Your opinion on electric vehicles

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nuclear power does not generate "greenhouse gases".

But it has the potential to generate much more problems...

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Correct whilst it is in operation - but what are the greenhouse emissions in the installment of the power station and then again in de-commissioning.

Wind power generation is 'free', but again the infrastructure needed generates pollution upto assembly.

btw, wind-power uses a 'free' resource, therefore at some time the electricity thus generated should become free - until that point is seems that wind-generated electricity is (currently) more expensive than others.
The main reason it is seemingly successful is due almost entirely on govt. subsidy. But even if every square mile is filled with turbines there will remain the need for backup to be maintained for those occasions of insufficient wind.

The abiding issue is to discover the most efficient power, that which generates for the least cost in terms of finance/pollution etc ..... and to date there isn't really one - only theory.

That is what I meant by what source is truely free of any carbon footprint? The only thing I can think of is plant matter. You plant a tree, it takes carbon from the air and then, when you burn it, it releases the carbon again. But never more than it already took in.

So, let's all go back to the stone age and start cooking on wood fires again! (coal and peat and all that stuff isn't permitted, as that is already stored carbon which won't be taken up)

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Give tidal power generation 20 years, and they'll be a strident group trying to tear it out due to disruption of tidal dependent marine animal breeding... (Save the X!)

They tried to make a tide machine in the Westerschelde, but couldn't because the speed of the water was too low. They wouldn't mess up with the tide itself, as it wouldn't "store" water, but rather, the tide would turn the wheels by passing by (just like a hydro dam, but then on a horizontal plane instead of vertical...)

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Electric cars are an obvious way forward, especially if they have in-built noise so pedestrians are alerted to their presence - one drawback of the Prius....
Personally I would favour electric motors powered by hydrogen, but it would have to be priced sensibly.....

Water! I'd have an unendless supply of fuel (with the rain falling here )

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Water! I'd have an unendless supply of fuel (with the rain falling here )

Unfortunately it takes a great deal of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. The supply of water may indeed be effectively limitless, but it costs way to much to get hydrogen from it.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately it takes a great deal of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. The supply of water may indeed be effectively limitless, but it costs way to much to get hydrogen from it.

Shhh! Don't burst my bubble! I can just see it at the "water" station (no more petrol!): "Can I have about 30 liters of water, please?"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Electric cars are an obvious way forward, especially if they have in-built noise so pedestrians are alerted to their presence - one drawback of the Prius....

Most people can apply enough good sense to look both ways before crossing the street! Those that can't see are forced to use controlled crosswalks, but sighted people get hit in those all the time as well. Many cars generate most of their noise from tire friction on pavement... they make so little noise until they are already on top of you that they are no safer than a Prius in that regard.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Most people can apply enough good sense to look both ways before crossing the street!

Natural selection at work

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Most people can apply enough good sense to look both ways before crossing the street!

Unfortunately they don't .....

Those that can't see are forced to use controlled crosswalks, but sighted people get hit in those all the time as well. Many cars generate most of their noise from tire friction on pavement... they make so little noise until they are already on top of you that they are no safer than a Prius in that regard.

YIKES !!!!!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

YIKES !!!!!

Meaning "on the roadway!" Daig...

[GeoffC]

phew ....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I never thought about this before... but maybe what people could use around all these practically-silent vehicles (ever been hit by a bicyclist?) is a personal collision detector...

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I never thought about this before... but maybe what people could use around all these practically-silent vehicles (ever been hit by a bicyclist?) is a personal collision detector...

It's an nice idea, but how would it work with a vehicle running at 60mph towards you, it would have to give sufficient warning for you to take avoiding action...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

It's an nice idea, but how would it work with a vehicle running at 60mph towards you, it would have to give sufficient warning for you to take avoiding action...

Not much better than looking both ways, obviously... but it would give some kind of audio or similar warning to alert you to the oncoming collision, hopefully in time to avoid it. I might suggest a familiar voice that would instantly get your attention (for me, my father's voice yelling "Look out, son!" would work great) but not necessarily be confused by someone nearby as a warning to them (I'd hate to see someone so startled by my warning that they jumped into the path of a car!).

Right off, I can think of three characters on the show Lost that would still be with us today...

[GeoffC]

I got lost in Lost very early on and stayed lost ....

[Ham88]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Just as spent nuclear fuel is recyclable, so are batteries the impact of which is more manageable. Oh, and BTW spent nuclear fuel (not all is recyclable) is so expensive to reprocess that no one does it in America. They estimate it's cheaper to guard it for years and years.

Actually they stopped doing it the late seventies/ early eighties because the US felt that there was a risk that the amounts of plutonium (I believe) could be used by another country to produce nuclear weapons, something the US just can't stand for some reason I can't discern.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Ham88

Actually they stopped doing it the late seventies/ early eighties because the US felt that there was a risk that the amounts of plutonium (I believe) could be used by another country to produce nuclear weapons, something the US just can't stand for some reason I can't discern.

An other related note, for every pound of nuclear fuel produced there are 30 pounds of collateral irradiated materials that also have to join the megayears containments.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

An other related note, for every pound of nuclear fuel produced there are 30 pounds of collateral irradiated materials that also have to join the megayears containments.

Not mega-year. 1k-10K years roughly. Secondary radioactives have much shorter half-lifes than Plutonium (242K year half-life).