+ 1 ...... No kiddin', Stephen Harper is a muthafuka and so are his cronies in Alberta. Interesting vid, I didn't know that much about tar sands.
0gravity09.2.09 - 12:48 pm
reply
Here's hoping that you know more about the fallacies of
carbon sequestering. They don't even have a working model online.
User1 responding to a
comment by 0gravity
09.2.09 - 1:45 pm
reply
Blame Canada for giving the Movie Studios the idea they could go elsewhere to
film features, putting the Hollywood trades out of work.
Dedicated818 responding to a
comment by User1
09.2.09 - 3:43 pm
reply
Allen, - I should tell you sometime more about what I've been finding out lately about the electric car stuff. It's not all cracked up like I thought it might be. They're finding out that even in Europe, where there are high penetrations of renewables, EVs are still worse for the environment than oil in terms of production of CO2.
I've been having a pitched battle with my editor in Denmark over this. I'm an EV fan and she's not and she's finally starting to give me some compelling and depressing info. It's showing in Denmark, with 20% wind (compared to our 2% renewables in the US), it's still worse than oil for cars.
This doesn't negate the tail-pipe shift health effect. That's still a good thing, but it's likely not the answer to global warming I had hoped it would be. Sucks, really. I need to look more into it. I really thought EVs were the answer but now not so sure.
Maybe cars that run off tar sands?
0gravity09.2.09 - 6:24 pm
reply
I'm curious about this.
The conversion efficiency of a coal-fired power plant is better than that of an internal combustion engine. Are the losses involved in the electrical infrastructure (transmission, conversion, storage etc.) so great that they nullify these gains in efficiency?
Are the batteries so heavy that the energy spent just moving the car is greater than the energy spent moving a comparable gas-powered vehicle?
It seems intuitive that if the energy infrastructure were 100% renewable (or nuclear), the only emissions produced by
driving the car would be zero. Is the problem that
building the car produces more emissions than the equivalent gas-powered vehicle?
Is is some combination of these things that makes EVs ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions, or something else entirely?
nathansnider responding to a
comment by 0gravity
09.2.09 - 6:50 pm
reply
Yeah I'm not a really big fan of EVs cause you still have the problem of traffic congestion. I do see them having somewhat of a limited roll for something like a share car or whatever they call that where you do a short lease type thing.
One source I really like, and proud to say we have in our link section cause of yours truly, is not too stoked on EVs either. In the link section you'll find an organization called, The Victoria Transport Policy Institute, www.vtpi.org/ This site has plenty of research studied they've produced, and has been used by city governments on both sides of the border. If you dug around the site, you'll find that their research hasn't shown that EVs are the answer either. I'm sure both you and 0gravity will find their site quite interesting.
User1 responding to a
comment by nathansnider
09.3.09 - 2:05 am
reply
Canadian bacon = soggy and chewy
American bacon = crisp and delicious!
hipster responding to a
comment by User1
09.3.09 - 2:10 am
reply
How about instead of contributing to the landfill-epidemic, why not just strip existing cars down to where they're light enough to be moved by an electric motor?
And instead of using machines to do the tearing, there's plenty of people out of work that could use a good work-out and a hefty paycheck.
But, I'll definitely agree with Allan on the congestion issue.
If good is done in one department, shit will be displaced to the other.
bentstrider responding to a
comment by nathansnider
09.3.09 - 6:05 am
reply
Oh I forgot to add something to this post..........
Take a look and see how many times The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is referenced on wikipedia. Current count is 2,750. I'm telling you that organization is the shit.
User109.3.09 - 3:47 pm
reply
Good questions Nathansnider and I think you're on to it in the first part. It's about the whole process from coal firing and all the energy transfers and inefficiencies in the process.
Here's what editor says, she's the Managing Editor of Windpower Monthly, the magazine I've worked at for three years. She's talking kilowatt hours (kWh) produced on an electricity system and the studies were looking at Denmark's current 20% penetration of wind on that system.
"What it comes down to is how many miles they can do on a kWh. Some say 7 and
some say 9, apparently (all this from the Denmark press this morning as there's
quite a debate going on here). At 9 miles/kWh, at 20% wind they "might" be
cleaner. At 7 miles/kWh, they are way off it. At least that's what experts
say in the press this morning. There does seem to be a consensus. The only
argument seems to be about how far they can go on a kWh.That seems to depend on efficiency. And as far as I can gather as soon as a battery is not brand new, it's not efficient. We kind of know that from our laptops!! Don't get too depressed. Nobody is saying they are not a great idea for the future. I see hybrid cars like Torgny's being the link between now and then. But it will only ever happen if we get the grid that wind needs, and if wind is allowed to reach its full economic potential."
0gravity responding to a
comment by nathansnider
09.3.09 - 4:41 pm
reply
I'm not sure what the message you're trying to say here. The electric infrastructure, from well to wheel is pretty efficient. The message is that it's not? Even lithium ion and NiMH batteries show a pretty impressive life and power curves. NiMH batteries are showing that they can last the life of a hybrid car.
User1 responding to a
comment by 0gravity
09.4.09 - 10:32 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
