What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
165 Comments
- scootscr15, on 02/13/2008, -1/+32Plug in hybrids and nuclear power plants. The two best things we can do.
- sustainablogger, on 02/13/2008, -2/+30Someone asked me yesterday which "new" automotive technology would be the standard in the next five years, and I immediately said "plug-in hybrids." The advantage, I think, is the lack of need for any infrastructure changes... we've got everything we need right now to make these the norm. Now, just have to get them into production... at the right price!
- sockpuppets, on 02/13/2008, -1/+21I've already run an extension cord to my neighbor's outlet in anticipation.
- inurb, on 02/13/2008, -2/+19Biodiesel from algae is the only real sustainable carbon based fuel. Turning corn into ethanol is wasteful and is only encouraged by the ignorant federal government.
- vault, on 02/13/2008, -2/+16They need to boost the tax break you get for buying a hybrid car, then more people would consider it. Without that, the only people driving them are eco-marxist hippy types.
- wealer, on 02/13/2008, -4/+16Just keep buying Toyota and Honda... Then maybe the big THREE will get it.
- GoneGreen, on 02/13/2008, -0/+11it won't be thousands and the batteries of today last from 8-10 years.
- aussieNickuss, on 02/13/2008, -1/+11how much do you currently pay for gas each month?
- thebaron2, on 02/13/2008, -1/+10Get that scragged crap out of here. Almost every single one of your comments links back to scragged:
http://digg.com/users/lanceevers/history/comments
The ones that aren't visible on the summary page can be seen by expanding the comment. Get your spam ***** out of here! I hope every self-respecting digger will actively boycott that ***** website. And yes, I'm spamming this exact comment to any of yours that I can find, you piece of *****. - JigoroKano, on 02/13/2008, -0/+8It doesn't require new infrastructure, but it could certainly take advantage of new infrastructure.
Imagine if you could plug-in at work. - aussieNickuss, on 02/13/2008, -1/+8Plug-in hybrids and geothermal....even better.
- OisinT, on 02/13/2008, -2/+9The "big three" are so irrelevant now that it's not funny. As Colbert would say "the market has spoken" - Japanese and German companies are paving the way to the future and their sales are reflecting that. The "big 3" US companies have no choice now but to play the game. Unfortunately that game involves lining the pockets of US government officials to keep these new technologies off the road. The tesla roadster squeaked through, but do you think that it would have if they were mass marketing an affordable, clean, good looking, fast everyday or family car??? hell no.
- solesoul, on 02/13/2008, -2/+9Nope, it won't happen. Remember those plug-in electric cars? You know the ones that were awesome? Try finding one now.
- GoneGreen, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7Well, I agree with you mostly. but we have the technology to create 100% electic cars... well that is if we can buy that innovative battery company back from Chevron....
- brufleth, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is a means to store energy (like a battery) and a crappy one at that. Current battery technology is more efficient at storing energy than a hydrogen tank and doesn't require dramatic infrastructure changes. A range of 200 miles is more than enough for commuting to and from work or regional trips. Beyond that the gas powered (hence "hybrid") part can kick in.
The vast majority of driving could easily be covered by a 200 mile range. - aussieNickuss, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6pirate
- granolajoe, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6The momentum got rolling pretty heavily last year, with Google dumping $10 million in research toward plug-in hybrids, plus partnering with PG&E to experiment with the cars on the road. Ford also did testing with Edison, and Toyota did a one-off plug-in Prius in July.
Hopefully this all points to seeing these cars in production sooner than later...and at reasonable prices. - Logicexe, on 02/13/2008, -1/+6I call ***** on your assertion that Nuclear power is unsafe. Take the three mile island disaster, not one single person was exposed to doses of radiation more powerful than an x-ray scan. These things are safe if properly maintained. As for the nuclear waste, it's not all that radioactive. If it was still highly radioactive it would be used to generate electricity and wouldn't be thrown away for storage.
And yes you do store it in a mountain or underground in a geologically stable area. Nuclear power plants produce orders of magnitude less waste than coal or natural gas power plants and we have the ability to actually control what happens to the waste. We're not just dumping the waste in the air, we're taking it and storing it somewhere safe. Heck, recent studies have shown the smoke and dust from coal plants to be more radioactive than much of the waste produced by nuclear power plants.
Now obviously, I encourage the use of renewable energy like solar panels, wind power, geothermal power and hydroelectricity wherever possible, but not all areas will be able to use these methods, for them we use nuclear power. - inactive, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5hydrogen is the perpetual motion of the fuel industry -- you're going to need a little power to make the hydrogen, right?
- sancho, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5The point is that efficiency and emissions PER PERSON are lower when the power comes from the power plant than from the car. Vehicle gasoline engines are horribly inefficient.
- hansonc, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5You're overlooking the fact that a lot of people will buy some solar panels and "fuel" their cars for "free". This should drive (see what I did there) down the price of solar panels as well which further increases demand for the panels and lowers the dependency on oil.
I'd love to see hydrogen as an option as well but currently it takes a lot of power to create any significant amount of hydrogen, more than can feasibly be made from solar/wind/hydro power. The best option is nuclear since it gives off no greenhouse gases but Americans don't understand it and thus are afraid of it. - GoneGreen, on 02/13/2008, -2/+6Yea, atleast when you buy a Toyota or Honda you are supporting american workers. It's so sad that you have to buy a foreign car to "Buy American"...
- tendonut, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Just don't let that thing go 108 minutes without typing in a string of numbers in a early 80's computer terminal. You might pull a plane down.
- altgeeky1, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5No, they just need to fix the tax structure priorities
Currently in 2008 the situation is:
* NO BREAK for the Prius (there's a ceiling on units/year... basically the Prius sold too many and LOST the tax break!)
* You still get a $2,000 tax break for hybrids that sell in lower volumes than a Prius... but these end up being hybrid SUVs (even though it's a token power source, the owners buy these to get 1-person access to the CARPOOL/EXPRESS LANE in many states)
* The tax break for a HUMMER is still over $20,000! (Granted this benefit comes from a different law, enacted sometime after 9-11)
I agree there should be more tax breaks for vehicles that HELP America (and fewer for those that HURT America), but rather than push any one technology the tax system could be overhauled: the "gas tax" does NOT actually pay for highway and bridge maintenance. This money goes to the general fund... and the entirety of it doesn't cover road work... just a fraction of it.
Also, by focusing on the gas tax rather than ONE TYPE of technology, the market Lots of people do not know that a Volkswagon turbo diesel gets efficiency that approaches a hybrid.
If road work (and perhaps oil wars) were financed with gas taxes, then perhaps people would look more favorably on public transportation (which gets $1 dollar in federal funds for every $250 spent on highways... no wonder the trains can't break the 50-mph barrier in the US northeast) - Logicexe, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Did you miss the part about how hybrids will still have small ICE motors that provide energy for long distance trips? That's why they're called electric-gas hybrid cars and not electric cars.
This is the perfect stepping stone towards a future with all electric cars. This will encourage battery technology to develop and drop in price to the point where range and recharge times will be comparable or maybe even superior to current gasoline powered cars.
Current hybrids are ripoffs. They give you marginally better fuel economy for a very high price, but they are important in the sense that they serve to develop the technology. - bogatash, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Think of the money you spend on Gas and Oil for your car... Did somebody say thousands?
- jamesotis, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Yes, but the hybrids will be diesels.
- jjason1985, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3400 million? that is about 1.5 gallons per year per person. I think it is more around 400 BILLION
- jamesotis, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Check out United States Sustainable Energy (USSE) as they've developed a line of biofuels devoid of the usual drawbacks (i.e. output, food sources, water in mixture, etc.) and are about to land international contracts.
- MikeFallopian, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4The limitations of mid-90's battery technology doomed the old plug-in cars. Current battery tech is a lot better and continuing to improve.
- OisinT, on 02/13/2008, -3/+6well yeah... I mean what's the point of using plug-in technology if the power coming through the plug is filthy!? I think we need to step back from the situation and look at this thing more reasonably. People just jump onto any fad. Lets start with the big pollution - powering our cities. Cars are the next step.
- thcobbs, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3And bill from your employer?
But seriously, you want to talk about the cost of copper going through the roof? The demand for new cabling will be so high, I need to start investing in copper futures right now! - sfgeek, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Fortunately I think it's a failing strategy. At this rate, sooner or later they won't HAVE the money left to lobby for this B.S
And don't even get me started on corn based ethanol. Corn subsidies drive me insane. Not only is it just about the most inefficient way on the planet to make ethanol, it's making food more scarce. Not to mention the fact that we have high-fructose corn syrup in everything because of those subsidies. - GoneGreen, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Geo-Thermal has some negatives to it. Scientists have noticed increased earthquake activity around "every" major geothermal implementation. While I agree that it is a viable alternative there are a lot of geographical and geological limitations.
- drlha, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Mostly true, but there are exceptions. For example I bought my wife a Honda Fit recently, which is a cool little fuel efficient car, and was surprised to find out that it was 100% built in Japan.
- EtherGnat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3But it would give you signfiicantly more power if you just used the solar panel to charge a battery. The only real advantage to hydrogen is that it allows a vehicle to be quickly fueled.
- mercury187, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3I want the air car, using air as fuel seems like the best solution.
- jjason1985, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Ethanol: sucks for energy, pollutes more than gasoline, drives up food prices.
So why do we do it?
It buys votes in the "red" states with federal subsidies. - br0ck, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Don't forget switchgrass! We can grow 1 billion tons of switchgrass sustainably and this non-food source of ethanol yeilds 80 percent more energy than required to grow and convert it, unlike corn according to http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/ ...
Switchgrass produces 76 gallons per ton per http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html so that 1 billion tons would produce 76 billion gallons of ethanol that could cheaply be produced each year from non-food crops. The US uses only 400 million gallons of gas each year. That's 190 times more fuel than we need!
And regarding land usage, according to the .gov link above, switchgrass produces 1,150 gallons per acre after correcting for fuel used to produce and convert, so 347,000 acres would be needed to provide the 400 million gallons of fuel for the US. The USA has 400,000,000 acres of cropland, so converting to switchgrass would only require a tiny portion of the available arable land to be used. Also, it grows fine in poor soil, so it wouldn't crowd out the more valuable food crop soil. - OrangeTide, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Get with the times. Your fears are unfounded. Nuclear Is Our Future. http://niof.org/
Coal is certainly not the answer, does far more damage to people and the environment. And hydro power has a huge environmental impact and we're nearly reached our capacity for large scale hydro power. Solar is not a solution by itself, you still need power at night, they don't just store it up in a battery you know. - EtherGnat, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4The infrastructure just doesn't exist yet, though. Plug in hybrids are a great transitional technology that give us the advantages of rechargeable vehicles without having to worry about being stuck on the side of the road with a dead battery. As we gradually build up our power infrastructure and battery/recharging technology improves more and more people will be able to make the switch to pure electric.
- Logicexe, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3As battery technology improves the lifespan, cost and weight will all improve over time. Batteries are still pretty expensive right now, but with economies of scale working in their favor in the future prices will go down and technology will improve.
- Ninnux, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Not sure if plug-in hybrids will be the standard. Consider the summer months and the use of air conditioners. The August 14th 2005 blackout effected two countries and was found due to the hot weather. Now take everyones hybrid and plug it into the grid at night. In the future, this would supposedly include trucks, trains, etc. That's a lot of demand on the grid. Not sure if the infrastructure could support it. Perhaps I'm wrong.
- stoanhart, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Geothermal under your house, solar on your house, nuclear/wind/hydro into your house, and a plug-in in front of your house. That's the solution.
- legendxx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2If you need to read a book to know that non-violent protests works.. you need some serious schooling.
- benjaminbr, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2plug-in hybrid will allow for a more bottom-up energy tree, with houses producing their own energy from wind and sun. While they won't have the range, thats why they are still hybrids. I just don't get why they don't have bio-diesel hybrids? Recycled veggie oil for long trips and clean electricity to go to the grocery store!
- legendxx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2I just bought a prius and I fully endorse your statement.
- feckineejit, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2The next generation of cars will be hybrid whether we like it or not. They should run mainly on Batteries, with a solar panel on the roof to charge. Your driveway will have a magnetic induction charging station and parking garages can offer top-up charging as part of your parking needs. We will use gas to generate electricity for the batteries only when the battery is dying and there is no sun.
- sfgeek, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2He's just fighting global warming! Didn't you know that global average temperature and number of total pirates are inversely proportional? The more pirates there are, the less global warming!
/ra-men! - apeweek, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2We understand it, all right. Now return the favor, and understand this: it just doesn't matter much.
Electric vehicles are far more efficient than gas vehicles. More miles on less fuel equals less pollution, even when dirty fuel is burned. Source:
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...
"...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles." -
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is