First Tesla delivered.

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by ScionDriver

I think its cool, really cool actually. This is the first production "green" car out there. It's exciting really. I hope they work out.

Hardly. Unless you were able to create the electricity in a green way, it wouldn't be green at all. Coal fired plants create most of the energy, in the US, at least.

Not that I'm against alternative fuels, but making it an electric car doesn't mean it automatically an environmentally viable alternative.

Also, how would you be able to dispose of all of the batteries when you can't service the car anymore?

Besides, if you wanted the car to be environmental, you wouldn't make it a sports car. The sports car aspect of it makes it more appealing, but that's not how you get more mileage out of it. But I do understand it from a marketing point of view.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Hardly. Unless you were able to create the electricity in a green way, it wouldn't be green at all. Coal fired plants create most of the energy, in the US, at least.

Not that I'm against alternative fuels, but making it an electric car doesn't mean it automatically an environmentally viable alternative.

Also, how would you be able to dispose of all of the batteries when you can't service the car anymore?

Besides, if you wanted the car to be environmental, you wouldn't make it a sports car. The sports car aspect of it makes it more appealing, but that's not how you get more mileage out of it. But I do understand it from a marketing point of view.

That's being a bit too extreme methinks. After half of the population moans about gas prices and emissions, the first descent example of an electric car (don't link me to Venturi or the EV-1) comes out and it's still not good enough. While this may not fit the bill for the globe saver, it serves as a great stepping stone for future green car projects, be it electric, hydrogen, or ethanol.

I'm not a huge fan of the Tesla, but I think it's a move in the right direction.

[clutch-monkey]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Hardly. Unless you were able to create the electricity in a green way, it wouldn't be green at all. Coal fired plants create most of the energy, in the US, at least.

bring on geothermal plants already!

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Besides, if you wanted the car to be environmental, you wouldn't make it a sports car. The sports car aspect of it makes it more appealing, but that's not how you get more mileage out of it. But I do understand it from a marketing point of view.

eh, i don't know. sportscars usually have better aerodynamics and wiegh less, so it's already a good start imo

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Hardly. Unless you were able to create the electricity in a green way, it wouldn't be green at all. Coal fired plants create most of the energy, in the US, at least.

Billions of dollars are wasted on stupid shit like the space station, space exploration, even green technology like geothermal and wind power is pretty much useless - maybe. The true path is fusion. The ITER next generation fusion plant is gonna cost about 10 billion dollars, or about 1/10 the cost of the space station and it is predicted by some to be the last experimental reactor before we begin to see limited implementation of production fusion reactors. When the price drops, fusion will be the answer to the Earth's energy problems. If we can implement widescale fusion reactors across the West, then emissions will be reduced to such a degree that has never before been seen. Coal plants, fission plants, hell even other green plants like natural gas, hydroelectric, etc, will all no longer be viable.

If we're gonna spend money on cleaning up our emissions, let's develop this technology and maybe within 50 years we'll see it in use.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

If you want to save the world take the Tesla's technologies and apply them to a ridiculously large SUV. Just think about how much battery capacity an Escalade could carry. IMO Americans could transition to large electric vehicles much easier than to small petrol or hybrid vehicles.

I agree with Kitdy on the development of a new generation of reactors. Most of my countries facilities are 25+ years old; it could be done much more efficiently and much safer today.

[Quiggs]

One of the major things limiting us from building more nuclear facilities is that no one wants a nuclear facility in their back yard.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Billions of dollars are wasted on stupid shit like the space station, space exploration...

So your for nuclear power, but against some of the best applications for advanced nuclear power implementation?

It seems to me that the space exploration has the potential to develop into the single greatest “green” environment.

Think about living in space where every resource is limited in some form or another. I would hope the technology and processes developed in space could applied terrestrially as well.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Turbo.Jenkens

I agree with Kitdy on the development of a new generation of reactors. Most of my countries facilities are 25+ years old; it could be done much more efficiently and much safer today.

The problem with Nuclear Fission reactors is that they have huge costs associated with them - startup and maintenance. I believe some power groups in Ontario - maybe Bruce - wants to add more but they are simply not practical.

Originally Posted by Quiggs

One of the major things limiting us from building more nuclear facilities is that no one wants a nuclear facility in their back yard.

Nuclear fusion is simply not dangerous. A catastrophic meltdown is not possible based on what I have read.

Originally Posted by Alastor

So your for nuclear power, but against some of the best applications for advanced nuclear power implementation?

It seems to me that the space exploration has the potential to develop into the single greatest “green” environment.

Think about living in space where every resource is limited in some form or another. I would hope the technology and processes developed in space could applied terrestrially as well.

Space exploration can be done later in the future when and if we eradicate the problems we have on Earth first. I think that the money spent on these programs were spent on infrastructure or international aid the world would be a much better place - instead we are in space and for what reason?

And just for the record, I am against nuclear fission power. No matter how slight the risk, I don't think it's worth the danger.

[Matra et Alpine]

re future power

Recent proposal - fully researched and costed and using todays technology - is for a 100km x 100km area of solar collectors in the deserts of the Middle East. THAT would provide enough electricity power for ALL of Europe and the Middle East !!

THat's a trivial amount of space ( it doesn't all ahve to be in the one place anyway ) compared to the amount of desert. On top of that the shade the panels offered will mean it woudl be possible to grow crops beneath the collector panels AND water for the system would use electricity to desalinate sea water, use it and then deliver it to the soil once circulated. A lovely closed loop solution and utilising a fract of a craction of the total suns energy dumped on our planet every second.

Also, readily scalable, so they don't need to spend 100s of billions building "special" chambers, devices or anything. Start small and grow big AND with negligable negative impact on the environment and huge positive !

Watch out tho' if a Bush believer gets in then the deserts will be getting invaded

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Recent proposal - fully researched and costed and using todays technology - is for a 100km x 100km area of solar collectors in the deserts of the Middle East. THAT would provide enough electricity power for ALL of Europe and the Middle East !!

How much?

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Still billions and billions to provide ALL the energy.
But no need to have such a massive one-step plan and so it'll likley start small in the Abu Dhabi initiative.
Figures talked about is that current methods can deliver electricity power equal to the energy in a barrel of oil for nearly HALF the cost.
I'm guessing that getting it from the deserts to the major consumers woudl be a problem that hasn't been addressed yet

I wonder if it is a practical alternative to fusion.

[Matra et Alpine]

The NASA discussion has been seperated out .... NASA - value for money ?

[fpv_gtho]

Originally Posted by Turbo.Jenkens

If you want to save the world take the Tesla's technologies and apply them to a ridiculously large SUV. Just think about how much battery capacity an Escalade could carry. IMO Americans could transition to large electric vehicles much easier than to small petrol or hybrid vehicles.

Maybe in 5-10 years things will develop that way, but just like its been with hybrids its easier to develop and integrate the technology initially with the smallest package possible so theres as little excess weight.

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

That's being a bit too extreme methinks. After half of the population moans about gas prices and emissions, the first descent example of an electric car (don't link me to Venturi or the EV-1) comes out and it's still not good enough. While this may not fit the bill for the globe saver, it serves as a great stepping stone for future green car projects, be it electric, hydrogen, or ethanol.

I'm not a huge fan of the Tesla, but I think it's a move in the right direction.

True, it is a step in the right direction. Maybe it'll jolt the sector and spur advanced research in battery technology. But I don't think in the long run that electric vehicles will be effective. I'm all for hydrogen.

Originally Posted by clutch-monkey

bring on geothermal plants already!


eh, i don't know. sportscars usually have better aerodynamics and wiegh less, so it's already a good start imo

Iceland (I think) has a vast geothermal energy reserve under them. They're switching all to hydrogen soon (I think).

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by Kitdy

Billions of dollars are wasted on stupid shit like the space station, space exploration, even green technology like geothermal and wind power is pretty much useless - maybe. The true path is fusion. The ITER next generation fusion plant is gonna cost about 10 billion dollars, or about 1/10 the cost of the space station and it is predicted by some to be the last experimental reactor before we begin to see limited implementation of production fusion reactors. When the price drops, fusion will be the answer to the Earth's energy problems. If we can implement widescale fusion reactors across the West, then emissions will be reduced to such a degree that has never before been seen. Coal plants, fission plants, hell even other green plants like natural gas, hydroelectric, etc, will all no longer be viable.

If we're gonna spend money on cleaning up our emissions, let's develop this technology and maybe within 50 years we'll see it in use.

I thought fusion wasn't possible yet. What's missing from the "equation" that hasn't made fusion possible yet? Control of the reaction?

Originally Posted by Turbo.Jenkens

If you want to save the world take the Tesla's technologies and apply them to a ridiculously large SUV. Just think about how much battery capacity an Escalade could carry. IMO Americans could transition to large electric vehicles much easier than to small petrol or hybrid vehicles.

I agree with Kitdy on the development of a new generation of reactors. Most of my countries facilities are 25+ years old; it could be done much more efficiently and much safer today.

That's called a bus.

Originally Posted by Quiggs

One of the major things limiting us from building more nuclear facilities is that no one wants a nuclear facility in their back yard.

Security is a major issue too. Our country is a bit too lax on that stuff. A meltdown would not be fun.