Topic: Father of the Prius call electric calls bullshit
started by: Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 06 2013,09:33
< From here >.QUOTE
“Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said Toyota’s vice chairman, Takeshi Uchiyamada, in a Reuters report. “We need something entirely new.”
New, you say?
QUOTE
Nissan’s vice chairman, the so-called “father of the Prius,” announced plans to copy Toyota and pursue fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
QUOTE
United States Secretary of Energy, stated in 2009 that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".
If only we were as intent on researching alternative fuels as we are about legislating more worthless, redundant, useless gun laws.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 06 2013,11:04
(Malcolm @ Feb. 06 2013,12:33)
QUOTE
If only we were as intent on researching alternative fuels as are about legislating more worthless, redundant, useless gun laws.
If only neither.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 06 2013,11:11
I would drop loads of cash into alternative fuel research. I'd prefer to conserve the hydrocarbons we've got. They need to be legit alternatives, though.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 06 2013,11:28
Loads of cash have been dropped, the "silver bullet" equivalent of alternative fuels doesn't exist.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 06 2013,11:39
(GORDON @ Feb. 06 2013,13:28)
QUOTE
Loads of cash have been dropped, the "silver bullet" equivalent of alternative fuels doesn't exist.
< From last year >.
QUOTE
More than $40 million will go into new research to encourage the development of alternative fuels for automobiles in the U.S. market, the government said.
Yeah. 40 mil. Woohoo. Need I go into all the shit in the federal budget that gets more money than this?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 06 2013,11:45
It's all bullshit. Oil is a good and inexpensive energy source because of all the long chain hydrocarbons that can be cracked, and the shit literally oozes out of the ground if you stick the straw in the right place. Solar has already been invented, hydroelectric has already been invented, geothermal has already been invented, fuel cells have already been invented. All of the so-called biofuels have already been invented, but every single one is just trying to produce a new source of long-chain hydrocarbons that will never, ever be able to replace oil at current consumption.The bottleneck is energy storage, also known as batteries. They suck. Every other "alternative fuel research project" is a scam just wasting money. There is no magic bullet that hasn't been invented yet.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 06 2013,12:10
I'm not calling oil the pinnacle of energy usage. For large scale plants, I still think nuclear wins.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 06 2013,12:19
QUOTE
Loads of cash have been dropped, the "silver bullet" equivalent of alternative fuels doesn't exist.
The vast majority of that money is wasted on horseshit like corn ethanol, solar, and wind energy and thus doesn't count. That's pork-barrel politics, not research. The amount spent for real innovation is very nearly zero.
The thing that makes oil so great is that it's an excellent chemical battery. You can pack more energy into a liter of oil than just about any other non-nuclear storage. What we need is either 1) a battery that is more space efficient than oil, or 2) a fast and cheap process to turn other forms of energy into an oil equivalent. Until either of those happens we won't get away from sucking our fossil fuels out of the ground.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 06 2013,13:07
(Malcolm @ Feb. 06 2013,15:10)
QUOTE
I'm not calling oil the pinnacle of energy usage. For large scale plants, I still think nuclear wins.
U-235 is finite as well, possibly more so than our proven oil reserves.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 06 2013,13:48
In terms of volume of raw material available (hydrocarbon vs. radioactivity) or energy output?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 06 2013,14:00
I don't know the numbers. I just read a while back that there isn't as much U-235 on the planet as is generally thought.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 07 2013,07:13
(GORDON @ Feb. 06 2013,16:00)
QUOTE
I don't know the numbers. I just read a while back that there isn't as much U-235 on the planet as is generally thought.
I'd rather dig and find out.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 07 2013,07:25
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 07 2013,07:27
< We have at least 80 years of uranium. >
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 07 2013,07:44
QUOTE
The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.
Well, goddamn. It's almost as if increased exploration and technology makes it easier and safer to harness energy from a previously useless, volatile substance. If only we had some form of legal tender we could use to invest in such things.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 07 2013,09:20
(TheCatt @ Feb. 07 2013,10:27)
QUOTE
< We have at least 80 years of uranium. >
And we have more than that of petroleum, even at current usage.
How much U-235 would we have if today it currently replaced oil/coal, at current rates of usage? My guess is quite a lot less than 80 years worth.
Not really arguing, just reiterating my point that U-235 isn't going to take us to the year 3000. Or even 2500.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 07 2013,09:47
(GORDON @ Feb. 07 2013,12:20)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Feb. 07 2013,10:27)
QUOTE
< We have at least 80 years of uranium. >
And we have more than that of petroleum, even at current usage.
How much U-235 would we have if today it currently replaced oil/coal, at current rates of usage? My guess is quite a lot less than 80 years worth.
Not really arguing, just reiterating my point that U-235 isn't going to take us to the year 3000. Or even 2500.
You sound like those peak oil people.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 07 2013,10:30
Eh. Are you suggesting that U-235 exists in infinite quantities on the planet?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 08 2013,17:28
Know what else is complete bullshit? "Women's Rights" groups, especially ones that make money.Women already have more rights than men, there are no new laws to be passed to give them more rights, and there hasn't been any meaningful legislation concerning women's rights since..... since? the 19th Amendment?
"Women's Rights" groups and movements are a huge scam.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 15 2013,11:12
< From here >. Journalist drives Tesla's lastest car and claims it lost capacity and range during shitty weather. Tesla's rebuttal included a point-by-point recap of the dude's statements and internal vehicle diagnostics from the car's computer to call him full of shit.