Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tom Bourke]

[quote title=Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 30 April 2009 08:06]

Quote:

Somewhere, someone is looking at the missing piece of the puzzle... they just don't realize it.   Or maybe they do....    Cheers,  Hammer

We have all of the technology we need right now.  It is just a matter of implementing it effectively. Part of that is the population as a whole adjusting habits and routines.

One example is people who have to have a car that can go 400 mi on a tank/charge.  A very high percentage of people never drive more than 100 mi in a day, ever.  Many of the current crop of electrics can achieve this.  Many of the "long range" trips these people make are less than 100 mi one way.  Add convenience charging stations and you have solved the problem of getting home.  All it would take for a charging station is some thing that looked like a parking meter.  Put some change in and the outlet comes on.  That is one part of the solution, and I think we will see that happen.  There are other solutions for those who DO have to travel much further.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Since most of our electricity comes from burning coal, this is mostly shifting which tail pipe the carbon comes from.

Admittedly smokestacks are easier to scrub than tailpipes, but I find less the complete agreement in the scientific community about all this. We are committing to a very expensive cure, without complete understanding of the malady.

JR

[Tom Bourke]

I think that using electricity as a transfer medium decouples the car from the energy source.  As that happens our dependence on any one source becomes less entrenched.  Since we have LOTS of way to make electricity then we can use whatever method fits for a given area.  In my area wind and methane digesters work well.  In other areas hydro or coal work for now.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Tom Bourke wrote on Thu, 30 April 2009 12:04

I think that using electricity as a transfer medium decouples the car from the energy source.  As that happens our dependence on any one source becomes less entrenched.  Since we have LOTS of way to make electricity then we can use whatever method fits for a given area.  In my area wind and methane digesters work well.  In other areas hydro or coal work for now.

Yes, this is a little like the hydrogen vehicle screed, but at least there is some infrastructure in place.

This (electric cars) may make a marginal difference but battery technology is still inadequate to be a viable replacement for gas across the entire user base, and our power grid is not up to widespread conversion to provide transportation energy too.

I actually support electric vehicles, and CNG, and bicycles, and..... It is just not a slam dunk solution for anything. Electric cars have been around for quite a while, and just wanting batteries to be better, helps, but doesn't guarantee they will be. I don't see oil being easily displaced for transportation in less densely populated areas for some time.

JR

[Tom Bourke]

I agree, the technology and infrastructure need some more work.  I guess I just see the gas vs electric vs other fuels also being a local choice based on need.  Right now the only choice is gas or diesel.  I just want more choices.

[Ryan Lantzy]

Tom Bourke wrote on Wed, 29 April 2009 23:46

If I understand it right, Methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.  One source had it at 21 times more powerful than CO2.  If that is the case then we are MUCH better off capturing it from methane digester and dumps than letting it degrade naturally. I have said it before, there is no one answer.  I support ALL alternative energy sources where they do the most good.  This is a complex problem requiring a complex solution.  Burning methane from the various wast sources seams like a good thing to me.  Ethanol from food crops does not, but from plants that grow in areas we can't farm for food does.

Not according to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anth ropogenic

It has about 1/3 the radiative forcing of CO2.  That said, Methane has increased at a faster rate in the atmosphere and May have a longer half-life.  I don't know.