who drives an electric car
> has sworn by them.
>
> also, the EV1s weren't expensive and they didn't let off any emissions,
> so....


How do you know what they cost? None were ever sold to the public. Only
leased.

According to Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1)
the program cost GM about $1 billion. With 1100 cars produced, that puts
the unit cost at about $900,000 each.

When the federal subsidy ran out, GM pulled the plug.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  #17  
Old June 18th 06, 12:19 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

The Nate Nagel entity posted thusly:

wrote:
>> it's funny because everyone i've ever met who drives an electric car
>> has sworn by them.
>>
>> also, the EV1s weren't expensive

>
>cite? All reports say that GM couldn't have sold a single EV1 at a
>profit as they would have cost something in the hundreds of thousands
>each range.
>
>> and they didn't let off any emissions,

>
>Sure they did, they just let them off at the power plant, not at the
>tailpipe. The only way you could say that it was a true ZEV is if it
>was solely powered by solar, water, wind, geothermal etc. power.


Saskatchewan just put a bunch more wind turbines online, for a total
of 175 megawatts, apparently the largest wind turbine generation
system in Canada. All we have to do it plug our electric vehicles into
the grid through a filter that allows only wind-generated current
through. Nothing to it. The original poster could probably build that
filter in a few hours.

  #18  
Old June 18th 06, 02:55 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

Oleg Lego wrote:
>
> The Nate Nagel entity posted thusly:
>

[snip]

> >Sure they did, they just let them off at the power plant, not at the
> >tailpipe. The only way you could say that it was a true ZEV is if it
> >was solely powered by solar, water, wind, geothermal etc. power.

>
> Saskatchewan just put a bunch more wind turbines online, for a total
> of 175 megawatts, apparently the largest wind turbine generation
> system in Canada. All we have to do it plug our electric vehicles into
> the grid through a filter that allows only wind-generated current
> through. Nothing to it. The original poster could probably build that
> filter in a few hours.


It appears that you have no concept of how electrical transmission and
distribution systems work. There is no such 'filter' and no basis in
physics for making one.

There are means of purchasing power from preferred providers, if you
happen to have a deregulated utility. But for every kWh of wind power
you buy, that just results in other customers drawing power from coal or
oil fired plants.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
  #19  
Old June 18th 06, 05:45 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

The Paul Hovnanian P.E. entity posted thusly:

>Oleg Lego wrote:
>>
>> The Nate Nagel entity posted thusly:
>>

>[snip]
>
>> >Sure they did, they just let them off at the power plant, not at the
>> >tailpipe. The only way you could say that it was a true ZEV is if it
>> >was solely powered by solar, water, wind, geothermal etc. power.

>>
>> Saskatchewan just put a bunch more wind turbines online, for a total
>> of 175 megawatts, apparently the largest wind turbine generation
>> system in Canada. All we have to do it plug our electric vehicles into
>> the grid through a filter that allows only wind-generated current
>> through. Nothing to it. The original poster could probably build that
>> filter in a few hours.

>
>It appears that you have no concept of how electrical transmission and
>distribution systems work. There is no such 'filter' and no basis in
>physics for making one.
>
>There are means of purchasing power from preferred providers, if you
>happen to have a deregulated utility. But for every kWh of wind power
>you buy, that just results in other customers drawing power from coal or
>oil fired plants.


Leave your sense of humour at home today?

Idiot.


  #20  
Old June 18th 06, 08:50 AM posted to rec.autos.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default who killed the electric car

> >cite? All reports say that GM couldn't have sold a single EV1 at a
> >profit as they would have cost something in the hundreds of thousands
> >each range.


yes - all GM reports, and when the GM reports were subject to
investigation the reports turned out to be false. they were blatant
fabrications.

see the movie. just see it and we can continue with this conversation.
the film really does cover every argument, every side.



Oleg Lego wrote:
> The Nate Nagel entity posted thusly:
>
> wrote:
> >> it's funny because everyone i've ever met who drives an electric car
> >> has sworn by them.
> >>
> >> also, the EV1s weren't expensive

> >
> >cite? All reports say that GM couldn't have sold a single EV1 at a
> >profit as they would have cost something in the hundreds of thousands
> >each range.
> >
> >> and they didn't let off any emissions,

> >
> >Sure they did, they just let them off at the power plant, not at the
> >tailpipe. The only way you could say that it was a true ZEV is if it
> >was solely powered by solar, water, wind, geothermal etc. power.

>
> Saskatchewan just put a bunch more wind turbines online, for a total
> of 175 megawatts, apparently the largest wind turbine generation
> system in Canada. All we have to do it plug our electric vehicles into
> the grid through a filter that allows only wind-generated current
> through. Nothing to it. The original poster could probably build that
> filter in a few hours.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AWA [OFFER] electric air pump for air bed/mat,inflatables [email protected] General 0 February 14th 06 12:52 PM
Kid killed by electric car window while "father" sleeps Larry Bud Driving 1 January 17th 06 10:21 PM
Bushamerica - Suspected shoplifter KILLED by wal-mart employees the Moderator Driving 1 August 24th 05 12:45 AM
more proof spike killed babies [email protected] Ford Mustang 0 June 7th 05 10:51 PM
Hybrid car cost of ownership Tom Del Rosso Technology 47 March 10th 05 01:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.