What is Digg?120 Comments
- dallen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Colbert is the smartest man alive. I think it is hilarious that some people do not realize that he is doing satire.
- dallen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13jawadde - I think you would probably have a battery hooked up to the panels during the day and charge from that overnight.
- Gnascher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"...solar panels... overnight...
ah.. the joy of logic !"
Not as illogical is you think. Solar panels collect the energy and store it in a battery while you're at work. You come home and plug in the car, and the energy is transferred from house battery to car battery.
Solar power doesn't have to be used when the sun's shining ... you can store it for later use. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Keep in mind that these numbers may change dramatically; either up or down, once we start consuming large quantities. Personally, I'm very skeptical of any sort of "bio" fuel. There simply isn't enough available crop land for both food *and* fuel. The most viable alternative in my opinion is electricity from nuclear power.
- axiomata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Electric battery cars plugged into a home rigged with solar panels (and hooked up to the conventional grid) gets my vote. Quick-charge stations on the road too but most of the power will come from plugging it in over night at home. Just need a beautified/cheapified Ellica: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/previews/51690/eliica_eightwheeler.html
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Numbers? Don't you know that important things like this are decided with emotions?
- charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9We're talking economical here. Honestly, if it's economical, practical, and easy, it will work. If it's not, it will not. Buying expensive solar panels, and a lot of them, to power your car, mounting them on your house (taking away from the asthetic value of your house) and then trying to drive across the country on the charge isn't cheap, it isn't easy, it isn't practical, and it also just isn't possible. I wish in my heart of hearts what you're advocating was feasible, but it is not. Hydrogen, on the other hand is feasible. Today? No. Tomorrow? Yes.
We should be focusing our efforts there. It's the holy grail, as it will be cheap enough (though not cheap, but cheaper than oil prices today) it is renewable, and it has the potential for no emmisions into the atmosphere (depending on what type of energy is used to can it). - Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I agree with the article - the most important thing we have to do _now_ is rid ourselves of foreign dependency, and that means using several different alternatives at once until hydrogen takes its rightful place. I'm planning to make my next car a hybrid, but if a great bio-diesel or ethanol-based car comes along, sign me up.
- jawadde, on 10/12/2007, -17/+24...solar panels... overnight...
ah.. the joy of logic ! - DogzOfWar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Right on, about bio-fuels. Every once in a while someone says "Hey look i made this car run on day-old hamburgers or french fry grease", but of course we can't replace 8 million barrels of oil a day worth of energy with that stuff.
My vote is for better electric cars, with a power grid supplied by nuclear or solar on people's homes. Or creating hydrogen using power supplied by nuclear. - doyama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You dont have to thank the legislature, thank the taxpayers for subsidizing corn like its out of style. We're essentially paying Iowa to grow more corn. Without those subsidies ethanol wouldnt be cheap at all. Also ethanol isnt nearly as 'green' as its made out to be. Corn takes a lot of fertilizer to make it grow and fertilizer is made from fossil fuels. Thus you're just playing a shell game of where that oil is consumed
- KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Heh, true according to Steven Colbert. He says we need less think tanks, and more Feel tanks.
- Gnascher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It means that fossil fuels are being burned in the process of distilling ethanol.
- ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Alternate energy discussion is plagued by:
- wishful thinking
- hidden agendas
- hero worship
- big business hatred
- government stupidity
- subsidy ripoffs
- bad labwork
- R&D funding grabs
- outright scams
- utter cluelessness
"Corn ethanol under American farm conditions appears to be a net energy sink because independent studies tell us you have to put more old energy in than you get back as new."
Enlighten yourself at:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf - Gnascher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@gmikej --
That works too, however the battery packs to power a car are big, heavy and expensive. I think the little bit lost in the transfer is more than made up for by not having to swap out the battery packs. - trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why does everyone forget that the electric car can be run on nuclear power, which releases FAR FAR less radiation than burning coal (really!) and is way safer than either warmongering for oil or mining for coal?
- chrisclarke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Agreed. Nuclear power has significantly cleaned up since it was originally detested so vehemently in the 1960's and 1970's. The NIMBY effect is wearing off and people are hopefully realizing the potential strength of nuclear power plants. Besides the great initial capital investment, the recurring cost of nuclear power plant operation is significantly lower than coal or natural gas, leading to potentially cheaper electricity. The capital investment has been slightly offset by a new program by the DOE to provide a tax incentive to invest in nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program
Unfortunately, since 1978 only two nuclear power plants have been planned. Some nuclear power plants planned before 1978 weren't complete until well after 1978 but there was no investment in nuclear power after 1978. Recently this changed when a small town in Alaska decided to look into an investment of a small plant through Toshiba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
Finally, with the expertise of GE in the nuclear power plant field, I believe a push by government officials to invest in nuclear power plants built by United States companies could do a great deal to alleviate a small portion of oil dependency for electricity generation and provide electricity at an overall lower cost to the consumer. With an abundance of cheap electricity, the problem of hydrogen generation for the future of consumer transportation can be solved. In the mean time, plug in hybrids can fill the gap and decrease the need for oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
Note: Don't treat Wikipedia.org as a definitive source on this information. More information can be found at the DOE website.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html - DBCubix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Horses and buggies are cheap.
- tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4More important question is how much total energy is required to extract, produce, and transport each type of fuel? What is the total economy of the processes that produce each alternative fuel?
- Pocky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Perhaps if we could overrule the environmentalists who want to destroy our environment by opposing nuclear power, we wouldn't have to be burning a ton of coal to get the electricity. I'm so thankful for that change of position by one of the founders of Greenpeace about nuclear power (mentioned on Digg a few weeks ago). Hopefully more people will wake up to the fact that while nuclear power isn't perfect, it is our best bet.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That chart doesn't seem to be particularly scientific in an apples-to-apples way. They're changing two variables at once in each examples (vehicle ((size,weight)) and fuel source)).
It's also interesting that even though wind generation is now cost-competitive for generating electricity, they stuck with coal to make your choices seem less palatable in comparison with the status quo.
Do you think that the auto industry being Popular Mechanic's biggest advertiser has anything to do with their extolling the virtues of the gasoline engine? - Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"For example, even the cheapest alternatives aren't really "cheap" - 1 ton of coal burned to power the electric car (as shown on the accompanying .pdf in the article)."
There are two motivating factors for switching to alternative fuel sources:
1.) Improving the environment.
2.) Decreasing our dependency on foreign oil. _Especially_ oil that's coming from countries harboring extremists that would see us dead. The less money we can give to corrupt governments that siphon oil profits to jihadists, the better. We don't have to get coal from the middle east. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Here's the logical argument: if ethanol used more enegery to make than it produces it would cost more at the time of resale, however, since ethanol is actually cheap than gas at wholesale, it must be energy positive or any company making it would go out of business."
Well, that's the COMMON argument. But it's illogical in that it completely ignores corporate welfare. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You do know that they produce ethenol from the non-food stuff like the waste stalk and husks of corn crops and still use the "corn" as its intended use.
Several countries have totally stopped using gasoline from oil and are not self sufficent in using ethenol for their cars... South America, Brazil, Columbia, etc.. there is no reason why the USA could not do so as well or at least mostly do so.
Also, you can make ethenol from a variety of crops and are not limited to using crops that require lots of fertilzer, pestisides etc.
The COOL THING about Ethenol is that its greehouse-gas-neutral. The CO2 you produce by burning it was already taken out of the atmosphere by the plant as it was growing. - brucemolloy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...um, ok. Just a guess - you weren't wearing any protective head gear when the reactor blew, were you.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Wake up! Sugar cane is a TROPICAL plant, it won't produce well here.."
Except that sugar BEETS grow pretty much anywhere corn will grow. They grow them in wintery northern part of Michigan, hardly tropical. As mentioned, sugar beets turn out significantly more ethanol than per pound of input than corn, and it is mainly political pressures (in the form of subsidies) that keep the growing focused on them. - thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I put down ethanol becuase the whole it deserves it.
In certain situations it works, but not on a national (US) scale and not from corn. - rv8ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a good article. It's a shame most people won't read it. I have a feeling that if things continue as they are, in the future most people will be happy to be able to afford to ride a moped.
- SilverCaladan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention any of the attempts being made at producing fuel from garbage. True, there's only one test plant in Pennsylvania, but it's worth a mention, and its mostly a grassroots movement...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's the logical argument: if ethanol used more enegery to make than it produces it would cost more at the time of resale, however, since ethanol is actually cheap than gas at wholesale, it must be energy positive or any company making it would go out of business.
Here's the factual argument: http://zfacts.com/p/60.html, which in summary, says that ethanol is energy positive, but not as much as oil is, which makes sense, as no energy goes into making the oil, just extracting it, and gas contains more energy per gallon than ethanol. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I think it is hilarious that some people do not realize that he is doing satire."
It's hilarious. And outright scary.
A huge part of america has lost its ability to recognize satire and irony.
Simple example: Iran is the most evil country in the world because they want to make Nukes. Our solution? Threaten invasion with the possible use of strategic nukes. Half of america, upon hearing that logic just blink and simply don't see the irony in it. - anvilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed. This entire exercise is misleading:
1 bbl = 42 US gallons.
4.5 bbl= 189 gallons
4.5 bbl (from the article) produces 97 gallons of gasoline (petrol)
What about the other 92 gallons?
It's not wasted:
Some will be diesel - which can be used to get a car/truck down the road
Some will be kerosene/jet fuel - which can get a plane in the air
Some will be butane/propane/etc - used for cooking & heating (or can be used to power cars)
There will be some "residue" heating oil and asphalt - heats homes and builds roads.
The only other fuel in the list which has meaningful "by-products" would be ethanol production - which would produce animal feed.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Ref_image_Simple.htm#Average%20U.S.%20Refinery%20Yield - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't forget that fuel goes far beyond just what you put in your car. It's also about what you use to cook, heat your house, power the boilers that provide steam and heat for factories, the oil used to produce plastics, etc. Although we can start by producing alternative engines for vehicles, the ubiquitous petrol/gasoline will be with us in one form or another for many more decades.
- thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As much as i dislike Charles Schumer, for years he has been calling for a "manhattan project" for energy alternatives, and I completely agree. It's about time the USA starts innovating in this area and on a grand scale. Universities and small entrepenaurs can only go so far.
We need to tax the fvck out of petro based fuels and pour it all into advanced production and distribution technologies for alternatives. Gas is going to be $5/gal anyway, probbaly real soon. Just do it now and force people to conserve, that might actually drive demand and crude prices down.
Enviornment aside for a moment. What many people may not realize is that one reason gas prices are so is because the dollar is weak. So stop fvcking borrowing money from china to invade middle east countries further driving up the price of oil, OK? - (.)(.), on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ethanol mandates are just welfare for our farmers. They must have a pretty powerful lobby in washington.
- Vaelan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While talking to some friends of mine they didn't agree with the idea of "companies providing the buses" so as an alternative proposal, why not the blue-collar/essential employees be allowed to take the "Public Transportation System" and when they present their employment card, the system charges back the employer and the employer gets the expense subsidized from the government based on the type of industry that they are operating.
In that way, if more people are travelling by "public transportaion" then the public transportation dept. can provide better, cleaner vehicles and they will be available on time and more frequent. - KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"There is nothing wrong with conservation. Don't get me wrong, but focusing on conservation alone is a poor idea. Figuring out how to increase refining, and drilling capacity is needed as well as research into other fuel sources.
Right now, we need to extract oil from the massive coal deposits we have in this country. We need to tap into the oil that is plentiful off the Florida coast and Alaska. Heck, ANWAR was _set aside_ specifically for oil drilling. Now we can't touch it because of the wacky environmentalists."
Im going to dispute this. Here:
"The Energy Policy Act of 1992, signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, requires that 75% of all vehicles purchased by government agencies run on alternative fuel. The goal of the Act was to replace 30% of projected motor fuel consumption with alternative fuel by 2010. "
"Compliance with the original standards set forth by the Energy Policy Act could have had an enormous environmental impact, according to a fact sheet on the Center for Biological Diversity's website. The conservation group's statement notes that besides sharply cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, the 30% reduction would save four times as much fuel every year as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could provide in the same period." "
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/04/bushs_environmental_slap_on_th.php - eribac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're saving lots of money? The 3.8L in my Buick also cost about $30 to fill, and I get about 325 per tank. Considering the what you paid for you Hybrid vs my Buick, I don't think you are saving lots of money.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I drive a 2003 Volkswagen Golf TDI, which I can highly recommend. I run it on B100 (100% RME diesel made from rape seeds). During the winter I add some regular diesel to the tank to create a B50 mixture, or if it gets really cold I run a B10-B20 mixture.
In addition to being better for the environment with virtually no difference to regular diesel, biodiesel is actually around 10% cheaper where I live (Sweden) because of taxes. It's a win-win situation.
This guy drives the same car as me in New Mexico (I guess): http://www.transmitmedia.com/golfTDI/ - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2doyoma nailed it.
Ethanal, as it is now, is *not* a 'green' energy. It's just marketed that way.
"We're essentially paying Iowa to grow more corn."
To clarify, we're paying the industry to favor corn over everything else. These farmers aren't necessarrily happy about just growing corn, but we've made it so it's often the only viable crop. When Mansonto says the only grain they'll buy from the elevator is corn, that doesn't leave many options for the family farm. - sunnyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That settles it. My next car will take only BioWillie brand fuel.
- merm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>Electric battery cars plugged into a home rigged with solar panels (and hooked up to the conventional grid) gets my vote.
>>...solar panels... overnight... ah.. the joy of logic !
Just in case you couldn't read, he said "hooked up to the conventional grid". That means that your house isn't disconnected from the power grid. So your solar panels gather sunlight and feed this INTO the grid at your house during the day (run the meter backwards), then when you get home you plug your car into the outlet at home (run the meter back forward). This is the most common way of using solar at home; using the power grid as a "battery". It's also more efficient (and better for the power grid and thus your neighbors) than charging a battery during the day, and then charging your car battery off battery. - Vaelan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Based on my understanding, I feel that the following initiatives will help reduce our dependency on energy:
1. We should look to switching to an alternative fuel source. And I believe the increase in gas prices will force United States to re-think alternatives.
2. With the boom of the Internet, I believe that technology such as video-conferencing, Internet applications, telecom innovations - exists today to allow people to work from home (except for service based businesses such as departmental stores, etc - but even those can be made on-line). If congress gave companies tax breaks and incentives for promoting work from home opportunities then that will force companies to implement infrastructure so that folks can work from home.
3. The service oriented companies such as departmental stores should modify their website to a degree where the customer can make purchase decisions by looking at the product on line instead of being able to touch and feel the product. And to help companies in that direction, congress should provide incentives for companies moving more to on line businesses then a retail outlet business.
4. So that leaves the blue-collar worker who needs to travel to and from work. If companies pick up the individuals in a company paid vehicles at designated stops and dropped them back up in their local neighborhoods then those buses/vehicles can be easily adopted to use cleaner alternative fuel than conventional vehicles driven by individuals. (I have seen this done in India. They pick you up every morning and drop you back in the evening. And interestingly enough, there the company works 24/7 where one shift of workers restore for their home and another come into work). And once again - this would be only possible provided congress and the US government pushes corporate companies to do this. And they will only do this if it gives them tax or monetary advantages.
-- What does this mean to the employee?
1. With him/her traveling less - they spend more time with family - You strengthen the American family.
2. With him/her traveling less - they spend less money on gas/car problems/oil changes/insurance, etc - which means more money in their hands.
3. Less Stress = Better health.
-- What does this mean to the employer?
1. Productivity improves because the employee is less stressed - from travel, family obligations, etc.
2. Because the average American is spending less then you can also reduce the wages to compensate the expenses incurred by providing travel arrangements to the employee as well as the infrastructure needed to support the model such as telecom facilities, etc.
3. Less Stress for employee = Better health for employee = savings on health benefits.
-- What does this mean for the country?
1. Cleaner environment.
2. Less vehicles on road - so cities become cleaner.
3. The American Family gets stronger, healthier.
4. A healthy family = less spending on medicare and health related spending.
Which all adds up to a "Better America"
I know this sounds like a pipe dream but if something as small as a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world might affect the weather in a different part of the world then little changes can make a big difference. And it all starts with YOU!!!
I welcome your thoughts and comments on this... - thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@otherland
gimme a buzz when we actually have a free market and maybe i'll change my views
The government should not be killing innovation in the private sector, the FED should be encouraging it, that was my point. We don't pay the true price of oil, I think we would all be better off if we started. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, I'm going to ride a bike 74 miles a day.
Err, no. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Er. Except not. I love hybrid cars as much as anyone, but they are NOT money savers.
Honda Insight (most efficient Hybrid) = $21,000
No tax credit if you get the 5 speed (they base credits on emmisions, not gas usage), or something like $2000 for the automatic. You get 10 more MPG out of the 5-speed though. But, lets give you the best of both worlds. $2k credit and the full 60mpg (real world avreage from http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/).
Ok, so next contender is the Saturn Ion (base model). $12,000, gets 26/35mpg (city/hwy) combined cycle is about 31mpg.
So you now need to save $7000 to be in the black on the Insight. At the moment gas is $3/gallon give or take, but we all know it's going higher, so lets average it out to a whopping $4/gallon. So, you need to save 1750 gallons of gas to break even. With the Insight getting about double the mileage of the Saturn, you need to go about 105,000 miles (in which time you would have used 1750 gallons of gas with the hybrid and 3500 with the gas car) before you have officially come to the break even point.
Now, if you drive A LOT you may come out ahead with the Insight in 4 or 5 years. Most people average around 10-12k, which means we're looking at 8-10 years before it pays for itself. Keep in mind, this is working with a MPG figure of the best hybrid, AND giving you a tax break, which it doesn't actually qualify for. In otherwords, it's a very generous estimate.
Now, if gas were to get up to the $6 a gallon range you'd start to see some savings within the warranty of the car, but even then it's still going to be at least 5 years for most people to see any savings. - sclozza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All you need is 1.21 "Jiggawatts"! :)
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21 word: nukular
- jkris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A big ass battery in your home or swapping out your car battery in the morning is not realistic.
A way solar + electric cars would work is, your home would be connected to the grid, and during the day your home meter would turn in reverse because the excess power generated from your solar cells while you're at work feed into the grid, powering local businesses and other homes. So when you charge your car at night the meter pulls from the grid and you pay for the power as you normally would. Net-net, you effectively charged your car from your solar panels. This concept is called net metering and is done in CA and NJ today. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem isnt with drilling or really adopting alternative fuels, the problem is with people. Most of the cars that are sold today are horribly ineficient and they use more fuel than they need too. with modest research you can build a care " possibly using hydrogen aditives" that can get 50 - 60 MPG. if you go with a deisel hybrid you can get 130MPG " using walplug charging too" the problem is that most people want a car that can go 100 MPH and is effectively a tank, that has the aerodynamics of a borg ship. I think the idea of using ethanol is horrible, to even make a dent in our fuel usage we would have to convert every square inck of our arable land to corn production, and there would be nothing left for food production, that is not a solution it is a joke. and finally, the problem is with ideology not science. i hate grean peace because they give real environmentalist a bad name. greanpeace people are hurting the environment more than the republicans because
1) they use ideology instead of common sense, and their numbers dont add up.
2) Greanpeace and most environmental comunities reject nuclear power, this is out of lunacy and a compleat and total lack of common sense.
3) most environmentalist hate humanity and they craft there policy in an effort to eliminate people.
I truely wish that there would be an alternative party to greanpeace, one that was dedicated to environmental change bassed on common sense and moderation, and not ideology and philosophy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 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