First, this thought: Barack Obama has decided not to issue an expected executive order to “reform” US immigration policy – in effect to grant some type of privileges or amnesty to millions of illegals – until after the November elections. The reason is obvious: Democrat candidates told him that this type of action will greatly harm their election or re-election prospects because most Americans do not want this type of “reform”. Thus Obama once again has acted on a cheap political calculation as he has acted this way on virtually every issue since he took office.
Now here is today’s editorial:
Electric car sales are stagnant at 3.6% of all new car sales for 2014. That’s below the 3.7% market share for 2013. So why aren’t sales surging like the ecologists predicted? Why aren’t huge numbers of us driving these cars like the environmentalists projected that we would be? Answer: Because ecologists lie every minute of every day. They always give hyper-optimistic projections for everything they propose.
The term “electric cars” does not just refer to electric-powered cars that you have to plug in. It also refers to so-called ‘hybrid’ cars that use both a gasoline engine and electric power, like the Toyota Prius and other bigger cars from several manufacturers. Hybrids make up the vast majority of so-called “electric cars” on the road today.
Indeed the Prius can get 55 miles per gallon and that sounds wonderful. But then again it is a very small car and it is much more expensive than a gasoline-powered car of the same size; it costs a lot to repair if anything goes wrong with the complex hybrid system; and it can shock and even kill EMT workers with its electricity if they need to cut you out of a crashed Prius.
On the other hand the regular Toyota Camry gasoline-powered car gets 40 miles to the gallon on the highway and is bigger and more comfortable than the Prius, and is much safer. I’ll take the Camry any day.
These hybrid and all-electric cars also need a big taxpayer subsidy to keep up sales. And with very good fuel efficiency in today’s gasoline-powered cars the advantages of hybrids fade even with the subsidies.
The all-electric plug-in car is much worse. The Chevy Volt, which was manufactured at the urging of environmentalists by the government-supported General Motors, has shriveled in sales even with big taxpayer subsidies. The reason is simple – plug-in vehicles are very expensive to buy; they have a very low driving range, limited by the batteries’ charging capabilities; they cost a lot for the electricity to run them; it takes many hours to charge the battery; these batteries are very temperamental and their efficiency sinks dramatically in the cold weather; the expensive batteries can be easily ruined with improper charging; and most fundamental of all cars are the ‘wrong use’ for electricity which is a highly-refined resource that should be conserved for things like pumps, refrigerators, computers, light bulbs, power tools, microwave ovens etc. It should not be used for moving heavy things like cars. It is way too expensive. The internal combustion engine is much better.
Still the ecologists advocate plug-in cars and it gets worse. Batteries are very heavy. The famous $100,000 Tesla electric car has a 1,300 lb. battery. That means that you are hauling around the weight equivalent of three regular auto engines (average 450 lbs. each) in the battery alone. That cuts dramatically into efficiency versus a gasoline-powered car.
These sales figures prove once again that environmentalism is a fraud. These ecologists have told us over and over that they have all of these wonderful ideas for “saving the planet” like the electric car, but those ideas never work and in fact they always harm the environment.
Another fake program of environmentalism is recycling. Since the first ‘earth day’ in 1970 ecologists have insisted that recycling is good for the environment, that if we just re-use things like newspaper and paper and cardboard and plastic and glass and metal cans that the world will be a better place.
It all sounds great, like the electric car does, but it is nonsense. Recycling is extremely inefficient and expensive, and it actually makes the environment dirtier in many ways.
Environmentalists want us to think that there are only two options for disposing of hundreds of millions of tons of garbage every year – recycling and landfills. Indeed we have recycling all across America, and we also have huge landfills for the garbage that we do not recycle, which still is a large amount. This requires more and more landfills, which are expensive, which stink, and which pollute the land. Garbage often is moved to landfills over long distances by train, polluting the towns that the trains pass through with a horrible odor. All of the diesel fuel used by the trains, to haul the garbage and to return the empty rail cars for another trip, also pollutes the air.
Ecologists don’t want you to know that there is a much more efficient alternative to recycling and landfills, and that is the burning of garbage. They claim that burning pollutes, yet today’s incinerators are very efficient and hardly pollute at all. Burning is the most direct, energy-efficient disposal process, which is good for the environment.
Most significantly garbage is FUEL. When you burn garbage in an incinerator, including the paper, cardboard and plastic that we now recycle, it is like burning coal, but you don’t have to go and get the garbage out of the ground and move it, like you have to mine coal out of the ground and move it. You already have the garbage and you need to get rid of it anyway, which you can do by feeding it into your local incinerator. These incinerators can be built by the hundreds all over the country where garbage needs to be disposed of, eliminating the need to transport garbage long distances.
But wait! There’s much more! When you burn this FUEL you get heat, which is very valuable, and with heat you can generate electricity. This is how most of the world’s electricity is generated. Heat, which in most power plants comes from burning coal or from a nuclear reaction, boils water in a steam turbine. This produces great force like the force that powers a steam locomotive. That force is used to spin a generator, which makes electricity. There are garbage-to-electricity plants all over the world today. Environmentalists seek to block them because these plants expose recycling for the expensive fraud that it is.
If we eliminated recycling and burned garbage for electricity, we would first be saving money by eliminating recycling, which is grossly inefficient. To recycle a worthless piece of plastic like a used yogurt container is a giant waste. First, think about the billions of gallons of hot water and the millions of hours of labor that Americans expend just to clean out this worthless plastic for recycling. This is a massive waste of energy, money and labor. Then we need large amounts of taxpayer money to provide the labor and all of the energy to pick up the plastic at your house, to truck it to the recycling center, to separate it piece by piece, to ship it again, to finally recycle it. The recycling of newspapers and cardboard is very expensive as well, uses large amount of energy to move the heavy paper again and again, and produces rivers of black sludge when the ink is removed from the newspaper. These are all expensive, energy-wasting and polluting nightmares associated with recycling that environmentalists don’t want you to know about.
Burning garbage would significantly reduce or eliminate the need for any future landfills. What a big plus for the environment! Thus if we burned all garbage and made electricity, it would be a quadruple win. We get rid of the garbage except for a small amount of leftover ash, which is odorless and inert; we eliminate costly, polluting and inefficient recycling; we eliminate the need for most landfills; and we generate electricity, which is the most valuable resource in our economy. Another advantage: Burning destroys old food that rots and stinks in landfills.
But here is the biggest bonus of all: Nikitas3.com estimates that if America burned all of our nation’s garbage that we could annually replace the equivalent of 150 million tons of coal that is now burned to generate electricity. A train carrying 150 million tons of coal would stretch across the US four times!
Yet “environmentalists” oppose garbage burning because environmentalists run the expensive and inefficient recycling system, and get jobs, money and political power from it. They do not want any competition, or to have those jobs or that power challenged. That is why they can find a dozen reasons to oppose burning even though the recycling/landfill system harms both the environment and the economy. This is their Dirty Little Secret.
What about glass bottles and metal cans that don’t burn?
We can crush glass bottles and put them in small, local landfills. Glass is completely inert. Glass is like dirt because glass is made from silica, which is sand. Crushed glass would take up very little landfill space. On the other hand moving heavy glass around, often long distances, for recycling is an expensive waste that consumes lots of energy.
We also can crush cans and put them in small local landfills because cans are made of metal which also is inert. Or, if private companies can make a profit recycling the cans you could drop off your cans at the private recycling centers or pay to have them picked up.
Then we should burn all the rest including all paper, newspaper, cardboard and plastic along with everything else that you put out in your garbage today. Another advantage: The economic benefit of garbage-to-electricity plants will increase dramatically when we stop recycling newspaper, cardboard, paper and plastic and start burning it. Because these are valuable and very combustible fuels that will make garbage-burning plants even more efficient.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)