Herbert Graf wrote: > Hehe, sorry, but if you want to consider the actual impact of a vehicle > on our planet a recycled battery most definitely is worse then no > battery (recycling can take alot of energy). And lets not forget the > huge energy and resources needed to manufacture the batteries to start > with. Then the energy and resources to build the electric motors, > relevant hardware to connect it to the rest of the car, and the > electronics. > > I haven't added it up, have you? It's a moot point then. How can you say that because it has more parts, it's energy efficiency is therefore negated? It's a terrible claim to make without backing it up. Same with your mention of CFLs. From: http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/mercury-compact-fluorescent-cfl-bulbs.html "Ironically, coal fired power plants emit mercury, and using CFLs reduces the amount of electricity used and therefore the amount of mercury emitted. The Maryland Sierra Club calculated an estimate of the amount of mercury emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity production in Wisconsin and came up with .023mg/kWh. They then looked at the average amount of mercury in a CFL and came up with 5.1mg. They figured out that a 100 watt incandescent bulb over 10000 hours (replaced 10 times because it lasts 1000 hours) will cost $105.50 in electricity and bulbs, and result in coal-fired plants emitting about 23 mg of mercury and about 2,000 pounds of CO2, a greenhouse gas. Both Incandescent and CFL bulbs also often contain lead solder, a powerful toxin. A 100 watt equivalent CFL (23 watt) will cost about $25.50 in bulbs and electricity, last 10,000 hours, emit about 5.2mg of mercury (plus the 5.1mg stored in the bulb for a total of 10.3 mg) and emit 460 lbs of CO2. CFLs are cheaper. When coal-fired plants produce electricity, CFLs are responsible for less mercury and much less carbon dioxide emissions than incandescents. According to Earth911 , CFLs take five times the energy of incandescent bulbs to produce. CFLs last ten times as long, so they use half the energy of incandescents in production." I really don't understand how people can claim that because new energy saving technology has side effects, it must be worse than what it's benefits are. Everything in our modern (or NOT so modern) society has detrimental environmental effects. Maybe the solution is just not to drive and to not turn any lights on in your house. I, for one, choose to drive a car that pollutes LESS (mileage is generally related to this but not always). I'd take public transit if I could. I'll either be driving an electric Vectrix or a gas motorcycle next summer when I can. - Martin K -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist