I Shall Call It "total Enviormental Impact!"

[outsydthebox]

I think EV's have a deffinite role to play in the future, but I think they'll be only one technology used. As far as the whole infrastructure/where to charge them and from what, I think it's all pretty academic really. There are a million ways to generate electricity, and the only questions are how much resources we have to put in, and how much we'll get out. Charging a battery with it once we've got it is hardly a great challenge of our century. My question remains; If lithium batteries are the best we've got and we want to go to an all EV world, Is there enough lithium? Sure we can recycle it, but we have to put batteries in a vehicle that replaces EVERY car on the planet, plus the MANY more that will be added between now and then. Seriously, I doubt we have that much. Also, I would really like someone to actually address the issue of cold weather operation. I'm not against EV at all, but we got to be real, It WON'T WORK in a northern winter. Not unless a quantum leap in batteries power density occurs. 'course the rural north is where it's coldest and the challenge of vehicle range is greatest at the same time. EV's will not take hold in the north. We will need a combination solution.
And we can't point to microelectronics as a predictor of the future of everything. There is a big, BIG difference in packing more computational power behind a prettier screen every year and using that trend to say cars of any kind MUST get cheaper and/or better ll the time. Granted, the more copies of something you make, the cheaper you can make it, but there's a limit in raw materials. A car is not a computer. It's a big metal box with a big metal engine, and a complex metal transmission. The cost of working all that metal into chapel will not be 1 tenth next decade what it costs today, despite they will have another 100 fold increase in computer capacity between now and then. The price of goods like steel and motors and batteries and labor fluctuate according to market forces, not by More's law.
I am all for exploring new technologies, but Supercaps I have little faith in. Sure a huge breakthrough could happen, but then again they might discover tomorrow that we can derive unlimited energy harnessing the brain energy in internet forums. I'm not putting my money on that one either. Can we build a better battery? Sure. Can we build a battery that's a million times better? probably not. And for Supercaps that is what we would need, a million-fold improvement in power density, and short of a miricle , it's NOT gonna happen. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to eat crow on that prediction. It would solve a LOT of problems, but I'm pretty sure based on 20+ years in electronics that this dog ain't gonna hunt.
That's why I stick to my multiple-source prediction for future of transportation. No one solution is presently looking like it will save us all. So with the game in the current lineup, there's no one winner.

Her is an alternative that no one here has talked about. pretty incredible stuff!

 

[RUCRAYZE]

TheConstitution recognizes that an INFORMED electorate is essential to liberty. Voting in ignorance is CONTRARY to the greater good, and opens opportunities for coruption and greed to undermine our intended system of governance; one that is held accountable to WE-the -people. It is our civic duty to cast an informed vote. If you can't do that, then do the next best thing: don't vote.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, the post I replied to ,stated he was upset and has decided to vote very strongly for a party, not mentioning it by name, my reasons and his seemed somewhat different, and I was supporting our rights too follow our convictions and to vote

BTY a very big jump for you to go from informed to ignorance. Anybody, for any reason who can vote , can set the perimeters of their choice,- If someone likes a candidate because he/she has a great smile, so be it. There is no standard for informed, unless these days you consider the millions being spent on commercials to "inform" us.

"coruption and greed" are the by-product of the lobbyists, politicians , unions, corporations and the millions and millions that are spent attempting to buy outcomes. Liberty can only be expressed by the vote, -no matter your measurement of "informed" or whatever your definition as ignorance. EVERY vote counts, for whatever reason it is cast, by reason, by emotion, by any measurement we chose.

Measuring ignorance vs informed is a very difficult task indeed.

 

[JEBar]

Measuring ignorance vs informed is a very difficult task indeed.

we stood in line at an early voting site for over a hour and a half last Friday .... shortly after getting in line a lady walked up and asked if we would like a sample Democratic ballot .... I thanked her and said no .... while we were still chatting, another lady walked up and asked if we would like a sample Republican ballot .... I thanked her and said no .... they laughed and said you must have already made up you mind and I indicated I had .... then one of them said that earlier each of them had offered a sample ballot to a lady who took them both .... after looking over the ballots the lady called them back over and said, "These aren't the same." ..

Jim

 

[Jim H]

we stood in line at an early voting site for over a hour and a half last Friday .... shortly after getting in line a lady walked up and asked if we would like a sample Democratic ballot .... I thanked her and said no .... while we were still chatting, another lady walked up and asked if we would like a sample Republican ballot .... I thanked her and said no .... they laughed and said you must have already made up you mind and I indicated I had .... then one of them said that earlier each of them had offered a sample ballot to a lady who took them both .... after looking over the ballots the lady called them back over and said, "These aren't the same." ..

Jim

Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence. There are too many people out there who have no clue about what the issues are, how the government operates, know little or nothing about the candidates/incumbents, and unfortunately vote for individuals who compromises their integrity for the sake of a political party or their personal benefit.

 

[Elio Amazed]

More oil has just been discovered this year in America than has ever been pumped in America from the beginning of time.

Yes indeed, it looks like the US has got enough oil for at least another 120 years.
The problem is getting it out of the rocks without strip mining a huge portion of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah!

Quote: "The cost of extracting the Green River oil at the moment would be higher than what it could be sold for."
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

Something just doesn't seem right with this picture.

In a Dec. 15, 2013 article, the CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources (company) is quoted as saying that the Permium basin with the potential of 50 billion barrels is the largest oil field in the US. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/15/this-shale-play-could-be-the-largest-oil-discovery.aspx

While back on Nov. 13, 1012, The Government Accountability Office and folks like American Shale Oil (company) are quoted as saying they estimate that the Green River Formation has 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil (it's in that first article).

The official world reserves number still stands @ approximately 1.5 trillion
Most experts feel it's closer to 1 trillion taking into account OPEC's tendency to inflate thier numbers.

I understand that some of the fracking for NG is also producing some modest amounts of oil.
Given the huge amount of fracking going on in the US, those individual modest amounts do add up.

More from that first article:
"This tantalizing bonanza, however, remains just out of reach, at least for now... And there are significant environmental obstacles.
The operation might require so much water it would compete with Denver and agriculture for vital supplies, the GAO report warned, could pollute underground streams, affect fish and other wildlife, and kick up so much dirt it would leave national monuments in a cloud of dust.
The hydrocarbons in Green River shale are more intimately bound up with the rock, so that fracking cannot release them. The shale has to be heated to 5,000 degrees Farenheit before it will give up its oil."

Neither one of these "finds" are new discoveries. People have known the oil was there for decades. I remember reading about oil trapped in shale in areas that had been pumped dry years ago. It wasn't considered an option because the tech didn't exist and it wasn't a sure thing that it would ever exist.

I truely believe that technology will eventually prevail for both the shale "reserves" and the EV. I'm not so sure the American auto industry is all that keen on reaching for the manditory average mpg of 54.5 by 2025 with the larger part of the US fleet powered by ICEs.

If there are 3 trillion barrels of oil in the rocks of Colorado and Utah, we'll get it if we have to ruin the landscape and the water tables to do so.

 

[Folks]

Yes indeed, it looks like the US has got enough oil for at least another 120 years.
The problem is getting it out of the rocks without strip mining a huge portion of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah!

Quote: "The cost of extracting the Green River oil at the moment would be higher than what it could be sold for."
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

Something just doesn't seem right with this picture.

In a Dec. 15, 2013 article, the CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources (company) is quoted as saying that the Permium basin with the potential of 50 billion barrels is the largest oil field in the US. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/15/this-shale-play-could-be-the-largest-oil-discovery.aspx

While back on Nov. 13, 1012, The Government Accountability Office and folks like American Shale Oil (company) are quoted as saying they estimate that the Green River Formation has 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil (it's in that first article).

The official world reserves number still stands @ approximately 1.5 trillion
Most experts feel it's closer to 1 trillion taking into account OPEC's tendency to inflate thier numbers.

I understand that some of the fracking for NG is also producing some modest amounts of oil.
Given the huge amount of fracking going on in the US, those individual modest amounts do add up.

More from that first article:
"This tantalizing bonanza, however, remains just out of reach, at least for now... And there are significant environmental obstacles.
The operation might require so much water it would compete with Denver and agriculture for vital supplies, the GAO report warned, could pollute underground streams, affect fish and other wildlife, and kick up so much dirt it would leave national monuments in a cloud of dust.
The hydrocarbons in Green River shale are more intimately bound up with the rock, so that fracking cannot release them. The shale has to be heated to 5,000 degrees Farenheit before it will give up its oil."

Neither one of these "finds" are new discoveries. People have known the oil was there for decades. I remember reading about oil trapped in shale in areas that had been pumped dry years ago. It wasn't considered an option because the tech didn't exist and it wasn't a sure thing that it would ever exist.

I truely believe that technology will eventually prevail for both the shale "reserves" and the EV. I'm not so sure the American auto industry is all that keen on reaching for the manditory average mpg of 54.5 by 2025 with the larger part of the US fleet powered by ICEs.

If there are 3 trillion barrels of oil in the rocks of Colorado and Utah, we'll get it if we have to ruin the landscape and the water tables to do so.

OK. Now if I could just get you to see that greedy power hungry politicians look for things like this to scare you into voting for them. All one has to see now is that both parties are guilty yet there is one party that will violate each and ever right to freedom you hold dear to take the power. Your own President started into Politics working for one of the biggest voting frauds in history right out of that political cesspool in Chicago .

 

[Mike W]

Just by driving the Elio you will immediately start to reduce oil consumption. Simple as that . Like I've said, it's not the final solution, just one of the steps toward it. There is no immediate fix, just steps towards it. Vehicles like hybrids do cut use of gasoline, though the total carbon footprint is larger than a vehicle whose parts are for the most part made in the USA. But even if the hybrids do even cut a little in the carbon footprint we are all responsible for making, let's buy it and use it. Every little bit helps. The Elio is still a cooler way to help the world.

 

[carzes]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, the post I replied to ,stated he was upset and has decided to vote very strongly for a party, not mentioning it by.......
"coruption and greed" are the by-product of the lobbyists, politicians , unions, corporations and the millions and millions that are spent attempting to buy outcomes. Liberty can only be expressed by the vote, -no matter your measurement of "informed" or whatever your definition as ignorance. EVERY vote counts, for whatever reason it is cast, by reason, by emotion, by any measurement we chose.

Measuring ignorance vs informed is a very difficult task indeed.

Sorry if it seemed I was undermining Folks's position, I meant to imply no such at all. To the contrary, he has a position on issues and has candidates he believes will support his principles, and that is what the whole thing is all about, so ROCK ON Folks! I was only referring to the voting=democracy part, which in technical terms may be correct, but I DO believe that people who vote in utter ignorance are doing NO service to the PRINCIPLES of democratic governance. And I realize this is way off topic here so I wasn't trying to get into a big thing about it. But just to clarify, I feel it is each individuals responsibility to determine for themselves in accordance with their own conscience if they have anything meaningful to contribute to the process, not that some test should be devised. I think that the whole "get out the vote" is good if the plan is to assist people who WANT to vote in doing so. But when it spills over into pressing for the ignorant/apathetic to vote just because they "should", someone has their OWN agenda. Not voting is the same as saying "I have no opinion". It IS our civic duty to form theranks of the INFORMED electorate, but if we can or will not do that, there is no point making decisions based on a coin toss or nicest tie contest. Should I vote for the Nazi party candidate or the KKK candidate because I like his smile despite having no idea what they stand for or what positions they'll take on issues I am equally unaware of? And if we are relying on campaign ads to educate voters we are doing a criminal disservice to our democracy, then again we have NO forum dedicated to the whole and actual truth from ANY candidates or political officeholders, just promoters of myriad agendas INCLUDING the press who's freedom from interference was constitutionalized for the purpose of ferreting out that exact truth. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to being one of those citizens who has NOT adequately educated mmyself on candidates or positions. I feel a certain shame in admitting that I have failed in that duty, but I will NOT be casting an ignorant vote in any political race as I feel that would be a much greater failure of my character and a detrement to our political process. NO, it's not because I'm just too lazy, the polling place is just down the hall from my office. May the voters choose wisely, and may freedom ring. I yield my soapbox.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

Sorry if it seemed I was undermining Folks's position, I meant to imply no such at all. To the contrary, he has a position on issues and has candidates he believes will support his principles, and that is what the whole thing is all about, so ROCK ON Folks! I was only referring to the voting=democracy part, which in technical terms may be correct, but I DO believe that people who vote in utter ignorance are doing NO service to the PRINCIPLES of democratic governance. And I realize this is way off topic here so I wasn't trying to get into a big thing about it. But just to clarify, I feel it is each individuals responsibility to determine for themselves in accordance with their own conscience if they have anything meaningful to contribute to the process, not that some test should be devised. I think that the whole "get out the vote" is good if the plan is to assist people who WANT to vote in doing so. But when it spills over into pressing for the ignorant/apathetic to vote just because they "should", someone has their OWN agenda. Not voting is the same as saying "I have no opinion". It IS our civic duty to form theranks of the INFORMED electorate, but if we can or will not do that, there is no point making decisions based on a coin toss or nicest tie contest. Should I vote for the Nazi party candidate or the KKK candidate because I like his smile despite having no idea what they stand for or what positions they'll take on issues I am equally unaware of? And if we are relying on campaign ads to educate voters we are doing a criminal disservice to our democracy, then again we have NO forum dedicated to the whole and actual truth from ANY candidates or political officeholders, just promoters of myriad agendas INCLUDING the press who's freedom from interference was constitutionalized for the purpose of ferreting out that exact truth. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to being one of those citizens who has NOT adequately educated mmyself on candidates or positions. I feel a certain shame in admitting that I have failed in that duty, but I will NOT be casting an ignorant vote in any political race as I feel that would be a much greater failure of my character and a detrement to our political process. NO, it's not because I'm just too lazy, the polling place is just down the hall from my office. May the voters choose wisely, and may freedom ring. I yield my soapbox.

Beautifully expressed, but just let me make one small change, which I had chosen not to do, but will now. And not to keep this going
If you don't think that the color of our current President's skin was THE major issue ( white and black) , then there is no resolve. I give you much credit and thanks for the effort you have put forth. let's agree to disagree,

 

[CompTrex]

Sorry if it seemed I was undermining Folks's position, I meant to imply no such at all. To the contrary, he has a position on issues and has candidates he believes will support his principles, and that is what the whole thing is all about, so ROCK ON Folks! I was only referring to the voting=democracy part, which in technical terms may be correct, but I DO believe that people who vote in utter ignorance are doing NO service to the PRINCIPLES of democratic governance. And I realize this is way off topic here so I wasn't trying to get into a big thing about it. But just to clarify, I feel it is each individuals responsibility to determine for themselves in accordance with their own conscience if they have anything meaningful to contribute to the process, not that some test should be devised. I think that the whole "get out the vote" is good if the plan is to assist people who WANT to vote in doing so. But when it spills over into pressing for the ignorant/apathetic to vote just because they "should", someone has their OWN agenda. Not voting is the same as saying "I have no opinion". It IS our civic duty to form theranks of the INFORMED electorate, but if we can or will not do that, there is no point making decisions based on a coin toss or nicest tie contest. Should I vote for the Nazi party candidate or the KKK candidate because I like his smile despite having no idea what they stand for or what positions they'll take on issues I am equally unaware of? And if we are relying on campaign ads to educate voters we are doing a criminal disservice to our democracy, then again we have NO forum dedicated to the whole and actual truth from ANY candidates or political officeholders, just promoters of myriad agendas INCLUDING the press who's freedom from interference was constitutionalized for the purpose of ferreting out that exact truth. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to being one of those citizens who has NOT adequately educated mmyself on candidates or positions. I feel a certain shame in admitting that I have failed in that duty, but I will NOT be casting an ignorant vote in any political race as I feel that would be a much greater failure of my character and a detrement to our political process. NO, it's not because I'm just too lazy, the polling place is just down the hall from my office. May the voters choose wisely, and may freedom ring. I yield my soapbox.

I agree with this to a point. I don't think that you need to be fully versed in every single issue and every vote, action, and comment that the candidate made. Yes, the more you know the better. However, for those not interested in spending massive amounts of time leafing through history and trying to determine truth from spin, there is an easy option. And that is to vote party. Because a person joins a party, and is supported by that party, you have a fairly good indication of where they stand on a majority of the issues.

1. Best. Do your homework and vote for the best candidate that meets your needs
2. Better. Figure out which party most of your beliefs side with and vote for the person in that party
3. Worst, and in my opinion, not acceptable, stay home and don't vote.

Even asking someone whom you respect and believe shares your values and priorities who they voted for, is better than not voting at all.

One more thing, and this is where I have a really hard time. I do look at the issues and study the candidates and know who I believe would best represent my beliefs. The problem comes in when that person probably doesn't have a chance of winning. Now what do I do? Vote for the guy that may not win, but is the best for me? Or vote for the guy that may not share my values exactly, but has a chance of beating the guy that is opposite to me. This is where third party candidates get murky.
So, since I'm fairly disenfranchised with the whole political process and think that it's corrupt and believe that, sadly, the American people no longer share the same views as me, I vote for the best candidate, whether they have a chance of winning or not. Then I can, with a clear conscience, say that I voted for who I though was the best candidate.
As an aside...last night restored my faith in the American people a bit, so that last bit becomes less of an issue.

Sorry G1. I'll stop now...