Finally ! Evironmentalists say electric car is not helping.

I read about this yesterday and it feels like an I told you so situation.


This article was in Dutch but apparently it is backed up by even Greenpeace.
There is not really something to say about it, it looks like people are waking up to another little slice of reality.

If anyone knows or has the link to a English source, please feel free to ad.
I will ad it in the OP.

Link to source. ( Dutch )

The reason given is that as long as the electricity is coming from coal, nuclear or gas. It won't help anyway.

I believe that the production of the electric battery used is causing massive pollution by mining and implementing the resources and technique.

There is also evidence almost all know resources are found in China and these resources are almost used.
More then double the number off electric cars we have to day isn't even possible.

On request I will look in to it for sources but we all know how to use google don't we.

Never believe what enviromentalists have to say. They will say anything to advance their whacko agenda.

Just look at the whole Global Warming fiasco.

reply to post by Carseller4


This time they are saying something I already knew.

Assuming no accidents, how exactly is nuclear power polluting?

I also have to agree with Carseller4. They are exactly known for telling the truth in matters - just what you need to hear to make an "informed" decision. Let's not get the facts in the way of an informed decision.

reply to post by TLomon


To my understanding nuclear energy isn't polluting.
The problem is the lack of a good technique to the waste material.

Along with the damage it does when it does leak in the environment, I understand why they are against it.

Originally posted by TLomon
Assuming no accidents, how exactly is nuclear power polluting?

I also have to agree with Carseller4. They are exactly known for telling the truth in matters - just what you need to hear to make an "informed" decision. Let's not get the facts in the way of an informed decision.

Currently there is no way to recycle or to dispose of the spent nuclear rods. It's a one way trip for the nuclear material. Even the natural decay lasts far longer than the benefit of the production of energy. So to compare, imagine you simply cut a hole in your floor for a bathroom, to begin with, it seems like a good idea, you relieve yourself and the waste material isn't a big deal. Sometime later your house in no longer habitable, but the waste is still there.

..Ex

Originally posted by TLomon
Assuming no accidents, how exactly is nuclear power polluting?

I also have to agree with Carseller4. They are exactly known for telling the truth in matters - just what you need to hear to make an "informed" decision. Let's not get the facts in the way of an informed decision.

You are joking! Or maybe you haven't a clue about what happens where the Uranium is mined nor what happens to all the waste which still hasn't found a "home". The building itself has to be treated as waste!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally have you any clue as to the amount of radiation along the coast from power stations.....hmm .....no probably not. Selective amnesia!

Please don't give me the pathetic "we will find a solution" line. We have had nuclear power for 50+ years and still no solution to the waste is found.

reply to post by malcr

We have had nuclear power for 50+ years and still no solution to the waste is found.

That is because the eco-nazis and the libs always get in the way.

We just spent billions on a place and Obama abandoned it.

I will admit I forgot about the waste of the nuclear facility. I was thinking of while it was running. That was a mental slip I will have to take the heat for.

Originally posted by TLomon
Assuming no accidents, how exactly is nuclear power polluting?

Accents or no there is a strong argument that nuclear energy would be far less harmful to human health than the current modes of power production.

Still there is a risk - however minor in comparison to today's standard paradigm.

Furthermore the storage of the radioactive waste is an issue considering it will need to be buried for ten of thousands of years while the radioactivity dissipates.

This does not mean it is not a viable solution, but I think it highlights the need to interweave many types of energy production.

Wind, hydro, geo-thermal, solar, and nuclear can together create a system of production that helps to ameliorate the impacts of any one type of energy.

However I think Nuclear energy is a good topic for debate.

The thread was made because of the waking up of a very determined narrow minded vision of environmentalists.

Where I like thoughts on.
Isn't there a member part of such a group present ?