Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Probably on the wrong side of the road.
    Posts
    3,294
    Blog Entries
    1

    Prius more damaging to the environment than a...



    Hummer.

    Wow. This is a good read. The nickel in the batteries in a Prius is smelted at one of the worst polluting plants in the North America.

    http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188
    Last edited by Admin Steve; 03-21-2007 at 07:59 PM.
    Admin Steve
    Screwing up Ravens message boards since 1999.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,162

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    LOL, I wonder how their farts smell to them now! </Southpark reference>

    The most environmentally friendly energy we have that can produce enough power to satisfy our economy is the one Greenies go the most nuts over.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kingsville, MD
    Posts
    627

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    I went past the Sudbury plant when I was a kid 30-35 years ago, and the landscape was lunar for 10-15 miles downwind due to all the H2SO4.

    My Dad passed through about 6-8 years ago and claims that it's getting better.

    As for greens losing it over nuclear, keep in mind that this is not universally the case. Link here.

    BS




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,162

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    It's good to see that, now if we only had a competent President who could actually lead we might see nuclear power plants being built. What a disappointment that boob has been.




  5. #5

    Unhappy Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    if we only had a competent President who could actually lead we might see nuclear power plants being built.
    Worse yet: there's no announced serious candidate who appears to have the balls to lead in 2008, either. It's an opportunity for a dark horse who isn't already owned by the Greenies, or big oil, or other special interest groups. Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson, perhaps?

    Without nukes, it will be impossible to take advantage of the battery advances which could make electric powered vehicles viable as a significant portion of the vehicles on the road. Wind, solar, biomass, other renewables are all just nothing but "feel good" stories -- liberal propaganda -- which can't make a dent in satisfying ELV demand. So .... we're still stuck with oil, and ultimately we may be competing with the Red Chinese Army for control of the Arab oil fields.

    Maybe Nancy Pelosi, fresh from her MidEast diplomatic "coup", will show us what a real leader is like and solve our energy problems.
    Last edited by Mista T; 04-09-2007 at 05:57 PM.
    In a 2003 BBC poll that asked Brits to name the "Greatest American Ever", Mr. T came in fourth, behind ML King (3rd), Abe Lincoln (2nd) and Homer Simpson (1st).




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Norwich, England
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    For the above renewables listed by Mista T:

    1) Wind - The UK has quite possibly the highest ability to harvest wind energy and there's no real prospect of wind energy making up anymore than 10% of OUR energy requirements and that's even with combining on and off shore.

    2) Solar - Has a role, but it's a minimal one, very useful for solar heating systems. Put one in your roof, pays itself off in about 5 or 6 years with British energy prices and can produce hot water even in the depth of winter in Britain, good option for domestic purposes, non-starter on a larger scale.

    There are renewables that can close the gap of oil and gas, but it's easier for Europe because we have smaller energy demands and have Green Party's all across Europe who have real power so have tougher green legislation. HEP is another one that is an effective source of energy, but the quantity isn't good and you have to use energy to pump the water back up.

    I attend the Uni with the best Environmental Sciences school in the UK (I don't do Env, I'm an ecologist, I get to observe animals and plants , though my dissertation was on education ) and the energy lecturers have assured us that basically the emphasis has got to be cut down consumption, put in place loads of stop gaps and basically sit and wait the 40 or 50 years until nuclear fusion is a with us.




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,162

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    There is no reason to cut back on consumption, which is another way of saying "devestate our economy." We need to tap into ANWR and start building nuclear power plants. Along with wind, solar and hydro (we do a pretty good job with hydro) we could use nuclear to eliminate oil. If we have to switch to coal for a while. We also have incredible natural gas reserves off our Atlantic coast the greenies won't let us tap.

    As for nuclear fusion, we might have it in 3 years, 30 years or maybe not for 300 years. We need to proceed as if it won't come and use fission.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Norwich, England
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Prius more damaging to the environment than a...

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    There is no reason to cut back on consumption, which is another way of saying "devestate our economy." We need to tap into ANWR and start building nuclear power plants. Along with wind, solar and hydro (we do a pretty good job with hydro) we could use nuclear to eliminate oil. If we have to switch to coal for a while. We also have incredible natural gas reserves off our Atlantic coast the greenies won't let us tap.

    As for nuclear fusion, we might have it in 3 years, 30 years or maybe not for 300 years. We need to proceed as if it won't come and use fission.
    Cutting back on consumption doesn't have to mean "devastating the economy", it just means making every energy related aspect of our lives as efficient as possible, there's so much that can be done cheaply with regards to energy that makes energy consumption more efficient, cuts down on consumption and cuts down your costs and environmental impact, it's insane that we aren't doing everything we can.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland