Alternative sources of energy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37470151/ns/politics-white_house

Quote

Obama: Stop tax breaks for oil companies

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama says it's time to roll back "billions of dollars in tax breaks" for oil companies and use the money for clean energy research and development.

Obama made the comments Wednesday in a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

He said the catastrophic Gulf oil spill shows the country must move toward clean energy by embracing energy efficiency, tapping natural gas and nuclear power eliminating tax breaks for big oil.  Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here

Obama said that the Gulf spill "may prove to be a result of human error ? or corporations taking dangerous shortcuts that compromised safety" ? but that deepwater drilling is inherently risky and America cannot rely solely on fossil fuels.[/blue]

Then Obama's campaign had this to say ... >>
#5)  (also Aug 2008) " ... an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country."  If the bill had no proposals for any solutions, then why did he sign it, and furthermore with no new solutions, how can he or his campaign say "the largest investment in renewable sources of energy."  Gas/ oil are not -  Duh.

• If he says he wants to tap natural gas - that is still a fossil fuel, and still a non-renewable source of energy, because it cannot be replenished in a human timeframe.  They do not fit either category he is claiming they would.
• If he wants nuclear energy, well then he needs to understand that nuclear power is generated by Uranium, which although is not a fossil fuel, it is NOT renewable since it is a metal that is mined.

I don't see what the conflict is. Obama said we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not remove them completely at once. Pollution-wise, natural gas and nuclear power are much better than coal/petroleum.

It's simple. We increase usage of natural gas and nuclear in order to compensate for using less coal/petroleum. Less pollution while meeting the same energy goals. All the while, we invest heavily in renewable energy research and development so that those sources will be ready and viable by the time we need to move away from natural gas and nuclear.

It's like nicotine gum. You use it to wean yourself off your addiction to the more dangerous substance, until you can quit completely.

Totally understood my friend - (your point that is), but when Obama said needing renewable sources of energy back in 2008, but signed a bill back in 2008 as then Senator Obama, he signed a bill that did not match up with what he said they were trying to do.  That bill did not call for limiting fossil fuels (which is non-renewable), but gave tax breaks to big oil companies. 

And what he says now is still wrong, which is "the country must move toward clean energy by embracing energy efficiency, tapping natural gas and nuclear power."  How is that cleaner?

While the air emissions are less than oil or coal - they are not pollutant free, and natural gas is not "Green" by any means, only greener than what we've been using. 

I agree that natural gas is better than oil or coal, but knowing the U.S.'s lazy way of doing things, proper systems will not be put in place by the government, and plants themselves will probably not comply anyhow, and there will not be enough checks by the EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency), or FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).  Why do I say this, because the government has not done much before, which is why there are so many class-action lawsuits in America.  And the plants won't do it either, because it is cheaper to pay the lawsuits, than to make modifications to their systems.  Mykael perhaps you don't have this problem in Canada, but we do here in America. 

Your thoughts or additions?

getting renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal into the mainstream.

I agree that natural gas is better than oil or coal, but knowing the U.S.'s lazy way of doing things, proper systems will not be put in place by the government, and plants themselves will probably not comply anyhow, and there will not be enough checks by the EPA  (Environmental Protection Agency), or FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).  Why do I say this, because the government has not done much before, which is why there are so many class-action lawsuits in America.  And the plants won't do it either, because it is cheaper to pay the lawsuits, than to make modifications to their systems.  Mykael perhaps you don't have this problem in Canada, but we do here in America. 

Indeed.

Your thoughts or additions?

Not much, I think you covered everything pretty well. The only thing I'd like to add is that I'd like to see a fair portion of the research funds go to more emergent sources of energy/energy storage, namely water electrolysis (hydrogen storage), space-based power arrays, and nuclear fusion.

Not sure what you mean here ^^.  Indeed about what I said about the statement as it applies to America OR that you guys have the same problem in Canada?

Quote from: babsinva on June 06, 2010, 05:11:12 PM

Your thoughts or additions?

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 06, 2010, 09:07:22 PM

Not much, I think you covered everything pretty well. The only thing I'd like to add is that I'd like to see a fair portion of the research funds go to more emergent sources of energy/energy storage, namely water electrolysis (hydrogen storage), space-based power arrays, and nuclear fusion.

Funds going there for research yes - but if I remember correctly there are several barriers which inhibit hydrogen deployment as a transportation fuel, AND they are years if not decades away from making hydrogen commercially available.

Also the nuclear fusion you mentioned, I believe I would support that as well, and I think (but if wrong please correct me) - it is different than regular nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy I would object to for the same reasons we had the natural gas discussion in a previous post.  Nuclear energy uses uranium and plutonium that are also non-renewable sources, and uranium requires mining, and the extraction process produces some harmful waste by-products (although less than coal).  It also can expose one to radiation, although that too is less than a coal burning plant.

If it is different than regular nuclear energy like I think it is, then yes I would think that possibly fusion is a viable option.  BUT just curious on why you like fusion versus fission, for there are different schools of thought on that as to each one being better than the other, however I understand that both are really not cost effective.

• The required fuel (tritium and deuterium, which are hydrogen isotopes) are incredibly abundant in seawater and practically everywhere else, which means we will have fuel for tens of thousands of years if not more.
• Fusion reactors would be much safer than current fission-based ones. Fission reactions require large amounts of fuel present before the reaction becomes significant, but fusion can be performed with any amount of fuel (small batches of hydrogen instead of large quantities of radioactive material). This means that if something does go wrong and the plasma containment fails, there will not be enough fuel present in the reactor to cause an explosion or meltdown.
• More energy is released with fusion, as I stated before.
• The waste product (helium) is harmless in pretty much any quantity.

Since Obama has closed our manned-space program, I do not think the space-based power arrays would be a viable option for Americans, unless it could be done with robotics.

On a sidenote:  Also Geothermal power would probably not be an option, since it is for electricity and not for fuel for vehicles, unless they completely change vehicle production as well.

And I'm not real keen on biomass or biofuels either; I'm riding the fence on that one.  What's your take on that?

Quote from: babsinva on June 07, 2010, 04:35:19 PM

Also the nuclear fusion you mentioned, I believe I would support that as well, and I think (but if wrong please correct me) - it is different than regular nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy I would object to for the same reasons we had the natural gas discussion in a previous post.  Nuclear energy uses uranium and plutonium that are also non-renewable sources, and uranium requires mining, and the extraction process produces some harmful waste by-products (although less than coal).  It also can expose one to radiation, although that too is less than a coal burning plant.

Nuclear fusion and nuclear fission are essentially mirror images of each other.

Fission involves taking superheavy, unstable elements and splitting their nucleus to release energy (and two smaller atoms of a different element). Fusion involves taking two or three small atoms and fusing them together into a single, larger atom. Fusion releases more energy than fission does, but it requires extreme heat and pressure to destabilize the atoms enough that they can fuse.

All conventional nuclear energy we use today is fission. Examples of fission reactions include modern nuclear powerplants and the first atomic bombs (A-Bombs). Examples of fusion include the hydrogen bomb and our Sun (every star is powered by nuclear fusion). Scientists have been able to create controlled fusion reactions in experimental reactors (hydrogen bombs are an example of an uncontrolled fusion reaction), but these experimental reactors have so far been unable to reach the breakeven point (where the reactor generates more power than is required to run it). The ITER reactor is being planned to be built in 2012/2013 as an international scientific mega-project, and is expected to generate 10x more energy than is required to maintain the reaction conditions.

Still there? Bear with me...

Quote from: babsinva on June 07, 2010, 04:35:19 PM

If it is different than regular nuclear energy like I think it is, then yes I would think that possibly fusion is a viable option.  BUT just curious on why you like fusion versus fission, for there are different schools of thought on that as to each one being better than the other, however I understand that both are really not cost effective.

Providing we're able to design a working reactor, fusion is better than fission in every possible way.

• The required fuel (tritium and deuterium, which are hydrogen isotopes) are incredibly abundant in seawater and practically everywhere else, which means we will have fuel for tens of thousands of years if not more.
• Fusion reactors would be much safer than current fission-based ones. Fission reactions require large amounts of fuel present before the reaction becomes significant, but fusion can be performed with any amount of fuel (small batches of hydrogen instead of large quantities of radioactive material). This means that if something does go wrong and the plasma containment fails, there will not be enough fuel present in the reactor to cause an explosion or meltdown.
• More energy is released with fusion, as I stated before.
• The waste product (helium) is harmless in pretty much any quantity.

Basically, fusion is the power source that comes into play 50-100 years from now. It's too far away to be viable any time soon, but it's the thing that will be used to space exploration and to take over once renewables like solar and wind begin to fall short.

• With fusion, few radioactive particles are released, unless a fission trigger is also used with it.
• Fusion can normally occur in nature, whereas fission usually does not, however there have been examples of fission doing just that by uranium deposits found that could self sustain a natural chain reaction.
• If a nuclear fusion reaction would occur, then radioactive materials produced could vaporize anything in the immediate vicinity.
• It takes less energy required to split 2 atoms with fission than joining them by fusion.
• Fusion takes a lot of energy thereby making it not cost efficient.
• Although the energy released or produced by fusion is much greater than with fission, it also takes a lot more energy to complete the whole process of fusion.
• Some people feel it is a leap to go from tiny bubbles in a test tube to that of creating nuclear fusion.
• And lastly as you stated above “providing we are able to design a nuclear reactor” (for fusion) – showing we still do not have one ready yet.  Again this means years, or maybe decades before this can be implemented as well.

Quote from: babsinva on June 07, 2010, 04:35:19 PM

Since Obama has closed our manned-space program, I do not think the space-based power arrays would be a viable option for Americans, unless it could be done with robotics.

Obama did the right thing in that case. Until alternative methods of accessing earth orbit become available (it costs $50,000 per pound to launch something into space right now), manned space missions simply aren't viable. Maybe once we get around to building a mass driver or a space elevator.

Also, this.

[With fusion, few radioactive particles are released, unless a fission trigger is also used with it.[/li][/list]

• If a nuclear fusion reaction would occur, then radioactive materials produced could vaporize anything in the immediate vicinity.

• It takes less energy required to split 2 atoms with fission than joining them by fusion.
• Fusion takes a lot of energy thereby making it not cost efficient.
• Although the energy released or produced by fusion is much greater than with fission, it also takes a lot more energy to complete the whole process of fusion.

• Some people feel it is a leap to go from tiny bubbles in a test tube to that of creating nuclear fusion.

• And lastly as you stated above “providing we are able to design a nuclear reactor” (for fusion) – showing we still do not have one ready yet.  Again this means years, or maybe decades before this can be implemented as well.

So while I agree fusion is safer, it is not without problems, and if I had to pick one over the other, then of course I would go with fusion over fission, however I really like the idea of wind, solar, and tidal even better.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

[With fusion, few radioactive particles are released, unless a fission trigger is also used with it.[/li][/list]

Which no-one would ever do in a fusion reactor. Fission triggers are really only used in thermonuclear bombs.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

• If a nuclear fusion reaction would occur, then radioactive materials produced could vaporize anything in the immediate vicinity.

Not really. See back to my point where I mentioned how fusion can be scaled down to only use small amounts of hydrogen at a time.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

• It takes less energy required to split 2 atoms with fission than joining them by fusion.
• Fusion takes a lot of energy thereby making it not cost efficient.
• Although the energy released or produced by fusion is much greater than with fission, it also takes a lot more energy to complete the whole process of fusion.

True, it's the main weakness of fusion right now. If a self-sustaining reactions can be created though, or if a reactor can produce a high output:cost ratio, fusion will be considered viable.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

• Some people feel it is a leap to go from tiny bubbles in a test tube to that of creating nuclear fusion.

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



Fusion can be done on a large (reactor-sized) scale, it's not just a test-tube thing.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

• And lastly as you stated above “providing we are able to design a nuclear reactor” (for fusion) – showing we still do not have one ready yet.  Again this means years, or maybe decades before this can be implemented as well.

Yep. It's fairly distant in the future, although that doesn't make it unimportant.

Quote from: babsinva on June 09, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

So while I agree fusion is safer, it is not without problems, and if I had to pick one over the other, then of course I would go with fusion over fission, however I really like the idea of wind, solar, and tidal even better.

As do I. At some point in the future, though, those energy sources won't be enough. It's important that we have viable fusion technologies ready to implement when that point comes.

Not sure if it was mentioned but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7972865.stm

Quote from: babsinva on June 07, 2010, 04:35:19 PM

On a sidenote:  Also Geothermal power would probably not be an option, since it is for electricity and not for fuel for vehicles, unless they completely change vehicle production as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle#Production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_F3DM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/378351_plugins09.html

All of those examples are vehicles that have been or are being produced. Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are starting to hit mainstream... electricity can be car fuel.

• Approx 1973, the U.S. Dept of Energy ran tests on electric hybrids that were experimental or prototypes.
• In '74 the Federal Clean Car Incentive pushed engineers to work harder and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency tested those vehicles.
• In 1975 the U.S. Post Office workers began driving the new test subjects.
• In '76 Congress enacted into public law the Electric Hybrid Vehicle Research and Development and Demonstration Act
• Then more consortium programs along with manufacturers announcing documents outlining their goals continued to happen up til the mid 90's.
• Then Japan got their cars, then Europe, and U.S. was one of the last, and only in test markets.
• 1997 to 1999 California got certain vehicles.
• In '99 finally Honda released the first 2-door car the "Insight", which did hit the mass market - FINALLY - but these early cars were horrible.  They got a little better in 2003/2004, and again in 2007/ 2008, but the battery was $5,000 U.S. dollars, which many people felt like that was not a good trade-off, because in bad economies not everyone has 5K to plop down all at one time.
• Although they have continued improving since then, it shows how long it takes to get anything done around here, and really if you want to go WAY BACK - the 1st hybrid car with steam was in the 1600's, and later electric cars, then light electric motors with heavy storage batteries, then the experimentation of different batteries, and with different number of cells.  So in 350 plus years that's all the further we've come.  I remember reading an article back around 2005/ 2006 that hybrids still had a long way to go and was about 20 years away from being a reality as far as really helping with our gas consumption in the U.S.  The U.S. is a big gas hog, since we go everywhere with our cars, unlike some European countries that can take a bus, jitney, etc.

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 22, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the volt does not use gasoline for propulsion at all. When battery charge runs out, it uses the gas in an electric generator, which then powers the engine and recharges the battery.

The Volt's 375 lb (170 kg), 220-cell lithium-ion battery (Li-ion) pack is anticipated to store 16 kW·h of energy,[1][81] but will be restricted (in software) to use only 8.8 kW·h of this capacity to maximize the life of the pack.

"GM is at least one generation behind Toyota on advanced, “green” powertrain development. In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt." and that "while the Chevy Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable."

Other problems:  And I still don't know how much this replacement battery will cost me, for they do not even have a firm price on the car yet - they say between 30-40K.
It takes a longer time to charge this car than the Toyota (less than 2 and up to 3 hrs), with the Chevy taking 4 - 10 hours to charge, and you will not get the full benefit of 40 miles each time, depending on the climate where you live, as well as air conditioning, and other devices / frills used on the car.  Although there is no special battery charging station necessary, the accessibility of charging is still a challenging one, because of the long charge time, so not everyone at work will be able to charge when they get to their destination.  Even though a partial charge will help some, there is not going to be 200 outlets at places of employment so everyone can partially charge in order to then drive back home.  You can of course use the gas in the electric generator for going home, but also it will be a fairly sluggish car since the Toyota has a 1.8 and yet this vehicle has a 1.4. L  4cyl engine, but much heavier - but hey it's a start.  They are ahead of schedule and that part is good, for Europe in 2011, in Austrailia 2012, and I think here in the U.S. 2011.  We'll see.  I've just never been a big fan of American cars, for they have always let me down.  I have had Chevys, Buicks, Chryslers, and Fords - ALL crap, until I turned to Hondas and Toyotas; only problem is the 3rd generation Toyota Prius will be even longer before it's available.  I'd also like to know where the tryanny is located, because if it's anything like the Saab - you gotta take a bunch of stuff out in order to get to it - thereby ALOT of labor cost.  Maybe we'll know more as time approaches.

Quote from: babsinva on June 23, 2010, 01:34:15 AM

Other problems:  And I still don't know how much this replacement battery will cost me, for they do not even have a firm price on the car yet - they say between 30-40K.
It takes a longer time to charge this car than the Toyota (less than 2 and up to 3 hrs), with the Chevy taking 4 - 10 hours to charge, and you will not get the full benefit of 40 miles each time, depending on the climate where you live, as well as air conditioning, and other devices / frills used on the car.  Although there is no special battery charging station necessary, the accessibility of charging is still a challenging one, because of the long charge time, so not everyone at work will be able to charge when they get to their destination.  Even though a partial charge will help some, there is not going to be 200 outlets at places of employment so everyone can partially charge in order to then drive back home.  You can of course use the gas in the electric generator for going home, but also it will be a fairly sluggish car since the Toyota has a 1.8 and yet this vehicle has a 1.4. L  4cyl engine, but much heavier - but hey it's a start.  They are ahead of schedule and that part is good, for Europe in 2011, in Austrailia 2012, and I think here in the U.S. 2011.  We'll see.  I've just never been a big fan of American cars, for they have always let me down.  I have had Chevys, Buicks, Chryslers, and Fords - ALL crap, until I turned to Hondas and Toyotas; only problem is the 3rd generation Toyota Prius will be even longer before it's available.  I'd also like to know where the tryanny is located, because if it's anything like the Saab - you gotta take a bunch of stuff out in order to get to it - thereby ALOT of labor cost.  Maybe we'll know more as time approaches.

I see you didn't read my post.

The Prius uses its gasoline engine for propulsion, whereas the volt merely uses it for electrical generation. It does not power the wheels directly; the Volt's responsiveness depends on it's main electric motor (and electric motors have craptons of torque).

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 22, 2010, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 22, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the volt does not use gasoline for propulsion at all. When battery charge runs out, it uses the gas in an electric generator, which then powers the engine and recharges the battery.

That's ^^ not exactly right - their website says something different.

Volt is an electric vehicle with a range extender. Well, what does that mean? It means Volt runs on electricity from its battery, and then it runs on electricity it creates from gas. Let's assume you have a fully charged battery. Now, depending on the weather, the electrical features that are turned on and how you drive, you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery — totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power. So Volt can go for several hundred additional miles, until you can plug it in or fill it up again.

And their website still does not tell me how much the replacement battery will cost, and there are still other issues as said in my other response (re-quoted at top), such as the availability or accessibility of charging, and others.  You may be right on the torque though, but I still have other reservations.  I will admit like I said before - it is a start.

Quote from: babsinva on June 30, 2010, 12:38:57 PM

And their website still does not tell me how much the replacement battery will cost, and there are still other issues as said in my other response (re-quoted at top), such as the availability or accessibility of charging, and others.  You may be right on the torque though, but I still have other reservations.  I will admit like I said before - it is a start.

I know there have been hybrids on the road since 2000 that have yet to have their battery replaced, and technology has improved.  Some hybrid taxis have over 300,000km on their vehicles on the original battery.
When I go and look to purchase a Ford Mustang, they don't tell me on their website what a new engine will cost me 10 years from now when it needs to be replaced.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on June 30, 2010, 02:18:48 PM

Quote from: babsinva on June 30, 2010, 12:38:57 PM

And their website still does not tell me how much the replacement battery will cost, and there are still other issues as said in my other response (re-quoted at top), such as the availability or accessibility of charging, and others.  You may be right on the torque though, but I still have other reservations.  I will admit like I said before - it is a start.

I know there have been hybrids on the road since 2000 that have yet to have their battery replaced, and technology has improved.  Some hybrid taxis have over 300,000km on their vehicles on the original battery.
When I go and look to purchase a Ford Mustang, they don't tell me on their website what a new engine will cost me 10 years from now when it needs to be replaced.

You are comparing apples to oranges my friend - both fruits, but different peels and taste; not even close.  Batteries have a shelf life, and in the past they have been expensive to replace.  It may not be a concern to YOU, but it is a concern to me.  And like I said 2 other times, that was NOT my only remark or reservation - for I had several.  And I had said 2 other times at least, that it was certainly a start.  Me personally, I would probably rather have a Toyota, but to each his own, my man.

Quote from: babsinva on June 30, 2010, 02:41:48 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on June 30, 2010, 02:18:48 PM

Quote from: babsinva on June 30, 2010, 12:38:57 PM

And their website still does not tell me how much the replacement battery will cost, and there are still other issues as said in my other response (re-quoted at top), such as the availability or accessibility of charging, and others.  You may be right on the torque though, but I still have other reservations.  I will admit like I said before - it is a start.

I know there have been hybrids on the road since 2000 that have yet to have their battery replaced, and technology has improved.  Some hybrid taxis have over 300,000km on their vehicles on the original battery.
When I go and look to purchase a Ford Mustang, they don't tell me on their website what a new engine will cost me 10 years from now when it needs to be replaced.

You are comparing apples to oranges my friend - both fruits, but different peels and taste; not even close.  Batteries have a shelf life, and in the past they have been expensive to replace.  It may not be a concern to YOU, but it is a concern to me.  And like I said 2 other times, that was NOT my only remark or reservation - for I had several.  And I had said 2 other times at least, that it was certainly a start.  Me personally, I would probably rather have a Toyota, but to each his own, my man.

I'm merely letting you know that these batteries are very hearty.  I read somewhere a figure of $5,000.  A 10 year old Ford Mustang which needs its engine replaced will probably cost ~$5,000 to complete these repairs.  If a new battery would also cost $5,000, then the two technologies are comparable.

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 22, 2010, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 22, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the volt does not use gasoline for propulsion at all. When battery charge runs out, it uses the gas in an electric generator, which then powers the engine and recharges the battery.

That's ^^ not exactly right - their website says something different.
 

Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity. Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure electric charge for up to 40 miles(3) ? gas and emissions free. After that, Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas.

Quote from: babsinva on June 23, 2010, 01:34:15 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 22, 2010, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 22, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the volt does not use gasoline for propulsion at all. When battery charge runs out, it uses the gas in an electric generator, which then powers the engine and recharges the battery.

That's ^^ not exactly right - their website says something different.
 

Quote

Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity. Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure electric charge for up to 40 miles(3) ? gas and emissions free. After that, Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas.

Straight from the intro here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do

Yes I understand the Chevy Volt works differently than the Toyota, and that was not my claim.  Once the battery is used up, the gas in the electric generator does recharge the battery and you can go a couple hundred miles more, but at some point if you can't charge, you will have to fill up.  Here is what their website says >>

Quote

Volt is an electric vehicle with a range extender. Well, what does that mean? It means Volt runs on electricity from its battery, and then it runs on electricity it creates from gas. Let's assume you have a fully charged battery. Now, depending on the weather, the electrical features that are turned on and how you drive, you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery — totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power. So Volt can go for several hundred additional miles, until you can plug it in or fill it up again.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 30, 2010, 07:06:00 PM

Quote from: babsinva on June 23, 2010, 01:34:15 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 22, 2010, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 22, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

Well the Chevy Volt uses Electricity first and Gas last not because it's a hybrid, but because it's designed that way.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the volt does not use gasoline for propulsion at all. When battery charge runs out, it uses the gas in an electric generator, which then powers the engine and recharges the battery.

That's ^^ not exactly right - their website says something different.
 

Quote

Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity. Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure electric charge for up to 40 miles(3) ? gas and emissions free. After that, Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas.

Straight from the intro here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do

Hi dave.  That was already addressed, but you did not see a more recent post since the one you have quoted above, and yes I got my info from the exact same website (or source) that you did.

Quote from: babsinva on June 30, 2010, 12:38:57 PM

Yes I understand the Chevy Volt works differently than the Toyota, and that was not my claim.  Once the battery is used up, the gas in the electric generator does recharge the battery and you can go a couple hundred miles more, but at some point if you can't charge, you will have to fill up.  Here is what their website says >>

Quote

Volt is an electric vehicle with a range extender. Well, what does that mean? It means Volt runs on electricity from its battery, and then it runs on electricity it creates from gas. Let's assume you have a fully charged battery. Now, depending on the weather, the electrical features that are turned on and how you drive, you can drive up to 40 miles on the electricity stored in the battery — totally gas and emissions free. After that, its gas-powered, range-extending generator automatically kicks in to provide electrical power. So Volt can go for several hundred additional miles, until you can plug it in or fill it up again.

getting renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal into the mainstream.

Quote from: babsinva on June 06, 2010, 05:11:12 PM

While the air emissions are less than oil or coal - they are not pollutant free, and natural gas is not "Green" by any means, only greener than what we've been using.

Completely agreed, natural gas isn't "green" when compared to solar or wind.

Quote from: Mykael on June 06, 2010, 09:07:22 PM

getting renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal into the mainstream.

Quote from: babsinva on June 06, 2010, 05:11:12 PM

While the air emissions are less than oil or coal - they are not pollutant free, and natural gas is not "Green" by any means, only greener than what we've been using.

Completely agreed, natural gas isn't "green" when compared to solar or wind.

Check this out ...  small-scale wind turbines THAT individuals can own.

Here is an article on wind power, coming soon to an area near you.  The title is "The Future of Personal Wind Turbines."  And yes they are smaller scale now; they are for residential use or home-based users, and small businesses.  You can even sell your electricity back to the electric company.  Isn't that great !

Here is the link, take a peak.  >>
 
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/wind-power/news-own-your-own-wind-coming-soon-area-near-you

Quote from: Mykael on June 06, 2010, 09:07:22 PM

getting renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal into the mainstream.

Apparently building DIY solar panels is farily easy too, so long as you have solar cells: you can get them on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/72-1-8w-ea-Solar-Cell-SAVE-TIME-FACTORY-TABBED-together-/220578282170?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item335b7d7aba#ht_6202wt_878

129W for $100: that's less than a dollar per watt. It take a 3-4 KW array to take an average house off-grid: that's compared to the $20,000 you'd spend buying the same-grade commercial array.


Edit: There you go.