[The X Men]

Originally Posted by BigK

I haven't seen any so far but I believe there are, just not the superchargers like the ones Tesla offers in the U.S.

It just doesn't make sense to me to have to take half a day to recharge my car. I am all for the go green movement, but an EV is just not practical for me as a daily driver. On a side note, Hyundai just started leasing the hydrogen powered Tucson and Toyota will start mass production on the Hydrogen powered Mirai. The hydrogen refueling infrastructure are even further behind than the EV's, but in my opinion, hydrogen makes more sense as the refueling time is about the same as gas powered engines.

[493263]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

what worry me about all this debate the very idea that Electricity is somehow dropping from the skies with no impact on the environment all clean, in other word the biggest BS of all, it is a fact that media and all are simply one sided in this debate about global warming, because it is simply good business, they look attractive to an audience blinded as always by the commercial element, even our taxes are feeding into this so called green none sense, take a step out of the main stream media and check the other side argued by capable and established scientist on this topic and you find the answer behind the fact that global warming is a natural cycle earth goes through it every so 100 or 1000 years. the Thames river in London froze for a very long time in the 17th century if not wrong due to climate change, will the electric so called clean folks argue it was CO2 produced by cows and horses behind it!

First, let me point out to you that I work in a very large research organization that monitors geology, hydrology as well as the atmosphere. We're most scientists here and can give a rat's ass about what people think or businesses' marketing campaign. I'm not going to get into the details but every scientists here agree about global warming. In fact, there's several surveys showing 97% of scientists agree about global warming. So let's leave it to people who know what they're talking about.

Second, electricity is not free and the process of making it causes pollution. In fact, we need to spend energy just to transport energy. But here's the good thing about electricity:

1. Just about any form of energy can convert to electricity.
2. It can be stored relatively safe.
3. It can be transported with close to 0 losses.
4. It does not pollute cities and cause smog.
5. Can easily turn into mechanical energy and back in an EV.

You must be misinformed to ever think that a small engine in a car is ever going to be more efficient than a power plant. A power plant will create much less pollution per KW as well.

Let's look at other benefits EVs can provide you:

1. Less vehicle fires
2. Less oil dumping, one of the biggest water pollution problem
3. Electric motors lasts forever compared to ICE
4. Much less cheaper to maintain
5. Modular designs. Yes, that means you can easily swap parts like it's Legos. No need to pay mechanics thousands just to change a clutch pack.
6. Instant response
7. Lower center of gravity and better weight distribution
8. etc..etc..

Seriously, you have to be the completely retarded and brainwashed to think ICE is worth keeping around. The only good thing about ICE is the range and power. Tesla proved that power is no longer a problem. Range is finally acceptable. When an average EV can get 300+ miles range and under $40k, that's the death bell for ICE. It looks like it's coming.

I hope whoever says "Electricity isn't free" will pull their head out of their rear end and realize gasoline isn't free either. Nuclear power is the cleanest and also the cheapest by any standard. If we were to go all nuclear, we only need less than a handful per state. Right now we have about 60 nuclear power plants that generates 20% of the total electricity. The amount of pollution it generates is like a rounding error compared to coal. It's less than even hydro and a fraction of the cost. If you compared the cost and pollution factor of gasoline/diesel vs electricity for vehicles, then you would realize how much it doesn't make sense to continue with ICE.

"nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their back".
-You might as well put your tin foil hat back on and scan the radio signals for aliens.

[SonicEndeavor]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

what worry me about all this debate the very idea that Electricity is somehow dropping from the skies with no impact on the environment all clean, in other word the biggest BS of all, it is a fact that media and all are simply one sided in this debate about global warming, because it is simply good business, they look attractive to an audience blinded as always by the commercial element, even our taxes are feeding into this so called green none sense, take a step out of the main stream media and check the other side argued by capable and established scientist on this topic and you find the answer behind the fact that global warming is a natural cycle earth goes through it every so 100 or 1000 years.

You mean all the research funded by industries and organizations who benefit by denying climate change? 87% of the published research that claims climate change is not man-made was funded by think tanks and industries (Heritage Foundation, big oil, big coal, etc) ideologically opposed to climate change. They know its real, but have a financial interest in denial.
I would think you'd be more suspicious of those results than those of a broad spectrum of the scientific community including NASA.

[martin mustang]

Originally Posted by 493263

First, let me point out to you that I work in a very large research organization that monitors geology, hydrology as well as the atmosphere. We're most scientists here and can give a rat's ass about what people think or businesses' marketing campaign. I'm not going to get into the details but every scientists here agree about global warming. In fact, there's several surveys showing 97% of scientists agree about global warming. So let's leave it to people who know what they're talking about.

Second, electricity is not free and the process of making it causes pollution. In fact, we need to spend energy just to transport energy. But here's the good thing about electricity:

1. Just about any form of energy can convert to electricity.
2. It can be stored relatively safe.
3. It can be transported with close to 0 losses.
4. It does not pollute cities and cause smog.
5. Can easily turn into mechanical energy and back in an EV.

You must be misinformed to ever think that a small engine in a car is ever going to be more efficient than a power plant. A power plant will create much less pollution per KW as well.

Let's look at other benefits EVs can provide you:

1. Less vehicle fires
2. Less oil dumping, one of the biggest water pollution problem
3. Electric motors lasts forever compared to ICE
4. Much less cheaper to maintain
5. Modular designs. Yes, that means you can easily swap parts like it's Legos. No need to pay mechanics thousands just to change a clutch pack.
6. Instant response
7. Lower center of gravity and better weight distribution
8. etc..etc..

Seriously, you have to be the completely retarded and brainwashed to think ICE is worth keeping around. The only good thing about ICE is the range and power. Tesla proved that power is no longer a problem. Range is finally acceptable. When an average EV can get 300+ miles range and under $40k, that's the death bell for ICE. It looks like it's coming.

I hope whoever says "Electricity isn't free" will pull their head out of their rear end and realize gasoline isn't free either. Nuclear power is the cleanest and also the cheapest by any standard. If we were to go all nuclear, we only need less than a handful per state. Right now we have about 60 nuclear power plants that generates 20% of the total electricity. The amount of pollution it generates is like a rounding error compared to coal. It's less than even hydro and a fraction of the cost. If you compared the cost and pollution factor of gasoline/diesel vs electricity for vehicles, then you would realize how much it doesn't make sense to continue with ICE.

"nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their back".
-You might as well put your tin foil hat back on and scan the radio signals for aliens.

Let me point out judging by the tone and the language you using in your description of others with a different opinion to yours, make me believe the organisation you working for is even more sided in this argument, frankly you free to believe in your own version, but I hope for future references before you answer at least take your time in reading what you trying to respond to 1st, like the fact I never argued about global warming is not happening, but my argument is around what is triggering the global warming a natural earth cycle or men made!
the fact you believe nuke is the cleanest energy around sums it up for me, and frankly I am in this forum for the love of BMW straight 6 combustion engines not electric ones, my suggestion you take this debate to some electric forums, and while you so convinced about electric cars trade in your petrol 4x4 to a Tesla, because to me the only retard here is the one who cannot even maintain a healthy debate without having to insult others, while driving 550 xDrive with 218–214 Co2 emission.

[Noggie]

I think what he means is that the eco-friendly mentality has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry.
The media and influential people are fronting the eco-friendly mentality, and to say anything else is frown upon.

Not saying this is wrong, and we will benefit from this for sure.

There is an undisputed fact that the weather moves in cycles, about 10.000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice, known as the last ice age.
We have been recording temperatures for about 100 years, a "second in the global scale of things", ice core samples has shown that the planet has on numerous occasions seen rapid and pretty extreme climate change in its history. This is the fact.

The question is how much effect have we humans had on the climate since the industrial revolution, have we changed the climate, or are we seeing another cycle, or perhaps we have managed to speed up one of these cycles. I don't this we have enough evidence to make a conclusion.

But lets go back to the financial aspect.
Lets say that there was conclusive evidence presented tomorrow that we humans has had no effect on the climate and that it was all a big hoax.
The economic consequences would be disastrous, it would probably trow the world s economic in to another huge crisis.
Just imagine, all the environment taxes people have been paying, not to mention the sale of CO2 emission quotas between nations.
Can you imagine the public outrage this would result in.
A significant number of people have become very rich on the "protecting the environment business". And these people will do whatever it takes to protect their business.

Regardless if the changes are man made or not we should change our ways. To me electric cars and their like is first of all a way to reduce local pollution, and that is a good thing.
But if the electricity these cars run on comes from coal power plants, or other non-clean power plants, the gain on a global scale is very low.

[martin mustang]

Originally Posted by SonicEndeavor

You mean all the research funded by industries and organizations who benefit by denying climate change? 87% of the published research that claims climate change is not man-made was funded by think tanks and industries (Heritage Foundation, big oil, big coal, etc) ideologically opposed to climate change. They know its real, but have a financial interest in denial.
I would think you'd be more suspicious of those results than those of a broad spectrum of the scientific community including NASA.

I never argued that Petrol is good, but Nuclear is the only solution in Europe for a future with more electricity consumption, looking at what happen to Japan following the tsunami or Chernobyl in Europe, kids scared for life and so every single descendent and the area is out of use to the end of times, I rather push for having to keep my cars longer for example as solution, i.e. the best way to combat Global warming is to stop pouring more engines in the market petrol or electric, it is a fact that passing on your V8 to someone else for new green car is more damaging to the environment!
I guess the debate goes on, and you are spot on, on how every research this days are backed up by industries that support it for profits and all, it is a difficult one for sure.

[Bbb34]

Originally Posted by 493263

"nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their back".
-You might as well put your tin foil hat back on and scan the radio signals for aliens.

As in so many of your previous replies, you come across as a bit abrasive and obnoxious. That's a shame as you're making good points sometimes

Now, it might just be your writing style, maybe you're a great guy to hang out and have a beer with. But is it impossible to argue your point a bit nicer with others who sometimes disagree with you. Isn't that the whole benefit of forum like this, to learn from others, share, and where applicable disagree respectfully?

What I was trying to say is that given the choice of nice little house/condo right next to nuclear plant and the same exact one that's not close to one, most people, myself included will chose latter.

[493263]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

Let me point out judging by the tone and the language you using in your description of others with a different opinion to yours, make me believe the organisation you working for is even more sided in this argument, frankly you free to believe in your own version, but I hope for future references before you answer at least take your time in reading what you trying to respond to 1st, like the fact I never argued about global warming is not happening, but my argument is around what is triggering the global warming a natural earth cycle or men made!
the fact you believe nuke is the cleanest energy around sums it up for me, and frankly I am in this forum for the love of BMW straight 6 combustion engines not electric ones, my suggestion you take this debate to some electric forums, and while you so convinced about electric cars trade in your petrol 4x4 to a Tesla, because to me the only retard here is the one who cannot even maintain a healthy debate without having to insult others, while driving 550 xDrive with 218–214 Co2 emission.

Let me just point out that you would rather be caught up with your emotions instead of a long list of facts I presented to you. I'm sorry you felt insulted by less than 3% of the text I wrote and ignored the vast majority of useful information you are blind to.

[493263]

Originally Posted by Bbb34

What I was trying to say is that given the choice of nice little house/condo right next to nuclear plant and the same exact one that's not close to one, most people, myself included will chose latter.

Yes, as would anyone. That's why we don't build homes near power plants unless we are limited in space, like Japan.

But if you're going to make that crazy scenario, then tell me if you would rather pick living next to a coal power plant or a nuclear power plant? Not only is it much worse, you're exponentially more likely to have a coal power plant in your back yard than nuclear.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 493263

First, let me point out to you that I work in a very large research organization that monitors geology, hydrology as well as the atmosphere. We're most scientists here and can give a rat's ass about what people think or businesses' marketing campaign. I'm not going to get into the details but every scientists here agree about global warming. In fact, there's several surveys showing 97% of scientists agree about global warming. So let's leave it to people who know what they're talking about.

Second, electricity is not free and the process of making it causes pollution. In fact, we need to spend energy just to transport energy. But here's the good thing about electricity:

1. Just about any form of energy can convert to electricity.
2. It can be stored relatively safe.
3. It can be transported with close to 0 losses.
4. It does not pollute cities and cause smog.
5. Can easily turn into mechanical energy and back in an EV.

You must be misinformed to ever think that a small engine in a car is ever going to be more efficient than a power plant. A power plant will create much less pollution per KW as well.

Let's look at other benefits EVs can provide you:

1. Less vehicle fires
2. Less oil dumping, one of the biggest water pollution problem
3. Electric motors lasts forever compared to ICE
4. Much less cheaper to maintain
5. Modular designs. Yes, that means you can easily swap parts like it's Legos. No need to pay mechanics thousands just to change a clutch pack.
6. Instant response
7. Lower center of gravity and better weight distribution
8. etc..etc..

Seriously, you have to be the completely retarded and brainwashed to think ICE is worth keeping around. The only good thing about ICE is the range and power. Tesla proved that power is no longer a problem. Range is finally acceptable. When an average EV can get 300+ miles range and under $40k, that's the death bell for ICE. It looks like it's coming.

I hope whoever says "Electricity isn't free" will pull their head out of their rear end and realize gasoline isn't free either. Nuclear power is the cleanest and also the cheapest by any standard. If we were to go all nuclear, we only need less than a handful per state. Right now we have about 60 nuclear power plants that generates 20% of the total electricity. The amount of pollution it generates is like a rounding error compared to coal. It's less than even hydro and a fraction of the cost. If you compared the cost and pollution factor of gasoline/diesel vs electricity for vehicles, then you would realize how much it doesn't make sense to continue with ICE.

"nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their back".
-You might as well put your tin foil hat back on and scan the radio signals for aliens.

The way you have presented the argument is very one-sided -all cogent points- however you have glossed over the many arguments against.

I will just point out that with all the oil that is still flowing out of the ground, I would rather it be burnt in cars than in a power station generation electricity THAN stored in big bulky batteries.

In a fairy-land country like Norway with vast resources all EV is envision-able, however in the rest of the real world oil should be burnt in cars (and car products and plastics), the focus should be one replacing coal-burning power stations that are most polluting with vast solar arrays in the deserts - however these would require batteries to store I see where tesla could be relevant.

[493263]

Originally Posted by grimlock

The way you have presented the argument is very one-sided -all cogent points- however you have glossed over the many arguments against.

I will just point out that with all the oil that is still flowing out of the ground, I would rather it be burnt in cars than in a power station generation electricity THAN stored in big bulky batteries.

In a fairy-land country like Norway with vast resources all EV is envision-able, however in the rest of the real world oil should be burnt in cars (and car products and plastics), the focus should be one replacing coal-burning power stations that are most polluting with vast solar arrays in the deserts - however these would require batteries to store I see where tesla could be relevant.

Batteries are as big and bulky as the engine and gas tank in any car. At least with the battery, I can make it flat. An electric motor is tiny, dirt cheap, and probably at least 5x the durability.

If you're going to argue that the battery is to heavy then note that a Tesla Model S(4600 lbs) and my 550xi are about the same weight. However, the model S performs better...much better..so much better that I almost regretted buying my 550.

While oil doesn't last forever, the main long term concern is actually pollution.

I don't understand what you mean by you would rather have small engines burning oil than power plants. That's a stupid statement. The energy needed by EVs is actually only a fraction of energy used everyday. I'm guessing you've never researched how much energy is needed in our grid if every vehicle produced now is an EV. Don't make such a statement if you don't know the answer. Do your homework if you're going to attempt to correct someone. I'll let you figure this one out.

Remember that EVs will generally charge at night. Power plants, especially nuclear, cannot just power down like a computer. It's actually a good thing that EVs charge at night. All those EV batteries stores energy that we could've otherwise wasted. That's why energy rates at night are dirt cheap.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 493263

Batteries are as big and bulky as the engine and gas tank in any car. At least with the battery, I can make it flat. An electric motor is tiny, dirt cheap, and probably at least 5x the durability.

If you're going to argue that the battery is to heavy then note that a Tesla Model S and my 550 are about the same weight. However, the model S performs better...much better..so much better that I almost regretted buying my 550.

While oil doesn't last forever, the main long term concern is actually pollution.

I don't understand what you mean by you would rather have small engines burning oil than power plants. That's a stupid statement. The energy needed by EVs is actually only a fraction of energy used everyday. I'm guessing you've never researched how much energy is needed in our grid if every vehicle produced now is an EV. Don't make such a statement if you don't know the answer. Do your homework if you're going to attempt to correct someone.

I am saying you are trying to calculate or drive at a conclusion such as "EVs should replace all ICEs" with figures - but you make a crucial mistakes economists always make - you only take into account the factors which favor your argument and conveniently ignore the multitude of other reason which point against.

I don't know about the U.S., but in many parts of the world oil is still being burnt in power stations. Isn't it much funner to burn it in cars that make cool noises and rev to 9k rpm than to drive around a golf cart?

So how much less energy would be needed in sum with all EVs? But would it justify all the batteries you would need etc.?

There are much more economical ways to save the world ... like give money to China for carbon credits.

[493263]

Originally Posted by grimlock

I am saying you are trying to calculate or drive at a conclusion such as "EVs should replace all ICEs" with figures - but you make a crucial mistakes economists always make - you only take into account the factors which favor your argument and conveniently ignore the multitude of other reason which point against.

I don't know about the U.S., but in many parts of the world oil is still being burnt in power stations. Isn't it much funner to burn it in cars that make cool noises and rev to 9k rpm than to drive around a golf cart?

So how much less energy would be needed in sum with all EVs? But would it justify all the batteries you would need etc.?

There are much more economical ways to save the world ... like give money to China for carbon credits.

The list of pros and cons with EV was heavily one sided on the con side. Most of which were technological hurdles. We solved most of those hurdles today already. The only thing left is infrastructure to push economies of scale and lower prices.

About 100 years ago, most vehicles were EVs. People found ways to have fun with them but petrol was more practical because of range and power. Now EV is coming back. I'm sure instead of boosting with turbos and superchargers, we'll be boosting with supercapacitors and whatever people come up with. People will adapt and find fun in EVs just like they did with ICE. Kids used to play board games and now they're all on consoles, and smartphones.

I hope you know, China is moving to clean energy faster than any other country right now. The reason is simple. The oil burning cars are and factories are causing so much smog and pollution that people are literally dying in various ways including cancer. Pumping them with money for carbon credits isn't going to help China. They're still burning mostly coal because it's abundant. China's only real solution is nuclear(due to their population density) but they're not as advanced as other countries. We need to give them the technology and train them.

Of course the rest of the world will not be able to convert like the US or Europe. They'll lag behind like always. What's your point with this?

The end of ICE vehicles does not mean the end of oil. It just means that oil will be burned at power plants where it is more efficient and cleaner overall. The storage medium is batteries instead of gas tanks. Smog that are common in metropolitan areas will disappear. Most of the oil will still be used, just much less than before because we're more efficient.

I don't understand why people are so bent on resisting change. Seriously, we're replacing one technology with another that allows people to live better in a society. If the world population is 1 billion instead of 7 billions then things would be different. We wouldn't be able to make a case for clean energy. But the reality is that we've past 7 billion people and still growing rapidly.

[Noggie]

ICE engines have had a huge technological leap forward in the last 30 years.
My 1990 850 with a 5 liter V12 produced 300hp, about 60hp per liter of displacement. consumption figures are terrible.
My e36 M3 had a 3,2l 6-cylinder produceing 343hp, 107hp per liter.
The new i8 has a 3 cylinder 1.5l 230hp engine, that is 153hp per liter.
Consumption figures have improved greatly in the last 30 years so ICE have become much more efficient.

The biggest threat is not existing cars, but the rapid growth seen in developing countries.
If cars became something everyone has like in US or Europe, in countries like China and India, with a combined population of more than 2,5 billion people the consequences would be a climate disaster.

For developing countries the use of clean energy and EV is imperative, for us living in developed countries a gradual change over years is more likely the way forward.
We should therefore fund the developing countries so that they will be able to develop in a green way.

Huge desert solar plants in north Africa, the middle East and US deserts could provide clean energy, also various hydro plants and wind farms is a steady supply of clean power. These could be supplemented by a few nuclear power plants, The goal should be to get rid of all coal plants, then plants that run on fossil fuel and finally the current nuclear fission plants. When we get the technology to make fusion plants we will be looking at a green supply of energy for all of us.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 493263

The end of ICE vehicles does not mean the end of oil. It just means that oil will be burned at power plants where it is more efficient and cleaner overall. The storage medium is batteries instead of gas tanks. Smog that are common in metropolitan areas will disappear. Most of the oil will still be used, just much less than before because we're more efficient.

The efficiency of burning oil in a power plant is no greater than in a car FYI.
On whether it's cleaner, see:
http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...zevs-invisible

[martin mustang]

Originally Posted by 493263

Let me just point out that you would rather be caught up with your emotions instead of a long list of facts I presented to you. I'm sorry you felt insulted by less than 3% of the text I wrote and ignored the vast majority of useful information you are blind to.

The only one with emotions is you, judging by all your choice of words when describing the other side of the debate, and the assumption you have concrete facts can only be described as arrogance! I simply cannot take you seriously in this debate, chill and relax this forum is meant to be a step into our hobbies, the cars we like and not a mission to save the world, and by the way in my opinion the climate is the last of your worries when you driving 550i xdrive! So maybe your frustration is down to having to move to an electric car to reduce your running cost rather the damage to the climate, as I mentioned it in other responses, the only true green option for all of us here is to stick to what we have for as long as we can, because if you move to a Tesla you simply making it worst as you adding an engine to the equation be it you polluting the climate directly from your exhaust pipe or via the central power station,
I guess if you send your 550 to a recycling unit to be off the road, and go for a Tesla, only then I can take you seriously as a man in for the cause!
Any way relax and take it easy enjoy the forum, and make friends, trust me the advices down here are simply the best you get to keep your hobby going loving BMW’s

[Noggie]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

The only one with emotions is you, judging by all your choice of words when describing the other side of the debate, and the assumption you have concrete facts can only be described as arrogance! I simply cannot take you seriously in this debate, chill and relax this forum is meant to be a step into our hobbies, the cars we like and not a mission to save the world, and by the way in my opinion the climate is the last of your worries when you driving 550i xdrive! So maybe your frustration is down to having to move to an electric car to reduce your running cost rather the damage to the climate, as I mentioned it in other responses, the only true green option for all of us here is to stick to what we have for as long as we can, because if you move to a Tesla you simply making it worst as you adding an engine to the equation be it you polluting the climate directly from your exhaust pipe or via the central power station,
I guess if you send your 550 to a recycling unit to be off the road, and go for a Tesla, only then I can take you seriously as a man in for the cause!
Any way relax and take it easy enjoy the forum, and make friends, trust me the advices down here are simply the best you get to keep your hobby going loving BMW’s

I'm afraid I dont buy your "ad another engine to the equation" argument.
Yes, the car he trades from is not taken off the road, but further down the chain one is.
The more new cars get put on the road, the more old ones gets scrapped. How many 20-30 year old cars do you have on the road in Ireland? My guess would be not that many.
So even if his 550 is still on the road, the guy who bought it may have sold his old e60 to a guy who scrapped an even older car, taking that old worn ineffective engine out of the equation, and in the grand scheme of things the total emissions was cut.

[martin mustang]

Originally Posted by Noggie

I'm afraid I dont buy your "ad another engine to the equation" argument.
Yes, the car he trades from is not taken off the road, but further down the chain one is.
The more new cars get put on the road, the more old ones gets scrapped. How many 20-30 year old cars do you have on the road in Ireland? My guess would be not that many.
So even if his 550 is still on the road, the guy who bought it may have sold his old e60 to a guy who scrapped an even older car, taking that old worn ineffective engine out of the equation, and in the grand scheme of things the total emissions was cut.

I see your point, a valid one for sure, but when on my side not buying the argument on our climate and petrol cars, meaning over exaggerated and blown out of proportion!
To be honest in my opinion, it is a complete mess, take EU our corner me and you for example, legislations to address global warming pushed diesel sales up, I run a diesel on the daily basis because it cost less and I pay less tax, at the same time knowing diesel is far more impacting kids allergies like Asthma and god now what else, if you take the CO2 element out of the equation, diesel as bad as petrol if not worst!

I believe this down to the point I made when I joined the debate, fact are driven by corporations with new green cash to make, hence nothing to do with caring for the climate!

[493263]

Originally Posted by grimlock

The efficiency of burning oil in a power plant is no greater than in a car FYI.
On whether it's cleaner, see:
http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...zevs-invisible

Nice try. The article you linked mainly talks about pollution. It's based on a set of assumptions such as % of coal power plants will remain the same. Too bad that's not true.

I really don't see where it says vehicles are more efficient than power plants. Maybe you should read your own supporting evidence.

There's no way an engine can ever be more efficient than a power plant. If that was the case, then we'd all run small engines to power our homes instead of having a grid. There's a small power loss in transmission across the grid too.

First rule of a debate is to actually bring relevant information to support your thesis. Happy holidays to you and I hope you at least learn to cite relevant evidence to support what you say.

[493263]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

I see your point, a valid one for sure, but when on my side not buying the argument on our climate and petrol cars, meaning over exaggerated and blown out of proportion!
To be honest in my opinion, it is a complete mess, take EU our corner me and you for example, legislations to address global warming pushed diesel sales up, I run a diesel on the daily basis because it cost less and I pay less tax, at the same time knowing diesel is far more impacting kids allergies like Asthma and god now what else, if you take the CO2 element out of the equation, diesel as bad as petrol if not worst!

I believe this down to the point I made when I joined the debate, fact are driven by corporations with new green cash to make, hence nothing to do with caring for the climate!

There will always be money involved in everything. You seem to have some kind of irrational conspiracy about global warming. You based your evidence on economic changes rather than climate changes. Of course businesses will be affected, but that's just a consequence of the decisions made to mitigate the damages we're doing to our planet today and the next however many years.

Your facts are not facts. Anybody who read what you wrote would say that's an opinion. Diesel sales in Europe are not relevant in a research study about whether or not green house gases affect the atmosphere.

I feel like I'm talking to the Westboro Church here.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 493263

Nice try. The article you linked mainly talks about pollution. It's based on a set of assumptions such as % of coal power plants will remain the same. Too bad that's not true.

I really don't see where it says vehicles are more efficient than power plants. Maybe you should read your own supporting evidence.

There's no way an engine can ever be more efficient than a power plant. If that was the case, then we'd all run small engines to power our homes instead of having a grid. There's a small power loss in transmission across the grid too.

First rule of a debate is to actually bring relevant information to support your thesis. Happy holidays to you and I hope you at least learn to cite relevant evidence to support what you say.

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei...power+stations

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

A power plant is only a little more efficient burning petrol than a new car is.
I don't know if you read, but there it is for you.

[Noggie]

Originally Posted by martin mustang

I see your point, a valid one for sure, but when on my side not buying the argument on our climate and petrol cars, meaning over exaggerated and blown out of proportion!
To be honest in my opinion, it is a complete mess, take EU our corner me and you for example, legislations to address global warming pushed diesel sales up, I run a diesel on the daily basis because it cost less and I pay less tax, at the same time knowing diesel is far more impacting kids allergies like Asthma and god now what else, if you take the CO2 element out of the equation, diesel as bad as petrol if not worst!

I believe this down to the point I made when I joined the debate, fact are driven by corporations with new green cash to make, hence nothing to do with caring for the climate!

Norway has also been pro-diesel for some odd reason.
About 5-6 years ago they cut the import tax on diesel cars as their CO2 emissions was lower than on a petrol car.
Much to the more knowledgeable peoples surprise because even if CO2 is lower, diesel engines ass more NOX and smaller particles to the air that is very harmful to the local environment.
When the government realized this, about 2-3 years ago, road tax on diesel cars went up, quite a lot if you did not have a modern one with particle filter installed. People got pissed off, and some claimed the government tricked them into buying diesel cars when they lowered the import tax, and then increased the road tax once people had bought them.

I too drive a diesel, I ended up with this somewhat by chance. I do like the low end torque, the lower consumption and the lower fuel price.
These new filters are very good, because my car has none of the issues related with 80's and 90's diesels. a huge puff of thick black smoke when you floor it, and a greasy black rear quarter of your car. I don't see any exhaust from my car in any situation.
But I'm not sure my next car will be a diesel, I do know it will not be electric though.