Have to wonder how this will effect the EV aficionados

Lynnmor wrote:
Obviously you prefer anti-business publications.

Nope, just prefer those that are factual.:W Try WSJ if you need to wean off the crazy talk.

shelbyfv wrote:
Fox Business? Enough said....:S

Obviously you prefer anti-business publications.

Those that want the GND should have already unplugged from any and all sources of energy that have any environmental impact. Hint..... there are none, but unplug anyway.

Fox Business? Enough said....:S

Should I find a sarcasm font for the seditious part?
The point of the OP was to promote a falsehood.
There by stirring dissention
thereby spreading misinformation
thereby developing a cult
resulting in January 6th!

Bumpyroad wrote:

pitch wrote:
I do not think that article is in the ballpark, let alone correct. That article was authored and published by people with an agenda.

all of these articles are produced by people "with an agenda". regardless of which side of the discussion they support. and seditious, you gotta be kidding.
bumpy

Yep, the problem with science is that one can cherry pick the data needed to support their view.
At my age I have seen the all the great new Eco friendly ways to create electricity.

Hydro was the big idea in the 30's to 50's, clean and reliable, created lakes for recreation, BUT without fish ladders killed off fish.

50's to 70's it was Nukes, Clean and safe, then came Three Mile Island, and the issue of storage of the spent fuel.

70's to 2000's cleaner fossil fuels, more efficient ways of burning coal, oil and natural gas.

2000's to present, wind and solar, we are faced with ugly fields of solar arrays and wind generation farms. Wind is have unexpected issues with the blades breaking down faster then expected, solar has the issue of disposing of old panels.

pitch wrote:
I do not think that article is in the ballpark, let alone correct. That article was authored and published by people with an agenda.

all of these articles are produced by people "with an agenda". regardless of which side of the discussion they support. and seditious, you gotta be kidding.
bumpy

I do not think that article is in the ballpark, let alone correct. That article was authored and published by people with an agenda.
You petroleum fetishists need not worry. There will be use for your poison in one form or another for centuries to come.
I understand some one having questions about energy sources going forward, but there is NO reason for me to even attempt to understand why anyone would try to not only resist but to actively discourage development and actually put down another energy source. Seems absolutely short sighted and idiotic to me!
Maybe even seditious!