Vehicle emissions, of course, also contribute to climate change. In fact, transportation is now the single largest U.S. contributor to the emissions that cause climate change. A report from the United Nations last year found that the world has less than 12 years to curb greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

The good news is, there’s something we can do about this – something both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. It’s time to get serious about electric vehicles.

Americans like electric vehicles. According to new data, more than four in 10 Americans said they would consider buying or leasing an electric vehicle as their next car. But Americans are more willing to buy them with incentives. More than 70 percent of Republicans and nearly 80 percent of Democrats said a guaranteed federal tax rebate of $7,500 would make them more likely to purchase an electric vehicle,

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., along with colleagues Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Gary Peters, D-Mich., are leading the charge to extend that credit to move cars and more consumers. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., introduced the legislation in the House. The bill, the Driving America Forward Act, ups the cap on the tax rebate for carmakers, allowing more people the opportunity to go electric and take advantage of the long-term cost-saving and health benefits.

If we don’t lead on electric vehicles, we will fall behind. In fact, we already are. The rest of the world is moving toward electrification, with places like China imposing electric vehicle mandates to phase out traditional engines. The United States has the opportunity to lead now on innovation – and jobs – while saving its own consumers at the pump.



https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jon-summers-electric-vehicles-are-paving-the-way-to-bipartisanship-this-memorial-day

I am not entirely sure that I agree with the significance of auto emissions as a factor with America and air pollution.  Having said that, Electric cars are going to be the future very soon.  Unfortunately, while China, Europe, Japanese and Korean carmakers are doubling down to build better and more efficient electric cars, that is not what is occurring with US carmakers.

chevy is doing a good job with the Volt and American technology is leading the way in batteries and such.   But the implementation in our ideas is just not there in our country.   The implementation and manufacturing innovations are coming from other countries.

There in lies the real problem.  America sits on its ass listening to The Base, The Red State, the TrEA$on party and Desperate Don, while the rest of the world moves ahead and leaves us behind and America is turned into a third world shithole.

Why does nutwit and his koo koo posse here fall for the BS hype all the time ???


Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars | Zero Hedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-21/new-study-shocks-electric-cars-considerably-worse-climate-diesel-cars)Apr 22, 2019 ·


A battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2. ... The Brussel Times reports that a new German study exposes how electric vehicles will hardly decrease CO2 ..

"hardly decrease" but it IS a decrease.

Yet it does increase pollution duuuhhhvik ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Nope, no decrease there, comprehension challenge child (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Anti-EV hit pieces clog the blogosphere like pickup trucks on a Texas highway, but this one sounded much more serious than the usual anonymous speculation. A respected German research institute released a study claiming EVs are dirtier than diesel – music to the ears of many in the German auto industry.

“Considering Germany’s current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher,” reads the study from the Munich-based Institute for Economic Research (IFO).

Journalists immediately predicted that automakers would use the new study to lobby policymakers to abandon support for EVs. But, as those who follow the EV scene know, dozens of earlier studies from around the world have come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Could this really be a legitimate scientific study?

Nope. The specious study was promptly and definitively debunked. A few days after it appeared, two of Germany’s major media outlets published detailed analyses that exposed a long list of errors and inaccuracies in the report.

EV pundit Auke Hoekstra listed several of these, and wrote that it’s not even accurate to call the piece an academic study. “It is the opinion of three people…none of whom have any background in the (electric) car industry or batteries.” Hoekstra noted that he was not the first to debunk the article – just the first in English (Electrek’s Fred Lambert wasn’t far behind).
.
.
.


https://chargedevs.com/newswire/here-we-go-again-german-research-institute-claims-diesels-are-cleaner-than-evs/

why do you constantly attempt to use outdated and/or debunked stuff like you do sine?   are your ideas really so weak?

So you don’t like science that says you re wrong again, nutwit

We got that already with your climate change debunked malarkey (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

I haven't seen any science from you showing that I'm wrong sine.    But I've seen plenty of evidence that you just argue for the sake of argument.

But I’ve posted evidence before here several times nutwit (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Then you have the memory of a gnat

Or are just lying here again!

Which is it nutwit ???

Which total electric vehicle is affordable to the masses and how will the electricity for recharging be produced, ms/mr davik62? BTW, I will be picking up a new Honda Hybrid vehicle this coming Wednesday...do they count?

Nope.

nope?   is that another of your baseless opinions dan?

I have a question for you dan.   If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas as I'm sure you will agree, and you increase the concentration of that gas in a closed system like our atmosphere then how can the temperature of that closed system not rise?

Vehicle emissions, of course as well as cow farts and burps spray deodorant hair spray, and man made global warming bullshit as well as man made climate change bullshit democrat bullshit and left wing idiots sounding the world will end in 12 years bullshit all contribute to the man made climate change bullshit by people with to much time on their hands and little or no knowledge of reality and or actuality of how mother earth is quite capable of taking care of her self without a bunch of left wing know nothings upsetting the balance and weather patterns and climates needed, for mother earth to care for vegetation and trees and everything else that's dependent on her.

What are you yammering about blammie?   

maybe you can answer the question, but I'm betting you can't.

If CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas as I'm sure you will agree, and you increase the concentration of that gas in a closed system like our atmosphere then how can the temperature of that closed system not rise?

 Is the atmosphere closed wvit, can you explain how and why it's closed? temperatures rise and fall all the time climates and seasons have been changing for thousands upon thousands of years, why all of a sudden it's means fault, was that why all the buffalos were slaughtered to stop farts and burps in order to protect the earth, well maybe not I don't think todays idiots were being produced back then.

It's closed because our planet is a closed system.   We get nothing from outside our planet other than the occasional meteor and sunlight and a few cosmic particles.   

Closed Minds, like those of the GOP, will NEVER allow enlightenment to enter.  :(

why are you posting that stupid stuff again sine?   Your "study" has been debunked already -



Anti-EV hit pieces clog the blogosphere like pickup trucks on a Texas highway, but this one sounded much more serious than the usual anonymous speculation. A respected German research institute released a study claiming EVs are dirtier than diesel – music to the ears of many in the German auto industry.

“Considering Germany’s current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher,” reads the study from the Munich-based Institute for Economic Research (IFO).

Journalists immediately predicted that automakers would use the new study to lobby policymakers to abandon support for EVs. But, as those who follow the EV scene know, dozens of earlier studies from around the world have come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Could this really be a legitimate scientific study?

Nope. The specious study was promptly and definitively debunked. A few days after it appeared, two of Germany’s major media outlets published detailed analyses that exposed a long list of errors and inaccuracies in the report.

EV pundit Auke Hoekstra listed several of these, and wrote that it’s not even accurate to call the piece an academic study. “It is the opinion of three people…none of whom have any background in the (electric) car industry or batteries.” Hoekstra noted that he was not the first to debunk the article – just the first in English (Electrek’s Fred Lambert wasn’t far behind).
.
.
.


https://chargedevs.com/newswire/here-we-go-again-german-research-institute-claims-diesels-are-cleaner-than-evs/

The Earth has been able to take care of its self for the most part, there have been many mass extinctions in its history, climate change has been responsible for many of them.
Humans are a problem today because we can dump things into the environment that have been stored away for millions of years in a very short time.
EV cars are not a final solution for that problem.  In fact right now how much they will help depends on the source of power that charges their batteries.  If it is coal fired plants it may make things worse, than a gasoline engine.  Gasoline engines have come a long way sine the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969.  That fire convinced a lot of people and polotutions that some thing had to be done, to improve the water and air we need.
Weakening the EPA or doing away with it isn't going to help things.

No surprise except to gullible nitwit that partisan pundits with no science background

claim they debunked the study !  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

no science background?   what are you blabbering about sine?   you evidently haven't read the link. 

WirtschaftsWoche, a German business magazine, pointed out that the IFO article’s conclusions are “in stark contrast to almost all serious international studies that have been done on the subject in the last few months.”

The EV news outlet electrive characterized the IFO article as an “unscientific opinion piece,” and suggests that Sinn and his co-authors began with a conclusion already in mind. In fact, the IFO authors imply as much in the preface to their article [translated from the German]: “We explain the current facts in such detail because we suspect in the claim that e-cars are completely emission-free a purposeful industrial policy deception.”

Dr. Markus Lienkamp, head of the Department of Automotive Engineering at the Technical University of Munich, noted (via electrive) that the IFO article was not subjected to any peer review process, and says it belongs in the file with “unscientific conspiracy theories.”

 News outlets are science experts to you nutwit ?

Babble on babbler (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Some of the issues with the IFO article identified by Focus, WirtschaftsWoche, electrive and Hoekstra:


The IFO piece incorrectly assumes that EV batteries become “hazardous waste” after 150,000 km. However, this is shorter than the typical warranty period for an EV battery (a federally-mandated 100,000 miles [160,000 km] in the US, and 150,000 miles in California). Furthermore, many automakers and others are working on recycling EV batteries, which are still quite valuable after reaching the end of their service lives. Today, the EU prescribes a recycling quota of 50 percent of lithium-ion batteries. Furthermore, Li-ion batteries are not officially considered hazardous waste in the US, but the lead-acid batteries used in all diesel vehicles are.

The report compares a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kWh battery pack to a Mercedes C220 diesel, an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Tesla vehicle’s power output is up to 473 hp, whereas that of the Mercedes is 194 hp. It’s also worth mentioning that the powerful Tesla is far from the most efficient EV available, whereas the C220 is one of the most efficient diesel vehicles on the German market.

The IFO authors inexplicably calculate CO2 emissions for Model 3 that are 16 percent higher than the official figures published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency.

The article uses figures from the old NEDC test regimen, which is famously inaccurate, and is in the process of being replaced by the newer WLTP standard. WirtschaftsWoche calls the figures used in the IFO article “fairy-tale values that have nothing in common with reality,” and asks why Dr. Sinn chose to work with “the outdated, demonstrably inferior laboratory standard, where even more appropriate standards such as WLTP or EPA and even empirical consumption values ​​are easily accessible for both vehicles.”

In its calculations of full-lifecycle emissions, the article includes the emissions from electricity generation for EVs, but does not include the emissions generated in producing and transporting the fuel for diesel vehicles.

The IFO writers assume that every German EV is powered by the average mix of electricity sources supplying the German grid. In fact, an increasing number of EV drivers use electricity from their own photovoltaic systems. Many German utility customers also have the option of purchasing 100 percent renewably-generated electricity.

Why not?  It's another one of your nutty baseless opinions, wvit.

hahahahahha.   your getting worse and worse dan, you don't base your comments on anything anymore except your wanting to "troll the libs".

No, I don't agree.


It's not a closed system.  There is no bubble around the Earth.  There are no lids covering the oceans.


Because it's not a closed system.

Nope.


Did it never occur to you that things escape our planet as well?

Nope.

dan, you don't agree that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.   And you base this belief on what?

Nope.


Wrong.

That's correct.


The fact that water vapor is far more abundant and efficient and influential on our climate, dwarfing carbon dioxide.

there is a bubble around the earth dan.   It's called our atmosphere.   It's held in place by gravity and protected by our magnetic field.   

our atmospheric pressure is overall very constant.   so if the pressure is constant why would there be more water vapor in the atmosphere? 

The atmosphere is permeable, wvit.  It is not closed.


LOL!

It's not constant.  It and water vapor in the atmosphere varies.

If it wasn't for the magnetic field our planet would be like Mars dan.  The solar wind would have stripped our atmosphere from our planet a long long time ago.

Our atmospheric pressure is overall very stable dan.   why do you think it's not?

Why?  How do gamma rays destroy nitrogen molecules?

No it is not stable.  Because it varies with heat, density and volume.  Gases, liquids and solids are constantly changing state.

overall our atmospheric pressure is very stable dan.   there are local variations but on the whole the pressure of our atmosphere is stable.

Without Earth's magnetic field, solar winds — streams of electrically charged particles that flow from the sun — would strip away the planet's atmosphere and oceans. As such, Earth's magnetic field helped to make life on the planet possible

https://www.livescience.com/51703-earth-magnetic-field-age.html

yep, you are.   I'm sure you appreciate my attempts to educate you though.   You make the kind of statements that someone who never graduated from high school science classes would make.

wvit-hawkie,

Since you  are so smart....why was Mars atmosphere stripped away?

because Mars doesn't have a magnetic field like Earth does.


Mars does not have an intrinsic global magnetic field, the solar wind directly interacts with the atmosphere of Mars, leading to the formation of a magnetosphere from magnetic field tubes. This poses challenges for mitigating solar radiation and retaining an atmosphere.

- Wikipedia

wvit-hawkie,

Just as I thought...you have no idea why Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. Keep searching your cut & paste and stop call others dumb.

I already responded to that.

How?

Does it energize the molecules, giving them enough kinetic energy to escape Earth's gravity?

What?


Yes.  It's so refreshing compared to what hawks does.


No I don't.

I'm sure you appreciate that I don't appreciate personal insults like that.

Since Mars does rotate, it must not have a ferrous core.  If it did, it would have a magnetic field.

From Politico

If you believe the headlines, traditional automobiles are speeding toward a dead end. All those V8s, V6s and turbocharged vehicles we’ve grown to love will soon be replaced by squadrons of clean, whisper-quiet, all-electric vehicles. And if you believe the headlines, the environment will be much better off.

Policymakers at every level have done their part to push electric vehicles by creating a tankful of subsidies. Thanks to laws signed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, electric-vehicle buyers can feast on federal tax credits of up to $7,500 that reduce the initial purchase cost of their vehicles. Not to be outdone, many states also dangle their own mix of goodies for electric vehicle buyers, including purchase rebates as large as $5,000, additional rebates for vehicle chargers, and free use of public charging stations—which, of course, are only “free” because they’re subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers. Some states even give electric vehicles preferential access to carpool lanes.

Then there are the electric vehicle mandates. In January, California Gov. Jerry Brown decreed that 5 million electric vehicles must be on his state’s roads by 2025, along with 250,000 charging stations. Eight other states are following California’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to ban all internal combustion vehicles by 2040.

All of this might make sense if electric vehicles, as their supporters claim, were truly likely to reduce air pollution and tackle climate change. But are they?

To answer that question, I used the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent long-term forecasts for the number of new electric vehicles through 2050, estimated how much electricity they’d use, and then figured out how much pollution that electricity would generate, looking at three key pollutants regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act—sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulates—as well as CO2 emissions. I compared them to the emissions of new gasoline-powered vehicles, using the EIA’s “real world” miles-per-gallon forecast, rather than the higher CAFE standard values.

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

As for states like California with stringent mandates to use more renewable energy for their power grid, they also have the highest electric rates in the continental US, 50% higher than the US average. And electric rates in those states just keep increasing. So it’s a cleaner power mix, but makes recharging your car more expensive. The higher the electric rate, the lower the incentive for a new car buyer to purchase an electric vehicle.

As for greenhouse-gas emissions, my analysis shows that electric vehicles will reduce them compared to new internal combustion vehicles. But based on the EIA’s projection of the number of new electric vehicles, the net reduction in CO2 emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions. Such a small change will have no impact whatsoever on climate, and thus have no economic benefit.

So, if electric-vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment, what—or who—do they help? Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.

In effect, the wealthy owners of electric vehicles will enjoy the benefits of their clean, silent cars, while passing on many of the costs of keeping their vehicles on the road to everyone else, especially the poor.

To be sure, electric cars are impressive. Some are quicker off the line than a Formula 1 race car. But there is no economic or environmental justification for the many billions of dollars in subsidies that America is already paying to speed their adoption.

So what to do? First, Congress should immediately terminate those electric-vehicle tax credits, which just benefit the wealthy. Congress should also eliminate zero-emissions credits, which electric-vehicle manufacturers have used to boost their bottom line – $860 million for Tesla alone in the last three years. And third, states should eliminate their various subsidies for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, which are also paid for disproportionately by the poor and are contributing to rising electric rates.

Electric vehicle subsidies and mandates share an unfortunate, and all too common trait with other government policies: They’re based on “conventional wisdom” that turns out to be wrong. Wealthy consumers who have purchased Teslas and Chevy Bolts primarily to signal their green bona fides for their friends and neighbors, and who have socialized many of the costs of their purchases to those who are less well-off, might wish to take a closer look at the numbers. Their hands may not be quite so clean as they believe.

Jonathan Lesser is the President of Continental Economics, an economic and regulatory consulting firm. His new report, “Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies” was published by the Manhattan Institute on May 15

There is a certain type of person that falls for the BS that we are all exposed to daily on this planet
Many think that being electric will mean much much more than it really is, pity but educate those duped  poor souls  ! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Conventional wisdom gets it wrong yet again (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

(See the above 2 posts ! )

The reason Mars lost it's magnetic field, is because the core went cold, Mr. Dan.

any link to all that sine?   is that the same debunked stuff you've posted links to already?

the guy who wrote your long long opinion piece denies that MMCC is real.   but then he says that electric vehicles aren't green enough.    not green enough for what?






It was a provocative, edgy headline, just the kind of thing that might generate a few extra clicks: “Are electric cars worse for the environment?”

That’s what Jonathan Lesser’s May 15 op-ed in Politico asked. Let’s get the answer out of the way: No. Electric vehicles are, as most anyone would correctly guess, much better for the environment than gasoline-powered cars.

But Lesser had “crunched the numbers,” in a report that he wrote for the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that has taken millions from the oil and gas industry and the Koch Brothers. In that report and his Politico op-ed hawking it, he claimed that switching to electric vehicles “will have no impact whatsoever on climate, and thus have no economic benefit.”

There’s one big problem: Lesser, in dozens of articles over the past decade that he’s written for the natural gas industry, has denied the very existence of climate change.

The person who is telling us that electric vehicles won’t do enough in the fight against climate change doesn’t even believe climate change is happening.

Electric vehicles are (obviously) better for the environment than gasoline engines

First, let’s dispense with the actual thesis of Lesser’s argument.

Yes, it is true that the electricity that charges electric vehicles still creates pollution from the power plants that make the electricity to charge them. EVs charged in parts of the country where the electric grid is powered with mostly coal will create more pollution than those charged on grids with more renewable energy. That’s a great reason why we need to keep phasing out coal and switching to wind and solar electricity.

But even right now, before the grid gets any greener, “driving and charging an electric vehicle anywhere in the United States produces fewer global warming emissions than driving an average new gas-powered vehicle.” That’s what the Union of Concerned Scientists found when it conducted a comprehensive “cradle to grave” life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from electric vehicles in November, 2015. Since then, driving an EV has only gotten greener compared to driving a car with a gasoline engine, as EVs get more efficient and the country keeps weaning itself off of coal and onto more renewable energy.

In his report, Lesser says he is talking about sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollution, not carbon dioxide emissions, which he begrudgingly acknowledges will be reduced by EVs.

The UCS report didn’t examine the sulfur or nitrogen emissions, but a separate, peer-reviewed study by scientists from the Carnegie Mellon Vehicle Electrification Group did look at those other pollutants in 2016. They examined EVs in one of the coal-heaviest parts of the country (the PJM grid) and found that by this year, 2018, coal plant retirements would make EVs as clean or cleaner than gasoline-powered cars on those other pollutant fronts too. Even if one were to discount the climate benefits of electric vehicles entirely, Lesser’s argument on these other kinds of pollution does not hold water. (Lesser’s report fails to acknowledge virtually any information from peer-reviewed studies like that one which have looked at the effects of electric vehicles on pollution.)

.
.
.
.

https://www.energyandpolicy.org/lesser-climate-denier-attacks-electric-vehicles/

How will the the X-kilowatts to recharge batteries be produced?

Exactly! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)

The two post above explains that question (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

That shouldn't matter.  Iron still generates a magnetic field when it rotates, whether it is in liquid or solid state.  Mars is still rotating.  Wvit's point is that molten iron generates the rotation.

Yes, it is true that the electricity that charges electric vehicles still creates pollution from the power plants that make the electricity to charge them. EVs charged in parts of the country where the electric grid is powered with mostly coal will create more pollution than those charged on grids with more renewable energy. That’s a great reason why we need to keep phasing out coal and switching to wind and solar electricity.

But even right now, before the grid gets any greener, “driving and charging an electric vehicle anywhere in the United States produces fewer global warming emissions than driving an average new gas-powered vehicle.”

Iron rotating creates a magnetic field?   no it doesn't dan, not by itself merely rotating.

I'm sure you know the answer to your guest ion but for some reason you want to keep playing stupid.

Not true nutwit,

read my posts above to educate your biggoted biased conventional wisdom attitude, child !

Also,
By driving a ‘lectric car, you are oppressing the poor you say you are helping by being a DemoncRat !!!

I know that you prove here everyday, the hypocrisy in you is strong !

what are you blabbering about sine?   and why do you keep posting such obviously bullshit articles?

Except you still need to emit carbon dioxide to charge those car batteries.

Nutwit says truth and common sense is blabbering now,

wonder what he calls his constant BS post he makes here daily, ad nauseum ???

 Why does your bigotry keep you from seeing the truth, nutwit ???

Exactly Dan, tell it to the block heads here !

Do some research before responding so quickly.  Do you even know how an electric motor works?


You're not doing a very good job of educating me then.

Wvi t is playing stupid.  He's pretending not to know that electric cars are not affordable to the poor.

yes I know how an electric motor works dan.   and it's not just because some iron is rotating by itself in space is it dan?

what's this about electric cars for the poor dan?    why do you suddently inject this new morsel into your yammering?

You really got nutwit here babbling away Dan, (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

more like dan's blabbering.   and for some reason you just keep posting crazy articles.

do neither of you believe in anything more than "trolling the libs"?

sine you seem to take an inordinate about of trouble to find articles that go against established fact.   it's like your trolling yourself in your pursuit of alternated explanations.

and dan spends lots of time working on his crazy stuff for some reason.   

neither of you seems to really have any interested in reality but both of you are entertaining in your yammering mess.

My interest in reality is in the translation my Latin nom de plume SQN, nutwit

Because you are easily duped by popular opinion, I must seem a radical or revolutionary to your pea brain then, agreed (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell





But feel free to continue blabbering your gibberish, that I so easily debunk here daily child  !

hahahahhhahahahaa,  you're such a goof sine.

I was agreeing with your post for a change here nutwit !!!

Yeah, we know already you say that truth logic and common sense is, goofy

Just like your believing that criminal Clinton would be the POTUS now, so very goofy of you, isn’t it ???
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

I don’t see where you ever post any truth or logic sine.

Then you are blinded being up to your eyebrows believing your own Bull Shit nutwit

I always back up my debunking of your BS here

Why can’t you do the same ?