What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
456 Comments
- bigsheldy, on 03/20/2009, -13/+203Dugg for the hope that Tesla becomes a top American manufacturer
- JasonHilton, on 03/20/2009, -7/+70About time, electric vehicles need all the help they can get.
- Resiroth, on 03/20/2009, -6/+60Too bad you don't realize that electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. Or that having more cars on the grid is better because as power plants pollute less so do cars. Currently one has to buy a whole new car to become "greener".
- rmxz, on 03/20/2009, -3/+50Please don't give this to the big 3 that pretty much proved they can't innovate even if their existence depends on it.
Rather, give it to the 11 small US manufacturers of street ready electric cars and let them buy whatever factories they need from the big-3 during their bankruptcy sales to keep the manufacturing jobs in the US. - eramos, on 03/20/2009, -6/+50I want them, thus obviating your comment.
- mrgarci1, on 03/20/2009, -23/+66I love all the comments saying "the free market is working fine, people don't need the gov't to force electric cars on them."
Hate to break it to you, but the free market is in a constant state of transition - commonly known to economists as "creative destruction" - the petroleum-powered car (at least as we know it in America) is no longer profitable, as several major auto companies are on the verge of collapse, with huge numbers of unsold cars sitting on their lots. Creation of a new market (for electric cars) and destruction of an old one (for gas-powered cars) are inseparable. That is the free market at work. The gov't isn't interfering here, they're helping the market in the direction it's already headed. - archaist, on 03/20/2009, -15/+52We should just get all the AIG employees to research this stuff in their spare time.
- neognostic, on 03/19/2009, -14/+48I guess your job at McDonalds qualifies you for your market forecasting abilities, such a tool.
- inactive, on 03/20/2009, -15/+46Dear China,
May we please borrow more money.
Love,
Barack - Konrad9, on 03/20/2009, -11/+39"Waaaaah electricity comes from burning coal"
SO ***** WHAT.
This is a stepping stone, a building block, the next step towards renewable energy. We can't go straight from petrol to hydrogen. We have to take baby steps to get there. - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -5/+32For the record America has NEVER had a free market.
- BobNoxious211, on 03/20/2009, -8/+34Is that why the people keep demanding them?
You won't buy one. Millions of us will.
The carbon levels emitted by the electric plants that power the electric cars will be less than the carbon levels emitted by the same number of petrol cars. - jlimon, on 03/20/2009, -8/+34Because when we let the private industry handle something, they kill anything that threatens their market.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca ... - Anzat, on 03/20/2009, -9/+34Maybe because they aren't working?
Besides, the private sector will be doing most of the research. The government is providing incentives for much-needed development, at a time when the market is not. - Hrodrik, on 03/20/2009, -35/+56Finally, someone with a full brain is running your country. Welcome to the 21st century.
- WorldLeader, on 03/20/2009, -1/+21Tesla would be a perfect name for a 21st Century American automaker...
...that turns EVIL!! - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -7/+27War for oil... I mean war in Iraq will cost $2.7 Trillion. Do you realize how much that is?
- mgraham80, on 03/20/2009, -5/+23@Wittybanter: that article explicitly points to (a) the recession and (b) the cheap price of gasoline, to account for the slackening demand in hybrids.
Both (a) and (b) are temporary (we hope), and so we have every reason to believe the market for hybrids - and electrics - will rebound. - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -11/+29Love spending all this money we don't have.
- coldkodiak, on 03/20/2009, -9/+27incentives are good if you pursuing policy that benefits the public.
So ***** off you naysayers, you want to be subservient to the interests middle eastern and big oil companies all your lives?
Some things are better done from the top down. - jozb, on 03/20/2009, -4/+21I wish obama spend money on education so we can finally find US on a map.
- JigoroKano, on 03/20/2009, -5/+21I wish we had been investing in stuff like this instead of greedy banks and earmarks.
- spokenrope, on 03/20/2009, -2/+18While that's true, that energy can eventually come from anywhere (wind, solar, whatever). Gasoline always has to come from oil.
It's a step in the right direction. It's not the *only* step we have to take. - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -3/+19What are you talking about? I'm thinking of buying one now. ***** they're under 20 grand and go 110 miles on a charge, living in the city, that's perfect.
I'll agree that right now, electric cars arnt for everyone, but that's going to change, real soon because these grants by the energy department will make batters charge faster, last longer, which in turn makes them accelerate faster and power all the crazy stereo/dvd crap one puts in a car. Basically make it viable for the skeptics out there.
But if you refuse to buy a car that, lets say, gets 300 miles on a single charge that takes 3-5 minutes (to re-charge) and gets up to speeds of 100 mph, then you deserve to pay 5$ a gallon for gas. - coldkodiak, on 03/20/2009, -1/+17its a piss in a bucket these days.
- inactive, on 03/20/2009, -1/+15WTF dude!? Since when did we STOP providing grants to get people to develop new technology?
You do know that if we didn't have government grants/funding, we wouldn't have the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Intern ... - WorldLeader, on 03/20/2009, -1/+14Oh look kids! It's one of those ancient "invisible hand" economists! Aww.. isn't he cute when he tries to convince you that America always had a free market until that Obama came along? Well come along, we have some geocentric astronomers to visit...
- StateRadioFan, on 03/20/2009, -4/+17search term suggestions for you... Solar, Wind, Geothermal
- St0rmShad0w, on 03/20/2009, -10/+21As soon as a pure electric vehicle has:
-350mile or more range on 1 charge with 1/2 ton of cargo
-can recharge completely in 10-15 minutes
And the electric grid has:
-Enough capacity to meet its existing needs
-Enough spare capacity to support electric vehicles
-Infrastructure in place to allow charging stations equivalent to current fuel stations
Until then they can't/won't be widely adopted. - javayoda, on 03/20/2009, -14/+25Somehow I suspect you didn't mind spending a trillion to kill a hundred thousand Iraqis.
- Anzat, on 03/20/2009, -3/+14Hence the research.
Who the hell wouldn't prefer electric over gas if it got the same performance? - lydecker, on 03/20/2009, -2/+12The possible sources of electricity are clean and non-clean.
The possible sources of gas are non-clean.
The point of the electric car from a clean perspective? Cleaner than all current cars, since electricity is cleaner, especially considering efficiency of small car engines to those of coal plants. And the current technology will only be improved over time to be ready for more clean power plants. - cookingboy, on 03/20/2009, -1/+11That would be an insult to all the real engineers out there...There are some professions that still have a bit of dignities and pride involved...
- biotch, on 03/20/2009, -0/+10Yeah Gerz...
Or we can go the Bush route and give tax credits for Hummers and the like! :p - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -6/+16Dear Barack,
No.
Thanks,
China
P.S. Don't send Hillary again. - rick2k, on 03/20/2009, -16/+26These coments are so sad.
This is the kind of stuff that will put America back onto the center stage. Think of the new technology and advances *AND MONEY* that will be created by doing this. Dont you want to innovate anymore?!.... sorry did i miss something about you guys? I thought you were ment to be proud innovators. So what its a lot of money. Look where you have got to technology wise in the past taking risks like this. You put a man on the moon for f*** sake!
As a non american, this to me says your the only country out there currently who has the balls to get on with the future and get away from the past. You should be thanking your leader! - BotchaMcCoola, on 03/20/2009, -8/+18Wish I could agree. But I trust the economy more than US Politicians. In fact, it is immoral for him or any one else to tell me what we are collectively going to invest in with funny money or Chinese loans. Central planning has been decreasing in Russia and China. I don't trust it for the USA either.
- lydecker, on 03/20/2009, -0/+10I assure you, some electricity sources ARE clean, and not all are, which is what we have been saying. And coal power plants are definitely more efficient than individual car engines. Please do some research about where electricity comes from.
- lydecker, on 03/20/2009, -0/+9Not just, because there's a lot less pollution from coal power plants when compared to gasoline engines... AND we're prepping for solar, wind, hydro, and other power sources to provide non-polluting energy.
- tyne101101, on 03/20/2009, -3/+12Ok bmcelrath, I'm refuting your comment because I am not going to spend most of my money refilling my car when I am going to drive soon. I really am sick of gasoline fuel. Time to move on to electricity usage now.
- Gerz1219, on 03/20/2009, -2/+11@WittyBanter -- Apparently somebody has never heard of economies of scale. Once the technology gets there, more people will demand plug-in vehicles, and they will become cheaper to produce.
All new technologies have a bit of a chicken-and-egg hump to get over at first, as early models are geared towards a niche market of early adopters. But this is particularly a problem with plug-in vehicles, because the primary reason we need to get these cars on the road (an impending surge in gas prices) is least likely to affect rich customers any time in the near future, and this short-term lull in gas prices particularly seems to have made middle-class people stupid.
If a practical $100,000 plug-in is available, and it's been that and a Porsche, most auto buyers in that market will buy the Porsche. The problem is much worse if the plug-in can only go 40 miles on a charge like the crappy Chevy Volt is expected to do.
So if we can't make these vehicles attractive, and subsidize their purchase with tax credits, in ten years we'll wind up with an obsolete fleet of gas guzzlers and gas will cost $10 a gallon. And then it will be too late for everyone to buy a plug-in, because we'll be in the middle of another economic collapse. - coldkodiak, on 03/20/2009, -0/+9Taking golden showers are we?
- Kolumbic, on 03/20/2009, -19/+28Now if only the car companies weren't paid so much by the oil companies to make hybrid/electric cars so ugly, thus consumers buy regular gasoline vehicles, then this funding would really shine.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 03/20/2009, -2/+11I will. In a heartbeat. With my commute it should pay for itself pretty quickly.
- fugazied, on 03/20/2009, -4/+13Because market forces have obviously failed (again) in this sector. With the interference of the oil companies, the slowness of auto manufacturers to respond, and the state of the environment it has become pretty obvious any 'solution' the market has provided has been insufficient.
cue the Freidmanites stating the US has never had a free market because of government interference including those pesky child labor laws, the epa (stopping them dumping rubbish in lakes etc) and worker safety laws. - oboshoe, on 03/20/2009, -0/+9I also hope to win the lottery.
Detroit has the backing of the power brokers in Washington. Tesla does not.
They will gladly spending 1,000,000x as much propping up Detroit, before they spend anything getting Tesla started. Oh sure Tesla might get a million dollar grant here or there, but it will pail in comparison to the hundreds of Billions that detroit gets.
I like Tesla, don't get me wrong. I think that new startups with new thinking IS the way to go. But politically it will not survive. - pstroll, on 03/20/2009, -6/+14The only things holding back electric cars are the laws of thermodynamics and economics.
- JoeVet, on 03/20/2009, -0/+8Michigan should have invested years ago like Toyota and Honda.
- lydecker, on 03/20/2009, -1/+9"p.s you can't cry research when you provide none"
But you can cry research when you provide none?
Alright, I call. Provide your research, and here's mine:
"The efficiency of a gasoline-powered car is surprisingly low. All of the heat that comes out as exhaust or goes into the radiator is wasted energy. The engine also uses a lot of energy turning the various pumps, fans and generators that keep it going. So the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine is about 20 percent. That is, only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.
A battery-powered electric car has a fairly high efficiency. The battery is about 90-percent efficient (most batteries generate some heat, or require heating), and the electric motor/inverter is about 80-percent efficient. This gives an overall efficiency of about 72 percent."
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm
"
Let's compare the Toyota compact to the forthcoming all-electric Tesla Roadster, which promises 245 miles' worth of travel per charge. The relatively fuel-efficient 2006 Corolla gets an average of 31 miles per gallon of gas, assuming it has a manual transmission. Over 100 miles, then, the Corolla will consume 3.23 gallons of gas, which in turn produces 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide. (According to the Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gas produces 19.564 pounds of carbon dioxide—yes, seriously.) That figure, of course, doesn't include the energy expended to pump the oil out of the ground, ship it across the oceans, refine it, and get it to your local filling station.
Now let's look at the Roadster over that same distance. A recent analysis by Automotive Testing and Development Services found that for every 100 miles of travel, a Roadster needs to be recharged with 31 kilowatt hours of electricity. (Only about 70 percent of that charge goes toward creating motion; the rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the charging process.) Generating a kilowatt hour of electricity produces an average of 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide, which means the Tesla vehicle emits 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles.
Your results will vary, though, according to your state of residence. In states that use the most coal, such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia, the CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour are higher—so much higher, in fact, that the Roadster may emit just a few pounds less carbon than the Corolla when all's said and done. On the other hand, if you're a motorist in the Pacific Northwest, where hydroelectric power reigns, going with an EV is an even cleaner choice. (Use this nifty ZIP-code tool to determine how much of your electricity is coal-generated; the Lantern was surprised to learn that 49 percent of his own power supply comes from a nearby nuclear plant.)
Lower carbon dioxide emissions aren't the only advantage to going electric with your wheels. EVs such as the Roadster don't even have tailpipes, so there's not a constant plume of acrid smoke wafting into the air. As a result, EVs produce less methane, nitrous oxide, and assorted other greenhouse gases than their gas-powered counterparts. The one exception: sulfur dioxide, which is produced by coal combustion and can lead to acid rain.
"
http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/fr/flyout
"
Now to the specifics of your question: How efficient are EVs when you account for energy lost from power plant to motor? A 3,000-pound electric vehicle like Toyota's RAV4 uses about 0.2 kilowatt-hours per mile. That's equivalent to 682 British thermal units, or Btu, a common energy measurement that lets us compare different fuels. If you get that energy from a fossil-fuel-fired power plant, only 34 percent of the original input becomes electrical energy--the other 66 percent is lost in the generation process. So it takes about 2,000 Btu to get 0.2 kilowatt-hours. But because transmission and charging the battery can eat up 15 to 20 percent of the original electricity, you'll need at least another 300 Btu to generate enough electricity to make up for the loss. That means moving the RAV4 one mile requires a total fossil-fuel input of about 2,300 Btu.
How do gas-powered cars stack up? A gallon of gas is equivalent to 124,290 Btu--so a 25-mpg car uses 4,970 Btu per mile, nearly twice the energy required by its electric counterpart. However, as you imply, if we improve the mileage, the gas-powered car or hybrid comes closer and closer to the EV in terms of energy use. At 40 mpg, it's down to 3,110 Btu. Bump it up to a Prius-like 50 mpg, and, voila, it's about 2,490 Btu per mile--close to the RAV4.
"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-schildgen/evs-vs ...
And about running out of electricity, not going to happen:
"And don’t worry that we’ll run out of electrical power: A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country’s current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants. (And if all those cars were replaced by PHEVs, it would eliminate the need for 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day, or 52 percent of current U.S. oil imports.)"
http://thisweekintexas.com/artman2/publish/EarthTa ... - Hrodrik, on 03/20/2009, -2/+10There is demand. There is no supply because the technology isn't advanced since it wasn't profitable.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 468 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