Sorry for the long post. After writing so much time, I realized this whole argument is pointless. None of us is any position to make any real differences. But then I feel tortured deleting such a long involved post. So whatever, suffer... mwuhaha.
ok, i see your points. but it's as if you are an australian or something! aussies are great at thinking of reasons not to do things. instead of trying to make recycling of aluminium more efficient in your town, you are saying it's too hard, let's not bother at all. to me, if at first it costs more MONEY, then that doesn't matter. MONEY is not real. resources are. through constant innovation, the system becomes more efficient. If it's costing more ENERGY, that really needs to be looked at, because it really does take a LOT of energy to smelt bauxite into aluminium.
I agree with your point.
Money isn't real, in that it's really just an intangible agreement set forth by two or more parties. But... it's important to keep in mind that even though money is esoteric, the old adage that, "money makes the world go around," still applies. This isn't a Star Trek utopia (all indications point to a Star Wars existence anyways), we're not at the point where money isn't a problem or a concern for our society. I dont' expect to reach that point in our lifetimes. Greed is every part of the equation as energy consumption or resource management. I don't like it, but it's a very real concern that always has to be taken into consideration.
Recycling in my town isn't too hard. Recycling in my town works fine with the established methods chosen, which is
not the same as what other cities choose. According to the town statistics, our method for recovering recyclables is more efficient and recovers more than other comparable cities. A small instance would be the same dump (well, they look like dump trucks) truck can carry any percentage of recyclable materials while minimizing empty space. This is unlike the usual compartmentalized trucks that if there is less of a particular recyclable product, then the truck runs partially empty or if there is overflow, then the truck has to leave it and return on a second trip. At the receiving end, those recyclables need to be sorted anyways. eg, paper product needs to be separated from tainted materials, a process, as I understand it, that is still done manually. Since we have staff working to separate paper materials, it just makes sense to have them do the rest of the materials anyways.
If we chose to do the "better" method that most cities would do. Not only would we have to fire staff (a bad thing in a weak economy) but we would actually lower our recovery yield thereby lowering our earnings thereby negating the entire recycling effort. What I'm trying to say there was that if we elected a certain method of recycling, yields on aluminum would drop below the (total) cost of raw materials.
The general population needs to get away from that "blanket" solution mentality. Have you ever heard of, "different strokes, different folks?" Same idea.
and you are still viewing an EV as it is now. if development continues with them, why can't they be even more useful than petrol engines? i can imagine that one day you will have say, 400 km range in an EV that only takes 5 minutes to recharge. and in a 4wd, that would be even better than fuel, because if you run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere, you've run out. you 'run out' with an EV, then an emergency solar array could charge it up in a couple of days. that's nowhere near possible right now of course. but for now, an EV can do for most people. if they need to go on a longer trip, you can still hire a fuel car. the aussie attitude would be 'well, it can't be done. let's forget it'. Americans normally have more 'can-do' attitude. classic example is putting a man on the moon before the 60's was out.
There are two things that EV needs to overcome. Everyone focuses on EV's limitations (distance for instance) and the idea that EV can overcome that limitation. Then they'll buy the EV's when they overcome those limitations.
That's what holds EV back. Just introduce the damn EV's and establish the infrastructure already. Accept that EV's are
not the end-all-cure-all solution everyone wants it to be... for now. I'm saying start researching and producing FFV's, Dual Fuels, and other transportation options. Broaden the options, don't restrict them. Yeah, I get what you're saying about the solar panels and solar paints. Taht's great but that won't be for years. We can have EV's in the city next year. We can have FFV and Dual Fuels for the country next year. Everyone is so focused on having EV's with roll up solar panels in ten or twenty years (look at past issues of Popular Science to see just how long this ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- has already been promised to us), hardly anybody is looking at viable solutions for the here and now.
Once again EV isn
not the magic pill. It's only part of the solution, not the entire solution. It's possible that EV's may become the only type of transportation. That's not going to happen overnight. People really need to accept that.
It's odd that you mention American's "Can-do" attitude. I really hate to say this, but that ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- went out the door twenty or thirty years ago. The people that put people on the moon left that office dark. Think about it. When was the last time the U.S. had a major advancement that we could call our own? Something that we can stamp our flag on and be proud to say, "---fudgesicle--- you world, look what we did." Yeah, there's been a lot of advancements but nothing draw dropping, stop the nation, get on the web or watch TV kind of thing. With that kind of Can-do attitude, we would have high speed bullet trains from California to the East coast and from Canada to Mexico. Crying over the WTC? Bah! With good ol' fashion American attitude. We would've started throwing up even bigger and badder towers within the year, build the biggest headstones the world has ever seen. At least the USS New York got a prow. :\
Yeah, I'm all for that can-do American attitude, but that cow went for greener pastures many years ago. I'm at a loss on how we're going to get that back. Maybe Obama can help out with that.
petrol cars were once thought of as pretty pointless, pretty much until WWI. there were no fuel stations. they were noisy and smoky and way less reliable than just riding a bicycle or catching a tram. but things improved. people didn't just give up on petrol.
Give up on EV being the magic pill, it's just one of many workable solutions.
another great example is is Otto Lilienthal. He is pretty much the father of modern flight. by the time he died, he'd made hundreds of hang glider flights. each one lasting only for maybe 10-20 seconds. pretty much anyone would say 'wow. that's a cool novelty. but kinda pointless'. the wright brothers saw that work and dreamed of taking it further. and they sure did! they flew the wright flyer for 12 seconds on that cold december morning. even then, most people reading about it in the paper would have thought 'thats incredible! but kinda pointless'...
The process to get from glider to 747 took about 120 years. You can't expect the EV to take over from standard fuel cars overnight. I don't expect it to take 120 years either, but people need to face reality, accept and use what is available and let technology and the market advance appropriately. I would rather ride around in the equivalent of a prop airplane now rather than wait until I'm 80 years old to ride around in a jet plane.
to me EV's are the way forward, because they are not tied to any one power source. an EV can run on coal, uranium, hydro-electric, wind, solar, hampsters in a wheel etc. all sorts of developments effect the future of EV's. for instance, did you know that there is a 'solar panel' paint being developed? and one of the purposes the developer proposes is to use it on roofs of houses. it's not hard to imagine that at least some of the power of an EV could come directly from your roof. hell, you could even paint the car with it! that might be a couple of percent right there!
You know, this is one of those arguments that just irritate the hell out of me. Not because you're correct, it's because this is one of those arguments that I really don't want to argue against. It's like me trying to argue the benefits of Diesel. Diesel burns damn near anything as long as it's liquid and flammable. I want solar panel paint (can you imagine the kind of DIY cabs coming from that? A portable Pacman for camping?!) as much as you do, but we all have to accept the reality that we don't have it now. We have to work with the technology we have now instead of waiting for the technology to become available. That means finding viable uses for EV's, FFVs, even wider acceptance of Diesel and mass transportation.
i should clarify though, that maybe we aren't in complete disagreement. i am arguing EV's for private purposes. for land transport, diesel is probably going to be king for a long time. natural gas for some things like buses is great. and you definitely need oil for ships and aircraft. this is another reason to push for something like EV's (or maybe compressed air). it leaves more fuel for really important transport.
More or less. You have the idea, but I wouldn't make it so cut and dry. I would just say don't force EV's on everyone. Give it as a viable and appealing option.
In any case, my father had a two piston compressed air engine (motor?) he built about forty or fifty years ago. Disappeared about ten or fifteen years ago. Never really knew what happened to it. I think compressed air is an interesting, but not very broad technology. IIRC, what killed my interest in the air engine wasn't for lack of compressed air, it was the tank freezing, dropping it's efficiency. When you've got snow ten foot snow drifts, that makes the technology less than useful. In the warmer climates it should be far more useful. I don't know how far along it's come. According to Wiki, people are promising 170Km ranges?
i probably arent convincing you, but there's hope for you yet though, isn't MAGLEV an EV? 
incidentally, looking at wiki for maglev, looks like a few hands were thrown up in the air early on:
"In the 1960s, Great Britain held the lead in maglev research;[2] Eric Laithwaite, Professor of Heavy of track and was thoroughly tested, but his research was cut off in 1973 due to lack of funding, and his progress was not sufficient. British Rail also set up a Maglev Experimental Centre at their Railway Technical Centre based at Derby.
In the 1970s, Germany and Japan also began research and after some failures both nations developed mature technologies in the 1990s."
I think it depends on the train. I understand they're more like HEV? Electricity for the actual levitation with some other means for propulsion. I'm not entirely sure if the electric power source is on board, generated by the propulsion system or obtained from some outside source. I'm guessing from a generator from the onboard propulsion. In any case, I wouldn't dare compare Maglev to EV cars, just like I wouldn't try to draw comparisons between snot slow Amtrak trains to cars on a highway. Entirely different beasts altogether. I can't tell you how envious I am of the Chunnel and the Gogo trains.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: I have nothing better to do but to complain about gas right now! (Read 8199 times)
