Obama's ethanol stance

[brandonbull]

Instead of wasting money and resources supporting 100K+ military in the ME, we should be advancing the battery techs to achieve useful electric cars. Why can't we build large scale nuke and hydrogen power plants to provide the energy for electric cars? I don't think building hydrogen powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is a good idea but centralize them a distribute the energy of an electric grid.

 

[herm0016]

yes, we are doing some research into it, and a new cellulose plant is supposed to be built up here in the near future. I am not involved in the research though.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Why?
The solution is nuclear. We have enough for eternity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...m-238#Breeder_reactors

But do we have batteries for our cars that let us do what we want? We have the power, but making it portable is the problem.

An all electric is possible now for many people. And for those who need distance, hybrid will tide those people over until battery technology progresses. Biofuels are retarded, and frankly, subsidies should be illegal. People spending their own hard earned money in a free market should determine what the car of the future will be. Not some politician getting bribed by a huge company into forking over millions in other people's forcibly appropriated money simply because they are financing his reelection.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Instead of wasting money and resources supporting 100K+ military in the ME, we should be advancing the battery techs to achieve useful electric cars.

Those are not mutually exclusive objectives. The complete picture includes the ways we generate, use and store power.

Without devices to store electrical energy like batteries and supercapacitors, electrical power must be used as it is generated. Regardless of how that power is generated, pursuing more efficient ways to store it is complimentary to the overall objective of reducing consumption of our power resources.

Why can't we build large scale nuke and hydrogen power plants to provide the energy for electric cars?

"Can" is possible. "Should" is another question entirely, until we have 100% certain ways to handle nuclear waste. The residents near Yucca Mountain don't want it for good reasons. Any leak of radioactive waste could render large area of currently inhabited land toxic and useless essentially forever, and when nuclear facilities go, BOOM, the magnitude of the damage could be catastrophic for the rest of human history... if there is any history left after the explosion. :shocked:

I don't think building hydrogen powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is a good idea but centralize them a distribute the energy of an electric grid.

That's more bad engineering. There are losses in the transmission of power through centralized power systems. A better system would be to increase distributed generation.

Distributed generation is another approach. It reduces the amount of energy lost in transmitting electricity because the electricity is generated very near where it is used, perhaps even in the same building. This also reduces the size and number of power lines that must be constructed.

This is an extension of the same kind of thinking where individual residents with solar power panels can sell their excess power back to their local grid at prevailing rates. By extension, it would work well with improved battery technologies to store excess power from solar cells to be used during dark hours.

 

[dphantom]

Anyone know of a study showing how much additional electrical usage there would be if more vehicles were electric powered? For example, if we added 1 million electric cars to the highway each year, what would there energy consumption be? Be interesting to see that number and then how many additional (if any) power plants it would take to supply the juice.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Anyone know of a study showing how much additional electrical usage there would be if more vehicles were electric powered? For example, if we added 1 million electric cars to the highway each year, what would there energy consumption be? Be interesting to see that number and then how many additional (if any) power plants it would take to supply the juice.

Due to the way electrical distribution works, it would require almost NO new power plants IF everyone charged their cars overnight. Hell, power companies would love it if they didn't have to deal with the peak/off-peak generating issue anymore.

 

[Xavier434]

One of the biggest problems we face with using electrical cars is convincing the manufacturers to make the switch. It will be very expensive and the risks could be very high especially if you are amongst the first few companies that try to do it. No one wants to be the first, but someone has to be the first. Not to mention that residences are not currently equipped to recharge every car parked in their area over night every night.

It is really easy to envision the final picture when it comes to switching to electric and god knows I support that picture, but the slow gradual process of getting there is going to be painful and it will not happen until there is more profitable demand for the change. Somehow, businesses will need to come up with a plan which slowly and successfully transitions the US to electric if this is to happen and I don't think anyone knows how to do that yet without taking major risks that investors have zero interest pursuing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Instead of wasting money and resources supporting 100K+ military in the ME, we should be advancing the battery techs to achieve useful electric cars.

Those are not mutually exclusive objectives. The complete picture includes the ways we generate, use and store power.

Without devices to store electrical energy like batteries and supercapacitors, electrical power must be used as it is generated. Regardless of how that power is generated, pursuing more efficient ways to store it is complimentary to the overall objective of reducing consumption of our power resources.

Why can't we build large scale nuke and hydrogen power plants to provide the energy for electric cars?

"Can" is possible. "Should" is another question entirely, until we have 100% certain ways to handle nuclear waste. The residents near Yucca Mountain don't want it for good reasons. Any leak of radioactive waste could render large area of currently inhabited land toxic and useless essentially forever, and when nuclear facilities go, BOOM, the magnitude of the damage could be catastrophic for the rest of human history... if there is any history left after the explosion. :shocked:

I don't think building hydrogen powered cars and the infrastructure to support them is a good idea but centralize them a distribute the energy of an electric grid.

That's more bad engineering. There are losses in the transmission of power through centralized power systems. A better system would be to increase distributed generation.

Distributed generation is another approach. It reduces the amount of energy lost in transmitting electricity because the electricity is generated very near where it is used, perhaps even in the same building. This also reduces the size and number of power lines that must be constructed.

This is an extension of the same kind of thinking where individual residents with solar power panels can sell their excess power back to their local grid at prevailing rates. By extension, it would work well with improved battery technologies to store excess power from solar cells to be used during dark hours.

Problem is they make more money from the distributed transmission system.

We all know by now the country is driven by corporate greed not by in the better interest of the country.