Either, #1 Global warming is BS and the earth is naturally getting warmer - while politicians are trying to use "green" as a way to consolidate power and money in new "green" technologies and corporations...
OR #2 Global Warming due to fossil fuel use is REALITY and we need to change our ways to decrease pollution and greenhouse gases and ozone depleting chemicals.
Either way, I'm not interested in green vehicles until they make 4 door sedans the size of the Chrysler 300; SUV's the size of Ford Expedition, Explorer and Edge and green buses/green shipping trucks, green boats and green jets.
The problem is, we CAN't achieve that with oil companies controlling our economy.
We can't achieve this with whore politicians.
We can't achieve this with Republicans in office.
CHINA will go green before America simply because their communist government leaves no room for the BULLSH*T we go through in AMerican politics. That's why their social services, and infrastructures are better than ours. And I lived there for years on business so I know.
"We can't achieve this with Republicans in office."
The House is led by the Democrats and the Senate, is, well, depends on who you ask. Yet we still have "global warming". Let's not make this a Red/Blue issue. It's all about the Benjamins - for both sides.
And how is it exactly that we got into and then out of the last ice age? The NATURAL cycle of the Earth cooling and warming.
There's a lot being done to make vehicles that are a ton more efficient..but they're not coordinating with each other, nor do they have the means to mass produce them.
For example, all you drivers should know that less than 1% of the fuel you use is actually being used to move YOU. Therefore, an institute in the Rockies is working on a carbon fiber chassis that's lightweight, and the rest of the car will be weighed down by people, the engine, and other stuff. A good amount of energy is being wasted with the friction in the pistons, so they're working on much better lubricants...this is at MIT. And, there's multiple teams working on battery technology.
The immediate solution is to start driving less. The real problem is not global warming, it's peak oil, because if it takes more energy to get petrol, and most of it is being wasted on fuel, then we're kinda screwed.
Furthermore, people like you, salut, are part of the problem. You want the world before you're willing to do something good, and you do not want to sacrifice anything at all. You do not need 500hp to move your stupid fat ass.
The true problem is that Oil and Coal are at the beggining of our infrastructure. EVERYTHING we produce gets its energy from oil or coal.
WHAT WE NEED is to cut them out of the equation. We need a NUCLEAR infrastructure. We need heavy investment in FUSION POWER. Oil companies don't want that because FUSION would have tremendous benefits over FISSION and PETRO FUELS because it leaves behind much less radioactive material (with shorter half life) .
FUSION is our future. Unfortunately, the Military will perfect it first and leave the cities hanging.
You have to look at reality. A car that gets 50miles per 8-hour charge would be fine for 90% of American daily-drivers.
There is no need to drive a SUV anything into work every day--unless you are a construction worker. Who hauls things in from home to work every day. Or you need to transport 5 full grown adult males on a daily basis.
But if you work in a cube, and have to pay for parking downtown... You will be fine with a car that only gets 50miles per charge. And if the parking garages would have plug-in ports, then it would fulfill almost 98% of the daily-drivers in America.
I work 12miles from where I live. With this car, I would have to 'fill up' once a week (in reality it makes no difference when I fill up as the price of electricity is pretty much stable all the time) and electricity costs pennies compared with gas--so I would be saving somewhere around $100 a month by switching to this vehicle. At least. I know there has been some months where I fill up 3 times a month.
I have tried biking (no good in rain/cold) I have tried public transportation (timing, reliability) and I have tried carpooling (same as public transportation, really) and it just dosen't work out. I am going to get a motorcycle and try that next. But that's not a solution as I can't use it in the winter... I just want it. :P
I await the Chevy Volt or any full EV with my checkbook in hand.
I agree with you that we (the United States) need to invest heavily in Nuclear . Hell, even France primarialy uses nuclear. Right now, our fleet of nuclear power reactors has just about reached the end of its 30 year lifespan. Modern nuclear reactors are safer and more efficient than what we currently have, but the un-informed masses keep shouting "Not in *my* back yard."
As for the viability of fusion power, I will repeat what a professor of physics from ODU http://www.odu.edu (who is a member of their nuclear physics group) told me when I asked him about the viability of fusion power while staying as a guest in his home (I believe over Thanksgiving of 2006). He said "Fusion power is the technology of the future, and always will be." (or something very close to that). When I asked him to explain this, he started out by telling me that those working on it are saying that it is currently X (I don't remember if he said 20 or 50) years from being viable. Then he said that when he was in school (in the 1970's) they were saying it was just as far from being viable as they are saying today.
It seems to me that this is due to either unrealistic expectations (of what still needs to be developed) and/or unrealistic estimates (of how long it will take to develop the required technology/knowledge), OR that fusion power (on the scale we are talking about -- less than a star) is entirely unrealistic.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Until they make a decent sized, 4 door electric car that does 0 - 60mph in 5seconds or less, i couldn't care a less!
PS. global warming is bullshit!
There are two possibilities here:
Either, #1 Global warming is BS and the earth is naturally getting warmer - while politicians are trying to use "green" as a way to consolidate power and money in new "green" technologies and corporations...
OR #2 Global Warming due to fossil fuel use is REALITY and we need to change our ways to decrease pollution and greenhouse gases and ozone depleting chemicals.
Either way, I'm not interested in green vehicles until they make 4 door sedans the size of the Chrysler 300; SUV's the size of Ford Expedition, Explorer and Edge and green buses/green shipping trucks, green boats and green jets.
The problem is, we CAN't achieve that with oil companies controlling our economy.
We can't achieve this with whore politicians.
We can't achieve this with Republicans in office.
CHINA will go green before America simply because their communist government leaves no room for the BULLSH*T we go through in AMerican politics. That's why their social services, and infrastructures are better than ours. And I lived there for years on business so I know.
"We can't achieve this with Republicans in office."
The House is led by the Democrats and the Senate, is, well, depends on who you ask. Yet we still have "global warming". Let's not make this a Red/Blue issue. It's all about the Benjamins - for both sides.
And how is it exactly that we got into and then out of the last ice age? The NATURAL cycle of the Earth cooling and warming.
There's a lot being done to make vehicles that are a ton more efficient..but they're not coordinating with each other, nor do they have the means to mass produce them.
For example, all you drivers should know that less than 1% of the fuel you use is actually being used to move YOU. Therefore, an institute in the Rockies is working on a carbon fiber chassis that's lightweight, and the rest of the car will be weighed down by people, the engine, and other stuff. A good amount of energy is being wasted with the friction in the pistons, so they're working on much better lubricants...this is at MIT. And, there's multiple teams working on battery technology.
The immediate solution is to start driving less. The real problem is not global warming, it's peak oil, because if it takes more energy to get petrol, and most of it is being wasted on fuel, then we're kinda screwed.
Furthermore, people like you, salut, are part of the problem. You want the world before you're willing to do something good, and you do not want to sacrifice anything at all. You do not need 500hp to move your stupid fat ass.
KEV
The true problem is that Oil and Coal are at the beggining of our infrastructure. EVERYTHING we produce gets its energy from oil or coal.
WHAT WE NEED is to cut them out of the equation. We need a NUCLEAR infrastructure. We need heavy investment in FUSION POWER. Oil companies don't want that because FUSION would have tremendous benefits over FISSION and PETRO FUELS because it leaves behind much less radioactive material (with shorter half life) .
FUSION is our future. Unfortunately, the Military will perfect it first and leave the cities hanging.
You have to look at reality. A car that gets 50miles per 8-hour charge would be fine for 90% of American daily-drivers.
There is no need to drive a SUV anything into work every day--unless you are a construction worker. Who hauls things in from home to work every day. Or you need to transport 5 full grown adult males on a daily basis.
But if you work in a cube, and have to pay for parking downtown... You will be fine with a car that only gets 50miles per charge. And if the parking garages would have plug-in ports, then it would fulfill almost 98% of the daily-drivers in America.
I work 12miles from where I live. With this car, I would have to 'fill up' once a week (in reality it makes no difference when I fill up as the price of electricity is pretty much stable all the time) and electricity costs pennies compared with gas--so I would be saving somewhere around $100 a month by switching to this vehicle. At least. I know there has been some months where I fill up 3 times a month.
I have tried biking (no good in rain/cold) I have tried public transportation (timing, reliability) and I have tried carpooling (same as public transportation, really) and it just dosen't work out. I am going to get a motorcycle and try that next. But that's not a solution as I can't use it in the winter... I just want it. :P
I await the Chevy Volt or any full EV with my checkbook in hand.
@ Flashpoint:
I agree with you that we (the United States) need to invest heavily in Nuclear . Hell, even France primarialy uses nuclear. Right now, our fleet of nuclear power reactors has just about reached the end of its 30 year lifespan. Modern nuclear reactors are safer and more efficient than what we currently have, but the un-informed masses keep shouting "Not in *my* back yard."
As for the viability of fusion power, I will repeat what a professor of physics from ODU http://www.odu.edu (who is a member of their nuclear physics group) told me when I asked him about the viability of fusion power while staying as a guest in his home (I believe over Thanksgiving of 2006). He said "Fusion power is the technology of the future, and always will be." (or something very close to that). When I asked him to explain this, he started out by telling me that those working on it are saying that it is currently X (I don't remember if he said 20 or 50) years from being viable. Then he said that when he was in school (in the 1970's) they were saying it was just as far from being viable as they are saying today.
It seems to me that this is due to either unrealistic expectations (of what still needs to be developed) and/or unrealistic estimates (of how long it will take to develop the required technology/knowledge), OR that fusion power (on the scale we are talking about -- less than a star) is entirely unrealistic.