Forums » Off-Topic
Electric cars are great, but they leave out one important fact:
What produces the electricity for the batteries?
Even if you plug in your car to recharge, that wall socket gets it's power from a power plant, which more likely than not, uses petrol based fuels.
I think nuclear is a good option.
What produces the electricity for the batteries?
Even if you plug in your car to recharge, that wall socket gets it's power from a power plant, which more likely than not, uses petrol based fuels.
I think nuclear is a good option.
Even if the power plant is of the petrol-based variety, electric cars are generally more energy efficient than Internal Combustion Engines, and, therefore, would cause less cumulative polution in the long term than a standard car. Besides, not all energy has to come from fossil fuels.
yeah some might come from biofuels, or ethanol! and we all know that those are so much better
You forgot geothermal and hydro as sources of power, vIsitor.
Who here around CA has traveled from the coast across the mountains to the desert on the other side (eastward, in other words)? The huge aeolic turbines that dot the landscape look impressive and help produce cheap, renewable energy. Down here we have a geothermal plant that supplies the whole state (all of Baja) and has surplus to sell to CA. I expect the hydroelectric over in nearby Hoover Dam (Nevada) is in a similar position, producing vast amounts of power without any negative influence on the environment.
The options are there, we just need to be willing to use them, catering to common sense and the greater good instead of Big Oil and all those other Bigs that are just out to make a quick buck. Like that aeolic turbines project on the US east coast that is being threatened by something as blatantly stupid as "it will ruin our view and make our properties prices plummet", when it has been proved it will do no such thing (the turbines will be quite removed from the coast, out at sea).
Who here around CA has traveled from the coast across the mountains to the desert on the other side (eastward, in other words)? The huge aeolic turbines that dot the landscape look impressive and help produce cheap, renewable energy. Down here we have a geothermal plant that supplies the whole state (all of Baja) and has surplus to sell to CA. I expect the hydroelectric over in nearby Hoover Dam (Nevada) is in a similar position, producing vast amounts of power without any negative influence on the environment.
The options are there, we just need to be willing to use them, catering to common sense and the greater good instead of Big Oil and all those other Bigs that are just out to make a quick buck. Like that aeolic turbines project on the US east coast that is being threatened by something as blatantly stupid as "it will ruin our view and make our properties prices plummet", when it has been proved it will do no such thing (the turbines will be quite removed from the coast, out at sea).
I get POWER magazine and just read this article on biomass:
http://www.powermag.com/powerweb/archive_article.asp?a=35-SR_RF&y=2007&m=may
Check out the article if you have the time. It makes alot of sense to burn some of our waste cleanly then have it fill up land fills.
The real point here is that its not one thing that will work for all countries and in all situations. I think we all can agree that fossil fuels are harming our environment and that they will eventually run out. But we need a combination of fuels and technologies to get over the fuel inefficiency.
We are facing a major power problem, especially here in NEW YORK. Every summer in june and july we have rolling black outs. And some years the entire grid goes down.
Jex is right though. No neighborhood wants a new power plant, any kind of plant, near there homes but everyone complains when its 100 degrees with 99% humidity outside and they have no power at all.
http://www.powermag.com/powerweb/archive_article.asp?a=35-SR_RF&y=2007&m=may
Check out the article if you have the time. It makes alot of sense to burn some of our waste cleanly then have it fill up land fills.
The real point here is that its not one thing that will work for all countries and in all situations. I think we all can agree that fossil fuels are harming our environment and that they will eventually run out. But we need a combination of fuels and technologies to get over the fuel inefficiency.
We are facing a major power problem, especially here in NEW YORK. Every summer in june and july we have rolling black outs. And some years the entire grid goes down.
Jex is right though. No neighborhood wants a new power plant, any kind of plant, near there homes but everyone complains when its 100 degrees with 99% humidity outside and they have no power at all.
People are whiners.
At any rate, while not perfect, hydroelectric is a very good option. Jex said it doesn't do damage to the environment, but it does. The river below isn't replenished with the floods every spring, so wildlife has to work on unnourished soil etc etc blah blah. And oh boy, do I hear about how bad the dam lakes are.
At any rate, while not perfect, hydroelectric is a very good option. Jex said it doesn't do damage to the environment, but it does. The river below isn't replenished with the floods every spring, so wildlife has to work on unnourished soil etc etc blah blah. And oh boy, do I hear about how bad the dam lakes are.
Oh, there's some impact, but wildlife does adapt as long as you don't take away all the water (which the dams don't). Compare that to, say, the situation with Utah and Nevada where toxic waste is buried. Radioactivity seeps into the dust, and then the dust is blown into the city; it is a huge health issue not just for the people, but for all life affected.
Which is why we should re-enrich the uranium instead of burying it underground for centuries.
Toshi (quote):
there are multiple representations of energy that can be harnessed. What's important is that not only one path is being followed, but many different ones, to ensure versatility.
That's, to an extent, what I was trying to say. In terms of "good" being alternatives to fossil fuels, ethanol is a good thing—because it's better than fossil fuels (at least to my knowledge). In terms of "good" being the end-all-be-all of what we want from alternative energy, ethanol is hardly the best thing on the map. In fact, it's terrible.
But pure electric cars aren't coming around the bend quickly, per what vIsitor said after you. So what do you burn in your ICE in the meantime? These are options to hold us over until we get the real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
And I had no clue about this: one of Rudolph Diesel's engines originally ran on peanut oil. Why didn't we do this sooner?
Oil was easier and faster, apparently.
But in all honesty, I'd rather burn plants than go nuclear. The waste of burning plants seems to me much more maneagable than nuclear waste, unless vIsitor's suggestion becomes plausible in commonplace occurances.
Now if we get Solar and Wind going, then we're truly in business. But those aren't happening too quickly either (at least to my knowledge). In the meantime, this stuff (see wiki) has been sitting around since 1912. Why not use it, since we don't have the best option yet (solar/wind/electric), but need something that's better than oil?
there are multiple representations of energy that can be harnessed. What's important is that not only one path is being followed, but many different ones, to ensure versatility.
That's, to an extent, what I was trying to say. In terms of "good" being alternatives to fossil fuels, ethanol is a good thing—because it's better than fossil fuels (at least to my knowledge). In terms of "good" being the end-all-be-all of what we want from alternative energy, ethanol is hardly the best thing on the map. In fact, it's terrible.
But pure electric cars aren't coming around the bend quickly, per what vIsitor said after you. So what do you burn in your ICE in the meantime? These are options to hold us over until we get the real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
And I had no clue about this: one of Rudolph Diesel's engines originally ran on peanut oil. Why didn't we do this sooner?
Oil was easier and faster, apparently.
But in all honesty, I'd rather burn plants than go nuclear. The waste of burning plants seems to me much more maneagable than nuclear waste, unless vIsitor's suggestion becomes plausible in commonplace occurances.
Now if we get Solar and Wind going, then we're truly in business. But those aren't happening too quickly either (at least to my knowledge). In the meantime, this stuff (see wiki) has been sitting around since 1912. Why not use it, since we don't have the best option yet (solar/wind/electric), but need something that's better than oil?
I've got this great idea for a method traveling; get out and walk! This would not only solve America's rising gas price issue, but also a great deal of obesity cases as well. (Biking is also neat.)
Mynt is right.
You can also further reduce the required amount of fuel by reducing the number of cars per capita at any given time on the road. Ideally, a 1:4 ratio (1 car every 4 people) could be attained.
Also, public transport should receive higher priorities than private transport.
These three would drastically reduce the damnd for gasoline, diesel, or similar fuel source. However, they are as likely to happen as me beating Eldrad in an energy duel.
You can also further reduce the required amount of fuel by reducing the number of cars per capita at any given time on the road. Ideally, a 1:4 ratio (1 car every 4 people) could be attained.
Also, public transport should receive higher priorities than private transport.
These three would drastically reduce the damnd for gasoline, diesel, or similar fuel source. However, they are as likely to happen as me beating Eldrad in an energy duel.
Biking would RULE. However, I would have to bike 42 miles to work, see clients all day (another 30 miles sometimes) and then drive 42 miles back home.
I'd be fit as hell, but a sweaty Leber is not a good way to walk into corporate lobbies. "Here's the layouts, don't mind the armpit sweat, I had to carry them 12 miles to get here."
So, I drive. However, if my job was closer, and did not involve sales or emergency trips to printers, I would LOVE to take the bus or bike.
And yeah, let's go the solar route instead. Cover the Mexican deserts with solar panels. We'll plant agave underneath the solar panels and get the best of both worlds. Cheap power AND cheap tequila, ensuring that there's enough energy for everyone to run their blenders at once for Margaritas.
Mmmmmm.... Margaritas....
I'd be fit as hell, but a sweaty Leber is not a good way to walk into corporate lobbies. "Here's the layouts, don't mind the armpit sweat, I had to carry them 12 miles to get here."
So, I drive. However, if my job was closer, and did not involve sales or emergency trips to printers, I would LOVE to take the bus or bike.
And yeah, let's go the solar route instead. Cover the Mexican deserts with solar panels. We'll plant agave underneath the solar panels and get the best of both worlds. Cheap power AND cheap tequila, ensuring that there's enough energy for everyone to run their blenders at once for Margaritas.
Mmmmmm.... Margaritas....
Solar and wind power just aren't viable options right now. You need large open spaces for miles and miles of solar cells or wind turbines. In Arizona and Nevada you might be able to do it but how about new york? Yes homes here could put solar cells on their roofs and some do. But what about people in apartments like me? There is no way solar or wind power could work for us.
If you haven't already seen it theres a program called The Green on sundance channel. It discusses ways to make everything more energy efficant.
http://www.sundancechannel.com/thegreen
Check it out if you haven't. Its very informative.
If you haven't already seen it theres a program called The Green on sundance channel. It discusses ways to make everything more energy efficant.
http://www.sundancechannel.com/thegreen
Check it out if you haven't. Its very informative.
motorcycles rules i,,i, ,i,,i
Public transport is better...
I can't see how any sane person would drive in NYC. They say it takes about 30 min to go 3 blocks in a cab during the day in manhattan. I don't even have a car and i rarely use cabs. Trains are alot faster.
I can't see how any sane person would drive in NYC. They say it takes about 30 min to go 3 blocks in a cab during the day in manhattan. I don't even have a car and i rarely use cabs. Trains are alot faster.
Yes, public transport. If the US spent some of their budget on extending the public transport coverage, they could make real headway.
People like me will never ever ever be able to use public transport. It's too slow and/or never goes exactly where you need it. Perhaps if I lived in NYC I could manage with public transport.
Yes, but that's exactly the point. The technology to make it faster and increase the coverage of territory is there. The problem is that now, it would be rather difficult to create a public transport system akin to that in Japan, or Switzerland, due to the tremendous initial cost involved.
I am aware that Japan does not have the same system as in Switzerland, i just cited those two as examples of countries who had elevated their public tarnsport systems to extremely high levels of quality.
I am aware that Japan does not have the same system as in Switzerland, i just cited those two as examples of countries who had elevated their public tarnsport systems to extremely high levels of quality.
Public transport kicks ass. But some places, like Salt Lake City, I've seen that the public trans is barely used. Trains running empty and buses too. It's not just an economic shift that needs to be done but a mentality shift.
Just remember, cars equate to independence and Americans hate to have their independence taken away.
Just remember, cars equate to independence and Americans hate to have their independence taken away.