It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Green Idiots Are Using Coal Powered Green Car Charging Station at Walgreens

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
This is getting ridiculous! If you want to drive and electric car so you don't have to buy gas, that is cool with me but don't think for one second that you are saving the planet.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nkultra
 


Your point is a valid one but what you infer is wrong.

Its not that electric cars are stupid. Its that having a decrepit electrical generation network based on fossil fuels is stupid.

By now we should be majority nuclear with wind/solar/hydro/oil/gas as secondary sources of generation.

Future generations will despise us for our blatant stupidity.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Burning coal in a extremly efficient manner and then using that energy to push, also very efficient turbines makes 'greener' fuel for the end customer.

A car engine is a tiny, inefficient, dirty,energy converter thats what makes doing all of the energy conversion at the plant cheaper and greener.


edit on 19-2-2012 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I am often at a loss as to why people think this way.

Those fossil fuels are burning now. Constantly. People are sucking up electricity as fast as it is produced.

AND people are burning petrol and emitting toxic gasses. They are driving as fast as they can to get to the next petrol station.

How is eliminating one a stupid idea?

I had no idea that eliminating petrol from use in cars was supposed to reduce the pollution created by the electric companies.

I guess some people just love the smell of carbon monoxide filling their lungs in the morning...



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Go and look up the efficiency of a coal power station and an electric motor vs an internal combustion engine.

Or enjoy being ignorant and sucking up the oil companies propaganda.

Your choice.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by nkultra
 


Green idiots? Now people who are trying to save the planet are idiots. And we wonder why the world we live in is the way it is....filled with idiots I suppose. Cut and burn what you can't kill....I don't have kids or grandkids. You can burn the place to the ground after I'm gone. You don't have to save a thing.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by nkultra
 


Green idiots? Now people who are trying to save the planet are idiots. And we wonder why the world we live in is the way it is....filled with idiots I suppose. Cut and burn what you can't kill....I don't have kids or grandkids. You can burn the place to the ground after I'm gone. You don't have to save a thing.


I think i meant 'misinformed' he just was not very nice about it. It is a bit frustrating tho i agree to see people fall for scams like these. At first glance one would think that he/she is helping the planet and everyone on it by supporting these things but ultimatly nothing changes except perception.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Majority nuclear when we can't control melt downs? We have no where to place the waste? Cancer rates go up near nuclear plants...

No thanks. Nuclear power is dangerous and far more harmful to the earth than fossil fuels.
I don't want to live near Fukishima or Chernobyl.

We need to focus on new power options and advance solar.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
It way easier to control the emissions and efficiency of fixed system than a mobile system -- the emissions from coal are subject to scrubbers etc.

Setting your hair on fire over this is - the attitude that is is not perfect so we should not try.. this is usually attitude adopted by people who have never really built anything and have no idea how the evolutionary process works. Or you have some sort of agenda for stopping any progress or change. Neither of these are particularly objective positions. Who's the idiot??
edit on 19-2-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Majority nuclear when we can't control melt downs? We have no where to place the waste? Cancer rates go up near nuclear plants...

No thanks. Nuclear power is dangerous and far more harmful to the earth than fossil fuels.
I don't want to live near Fukishima or Chernobyl.

We need to focus on new power options and advance solar.


No. You are entirely wrong.

I wouldn't want to live near Fukushima or Chernobyll either. Thats not because generating power from Fission is a bad idea but they were poor designs dating from the 1960s.

We have the ability to build safe nuclear plants now but we aren't because:

1. The people who build the current plants and lobby for new nuclear builds want to do more of the same. Thats what they know and thats where their profit is.
2. The green lobby, that should be advocating for new nuclear for environmental reasons, have adopted it as a bogeyman and continue to advocate solar, wind etc. The reality is these will only ever be small contributors (although helpful and should be pursued in parallel).

The oil companies meanwhile will continue to laugh like hell, all the way to the bank.
edit on 19-2-2012 by justwokeup because: TYPO



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Well with all the choices, have to admit coal isn't one of them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
How To Make Hydrogen Fuel At Home!

And hydrogen is just a part of this, browns fuel, as electric and tesla stye is more what I 'd like to explore soon if we remod a vehicle, however, pulling power is important too, and they've buried the patents on the electric batteries that can pull semi loads at highway speed, thought the Japanese were working on bringing these out.

Actually they were to alot of good disclosure type things just before Fukushima, including solid state holograms, ie holograms you could touch.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   


By now we should be majority nuclear with wind/solar/hydro/oil/gas as secondary sources of generation.
reply to post by justwokeup
 


wind
solar
hydro -Huh?
oil -Huh?
gas -Huh?

The last three are not really that good for the environment either.





posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho


By now we should be majority nuclear with wind/solar/hydro/oil/gas as secondary sources of generation.
reply to post by justwokeup
 


wind
solar
hydro -Huh?
oil -Huh?
gas -Huh?

The last three are not really that good for the environment either.




You can use hydro-electric as a storage mechanism for the power generated by wind and solar. The problem with those methods is they don't necessarily generate power when you want it. The sun won't work at night and the wind doesn't blow to a timetable.

If you have a power station/pumping station at the bottom of a dam you can use excess power to pump water back up. When there isn't excess power, and demand exceed supply you can switch back to generating.

Oil/Gas aren't environmentally friendly but the responsiveness of those systems to change in demand will mean they won't go away entirely.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nkultra
 



It is you that is in error with your thinking... What makes you think that petrochemicals are the only method of creating electrical energy. Sorry immature badly researched thread...



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Which car would you rather driver through a long tunnel?

I'll got for the electic ones thanks.
Its the most litteral reason i can think of to have the pollution taken care of more effectivly hundreds of miles away from as many people and animals as possible.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nkultra
 


I think your the one being ridiculous here, power from the power grid can come from ANY NUMBER OF SOURCES. Some of them more greener than others, like windmills, hydro power, solar power. These methods are WAY greener than a internal combustion engine...
Have you ever tried strapping any of these methods to the top of your car? well if you did that would be stupid because it would never work, accept maybe solar power(until it gets dark out
)

people like you are ignorant, you make it sound like they have a pollution-driven-power-source connected to these recharging station, and using that power source for nothing else. Please get a grip on reality before you spout nonsense.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Well with all the choices, have to admit coal isn't one of them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
How To Make Hydrogen Fuel At Home!

And hydrogen is just a part of this, browns fuel, as electric and tesla stye is more what I 'd like to explore soon if we remod a vehicle, however, pulling power is important too, and they've buried the patents on the electric batteries that can pull semi loads at highway speed, thought the Japanese were working on bringing these out.

Actually they were to alot of good disclosure type things just before Fukushima, including solid state holograms, ie holograms you could touch.

Hydrogen generated by electrolysis is the most expensive hydrogen on a large scale which is why industrial hydrogen generators reform methane or gasify pet coke to poduce large amounts of H2. Hydrogen is a poor choice for an energy carrier on a large scale as it would require a completely different infrastructure to distrubute and use. It is difficult to contain and has a low energy density, requiring more frequent refueling of vehicles. "Brown's Gas" is nothing more than a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Be careful playing with larger volumes of this as it has a very low energy requirement for reaction.
Please give a reference for the "solid state hologram" that does not include Star Trek.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nkultra
This is getting ridiculous! If you want to drive and electric car so you don't have to buy gas, that is cool with me but don't think for one second that you are saving the planet.

As is often the case with the enviro folk, they are not the most technically astute and often miss the big picture. I asked one where he was to get the electricity to generate hydrogen to make electricity and he said "from hydrogen." Granted, he was one of the dimmer electric bulbs present, but this type of thinking is not the exception.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I would sell my sister for a Tesla. Not to save the world but just to get cheap power that has the instant torque produced by an all electric car. Imagine how fast you could tear a set of tires off of a Tesla............

Not environmental but cool and fun!

Before you flame me I helped write the ballot proposal that shut down an unsafe Nuclear plant. There is a border between being green and being stupid.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
One other thing is that electric cars can accelerate like the proverbial "stri ped assed ape". (60s therm for fast)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join