Sure there is. I used to lease a Civic Hybrid, which I was able to squeeze 50 MPG with a range of 600 miles on one tank, over the course of three years, with minimal pollution emissions. That could not have been achieved with either gas-only or electric-only, considering the pollution costs of getting that sort of mileage with either of the methods solo. How much pollution was created to get me 600 miles of range with electric-only? How much pollution was created to get me 600 miles of range with gas-only? How much pollution was created to get me 600 miles of range with the hybrid? I am going to bet the hybrid, but there is also another trade-off we have to consider... I acquiesce to the fact that there is a fuckton of pollution generated by manufacturing all those batteries to put in the car in the first place. So maybe everyone is correct. Electric only for the win. I dunno', I'm not an engineer. But then again, how many others here are? My intuition says hybrid is the least-impactful to the environment.
"Really?" You might want to think to yourself how "Prove it." might look a year or two or five from now, when all anyone need do is look back up the page, to see you have posted nothing but unsupported assertions. Pause a sec. Don't write "I'm not an engineer." Pause. Think.
### "...More people than they can support with their agriculture and their lack of fresh water resources." Well, in a single sentence, you just nailed why China -- *never* a country with a strong nautical history, is suddenly interested in building a navy, and expanding its 'sphere of influence' out 300-400 miles into the seas. https://www.meetup.com/Dancing-Naked-On-Wall-Street/messages/boards/thread/50466016 BTW, while I have been commenting on this for 5years?10years? I don't believe I have ever connected the growing desertification to China's activities -- only the shipping/resources/commerce end of things. As a long-time "water-watcher", I have to admit that it's *your* comments above that complete the picture for me. Sweet, that, and Thank You.[/QUOTE] First off I'm with you 100% on the economics of pricing externalities and putting a mechanism in place for least cost reduction. On the water issue though, to me water and energy are pretty much interchangeable because you can use energy to make unlimited amounts of fresh water. Even Arizona has billions of gallons of water available (subsurface for them), it just salty. So I really look at both energy and water as almost inextricably linked in shortfall areas.
It might not be that far off using radio waves generated by solar panels in space and beamed down. It'll happen. End of hydrocarbons forever. Not in our lifetime though. Watch this company. They are in bed with Musk too. http://www.solarenspace.com/solaren-space-solar/ssp-overview/#works Gotta love California dreamers and doer's.
Prove it. Show me all the data that proves that electric cars, from start of manufacturing process to end of the car's consumer life-cycle, produced less pollution than a gas-only vehicle. Prove it. Very simple question, with a very large data set and a VERY large number of variables to sift through.
Your reading comprehension suffers as well. Each of my responses was couched in logic, engineering, or economics. Try again. Read slower. Think.
No, they were not couched in logic, or engineering, or economics. You threw around big words like stoichiometry, and then a cock-eyed statement like this? "Hit Youtube, and you'll find M.I.T., Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UCDavis, and a number of other schools, have posted entire classes of math, econ, finance, -- and those are just the ones *I* might lust over. There must be all kinds of others." Well, that's bloody brilliant, isn't it. What are you blabbering about with the above statement? Is it a question? Does it prove a point? Not that I can see. So how is anything you said "couched" in logic, engineering or economics? Oh, that's right. Because your posts had statements, by you, that "INVOLVED" those subjects. Thus they were "COUCHED" in them. I see. Let me fashion my challenge in another way. OK? Disprove my theory that electric-only cars are, in the time between starting to be manufactured and through the end of the consumer life-cycle, less damaging to the environment than the same class of gas-only cars. Provide all the necessary data sets with your proof, along with the 5 bazillion variables involved in calculating it. Do you understand? How is YOUR comprehension of this language we are attempting to type with?
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/ This article leans towards the carbon life-cycle of the EV being superior to the Gas one, although *possibly* more costly upfront. Regardless, though, the comparison is far from over, given that the EV ecosystem has a long road of maturity and efficiency to further achieve, and gas does not.