Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: poldy <poldy@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:43:09 -0700
In article <p1XQl.77115$9J5.53170@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
KK <_KK_@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2009 21:33:55 -0700, poldy wrote:
In article <ZUzQl.41102$%_2.34186@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
KK <_KK_@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The energy source for those things is electricity - either to charge
the batteries or to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. And right
now, even if we made all autos battery- or hydrogen- powered, we'd just
be offloading the energy generation from relatively clean, modern
gasoline engines to stinky (mostly) coal-burning power plants. How
does that help?
Because it's easier to manage the emissions of a few thousand power
plants than it is to manage the emissions of tens or hundreds of
millions of gasoline engine cars.
Says who? You? Check out all the coal plants who don't scrub their
exhaust. They are *not* cleaner-burning than a current or recent year
auto engine.
Simple math.
It's easier to try to bring any number of plants into compliance with
emissions requirements than to try to do the same with probably several
thousand times more individual vehicles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: KK
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- References:
- 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: KK
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: lab~rat >:-)
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: KK
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: poldy
- Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- From: KK
- 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- Prev by Date: Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- Next by Date: Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- Previous by thread: Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- Next by thread: Re: 39MPG in 2016? What a douchebag.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|