Ah yes, and yet another observation about the realities of technology. Too bad that the people who really need to read what Cal observed probably never will.
I have had discussions about this subject off and on with people for 15 years, and always come back to these sorts of issues. One also has to consider the amount of energy lost by long distance power transmission, among other things..
The real problem is decisions being made by ignorant and uneducated people about topics. They make the decisions based upon emotion and information that is incomplete or biased.
I don't say that electric cars aren't a possibility, just that we need to consider all of the ramifications. The reason we have the issues we do now is that people didn't examine things thorough enough in the past to consider how it will affect mankind.
Peace,
Dave
I have had discussions about this subject off and on with people for 15 years, and always come back to these sorts of issues. One also has to consider the amount of energy lost by long distance power transmission, among other things..
The real problem is decisions being made by ignorant and uneducated people about topics. They make the decisions based upon emotion and information that is incomplete or biased.
I don't say that electric cars aren't a possibility, just that we need to consider all of the ramifications. The reason we have the issues we do now is that people didn't examine things thorough enough in the past to consider how it will affect mankind.
Peace,
Dave
The engines in conventional cars tend to get only 10% to 30% fuel energy efficiencies and they go happily spreading the toxic waste from combustion everywhere in the world. 80% of the energy in the fuel is typically wasted as heat, noise and incomplete combustion.
I can't see the fact of having the toxic waste from combustion produced in a more concentrate and controlled way as disadvantageous, at least there are more chances of managing it properly that way. I couldn't regard doubling or triplying the energy efficiency as disadvantageous either.
Also, electrical cars use regenerative braking (like electrical trains), something that combustion engines will never do. Kinetic energy is recovered when braking, rather than wasted as heat, so the amount of energy required for city use and being continuously stopping at trafic lights is considerably reduced.
Battery technology and disposal remains a problem, though.
I can't see the fact of having the toxic waste from combustion produced in a more concentrate and controlled way as disadvantageous, at least there are more chances of managing it properly that way. I couldn't regard doubling or triplying the energy efficiency as disadvantageous either.
Also, electrical cars use regenerative braking (like electrical trains), something that combustion engines will never do. Kinetic energy is recovered when braking, rather than wasted as heat, so the amount of energy required for city use and being continuously stopping at trafic lights is considerably reduced.
Battery technology and disposal remains a problem, though.
mass starvation?
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/S..._caused_mass_starvation_in_the_1970s_too.html
-------------------
I take an electric train to and from work everyday and walk to and from the subway station most of the time. Its mostly powered by coal and nuclear power.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/S..._caused_mass_starvation_in_the_1970s_too.html
-------------------
I take an electric train to and from work everyday and walk to and from the subway station most of the time. Its mostly powered by coal and nuclear power.
- Earth population grows every year.
- The amount of energy used by each Earth citizen increases every year too.
- Some natural resources, particularly fossil fuels and metals, are being happily expent but not replenished in any way.
- Earth does obviously not grow! So there must be an optimum population figure for its size (which was probably exceeded a long time ago). Then why do we insist in growing?
Some people may argue that the reservoir of natural resources is huge... Like a stupid kid who was given $1 million by his rich father and he thinks that he is never going to run out of money... Naive one.
- The amount of energy used by each Earth citizen increases every year too.
- Some natural resources, particularly fossil fuels and metals, are being happily expent but not replenished in any way.
- Earth does obviously not grow! So there must be an optimum population figure for its size (which was probably exceeded a long time ago). Then why do we insist in growing?
Some people may argue that the reservoir of natural resources is huge... Like a stupid kid who was given $1 million by his rich father and he thinks that he is never going to run out of money... Naive one.
Eva said:
I trutly believe that if we didn't waste brains, money and resources on futile pursuits, like war, we could very well have already colonized another planet.
The energy budget to get people and equipment to another planet is astounding. Even with fabulously efficient rockets, we're tossing rocks out of a very deep gravity well. This does not even consider the level of supplies needed to sustain colonization until planets can be terraformed (oh, yes, and the terraforming equipment has to be sent as well).
Funny to read this topic. Because as I was driving to work this morning. Stuck in traffic. And thinking: Electricity generated by a Nuclear powerplant "refilling" electric cars would go a long way lowering carbon emmissions.
We aren't allowed to get into politics...and this thread will probably deteriorate quickly.
But I do want to say this.
You'll find a lot of Americans (I use the word meaning citizens of the USA) denying that global warming is man made. But let's not go there.
The interesting thing is that not a lot of people know that the USA is fast becoming a leader in ...let us call it...environmental technology. The reason is that they convert ideas and research into products that can be used far faster than europeans.
So while you might not agree...your fellow countrymen are already taking the lead.
Bas Horneman said:
Nuclear energy is currently the cleanest energy source we have and fusion is the holy grail... if the emotional scare of three mile island and Chernobyll hadn't set nuclear research back 30 some years we'd probably be sitting pretty right now.
It is true that the cost of establishing ourselves outside the gravity well is expensive, but it is essential. Colonizing planets isn't the way to do it thou.
Once established, getting mineral & manufactured items back dowwn to earth can make gravity an advantage. And once we get the elevator built...
dave
Global warming is a total scam and is also practicing genocide. It will result in the deaths of millions of poor people because of rising food and energy prices. Global warming alarmists will kill more people than Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Kim Jung Il combined. Coal to liquids and development of oil shale, oil sands and heavy oil is the right thing to do. Since they generate more CO2 than conventional oil, so the scammers don't like them. Conventional oil is declining and there isn't anything to replace it other than the other fossil fuels I mentioned.
Global warming is quite real. Actually, it should be called climate change, as David Suzuki pointed out that some world areas will get a lot colder.
As for it being man made, natural, or natural sped up by man, I dunno 😕
Cheers!
As for it being man made, natural, or natural sped up by man, I dunno 😕
Cheers!
Yes, let's back away from anything that seems political or nationalistic, OK?
Me, I walk to work.
Me, I walk to work.
OK, I started this thread to ask your opinion of the burning of coal to charge the batteries and it's turned into something else.
Can anyone answer queries like are electric cars only viable when there are few carbon emissions from the power source like wind, hydro, solar?
I'm sure the coal burning is more efficient than in an internal combustion engine but when your factor in the whole footprint, do electric cars really make sense?
Can anyone answer queries like are electric cars only viable when there are few carbon emissions from the power source like wind, hydro, solar?
I'm sure the coal burning is more efficient than in an internal combustion engine but when your factor in the whole footprint, do electric cars really make sense?
For my personal needs, electric cars won't become viable until they make one that can go 100+ miles on a charge, and easily charge overnight. Unfortunately, due to the way business has evolved here, I drive approx. 35 miles each way to work.
I like the idea of an electric car for most regular transit needs, but the above mentioned problem for me, combined with the other functional and logistical problems, still seems to make it viable for only a small segment of the population that drives.
I do still believe that we need to continue the research into electric cars; this in the end should ease the issues I mentioned, and others. It would also be good to improve the source of the electricity to further mitigate atmospheric emissions.
Peace,
Dave
I like the idea of an electric car for most regular transit needs, but the above mentioned problem for me, combined with the other functional and logistical problems, still seems to make it viable for only a small segment of the population that drives.
I do still believe that we need to continue the research into electric cars; this in the end should ease the issues I mentioned, and others. It would also be good to improve the source of the electricity to further mitigate atmospheric emissions.
Peace,
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.