Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also my dime, since I bet the employer got a subsidy for that from the government, as did the car manufacturer. It's not a better alternative if it requires subsidization.
My employer does not. It costs my employer almost nothing at that. Most Everything requires subsidize. I support removing many of them but we are having a hard time getting Wall Street out of the way.
Ford never would have got off the ground if we hadn't come together to pool our resources to build passable roads.
You are being no less hypocritical than the Al Gore's.
I am not a climate scientist and neither is anyone on this board; the consensus is that it is real and happening. We all should listen to and accept input from those better informed than yourself - which would include a large number of PhDs who have endorsed such policies.
That's interesting, so "do what I say, regardless of whether it has any impact on global warming or not." That's a new bar.
If the person in the room quit smoking it may or may not have an affect on the ceiling in my example. Best case scenario is the paint stops peeling, worst case is that it does not and it has been proven that it just naturally occurs over time. But in this scenario we get to breath clean air so why do we need scientists to tell us facts that only some people find credible. Isnt the need and want for clean air credible enough?
Again...regardless if humans cause global warming or not, isn't it common sense to protect the environment so we have clean air to breath, clean water to drink, etc? I compare this to sitting in a smoke filled room. Does the cigarette smoke peel the paint off the ceiling or does it just naturally occur over time? Scientist A says it does but Scientist B says it doesn't...this data doesn't really matter as I just want to breath clean air. Common sense says that there isn't an economy to worry about if we don't have an environment to live in.
I agree in principle, but unfortunately we don't yet have an economical replacement for fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are getting cheaper, but they are intermittent. Wind and solar will not be able to make up the backbone of the electricity grid until we have batteries big enough (and cheap enough) to store huge amounts electricity for dark/calm periods. As of now, we do not have said battery technology. See the following article for more detail: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...sized-battery/
There's nuclear power, but the greens don't like it and the public fears it. Uranium fuel is required and we don't have more than a few centuries of supply at current use rates. If we scaled up nuclear to replace fossil fuels, we'd probably have only a few decades of fuel.
Electric cars are getting better, but they are still expensive and have less range than conventional cars. And what about battery longevity? The lithium ion battery in my iPhone has about half the capacity that it did two years ago when it was brand new. I'm not going to buy a car that might have half its original range after only a few years.
I agree in principle, but unfortunately we don't yet have an economical replacement for fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are getting cheaper, but they are intermittent. Wind and solar will not be able to make up the backbone of the electricity grid until we have batteries big enough (and cheap enough) to store huge amounts electricity for dark/calm periods. As of now, we do not have said battery technology. See the following article for more detail: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...sized-battery/
There's nuclear power, but the greens don't like it and the public fears it. Uranium fuel is required and we don't have more than a few centuries of supply at current use rates. If we scaled up nuclear to replace fossil fuels, we'd probably have only a few decades of fuel.
Electric cars are getting better, but they are still expensive and have less range than conventional cars. And what about battery longevity? The lithium ion battery in my iPhone has about half the capacity that it did two years ago when it was brand new. I'm not going to buy a car that might have half its original range after only a few years.
The manufacturers actually did the batteries right. You are correct that they will degrade over time. What most did was make them use only a fraction (around 60%) of their charging ability. As the batter slowly degrades it's starts using this other 40% so they should last and have been lasting a long time.
Oh yes lets all take our science advice from the guy that spits on peer review and doesn't understand statistical confidence intervals, what can go wrong?
Rocket fuel can certainly be energy intensive to make, but it isn't a fossil fuel. It is mostly hydrazine. And like any process it can be as green as the electricity source you use.
No, SpaceX's liquid rocket boosters are fueled using kerosene based RP-1 and liquid oxygen. Hydrazine is typically used in small thrusters for use while in space.
The manufacturers actually did the batteries right. You are correct that they will degrade over time. What most did was make them use only a fraction (around 60%) of their charging ability. As the batter slowly degrades it's starts using this other 40% so they should last and have been lasting a long time.
Seems like a sensible strategy: prevent the consumer from "using up" the battery all at once.
It will be interesting to see if electric cars can become mainstream. I don't think they are up to the task just yet. Even if gasoline goes back up to $4, electric cars would still be pretty expensive compared to conventional cars. And there's still the range, battery longevity, and charging time issue.
A breakthrough in battery technology could change all of that.
Unfortunately, electric cars would still get their electricity mainly from fossil power plants. The only existing technology that could replace coal and gas plants would be nuclear plants. We don't yet have the technology to store enough energy from solar and wind that we could eliminate fossil backup plants.
I have heard that electric cars would still emit less CO2 per mile even if the electricity came from coal, thanks to the better efficiency of power plants (compared to IC engines). But ultimately, electric cars would still contribute to climate change except in areas with lots of hydro and nuclear power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
