Feds Give Billions for Electric Cars

[ScionDriver]

There's a bunch of people here complaining about the birds being killed by the towers, but I figure a bird has an entire sky to fly in, if it manages to kill itself on one of the blades that's probably just evolution in action. However, for the majority of the country if you look at the energy in making and transporting them versus the energy return, it's fairly dismal. There's a fairly big wind power effort in the tricities washington not far from where I'm going to school (also where the SSC cars are made, incidentally) and I was less than impressed by them. That is one of the windiest places I've ever been and they still struggle to generate significant power.

The other thing is people say the wind turbines are crazy loud and they bitch how they can't sleep, etc.

[wwgkd]

The other thing is people say the wind turbines are crazy loud and they bitch how they can't sleep, etc.

ANd kick up huge amounts of dust with the turbulence they create in the wind, keep the land from being used for anything else, and are a general blight on the landscape not to mention impractical in much of the country.

As for being fuel independant, since the largest fuel useage is by the power industry, it's a larger job to switch that over than the auto industry. Also, what I'm saying is you don't have to switch it over like people are trying to do. Diesels are a far better/cleaner/more effecient alternative than hybrids or electrics, so lets focus on something that works better for less money rather than something that sounds good but isn't actually once you take a hard look. It's not really a matter of just developing the tech further, either. Since Obama just took nuclear power completely off the table, our options are oil, wind or solar. Spreading the love somewhat with wind and solar is ok, but heavy reliance on it is severely impractical. Bush doubled it's useage in both of his terms and obama wants to do the same, which will put the combined generation at less than 2% of our total with a total subsidation of hundreds of times what other techs cost. Focus on effeciency, not proliferating the same problems at a higher cost.

[Bob]

well it's not a stealth-capable fighter jet or a space shuttle, but it will probably have better long-term economic and foreign relations impact.

Ya know I love it when people bash the space program. Because its really idiotic... putting satellites in space has been incredibly lucrative and created tons of jobs, money, international media as we know it is all supported by satellite. NASA's budget since the space race ended has actually been really small, and while the organization itself definitely has major issues, space is the future. Obviously we're going to run out of coal and oil and gas at some point- and instead of current schemes where the plan is to be some % renewable by 2020... the necessity will be to rely 100% on renewables. wind and water are not widespread enough, and geothermal can not provide 100% of energy needs. At some point we are going to move to orbital solar as the only and best choice for energy, and as far as i'm concerned, the sooner the better.

[nota]

ANd kick up huge amounts of dust with the turbulence they create in the wind, keep the land from being used for anything else, and are a general blight on the landscape not to mention impractical in much of the country.

Oh really?

Sorry but I don't agree with any of your above 'facts'

"Wind turbines do not have any noticeable impact on livestock. Animals such as cattle and sheep habitually graze around the wind turbines undisturbed.

Cows grazing under a turbine."

"Sheep graze happily around the huge wind turbines"

[Kitdy]

Once again, fusion has proven to be the answer. Wait 50 years until fusion is practical.

Boom.

[f6fhellcat13]

Once again, fusion has proven to be the answer. Wait 50 years until fusion is practical.

Boom.

That's what they said 50 years ago.

But if a breakthrough is made, then mos' definite.

[LTSmash]

One of the final issue's of Portfolio had an article on Sarah Palin and Big Oil. The article went on about how Exxon had 80-100 (if memory serves) years current in reserves if demand stayed constant. Of course with increasing industry and population, demand would never stay constant so they adjusted to roughly 50-60 years. Now that's not including Chevron, BP, Conoco, Total, or Royal Dutch. Not even mentioning future prospecting.

The point is that we have enough oil to last us a while longer to really implement a fail-proof plan for alternative energy; instead of rushing through R&D to just put out fluff to appease the green freaks who just want to pass their agenda. To me, this whole "going green" thing has gone what out of whack, and it is only hindering our ability to progress in a steady and reasonable fashion.

... I mean, if people would just take a breather and realize that those shitty movies made in 2004 about natural disasters are just fiction and that the world isn't going to end by hurricane or tsunami, there might be some rational thinking on the subject instead of hysteria.

[wwgkd]

Oh really?

Sorry but I don't agree with any of your above 'facts'

That's one turbine in the middle of a large field. Barely generates any power and far from practical for generating anything useable for something the size of new york. Yes, doing that, the land is useable, or even putting a row along the fenceline of farmland. But that's minimal power production and won't put a dent in our power needs. On a real wind farm the amount of dust they stir up is pretty amazing and livestock and people often aren't allowed anywhere near.

[nota]

That's one turbine in the middle of a large field. Barely generates any power and far from practical for generating anything useable for something the size of new york. Yes, doing that, the land is useable, or even putting a row along the fenceline of farmland. But that's minimal power production and won't put a dent in our power needs. On a real wind farm the amount of dust they stir up is pretty amazing and livestock and people often aren't allowed anywhere near.

No they both represent just one of a series of turbines in their respective installations.

Please don't think I have just plucked those images randomly off the net to suit my agenda (unlike guess who) because one of these facilities is on a neighbouring property I drove past every day, and btw does produce usable power and hence IS a 'real' windfarm. Despite your previous uninformed statement, the land remains usable and livestock are unaffected and there is no problem with dust either because its not in a dustbowl. Its a modern properly engineered installation; to repeat, a 'real' windfarm.

Not every city is the size of New York but any city can and will benefit from sourcing clean renewable energy, in all of its forms. To pretend otherwise is uninformed at best and more likely disingenuous.

True baseload energy generation from other than fossil or fission is already a practical and economic reality, and if given the choice I'd infinitely prefer a clean wind or solar or wave farm etc near my home, or somebody's home, rather than us having to put up with skanky oil or coal fired power stations or toxic nuclear disaster.

[wwgkd]

No they both represent just one of a series of turbines in their respective installations.

Please don't think I have just plucked those images randomly off the net to suit my agenda (unlike guess who) because one of these facilities is on a neighbouring property I drove past every day, and btw does produce usable power and hence IS a 'real' windfarm. Despite your previous uninformed statement, the land remains usable and livestock are unaffected and there is no problem with dust either because its not in a dustbowl. Its a modern properly engineered installation; to repeat, a 'real' windfarm.

Not every city is the size of New York but any city can and will benefit from sourcing clean renewable energy, in all of its forms. To pretend otherwise is uninformed at best and more likely disingenuous.

True baseload energy generation from other than fossil or fission is already a practical and economic reality, and if given the choice I'd infinitely prefer a clean wind or solar or wave farm etc near my home, or somebody's home, rather than us having to put up with skanky oil or coal fired power stations or toxic nuclear disaster.

I didn't just pick it off the net to suit my agenda I looked for one that closest matches what I have visited in the tri cities (I actually searched for a picture of that specific installation but couldn't find one so I chose a similar picture.) I couldn't take a picture of the actual installation myself because at the moment I'm 300 miles away and don't have a camera anyways. The turbulence caused by those wind farms is a real and ongoing problem, not just being uninformed. Like I said, a using some wind power could be good but there is no way to switch a significant portion of our power over to such a system, especially in more densly populated areas, thus the new york refference although that point is clearly not limited to new york. The subsidies on wind and solar power currently is immense and won't be going down to anywhere near the level of other sources, so clearly a better solution is needed for long term rather than just rushing into this. And modern nuclear power plants can actually be very clean and safe, don't make the mistake of comparing something built in the 50s when we still didn't understand radiation that well or something built to incredibly low standards such as what's seen in many former soviet installations. Get over the nuclear boogey man and look at the modern reality.

[2ndclasscitizen]

I've been to a windfarm in rural Western Australia during summer, i.e somewhere very ****ing dusty, and there definitely wasn't dust flying around everywhere. Sounds like the postioning needs to be better thought out.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Certainly positioning them carefully is required. but I happen to think they are rather beautiful.

[clutch-monkey]

tidal generators make a bit more sense to me, in that there's always gonna be a tide so to speak. wind isn't so constant (yes in certain areas, for sure)

[digitalcraft]

Yeah they don't really kick up dust, because its the wind moving them, they're not creating wind. Any dust being kicked up is because its windy.

I have heard of tidal generators too, and it seems like a good idea. I think you can make them pretty inclosed so you don't have to worry about them lopping off dolphin heads and whatnot.

[NSXType-R]

tidal generators make a bit more sense to me, in that there's always gonna be a tide so to speak. wind isn't so constant (yes in certain areas, for sure)

Yeah they don't really kick up dust, because its the wind moving them, they're not creating wind. Any dust being kicked up is because its windy.

I have heard of tidal generators too, and it seems like a good idea. I think you can make them pretty inclosed so you don't have to worry about them lopping off dolphin heads and whatnot.

I'm in on wave generators- they're like little bobbing bubbles in the water going up and down, and they are attached to the sea floor to generate electricity. Considering that the sea isn't ever going to stop moving, it is a good idea.

I'm with some of you guys here- electric vehicles will not save the planet, it's just that we're producing the energy elsewhere so we don't see the mess. I'd rather see further research on hydrogen fuel cell technology instead.

I think hydrogen is the way to go, it's getting and storing it that's the issue.