Aircraft Maker Will Produce Electric Cars in 2006 332
clarkie.mg writes "French aircraft maker Dassault has announced that they will team up with Hydro-Quebec to produce an electric car, available as of 2006. Hydro-Quebec will provide the lithium-metal-polymer (LMP) battery and the wheel motor propulsion system. The car will be built in partnership with a car specialist and sold in association with a large automaker not yet found."
I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is what I hate.
Why can't car companies make an electric car that doesn't look like a bad futuristic science fiction movie? I mean, why do they have to make it sooo ugly that people will only buy it on the principle of fuel economy?
I imagine, if car companies made models of cars that looked *exactly* the same as their gas counterparts, and only marginally more expensive, that people would be willing to start making the switch. Appearances are important when choosing a car, to some people. They want things that are sexy. Not cars that will prevent them from getting laid for the next 5-7 years.
Not like the average slashdotter thinks along those lines, eh? ;)
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a different idiom, with a different design grammar and syntax.
This is one of the reasons that gas to electric conversions, while they may work, generally suck as electric cars.
There's another reason that electric cars usually look bad though. They are almost always designed as small commuter vehicles, since that is where the strength of electric vehicles now lies until the whole battery thingy is dealt with, and small commuter cars tend to be ugly. It's a function of the short wheelbase but high greenhouse.
One of my favorite cars in terms of styling right now is the Chrysler Concorde (the one with the full oval grill). It's the perfect "retro" car, evoking the feel of the Pininfarina Ferraris of the 60s, but still quite modern, without any of the clunkiness many of the retro/modern hybrids exhibit (witness the new Mustang) trying to weld classic design elements to futuristic.
But this is a Biiiiiig car, which allows it to look low and long.
The commuter box is always going to be just that to some extent. A box. With wheels on. Goes with the territory.
KFG
GMs "Skateboard" concept (Score:4, Informative)
I'd say the designers are pretty well aware of this. However the budgets aren't infinite, and they're trying to make use of existing technology and parts as much as possible.
Only GM has created a fuel cell powered concept car from the ground up. This seems to be a nice article about the skateboard concept [popsci.com].
Re:GMs "Skateboard" concept (Score:3, Insightful)
I liked the look and ideas, but much like the hydrogen initiative, it is to pacify the restless not to offer a real path to a solution. Sell em' heavy SUV's and Trucks where we make our money and offer pie in the sky solutions to keep em quiet.
I suspect that is the <I>'thinking'</I> in much of corporate america.
It's French, of course it's ugly (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though, this looks not unlike a typical small commuter car that you might see in Europe every day. The accenting on the headlights is the only thing that stands out.
Re:It's French, of course it's ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that the new design? It looks identical to the Norwegian Pivco electric car developed about 5 years ago. Ford got into a partnership with Pivco and released the vehicle as the TH!NK [evworld.com] in Europe.
AFAIK the Pivco is now out of production. It featured on an excellent Channel 4 programme backed by the Design Council 'Better by Design' [designcouncil.info] where they called in the designer partnership Seymour-Powell. The designers came up with some superb little ideas - electric cars that looked great, micro-delivery vans for small companies that featured removable back sections so the van could be changed to a different purpose in minutes, small cars with easy access for the elderly or for small children, a sporty version.
As you can imagine, there ideas weren't taken up by Pivco.
Now what we need are electric Smart cars [thesmart.co.uk] - great design, I love the removeable body panels so that you can restyle your car when you get bored of it, but the fuel economy is no better than bigger, cheaper cars. But I have to admit, the Smart Roadster and the Bluewave are gorgeous!
Best wishes,
Mike.
Smart fuel economy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Funny)
Here [electrifyingtimes.com] you go.
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Interesting)
1921 Rumpler [alaska.edu]
1923 Benz Tropfenwagen [daimlerchrysler.com]
KFG
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:2)
better ones (Score:2)
I think they look awesome, though it's not really practical. If I live in a 10mil castle with golf course, I would buy one of these rather than ugly golf carts and drive around for a whole day in amusement. All men are boys after all.
Re:better ones (Score:2)
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:2, Funny)
The cars are apparently so light that to inspect them they do not submit to an awkward point-by-point inspection regimen, they merely turn the car upside down and shake vigorously, solving the problem of both inspection and payment, by relieving the owner of all loose change under the seats.
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Insightful)
course that said, I agree.. they could do a better job.
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, it will add some cost, but hey, "environment friendly" stuff cost more as it is and if the added cost isn't too rediculous it might just fly.
A few years ago, I had a Porsche 928S4 which was all in aluminium. The reduced weight was however offset by the huge engine and other re-inforced racing parts. However, that got me thinking why not use material kind of what was used on that one in order to make an appealing exterior while keeping wight down?
Looks weigh in as 1/2 of
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:2, Informative)
many asian manufactured cars look that are sold
in Europe.
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're trying to appeal to early adopters. Somebody else replied that Honda has an electric version of the Civic that's virtually indistinct from the petrol model. Unfortunately, it's tough to make it the 'hip thing to do' when you make a car with such amazing fuel efficiency when you don't spot other people driving them.
I'm not saying that electric videos should look like something from an 80's flick, but making them distinct is something that helps get more of them out there. I can't help but think that an Apple designed car would sell like hotcakes to the Slashdot crowd. How long after that before they start becoming main-stream, just like the iPod?
Personally, I'd settle for a T-bird with a red light moving back and forth on the grill.
ev1 Saturn (Score:2)
they destroyed them all..
Re:I hate how Electric Cars look. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate sprawl. I hate highways. I hate parking lots. I hate lung cancer. I hate traffic deaths. I hate habitat loss. I hate steel-mills. I hate high taxes.
If an electric car can be built to reduce those *real* concerns I wont give a fuck what it looks like.
Not cars that will prevent them from getting laid for the next 5-7 years.
Oh, btw, if you think a car will keep you from having relationships with the opposite sex, A) your sleeping with the wrong people and B) you have a worthless view of yourself... YOU ARE NOT THE CAR YOU DRIVE.
Re:high hopes for the hybrid Escape (Score:5, Interesting)
Also the reason the hybrid Escape was pushed back was because Ford decided to do te engineering by itself from scratch (originally it was more of a publicity stunt and they were going to source a Toyota or Honda powertrain).
And I assure you Ford designed powertrains run with the best of them. There's no reason to think their hybrid system won't be equal to or superior to what's coming from Honda/Toyota, especially since they have more engineering resources at their disposal and are pairing it to a newer an better gasoline engine family.
GM seems to be aiming even higher by commiting themselves to hybrid full size pickups and SUVs in the next few years. That would make for MAJOR fuel savings. Of course it would be nice of them to have a car hybrid strategy as well...
and in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
About Bloody Time (Score:2, Interesting)
One word: (Score:2)
Not much (Score:2, Interesting)
lithium-metal-polymer (LMP) battery (Score:2, Funny)
An 18 month lasting car! Wonder how popular that'll be heheh
Dont laugh (Score:2)
I think this is only affordable if they did some R&D to optimize LIon lifetime.
Widespread adoption? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck.
Looks interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal take on this is - when can I get the same technology in a power wheelchair? My Jazzy 1113's nice, but those sealed lead-acid batteries just suck. Very much short-range
Re:Looks interesting (Score:2, Informative)
Wheel-motor (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wheel-motor (Score:2, Interesting)
2. So everytime you change a tire you change the rims too?
Re:Wheel-motor (Score:2)
The catch here is that you have a motor per wheel, and thus you increase probability of failure.
So everytime you change a tire you change the rims too?
Yes, of course. Tires can not be mounted onto rims just with your own [average] hands. 50 years ago it was possible, if you are a young, strong man who knows how to use tire irons. With proliferation of tubeless tires and wheel balancing
Sure... any day now. (Score:4, Funny)
Electric Cars... (Score:4, Insightful)
Using electric cars is the logical next step in our society, synthetic alchohol fuels are a good idea as well, but the problem with those is the flammability issue.
With the benefit of electric cars, fuel can be transferred instantly along power lines, nuclear plants can be used to generate almost unlimited amounts of electricity to fuel our cars.
In order to follow our information society forward in progress electrically fuelled cars is the only choice!
Re:Electric Cars... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I adore electric cars and as I have posted many times even worked for a time as the design engineer for one of the many failed startup electric car companies that the fuel crisis of the 70s spawned (too many hippies smoking dope while reading Mother Earth News I think), but eve
Re:Electric Cars... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now where have I heard *that* before? Oh, yes, way back then it was said that these things will generate enough electricity to allow us to remove the power meters, since it would be too cheap to measure.
Turned out to be slightly different, didn't it?
"next logical step...follow our our information society forward...only choice..."
Look, sorry, don't want to offend you and all that, but your post did sound like it was coming from a shill.
Alcohol (Score:2, Informative)
Forgive my ignorance, but how is there an issue with the flamibility of alcohol, that's different from the flamibility issues with regular gas? As I understand it, Alcohols are infinitly renewable, significantly less polluting, and can be used in most vehicles with only minor alterations (valve settings and different material for the head gas
Wow... (Score:3, Funny)
And the looks, the looks suck too. Although I would deal with the looks for an electric car with a high top speed (at LEAST 100mph, 120-150 would be VERY nice.) It'd be worth it, drive up to a dodge viper, in something that looks like a 4 year old drew (and then threw up on, and then the dog ate it, and then crapped out the drawin), and drag race them (and win
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
You might make it across the intersection faster than that Viper. From there, you're sucking fumes faster than a $5 whore.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the other thing is the reason I drive an SUV - can it carry a heavy load of stageprops, camping gear or musical gear? An electric SUV (meaning something with good covered load space and good handling when loaded) would be great. I routinely cart around racks of lighting equipment, heavy stage flats, etc. I don't need speed, nor a great deal of power - but I do need space and a bit more power than the minimum for a passenger car.
For that matter, I drive an SUV because it gets better gas mileage than the other option - a van. An electric van would be nice as well.
The reason I mention all this is because I see large natural gas trucks, electric and hybrid tiny cars and nothing in between. For anybody with a need other than a huge commercial truck (garbage trucks, etc) or moving a body or two around, gas IC seems to be the only option, both now and in the near future.
--
Evan
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
This car (and most electric cars) wouldn't have sufficient space, well I don't think they would, since the batt
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, but I got two wheel drive for that exact reason. It's basically a Mazda pickup truck (same drivetrain, or at least similar) with a different shell wrapped around it. The big expensive "lookit me!" SUVs are pretty impractical, but then, so are the big shiny pickups when driven by people who just c
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
The also means that there is basically zero reason to leave the engine running when you're stopped at a traffic light or stuck in traffic. The engine can just as well be stopped when the car isn't actually moving. When you need to start moving again, just push the pedal and you have maximum torque within the next millisecond anyway. In the long run, that should count for some energy saved.
The problem nowadays is mostly that batteries suck. They're large, heavy, expensive, slow to load (compared to just pumping some gas into the tank in mere seconds), and the power stored isn't that great. Pollution notwithstanding, oil is still the superior way to haul some energy around.
Basically what I'm saying is: after you factor in the batteries to sustain that kind of power, you'd end up with a car heavier than the Viper. At a wild guess you'd probably need at least 600 HP to actually have the same power to weight ratio as a Viper.
And even then, to get that kind of juice on batteries and not have 5 tons of them... let's just say you might win the drag race, but you'd be out of power at the end of it. Whereas the Viper driver will get a good laugh and drive home.
So, well, I can see the point of electric engines in small or family cars, but I really can't see an electric race car being produces any time soon. Because that's more or less what the commercially sold Viper is: the race car minus the big wing. If you want a clean green way of racing a Viper, I'd set my hopes higher for hydrogen engines than electric engines.
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Viper (Score:2)
Yeah, it would, but you wouldn't win.
Gen II Vipers have over 450 ft/lbs of torque and Gen III Vipers, the current model, has over 500.
A Viper with a competent driver would eat your electric car alive, then throw up on it, then crap it back out.
Tal
Re:Viper (Score:2)
Nice imagery there, but I think you forgot a step between throw up and crap.
1 - Eat your electric car alive
2 - Throw up on it
3 - ????
4 - Crap it back out
Fast, good looking hybrid cars (Score:5, Informative)
Alessandro Volta [babez.de]
Honda IMAS [intellichoice.com]
Lexus RX 400h [autosite.com]
Re:Fast, good looking hybrid cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow!, *love* that Volta!
I'm also impressed by the looks of these:
Volkswagon Concept T [intellichoice.com]
Acura HSC [intellichoice.com]
Saturn Curve [intellichoice.com]
Italdesign Visconti [babez.de]
Holden SST [babez.de]
Here's my question. Why don't car-makers actually make some of these concept cars, at least by body design if not all the under-hood bells and whistles! Why are the only new-looking cards on our streets all these funky looking things like the "new beetle" and the "new mini" and the like.... Why isn't there anything like the Volta available (at a reasonable price, the $400,000 Italian cars don't count.)
I mean, right now there isn't *anything* on the road under $50,000 that' I'd die to get my hands on. But the Volta and Concept T would get people who otherwise wouldn't have a car to buy a car, just for their uber-looks.
Efficiency and aerodynamics (Score:2, Insightful)
Electric cars make no sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Also FYI hydrogen cars make even less sense and will untill we have an abundant source of cheap, clean energy (see: fission, fusion). What many so-called environmentalists fail to grasp is that the greater part of our electricity does and will come from fossil fuels (especially so long
Electric cars make environmental sense (Score:5, Insightful)
2.) Electricity keeps getting cleaner. Every electric car on the road can take advantage of cleaner electricity before it is developed.
Typical anti-environmentalist FUD.
Re:Electric cars make no sense (Score:2)
That's not quite true. Right now, the production can barely keep up with domestic demand and exports. Since exports (to the States, mainly) are a big source of revenue for the utility, it creates a problematic situation.
As for the gas plant, it's far from a done deal - this project has been quite controversial, and the curr
Hydro (Score:2)
I lived in Montreal for three years and the first thing I learned is that "hydro" is just Canadian slang for electricity -- it doesn't mean that it was actually produced by hydroelectric dams, although a lot of it is.
Did anyone read... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did anyone read... (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone read... (Score:2)
Re:good news for environment (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Lengthy refuelling time
2) Limited cruising range
3) Cost is not competitive - either the vehicle is prohibitively expensive (as in this case) or the batteries need to be replaced after a relatively small number of charge cycles, and the cost of electricity to charge the vehicle is not competitive with gasoline or diesel.
Solve all of these problems at the same time, and you will be wealthier than Billy G. (And less resented for your wealth) I won't hold my breath though, barring some revolution in battery technology, I put my best hopes for an alternative energy vehicle in fuel cells.
It has long been possible to get good acceleration out of an electric car, I remember a 1970's popular science article describing an electric vehicle with regular lead acid batteries that used an energy storage flywheel that recovered braking energy and fed it back into the transmission when you hit the accelerator for quick takeoffs. While you were idling at a stoplight, the battery would gradually be topping up the flywheel velocity, ready for a jackrabbit getaway on the green light.
1&3 in a swoop? (Score:3, Interesting)
solution?
a universal battery design that gets slid in and out of the car every X miles at a station. an automated process like a car wash, pull in, it pulls the car to the correct point, and slides a new battery in from the side, forcing the old one out.. you are automatically billed based on the charge remaining, and the # of cycle
Man this is ugly (Score:2)
A few useful statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Here are some facts that I don't think anyone disputes. Absorb these, and then continue with the ranting.
Fact 1: Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Run a gas engine at X watts for 20 minutes. Run an electric motor at X watts for 20 minutes. Afterwards, the gas engine will be hotter than the electric motor. Yes, it depends on the load, blah, blah, blah, but in the loads typically encountered by cars, the internal combustion engine loses.
Fact 2: The energy density of batteries has quadrupled in the last 10 years, mostly pushed by laptop and cellphone battery technology. Lead acid batteries have about 35 Wh/kg, while different variants of lithium batteries are in the range of 100 Wh/kg to 150 Wh/kg. Note that the cost of a lithium pack is substantially higher than that of a lead acid pack of the same capacity.
But don't worry, zealots! There are still lots of other things to debate! Does every family of four really need TWO cars with more than 100 mile range? Was Carl Pope of the Sierra Club being blackmailed when he endorsed hybrid SUV's [greencar.com] in the latest issue of Green Car Journal? Would you cry if someone gave you a lithium-ion-powered Tzero [acpropulsion.com] for Christmas or other nugatory tradition? Can putting a 500 W solar panel on a car that consumes 15 kW at highway speeds make any difference? Will people ever stop suggesting that putting generators on the wheels of electric cars is a good idea? Am I really as much of a tool as I seem?
Have at it, boys!
At last (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with pure electric (as opposed to petro-electric, etc) has always been the batteries, and the recharge time. I have always thought that you should be able to change a battery for a fully charged one at a pump station, so you in effect "lease" rather than own batteries. Gives the oil companies something to sell & keeps them happy too..
Its got to happen..
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
I wonder how long before (Score:3, Funny)
Actual cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actual cost (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to do it by charge then you need to figure out the stored energy in the battery system Volts * Amps = Watts. So 6 volt battery with 200 amp hours is 1200 watt hours or 1.2kw/hr.... call it
Diesel/Electric Wheel Version Better (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm aware the article mentions hybrids, which definately means this version of the "wheel motor" can be used in the exact same situation, however it seems from the web sites this car is planned as a pure electric with special "charging stations", which IMHO will never take off without government mandates.
Jonah Hex
Wheel motor is a bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
A single electric motor inside the car can be isolated from road vibrations and shock. The motor can optimized with fewer requirements and a traditional clutch can isolate the wheels form the kinetic rotation energy of motor (when required).
Re:Wheel motor is a bad idea (Score:2)
Electric Car Adoption basic supply and demand (Score:3, Insightful)
So really it comes down to oil and how much is left. It won't be environmental concerns or government involvement that will ultimately push electric cars into mass-scale production, but consumers and their pocketbooks.
Still, these articles are reassuring that nutballs like this [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] are wrong.
Energy Density Revisited (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the difference is (assuming the lower figure for gas) like 12700 for gasoline vs 121 (the current figure for LMP). 100 times -- that is a lot of difference! Increasing the energy density for batteries up to 180 (and that is projected) ain't going to change the picture much.
Further, "re-charging" the fuel tank can be done in 2 minutes, while the batteries take ... who knows, certainly hours. Further, the fuel tank can
be refilled practically infinitely many times,
while the batteries are good after only so
many re-chargings.
Re:Energy Density Revisited (Score:2)
But the efficiency of a petrol engine is around 20% (the rest becomes heat) while the efficiency of an electrical motor is around 80%, if my mind serves me correctly.
Re:Energy Density Revisited (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no reason why the battery couldn't be something that you remove from the car and replace with a charged one at the 'gas' station.
Instead of storing fuel, the 'gas' station would be storing charged batteries (well, they'd probably be charging them). I envision a conveyer belt type of system where the empty batteries enter on one side and the full ones come out the other.
All it re
Re:Energy Density Revisited (Score:2)
Electric Cars (Score:4, Insightful)
C/D then contines latter in the article (not yet online) with this bit:
"If your Earth First! neighbors remain unconvinced that any internal-combustion engine can ever approach the godliness of a pure electric drivetrain, run these stats by them: Compared with a battery driven car juiced up by energy generated on California's electric grid, this Focus produces a scant 0.001 gram per mile more hydrocarbons and other smog forming gases, but it emits 88 percent less NOx."
That is what I never get about purely electric vehicles, it is just a displacement of pollution. Hybrids and clean burning internal-combustion engines make a lot more sense for the time being.
Re:Electric Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more efficient - your car or the local powerstation?
I'm serious... both produce pollution, but does producing the electricity at a single point and then distributing it cause less pollution than having thousands of efficient engines?
Re:Electric Cars (Score:2)
And it makes sense. It's much easier to fit one powerplant with filters and max its design for efficiency, it's also running at optimal speed for the sweet spot of the machinery all the time...
Of course the electricity could also come from nuclear plant, wee bit hard to compare in that case.
On the other hand there would be thousands and thousands of small car engines, and every one of them needs all those same things... and must do in varying
Arrogance of eco denialists (Score:5, Insightful)
As most disparagers on this page start in their own little selfish buble - so I will start there.
If you live in the rest of the world - gas isnt so cheap you can piss it away boy-racing a Humvee around the city for no real reason. Gas prices usually reflect the local and global damage it does - that way people buy more efficient cars.
In the EU this sort of 'small car' is popular cos its easy to park and manouver on our overcrowded streets. If more people drove electric cars you or your kids are less likely to suffer from asthma etc.
Burning fossil fuels to create energy is not pollution free - agreed, but is less harmful than thousands of I.C.Es pumping CO1, lead (in some places - still), SO2, ozone and all sorts of other filth directly into your childs face (or yours if you are short).
It is more efficient to filter emissions from a single large source than a million smaller ones, it is easier to monitor and maintain and often outside of popululation centres. Not pollution free - but preferable.
Once you take the rest of the world who isnt hooked on fossil fuels like Darl McBride and his crack, like British Columbia (mostly hydro), Iceland (mostly geotherm) and in some places you CAN get to the holy grail of emmision free transport.
Batteries can be recycled, or at least disposed of responsibly and with less seepage from say - oil or other liquid waste. Take into account the spillage, tranport, infrastucture and human suffering caused by the oil industry and the business of manufacturing and recycling the batteries look quite attractive.
Also your beloved presidente would not have to kiss Saudi ass or invade any more oil rich countries.
Sooner or later, the American fetish for cheap oil will be its downfall - not terrrrism, North Korea, liberalism or the European taste for mariuana.
And when it happens, I will rejoice in the ironic justice of it all.
Better, cheaper, available now (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the heck would I bother with an electric (or air powered) car?
Favorite quote; "There are liars, there are damn liars and then there are battery chemists".
Re:Better, cheaper, available now (Score:3, Informative)
Your wife probably read about Smart, a joint vernture between DaimlerChrysler and Swatch. The Smart U.K. site [thesmart.co.uk] says 60 mpg so that's not too shabby.
The best feature, I believe, is how incredible small this thing is. You can park two in a standard parking spot, or eve
Does it have a chance? (Score:2, Interesting)
It will probably go the way of the GM and Ford electric cars [slashdot.org] or the ceramic engine [geocities.com]...
So, a tire goes flat... (Score:2)
The magnet gets powdered.
Goodbye, wheel. Whole rim with the magnet needs to be replaced.
Obligatory Simpsons Reference (Score:2, Funny)
I can't go very fast, or very far.
And if you drive me, people will think you're gay
ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, the company mentioned in the article description is called Hydro Quebec for a reason - much of the electric power they produce is hydroelectric.
Secondly, a car that burns fossil fuels directly will always have to burn fossil fuels, but a car that runs on electricity, even if it currently pollutes indirectly via fossil fuel burning power plants, will immediately be able to take advantage of more environmentally-friendly produced electricity as soon as it becomes available.
Hopefully the public is starting to wise up and we can build new nuclear plants again, and also wind [torontohydro.com] is starting to be used in North America. And here are some nice geeky pics [torontohydro.com] of the wind turbine in Toronto being constructed and some views from the top.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmm... not in my backyard. Actually, nuclear plants, apart from being highly dangerous (I needn't even stress chernobyl), and these days, terrorist targets, are bad for many reasons : 1. Uranuim mining is absolutely unsafe for workers 2. Radiation levels near plants cannot be contained easily, 3, and most importantly, there is no good way to get rid of the waste, not for thousands of years.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of three mile island and chernobyl, I doubt if people would.
I think the pebble-bed reactor is a great design that would work. It is meltdown-proof.
That leaves all the waste that would be generated from the plants, and nobody wants in their backyard.
So, good idea, but society is still gun-shy over it.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:2)
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:2)
In my area we are seeing a lot of natural gas fired plants being built that are pretty clean.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:2)
I live in Australia. Sadly, the people in my state (Western Australia) are dipshit loonies that have little idea how nuclear waste and radiation actually work.
If we could somehow overcome these loonies I will invite your country personally to dump their radioactive waste in the middle of a desert 500m underground in the middle of nowhere 500km from another human being.
However, I will charge a handsome s
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, the sun heats the air at the 7km diameter base 'glasshouse'.
This hotair rises, up the 1km tunnel, spinning turbines as it moves.
it's cool. (and hot)
Here another article [dw-world.de] I found.
So with more advances like this, we will get in the right direction !
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, you're making a strawman of environmentalists -- I've never heard anyone seriously complain that a slow-moving wind turbine might decapitate a passing bald eagle.
Besides, even if environmentalists are all a bunch of extreme crazies, as you imply, and it really would be best to ignore them completely, then that doesn't mean we should purposely go out of our way to do the opposite of everything they say!
I'm not saying that fossil-fuels are evil and we should all stop using them, cold turkey, as of tomorrow. And I'm sure most environmentalists don't either. What about the perfectly reasonable position of:
1. Recognizing that fossil fuels cause air pollution.
2. Recognizing that there exist other possible sources of electricity that cause no or much less air pollution.
3. Concluding that as these other sources become more cost-efficient and practical, using more of these other sources and less fossil fuels is a Good Thing.
As for your implicit claim that even though fossil fuels cause air pollution, dams affect salmon breeding habits, so therefore both are equally evil, or so those zany environmentalists claim -- call me crazy, but I take the pragmatic view that, yes, hurting the poor salmon is sad, but not nearly as bad as air pollution which:
1. Contributes to the greenhouse effect, affecting most all terestrial life on Earth (including me!) 2. Causes smog, which could affect me! 3. Causes acid rain, which has wiped out virtually all life in some lakes, affecting those poor salmon of yours!!!
So, as you can see, even if you're not a looney environmentalist, there are plenty of good selfish (i.e. dirty neoconservatist) reasons to take the entirely radical jump of a gradual switch from fossil fuels to other sources of power.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:2)
He might be making a strawman, but he's not outright lying as you are.
First, the acoustic noise from wind turbines is known to cause the offspring of avians to be generally fucked up: sometimes they'll die before hatching, sometimes they'll be unfunctional, etc.
Second, you're out of your mind when you say that wind turbines are n
Severn Estuary Dam (Score:3, Interesting)
It was proposed during the 70s to build a tidal dam across the severn estuary between England and Wales. This was rejected for economic reasons, but also met opposition from environmental groups concerend about fish migration. This dam would have produced 12% of the UK's electricity requirements, 8.6GW. Environmentalists are opposed to stuff like this. Source [tidalelectric.com].
IMHO electric cars are a bad idea at the moment. I read a while back, I don't have the source, that the transmission of electricity from the bu
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, technology could overcome this, but it hasn't yet.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Informative)
We recycle them, and I imagine that for expensive lithium batteries the incentive to recycle will even be greater. Unless you mean that recycling causes more pollution than it prevents, in which case I'd like a source on that.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Informative)
Even if present fossil fuel plants are used to power EVs, they're still far cleaner per mile than ordinary cars. In California, that works out to about 97% cleaner.
Even the cleanest modern car engine is just plain dirty, even when compared with coal-fired power plants.
And as others have pointed out, as cleaner power plants are brought on line, electric cars will use them too.
Re:ATTENTION ENVIRONMENTALISTS! (Score:5, Interesting)
The facts [britishcolumbia.com] seem to agree. All the words are true. It's just those pesky numbers that are a lie. Try 80.65%. That's adding the imported energy to the non-hydro energy. Of the energy you produce, it's a respectable 87.57%. But still not 99.9%.
Darn numbers.
--
Evan
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)