Electric Cars
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50411
Printed Date: February 06 2025 at 20:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Electric Cars
Posted By: Drew
Subject: Electric Cars
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 19:57
Can you imagine plugging in a car?
------------- |
Replies:
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 23:07
|
I would buy one, just not now if they became instantly available in Aus. Give it a few years I reckon for better battery efficiency to be developed. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 23:12
|
I'd buy one if it was as cheap to purchase and own as a gas-powered car. As of yet nothing is as cost efficient as the good ol' fossil fuels.
-------------   |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 23:24
| Yes! If I could ever afford it |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 23:44
|
You damn straight. Hell, I'd use public transportation if it would get me to work in a reasonable amount of time. Still I love my little, somewhat old, Nissan pick'emup truck except when I have to take it in for major repairs. I've got it decorated with some cool stickers and there's usually good music playing on my short commute. Don't let anyone fool you though. The electrical for the power can come from other sources than polluting ones like nuclear (want some waste in your backyard?), coal (we might need that greenhouse effect sometime, let's save it for then). And electric cars would be a lot cheaper now if certain special interests hadn't gotten in the way... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 14:02
|
I have an old Mercedes 450 SEL and a Fiat Spider and only take them out for long hauls. To get around the city I use my BMW ( bus, Metro, walk ) I`ll use my bike when I go over to a friend`s house or somewhere where I can keep an eye on it. Montréal is notorious for bike and car thefts. We`ve got a bunch of these small hybrid cars here but I wouldn`t want to drive one of these things on the autoroute near a semi. Probably get sucked under. Guess they`re good for the city but that`s it. I wouldn`t bother.
------------- |
Posted By: Jozef
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 01:26
I don't have a garage so I wouldn't know where to plug it in, other than that, I'd get one, especially with the way gas prices look. 
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 11:16
I'd happily sign up right now if, as everyone else says, I could afford one...and they weren't so damn ugly most of the time. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Slartibartfast wrote:Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 18:53
|
My car is powered by a built in orgone accumulator and it makes me feel greater! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 27 2008 at 16:14
|
Maybe after I get laid, decide a major, get out of college, pay off my loans, get a house/apartment, buy all the sh*t that goes in the house, and replace all the CDs I "borrowed" during college.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 07:50
| If I had to choose between an electric car and one with a combustion engine, I'd choose electric. However, I'd rather not buy a car at all. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 10:00
C'mon, don't be one of those enviro-freaks that rules out nuclear. The plants can be operated very safely and cleanly and don't have the emission/pollutant problems of coal-fired plants. They're a more proven technology than solar and wind right now, now that said, I have no problem with and would actually love to see those technologies deployed heavily over the coming decades. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 10:55
My opinion exactly. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 20:05
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti - What Nuclear Renaissance? By http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christian_parenti - Christian Parenti" "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget."" The notion that nukes make sense and are the version of green preferred by grown-ups is being conjured by a slick PR campaign. The Nuclear Energy Institute--the industry's main trade group--has retained Hill and Knowlton to run a greenwashing campaign." " Activists like Sidebotham say the real issue is not how to build more nukes but how to handle the old, decrepit plants and their huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. Most of the atomic plants in this country are reaching the end of their life span; seventeen have been decommissioned. And increasingly the question is what to do with the accumulated waste--the extremely radioactive spent fuel rods. This is dangerous stuff. If exposed to air for more than six hours, spent fuel rods spontaneously combust, spewing highly poisonous radioactive isotopes far and wide. This spent fuel will be hot for 10,000 years." " This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants. While a new administration might tighten regulations, public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance, however, helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid." ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 20:31
I'd be happy with a Tesla if they made a 4-seat coupé version  :
 But if I were going 'eco' then Hydrogen would be my fuel of choice. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 20:46
|
Those who voted yes should consider where the energy for car comes from, and whether that's really a better alternative to gas. Electric Cars are not the solution, IMHO. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 20:47
Where do we store the waste? We still don't have a solution to this problem. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 20:49
| In other words, I vote public transportation, carpooling, riding a bike/walking, and alternative fuels that aren't ethanol (hydrogen hopefully if it works and doesn't compromise limited water resources - I haven't researched the issue enough to know). |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:09
We have a solution - underground storage. It may not be one that you approve of but it is a solution nonetheless. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:12
Hydrogen doesn't seem much better than electric - you still have to produce it, so you still require a primary energy source. What's wrong with electric cars if the primary electric generation source is green (solar/wind/etc.), and if the storage capacity can be made to support reasonable single charge mileage? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:21
Can you explain this further (this is curiosity, I'm sure you know more about it than I do)? Also, just note that I won't believe a word you say if it seems too one-sided. I'm looking for an objective analysis that looks at both costs and benefits. You can of course point out why you feel the potential costs are insignificant but I at least want you to deal them. Thanks in advance. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:37
Here's a small snippet I found that seems reasonably objective: http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html - http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html " There are many ideas about what to do with nuclear waste. The low-level (not extremely radioactive) waste can often be buried near the surface of the earth. It is not very dangerous and usually will have lost most of its radioactivity in a couple hundred years. The high-level waste, comprised mostly of spent fuel rods, is harder to get rid of. There are still plans for its disposal, however. Some of these include burying the waste under the ocean floor, storing it underground, and shooting it into space. The most promising option so far is burying the waste in the ground. This is called "deep geological disposal". Because a spent fuel rod contains material that takes thousands of years to become stable (and non-radioactive), it must be contained for a very long time. If it is not contained, it could come in contact with human population centers and wildlife, posing a great danger to them. Therefore, the waste must be sealed up tightly. Also, if the waste is being stored underground, it must be stored in an area where there is little groundwater flowing through. If ground water does flow through a waste storage site, it could erode the containment canisters and carry waste away into the environment. Additionally, a disposal site must be found with little geological activity. We don't want to put a waste disposal site on top of a fault line, where 1000 years in the future an earthquake will occur, releasing the buried waste into the environment. The waste will probably be encapsulated in large casks designed to withstand corrosion, impacts, radiation, and temperature extremes. Special casks will also have to be used to transfer fuel rods from their holding pools and dry storage areas next to the reactor to the permanent geological storage site" So the pro is that with a suitable location and proper containment, the low- and high-level waste can be "tucked away" and won't impact the environment - but the con, in the case of Yucca Mountain, the proposed main nuclear waste site in Nevada, you have to consider earthquakes, erosion, and other natural forces - the problem is the time scale (i.e. half-life) associated with the waste is so long, it's almost impossible to predict what might happen that could break containment and lead to environmental disasters - if the radioactive material got into groundwater, etc. There's also always the issue that a big nuclear waste dump doesn't top most people's list of something they want in their area. Also try the following, I know it's wikipedia so at worst perhaps we sacrifice some accuracy but gain an objective description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Long_term_management_of_waste - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Long_term_management_of_waste |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:40
| Alright, thanks. I'll read those later this evening. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 21:45
No problem. Just re-read your post and you asked about costs - I don't think the costs are insignificant, so chalk that up as another point against the long-term storage, and probably nuclear in general. France has spent what I'm sure is considerable sums of their GDP on their nuclear power infrastructure, but from all accounts they appear to be making it work. They are the world's largest exporter of electric power. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 22:04
|
Again, thanks. I need to be more knowledgeable about political issues... I just don't have the time (something about trying to spam fifty internet forums at the same time...) EDIT: oh and I probably meant costs simply as cons, but indeed literal cost can be a con, as you mentioned |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 08 2008 at 22:24
Hydrogen is potentially the ideal "storage" device for both eco-friendly and eco-unfriendly electricity. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 09 2008 at 05:51
|
Regarding nuclear waste, I've read somewhere about the possibility of developing a technique which enables us to use nuclear waste as nuclear fuel. I don't think the development has come very far yet, though. There's also the whole fusion thing. Fusion reactors will be much, much more effective than current fission reactors and also leave less and/or less dangerous waste, if I'm not mistaken (was a while since I read up on this stuff). I don't think we should rule out nuclear technology just yet. Instead, we ought to continue researching new possibilities within this field and improving the technology. Of course I'm also very positive to completely green energy sources such as solar and wind power, and wave power. |
Posted By: Passionist
Date Posted: August 09 2008 at 11:23
| I vote no. I'm not considering getting a car, I haven't the need for a car, why should I buy an electric one? If it ever gets so far, I'll jump in the electric bus. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 09 2008 at 18:35
Oh, yes The Nation. Quite the reliable source! You probably shouldn't cite the left wing version of NRO or Human Events if you want your position to be taken seriously. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 10:30
Is this an admission that the mainstream media isn't actually left wing or is the true left wing media so left it's right?  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 15:34
|
i say no for right now. the energy id be charging that car up with will be produced from coal and other fossil fuel plants. whats the difference?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 21:36
The difference is in renewable resources, things which don't leave dangerous and toxic waste you have to deal with, and to be fair,that's just about everything.. Though, interestingly enough, as global warming accelerates, new places are opening up for oil exploitation... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: August 11 2008 at 21:41
" Plus ca change , plus c'est la meme chose" = same old, same old    ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 01:13
No, I'm saying that all of those magazines are so extreme that they should not be taken seriously. I get names mixed up, though, so I may have been thinking of someone else.
However, you are still wrong. The '70s attitude and rampant NIMBYism that is holding it up in a large part enrages me to no end. Financially, it still makes more sense at this time than most "green" energy until that technology becomes more advanced. Of course, there were some promising nuclear advancements on the horizon that Congress helpfully shut down that may have made this situation easier. Apparently, they don't want there to be superior ways to process nuclear waste. Oh well.
I don't think the media has a significant left-wing bias, though. Their bias is more on the side of being completely retarded. NPR is the only American media outlet that I can tolerate. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: August 12 2008 at 10:16
 Agree, pretty much all television news is unwatchable IMO. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 13 2008 at 21:35
|
you might want to catch the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 10:14
|
Heard about that one. Of course no doubt more liberal propaganda.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 14 2008 at 20:43
|
no doubt |
Posted By: listen
Date Posted: August 19 2008 at 20:56
| EVERYBODY: watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car". Very informative. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 20 2008 at 06:32
|
Also remember not to wizz on the electric fence.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|