There is one major difference with both sides in my country. The left wing implements good sounding ideas, and does get things wrong occasionally. The right-wing do not have the balls to make changes, only make cuts (I call them the Jenga players, since they pull pieces away and hope the whole pile doesn't tumble). Either way, it seems like each party's turn to power only make things worse.

Super-PACS are new, why would any be set up for Democrats? They haven't had a primary (worth talking about) this year. All of those pro-Conservative super-PACs have been fighting other Conservatives. Let's see what happens come next election, when both Republicans and Democrats are running real primaries. There'll be massive super-PACS both sides of the aisle.

Oh ho ho. but you're avoiding the issue.

You're saying that Obama has received more this campaign than Romney, yet failed to account for the many many millions super pacs have serviced him.

At this very point in time, your original point was wrong.

What you say is true though, when the two go head to head, there will be super pacs. I don't disagree. However, you are still missing the bigger picture that the graph you provided is only a tenth of the story.

from your first source which compares electric cars to combustion with energy loss.

"The idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may sound good, until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered. In the UK, it’s estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home, it is 33% efficient. In other words, 67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient, and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only 0.73% better than internal combustion engines (see detailed explanation at end of article)."

So with that in mind would it not be better to foucs on making internal combustion engines more efficent so our oil supply lasts longer? Like Volkswagon has with some of their cars bringing the MPG up to 40+? Instead of forcing new technolgies on our economy that are not yet cost effective? Why not make better use of what we have. I think the only way electric cars will be viable is if the US suddenly decides to build Nucleuar Power PLants again. i don't see that happening anytime soon so we need to focus on getting more use out of our fossil fuels. Its my understanding that great strides have beeen made in coal burning powerplants. And what of the damage to enviroment from wind farms and mining for the materials to make solar cells? I really have tried to find ways in which solar and wind power are cost effective as I really wanted to lower my home electric bill, and right now they just aren't. I tried everywhich way I could think of. The only way I found I could possibly lower my bill wa by purchasing a propane powered generator but even than it would be barely worth it to do so. I honestly do care for the enviroment ( i dont care abnout global warming as i dont believe we are a mojor factor) I worry about all of the pollutants we put in the air that cause illnesses and cancer and the only solution I see that is viable and feasible right now is nuclear power. Maybe after a transition to nucleur power we can sart a transition to green energies.

Wrong site. What does this have to do with gaming?

If I wanted Europe to fail.. (oh wait a minute...)..

Now you're talking about creating markets where none exist.

Electric companies have it in their best interest to be as efficient as possible. Car companies do not.....except for the regulations that Obama imposed on them.

Furthermore, a power plant is capable of running off of only 70% fossil fuels, and it's a mix of different fuels of varying sources, so they're not as reliant on gasonline. 30% of their input comes from renewable energy. Additionally, that 33% is for the average combustion power plant. More modern cogeneration plants are up to 50% efficient, and also are capable of boosting it to 80% once you factor in the heat usage. See, the traditional power plant combusts fuels to heat up water which then powers turbines. That results in 2 things, stored energy and heat. The heat then escapes via smokestacks. Cogeneration plants are capable of using that escaping heat to power heating and cooling systems across areas.

See, 200 degress in not very useful in creating energy, but it is still useful in heating water. A good cogeneration plant can heat and cool a large area, including water supply, and also create electrical energy.

So, on the one hand, you have an average car running at around 16%, a car "built" for efficiency (on gas alone) at 25%, using 100% gas (or ethanol mix), and a power plant that is capable of transference of between 30-80% based on the plant type.

I mean, just look at the costs to tell you the whole picture. It costs 4$ to go your mpg in a car (thereabouts), Traveling the same distance on electricity is only 4kWh, roughly 1$. If you're looking at an equivalent size, you still be paying half as much. So what that tells us, is that a portable combustion chamber is at least twice as inefficent as electric power source.

However, advances are still being made in green car techologies including things like cogenerated power sources, ie; a mix of gas and electric (hailed as the best version of green car), that can heat itself, charge itself, and cost 25-50% per distance. Plus your less at prey to market fluctuations over the price of gas. Just in one year, if you put 10$ into your tank every 2 days, you'd save roughly 1000$ per year with a hybrid. the more gas you put in, the higher that savings grows. I know people that put in 50$ a week or more.

what does a politics discussion area have to do with gaming?

Global Warming is real and America is already aware of that.

Thanks for all the info. Your second source listed a us government website as its source and on that page out of the best fuel economic vehicles only two are electric. The rest still fuel powered. So wouldn't it still be better to make combustion engines more efficient? I mean thay have come a long way from their introduction already. It seems it would be easier to replace cars with more efficent engines than to start wind farms and solar power as they are not that good yet. People will buy new cars anyways as theirs get old so it would less of an impact on the econmoy to use more fuel efficent vehicles. We have come from 12-13 mpg vehicles (the Model T) to 40+ now ith some volkswagon models. Four times as efficeint. I guess what I am saying is I don't think solar and wind power are cost effective for us to switch too and forcing it on us is going to hurt the economy when we can get similar results just by continuing our progression of the combustion engine.

Hybrids are great. I do agree on that. But you pay about 3-5 thousand more for one of the same model so youy savings from gas are erased. Especially since a lot of people buy a new car every three to five years. And improving on combustion engines will also improve hybrid vehicles MPG when using gas and it doesn't require adding to the power grid to charge cars. Win win I say when they get the cost down.

ps: glad we are still discussing things and not arguing, doesn't happen very often on this site.

Or the fact that essentially, trying to stop global warming is 100% worthless.

It's funny, I just read a times article talking about how every green effort has actually more or less been worthless, since the hydrocarbons(coal in the US case ) that would of been used there have just been exported elsewhere to poorer countries who have made use of the cheaper and more avaialable energy.

Research shows there has actually been zero positive actions done thatnks to the kyoto protocall, showing even less done then was done before.

Assuming global warming is real, it's like living with a bunch of friends in a house where nobody else is paying the rent.

You can either get a small collection of friends, save and basically stress yourself out, and then STILL be fucked, by maybe if your lucky, extendeding your rent by a month.

Or say "Fuck it, we're screwed anyway.  So lets just do this."

Since quite literally the way hydrocarbons work, short of a world dicatorship to keep third world countries in like... don't really see how you make any real meaningful change.