$300 million dollar reward for the development of more energy efficient vehicle battery

[Ford Jellymoulds]

WASHINGTON: Republican John McCain on Monday proposed a $300 million dollar reward for the development of more energy efficient vehicle battery and pressed for cleaner vehicle technology to break the U.S. of its dependence on foreign oil.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/...S-Elections.php

[Pioneer]

In addition, a so-called Clean Car Challenge would encourage U.S. automakers to develop zero-emission vehicles by offering consumers the incentive of a $5,000 tax credit when they purchase one.

 

 

I wonder what his definition of a "zero emission vehicle" is, since a plug-in electric vehicle is indirectly responsible for either more coal being burned, or more nuclear waste being generated. Unless the vehicles have solar cells on the roof, they generate emissions.

 

Hydrogen on the other hand, could be the answer. Depending on how the hydrogen is produced

[BlackHorse]

I wonder what his definition of a "zero emission vehicle" is, since a plug-in electric vehicle is indirectly responsible for either more coal being burned, or more nuclear waste being generated. Unless the vehicles have solar cells on the roof, they generate emissions.

 

Hydrogen on the other hand, could be the answer. Depending on how the hydrogen is produced

 

1. Pebble bed nuclear reactors do not generate toxic water waste like older water cooled reactors do.

 

2. New clean burning coal plants are far superior to old style plants reducing the pollution amount by roughly 90 to 95%.

 

You're never going to find out about that from the environmentalists because they are dogmatic. A coal plant could be shitting out rose pedals and humming birds and they would still be against it.

[Pioneer]

A coal plant could be shitting out rose pedals and humming birds and they would still be against it.

 

[Imawhosure]

1. Pebble bed nuclear reactors do not generate toxic water waste like older water cooled reactors do.

 

2. New clean burning coal plants are far superior to old style plants reducing the pollution amount by roughly 90 to 95%.

 

You're never going to find out about that from the environmentalists because they are dogmatic. A coal plant could be shitting out rose pedals and humming birds and they would still be against it.

 

And that is why the leaders of the eco kooks are getting nervous; as is the Middle East. If Americans educate themselves just slightly on the options open to them, then transform it into political will; the enviro fanatics, and the house of Saud will be out of business.......the former rather quickly, the latter within 15 years.

 

It really is honest to goodness truth. All that holds it up is the enviro nation in this country. Don't take my word for it, investigate it yourself.

 

FOOTNOTE: What you will discover if you care to look is NOT that it won't work, but the enviro nation screaming because of what they insist it will put into the air.

 

UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST STATED: There is no debate over if it is viable or not, just the enviros trying to put the kabosh on it by them screaming it will pollute. The debate actually is over how much it will pollute, with the builders saying one thing, the enviros stating another. To be honest, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which puts it right around where TODAYS refineries reside.

 

And the kicker?????? The cost of fuel with all taxes included while the refinery makes its FAIR profit? Under 2 bucks a gallon, lolol. And if we build enough of them, no more foreign oil imported, EVER..........as our coal reserves..........even taking into account expected growth will last over 250 years. If we can't devise an alternative by then, we deserve to walk!!!!!!!!!!