in the distant future, it will most likely be totally nuclear. several hurdles with regards to batteries must first be overcome though.
Quote from: jtanguay on June 12, 2009, 04:26:01 pmin the distant future, it will most likely be totally nuclear. several hurdles with regards to batteries must first be overcome though.Fixed it for ya It's not like they need to use potable water to grow these plants. In fact, they could probably use grey water which would lessen the amount of water pollution that we are dumping into our lakes and rivers.
Same goes with home building.. We tear down the ole and build new all the time.. Mostly because people want it their way and don;t want to deal with what's there.. My 200 year old stone house may not be as energy efficient as a brand new modular, but how many years of using that little bit less energy for heating is it going to take to break even with the amount of resorces consumed to build a new one?
The amount of petrolium used in manufacturing is no surpise... Especially since it's a big ingredient in PLASTIC.. Been one of my many rants for years, especially when the powers that be start talking about "anti clunker" laws.. If only they'd think about how much energy and resources are consumed to recycle and old car that gets 20mpg and build a new one that gets 30mpg.. Hot Rod Magazine did an article on this about 15 years ago during the last anti clunker law rage... The figures were impressive.. Same goes with home building.. We tear down the ole and build new all the time.. Mostly because people want it their way and don;t want to deal with what's there.. My 200 year old stone house may not be as energy efficient as a brand new modular, but how many years of using that little bit less energy for heating is it going to take to break even with the amount of resorces consumed to build a new one?
the carbon footprint from a hybrid is many times more than a diesel.
Quote from: fdnyguy on June 13, 2009, 08:45:56 pmthe carbon footprint from a hybrid is many times more than a diesel. This has been my feeling since they introduced them.. Heck remeber the GM EV1 electric car?? GM scrapped those buggers as soon as their environmental issues started to come to light.. When the leases were up they left no option to buy them.. From what I've been able to learn they now sit in a hazaradous waste disposal site in a New Mexico desert...And once again if people had the abiity to think a little, they were not zero emission. THey just left theri carbon foot another geographical region.. Where did most of the electricity come from to charge the batteries?? Coal maybe? AS cliche as this sounds, the big picture is constanly not looked at, or covered up.. People look at me funny when I say this, but I think our methods 100 years ago were more eco friendly.. Travel and shipping by train was efficient, just not as fast as a jet or a truck.. Somestimes we even walked ot pedaled a bike! We heated with wood (carbon neutral and easily renewed), or city gas (waste product I think).. Houses were built with airflow in mind cause there wasn;t any a/c. Lesser used sections of the house were made to be closed off in the winter as heating was difficult.. We made things last, reused and made do with what we could..
but then again the population wasn't as high.
i've heard that the main reason the cars were scrapped was due to the batteries costing about $30,000
you do remember how much black smoke comes out the stack right? i think they are about 5% efficient or even lower
i used to live in a house from that era and it was VERY drafty! heating bill is nearly twice or three times as high as a similarly sized house built today, and yet is still colder!!
They even saw a 1.1% increase in fuel efficiency.