Living Car Free - Does the “car of the future” have a future?

I think this is a very interesting question.

Just read an article by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker. It's a book review -- actually a couple of books.

Auto Mania by Tom McCarthy http://www.amazon.com/Auto-Mania-Cars-Consumers-Environment/dp/0300110383/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2181871-3804728?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194394129&sr=8-1
“Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future” by Iain Carson and Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran http://www.amazon.com/ZOOM-Global-Race-Fuel-Future/dp/044658004X/ref=sr_1_1/104-2181871-3804728?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194394277&sr=1-1

Quote: "
It now seems clear—and both “Zoom” and “Auto Mania” present a compelling case on this point—that car design could be radically improved. Already the technology exists to more or less double fuel efficiency. (A great deal could be accomplished simply by trimming the weight of the average vehicle, which has increased by almost thirty per cent in the last two decades.) The failure of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles notwithstanding, tripling fuel efficiency also seems feasible. Such gains would have a huge impact in terms of oil consumption—passenger vehicles in the U.S. now account for forty per cent of the country’s oil use, and ten per cent of the world’s—and greenhouse-gas production.

"But improving gas mileage will take us only so far. Once the Chinese and the Indians really start driving, doubled or even tripled fuel efficiency won’t suffice. This is why Carson and Vaitheeswaran regard the Prius merely as a stopgap: the true car of the future has to accommodate everyone, which is to say six and a half billion, soon to be nine billion, people.

"Ultimately, designing the car of the future is such a daunting challenge because it’s bigger even than cars. As anyone who owns a BlackBerry or a cell phone or a flat-screen TV knows, technological change, when it comes, can come fantastically rapidly. But when we charge our video iPod nanos we are drawing power that, for the most part, is still generated as it was in Thomas Edison’s day. It’s true that hydrogen cars, which the Bush Administration and the Big Three claim to be working on, don’t need gasoline—the “freedom” in FreedomCAR is supposed to represent “freedom from dependence on imported oil”—but they do need hydrogen, which has to be produced using energy from somewhere. If that energy comes from, say, burning coal, as nearly half the electricity generated in the U.S. does, then the puzzle hasn’t been solved; it’s just been rearranged. The same catch applies to plug-in cars and cars that run on ethanol. (Ethanol made from corn takes almost as much energy to produce as it yields.) If someone, somewhere, comes up with a source of power that is safe, inexpensive, and for all intents and purposes inexhaustible, then we, the Chinese, the Indians, and everyone else on the planet can keep on truckin’. Barring that, the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all."


http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/11/05/071105crbo_books_kolbert

"...the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all."
I think what that means is that non oil powered cars will have enough limitations that it won't be possible to design our whole infrastructure for living around them. For example, if the only kind of car you can afford has a range limit of 120 miles or can't run an air conditioner, you start running into a class of problems modern motorists haven't been prepared to deal with.

A great question, gerv!

Once fossil fuels run out, there's no more magic juice. All the other fuels being talked about for cars are carriers of energy, or energy delivery systems. They don't "give" us free energy the way oil does. In my opinion, increasing car efficiency to 60 mpg or more would be a good stop gap measure for both peak oil and global warming. Cutting total miles driven would add some bang to that buck. (That's where carfree efforts come in, IMO.)

At the same time, we do need to come up with vehicles that run on something other than petroleum. That will require making more electricity. All the other ideas for "green" cars--plug-ins, fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels--require increased electricity generation. And that presents a real big challenge!

BTW, the book called Zoom looks real good. I asked my library to purchase a copy and I have dibs on it when it comes in.

Tough question. Big Corporations (profits) are ruling the world right now. There is still a vast amount of money to be made off of fossil fuels. I don't think the 'powers that be' will just relinquish the option, to milk this market for what its worth, no matter what the costs or consequences.

And whether or not industry will voluntarily move to a market/commodity base, that might return less of a profit, is yet to be seen. I think it's possible, but not until there is a monumental shift in priorities and paradigms.

And speaking of that, I honestly believe that this a fantastic time to be living. Over the next few decades, there will be a huge shift (on a global scale). People will come to realize that for all the advancements and breakthroughs that we've made over the years, it really doesn't mean all that much. Humanity will redeem itself. It won't be easy. And this may prove to be harder than all our other achievements to date.

At the same time, we do need to come up with vehicles that run on something other than petroleum. That will require making more electricity. All the other ideas for "green" cars--plug-ins, fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels--require increased electricity generation. And that presents a real big challenge!


We might need to keep on trucking using electricity, but that is itself a very finite source. Currently in Iowa we are generating 87% of our electricity from coal... nonsequestered, dirty coal. There are plans to add more coal-based generators. In other states, the coal solutions is enjoying a more mixed consideration, but in the long run, if you want to base your transportation on the electricity grid, you will have to add capacity.

What really scares me is that the general population might be lulled into thinking that the solution is just around the corner... we'll all be drive gas/battery hydrids or electric cars. While everyone is lulled to sleep, there is little or nothing in the way of a Plan B. By that I mean, countries like the US can believe that it will be "business as usual", ie, we always be able to drive 15 miles to pick up a loaf of bread... The real truth is that things may soon change drastically and we have no plan to deal with it.

I don't think it will be as bad people think. All that will happen is that the (fully) electric car will come back, and that the electricity will be produced by nuclear/hydroelectric power plants and wind/solar. Look at France; 80% of their power comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Many car manufacturers already have viable electric car designs, with some even producing at high volumes as recently as a few years back. There's nothing really stopping them except lack of public demand (which won't be a problem when oil runs out of course).

There's really quite a bit of solar energy waiting to be harvested; what's lacking is largely the will, as solar is cost-competitive with dirty power over a 5-10 year amortization period at present. Add hypercapacitors and build the cars the way non-crack-smoking engineers have always wanted to build them, and you have your answer.

Humanity will redeem itself.

This may be the nicest thing I have ever read. I can only hope it is true.

There's really quite a bit of solar energy waiting to be harvested; what's lacking is largely the will, as solar is cost-competitive with dirty power over a 5-10 year amortization period at present. Add hypercapacitors and build the cars the way non-crack-smoking engineers have always wanted to build them, and you have your answer.

Even solar power is based on oil. As oil is depleted, the cost of solar panels will go up. There also aren't any good solutions to energy storage so far (the sun only shines at night) - batteries (and solar panels) use a lot of different metals that need to be mined and might become scarce if the entire world tried to go solar.

Nuclear is a non-renewable energy source that will also run out eventually. It also requires lots of water for cooling, which creates other problems. Not to mention the radioactive waste and strip mines.

Nobody wants to face the truth - things are going to have to change radically. Trying to hang on to cars and all the other gadgets and "conveniences" of modern life is a fool's game. We're in serious danger of global famine and a world war based on fights over resources, and yet nothing is being done. Everyone thinks we can keep on destroying our home planet and somehow the scientists and engineers will save the day. I'm an engineer and I can tell you, we're smart, but we're not smart enough to be able to violate the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and biology.

Well, I don't know about all that. Photovoltaic manufacture is energy intensive, certainly, but silicon and electricity are the major ingredients, with significant use of copper and other metals also. If I were building a photovoltaic plant, I would do it near a large source of hydropower and lock in electricity futures; I imagine anyone investing in solar would be impressed by such foresight.

Running out of metal is a much bigger 'if' than running out of oil. Ores for the common metals originate as underwater thermal vents, the same ones that drive an interesting biology in the ocean trenches. The ocean floor is literally covered in extinct thermal vents, which do not support life, and are shockingly rich in copper, gold and iron, far more than has ever been mined from the land surface or could be. Although the usual, tiresome robber-baron tactics could turn extracting this resource into an environmental disaster, it could also be done with care and foresight, resulting in minimal to no degradation of the environment. It's a few robots and a scoop; nothing particularly hard to engineer, given the rewards of an ore with a raw weight of 20% copper and 2% gold.

Everything is changing radically, every year, at a dizzying pace. This game is nowhere near played out and the doom scenario is by no means my favorite, nor do i consider it the most probable.

Don't worry about metal (well, steel anyway). Cars of the future will all be made of carbon fiber, aluminum and those space-age polymers we hear so much about, all of which we have plenty. And solar cells are primarily silicon, which if you ever go to the beach, you'll realize we won't run out of anytime soon. Yes, they do use metal interconnects, but there are innovations in the works right now that will soon reduce the amount of copper needed significantly.

Nuclear energy will always be a polarizing issue for many. But even hardcore environmentalists are starting to come around to it, in the face of the alternatives which are actually much much worse for the environment. Coal burning for example spews tons of radioactive contamination (not to mention other toxins like mercury, etc.) into the atmosphere every day. And with new types of efficient reactors, nuclear waste is drastically reduced compared to those of previous generations. Lastly, there's not much to worry about running out of nuclear fuel. We're talking orders of magnitude greater energy density than anything offered by chemical reactions, ie a little of it goes a long long way.

Personally though, I prefer a mix of solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy production. There's so many possibilities we haven't tapped into fully yet, but I do see signs of it happening in places like Europe, and that's always encouraging.

I know that when oil gets REALLY expensive the United States has a plentiful energy source stored in the asses of women that should last us all for years.

I saw a woman today who obviously believes in peak oil and is storing a few 100,000 miles of biking fuel in her ass for the day the pipes run dry.

Out here, much of our electricity is hydroelectric power, probably the cleanest established technology available. It also is a source that won't disappear as long as we continue to have flowing rivers. However, the demand for electricity is steadily increasing and this will take a toll on all forms of electrical power generation. Providing enough power for our needs 20 or 25 years into the future will not be as simple as providing enough power for our needs today.

Out here, much of our electricity is hydroelectric power, probably the cleanest established technology available. It also is a source that won't disappear as long as we continue to have flowing rivers. However, the demand for electricity is steadily increasing and this will take a toll on all forms of electrical power generation. Providing enough power for our needs 20 or 25 years into the future will not be as simple as providing enough power for our needs today.

This is the other part of the equation that people are missing out on, as well as the fact that much of the distribution system is antiquated and overloaded in some areas. The area I am working in at the moment is having a fight over the building of another coal fired power plant (and I don't blame them) the main issue is the amount of mercury that is in the rivers and soil in the area. However if a plant of some sort does not get built soon, the ones they have will be unable to provide power to the industry and the homes in the area. Once the price of power gets to a certain point the industry WILL shut down and go somewhere else. I have seen it happen in more than one location.

There was also an earlier comment about hydro, it is a viable source, but cannot provide the total amount needed. Back during the industrial revolution most of your plants were built on or near a water source to provide power (among other things) for the plants. Unfortunately one of the side affects of that was the amount of pollution that got dumped into the various water ways, so now people are strongly against industry locating along rivers and other water ways.

Aaron:)

I don't think it will be as bad people think. All that will happen is that the (fully) electric car will come back, and that the electricity will be produced by nuclear/hydroelectric power plants and wind/solar. Look at France; 80% of their power comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Many car manufacturers already have viable electric car designs, with some even producing at high volumes as recently as a few years back. There's nothing really stopping them except lack of public demand (which won't be a problem when oil runs out of course).

We're going to need a nuclear power plant in every city. Wonderful.

How much uranium do we have on this world?

How long will it last until it's depleted?

How many years until a major break through nuclear power frees us from uranium?

Who on this forum wants to live next to a nuclear bomb, I mean power plant?

How much explosive will it take to blow one up? Don't answer that one!

I don’t know if you realize this but we are not like the French. There are tens of thousands in the middle east who hate us and would love to see a nuclear power plant in every city.

We're going to need a nuclear power plant in every city. Wonderful.

How much uranium do we have on this world?

How long will it last until it's depleted?

How many years until a major break through nuclear power frees us from uranium?

Who on this forum wants to live next to a nuclear bomb, I mean power plant?

How much explosive will it take to blow one up? Don't answer that one!

I don’t know if you realize this but we are not like the French. There are tens of thousands in the middle east who hate us and would love to see a nuclear power plant in every city.

Experts have estimated there's enough uranium to last a few billion years of energy production (at current efficiencies, which should only improve with time), thus should be considered an infinite or renewable resource.

And when oil runs out, I don't think we'll have problems with Middle Eastern terrorists anymore. Think about it.

the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all.

We can only hope.

Even solar power is based on oil. As oil is depleted, the cost of solar panels will go up. There also aren't any good solutions to energy storage so far (the sun only shines at night) - batteries (and solar panels) use a lot of different metals that need to be mined and might become scarce if the entire world tried to go solar.

If you use the solar power to generate hydrogen, you can store it and burn it at your leasure.

The same with wind and tides.

Nobody talks much about geothermal, but I understand that Iceland is doing quite a bit with it.

(Between tides, geothermal, wind, and solar, Hawai'i could be come energy-independent fairly quickly.)

If you use the solar power to generate hydrogen, you can store it and burn it at your leasure.

The same with wind and tides.

Nobody talks much about geothermal, but I understand that Iceland is doing quite a bit with it.

(Between tides, geothermal, wind, and solar, Hawai'i could be come energy-independent fairly quickly.)

Another possiblility for energy storage is to use solar electricity to pump water into an upper reservoir during the day. Then release the water into a lower reservoir at night, using the flowing water to turn hydropower turbines. Repeat the process every 24 hours.

The only currently known methods for producing energy are solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and geothermal. Technically, fossil fuels are stored energy, not new energy, but for all practical purposes, it's free energy since we don't have to produce it.

Nuclear energy will always be a polarizing issue for many. But even hardcore environmentalists are starting to come around to it, in the face of the alternatives which are actually much much worse for the environment.

Nuclear?

One word: Chernyoble.

Three more words: Three Mile Island.

Every nuclear plant is one of the above just waiting to happen. That Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was probably was at the result of several engineers' guardian angels severely spraining their wings.

Not to mention what is to be done with the nuclear waste. We need to find a way to store it that will be safe for tens of thousands of years. If any of it gets out it will mean massive envorinmental devastation from radiation poisoning.

The only currently known methods for producing energy are solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and geothermal. Technically, fossil fuels are stored energy, not new energy, but for all practical purposes, it's free energy since we don't have to produce it.We don't produce energy at all. It ain't created or destroyed. We just take advantage of current conditions in order to use whatever energy sources we can for our own purposes.

Nuclear?

One word: Chernyoble.Exactly! We would need a Chernobyl with the high end death estimate (~150,000 killed) here in the US every half decade, just to keep up with how many are killed by coal power. In the past the mortality rates due to coal combustion were much higher. And, every nuclear plant is an accident waiting to happen. Of course, so is anything, and given how dangerous other activities are, we're more likely to die from something else than an accident related to fission. For instance, regarding GE's ESBWR.

... It is 11 times more likely for the largest asteroid near the earth to impact the earth over the next 100 years than for an ESBWR operational event to result in the release of fission products to the environment

Out here, much of our electricity is hydroelectric power, probably the cleanest established technology available. It also is a source that won't disappear as long as we continue to have flowing rivers.
You forget that the water wars are coming too. If the Columbia Ice Fields and other glaciers melt a lot less water is going to be found in western Canada.

There also aren't any good solutions to energy storage so far (the sun only shines at night) - batteries (and solar panels) use a lot of different metals that need to be mined and might become scarce if the entire world tried to go solar

Not true at all - you are thinking of solar as PV, but there is another type of solar that is out there - concentrating solar power (CSP). Essentially this is something that works best at large scale - you have a central tower surrounded by mirrors on the ground. The mirrors move, and direct sunlight onto a collector at the top of the tower - that is used to heat a working fluid, which is then used to spin a turbine in the usual way.

The thing that makes this even more interesting is that you can store the heated working fluid during the day, and then use it at night to generate electricity. The storage part is optional of course.

This isn't an academic exercise. Pilot plants have been built, and there is renewed interest in the things.

There is a good website with links and resources here:

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp.htm

http://www.seao2.com/solarsphere/images/csp_images/solar%202.JPG

No only is it flexible, but w/ no interest loans and very cheap land leases from the gubberment, it may be cheaper economically than fossil fuels are, w/o even including externalities. That being said, I pitty da fool who thinks getting a bill like that for a clean, economic, competitor to fossil fuels through the house/senate/prez would even be possible. Even w/o those incentives, as production increases, it's supposed to get down to ~4-5cents/kWh (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/28751.pdf).
Future advances are expected to allow solar power to be generated for 4¢–5¢ per kWh in the next few decades.

Of course the "car of the future" has a future.

People will continue to spend money on fast, effective transportation that don't involve physical input. Aka personal vehicles aka cars.

The difference is that now that we are facing the looming oil crisis (prices, availability, environmental concerns), car buyers (and makers, for that matter) are looking to cars that will use energy from other sources.

I see companies making oil-company-sized profits on hydrogen and other alternative fuels a good hundred years in the future.

Cars will be in my future when I am debt free including a home and reitrement is fully funded.

Thats when I feel it would be responsible to purchase something that depreciates as quickly as an automobile does.

Nuclear?

One word: Chernyoble.

Three more words: Three Mile Island.

Every nuclear plant is one of the above just waiting to happen. That Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was probably was at the result of several engineers' guardian angels severely spraining their wings.


You obviously have no grasp of nuclear power what-so-ever. But go ahead and spew your garbage... most other people don't, either.

You obviously have no grasp of nuclear power what-so-ever. But go ahead and spew your garbage... most other people don't, either.

So instead of insulting somebody, why don't you enlighten us? Stun us with your insight and wisdom, rather than disgust us with your name calling. :mad:

To start with, explain what should be done with the waste products that have such long half-lives. So far nobody has come even close to a solution, AFAIK.

So instead of insulting somebody, why don't you enlighten us? Stun us with your insight and wisdom, rather than disgust us with your name calling. :mad:

To start with, explain what should be done with the waste products that have such long half-lives. So far nobody has come even close to a solution, AFAIK.

I never called anyone any names. :mad:

Anyway... I don't have time right now, but I'll revisit this thread this evening.

I never called anyone any names. :mad:

Anyway... I don't have time right now, but I'll revisit this thread this evening.

What do you call dismissing someone's stating his opinion as 'spewing garbage'?

If I am wrong, then correct me with facts and information, not insulting dismissal.

To start with, explain what should be done with the waste products that have such long half-lives. So far nobody has come even close to a solution, AFAIK.There are a few techniques around, but thus far, it's cheaper to just store it than it is to look into reprocessing or transmutation or whatever else, since it's value will only increase w/ time. In other words, we could develop a program that would reduce the radioactivity/lifespan of waste, but that will cost $$$, probably more than just storing it, and, it isn't available for sale at a later point in time as Ur prices climb. In other words, the safe thing to do probably isn't the profitable thing to do, so guess which one has happened/will happen. That being said, nuclear waste storage is orders of magnitude safer than the externalities associated with more fossil fuel production now (even NG), so it's kind of a pick the lesser evil situation.

What do you call dismissing someone's stating his opinion as 'spewing garbage'?

If I am wrong, then correct me with facts and information, not insulting dismissal.

I don't think that would be name calling, but more of an informal "talk to the hand" type of statement.

Okay, so let's say that all of my reservations about alternate sources of energy prove to be unfounded. In the end, an economic system based on growth which encourages wasteful consumption and occurs on a finite planet, will eventually destroy the planet. Especially when combined with human population growth. Global warming, species extinction, the crashing of fish populations, air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemicals in our bodies etc. All of these things will continue if we succeed in replacing oil. This is not a good thing. Americans tend to be particularly blind to the environmental consequences of their way of life not because wealth leads to environmental protection as is often said, but because environmental consequences are pushed on to other countries (visit China and take a look).

By the way, there's even a recent study that shows that dams cause global warming (not to mention the impact on salmon runs, etc. or the fact that dams like Glen Canyon will eventually silt up and become useless). Here's a link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0612-07.htm. This means hydropower and nuclear power are both global warming contributors (nuclear needs a large body of water for cooling). There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Americans tend to be particularly blind to the environmental consequences of their way of life not because wealth leads to environmental protection as is often said, but because environmental consequences are pushed on to other countries (visit China and take a look).

Have you seen the environmental dumping ground China has become??? They had a truck full of benzine crash into a river and the communist gov't did not tell the people and entire villages got sick and a lot of people died. They have some of the worst pollution on the planet in China, Russia, India and countless other places, but it always seems to be the USA that gets the label as the worst environmental abuser. I just don't see it. Can it better, sure, are we the worst? Hardly.

Nuclear?

One word: Chernyoble.

Three more words: Three Mile Island.

Every nuclear plant is one of the above just waiting to happen. That Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was probably was at the result of several engineers' guardian angels severely spraining their wings.

Not to mention what is to be done with the nuclear waste. We need to find a way to store it that will be safe for tens of thousands of years. If any of it gets out it will mean massive envorinmental devastation from radiation poisoning.

First off: Chernobyl was a REALLY bad combination of poor reactor design, very poor knowledge/training, and a lack of communication between shift changes.

The accident could not happen to ANY reactor in the US due to the differences in the way the reactors work. The reactor was also not built with full containment... so when the core was breached the radioactive products/gasses/debris was vented directly to the atmosphere.

If the operation staff on duty had more knowledge of how the reactor worked they wouldn't have misunderstood what was going on in the reactor and would have reacted properly, thereby eliminating the disaster.

If the shifts had communicated better at the shift change, this wouldn't have happened... it was a result of an experiment that was interrupted during the first shift... then it was restarted during the second shift... unfortunately the second shift didn't understand that the reactor was already partway through the experiment and started the detailed procedure list over from the beginning.


As far as Three Mile Island

failure by staff to follow procedures... an emergency pump that would have prevented the accident was not put back online about 2 days earlier after routine maintenance and testing. If the people working on that pump had followed the testing procedure the valves would have been opened at the end of the procedure, and the accident wouldn't have happened.

That Three Mile Island's problem became as extensive as it did was primarily caused by the lack of two direct sensors... one that would indicate the position of the pressure relief valve, the other a sensor that showed actual water level in the reactor core. Other indirect indicators were used instead, and thought sufficient. If either of these direct indicators had been in place, the problem would have been correctly diagnosed almost instantly and nobody outside of the Nuclear Power industry would have ever known that anything had happened at all.

Due to using indirect indicators of water level in the reactor and relief valve position, the situation was misdiagnosed, and operator action to correct PERCEIVED problems made the actual situation much worse... up to and including manually disabling automatic reactor safety equipment. It wasn't until the shift change several hours later that someone correctly diagnosed the situation and acted properly to correct it... by this time the reactor core was already SEVERELY damaged.

The fact that very little radiation was actually leaked into the environment was due to the fact that it was built with full containment, which, to my knowledge, all production reactors in the US are.

Reactors are designed to put themselves in a safe condition... working in Naval Nuclear Power we are taught that if we don't know EXACTLY what is going on, SIT ON YOUR HANDS.

Don't do ANYTHING.

In BOTH of these accidents, if the operators had done nothing at all the situations would not have escalated to what they did. Both situations were a very bad combination of design, lack of proper training, and a failure to follow designated procedures.

Other issues to deal with... cooling. Yes, you need a good quantity of water to cool a reactor with... that water doesn't HAVE to be fresh water... salt water works just fine... the parts of the reactor system that need fresh water are closed systems and need very little replenishment over time.

Waste? Storage is the most cost effective at the moment... but who's to say that it will always be 'waste' material? Maybe scientists will find another use for it. Also, radioactive waste produces heat. Heat can be used to produce electricity (even relatively low temps). Theoretically you could put waste in a sealed chamber underground and use it as a heat source for power generation.

I think for the foreseeable future nuclear power would have much lower environmental impact than our current coal or petroleum based power generation...

Have you seen the environmental dumping ground China has become??? They had a truck full of benzine crash into a river and the communist gov't did not tell the people and entire villages got sick and a lot of people died. They have some of the worst pollution on the planet in China, Russia, India and countless other places, but it always seems to be the USA that gets the label as the worst environmental abuser. I just don't see it. Can it better, sure, are we the worst? Hardly.

His point was that we offload a lot of production and such to China... and hence leave THEM to worry about the environmental problems caused... as per your post.

What do you call dismissing someone's stating his opinion as 'spewing garbage'?

If I am wrong, then correct me with facts and information, not insulting dismissal.

Maybe if you'd included facts and information in your post I wouldn't have resorted to 'insulting dismissal'.

Hell, if you'd labeled your post as being your opinion I wouldn't have responded in such a way.

Rather you make statements framed as fact which have little or no basis in reality.

Nuclear?

One word: Chernyoble.

Three more words: Three Mile Island.

Every nuclear plant is one of the above just waiting to happen. That Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was probably was at the result of several engineers' guardian angels severely spraining their wings.

Not to mention what is to be done with the nuclear waste. We need to find a way to store it that will be safe for tens of thousands of years. If any of it gets out it will mean massive envorinmental devastation from radiation poisoning.The whole post reeks of hysteria.

In the end, an economic system based on growth which encourages wasteful consumption and occurs on a finite planet, will eventually destroy the planet.The planet will be here for a very long time. Trust me, there's no way we could do crap to it. We may end up wiping out even more species, including ourselves, but we can't do **** to the planet.

By the way, there's even a recent study that shows that dams cause global warming (not to mention the impact on salmon runs, etc. or the fact that dams like Glen Canyon will eventually silt up and become useless). Here's a link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0612-07.htm. This means hydropower and nuclear power are both global warming contributors (nuclear needs a large body of water for cooling). There's no such thing as a free lunch.Yes, damning rivers will release copious amounts of Methane due to decaying crap underneath. I think one of the SAm countries was pretty pissed about this wrt Carbon trading. That being said, clear cutting the area before a damn was built would do a ton to alleviate these emissions, and harvesting of the submerged trees in current damns was also being investigated.

No, nuclear power plants do not require damns to run. They do require a significant amount of something for cooling, which can be water, but they don't need that much water.

Have you seen the environmental dumping ground China has become??? They had a truck full of benzine crash into a river and the communist gov't did not tell the people and entire villages got sick and a lot of people died. They have some of the worst pollution on the planet in China, Russia, India and countless other places, but it always seems to be the USA that gets the label as the worst environmental abuser. I just don't see it. Can it better, sure, are we the worst? Hardly.

The US and Great Britain as well as most of the current first world countries have been where China is today, as far as pollution, we have just cleaned up our act a bit. If not for the crass consumerism and the pure greed of the American public (and others) China probably wouldn't be in as bad a shape as it is today. IIRC the numbers 85% of the products (excluding food stuffs) that the American family purchases is made in China.

Aaron:)

it always seems to be the USA that gets the label as the worst environmental abuser. I just don't see it. Can it better, sure, are we the worst? Hardly.

Environmental problems are due to consumption and the USA is the biggest consumer. The point of the comment you were responding to was that globalization imports the product while exporting the pollution.

Environmental problems are due to consumption and the USA is the biggest consumer. The point of the comment you were responding to was that globalization imports the product while exporting the pollution.

Go stand on the shores of the Caspian Sea and you will see what sort of environmental devastation a non-consumerist society can wreak.

Not to mention what is to be done with the nuclear waste. We need to find a way to store it that will be safe for tens of thousands of years. If any of it gets out it will mean massive envorinmental devastation from radiation poisoning.

Did you know that coal burning releases tons of radioactive waste directly into the environment? Yes, coal contains naturally occurring uranium deposits (as well as mercury and other toxic compounds). I'd rather live next to a nuclear reactor that can confine and store the waste safely than next to a coal burning plant that spews it straight into the air.

And by the way, the current generation of nuclear reactors are so much more efficient that the waste amount has really been reduced significantly. For example the amount of waste generated by a family of four during their lifetime is something like a thimble-full.

Go stand on the shores of the Caspian Sea and you will see what sort of environmental devastation a non-consumerist society can wreak.What sort of devastation?

the answer in my opinion is getting people to do what a lot of people on this list does...ride your bike fr trips 5 miles or less in the least, unless a handcap makes the next way to get around the most used...

2nd, mass transit

3rd, commerce uses the majority of fuel driven cars on alternative sources...bio, vegtable, solar, air

one of the problems with cars is that is takes TREMENDOUS energy to MAKE a car. Nearly 40% of a car's total pollution emitted is at time of manufacturing. Anyone who buys a new Prius that had a 10 yr car with plenty of use left...is not helping our environment. Period.

one of the problems with cars is that is takes TREMENDOUS energy to MAKE a car. Nearly 40% of a car's total pollution emitted is at time of manufacturing. Anyone who buys a new Prius that had a 10 yr car with plenty of use left...is not helping our environment. Period.

I disagree. This statement assumes that the car that is replaced goes immediately into a junk pile somewhere.

It doesn't. It's put on the market and sold to someone else.

This means that either a new car doesn't have to be produced for that person buying the used car, or it's replacing another, probably even older, more polluting, and less fuel efficient vehicle.

It also sends a message to car manufacturers that people WANT cars that are more fuel efficient and better for the environment, and thus encourages them to make more. Which results in the cost for the technology coming down, and research into bettering the technology to go up.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

the answer in my opinion is getting people to do what a lot of people on this list does...ride your bike fr trips 5 miles or less in the least, unless a handcap makes the next way to get around the most used...

2nd, mass transit

3rd, commerce uses the majority of fuel driven cars on alternative sources...bio, vegtable, solar, air

The car of the future might be determined by some of these points you make. This vehicle will certainly not need to be your "home away from home". You will use it for trips, most probably trips between 4 and 30 miles. Outside those ranges, other modes of transport (bikes, buses, trains, scooters, feet....) might be preferred.

A good side-effect will be the vast quantity of cars (I believe I read somewhere there are currently more cars than people in the US...) will be reduced.

These vehicles will be smaller. They will run on fuels sources that are scarce and expensive. Many will not consider the expense worth the effort.

People will start walking and biking. This will create a sense of well-being that will allow society to flourish... who knows?

Found a copy in my library and read it this morning.

ZOOM: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future

http://books.google.com/books?id=1UcfHAAACAAJ

A couple of quotes from this book says it all for me:


"Even Henry Ford's Model T got better fas mileage a century ago than today's average new car!"


"The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, calculate that America spent $30 billion to $60 billion a year safeguarding Middle Eastern oil supplies during the 1990s, even though its import from that region totaled only about $10 billion a year."

I enjoy their conclusion that the price of gasoline needs to be adjusted to the true cost of the resource. How else can any other fuel source compete?


"The International Energy Agency, a sober intergovernmental outfit not known for jumping on green bandwages... suggests that China's vast hydroelectric potential holds the key [to fueling a surging demand for cars in China]. The agency projects that the country's big dams... will run at a load factor of only 40 percent or so due to the lack of energy storage capacity, especially in the rainy season. However, if the load factor is increased to 70 percent, then all that extra power, which would other just be wasted, can be use to make hydrogen via simple and cheap electrolysis(which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen by applying electricity). That would be enough hydrogen to fuel 37 million cars by 2010 and 56 million by 2020..."

Another fact is that in China, as well as the growth of auto sales, electric bikes are a hot item.


Zoom is a great read...

Of course, none of this will reduce the traffic I have to endure as I plug away on my bike trying to get to work each day.