Brought home a Volt.

[CJ]

That Volt is blue. 

[GoCougs]

Wow, that's very pessimistic.  You think that'll happen in 40 years?  Mass transit throughout the entire US?  Not unless our population quadruples at the very least. 

It also neglects the fact that by global warmology's own measures mass transit infrastructure and battery-power things a whole lot of dead dinosaurs are burned to mine and process raw materials to build and maintain infrastructure and to generate electricity. It also neglects the practical side of how this is to be paid for in light of all the other socialist(ic) endeavors the left is demanding of the West. At least when Europe and Japan launched into their socialist endeavors their GDP/Debt ratios were relatively low. The US is already at ~100% and we don't yet have free health care nor not near the level of welfare.

[NomisR]

a generation is usually defined as 30 years, so yes 60 years from now i see this happening.  in the u.s. there is no money for basic infrastructure maintenance much less improvement.  it takes them months these days to make an extra onramp/offramp and years to make an extra lane.  forget about actually constructing a new highway or bridge.  the resulting gridlock will only get worse every year making it in 1 decade unsustainable.  easy solution is to make it too expensive for people to drive and be forced to take mass transit in major population hubs.  electric vehicle technology will be advanced enough that i see no reason for mass transit vehicles to run on gas. 

60 years is a long long time.  20 years ago very few people had a cell phone.  and no one thought the weather was getting warmer.

Do you really think our grid can handle it?  Considering the political climate today with anti nuclear, anti coal power, all we're stuck with is unreliable solar and wind.  And with the draughts and floods, hydro power is not going to be reliable either.  And everyone's thinking of going electric, that's actually feasible?  We would have our power rates going through the roof if our government ever gets their way and then our cost of transportation would be even higher than it is today! 

And what's worse is the cost and the environmental cost of batteries, producing and disposing of them?  Seriously, electric is the worse way to go if we're ever considering going green.  Anyone who thinks it is the way of the future isn't really thinking of the big picture. 

[veeman]

Before that happens, there would likely be a war for supplies that would kill off tons of people to help curb the overpopulation problem, and hence resulting in lower "carbon footprint".  And the fact that solar activities is suppose to die down should lower global temperatures too.

world war 2 resulted in 3 to 4% total world population loss.  in order for there to be a loss of humans resulting in a decreased carbon footprint by death alone, you would need a bubonic plague type event.  this may happen by nuclear war but my guess would be that world temperatures would increase, not decrease, by a global nuclear war.  if an asteroid slammed into the earth like the K/T extinction event, then i think global temperatures would decrease because the suns rays would be blocked out by a massive dust cloud.  global starvation or dehydration has never occurred so its hard to predict but my guess would be that this would be a slow process occurring over several generations and would not lead to a decreased carbon footprint and decreased global warming.

[MrH]

Spouting off about electric and hydrogen powered cars just shifts the issue from your home to power plants, which largely aren't as clean as a lot of the cars burning gas anyways.

Remember, electric and hydrogen powered cars aren't new fuel sources.  They're new ways of storing energy.  We still have to produce the energy no one has had a great, revolutionary idea yet.

[GoCougs]

Do you really think our grid can handle it?  Considering the political climate today with anti nuclear, anti coal power, all we're stuck with is unreliable solar and wind.  And with the draughts and floods, hydro power is not going to be reliable either.  And everyone's thinking of going electric, that's actually feasible?  We would have our power rates going through the roof if our government ever gets their way and then our cost of transportation would be even higher than it is today! 

And what's worse is the cost and the environmental cost of batteries, producing and disposing of them?  Seriously, electric is the worse way to go if we're ever considering going green.  Anyone who thinks it is the way of the future isn't really thinking of the big picture. 

Spouting off about electric and hydrogen powered cars just shifts the issue from your home to power plants, which largely aren't as clean as a lot of the cars burning gas anyways.

Remember, electric and hydrogen powered cars aren't new fuel sources.  They're new ways of storing energy.  We still have to produce the energy no one has had a great, revolutionary idea yet.

Absolutely. Fossil fuel is the greenest thing going by a long shot simply owing to energy density. The only thing replacing fossil fuel is Mr. Fusion. Battery power and green energy is DOA on any sort of macro scale.

[veeman]

in my predicted scenario, there will be no great strain on the electric grid because most people will be taking mass transit to go anywhere long distance.  people will get in a taxi to a hub, then take a bus or train to another hub, then get in a taxi to their final destination.  there will be 75% less total vehicles on the road. 

[Laconian]

Spouting off about electric and hydrogen powered cars just shifts the issue from your home to power plants, which largely aren't as clean as a lot of the cars burning gas anyways.

Remember, electric and hydrogen powered cars aren't new fuel sources.  They're new ways of storing energy.  We still have to produce the energy no one has had a great, revolutionary idea yet.

Nuke!

[veeman]

http://www.carbonica.org/carbon-footprint/carbon-emissions.aspx

very informative for me.  may not agree with solutions proposed but difficult to argue with the stats.

[Morris Minor]

Autonomous cars will unlock massive gains by themselves. Our traffic grid functions by people's ability to brake to a complete stop. Autonomous cars mean a smooth continuous flow of cars, with much less unnecessary braking.

I absolutely see this happening. No more stop signs. No more traffic lights. The flexibility & freedom of personal transportation, plus the safety of a train without its disadvantages (contagion from disease-laden strangers trundling along rails that only go to places you are unlikely to want to go).

[hotrodalex]

Absolutely. Fossil fuel is the greenest thing going by a long shot simply owing to energy density. The only thing replacing fossil fuel is Mr. Fusion. Battery power and green energy is DOA on any sort of macro scale.

Solar still has a lot more potential.

[MrH]

http://www.carbonica.org/carbon-footprint/carbon-emissions.aspx

very informative for me.  may not agree with solutions proposed but difficult to argue with the stats.

So only 10% of our carbon footprint is due to vehicles.  25% due to power generation.

Now, what percentage of that is due to the US, and what percentage is due to China?  That's what people don't seem to realize.  Our cars practically fart out fairy dust compared to what China pumps out with power generation.

That's why I think this jihad on our carbon emissions for cars here is pretty silly.  We only account for approximately 25% of the world's vehicles.  That's 2.5% of all carbon emissions are due to US vehicles.  If you can cut the carbon footprint of new vehicles by 25%, you're contributing small fractions of a percent to reducing carbon emissions world wide, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.  While China just laughs at us and pumps out the thickest soot into the air.

[NomisR]

Spouting off about electric and hydrogen powered cars just shifts the issue from your home to power plants, which largely aren't as clean as a lot of the cars burning gas anyways.

Remember, electric and hydrogen powered cars aren't new fuel sources.  They're new ways of storing energy.  We still have to produce the energy no one has had a great, revolutionary idea yet.

The article I posted in the last page about the Clarity though, while fuel cell is a storage method for hydrogen to be converted to electricity, the hydrogen is produced with solar power and water at home rather than with natural gas with current method.  Barring the cost of the system, at least the production of the hydrogen source seems pretty clean since hydrogen is produced with electrolysis via solar panels. 

And hydrogen can be fueled just like a current car today and can even be consumed via ICE.

[GoCougs]

Nuke!

Fission is problematic from waste transportation/storage POV, from a property rights POV (the catastrophic Fukushima situation) and is predicated on massive infrastructure over hall (revamping the grid).

Fusion would be cool but hasn't worked thus far.

[GoCougs]

Solar still has a lot more potential.

Solar has virtually zero potential beyond what it is right now. It's simply far too expensive to even come close to competing with fossil fuels.

[Laconian]

It seems to me that nuclear's problems can be mitigated through better designs, but most other power generation methods have assured downsides that are slower but equally insidious (e.g. sky-high rates of cardiopulmonary disease in China due to coal burning etc)

Thorium reactors seem pretty awesome. Not as efficient, but the failure mode is much less severe than uranium/plutonium, and thorium is plentiful.

[MrH]

Solar still has a lot more potential.

It does?  The absolute bleeding edge of solar panels are still only 20% efficient or so.  And that's after dumping hundreds of millions of tax dollars into it, only to have companies go bankrupt and get bought by the Chinese anyways.

Their efficiency reduces over time, and usually the ROI doesn't make any sense at all, especially in areas that aren't sunny constantly (ie, most of the world).

Not sure why people think solar is the saving grace.

[hotrodalex]

It does?  The absolute bleeding edge of solar panels are still only 20% efficient or so.  And that's after dumping hundreds of millions of tax dollars into it, only to have companies go bankrupt and get bought by the Chinese anyways.

Their efficiency reduces over time, and usually the ROI doesn't make any sense at all, especially in areas that aren't sunny constantly (ie, most of the world).

Not sure why people think solar is the saving grace.

Yeah, meaning there is lots of room for improvement...

You guys act as if science is no longer advancing and finding more efficient methods and technologies.

[Laconian]

There's a well-established upper limit for solar, and you can't exceed 100% efficiency.

[SVT666]

I won't buy something like a Volt until the electric range is at least 100 miles.

[hotrodalex]

There's a well-established upper limit for solar, and you can't exceed 100% efficiency.

As of right now. I recall reading a few articles on potential changes and advances in solar panel construction to make them more efficient. Obviously you can't exceed 100%, nothing can....

And considering most of the energy on this planet came from the sun in some way or another (excluding nuclear), it makes sense to try to get the energy directly from the source than go through a bunch of middle men.

[Laconian]

Came from the sun........ over billllllions of years.

[NomisR]

Came from the sun........ over billllllions of years.

So, the solution to the problem is to build our own sun to power the planet.  But then again, how long would the existing hydrogen on earth last if it was used as fuel. 

End result of this may be everyone on earth sounding like chipmunks because of all the hydrogen on earth turning into helium...

[veeman]

So only 10% of our carbon footprint is due to vehicles.  25% due to power generation.

Now, what percentage of that is due to the US, and what percentage is due to China?  That's what people don't seem to realize.  Our cars practically fart out fairy dust compared to what China pumps out with power generation.

That's why I think this jihad on our carbon emissions for cars here is pretty silly.  We only account for approximately 25% of the world's vehicles.  That's 2.5% of all carbon emissions are due to US vehicles.  If you can cut the carbon footprint of new vehicles by 25%, you're contributing small fractions of a percent to reducing carbon emissions world wide, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.  While China just laughs at us and pumps out the thickest soot into the air.

china has far worse problems than the u.s. both in terms of political future and environmental future.  90% of china's ground water is contaminated and 40% of their rivers are seriously polluted.  while china shows no interest in curbing it's carbon footprint today, that will seriously change very shortly because their cities will soon be uninhabitable.

[GoCougs]

There's a well-established upper limit for solar, and you can't exceed 100% efficiency.

Precisely, the conversion has its engineering/physics/scientific limits, just as with other processes - such as the Carnot cycle and ICEs - ICE engine can only ever have a max efficiency of ~60%. But even at 100% efficiency solar energy density would still be very low, which speaks to mammoth infrastructure costs and challenges to use on a macro scale.

[MrH]

Yeah, meaning there is lots of room for improvement...

You guys act as if science is no longer advancing and finding more efficient methods and technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

Energy density of sunlight is pretty piss poor to begin with.  Combine that with poor efficiency, and you're simply not going to generate much power.

As of right now. I recall reading a few articles on potential changes and advances in solar panel construction to make them more efficient. Obviously you can't exceed 100%, nothing can....

And considering most of the energy on this planet came from the sun in some way or another (excluding nuclear), it makes sense to try to get the energy directly from the source than go through a bunch of middle men.

  The middle men is hundreds of years of taking that energy and making it more dense and usable.

[MrH]

china has far worse problems than the u.s. both in terms of political future and environmental future.  90% of china's ground water is contaminated and 40% of their rivers are seriously polluted.  while china shows no interest in curbing it's carbon footprint today, that will seriously change very shortly because their cities will soon be uninhabitable.

I'm not saying we should aspire to be like China in any way.  But the carbon footprint witch hunt is pretty stupid when China blatantly doesn't care at all.

[GoCougs]

I'm not saying we should aspire to be like China in any way.  But the carbon footprint witch hunt is pretty stupid when China blatantly doesn't care at all.

How else is China (and Africa and India and other parts of the developing world with pollution problems) gonna draw literally ~3,000,000,000 out of the depth of poverty? Windmills and Volts? Nope.

[NomisR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

  The middle men is hundreds of years of taking that energy and making it more dense and usable.

Hundreds of year may only yield a bunch of trees. 

[Laconian]

So, the solution to the problem is to build our own sun to power the planet.  But then again, how long would the existing hydrogen on earth last if it was used as fuel. 

End result of this may be everyone on earth sounding like chipmunks because of all the hydrogen on earth turning into helium...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere