Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

If somebody wants to drive an electric car for whatever reason that's cool with me. I just ask that they don't act all morally superior because they do. Electricity doesn't come from a wall outlet, for the most part, it comes from burning fossil fuel. An electric car just harnesses the energy in a different manner.

Actually - the idea that electric cars are as dirty as gasoline cars has been debunked long ago (even with fossil fuel powered generation stations) and it has been repeatedly proven. How much cleaner they are does depend on your particular electrical grid. So, go ahead electric car drivers, be superior.

glenn wrote:Actually - the idea that electric cars are as dirty as gasoline cars has been debunked long ago (even with fossil fuel powered generation stations) and it has been repeatedly proven. How much cleaner they are does depend on your particular electrical grid. So, go ahead electric car drivers, be superior.

True, but don't get too smug; the things still need to be built and that is a big part of the footprint of all vehicles, gas or electric...

Your right too - the only person that can get all smug is person who walks - then there is all those calories they burn walking . . .

But, here is a pretty non-biased look at the issue of embedded energy present in our cars, that is how much energy is required – and CO2 emissions generated – to transform a heap of raw materials, some of which are buried under the ground, into a brand new car parked up in the showroom ready for sale. It's certainly not clear cut, and there are so many variables - like how much you drive. If you get through the article, the comments at the end are pretty interesting too. It shows just how complicated this question really is.

My take on it is, no matter what you drive, drive as little as you can.

My other take away from this article: Don't fly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... efficiency

glenn wrote:Your right too - the only person that can get all smug is person who walks - then there is all those calories they burn walking . . .

Not as smug as the person riding their high horse.

What are power stations running off of now? Nuclear fusion? Group three coal? Now there's a picture for you ~ do you remember the term "pea soup" in reference to the London fog? Yes, London fog, I'm not talking about a cup of tea that one can purchase at a Starbucks coffee joint that makes everyone feel all fluffy inside, I'm talking about the London Particular that is estimated at taking the lives of 12,000 or so people in London alone through toxic asphyxia. This is what runs the power station that your electric car plugs into. Check out the air conditions in Beijing, these days.

Then there are the "clean fuels" that run some power stations. Nuclear power, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima... to name a few.

Just keeping it real. I don't think there is much of a difference between the overall pollution of one vehicle and another. I'm sure you've watched the Top Gear episode regarding the Prius? I thought that was rather poignant.

Falco.

Nuclear power, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima... to name a few.

Actually - those are the only big ones. And they all used 1960's technology.

Oil has, and continues to do far more environmental damage, ruined far more landscapes (just look at the tar sands), and has caused far more deaths from cancer than Nuclear. Some people argue that the anti-nuclear protests of the 60's and 70's indirectly led to the environmental quagmire we are in now. Had we switched then, we wouldn't soon be running for high ground now.

How's that for real?

I'm not necessarily pro-nuclear, but it is an interesting perspective.

glenn wrote:Actually - those are the only big ones. And they all used 1960's technology.

Fer real?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... -list-rank

I started a thread in this forum regarding a movie titled: Cloud Atlas. Not a lot of response, I guess not many people watched it. It does, however, cover this topic as an aside to the general theme of the story, speaking of " the environmental quagmire we are in now".

glenn wrote:Oil has, and continues to do far more environmental damage, ruined far more landscapes (just look at the tar sands), and has caused far more deaths from cancer than Nuclear. Some people argue that the anti-nuclear protests of the 60's and 70's indirectly led to the environmental quagmire we are in now. Had we switched then, we wouldn't soon be running for high ground now.

Well, yes... no... coal, major killer.... still. Perspective is important and I think it's important to ask ourselves how long we've been using oil. It's not just been in the last hundred years that we've (humanity) been using it. I've often wondered why we haven't run out yet. Lately I've been toying with the idea that there is this great hose plugged into Antarctica from outer space, constantly filling up the planet and replenishing stocks. Perhaps we should get them to wash the windscreen while they're at it.

Falco.

Hey Falco - yeah, I saw that list too. I did conveniently leave out a couple bigger events, but many of those are relatively minor, and some are accidents that have nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Anyway, the point I am making is that we like to ignore the all the damage that oil does, and it is on a much, much bigger scale.

I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere near a nuclear reactor - I'm just being argumentative.

As for your hose in the antarctic . . . just under the crust there IS an unlimited and completely sustainable source of energy. If only there was a way to harness it.

FalcoColumbarius wrote:.

Not as smug as the person riding their high horse.
.[/quote]

Horses have tailpipe emissions too. And just wait until the California Air Resources Board bans the Bean Burrito.....

".... ruined far more landscapes..."

Glenn,
When was the last time you visited the oil sands? When the open pits are reclaimed, they actually support more flora and fauna than in the original state. Granted, it may not look exactly like it did originally but muskeg landscape is not that pretty (IMHO).
If you haven't been up there recently, I suggest you put it on your agenda.
Rod

drrod - I wish I was as confident they will return the oilsands back to a pristine state - because the cost to do so will be astronomical. How about the athapaska river? Time will tell - I hope your right.

EDIT: But you know - I just might go see them. 8 hours from Jasper (I'm going there in my Jasper this summer) I wish someone could persuade me that the tarsands are a good idea: "we need the oil" is just not good enough.

glenn wrote:Your right too - the only person that can get all smug is person who walks - then there is all those calories they burn walking . . .

Burning calories means eating more and the more we eat the more we pollute. No matter how hard we try, humans will always pollute to some degree and a point will come where we will have to reduce our reproduction.

nxski wrote:

glenn wrote:Your right too - the only person that can get all smug is person who walks - then there is all those calories they burn walking . . .

Burning calories means eating more and the more we eat the more we pollute. No matter how hard we try, humans will always pollute to some degree and a point will come where we will have to reduce our reproduction.

Ban Catholics
+
Make it madatory to hang posters of Sally Struthers in peoples bedroom.

Problem Solved

Or, locally we could just use this image:

hahaha that pic works very well indeed.