Planting the seeds of desire in large forums on Global Warming.
Do you think this could actually increase demand for Evs?

Corporations tend to gain by limiting enviro-expenses.

Global Warming is more a diversion from the more urgent problem of Global pollution.

Global pollution calls for expensive **Clean-Coal Tech for Coal Fired Generating plants by the thousands in China, India , Russia, USA, Canada and most of the countries you can think of. [ Stack scrubbers etc.]

Global pollution calls for stepping up production of EVs, [ Electric Vehicles, Hybrid, Plug-in and battery.

Compressed air cars and vans. [ France and India ]

Bio-fuel vehicles, and finally Hydrogen, but that is very expensive and needs much refinement.

You can get a quick refresher on the current most promising Phoenix EV SUT. [sport utility truck] and of course the Tesla Roadster EV and a few others at:
TonyGuitar.blogspot.com.

Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, Big three Auto and Magna / Mopar / GM all prefer to hold off the trend to Electric Vehicles for obvious reasons.

That is why AL Gore and Global Warming are so well supported by Corporations.

Remember EVs use no GAS, No Oil, No ati-freeze, No auto parts, No radiator, No, muffler, No complex and troublesom gas or diesel engine, No fuel injection, No spark plugs, No rubber hoses, No mufflers, No catlytic converters, No fuel and oil pumps, No Air, Gas or Oil Filters, and on and on..

You really want an electric car or motorbike so you can save a fortune in gas money. You and I simply do not understand that just yet. Do we? = TG

Posted by: TG at June 2, 2007 02:38 PM

- And while we're into an energy reverie, let me share with you my vision. No no - no payment is necessary, I'm just happy to be here...

EV's have two drawbacks - both are being worked-on, and admittedly my personal favourite vehicle is in the same boat. That being said...

The two drawbacks are that (1) EV's are only pollution-free if their generation source is. They have to recharge their batteries, and if they recharge from a dirty coal-fired power station, then that power station = their pollution. Canada would be in good shape for this, as we have a lot of hydro dams, but remember; every car in the world will eventually have to stop burning gas, because there won't be any. If their replacements are EV's, we are going to need a HUGE increase in generation capacity to replace all the energy that cars now get from gasoline, likely several times our current requirements - and we already know that windmill farms will NOT make-up the difference. So the EV's are only non-polluting if their power generators are; nuclear, anyone?

And as the fuel for the generators is not cheap, and the rechargeable batteries for the EV's use scarce minerals and cost a fortune, we won't really save all that much.

The other drawback for EV's is that their batteries take a long time to charge-up; this too, is being worked-on, but remember again - when we have high-capacity batteries that charge in a few minutes, we're talking enormous current draw at the recharging stations; make an arc welder look chintzy. So we'll have to rebuild our national grid, and everybody's home is gonna need re-wired.

My personal favourite is the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. It gets-around both the drawbacks of EV's, and in a sneaky way - "sneaky" is good, isn't it?

Hydrogen fuel call vehicles are EV's, in effect - but they have fuel cells supplying the electricity instead of batteries. So their fuel tanks can be filled-up in minutes, rather than taking hours to recharge. That solves the first problem of EV's.

Solving the second problem is a bit more involved; but this is where the sneakiness comes-in. Large areas of the planet are suited for power generation; and coincidentally, these are miserable places to live-in, so almost nobody does. I'm thinking of deserts; they make great collectors of sunlight, which can make electricity to power EV's. But surprisingly, electricity is not all that easy to move great distances. We don't have superconductors yet, so electricity travelling on high-power transmission lines is wasted through internal resistance, in direct proportion to the length of the line. It's to the point that a southern desert cannot supply electricity to a northern area - there's no practical way to get the electricity from the desert where it's generated, to up north where it's needed.

But guess what? - we could use the electricity to make hydrogen, and ship the hydrogen; water goes south in tank cars, and hydrogen comes north in them. A lot of problems there; hydrogen is unfriendly stuff, and is real good at leaking out of things, but these are questions of technology, not science - we already know how to make hydrogen and how to transport it, we just need to do it often enough to learn how to do it efficiently.

And hydrogen has a couple of outstanding characteristics as a motor fuel. First, it is absolutely non-polluting; the only by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell is water, water so clean you can drink it. And we made that hydrogen out of water, and when we use it it turns right back into water - so we can use it over and over and over again, and we'll never run out of it.

And what I like best is that hydrogen is a PRODUCT, whereas gasoline is a COMMODITY:

- If you want gasoline, you have to buy it from somebody who has it; and the 'somebody's' at the moment are pretty odious fellows, who are either socializing their countries for fun and profit, or giving large sums of our money to their local terrorists for 'protection'.

- But anybody can make hydrogen in their backyard; so when the BigOilCo's charge us a wallopping price for their hydrogen because, well, we're used to paying a whole lot for gasoline so why shouldn't they stiff us over hydrogen, then all of a sudden Billy-Boy Gates and Wally Wal-Mart and Richard Branson look-up and say "WHOA - good money to be made in hydrogen at the moment, I think I'll start making it!" - and they all go out and buy-up a thousand square miles of desert and set-up hydrogen stills, and then there's overcapacity, and cutthroat competition, and hydrogen prices tumble and we're back to buck-a-gallon motor fuel; only this time it's ALL unleaded, and vehicular pollution takes a permanent leave of absence.

And I for one will be SO sad... *cough-cough*

Posted by: Jim at June 3, 2007 04:06 PM

Green credit, carbon credit trading, whatever, the biggest scam/fraud in the history of mankind and to think it's going on in an enlightened 21st century.

And we thought the lowly snake oil salesmen were never to be topped!

Posted by: Libby at June 3, 2007 05:41 PM

I will just bet you can't count past 10 without taking off your shoes.What capacity you twit. We are not talking about Canada a a blob of its own hanging out in space! We are talking about the planet earth and its total capacity, to tolerate an increase in the global warming blanket such that the temperature goes up EVERYWHERE. That is what it is about. Do you think something is achieved by saying we have few persons per square mile? So does Chad, Sudan, and lots of nations in Africa. That means they have all sorts of green "credit" do they? What they have is desert, a lot of it. What we have is a place called Alberta. Ontario has 77 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent , BC has 13, and ALBERTA, rotten Alberta has 110. Yes, 110 million tonnes per year. Where were you going to put that, on the planet earth and it will not count? Did you have it mind towing a sort of big cloud of CO2 up to Baffin Land? Is that still on the Planet Earth? Too bad it still counts in the planetary total. If we did tow it up there could we go to Europe and say, hey fellas you got to give us this big 110 million tonnes of credit cause we moved the Alberta load to Baffin Land. Isn't that clever.
And forget about buying "credits" from elsewhere. You can fool Albertans, or some of them that have had their brains curdled by reading your fantasies, but you can't fool nature.
If this capacity notion is the best you can do you should go back to the 3rd Dick and Jane Reader, you seem to have taken a detour.

Posted by: garhane at June 4, 2007 02:58 PM