Global Scams

I left the following comment at

I like the way you address  the issues in your blog, but am puzzled how you deduce that non gasoline powered cars will reduce the need for CO2 emitting fuels.

As you correctly state, a significant percentage of electricity in the US (and the world) is generated by the use of oil (and coal).
This generation represents the difference between what can be generated by hydro and other non CO2 emitting fuels, and the actual current demand for electricity.

If cars are to be powered by stored electricity or hydrogen, currently that load will fall on the oil/gas/coal electricity generating capacity, thereby simply increasing and moving (at great cost) the CO2 emissions from one place to another. Apart from nuclear generation(which is unpopular but definitely a solution), the other methods of generation are unlikely to be able to take up the above short fall in generation.

So there is no easy answer.

But of course, you will. realise that I believe that CO2 is a friendly gas, essential for life on this planet and we are still very safe at concentrations of 1000 ppmv which will actually aid agricultural production enormously.



globalscams says:

June 16, 2010 at 2:07 am

In the USA, 3-4 percent of power generation is fueled by oil. However the big push in the USA is for green energy development which I support. However that development produces ELECTRICITY and as can be seen that would only replace 3-4 percent of oil in the USA.

If we are to seriously dent the use of oil in the USA then we need to replace what oil does……In the USA 75 percent of all oil is used for making GASOLINE, Diesel, jet fuels. The only real way to approach that is to replace autos that burn gasoline with battery operated cars.

Those millions of electricity drinking autos would then be recharged with electricity provided by GREEN technologies such as Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal sources which are green and hence the reduction of Co2 would easily meet any protocols the World is calling for by taking gasoline burning vehicles off the roads and replacing their energy needs with electricity not powered by fossil fuels but the GREEN ENERGY power generation that are constantly pushed by the Environmentalists. Everyone wins.

All the methods of generation you mention are either only suitable for supplimentary generation or are very expensive.
Expensive means two things, 1. They cost a lot of money. 2. They use up a lot of physical resources.

This means that 1. We are liable to break our economies over the capital cost of them. 2. The physical production, mining etc may further threaten the environment and also have a significant carbon footprint.

Geothermal sources are rare and can never play a major role. And they are also expensive. I know that because my country is a pioneer in that sort of generation.

Then consider what materials are used in batteries and how the extraction of those will effect the environment.

So before you start saying that it will be “easy”, I suggest you think about costing it all out and then thinking how you and your family will be effected.

Then think “What if CO2 does not cause global warming?” and start looking for some definitive proof.

Maybe CO2 will be the lesser bogey after all, especially as warm weather and increased CO2  concentrations increase agricultural and viticulture production.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: