In response to:

Obama’s Energy Plans: Tragedy Disguised as Triumph

Zdravko Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 8:53 AM
This electric power now arrives to that plug in the driver’s garage (let us not complicate the matter by many apartment dwellers who have no garages). Of that 35 available BTU’s an electric car will spend about 25 BTU’s on battery losses, tire friction, and air resistance, leaving about 10 BTU’s worth of motion. This compares with the 20 BTU’s worth of motion by a normal automobile; meaning the overall “energy saving” of an electric car is NEGATIVE. How negative? Well – compare 20 BTU’s with 10 BTU’s; electric cars require 100 % more conventional energy than normal gasoline-driven cars. As for sun and wind power – let us hope the day is cloudless and the driver travels in daytime, and that the wind is blowing hard.
Raven7 Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 10:55 AM
Keep trying, but they're never going to get it. It's about the agenda, not science.
Auspex Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 1:12 PM
In the face of all the evidence, this is the only answer that makes any sense. Too bad citizen greed for free stuff outweighs any sense in the voting population.

The State of the Union Address (SOTUA) is now last week’s history. Nearly every aspect of it has been fully dissected. For example, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has done a line-by-line analysis of what they call the “most expensive and widest ranging State of the Union Address yet.” They found that the “quantifiable agenda items” in the President’s proposals “weighed in at $83.4 billion.” The NTU called the efforts to combat climate change the “most costly single agenda item”—citing a “version of the ‘cap-and-trade’ bill to which Obama referred in his speech was priced at $282.4 billion...