but you can sell the uranium to Iran or North Korea thus making more moneyPBAsydney wrote:
Hydroelectric power?ATG wrote:
Why not clean nuclear power?Varegg wrote:
Breathtaking looks and acceleration but it`s purely electrical right, thus not being more environmentally-friendly cause you gotta produce that electricity from some fossil fuel !
So that car is still in the loop as much as a car that runs on petrol !
The local benefits could however be better reducing polution inside a city area !
Geothermal power?
That's what we use on Iceland, 100% clean like nuclear power without that nasty uranium.
That car looks awesome as hell, but you know what happens next.
A big car company or oil company will buy the rights to the technology and bury it until we're forced to move away from oil. As long as Big Oil and big car manufacturers are in collusion with each other, we'll continue to see technological advances in this area get stifled by greed.
A big car company or oil company will buy the rights to the technology and bury it until we're forced to move away from oil. As long as Big Oil and big car manufacturers are in collusion with each other, we'll continue to see technological advances in this area get stifled by greed.
Well, if you in a nuclear plant's grid, then I guess you're good to go.ATG wrote:
Why not clean nuclear power?Varegg wrote:
Breathtaking looks and acceleration but it`s purely electrical right, thus not being more environmentally-friendly cause you gotta produce that electricity from some fossil fuel !
So that car is still in the loop as much as a car that runs on petrol !
The local benefits could however be better reducing polution inside a city area !
Nix that, it gets the equivilent of 135 mpg. Doesn't matter if you use electricity from coal or oil, it's still damn green.
But how do you charge it?
Last edited by jonsimon (2007-05-05 21:22:53)
Looks like a porsche and the logo looks exactly like the porsche logo from that angle.
Different. Most places aren't built on hotspots (so geothermal is out) and dams are very, very expensive.PBAsydney wrote:
Hydroelectric power?ATG wrote:
Why not clean nuclear power?Varegg wrote:
Breathtaking looks and acceleration but it`s purely electrical right, thus not being more environmentally-friendly cause you gotta produce that electricity from some fossil fuel !
So that car is still in the loop as much as a car that runs on petrol !
The local benefits could however be better reducing polution inside a city area !
Geothermal power?
That's what we use on Iceland, 100% clean like nuclear power without that nasty uranium.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Its actually based pretty heavily on the Lotus Elise, so it should look a bit different than most Porsches.
Change with these sorts of thing s is always gradual. Even though electric cars are moving some of the pollution elsewhere, better investment in Green technology would make it a winner all round as the renewable energy power stations take up more share of the power load. $100K is a lot of money to pay, however technology always plummets in price after it has been around a few years. It was the same when petrol engined cars first came about. They have sold out their first production batch, supply and demand dictates that more popular the things are, more volume is produced, price comes down. They are planning to release an SUV style car soon too. Basically I think its a very positive step, I would sure like to have one.
Change with these sorts of thing s is always gradual. Even though electric cars are moving some of the pollution elsewhere, better investment in Green technology would make it a winner all round as the renewable energy power stations take up more share of the power load. $100K is a lot of money to pay, however technology always plummets in price after it has been around a few years. It was the same when petrol engined cars first came about. They have sold out their first production batch, supply and demand dictates that more popular the things are, more volume is produced, price comes down. They are planning to release an SUV style car soon too. Basically I think its a very positive step, I would sure like to have one.
I thought you're limited to about 60 in the US?Stingray24 wrote:
Same here. I wanna hear some V8 growl or some supercharger whine if I'm driving fast.jord wrote:
At 120 MPH max everything is faster.Ryan wrote:
Lambos are faster.
That's if Cornado's information is correct.
Driving that i'd have to buy a CD with muscle car noises and play it as i drive and pretend i'm in a petrol car.
Buy geothermal power from Iceland then, make us some profit while you get clean power .Spark wrote:
Different. Most places aren't built on hotspots (so geothermal is out) and dams are very, very expensive.PBAsydney wrote:
Hydroelectric power?ATG wrote:
Why not clean nuclear power?
Geothermal power?
That's what we use on Iceland, 100% clean like nuclear power without that nasty uranium.
Dams expensive? Our tiny economy has a bunch of them.
Last edited by PBAsydney (2007-05-06 05:59:42)
There was a recent article in the Wallstreet Journal Europe about the French Postal Service using several battery powered delivery trucks. This application was ideal because the routes were set (so range was no problem), and all of the trucks were idle for a set period of time allowing for recharge. The article also pointed out the fact that the batteries are super-expensive and the materials are not environmentally friendly. The drivers of the trucks were all very satisfied with their performance.
I saw an a TV report whilst in Texas about a Texan who had come up with a way to make a regular combustion engine use water as fuel using a special electrical process just befor the fuel injection system. At the end of the article, it said he was awarded a defense contract to develop a gas-water dual-fuel Humvee. (so, who knows when we would see it.) Haven't heard anything about this since. I really hope that the guy wasn't assissinated.
Also, notice that there are several 'big' auto companies that have not invested in hybrid technology. Whilst Toyota and others have invested heavily in it. The true benefits of a hybrid engine can be seen on the new Lexus "luxury hybrid" - the fuel economy is not a big improvement when they actually outfit a car with a desirably powerful engine, it is just a 'feel better about yourself' car. Keep an eye on comapnies that have been spending their R&D budgets elsewhere during this time - something else is coming down the pipe.
I would also bet that the amount of coal (even if we assume that coal is being burnt) used to charge the car from a powerplant puts off a MUCH smaller amount of harmful emissions than a tank of gasoline burnt to go the same 250 miles.
Until China can reign in their emissions from coal power and other sources, you might as well drive a coal powered car to work because all other impacts will pale in comparison to what China is doing. (I know that's not really the way you should look at it, but seriously, there is nothing anybody can really do until they fix their shit.) However, the economic and political benefits of being less dependant, or not dependant on foreign oil will still exist, just not the environmental (on a global scale they wont, but locally, ozone and smog conditions could certainly improve).
I saw an a TV report whilst in Texas about a Texan who had come up with a way to make a regular combustion engine use water as fuel using a special electrical process just befor the fuel injection system. At the end of the article, it said he was awarded a defense contract to develop a gas-water dual-fuel Humvee. (so, who knows when we would see it.) Haven't heard anything about this since. I really hope that the guy wasn't assissinated.
Also, notice that there are several 'big' auto companies that have not invested in hybrid technology. Whilst Toyota and others have invested heavily in it. The true benefits of a hybrid engine can be seen on the new Lexus "luxury hybrid" - the fuel economy is not a big improvement when they actually outfit a car with a desirably powerful engine, it is just a 'feel better about yourself' car. Keep an eye on comapnies that have been spending their R&D budgets elsewhere during this time - something else is coming down the pipe.
I would also bet that the amount of coal (even if we assume that coal is being burnt) used to charge the car from a powerplant puts off a MUCH smaller amount of harmful emissions than a tank of gasoline burnt to go the same 250 miles.
Until China can reign in their emissions from coal power and other sources, you might as well drive a coal powered car to work because all other impacts will pale in comparison to what China is doing. (I know that's not really the way you should look at it, but seriously, there is nothing anybody can really do until they fix their shit.) However, the economic and political benefits of being less dependant, or not dependant on foreign oil will still exist, just not the environmental (on a global scale they wont, but locally, ozone and smog conditions could certainly improve).
Last edited by eisBär (2007-05-06 06:38:49)
I wouldnt even need the car to go 120, or even accelerate too fast. IT's kinda cool to see this. Gas free cars are a long way off. But the tide is turning.
China is getting off fossil fuels a bit. I bet the three Gorges Damn produces a shit ton of electricity.
Imagine L.A. with electric cars. it would be a 25% less shitty of a city. Then, if you got rid of the lawyers, delusional fame seekers, bad actors, and the Paris Hilton types, I might actually want to go back there.
China is getting off fossil fuels a bit. I bet the three Gorges Damn produces a shit ton of electricity.
Imagine L.A. with electric cars. it would be a 25% less shitty of a city. Then, if you got rid of the lawyers, delusional fame seekers, bad actors, and the Paris Hilton types, I might actually want to go back there.
Well the car looks great, the idea is good, and even if you did still use fossil fuel burning power stations to generate the electricity I'd wager it still works out better for the environment (the power station gas burnt doing a full charge equates to about 125 miles per gallon) but, I've always said nuclear power is the way to go but people get so scared of it.
And for those saying it's slow, you have mental issues, it goes over 130MPH, thats near double the legal speed limit. 0-60mph in ~4 seconds, yeah it's a real snail... If I had £50,000 I'd but one now (incidentally, 50k GBP for a luxury sports car is cheap by anyones standards, then bare in mind all the goverment concessions you get as it's classified as an economy car lol).
And for those saying it's slow, you have mental issues, it goes over 130MPH, thats near double the legal speed limit. 0-60mph in ~4 seconds, yeah it's a real snail... If I had £50,000 I'd but one now (incidentally, 50k GBP for a luxury sports car is cheap by anyones standards, then bare in mind all the goverment concessions you get as it's classified as an economy car lol).
You can't just buy electricity from iceland. The only way to get power over the ocean would be to use batteries, which would very expensive, slow, and not effecient at all. Dams are only avaliable where there is running water, so that works fine for say, people in the niagra grid, but not so good for people away from water.PBAsydney wrote:
Buy geothermal power from Iceland then, make us some profit while you get clean power .Spark wrote:
Different. Most places aren't built on hotspots (so geothermal is out) and dams are very, very expensive.PBAsydney wrote:
Hydroelectric power?
Geothermal power?
That's what we use on Iceland, 100% clean like nuclear power without that nasty uranium.
Dams expensive? Our tiny economy has a bunch of them.
Actually, some German company is going to put an electricity line across the Atlantic and do this thing exactly.jonsimon wrote:
You can't just buy electricity from iceland. The only way to get power over the ocean would be to use batteries, which would very expensive, slow, and not effecient at all. Dams are only avaliable where there is running water, so that works fine for say, people in the niagra grid, but not so good for people away from water.PBAsydney wrote:
Buy geothermal power from Iceland then, make us some profit while you get clean power .Spark wrote:
Different. Most places aren't built on hotspots (so geothermal is out) and dams are very, very expensive.
Dams expensive? Our tiny economy has a bunch of them.
That's a lot easier for the germans to do than the Americans. I was speaking from an American perspective.PBAsydney wrote:
Actually, some German company is going to put an electricity line across the Atlantic and do this thing exactly.jonsimon wrote:
You can't just buy electricity from iceland. The only way to get power over the ocean would be to use batteries, which would very expensive, slow, and not effecient at all. Dams are only avaliable where there is running water, so that works fine for say, people in the niagra grid, but not so good for people away from water.PBAsydney wrote:
Buy geothermal power from Iceland then, make us some profit while you get clean power .
Dams expensive? Our tiny economy has a bunch of them.
how about using the hybrid charge method?Harmor wrote:
Agreed. 'What killed the Electric car' was a great documentary as well.konfusion wrote:
This is awesome - a first step in the right direction
-konfusion
The only problem I have with Electric cars is the batteries and how they are charged. See the batteries are made from caustic materials like Litium, Nickel, Cadmium, and LEAD - these are not good for the environment. Not only when they are disposed of, but also the mining of those materials.
There's no point with having an electric car if the electricity it uses came from a poluting source like Coal or Oil? Also you loose more than 50% of the enemy when you transmit the energy over transmission lines.
So unless the power you generate for an electric car is clean and the battery techonlogy is eco-friendly, I'll reserve judgement on The Electric Car.
Have you guys heard of the Air Car? Only goes 35 mph (50 kph) though.
I know in Montana there are roads that have no limits - you only get pulled over if you are driving 'unsafely'.ghettoperson wrote:
I thought you're limited to about 60 in the US?
Where I live its 65 on all major highways. There are some places where 70 is the legal limit, but most people here drive around 75-80mph.
What's funny is that California has some of the highest gases in the country, yet we drive the fastest wasting alot of fuel in the process.
OMG...is this our solution to energy independence? No more foriegn oil?geNius wrote: