What is Digg?28 Comments
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually it was GM, not Ford, that made the EV1.
Electric cars are still around. There's Tesla Motors:
http://www.teslamotors.com
There's Phoenix Motorcars:
http://Phoenixmotorcars.com
And for the money-challenged, there are electric car conversions - you could have one of these for as little as $5000:
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
The electricity to drive an EV around is only about a penny per mile. And even without clean energy, EVs are cleaner than gas cars because of the considerably greater efficiency of electric motors, battery storage, and electricity transmission (fueling by wire is 95% efficient. Compare that to trucking gasoline around the country.) - arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Our governor in Montana is pushing hard for use of wind energy and bio-diesel... and it's about damn time.
Back in the 90s, our state legislated deregulation of electric utilities in hopes that Montanans would enjoy inexpensive energy & heating fuel for years to come - Hydro-electric dams and other utilities were sold off and privatized, and today, Montanans pay in blood & first of kin for energy & heating. (i.e. For an old 1950s-era house with an outdated heating system, heating bills during winter are often upwards of $250.00 if not more.)
Cheap, clean, renewable energy is on the rise at last! - elik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So I felt the need to reply. You make good points which stand for just about every product you and I buy. Solar panels take a quite a bit of energy to produce, but some of the first panels every made have been running for nearly 30 years and put out about 95% of the power they did when they were installed. Sure, there's a payback period which depends on their cost and use, but as long as you keep birds from using them as their toilet, you'll be in the black soon enough -- both in terms of energy and monetary cost.
Oh, and there are a number of "metals" that do not rust. - EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Western Montana in particular looks to be an excellent location for wind power.
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1234/windresourcemaplr3.jpg - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Governmental mandates... when people surrender their liberty under the deluded belief that somehow, freedom is not itself part of the common good.
- nickiank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ bickdigg:
So what happens when there's a large-scale natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane, whatever; take your pick) that destroys part of the nuclear power facility, and you've suddenly got radioactive material scattered on the wind and seeping into the water table?
If you're going to pull the "rocks falling from the sky" card on the other forms of power, think twice about your own recommendation. - UrielSynthesis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6California made a requirement years ago for companies to offer electric cars, and Ford made the very good EV-1, but after a lawsuit by the oil companies, where is the electric car now? The government doesnt seem willing to fight after the first try....
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well Arnie seems to be convinced. by Arnies new law, 20% of the power must be green by 2010.
- Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I get the sarcasm but it would be more bitting if the denial of global warming and the reason we are seeing an increase in the demand for alternative energy were truly related. The REAL push is purely economic. Peak oil will be the true mover of demand for alternative energy. Joe sixpack won't think twice about alternative energy until gas stays at three bucks a gallon or higher. Global warming isn't even in this calculus, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you care about the issue.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We don't "waste our time" on wind and solar power. Over time these technologies have evolved - for example solar panels are much more efficient than they used to be, so you can generate the same power in less space with less investment, or else install the same volume and get more power.
Oil has been convenient as a fuel source. It's usually not pricey to the point that we're desperate for alternatives. But it's getting more pricey over time, and it has environmental consequences (whose severity varies depending on who you talk to).
However, how long does the entire world want to go with the "all your eggs in one basket" approach to our energy needs?
Sure, nuclear is also an option, but something that is somewhat scalable in terms of allowing new property developments to at least partially support themselves in terms of power makes the power infrastructure stronger, and genuine competition is also good for energy prices and promoting stakeholders (e.g. providers of the technologies) to improve their technologies further. Nuclear also creates environmental contaminents that are dangerous for billons of years and very damaging to humans (cancers, birth defects, genetic abnormalities, etc.).
Wind and solar power will always be poor options if we continue to brush them aside because they'll never reach the point where they are developed far enough to become strongly viable. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Li-Ion batteries aren't considered a hazard by the EPA. Source:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/pubs/factsheets/hw/OnToTechnology.pdf
Quote:
"The lithium-ion battery on-the-other-hand, is always in solution and therefore a lithium salt (not metal) which is non-reactive. "
Now motor oil and coolant from ICE cars, THOSE are hazards. - miaow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't see why. Clinton encouraged electric car research. The repubs in the senate and congress constantly blocked him. And then when Bush came in, the car manufacturers scrapped electric vehicle experiments.
States have bi-passed Bushs' philosophy on green energy. Arnie is the biggest u-turn example of them all. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is at the state level, and many of the laws were approved directly by voters. Congress will continue to be useless.
Congress will probably enact legislation after the states and the people have made it a de facto standard to take credit while taking no risk and doing nothing. Both parties are quite good at it. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bickdigg
It is not just the reactor itself that needs to be managed. You dont just dig up uranium or plutonium and wack it into some rods inside a reactor somewhere. The mining process requires a huge amount of fossil fuels, and the enrichment process often involves presurising uranium hexafluoride spinning large drums at 90000+ RPM; that requires an enormous amount of energy.
But once enrichment has occurred, you need to protect it. I can't imagine al qaider trying to break into a wind farm apart from trying to cause some localised nuisance. I do however have concerns about nuclear facilities in former soviet states.
Don't think for a moment that I am against nuclear- in truth I have not made up my mind entirely. Unlike coal, gas, etc, waste is (in theory) 100% contained rather than released into the atmosphere, and that is a benefit. Coal also usually contains trace radioactive elements that get sent up the chimney into the atmosphere.
I am not too sure about your concern about rocks falling from the sky - what meteorites? You can't be talking avalanches, because under a mountain is hardly the ideal place for a solar plant. In such a case, I would assume that part of the plant would get damaged and need repair. - outsourceevil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so.... im an electrical/computer engineer junior, and i was wondering if any of you knew of some good renewable energy companies around Colorado that need an intern?
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't worry, your 'progress' is on track. The value of the dollar is taking a nosedive today.
- bazilio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting way to get alternative energy from the ocean.
http://www.oceanmotion.ws/products/products.htm - lcars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Check out this modded Mini - has an electric motor in each wheel.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/21/hybrid-mini-offers-640-hp-0-60-in-45-seconds/ - thomasrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0During the big heat wave last month in Southern California, they did a study to determine just how much of their wind power (big installations in Mohave Desert) actually contributed. It turned out that LESS than 5% of the rated power of the turbines was usable. The wind is so intermittent that basically most of the power is thrown away because they can't use it. The electrical grid of this country is barely...BARELY able to handle a tiny hiccup at the coal, nuclear, and hydro plants which can run full-bore 24 hours a day. Can you imagine trying to replace them with a bunch of wind turbines which turn on and off all day long? Ain't going to happen, folks.
This problem is even worse for solar power. Every night the sun goes down, and all those internet servers humming away across the country, which run 24X7, need to get their power from somewhere. Not from solar power, babe.
Solar and wind power are the greatest scams in the history of the US. There will be books written about the generation of stupid people who convinced themselves that wind power and solar power -- the two lamest-ass energy sources in human history -- were the solution to anything.
Our children and grandchildren will chuckle over the stupidity of wind power and solar power, much as we now chucke and shake our heads in amazement over Phrenology, Ptolemic Epicycles, and other famous scientific screw ups.
All of you who spend your hours and days dreaming of clean green solar power...remember this post. You will be viewed by your ancestors as morons.
Of course this post will get buried. Who wants to face the fact that they are advocating something basically moronic? - bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ nickiank
I doubt that hurricanes could destroy a nuclear reactor... as for the earthquakes, the strong ones only happen on well-known locations. - Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course all these gains are now in jeopardy with the Democrats in control of Congress. Hopefully the next two years will go by fast and the Dimms won't do too much harm to the progress we've made. I don't hold too much faith in that idea though.
- soulpiercer7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2that's 'cuz you got a Democratic Governor. Liberals are much more concerned with he environment and alternative energy than the conservatives are at the moment. Republicans tend to side more with big business.
- Yurkshat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am suddenly reminded of that article that was on a couple days ago about Navajo (I think) who were drinking contaminated water from Uranium radiation.
- bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2and what if something (stones, iceballs) falls on the solar panels?
Oil is obviously not the perfect energy source, but solar panels and wind turbines are expensive, inefficient, ugly, with a short life, and for the wind turbines, very noisy (think that you need thousands of turbines to provide as much electricity as a nuclear power plant)...
Some might say Chernobyl, but if managed by competent engineers, nuclear plants just work fine. There are some radioactive waste indeed, but for now, it's just the better source of power, on an efficiency/harm ratio. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0whats the need for alternative energy when Fox News has Breaking News! that it is all just a Hoax?!?
http://www.digg.com/politics/Fox_News_Inhofe_use_the_Question_Mark_to_say_Global_Warming_is_a_Hoax
/sarcasm - Ferretman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0 Though of course there are problems.
For one, nobody's really thought through what the heck to do with all the batteries in a typical electric car when they die (that's a LOT of toxic heavy metals). It's not impossible to recycle them but it's also not terribly efficient, and there aren't very good mechnisms out there for handling that yet.
Second of course is the up front cost. I completely understand--and AGREE--that the buyer is going to pay a cost one way or the other whether it's for batteries and whatnot now or gasoline and oil in little bits over the next 10 years, but it's a simple fact that "less money now" will win every time for most folks.
An easy way to recycle the batteries would go a LONG way towards making these vehicles more acceptable, that's for sure.
Ferretman - wintermd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2wind and solar power doesn't work. Just go to California and see all the non-working windmills. The result of the last failed gov push for wind and solar power.
Why do we waste our time on wind and solar power, go with large scale nuke power, as it can scale for what we need with no carbon output. - SirGrant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Why do we waste our time on wind and solar power, go with large scale nuke power, as it can scale for what we need with no carbon output."
chernobyl anyone?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 