The logical alternative for powering our homes, passenger vehicles and light trucks is electricity.
Why? There are several reasons.
1: Electricity can be generated from anything : Solar, Wind, Diesel, Nuclear, Coal, Biofuel...even a simple wood stove driven steam engine can generate electricity.
2: Upgrading the existing infrastructure can be done cheaply and quickly by licensed electricians for very little cost.
3: Current existing technology is such that existing passenger vehicles and light trucks can be converted for far less than the price of a new car....which puts conversion within the reach of more people.
4: Electric powered vehicles have a daily range well within the distance driven by the average driver. In fact, electric vehicles already exist which can travel upwards of 300 miles on a single charge. I don't care WHO you are, thats a lot of driving for one day.
5: Current techology is such that a "quick" charge can be done in about 5-10 minutes.
6: By converting to an electric based private transportation system, we open up the door for cities and townships which currently use parking meters to convert those parking meters to a combination Meter/Charging station. Thus, providing additional revenue for our towns while increasing the currently available infrastructure dramatically.
7: Electric Vehicles have no emissions. Pollution from them becomes a non issue.
8: Any plant which produces energy can control its pollution output far cheaper and with infinitely greater efficiency than any mobile vehicle can possibly have included in its construction.
9: Whether or not Global Warming is conceded as an issue, the fact is that -- given the vastly increased possibilities for electric power generation -- the need to continue importing the energy needs for America will drop if we turn to electricity as a means of powering our passenger vehicles.
I welcome discussion on this issue.
Dr. Jennifer Warren
Team - Unity 4 America
http://jenniferwarrens.blogspot.com
We have covered some of this in the Solar Power post.
Except getting our electricy from coal defeats the purpose of no emission cars. WHich is why we should switch to renewable and nuclear energy sources, as we have talked about in the Renewable and Nuclear Energy thread.
Jennifer,
Using electricity is not the issue.
The issue is how to generate it.
The "green" alternatives are not as green as they seem.
To use solar, we would have to cover the planet in solar cells.
Wind, same thing. Perhaps even wear them on your hat too.
Biofuel, yeah, we'd have to cut down every forest on the planet to plant corn.
Diesel, wood, coal, umm.... does the word "pollution" mean anything?
How about "Middle East oil dependency"?
Nuclear is the only way to go. Zero emmissions. Very small. Very cheap.
Advances in safety and efficiency over the year make it perfect for our energy
need for the next 1000 years. Even nuclear waste is not a problem any more.
Regarding #2 - Apparently you haven't priced a licensed electrician lately! :)
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
electricity is fine for the daily driver but it isn't a real alternative to our shipping and transit needs. an electric semi simply lacks the power to efficiently transport goods to the rest of our nation. i am willing to bet that 9 out of ten items anyone purchases at the store have spent time on a semi. without transit our economy would be crippled.
richard h clark should also look into some other forms of bio fuel. if he thinks that corn is the only oppertunity he is a jackass. there are other alternatives such as switch grass.
he should also look into wind because the world is covered by 70 percent water what are windmills going to hurt out there on the ocean?
sorry his idea of all nuclear isn't all that great either. what happens to all the nuclear waste? oh thats right their solution is to burry it in a moutain in nevada as of right now. that can't be too good. perhaps I should read a more about nuclear power, but I don't think that nuclear power plants have a zero nuclear waste output as of currently.
all of the following are merely my outlook but feel free to change my mind.
I posted quite a bit of information about nuclear power in the nuclear thread, if you look down the previous page some.
It talked about how nuclear efficiency increased by 50% over the last decade, and how 98% of nuclear waste can be recycled. That in itself drastically reduced nuclear waste. But then there is the emerging technology of nuclear waste destruction. Scientists have already transformed Iodine129 (a major part of nuclear waste), which has a half life of 15 some million years, into Iodine128 which has a half life of 25 minutes. Quite an improvement I would say.
While I agree that nuclear is underutilized and gives the best return, the technology to dispose of nuclear waste is not automatic. Also, in the best case we may have fission in 30 years. We may have a way to dispose of nuclear waste in a way where the half-life issue is resolved. However, nothing is written in stone and we still must keep those issues at the forefront.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Indeed, I have great faith in science, so my feelings are a little cheerful.
I take it you mean Fusion in 30 years? Though I fear that saying 30 years is TOO hopeful, even for me!
You are absolutely right, the storage of nuclear waste still needs to be addressed, though the problem isn't as bad as most make it out to be (even ignoring possible future developments in destroying the waste).
Actually putting in the mountain in nevada is a good idea. It's stable, well above the water table, and secure. Besides, we got the material out of the ground in the first place. U-235 is a natural element. And all radoactive elements eventually decay into a stable isotope of lead. In the decay chain of u-235.
u-235 has a half life of 7.04 x 10 to the 8 power in years (704 million) and decays into thorium 231. th-231 has a halflife of 25.52 hours and decays into protactinium-231. pa-231 halflife of 32,760 years decays into actinium 227. ac-227 halflife of 21.772 years. After that there is nine more steps till it becomes a stable isotope of lead. The longest halflife in those nine steps is eighteen days.
And also, the actuall waste rods out of a reactor are a very small percentage, 10-20, of the waste a nuclear reactor produces. Most of it is radiation suits, cleaning supplies and such used in the reactor pit.
Browncoats Unite!