Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Ah, but they come in place of the fossil fuel cars, not in addition to.
You might argue that population growth makes it an addition, but that same applies to fossil fuel cars. People aren't going to drive both at the same time.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, that's what I meant.  I guess "more" is a confusing word in that way.

[Sowelu]

Worth noting:  We can get a LOT more energy out of nuclear fuel than we currently are.  It's just not economically worthwhile to keep processing it further and further down.  But if you wanted to, you could--it would get a bit more expensive, but we're still talking decades even on the predicted resource-consumption curve.  Also, it only gets cleaner as you keep using it, which is funny.  Nuclear power is the way to go.

Yeah fuel cells is a toughie.  Any electric system is dangerous as hell because you're usually sitting on a giant capacitor.  Hydrogen has terrible capacity.  Gasoline puts the pollution right where it's worst (urban centers), instead of out in the middle of nowhere, and it's a lot easier to use solar, wind or hydroelectric power to fill an electric or hydrogen car than it is to fill a petrochemical car.  Also though, hydrogen and electric cars both have rare material issues.  We just don't have enough platinum.  Personally I think the solution is smaller and more efficient cars like Europe has (market forces will drive us there very quickly on their own), with rentals for those times when you only use the 'pickup truck' part of your vehicle once a year...and more mass transit.  We need trains, people.

[Zrk2]

Nuclear power is the only way to go. Oil will run out eventually, 'Green' sources are unreliable... The only other possibility is Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

That's an annoying misconception. There is no accessible hydrogen in nature. Hydrogen fuel cells are only a green battery, not an energy source.

Yes there is, water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis.

[Siquo]

Yes there is, water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis.

Which costs more energy than it produces, is the point. I think we can all agree that we all know this.

Fusion is the way to go. Building our own reactors is unnecessary, we've got a huge reactor up in the sky already.

[Zrk2]

Until clouds come out, DOn't say 'We'll just use batteries' because the pollutants released by creating the battery necessary for an electric vehicle are greater than the amount released by a normal car in 10 years.

[Nikov]

Well we can all agree this is better than horses, who shit on the street.

[Sowelu]

Well we can all agree this is better than horses, who shit on the street.

Depends on how big the streets are.  Purely serious rural areas, low traffic, minimal stuff to haul...Horses have their place!

(It's not in cities or suburbs though.)

[Zrk2]

Well we can all agree this is better than horses, who shit on the street.

Depends on how big the streets are.  Purely serious rural areas, low traffic, minimal stuff to haul...Horses have their place!

(It's not in cities or suburbs though.)

Until it takes a day to travel anywhere...

[Siquo]

Horses, like electric cars, just take too long to recharge

[Sowelu]

Yeah, but they're a renewable resource to end all renewable resource.  You can also create new ones (given enough time) without needing to import rare-earth metals from China or anything, and without robotics or a college degree.  The most expensive thing you need is the land.

[Nikov]

Well, its good to see industrialized farming is no longer considered nonrenewable, since horses don't just eat lawn trimmings.

[Leafsnail]

Well, it's not unrenewable.  Possibly unsustainable, but eh...

[Zrk2]

Horses are inefficient and impractical. I hope this is sarcasm.

[Sowelu]

Oh come on it's not like I was arguing for their serious use in any modern setting.    Sheesh, give some forumites an inch.