Correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying here, but in a nutshell, you believe that there is a better technology for mass distribution of energy that is being suppressed by current world leaders?

You understand how crazy that sounds?

I think the success of the Tesla electric vehicle company is proof that where current technology is lagging, there are now wealthy people who are willing to push for technological leaps, and profit nicely by doing so.

If there was a revolutionary power distribution technology, somebody would be building it and profiting by it.

The Tesla and cars like it would be everywhere now for pennies, and the roadways would be coated with photovoltaic compounds which provided energy to the entire grid as well as the cars driving on it were it not for the cunts running the show.

The technology has been here over 40 years, but corporate cunts and their lackeys in congress' worldwide, keep it from implementation. We all know why, thieves and assholes run the planet.

A series of a combination of natural disasters, civil disobedience and perpetual guerrilla sorties on corporate entities are the only things to stop the madness at this stage in our decline.

Dream on if you think the world of free-energy and everyone driving affordable electric vehicles is in our near future-Unless you chop off the head, the beast will only grow stronger.

>> ^PancakeMaster:

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.
I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.
Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.
>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.
You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.
Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.
edit
BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars
>> ^bcglorf:
Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?
>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.




But just how much can you realistically reduce your emissions by through changed behaviour? I doubt even 50% is realistic. Now, how about getting our entire society to do the same, are people gonna voluntarily give up everything they need to drop 50%? Not a chance.

If electric cars can be improved enough to be desirable over gas, then a switch over to nuclear for electricity production can drop emissions nearly 50%. More importantly, it happens by consumers buying something new because they simply want to, and government/corporations making money off selling nuclear energy to run everyone's new cars.

Short of putting guns to peoples heads and telling them what they can and can not eat, how far they are allowed to travel in a year, and enforcing that across the globe, emissions ARE NOT going to be lowered. Electric cars and nuclear power are the only viable options out there and they are either ready now(nuclear) or will be very, very soon(electric cars).

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.

I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.

Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.

>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.

You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.

Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.

*edit*

BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars

>> ^bcglorf:

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?

>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.

But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?


>> ^bremnet:

Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

Most fuel cell vehicles get hydrogen from natural gas = emissions (though less than gasoline vehicles).

However, another problem is that fuel cell vehicles are incredibly inefficient, in the ways of 47%. As a comparison, gasoline vehicles are about 37% efficient while electric vehicles are 99% efficient.

It's certainly no magic bullet, but it's better than the shit we have now, that's for sure.

@NetRunner, personally I think roads should be privatized for the most part, but that's a whole other conversation. When I say privatized people think toll roads, but I'm talking about people and businesses who live on those roads paying for their upkeep. If a Bed Bath & Beyond wants people to come to their stores, they'll be sure the roads are good. But that's a tangent.

The $400 registration fee shouldn't be that much. They even charge a lot for people who plan on storing their cars and not driving them, so it's obviously not meant to pay for the roads. It's revenue generation.

Besides, gasoline tax was put there specifically to pay for the roads. They don't need to increase it, because it increases itself the more people use it. The more you drive, the more gas you consume, therefore the more you pay the state to maintain the roads. It's like a hidden toll road system to be honest. Electric vehicles will soon mess that up, but there you go.

Second, we can order most things online too, but last time I did that I was without a valid license for a month after mine expired. And I submitted everything on time. And we sure as hell don't have polite people in any of the government buildings here in LA. At least I've never seen them.

Lastly, we already charge a court cost. The city of LA isn't poor. It spends too much and therefore claims to be broke, but it takes in a lot.

It's a bit late for this. By the time they go through testing, prototyping and get something production worthy, battery technology will improve and we'll all be driving electric vehicles that can go 1000's of miles on a charge, and can be recharged in 5 minutes.

>> ^joedirt:
"Not a single drop of gasoline"
WHAT A DUMB CUNT!
You know how much more petroleum is wasted by converting to AC, transmitting to your house, then charing your car, then storing in DC batteries.

As stated before, very little petroleum is wasted by conversion, do you think mechanics operate on petroleum? Comversion to electric uses less petroleum than one tank of gas I would bet. I'm assuming you meant the conversion of the vehicle, not the conversion of the energy source.

The electric grid is NOT petroleum based here in Cali., so the idea that you are using petroleum to power the grid, and then the car is just plain ignorant, you ignorant ....

What an ignorant fuck, compared to refining oil, shipping gasoline to gas station, then filling up a car. Even with a horrible burn ratio in a combustion engine (most of the energy goes into heat and friction), your petroleum goes a ton further.


Explain, goes a ton further than what? Please think in complete sentences, or at least complete thoughts. I can only assume you think the idea here is to take a small petroeum generator, refine and ship petroleum to the generator, run the generator to create AC power, transmit the power across a few hundred miles of lines, convert to DC (I like that you actually suggest charging the car and batteries with AC power in your thought process), and power the car and batteries. I ask, are you intentionally ignorant of the processes, or just retarded? Even if that was how it works, you ignore the fact that the fuel is refined for and shipped to both systems (generator and car), so remove that part of your equation. The motors used for electrical generation with petroleum are ridiculously more effecient than your car's combustion engine, probably by a factor of 4. The small amount of energy lost to heat in transmission and conversion to DC power is FAR less than the energy lost to heat by a car motor. Converting electricity to kenetic energy is far more effecient than combustion engines too. Even with ALL the losses you mention, which do not exist in every situation, electric vehicles are still ridiculously more effecient than petroleum vehicles.

>
WHAT A DUMB CUNT!

It comes from the fact that the hybrids and electric vehicles present unique hazards to emergency responders that require extra training and caution when being cut apart. There is limited information and practical experience about how to safely cut them apart since they're not very common yet.

Air bags and side-impact bags also have the potential to be dangerous and require rescue personnel to be aware of the hazards associated with working and cutting around them.

"It's not being paranoid about doing extrication with hybrid vehicles, it's just being aware of different aspects of the vehicle and how to address them."

What's different with gas electric hybrids is the electricity. High voltage cables run from the motor in the front to the battery in the trunk. "This is a 200 volt nickel metal hydrate battery pack (in the trunk)," says (Assistant Fire Chief Dan) Furseth.

(from http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/2054672.html )

Moving freight, airplanes and battleships requires different solutions (in my opinion) then the problem of getting your kids to the hockey game.

The engines that run minivans are identical to the ones used by freight ships, freight trains, Farm implements, highway tractors, backup generators, battleships and prop planes. The same solution applies to them all. In fact, large enough ships like carriers and subs already run off electricity instead of oil because it is cheaper.


Even if energy storage technology was to rapidly become what we would need it to be, where would the energy come from if the source for more then half of our current use was to vanish?


We have enough sources of uranium and thorium to meet global energy needs for 100's of years. With any luck, we can develop renewable sources like wind,tidal and solar with that kind of time to get them ready. If we're really lucky, maybe we'll even get fusion power before that and then we are good for the lifetime of the solar system. As a bonus, nuclear is cheaper when developed on a large scale, France is making good money running over 80% nuclear power and exporting it's cheaper electricity to the rest of Europe.


A battery won't move an 18 wheeler. The only thing that will move an 18 wheeler is foreign oil, diesel and gasoline, and our domestic natural gas.

That is utter nonesense. Lookup Tesla motors, they've actually managed to use current battery technology to make a Lotus Elise that is FASTER than it's oil driven counter-part. The argument is as silly as when people felt automobiles where worthless because they couldn't go as far as a horse without a fill-up. Batteries don't need to improve too much more to be a viable replacement and then a landslide shift will take place to cheaper more powerfull electric vehicles.


In the mean time, let me know when you've found a battery that can power an ocean liner.


And this is your fundamental and underlying misunderstanding. The navy is currently using compact nuclear generators as giant batteries to power their largest ships more cheaply and without any dependence on oil. The problem for ocean liner's isn't building a battery that is big enough, it's building them SMALL enough. If a battery can be made small enough to replace the gas tank in a car, then you can power ANYTHING bigger than that car as well by using 2,10 or 1000 such batteries. Already with current laptop battery technology we are almost there. We don't need a breakthrough, a few small improvements to weight and cost and the solution is there. Anything to small to be powered by a compact nuclear generator can instead be run off of batteries without a loss in performance or ability.


The social attachment to oil is much deeper the powering the transportation to get to the grocery store or the beach. It is in every piece of food you get at the grocery store or bring to the beach. It is in the road you drive on, the oil that lubricates the engine as well as just the gas tank.


But moving goods is all still part of the transportation network. And ALL of those applications use internal combustion engines that can be replaced with only a moderately improved battery over those available today.


The agricultural attachment to oil is not just that it is used in the production and delivery of the fertilizer that grows the food to feed the citizen or just the fuel in the gas tank of the grain harvester and other farm machinery.


I grew up on a farm. The agricultural attachment to oil is again dominated by the use of internal combustion engines for machinery, which is easily replaced with a better battery.


The political attachment to oil is not just ensuring that a population have access to the cheap energy for their car, but the cheap fuel for the cheap power plant the provides the cheap electricity for to run the fridge for the cheap food brought from all corners of the earth.

Wrong, the cheap power plant runs off of coal, not oil. Coal reserves utterly dwarf oil reserves, that's why not even crazy people talk about 'peak' coal. In fact, many talk about converting coal to oil if necessary.


I'm sorry, but the entirety of the arguments you make NEVER go beyond the assumption that nothing can replace internal combustion engines and so when oil runs out everything using them is doomed. Fortunately that is not the reality we live in. Even with current technology, battery powered electric motors are begining to appear in automobiles. The military has been running their largest ships on electricty and independent of oil for decades. We are not looking at a dire need for a major breakthrough. We only need small, incremental improvements to battey technology to being able to replace internal combustion engines with batteries, and oil with electricity. Then we are free to simply expand the electric grid, which we have been doing for nearly a century already and are getting rather good at.

I don't think this is your typical electric motor... I think this is using magnets a la mag-lev train / super collider / rail-gun technology to spin the wheel. Unforunately the limiting technology for electric vehicles isn't in the motor, it's the battery. Ah well... but cool technology nevertheless if it is what I think it is. Can someone explain how the magnets moving out of the wheel seems to speed it up?

Bullshit alarm! The 200 mile range estimate is for normal driving, not pushing the car's limit around a track! Same goes for the engine overheating. Also, the charging time is much less for the electrical unit that gets installed in your garage, which can run off the higher voltage electric lines.

This car is not, and was never meant to be, a track racing vehicle. It is for wealthy, progressively minded individuals who would like an electric vehicle to drive to work without sacrificing performance and looking like a fool in a golf cart.

It is also a fantastic proving ground for technologies that will eventually be used in more affordable cars for the rest of us.

I agree that all electric vehicles are totally stupid idea until there is either an energy savings somewhere in the system or more energy added. Right now if cars were 100% electric, the demand would be huge and the needed extra aluminum to add powerlines to charge all these batteries would be staggering.

However, we have to start somewhere with some medium volume electric cars, also a hybrid that turns gas into power would really be a great thing strategically. Imagine if 50% of the cars on the road were designed to plug into the grid? We would never have blackouts, or extra energy could be added in the summers. Also mass production of these cars drastiaclly brings down the costs and makes it easier for next generation technologies.

GM are a bunch of crooks and everyone should tell Congress they deserve NO BAILOUT. They would be rolling in money now if they didn't crush all their EV1s. They would literally be a decade ahead of competitors.

I drove and EV1 and they were unbelievable. They were sportscars in a retarded ufo looking shell.. Truly amazing.