Comments on: James Woolsey: ‘Plug-in hybrids for U.S. security, climate’ http://earthsky.org/human-world/plug-in-hybrids-might-benefit-us-security-climate A Clear Voice for Science Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:44:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Benjamin Napier http://earthsky.org/human-world/plug-in-hybrids-might-benefit-us-security-climate/comment-page-1#comment-5021 Benjamin Napier Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:18:01 +0000 http://208.96.63.114/?p=197#comment-5021 <p>Electric cars will only reduce our “carbon footprint” if we build a bunch of nuclear power plants real fast. Electric cars use more energy than gasoline powered cars. Gasoline and diesel are the most easily stored energy we know of that is practical to run an automobile on.</p> <p>Solar and wind generated electricy have absolutely no chance of replacing the electric power we use now. If we try to power our cars on electriciy, we will need massive amounts of power just for the cars.</p> <p>Do not just beleive me. Please get out a calculator and take the time to learn for yourself. Look at the theoretical efficiency of any sort of power plant. Then, look at the effiencies of the step up transformers, the transmission lines and the stepdown transformers. then look at the efficiencies of the local grid and the local transformers. Then look at the abysmal efficiencies of battery chargers. And, keep in mind that reality is worse than theory. If you will do this, you will find that electric cars failed over one hudred years ago for a reason.</p> <p>Please be rational and use a calculator, not a knee jerk reaction to plaintive cries from the uninformed and the shyster politicians.</p> Electric cars will only reduce our “carbon footprint” if we build a bunch of nuclear power plants real fast. Electric cars use more energy than gasoline powered cars. Gasoline and diesel are the most easily stored energy we know of that is practical to run an automobile on.

Solar and wind generated electricy have absolutely no chance of replacing the electric power we use now. If we try to power our cars on electriciy, we will need massive amounts of power just for the cars.

Do not just beleive me. Please get out a calculator and take the time to learn for yourself. Look at the theoretical efficiency of any sort of power plant. Then, look at the effiencies of the step up transformers, the transmission lines and the stepdown transformers. then look at the efficiencies of the local grid and the local transformers. Then look at the abysmal efficiencies of battery chargers. And, keep in mind that reality is worse than theory. If you will do this, you will find that electric cars failed over one hudred years ago for a reason.

Please be rational and use a calculator, not a knee jerk reaction to plaintive cries from the uninformed and the shyster politicians.

]]> By: Deborah Byrd http://earthsky.org/human-world/plug-in-hybrids-might-benefit-us-security-climate/comment-page-1#comment-7561 Deborah Byrd Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:11:40 +0000 http://208.96.63.114/?p=197#comment-7561 <p>Please read this excellent post in Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog, based on a paper that has just been accepted for publication …</p> <p>Cool Spells Normal in a Warming World http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/cool-spells-in-a-warming-world/</p> Please read this excellent post in Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog, based on a paper that has just been accepted for publication …

Cool Spells Normal in a Warming World http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/cool-spells-in-a-warming-world/

]]> By: mememine69 http://earthsky.org/human-world/plug-in-hybrids-might-benefit-us-security-climate/comment-page-1#comment-7568 mememine69 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:59:39 +0000 http://208.96.63.114/?p=197#comment-7568 <p>The <span class="caps">NOAA</span> is breaking ranks and others will follow soon in abandoning this failed theory: <br /> Figures are for North America.<br /> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html</p> <p>2006 – 2008 Trend = -44.25 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2005 – 2008 Trend = -16.35 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2004 – 2008 Trend = -1.50 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2003 – 2008 Trend = -0.69 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2002 – 2008 Trend = -2.47 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2001 – 2008 Trend = -0.17 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 2000 – 2008 Trend = -0.74 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 1999 – 2008 Trend = -1.08 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 1998 – 2008 Trend = -1.77 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span><br /> 1997 – 2008 Trend = -0.15 degF / Decade <span class="caps">COOLING</span></p> <p><b><strong>1996 – 2008 Trend = 0.92 degF / Decade</b></strong> <span class="caps">WARMING</span></p> <span class="caps">CLIMATE</span> <span class="caps">CHANGE</span> is just weather for pussies. Get over it! And stop scaring my kids, <span class="caps">FREAKS</span>! The NOAA is breaking ranks and others will follow soon in abandoning this failed theory:
Figures are for North America.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

2006 – 2008 Trend = -44.25 degF / Decade COOLING
2005 – 2008 Trend = -16.35 degF / Decade COOLING
2004 – 2008 Trend = -1.50 degF / Decade COOLING
2003 – 2008 Trend = -0.69 degF / Decade COOLING
2002 – 2008 Trend = -2.47 degF / Decade COOLING
2001 – 2008 Trend = -0.17 degF / Decade COOLING
2000 – 2008 Trend = -0.74 degF / Decade COOLING
1999 – 2008 Trend = -1.08 degF / Decade COOLING
1998 – 2008 Trend = -1.77 degF / Decade COOLING
1997 – 2008 Trend = -0.15 degF / Decade COOLING

1996 – 2008 Trend = 0.92 degF / Decade WARMING

CLIMATE CHANGE is just weather for pussies.
Get over it! And stop scaring my kids, FREAKS!

]]>