Greta is at it..AGAIN

[SHARK]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

The funny thing is, these climate yahoos who spend all their time shrieking about reducing carbon, seem to be clueless to the fact that the carbon they are advocating for elimination is them.

That's because the carbon they think will be eliminated first is us. The elites at Davos literally called the people of flyover country "useless eaters." They want most of us to die and the rest be contained to "15 minute" cities where we'll eat bugs and have to rent everything, even our clothes, from them... while they are free to travel the world on private jets, eat the finest delicacies, and live in luxury mansions out in nature.

And we must all comply because they believe they DESERVE it. They're all scions multigenerational wealth told from practically birth that they were better than everyone else, all going to the same elite schools and getting jobs in hedge funds, think tanks, and the government thanks to all their connections.

But they are so damnably insulated from reality, practically bred to be sociopaths with their ideas never allowed to be challenged, that they have no idea how anything actually works.

Some grifter tells them they can make massive profits investing in and pushing EVs (and that it's good for the environment) and they all invest and then the elites in government pass subsidies to send billions of taxpayer dollars to develop EVs and pass regulations requiring ICE vehicles be banned and that 75% of the vehicles sold by 2030 must be EVs. And they pat themselves on the back for being such good people.

It doesn't even occur to them that it takes more emissions to mine the material for a single EV battery than an ICE will produce in its entire lifetime. That even more emissions will come from the power plants needed to charge them. That the majority of car emissions these days are from the TIRES wearing on the roads and EVs heavier weight produces multiple times those emissions over an ICE vehicle.

They have no concept of how electricity is produced and the load required to actually charge even the few percent of electric vehicles in service now, nor the inability of non-elites to afford them (or they do and see taking away the non-elite's ability to travel as a bonus).

Nor do they understand that all their luxuries depend on the transportation infrastructure that runs on fossil fuels. Many of them legitimately believe food just magically appears at the markets (and those that do know better see most of the planet starving while they use their wealth to continue to eat as a bonus).

They are virtually all midwits to idiots who think they're geniuses and are psychologically incapable of thinking past the first stage of their harebrained schemes. Everyone will comply because they MUST.

That people might not want to be starved to death or crowded into hellhole cities to eat bugs and labor for the elites without even being allowed to own even your own clothes isn't even something they've considered.

Which is why, time and again throughout history, when the people have had enough, the idiot elites end up hanging from trees or rolled into mass graves; either by the people themselves or by the fed up populace leaving the gates open for someone else to do it for them.

Working people are nearing (or already at) the end of their ropes. They see lawless invaders and criminals being coddled while they're being threatened with the loss of everything if they attempt to fight back against being robbed, raped and murdered... or use the wrong impossible to guess pronoun or refuse to let the State genitally mutilate their kids.

I'll be honest. President Trump winning and being allowed to restore the Rule of Law is likely these idiots' last chance to avoid the righteous wrath of the Men Who Wanted To Be Left Alone. It would be a pressure valve release on the utter hatred for the government and the elites I listen to at breakfast every time I go out.

But the idiots are still cooking up plans to prevent it; the latest being throwing control of the House to the Democrats through RINO resignations (see Buck and his claimed cronies) so that they can either pass a law to declare President Trump ineligible or just refuse to certify the election and keep Biden in power.

That is their current proclaimed plan; to tell possibly 100 million voters "Nuh Uh! Because we say so!"

And the idiots think it will work. They think denying millions upon millions a voice, fair trials, the ability to feed their children, and then take away their hope of being able to change it peacefully through elections will let them hold onto power?

As an actually intelligent Democrat (JFK, who's views then would be to the right of Donald Trump's today) once said; "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

If they were smart, they would let the popular will of the people elect Donald Trump and quietly slink off to enjoy their already purloined billions. The somewhat frustrating thing is that most people would actually let them if they'd just get out of the way and stop making it worse.

But they're not smart, they're just well-educated idiots.

Greetings!

Absolutely right, Chris!

That is why Judgment and Wrath is coming. There shall be no mercy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Mistwell]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

Well, Japanese car manufacturers are resisting, and now a French one too.

EVs are a scam, just like Solar and Wind, sure the last two have their uses but as a replacement for fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.

Nuclear was and IS the only hope we have to generate enough electricity without polluting, which makes even more obvious the clear anti-human impetus behind those who are against it.

I drive a plug-in hybrid and it's definitely not a scam. I save so much money, and there is nothing wrong with saving money. You don't have to care at all about environmental issues to appreciate filling a 10 gallon tank once every month and a half instead of a 15 gallon tank once every week.

EVs ARE a scam, because they are being sold as "save the planet!" which, if you cared to do a little research would know it's not just false, it's the opposite since you end up causing way more enviromental damage in their manufacturing.

Enviromental damage you can't offset during their lifetime.

"But I'm saving money!"

So you don't care about the environment? Is that what you're telling us?

Yes. That is what I am saying. I don't make my car buying decisions based on their environmental impact. I didn't buy it to save the planet. My car is neither going to save nor destroy the planet. It's just a vehicle. I bought it because I did the calculation and, given my ability to plug-in at work, and the cost to me of the car (bought at the peak of the pandemic when car dealers were desperate to make a sale when nobody was commuting except me) I knew it would save me money. Factors included I found it comfortable and roomy enough for my needs and capable of driving long distances using gasoline on the rare occasion I need to do that, which saved a lot of money on our vacation to Wyoming (about 50mpg on gas-only vs the 15mpg our other car gets). Saving money helps my family.

That's what sold me on the car. No scam involved. Nobody tried to sell it to me based on environmental factors. I just don't like spending more money on gasoline than I need to.

If you feel some patriotic duty to spend your hard earned money on gasoline, more power to you. We all have our hobbies.

As for your savings...

How much cheaper would the gas be if their carbon taxes didn't exist? How much cheaper if Biden wasn't openly hostile to American fossil fuels while kissing the ass of dictators and terrorists to import the same from them?

If I ever move to an alternate universe where different things happen then I will take that into consideration. I happen to live in this world however, and I am not responsible for what happens in other alternate universes in my decisions to buy a vehicle here.

Then what happens to the EV's batteries once they are useless? You also don't care about THAT contamination?

Yes. I do not care. Humans are inventive. I am sure they will figure out something clever to do with them.

What about the blades of the windmills? Non-Degradable, Non-Recoclable, you also don't care about that? Or the solar panels once they're useless? Too expensive to try and recover the little valuable materials in them. You don't care about that either?

I'm PRO Nuclear and Gas BECAUSE I'm concerned with the environment and believe in evidence based solutions and not wishfull thinking.

My car has neither windmill blades nor solar panels.

Did you miss I am pro-nuclear above? I am pro-gas too. My vehicle also uses gasoline. It would be great if it used electricity generated by nuclear plants too. Alas, the nearest nuclear plant is too far from my home.

Good for you that you're an environmentalist. We all have out hobbies and I hope that is a fulfilling one for you. It's not that I am anti-environment. It's just not a top 3 cause for me.

[GeekyBugle]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

Well, Japanese car manufacturers are resisting, and now a French one too.

EVs are a scam, just like Solar and Wind, sure the last two have their uses but as a replacement for fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.

Nuclear was and IS the only hope we have to generate enough electricity without polluting, which makes even more obvious the clear anti-human impetus behind those who are against it.

I drive a plug-in hybrid and it's definitely not a scam. I save so much money, and there is nothing wrong with saving money. You don't have to care at all about environmental issues to appreciate filling a 10 gallon tank once every month and a half instead of a 15 gallon tank once every week.

EVs ARE a scam, because they are being sold as "save the planet!" which, if you cared to do a little research would know it's not just false, it's the opposite since you end up causing way more enviromental damage in their manufacturing.

Enviromental damage you can't offset during their lifetime.

"But I'm saving money!"

So you don't care about the environment? Is that what you're telling us?

Yes. That is what I am saying. I don't make my car buying decisions based on their environmental impact. I didn't buy it to save the planet. My car is neither going to save nor destroy the planet. It's just a vehicle. I bought it because I did the calculation and, given my ability to plug-in at work, and the cost to me of the car (bought at the peak of the pandemic when car dealers were desperate to make a sale when nobody was commuting except me) I knew it would save me money. Factors included I found it comfortable and roomy enough for my needs and capable of driving long distances using gasoline on the rare occasion I need to do that, which saved a lot of money on our vacation to Wyoming (about 50mpg on gas-only vs the 15mpg our other car gets). Saving money helps my family.

That's what sold me on the car. No scam involved. Nobody tried to sell it to me based on environmental factors. I just don't like spending more money on gasoline than I need to.

If you feel some patriotic duty to spend your hard earned money on gasoline, more power to you. We all have our hobbies.

As for your savings...

How much cheaper would the gas be if their carbon taxes didn't exist? How much cheaper if Biden wasn't openly hostile to American fossil fuels while kissing the ass of dictators and terrorists to import the same from them?

If I ever move to an alternate universe where different things happen then I will take that into consideration. I happen to live in this world however, and I am not responsible for what happens in other alternate universes in my decisions to buy a vehicle here.

Then what happens to the EV's batteries once they are useless? You also don't care about THAT contamination?

Yes. I do not care. Humans are inventive. I am sure they will figure out something clever to do with them.

What about the blades of the windmills? Non-Degradable, Non-Recoclable, you also don't care about that? Or the solar panels once they're useless? Too expensive to try and recover the little valuable materials in them. You don't care about that either?

I'm PRO Nuclear and Gas BECAUSE I'm concerned with the environment and believe in evidence based solutions and not wishfull thinking.

My car has neither windmill blades nor solar panels.

Did you miss I am pro-nuclear above? I am pro-gas too. My vehicle also uses gasoline. It would be great if it used electricity generated by nuclear plants too. Alas, the nearest nuclear plant is too far from my home.

Good for you that you're an environmentalist. We all have out hobbies and I hope that is a fulfilling one for you. It's not that I am anti-environment. It's just not a top 3 cause for me.

"I didn't buy my car to save the planet! Ergo the propaganda used to sell EVs doesn't exist! Ergo EVs aren't a scam!"

It's all part of the same scam, a scam you're paying for with your taxes in the form of carbon tax or subsidies to the con-men selling the "solution" to save the planet.

The fact that YOU didn't fall for the propaganda doesn't negate it.

Also, no, I'm not an "enviromentalist", but I do think we should pollute as little as possible, which means Nuclear in electricity generation plus damns, plus geotermal maybe and gasdoline for vehicles and abolishing the carbon tax AND the subsidies to the con men.

[Garry G]

To be fair I'm not sure Greta was around for most of the old nuclear arguments.

[yosemitemike]

EVs are a scam,

I drive a plug-in hybrid

These are not the same thing. 

[Silverblade]

To be fair I'm not sure Greta was around for most of the old nuclear arguments.

To be fair, considering what is coming out of her mouth, she's not fully there in the head either for all the current arguments.

[GeekyBugle]

To be fair I'm not sure Greta was around for most of the old nuclear arguments.

To be fair, considering what is coming out of her mouth, she's not fully there in the head either for all the current arguments.

"Arguments" meaning unfounded and fanatical fearmongering.

[jhkim]

As for your savings...

How much cheaper would the gas be if their carbon taxes didn't exist? How much cheaper if Biden wasn't openly hostile to American fossil fuels while kissing the ass of dictators and terrorists to import the same from them?

I'm PRO Nuclear and Gas BECAUSE I'm concerned with the environment and believe in evidence based solutions and not wishfull thinking.

I agree about nuclear -- but while gas is cleaner than coal, it still produces a huge amount of pollution. We've been trained into smog just being a normal part of life just because exhaust fumes has been around for so long. But there are 60,000 early deaths a year from air pollution just in the U.S. alone. It's well documented the effects of particulates, ground level ozone, and other pollutants. That's over a half dozen Chernobyls every year, not because of accidents, but from expected normal operation.

EVs are being pushed now, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the cumulative effort spent to push gas and oil. For over fifty years, U.S. politicians have known that the best way to buy votes is low prices at the gas pump. Pursuing cheap gas has driven our endless interventions in the Middle East, as well as costly subsidies and other government spending.

Oil companies don't have anywhere close to the amount of regulation that nuclear companies do, even though fossil fuel pollution have caused vastly more damage.

[GeekyBugle]

As for your savings...

How much cheaper would the gas be if their carbon taxes didn't exist? How much cheaper if Biden wasn't openly hostile to American fossil fuels while kissing the ass of dictators and terrorists to import the same from them?

I'm PRO Nuclear and Gas BECAUSE I'm concerned with the environment and believe in evidence based solutions and not wishfull thinking.

I agree about nuclear -- but while gas is cleaner than coal, it still produces a huge amount of pollution. We've been trained into smog just being a normal part of life just because exhaust fumes has been around for so long. But there are 60,000 early deaths a year from air pollution just in the U.S. alone. It's well documented the effects of particulates, ground level ozone, and other pollutants. That's over a half dozen Chernobyls every year, not because of accidents, but from expected normal operation.

EVs are being pushed now, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the cumulative effort spent to push gas and oil. For over fifty years, U.S. politicians have known that the best way to buy votes is low prices at the gas pump. Pursuing cheap gas has driven our endless interventions in the Middle East, as well as costly subsidies and other government spending.

Oil companies don't have anywhere close to the amount of regulation that nuclear companies do, even though fossil fuel pollution have caused vastly more damage.

Unless you have cheap and reliable electricity production (nuclear) good luck replacing Gas for cooking without causing billions to die, not even with that EVS are a better solution than Gasoline, have you seen how they srtip mine to extract the minerals for their batteries?

There's no solutions only trade offs, you have to go with the energy that won't cause billions to die from hunger, most of the pollution is from China, India and the third world, good luck convincing them they need to die/stay poor so you can feel virtuous.

We don't have a replacement that's equally energy dense as fossil fuels, what are you going to use to power the cargo ships? The airplanes? The tractors to produce food? EVS can't replace fossil fuels.

BUT, if we managed to replace ALL electricity generation with nuclear then electric kitchens could be an option (even though there's lots of things those can't do), but you'd still be looking for a replacement for gasoline/diesel. Something equally or more energy dense than....

Hydrogen is an option, if we manage to create cars that won't explode in our city streets... IF we manage to generate/extract Hydrogen cheaper than Oil.

If not, then we need to find ways to offset the pollution from fossil fuels, maybe bio-reactors growing fitoplancton to release in the oceans? Maybe switching back to wood for furniture instead of plastics and metal?

Wood is CO2 trapped, if we prevent it from rooting it stays trapped, we can plant trees to harvest to produce the wood to produce the furniture.

But "enviromentalists" stoped us from using wood, paper and replacing them with plastics...

It's almost as if Big-Oil was paying them to malign Nuclear and to push for plastics...

No simple solutions to be had, and whoever tells you there's one is lying.

[Silverblade]

There's no solutions only trade offs, you have to go with the energy that won't cause billions to die from hunger, most of the pollution is from China, India and the third world, good luck convincing them they need to die/stay poor so you can feel virtuous.


No simple solutions to be had, and whoever tells you there's one is lying.

This is the honest truth.  It's a hard pill to swallow but the truth.

[Brad]

With that out of the way, a couple points...nuke is best way to go for meeting actual power needs as more nations are brought up to higher living standards. It is demonstrably true that wind and solar fucking suck as a reliable source of energy production. Wind isn't even good for supplemental power due to its limitations, and if you really get into how costly it is to make those monstrosities and the amount of energy required to build and maintain them, that's nothing more than faggotass snakeoil. Windmills will NEVER recover the amount of energy required to make them before ending up in the landfill. Windmills for actually MILLING, sure, or pumping water like old school farm ones, absolutely. For reliable power generation? Retardation level 9000. Solar sucks because it's impossible to reliably power something in real time without batteries and needs some very, very large panels to become useful. I think pursuing solar tech is a good idea, but really we just need some giant ass solar collectors up in space that beam down energy to power stations.

Second point: EVs are the biggest scam of the past 100 years. They are pure trash and the only people who don't think so are morons. They're unreliable, take a long time to charge compared to how long it takes to put gas in your car, don't work in a lot of weather conditions, and require tons of resources to produce the batteries which are basically toxic waste when they no longer work. More snakeoil. Hybrids, I think that's a good compromise for the most part, but a good diesel motor is better overall and requires a shitton less maintenance. I can get a 1.5L turbodiesel in a nice sedan, average 45-50 MPG. My dad has a 6.7 Cummins and gets 23-25 on the freeway, 15 when pulling a max load. That's a 7200# dry weight truck. Gasoline isn't as good, obviously (my truck is a 6.4 hemi and I am lucky to hit 15 in optimal conditions, maybe 12 realistically, but it'll get that 12 even with a 10k# trailer, so it just sucks no matter what). Why people are so wary about driving diesels is beyond me, but a lot of them around here just think of loud, smelly Mercedes diesels from 1980 that were popular for about two seconds. No one wants those old shitty smoke machines. But you'd be hard pressed to identify a low-sulfur modern diesel motor in a car now. Anyway, the point is I can take two identical vehicles, but one pure EV, the other a diesel, and the diesel is going to get nearly the same level of mileage out of a gallon of diesel, but with about 5-10x the longevity and zero toxic waste. I've seen the studies, once you compare apples to apples and fully comprehend that power coming from an outlet was produced by burning oil or coal, the EVs are pretty inefficient compared to a modern diesel motor. And they fucking suck in a lot of other ways. Okay, so your Tesla can do the 1/4 in like 8 seconds. And? Are you a drag racer now? If you want to design a special vehicle for drag racing, absolutely use an EV; they will smoke anything. But that's fucking DRAG RACING, it's not a commuter vehicle. I mean I can go get a top fuel dragster that will leave that Tesla in the dust, but driving that to work every day would be somewhat problematic. Electric motors are good for stuff like my weedeater and blower when I'm doing yardwork, so it's not like they are useless. But for traditional commuter vehicles, shipping, buses, etc.? Fucking dumb. They work on trains because of these things called rails...do you really want your car to essentially be just a small train?

Anyway, fuck EVs and fuck anyone who thinks they're a panacea. They're a status symbol and cool for acceleration and that's about it.

[yosemitemike]

...

[jhkim]

No simple solutions to be had, and whoever tells you there's one is lying.

I agree with you here -- but your posts have often implied that you know all there is to know about energy, and anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong and probably insane.

I would agree that the countering rhetoric and propaganda obscure a lot of points. There is anti-nuclear rhetoric that I disagree with along with a lot of other off-base environmentalist rhetoric. On the other hand, there is also a ton of propaganda and coverup from the oil industry that has been in power for a long time.

We don't have a replacement that's equally energy dense as fossil fuels, what are you going to use to power the cargo ships? The airplanes? The tractors to produce food? EVS can't replace fossil fuels.

I agree that we can't currently eliminate all fossil fuels, but we can greatly reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, and it would make big gains in human health and the environment - not to mention locally getting the U.S. off dependence on the Middle East. The vast majority of gasoline use in the U.S. is personal commuting and trucking, which are both great cases for electrification. In personal transport, plug-in hybrids are a great option that doesn't pollute for commuting but keeps the option of long nonstop road trips.

For cargo ships, nuclear power is a well-proven option that has been used to run ships for decades. Electric tractors are already a great option for smaller farms and for much of the smaller farm equipment. On some modern farms, a lot of what used to be done by giant sprayers is now done by drones.

Anyway, the point is I can take two identical vehicles, but one pure EV, the other a diesel, and the diesel is going to get nearly the same level of mileage out of a gallon of diesel, but with about 5-10x the longevity and zero toxic waste.

Oil drilling and oil refineries produce billions of tons of toxic waste water and other byproducts; and the diesel exhaust itself is toxic that is dumped into the air. This should be patently obvious. Does anyone want to sit in a closed garage with a running diesel engine? I'm not even saying that the EV is better -- but there is *no* option to produce energy without toxins and potential pollution. It's all a question of how much, what types, and how it is handled.

The balance between these depends on how the electricity for the EV is generated. If it is coming from a coal plant, then I suspect it may be worse. If it's coming from a nuclear plant, then the impact is probably going to be much less.

[GeekyBugle]

No simple solutions to be had, and whoever tells you there's one is lying.

I agree with you here -- but your posts have often implied that you know all there is to know about energy, and anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong and probably insane.

I would agree that the countering rhetoric and propaganda obscure a lot of points. There is anti-nuclear rhetoric that I disagree with along with a lot of other off-base environmentalist rhetoric. On the other hand, there is also a ton of propaganda and coverup from the oil industry that has been in power for a long time.

We don't have a replacement that's equally energy dense as fossil fuels, what are you going to use to power the cargo ships? The airplanes? The tractors to produce food? EVS can't replace fossil fuels.

I agree that we can't currently eliminate all fossil fuels, but we can greatly reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, and it would make big gains in human health and the environment - not to mention locally getting the U.S. off dependence on the Middle East. The vast majority of gasoline use in the U.S. is personal commuting and trucking, which are both great cases for electrification. In personal transport, plug-in hybrids are a great option that doesn't pollute for commuting but keeps the option of long nonstop road trips.

For cargo ships, nuclear power is a well-proven option that has been used to run ships for decades. Electric tractors are already a great option for smaller farms and for much of the smaller farm equipment. On some modern farms, a lot of what used to be done by giant sprayers is now done by drones.

Anyway, the point is I can take two identical vehicles, but one pure EV, the other a diesel, and the diesel is going to get nearly the same level of mileage out of a gallon of diesel, but with about 5-10x the longevity and zero toxic waste.

Oil drilling and oil refineries produce billions of tons of toxic waste water and other byproducts; and the diesel exhaust itself is toxic that is dumped into the air. This should be patently obvious. Does anyone want to sit in a closed garage with a running diesel engine? I'm not even saying that the EV is better -- but there is *no* option to produce energy without toxins and potential pollution. It's all a question of how much, what types, and how it is handled.

The balance between these depends on how the electricity for the EV is generated. If it is coming from a coal plant, then I suspect it may be worse. If it's coming from a nuclear plant, then the impact is probably going to be much less.

I don't know EVERYTHING about energy, but I've made my research and know a lot more than ANYONE in the "green movement" about both energy and economics. If you think we don't have to take economics into account you're smoking something.

Nuclear ships are a reality indeed, how much does the smallest nuclear reactor weight? Important because that cuts on the cargo capacity. Furthermore, is ANY government willing to allow nuclear powered ships on the hands of private citizens?

Do you know how much more do the techs for those cost over your regular engine mechanic? Important because it cuts into margins/increases prices.

As for land cargo... NO EVs can't compete with ICE trucks, BECAUSE the batteries weight the same full and empty and take a lot more to charge than a tank to get filled. The first cuts on the range and cargo and the second cuts on the range and time of delivery. We need an energy source equally energy dense (or more, like hydrogen) to be able to use on trucks.

Go ask the farmers how happy they are with Deere and company about their modern farm equipment...

[Brad]

Oil drilling and oil refineries produce billions of tons of toxic waste water and other byproducts; and the diesel exhaust itself is toxic that is dumped into the air. This should be patently obvious. Does anyone want to sit in a closed garage with a running diesel engine? I'm not even saying that the EV is better -- but there is *no* option to produce energy without toxins and potential pollution. It's all a question of how much, what types, and how it is handled.

The balance between these depends on how the electricity for the EV is generated. If it is coming from a coal plant, then I suspect it may be worse. If it's coming from a nuclear plant, then the impact is probably going to be much less.

No, diesels don't produce toxic waste. Exhaust emissions are not fucking toxic waste, retard. Shit you have to bury 100 feet underground IS toxic waste. It's like you just can't admit anything that goes against some horseshit world view you hold. "Toxic waste" in the way I used it isn't just something that can be dangerous, it's specifically referring to chemicals/toxins/whatever that cannot be effectively dealt with beyond extreme measures. Breathing in diesel exhaust will kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning a billion times sooner than anything else in there. But you know this, you're just a contrarian.

I don't know EVERYTHING about energy, but I've made my research and know a lot more than ANYONE in the "green movement" about both energy and economics. If you think we don't have to take economics into account you're smoking something.

Well, I'm in the "green movement" to some degree, but purely from an economic viewpoint. And I have published research in the field, so there's that. But I also don't think delusional takes on oil/coal being SO TERRIBLE OH MY GOD! have anything to do with the green alternatives absolutely sucking in all possible ways. Just remember who you're responding to...

EDIT: And by green alternatives, I mean the lefty retard versions, not legitimate ones like fission, speculative fusion, geothermal, oceanic, whatever. Those are all viable to some degree; but giant windmills are ugly, expensive, and useless, but the CCP gets massive kickbacks from their production so of course that's what lefties mean by green energy.