What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
94 Comments
- aywwts4, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15They don't put them in people's backyards, unlike coal nuclear sites are usually surrounded by acres of empty land for security reasons.
Also unlike coal they don't give off emissions, soot, fly-ash, and other things which harm your lungs, turn your drapes black, and eats the paint off your cars. Nuclear emissions are 1. An isolated region of warm water, and 2, a square mile of cement/water casks of nuclear waste. While coal spreads its waste all over just blowing it in the air and calling it a day. Those giant piles of coal that get refilled all the time don't just disappear when you burn them, they are constantly being pumped into the air, while we as a society have no problem with ruining tons of land for use as a landfill, if you use even a tiny fraction of that for nuclear storage its an outrage.
A coal plant was literally in my backyard, right downtown, it just doubled in size. I hate all those people who opposes clean non carbon burning energies like renewable resources and nuclear. If you fight against them the alternative is and it always is, coal, the worst, cheapest, energy source of all. - Yookji, on 07/23/2008, -5/+14EVs + Nuclear power = win
- aywwts4, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8If I had an electric car I would just take advantage of my electric companies off peak billing pricing, and set my cars to a cheap 3 dollar timer to only let them charge between 10pm and 6am.
If we all purposely charged our vehicles off peak there would be very little strain on the electrical grid. - ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -4/+12Cleaner? Yes.
Solving our (impending) energy crisis? No. - speakafreaka, on 07/23/2008, -5/+13EVs + Current coal fired generators + a grid that can't handle the additional load from everyone plugging their cars in = Massive, massive fail.
I hope im wrong though.. we dont have any new nuclear stations planned in aus, not even half our energy is produced by the less polluting closed circuit gas turbines. It seems like its just a solution thats thrown around without proper implementation thought. - MikeFallopian, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6If we had a 100% coal-powered grid and every car was instantly converted to run on grid electricity right now, CO2 emissions would still go way down. Of course, even now our grid isn't completely coal-powered, and by the time electric cars are commonplace, it is very likely that most of our electricity will come from clean sources like nuclear and renewables.
- WyldeJ, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7A "Flintstone" style would be quite efficient. It would solve a lot of problems, including the fight against obesity.
- inyearstocome, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I agree-- but conversely... have you ever driven an electric go-kart? Electric has the potential to be SO much fun, with no fumes and emissions, and less heat. K1 speed go-karts FTW.
- septicmadman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4It is morons like you who think that due to large government subsidies and uncritical episodes of Scientific American Frontier that lead us into a unmanageable energy crisis. Hydrogen is just an intermediate to which energy is stored. Oil on the other hand already posses energy and the energy is released through combustion. The idea with electric cars is that instead of doing the energy conversion on a local level it can be done on a industrial level and in terms of efficiency can benefit from an economy of scale. Electric cars are obviously not the cure all but become significantly more sustainable and an easier link in the infrastructure given a change to more renewable energy sources.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I read your comment twice and it still doesn't make sense.
- norman619, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Ummm... The current power grid can not support mass adoption of electric cars. Before we can even think of switching over to electric cars we need to increase the amount of power we are currently generating. We can barely keep up with current demand w/o adding millions of cars which would tax it even more. Until we get serious and build more nuclear power plants and other large scale power generation plants to supplement what we already have the electric car will remain a toy not a viable option. This is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.
- marx2k, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Wouldn't most of these cars be charged at night when the draw on the power stations is at the lowest?
- greensky, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5It's not like there will be 300 million new electric cars on the road tomorrow. It's something that will happen gradually and as it does, electric companies will have to increase generating capacity. Utilities are already thinking about the problem.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-electri ... - lettruthout, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4@aywwts4
Exactly! Normal power plants can't be shut down overnight. So lots of energy is currently wasted. Look at what the conditions are in California now...
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Nighttime is when we could be charging our vehicles until more of us have their own sources (solar, wind, etc). - Dipster, on 07/23/2008, -3/+7I'm sure that's what they said of the steam engine too.
- marx2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Turn the bathroom light off when you're done *****
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Al Gore, is that you?
- inyearstocome, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Actually, we have a storage facility for waste that will last a very long time-- longer than we should need Nuclear Fission plants.
- guyinjapan, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4It's not going to be something that happens overnight. It will be a slow transition, and the power industry will adapt accordingly. It's not like people are going to rush out to buy electric cars. There have to be enough outlets to fuel their transportation lifestyle. Likewise, it's not likely that outlets and charging stations are going to start popping up in parking lots unless a lot of people have electric cars. It'll build up slowly. If this happens at the same time as new energy movements develop, like the new Texas wind initiative, then this could be a comprehensive solution to our energy crisis. Economics, however, will be the (notoriously slow) driver for this sort of change, and all of this also rests on what gas prices do. It will be interesting to watch, but it's going to be observed over decades, not overnight.
- jdago, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3i don,t think it is the whole solution, but it is a move in the right direction. we will also improve our piower grids. the only people against this change is the oil companies. they know there day is coming to and end. so they will fight as long as they can.
- chrome327, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Here ya go - no nukes, though.
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/phoenix-s ... - ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Word, the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years, but try telling that to these diggers. Hell, I have a Camry hybrid but not because of the global warming hoax, but to save money on gas! Bought it almost a year ago and boy did I luck out.
- Shen4891, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Electric vehicles had already been produced and demolished. The documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" is about just that. Dacodanelson from above is quite wrong about where our electricity comes from. This is from industry statistics of where our power came from in 2007:
"48.6 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal. Nuclear energy produced 19.4 percent. Natural gas supplied 21.5 percent. Hydropower provided 5.8 percent of the supply. Fuel oil provided 1.6 percent of the generation mix. Other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided 2.5 percent, with other miscellaneous sources providing the balance."
Studies have shown pretty conclusively that the emissions from coal that would be produced by powering electric vehicles would be dramatically less than emissions from oil driven vehicles. In addition technology in alternative power sources like hydropower, solar, and wind are growing incredibly fast and causing their respective industries are growing with them. (Hint hint, invest.)
Electric vehicles that have ALREADY been produced would satisfy the daily needs for nearly 90% of the American population. Sure, U-Haul wouldn't be sending out EV trucks, but the fact is most people aren't driving U-Haul trucks for a living, or Hummers, or flat-beds full of tools. Not to say we should demand everyone use EV vehicles, but it is utterly foolish to think that electric vehicles are a dead industry. In fact, quite the opposite. This is a technology that can ONLY get better from what has already been produced in the past. The future of electric vehicles? Inevitable no, but in regards to the technology that makes the most sense and that has the best prospect absolutely essential. - Vonauda, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5I can understand why there's a need to switch from to oil to electricity, but what I cannot understand is why people think this is going to save them money. Their expenditures are just going to shift from the gas pump to the utility companies in the form of higher electricity bills.
- SilverBlade2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Most people don't drive more then 40 miles per day. Just plug it in at night. It isn't that much of an inconvenience - you plug your phone in each night, and people who live in winter cities are used to plugging their cars in at night otherwise it wouldn't start.
To get all people on electric cars isn't the 'perfect' solution. Some people will need longer distances..whose who need it for *work* like buses, taxi, or semi truck. But, to get the majority of people on electric cars will decrease the price of oil..and decrease the price of merchandise, which is in fact a 'win-win' for everybody, including YOU.
So..by your logic..just because electric cars can't fulfill the needs of 100% of the population, means NO one should get it. - apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Electricity costs 1 to 2 cents/mile for most EVs. Gasoline is more than 10 times as expensive.
Of course, if you're paying $745/month for electricity, you obviously could care less what anything costs. - EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics." http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
Our power grid does need to be upgraded, but electric vehicles aren't nearly as big a strain as you make it out to be.
"Try to go buy one today. You will have to wait over a year to get one because they are in such demand now."
...and what mass produced electric vehicles would you be talking about? The reason there's a waiting list is because they're basically being hand built. Tesla is making 10 a week of the Roadsters I think, for example. As this article states, *maybe* 50% of the cars on the road will be electric by 2050.
Electric vehicles can even help meet peak power needs by feeding energy back into the grid during times of high demand. While it adds wear and tear to the battery it could still be profitable for end users by buying power at off peak times and selling it back at peak prices. - SilverBlade2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Hydrogen is just another child of Big Oil. We'll still be relying on them if we use hydrogen.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4YABA DABA DOO!
- PopcornDave, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8And unless they make an electric car large enough so that the soccer mom can transport her kids, the family dogs, a month's worth of groceries and a nuclear reactor it's not going to work.
All kidding aside, what is the need to make all the electric cars so damn futuristic and ugly? Wouldn't there be a greater market in converting the cars we have now to hybrid? Sort of the ultimate recycling. - greensky, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4I'll agrue EVs + a diverse range of renewable energies including nuclear... I still think Algae based bio-fuels might do well.
- apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2There's lots of off-peak electricity available, and will be for quite some time.
Plus, loads of electricity are used right now to refine gasoline. Put that electricity into EVs instead. - inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Chevy Volt FTW!!!!
- apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Why assume battery technology hasn't advanced in 20 years?
Nanotech-based batteries can charge in 10 minutes, and can last for 20 years.
Example: http://phoenixmotorcars.com - ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3I was going to say that exact same thing, ha
- nogahide, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Clathrate hydrate
- hobophobe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That's why we can build more infrastructure to accommodate the demand.
Just because change requires... change doesn't mean it's anywhere as impractical as trying to stay the same in the face of all the obvious signs it won't work. - davecor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Actually the electric car pollutes a LOT less. We manufacture electricity on a massive industrial scale, gas cars produce energy on a "retail" scale.
Over 100,000 miles a gas car emits about 3000 tons of CO2.
The pollution to generate enough electricity to run an electric car 100,000 miles is about 35 tons.
I ran the numbers before I decided to sink $5000 into converting a car to electric next year. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Did you ever hear of peak-uranium? Known uranium reserves are, at full consumption rate, depleted in decades.
There is only one endless source of cheap energy fuel - He3 on the moon (google it) or massive *massive* building photovoltaics. Like - paving over several % of the world's deserts with solar arrays and THEN sustaining a 5% growth in solar arrays per annum.
The latter is unsustainable. It would be like being at war for every year the coming 50 years, non stop. - davecor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Yep! I'm going to convert a car to EV next year. My entire month's commuting (10 miles a day) will cost me about $20 on my electric bill.
- EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Electric vehicles operate at pennies per mile, much cheaper than gasoline vehicles (not factory in purchase costs).
- Mothrog, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2There's a brilliant idea. Make a fuel that takes massive amounts of energy to produce in the first place, and then use it in the least efficient way possible. Great idea.
- EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2It doesn't have to be free, but it should be cheaper than gas. Stop whining.
- apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Good for you. Join an electric car club:
http://www.eaaev.org/
Look at all the EV owners and their cars here:
http://evalbum.com
Find a cheap EV:
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car - apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Lots of incorrect assumptions. Most EV aficionados would like to see EVs as a choice in the marketplace - nobody will take away your car. To the contrary, there are established forces trying to keep EVs out of the marketplace.
And there is enough power for EVs, many studies have shown there is plenty of off-peak electricity for charging in th evening and nighttime.
Also, dirty electricity does not matter - the more efficient EVs need less power overall, which means less fuel burned, no matter what that fuel is. This means a dramatic reduction in overall pollution. Many studies have shown this also.
And hydrogen is nothing more than a battery - a way to store energy, which has to come from somewhere else. If Hydrogen is a fuel, then so is Lithium. Except the energy storage system I make from lithium is about twice as efficient as the one you make from hydrogen. - apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Coal doesn't matter. Those old coal plants are baseload. They run all the time, EVs or no EVs because they are too hard to regulate or shut down. Peakload plants are not coal.
EVs + grid is also far more efficient than a gas-guzzler. Grid electricity costs just 1 to 2 cents/mile versus 14-30 cents/mile for gas. Most of this cost difference comes from improved efficiencies. More miles on less energy means less pollution/mile, regardless of what's burned. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1People are in denial. They aren't listening to you. They think a faerie will pop out of thin air and enchant the power lines.
GOOGLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENERGY SOURCE AND ENERGY CARRIER PEOPLE. - apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Gasoline: 14 to 30 cents/mile.
Electricity: 1 to 2 cents/mile. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1you are insane. Gas engines brought us nothing bu trouble.
- PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Neat, but I want something to haul nukes too. ;)
That's a really interesting concept, but I wish they'd get the battery life a bit longer. I've got a Touareg that I do use on occasion to make deliveries and that looks like it's a good size, but the 100 mile limit is a killer. Sometimes I'm driving 200-300 miles in a day so that wouldn't cut it for me.
Around town it would be fantastic though. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is