Trying to promote the use of electric cars on this board will earn you swift refutation. Here is the thing, with the new "lets not spend govt money" t party mentality, nuclear energy plants are likely going down quickly because of their lack of cost control. Same with USU, the expense of their plant will be a big time problem.
Anyway, Lewis, Headwind, and the rest on this board who want smaller government probably drive Hummers. Anything remotely related to not promoting intensive use of oil and gas will be met with SWIFT rebuke by these guys. It is funny that you suggest the use of nuclear power to provide POSSIBLE electricity and the resident "Republicans" will meet you with the "coal" so this is not green. I believe you were speaking in a "what if" scenario. I did not read anything in your post that suggested that CO2 was a pollutant, or that you believed such. As usual, there are many "scientists" on this board who need to seek therapy. In the meantime, watch what you suggest because it will be met with SWIFT REBUKE on this board of free thought.
days - now you are out-and-out lying. First of all, I drive a Honda. I don't make enough money to drive a Hummer. You are falling for the left-wing-nut lie that all conservatives are rich. Are all the voters that rebuked Barry this last election rich? That is an impossibility. Second, you know full well that I have advocated the manufacturing of small nuclear reactors. Why am I invested in DNN and USU if I am for burning only coal and oil? When it comes to oil and coal, we DON'T HAVE ANY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE!!! Look at Europe for a lesson on "sustainable" energy. Without government subsidies, which are falling apart due to socialistic programs over there, THEY FALL FLAT ON THEIR FACE! Take a look at reality for a change.
Days, the majority of politicians in both US parties have effectively no understanding of the magnitude of domestic energy consumption. The most recent numbers that I have seen for the sum of electricity generation, HVAC, and transportation are on the order of 10 to the 15th power in Joules (the SI or MKS unit of energy).
There isn't any simple way to put this huge number into a perspective that the typical layperson (non-engineer/non-scientist)can get their arm's around. The engineering challenge is to identify technologies for energy production that have the potential/prospect of being scaled up.
We can scale up for anticipated energy demand with fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas plus nuclear. If we are going to charge electric cars overnight, we need to use energy sources that are also reliable.
As many of us have stated, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow when needed. In the next 10 to 20 to 30 years we may yet develop reliable/scaleable technology for solar, wind, and the other alternative (non-carbon)/renewable energy sources/fuels.
For the politician who "wants it all now", we need to educate this person to "the 101 level." If they "still don't or choose not to get it" when running for re-election (next time), then they need to be retired.
It is how we handle the transition over possibly the next 30 years that will tell the story.
When a mis- or un-informed politician calls someone like me a hypocrite (for my position on the alternative energy sources/fuels), I just ignore them. They are simply on the negative side of the number line in terms of their knowledge. Since the mainstream news media has demonstrated that it is not interested in presenting "the facts", it is incumbent upon those of us "in the know" to control the message.
In closing, the new GM offering indicates possibly 40 miles on a charge. The efficiency of the mated gasoline-powered engine does allow for possibly 375 miles on a tank of fuel. We clearly must do better.
A happy, healthy, and uneventful Thanksgiving to all.
Nothing wrong with electric, check this out...1959 Lincoln "beast" that runs cleaner than any hybrid; the primary fuel source powering the electric motors is any one of several which are burned to drive the turbine gererator; no grid, no transmission loss, lower CO2, lower polution and no foreign oil, ie distributed generation for electric motive power.
It would be nice to see cents/mile since it uses two different energy sources. Also, using electricity is basically burning coal as it stands now. The eco-nuts don't like nuclear or even humans for that matter.
Electric cars!! Great bring me a can of electricity when I run out in WYO. How about sticking a wind turbine on the top of these jewels! Only benefit is for utilities, USU, and GE.
Would you buy one?
I do find it funny that electric cars are pushed as a "green" alternative by the same people who think CO2 is a polutant when the majority of the electricity to run them comes from burning coal.
The Department of Energy was handed over to the pseudo-environmentalists after the 2008 election. Many of these people still irrationally view zero-emmission nuclear energy as the dirtiest form of enegy.
Natural gas has also been slighted by the current Administration, even though America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Maybe things will get somewhat better based on the results of the last election.