• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

So Much for the Recovery

#121
DwaynieAD said:
i'd like to see more windfarms. just because they look cool. i just cant see it messing up bird migrations and killing birds like i've heard. if i'm wrong and that is true, well then i guess evolution is just being helped along
Click to expand...

There have been many studies regarding the effect of low frequency rumble, eminating for wind generators... many of which have concluded that they are indeed harmful to both people and animals... so wind farms may be an answer, but then we end up with N.M.B.Y. problems!
Fishheadjoe
 
#122
I like posts of iamlowsound: No more, no less and convincing.
Aborgman has made a nice calculation.

Let's add to this that an electric motor gives tremendous acceleration and is extremely flexible under varying load (this is why ICE driven train engines use diesel only for electric generator, and the engine is propelled by motors). The first car that broke 100 km/h speed record was an electric car, I think in 1911 ;)
----
Regarding windfarms: A big ecological problem in Denmark. More and more windfarms are therefore built on the sea.
 
#124
Balog said:
Consumers don't want to pay more for an inferior product? Shocking.

I do heartily agree that moar nukes is the way to go. It makes me hate the filthy hippies that tie up every attempt to build more plants. The safest, cleanest, most efficient form of power the world has ever seen and it's being denied because a bunch of useless treehuggers watched some propaganda films about nuclear power and fill their pants at the thought of using it. :scowl:

In terms of environmental impact, one thing I rarely see mentioned is how incredibly toxic the sort of high energy batteries needed for viable electric cars are. Firstly, the batteries themselves are wildly toxic and cannot be recycled or safely disposed of in conventional land fills. Secondly, the chemicals used to extract lithium (which never occurs as a free element only in compounds) are wildly toxic. Finally, even if we accept electric cars as a viable alternative, we'll have people whinging about our dependence on foreign "big lithium." :rollno:

Now, hydrogen is a very interesting concept, and I think it and nuke plants are the only really viable alternative energy sources.
Click to expand...

I consider myself a bit of a hippie, and I'm pro-nuclear... OK, it's not abundant free energy, but it's far cleaner and more desirable than coal- or oil-fired power stations. :)

The Karma and Tesla are hardly inferior - the Tesla is faster than most supercars, and recent tests have described the Karma as the best-handling large sports sedan ever, regardless of its drivetrain. Their main problem is that they're both just too damn expensive. Plus, they're a stopgap to the actual next stage of automotive propulsion, which is almost certainly going to be hydrogen. It seems to offer the best outcome for the least amount of infrastructural change (ie, you will still be able to fill up at the pump). And, as you rightly said, batteries are toxic, and are unnecessary in a hydrogen car, since the fuel cell basically is the battery.
 
#127
AntekStalich said:
Call me devil's advocate, but I wonder what happens when a hydrogen car undergoes serious crash, damaging its high pressure hydrogen tank, and hydrogen is extremely explosive ;)
Click to expand...

I believe Honda solved that problem with their FCX Clarity - apparently the hydrogen tank is triple-walled and practically indestructible. It's also passed every crash test going.

Check this out - comparison of hydrogen car fire vs. gas car fire:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#130
aborgman said:
Another thing to remember - an electric power plant is scads more efficient than an ICE.

...and electric motors are much more efficient than and ICE.

An electric car converts electrical energy into kinetic energy with about 80% efficiency. An ICE converts chemical energy into kinetic energy with about 25% efficiency.

If we assume the following:

2 identical cars, one ICE and one electric

$3.20/gallon gas (price in my town this morning)

$0.10/KWh electric (price on my last electric bill)

Gas car gets 30 mpg with 25% efficient ICE.


-----

There are ~32.9 KWh of energy in a gallon of gas. Car gets 30mpg. The car gets .91 miles/KWh at 25% efficiency. If it were 100% efficient it would get 3.65 miles/KWh.

The electric car is much more efficient - about 80%. Which means it get .8*(3.65 miles/KWh) = 2.9 miles/KWh.

For the gas car:
.91 miles/KWh
.10 cents/KWh ($3.20/32.9)

= $0.11 per mile

For the electric car:
2.9 miles/KWh
.10 cents/KWh

= $0.035 per mile
Click to expand...

Something else to consider is that we can't (currently) store as much energy, electrically, in a car. But that's a matter of time and tech!
 
#131
bassybill said:
That's fine. Analytical thought and clarity are the basic tenets of my worldview. But I know they don't appeal to everyone. ;)
Click to expand...

Isn't implying that disagreement with your viewpoints is prima facie evidence of muddled, emotional thought generally considered trolling? "Of course if you aren't intelligent and logical enough to agree with me..."

In any case, I think I'm done here fellas. Have fun.
 
#137
Balog said:
Isn't implying that disagreement with your viewpoints is prima facie evidence of muddled, emotional thought generally considered trolling? "Of course if you aren't intelligent and logical enough to agree with me..."

In any case, I think I'm done here fellas. Have fun.
Click to expand...
I didn't really express a viewpoint so much as just make an observation. And I honestly didn't think the things I mentioned earlier (about the inevitability of this situation) were really that controversial, and your response to them seemed to be made from an ideological standpoint. Hence the comment. I do think that often people believe what they choose to believe rather than accept the obvious reality staring them straight in the face, and that tendency does seem to be rife in some OT threads.

The reality is that gas prices in the US and elsewhere will continue to rise. I don't think making that observation is trolling. YMMV et cetera et cetera.
 
#138
bassybill said:
I honestly didn't think my points made earlier (about the inevitability of this situation)were really that controversial, and your response to them seemed to be made from an ideological standpoint.
Click to expand...

The argument about whether it's better to deal with the deficit by increasing taxation or reducing spending is a highly polarised one (read: complete minefield) over here. It's very easy to read something controversial into something that wasn't necessarily intended as such, and so to reply in what seems an appropriate manner.
 
#139
UncleFluffy said:
The argument about whether it's better to deal with the deficit by increasing taxation or reducing spending is a highly polarised one (read: complete minefield) over here. It's very easy to read something controversial into something that wasn't necessarily intended as such, and so to reply in what seems an appropriate manner.
Click to expand...
I understand that and I won't get into the politics of it for obvious reasons. But stating, for example, that gas prices are unrelated to pollution is just so clearly wrong that any denial of it seems based on a desire to confirm one's own ideology and an unwillingness to accept the obvious, if it contradicts what you want to believe.

Just think about what gas prices of $40 a gallon would do to people's incentive to find ways of burning less of it and you'll see what I mean.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back