Ken B. said:

The Greens would rather not see that kind of equality. They want poverty on all levels. I guess it might be okay with them if everyone is made a slave.

Not really the ones I encounter. They want everybody else to live the livestyle they envision for THEM, not really for themselves. It’s not even a concious thing.
As an analogy, most people, when asked what they would be if they magically would be transported into the middle ages, see themselves as part of the nobility. After all, they today live a far better lifestyle than nobility did then. Statistically though, they really would be part of the 99.99% of poor starving peasants.
Same thing can be seen at military installations. Civilians ALWAYS expect to be treated at least the same as officers. Not below the lowest recruit.
Childhood fairytales don’t help. Everybody always lives happily ever after as King or Queen. And as you know, Greens DO fervently believe in fairytales.

        KLA said:

Also, what’s the next big thing of “green” technology?
Will slavery make a comeback as the ultimate “green” tech?

After all, it fulfills all the requirements.
It’s inefficient.
It uses only natural resources.
It protects a large number of humans (the slaves) from rampant and destructive consumerism.
It steps on the rights and freedoms of many people in the interrest of being “green”.
It produces negligible amounts of CO2.
It protects the soil from destruction by machines.

Yeah but slavery actually can be economically beneficial (for the non-slaves) and the Greens want to avoid that like the plague. Slavery means some suffer and others thrive. The Greens would rather not see that kind of equality. They want poverty on all levels. I guess it might be okay with them if everyone is made a slave.

After all, it fulfills all the requirements.
It’s inefficient.
It uses only natural resources.
It protects a large number of humans (the slaves) from rampant and destructive consumerism.
It steps on the rights and freedoms of many people in the interrest of being “green”.
It produces negligible amounts of CO2.
It protects the soil from destruction by machines.

        DV82XL said:

a recent impact assessment … concluded that power companies already had enough energy to charge 84 per cent of cars driving an average of 53 kilometers per day.

Darn it, DV8! You have to put that figure in miles, or the Americans will not understand.

        Chem Geek Gregor said:

I don’t know, but I think there will still be a place for hydrocarbon fuel for a long long time on road vehicles. Long road trips are going to be beyond anything we have now for batteries and may ever have for battery based.

That’s fine though.

You use a gasoline engine as an APU and if you only need it for road tripping of one hundred miles + then that’s not going to be an issue 90% of the time or more.

Cut gasoline usage by that much and the remainder is easily filled by even modest oil reserves.

Don’t rule out fuel cells as a source of power for long-haul applications, ICE is not the only game in town.

That’s fine though. You use a gasoline engine as an APU and if you only need it for road tripping of one hundred miles + then that’s not going to be an issue 90% of the time or more. Cut gasoline usage by that much and the remainder is easily filled by even modest oil reserves.