Governor Hydrogen Hummer has a new car.

[NNadir]

Arnold Schwarzenegger's outrageous orange Dodge Challenger SRT8 is gorgeous despite being a gas guzzler

http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/hot-cars-of-the-stars/2168?nc#id=10

Of course, the useless "Brazillion solar roofs" bill caused many people to label Governor Hydrogen Hummer to be declared an "environmentalist" although it has done zero to phase out dangerous fossil fuels in that state. It hasn't produced a brazillion solar roofs either.

[tularetom]

1. If I was him, I wouldn't park that where any state employee could find it

Just after he proposed cutting their pay to the level of the federal minimum wage.

Nice car - be a shame if somethin was to happen to it.

[hobbit709]

2. I wonder how many of the state employees he screwed

can afford anything like that.

[deadmessengers]

5. Funny thing is....

That's probably the cheapest car in that gallery.

[DCKit]

3. Why do you post here?

The only interest you have in Energy is nuclear and your invariable posts against any ideas on alternative energy. You also seem tragically deficient in ideas for Efficiency - unless it's directly related to nuclear or to attack anyone who posts an alternative idea in the thread.

I ask again: Why do you post here? You may be the longest running disruptor on DU, but, contrary to your painfully obvious goal, you've probably alienated far more of us than you've converted.

WTF. Keep it up. You're doing the job far more efficiently than any anti-nuker ever could.

[Strelnikov_]

4. "longest running disruptor on DU"

Seconded.

[NNadir]

6. I have received lots of emails and comments from reflective people who have changed their

ideas based on my arguments.

You obviously cannot stand dissidence, reasoned or otherwise, and - like so many other of my critics over the years - want to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."

So be it.

I obviously do not post for you.

I write on various websites for people who write me notes like this one:

I've always just lurked around (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by: LIsoundview, NNadir
your diaries but I just want you to know that you've persuaded at least one person here as to the necessity for nuclear as part of a complex web of solutions to our energy needs. I find you to be one of the most intelligent and informed diarists here. I know, off topic but I just wanted to said for the record.

And this diary is so eloquent and moving that I finally felt compelled to say that I also very much appreciate your humanity.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/2/192053/4644/154/527679

I have had enough comments like that to justify the abuse I take from little whiny dogmatists who sure can give but sure can't take.

Nuclear energy has the lowest external cost of any form of energy there is. It is the choice of all people who have exhaustively reviewed the energy literature, as I have.

If no one speaks for reality, ignorance will win and lives will be lost.

I used to be far less hostile to so called "renewable energy" - but in my research into external costs I have come increasingly to the conclusion that is not renewable, and NOT sustainable in any way shape or form. I read the scientific literature, generally for hours a day, and I state what's in it, and sometimes, whether you have the guts to face it or not, my comments are echoed by renewable researchers themselves.

I have just provided another such reference in a diary on another website:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/31/19158/5645

You could follow the references I provided if you wished, wherein the solar researchers echo everything I say about renewable energy hand waving, but I suspect you won't take the time to do so.

Now. I don't really care any more what takes place in the intellectual provinces in which so many of my critics reside, their faces and ears buried under the pillow while they have intellectual tantrums, kicking the warm blankets and crying.

I know, even if you don't, that the world's largest energy disaster, by far, was Banqiao, where more than 200,000 people died in a single night from so called renewable energy.

I know, even if you don't, that 1.5 million people die each year from biofuels burning.

http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

I have been a dissident my whole life, in the tradition of Sakharov. Sakharov could have lead an easy life, collecting endless "Order of Lenin" prizes simply by telling people what they wanted to hear. Instead, at great personal sacrifice, he told people what they needed to hear. In so doing, he saved hundreds of millions of people already living in tragedy from enduring more tragedy.

No guts, no integrity.

Maybe you have a big problem with someone holding a moral position.

That's hardly surprising. Most censors and would be censors think exactly the same way. History has a way, though, of seeing the censors for what they are. Sahkarov is now internationally understood as a human hero. The shitty little whiny agents who hung outside his apartment trying to control what passed from his lips into the world at large are not.

You may think I enjoy hearing whiny criticisms from people who don't know the front end of a neutron from a PAH molecule. I don't. For me it's like sitting through an interminable series of "Barbie" commercials. Still, the historical damage done by these people is vast. Ignorance is not neutral. Ignorance is not passive. Ignorance kills. Thus the moral being will confront ignorance whenever he or she faces it.

Have a nice day.

[Howzit]

8. Have you ever considered that anti-nukes are anti not because of the danger of radiation, but

because of the danger of abundant affordable energy? Specifically, there is a faction that believes all human activity that is facilitated by energy is bad for the planet and that there are already too many humans. Fossil fuels are bad because they make it easy to survive and multiply, and any cheap abundant replacement would be equally bad. The rarely spoken logic is that nuclear energy would be especially bad because it would allow more humans to live western consumptive lifestyles than is possible with fossil fuels. "Renewable energy" is pushed not because it is superior, but because it will not support "too many people".

Glider Guider alluded to this "problem of over abundant energy" in a recent post where he spoke specifically about fusion. Then there is Kristopher who sincerely believes solar and wind are all that are required to power everything including personal cars - his frequent reference to the Tesla suggests he is not pushing a "mud hut" lifestyle for the masses, but rather an extension of current living standards, with less CO2. In fairness to Glider Guider, I think he was pointing out the philosophy of some about "cheap" energy, rather than stating his personal belief.

Whenever a person pushes one form of energy and suppresses all others it is easy to get the impression that the motivation for doing so is political or for personal gain. I believe there is a place for all forms of energy, including nuclear, and the realist in me says that humans will be burning fossil fuels until most of it is used up - if not the US, then China and India. I am not afraid of nuclear power, nor of run-away global warming. I am afraid of those who supply oil and the geo-political and religious aspirations of their hangers-on.

[Howzit]

9. PS: If the opinion of a nobody counts for anything

I think NNadir, Kristopher and GluiderGuider all post some of the clearest most convincing well reasoned arguments I have seen. They just don't agree with each other a lot of the time. I agree with all three of them, some of the time.

[wtmusic]

13. Why is "all human activity that is facilitated by energy" necessarily bad?

It's the by-products of energy generation which cause problems. Most of the energy itself is radiated harmlessly into space (unless trapped by greenhouse gases).

[GliderGuider]

15. Over abundant energy

My position on new sources of large scale energy -- whether fission, fusion or renewable -- springs from my understanding of humanity's interaction with the rest of the biosphere.

There is no question in my mind that we are a now species in overshoot. The rising levels of atmospheric CO2 point to this, as does the decimation of ocean fish, the drop in soil fertility, the increasingly parlous state of the world's fresh water, and the increasing socioeconomic instability world-wide. For a look at our situation by someone who knows, see this 2005 Powerpoint by Dennis Meadows.

As a result, we are drawing down the planet's physical resources and damaging the its biosphere, potentially beyond the possibility of recovery on time scales meaningful to humans. If we place any value on the other species that share the globe with us, and even on our own descendants, we have an ongoing responsibility to avoid such behaviour.

There are two factors that are the primary drivers for this damage. One is our sheer numbers. For example, we would be causing species extinctions even if all 6.7 billion of us lived like Bangladeshis. Unfortunately, we don't all live like Bangladeshis -- the other factor that is damaging "the planet" is our level of activity. And our level of activity is driven by the energy available to us.

It doesn't matter all that much where the energy comes from. Independent of whether it's fossil fuel or fission or fusion or hydro or or ZPE, any large scale exosomatic energy can drive human activity to damaging levels. Each energy source has its own unique problems, of course. We're currently mesmerized by the damage caused by fossil fuels, but even solving the CO2 problem would address only one of the overshoot indicators I listed above.

In order to bring the global system back into balance by taking homo sapiens out of overshoot, two things would be required. The first is a reduction in human numbers, and the second is a a reduction in human activity. Now we could accomplish this rebalancing by reducing only one of those factors, but the multiplication in the shorthand ecological equation I=PAT suggests we would have to reduce either factor far less if we could address both simultaneously. Simply retaining the status quo with minor alterations in the form of energy we use won't work because we are already in overshot. Ensuring the status quo would simply guarantee that we remain in overshoot.

It's unlikely that we will (or even can) reduce the human population by the degree required before the effects of overshoot overwhelm us. As a result, we are reduced to trying to reclaim the situation though our activity levels alone. That consideration leads us straight back to energy.

It's a truism to say that we are in the situation we are in, with the energy we have available. We can object to any of the energy sources we currently use of various grounds, but the fact remains that they are currently in use. Because of resource drawdown, oil and natural gas will soon become less available. From an ecological perspective that's a good thing, since it may reduce our CO2 emissions and, if we don't manage to fully replace that energy (or at least the useful portion of it), a reduction in overall energy availability should also reduce our level of activity.

So it should by now be obvious why I'm worried about the development of new large-scale sources of energy, irrespective of their individual characteristics. Clean fusion would enable increased human activity just as much as increased coal use (though without the added threats of increased CO2 or particulate pollution). And, from the perspective of the other species that share the planet, increasing the level of human activity even further is the very worst thing we could do.

[wtmusic]

17. A "reduction in human activity" is automatically accomplished

by a reduction of global population. It's not available energy which is hurting the planet, but the production of that energy, and the footprint of too many people.

As an American who uses far more than my "share" of available energy it's hypocritical for me to advocate a reduction of available energy, which in truth makes everyone's life easier. Reducing the amount of available energy is shorthand for increasing the price of it, which keeps most of the world living in squalor.

[GliderGuider]

19. I don't agree about energy

Our footprint relates to what we do with our energy as well as the production of it. Ecological footprint calculations set aside about half the global hectares for CO2 absorption, but the other half is needed independent of our use of fossil fuels for energy.

I agree that population is a major problem, but I don't think we'll be able to do much about that voluntarily.

I also think that the continued existence of other species is at least as important as the human lifestyle. I would be perfectly content to see energy prices rise significantly due to shortage if it meant we would be able to give other species a chance of continued existence. I'm not terribly interested in making our lives easier any more -- that's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[wtmusic]

21. Food prices rise with the price of energy

so though you may be perfectly content (and able) to bear this burden, most of the world is not. For them it's not a lifestyle issue but one of survival.

Our efforts are best directed to finding clean energy and a global approach to birth control, starting right here in the US. It's more humane and more sustainable to lower birthrate than starve people off the planet.

[GliderGuider]

24. It's a complicated issue, for sure.

I have contributed to a long and honourable list of charities in my time, including donating 0.7% (the Millenium Development Goal amount) of my income to the Stephen Lewis Foundation. So it's not like I'm insensitive to the plight of the suffering.

What it finally comes down to for me, though, is that the balance between Man and the rest of nature (that we currently see as simply Resources) must be redressed. Unfortunately, I see no way of doing that without suffering. We should pursue all the high-minded, pain-free paths we can think of (and for the sake of our own consciences and karma we must), but I no longer believe such gentle voluntary approaches will suffice. I think that only involuntary effects will do the job, and that only Mother Nature is dispassionate enough to do what must be done.

We should do everything we can to make her work less painful, and to ensure the survival of of some part of our civilization. As far as I can see, she'll still end up doing all the heavy lifting, though.

[Systematic Chaos]

11. Am I to surmise that you posted this because NNadir beat you to the punch?

I mean, seriously. Are you feeling stung because you were just, any moment now, going to post this same picture of this hypocritical piece of shit Schwarzenegger and his gas pig, pollution spewing car? I'd bet a pretty significant chunk of cash that the picture in the OP may never have seen the light of day on DU if not for that terrible, awful, rude "disruptor".

Nah, I think it's because you would rather not even bother to understand the underlying message of the posts and just concentrate on the less-than-perfectly-gracious demeanor.

NNadir is a "disruptor" to you only because you'd rather focus your thoughts on hype, pipe dreams and flat-out bullshit than deal with what half a century of science, statistics and pragmatism have shown time and time again.

By the way, mind telling me when this brick oven I live in, otherwise known as Las Vegas, is going to have more solar development than what I've seen thus far? By what I've seen thus far, I'm talking about what possibly - from a distance so I could have been wrong - might have been a couple new McMansions with some panels on their roofs. Oh, and then about a block from my house at the edge of the UNLV campus on Flamingo Rd. one can feast their eyes upon some little solar project that takes up maybe a half acre at most and has some rinky-dink sign on top of its maintenance shed extolling a handful of kilowatts.

Whoop-de-shit. After 50 years that's all I can find in a city that gets only a few inches of rain in a year if we're lucky. Put a nuke plant here and I promise you I'll live next to it with no complaints.




Edit to add the words "on DU" to the first paragraph, for clarification.

[madokie]

16. One can use all the lipstick in the world and that pig will still not be pretty

neither of them, the disrupter or nuclear energy. just saying ;-)

Tell me why is it necessary to heave shit on anyone rather than type showing some respect for the differing of opinions? Personally I'm glad we only have to deal with the co2 and not the radioactive waste we surely would have mountains of now if we'd been getting most of our electric energy from nuclear for these last 50 plus years. We can do something in our lifetimes about the co2 where as with radioactive waste no way has that been shown to be true.

I also feel we are wasting precious time while painting this ugly Nuclear pig. enough already

Thats my opinion, different from yours mind you but mine nonetheless and it has as much right to be here as any opinions do so lets start having discussions on the merits of the subject rather than on the person who made the post as some here have a want to do.

peace.

DU munitions is not an acceptable way to dispose of nuclear waste, again just saying. How can one expect to trust others to not do this, DU munitions, when we can't even trust our government to not do it?

[kristopher]

30. Why do you always ignore the answer to that question?

"By the way, mind telling me when this brick oven I live in, otherwise known as Las Vegas, is going to have more solar development than what I've seen thus far? By what I've seen thus far, I'm talking about what possibly - from a distance so I could have been wrong - might have been a couple new McMansions with some panels on their roofs. Oh, and then about a block from my house at the edge of the UNLV campus on Flamingo Rd. one can feast their eyes upon some little solar project that takes up maybe a half acre at most and has some rinky-dink sign on top of its maintenance shed extolling a handful of kilowatts."

The answer has two parts, the first part is a nationwide situation and the second is specific to LV. Nationwide, energy policy has favored cheap fossil fuel by establishing and perpetuating market competition based on a platform favoring the strengths of fossil fuel generation while assigning no value to the strengths of renewable generation. In simple terms, fossil fuels have been allowed to foist onto everyone else the pollution and environmental damage from use of their product for FREE.

Since a large part of the value in renewable energy is found in its lack of externalities, this is a distinct advantage that has perpetuated the current system. An exception to this is, of course, hydroelectric power - a fully exploited renewable resource. That brings us to point #2.

Isn't LV just down the road from Hoover Dam? Why would you NEED solar when you already have an existing source of inexpensve renewable energy?

Of course, you knew that, but for some reason were compelled to try and malign the potential of solar with irrelevant misinformation.

[Systematic Chaos]

33. Probably because I'm fat, not stupid.

So, we'll just wait another 9 years to get enough solar in place to make up for the failure of Hoover Dam?

Drought

As of February 2008, the lake is currently at 50.44 percent of its capacity, threatening to make the Las Vegas valley's primary raw water intake inoperable. Though the small rise since last year has eased the current crisis, if the lake doesn't receive enough inflow this spring, problems may arise later this summer.<2> Arrangements are underway to pipe water from elsewhere in Nevada by 2011, but since the primary raw water intake at Lake Mead could become inoperable as soon as 2010 based on current drought and user projections, Las Vegas could suffer crippling water shortages in the interim.<2> Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Western Colorado Rockies. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall. As a result, marinas and boat launch ramps have either needed to be moved to another part of the lake or have closed down completely.<3>

Further research in February of 2008 by the University of California in San Diego led researchers to conclude that, if future climate changes as projected and water use "is not curtailed," Lake Mead's water level could drop below the dead storage elevation by 2021, and that the reservoir could drop below minimum power pool elevation as early as 2017. <4>

Yeah, that sure looks mighty fucking "irrelevant" to me.

Just give it up, already. Please?

[kristopher]

34. And how is that related to the current status of solar there?

You asked why solar hasn't been installed; and Hoover Dam is why. I agree completely that you SHOULD be capturing solar even if Hoover Dam wasn't affected by water shortages. Every watt you generate from an alternative leaves a potential watt sitting in the water behind the dam - hydro and renewables are a perfect match.
Why don't you quit bitching about no one wanting nuclear and try to get some solar and wind projects going in the area.

[hunter]

29. Disruptor, yes: World Naked Bike Ride.

My thoughts were entirely disrupted by that post... quite pleasantly I might add...

...until I imagined Arnold riding naked on a bicycle instead of driving some stupid gas hog bright red penis extender car.

Better Arnold in the car, I thnk, than Arnold naked on a bicycle. :scared:

[DCKit]

35. After three decades on 'roids? Tweety Bird is more more anatomically correct..

[tinrobot]

7. So... when does he convert this one to hydrogen?

Right after the Hummer is finished, I'm guessing... :eyes:

[CRF450]

10. Its a gas guzzler, but no where near a gas guzzler than the Hummer.

Most performance cars these days get ok fuel milage, even with a v8.

[tinrobot]

12. EPA says 15 mpg combined

Yeah... that performance car gets great gas mileage.

[CRF450]

14. Dont put too much trust in the EPA ratings

That car can get around 20mpg, I wouldn't doubt that. I myself drive a high performance v8 powered car, an 01 Pontiac Trans Am WS6. The window sticker is 19/28, the new 08 EPA numbers would put it at 17/26. My real world fuel milage on average is 22-23mpg. On a 700 mile trip on the interstate, it actually got 31mpg which surprised the hell out of me at the time! It the same deal for my Dodge Dakota truck, the new EPA numbers put it at 14mpg combined while I actually get around 16-17mpg.

The EPA rating is actually for worst driving conditions, they usually state on the window stickers under the ratings of how much fuel milage can vary depending on driving habits and outside conditions.

[wtmusic]

18. A Hummer H2 gets 13-14 mpg according to EPA

so by whatever yardstick you choose, the two are comparable.

[CRF450]

20. Again, dont put too much trust into the EPA numbers.

[wtmusic]

22. Sorry, they're the only numbers I have.

The EPA says the two are comparable. Where do your numbers come from, and why are they better? :shrug:

[CRF450]

23. They come from personal experience, and from other car owners...

I personally know including a few other people. And I have found this recently on fueleconomy.gov http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList

Its a page showing what actual car owners get for fuel milage on pretty much any car you can find. Most of them you'll see, people are getting much better fuel milage than the EPA estimates. I looked up my Dodge Dakota 4x4 truck, they rated it 14mpg combined, 13 city, 17 hwy. My average varies between 16 and 17mpg.

[tinrobot]

25. Number of samples - 3

Looking at the website you posted, the total number of people reporting mileage for the 2008 Dodge Charger was 3. One person reported mileage for the 4-speed, two people reported mileage for the 5-speed. So, in effect, you're asking us to believe the reports of 3 anonymous individuals on the internet rather than the report of a certified government testing agency.

That said, I do think the EPA mileage can be low, because I get 37-38mpg in my car when the EPA estimates it at 34 (but then again, I've altered my driving habits specifically to get better mileage). Even if the EPA estimates for the Dodge are low, you're still trying to defend a car that struggles to break 20mpg. By any measure, less than 20mpg is not fuel efficient for a passenger car.

[CRF450]

26. Have you looked at other cars?

[tinrobot]

27. Sure, let's look at some other entries...

The Dodge Charger with the most entries is the 2006 5.7L automatic with 13 entries. That average is 17.5 mpg, which is higher than EPA figures but hardly a good mpg rating for a passenger vehicle.

Browsing other vehicles, most consumers report figures about 10-15% higher than the EPA figures. So even if the EPA is low, the relative mpg ratings between different cars pretty much holds.

In other words, cars with small engines still get far better fuel economy than cars with big engines.

[CRF450]

28. Make sure you look at the percentage between stop and go, and HWY driving

If that Challenger is drivin in stop and go half the time, I expect it would get right around 20mpg. Those 12mpg figures you see for the Chargers are from those who have been driving in the city for 80+ percent of the time. Pretty much any auto except a good econo car will get shitty fuel milage in the city. Put it on some more open roads where it can cruise at 55mph and whatch the fuel milage rise dramatically. I have family friends living close by who owns a Chrystler 300, basically the same car as the Charger with the 5.7 v8. There averaging right at 20mpg. We live in a rural area 15 miles away from the city BTW.

[tinrobot]

31. You're splitting hairs...

If that Challenger is drivin in stop and go half the time, I expect it would get right around 20mpg.

The website you just told me to look at has an average of 17mpg from user reports, which is higher than EPA estimates of 15mpg. Now you're claiming 20mpg, but just because you drive on the freeway a lot.

I have family friends living close by who owns a Chrystler 300, basically the same car as the Charger with the 5.7 v8. There averaging right at 20mpg. We live in a rural area 15 miles away from the city BTW.

Even accepting your numbers without question, 20mpg is not very good mileage rating for a passenger car, particularly when most of the driving is freeway miles.

The Challenger really looks cool, and I'm sure it's a real kick in the pants to drive, but you have to admit it's not a vehicle that saves gas.

Bottom line -- Doesn't matter if it's city or freeway driving, if you drove a car with a smaller engine on the same routes, you'd get better mileage.

[CRF450]

32. No, its not good fuel milage.

But to assume that performance cars get no better fuel milage than the big ole Hummers, is totally false. Maybe the Challenger can get no better than 15mpg, or maybe it can. I'm just speaking from my experience on how the EPA rates cars, and my real world fuel milage has been always much better. And I dont drive like I have an egg under my foot either.