Is this electric car still environmentally friendly?

[RocketMan]

If an electric car pollutes, and the greenies aren't offended, does a baby seal die in Canada?

Yes.

[brimic]

WTH does he propose we do for electricity?

Lets look at the viable alternatives other than *gasp* nuclear:

-Coal:  Evil, nasty, and puts mercury in our lakes. Its also a resource controlled by the evil mining companies.

-Wind:  windmills kill birds and even worse,  mar the scenery for the Kennedys.

-hydroelectric: disrupt the delicate mating cycle of salmon.

-Natural gas: Almost the perfect alternative though its expensive and causes much higher heating bills for the subhumans out in the square states who use this to heat their homes. 

Yep, we're screwed. 

[brimic]

Yay lithium fire!

mmmmmm pretty reddish colored inextinguishable flames.

[Tallpine]

Why can't we just burn used lithium batteries to generate electricity

 

[Tecumseh]

Actually, many of them have caught fire. I was reading a related article and this is the third or fourth one, including a park service vehicle that burnt the store/cafe at the Presidio.

I would like to see a source.  Do you have a link to the article?  I am awfully suspicious since I have heard some good things about the EV1 series.  I am sure though, that you will post a link which will help us decide.

[Paddy]

It's pointless, Tecumseh.  These people HATE anybody who tries to conserve anything.  Yet they call themselves 'conservatives'.  Go figure.

[Dntsycnt]

The only problem I see with Nuclear energy is the waste.  I mean, I realize they've created that gigantic underground vault in Utah or whatever, but eventually that sucker will fill up...it still is a serious issue that needs addressed.

If only we could lob it into the sun without risking it blowing up and sprinkling the countryside.  Maybe we could drop it onto enemy nations...

Still, I see it as the only sane solution thats currently feasible.

[K Frame]

It's pointless, Tecumseh.  These people HATE anybody who tries to conserve anything.  Yet they call themselves 'conservatives'.  Go figure.

I think a truer statement would be that Conservatives are all for conservation...

But not at the cost of sanity and all of the various and sundry unintended consequences (in some cases, some of them quite severe) that come from the mad liberal dash to conserve so as to show fealty with poor mother earth.

Anyone who DARES question the "Green Agendists" as to the true long-term consequences of the "solution" is met with stuttering horror are emotionally distraught wailing about how we "just don't understand" and how we "hate the earth."

One of these days I hope to move back to Pennsylvania. When I do, I most certainly will do my part to conserve home heating oil.

By burning coal.

[Firethorn]

The only problem I see with Nuclear energy is the waste.  I mean, I realize they've created that gigantic underground vault in Utah or whatever, but eventually that sucker will fill up...it still is a serious issue that needs addressed.

A single gigawatt nuclear reactor today produces about a single train car of waste a year. It's not that big of a problem.  In comparison a coal plant can go through two hundred+ car trains of coal a day.

If only we could lob it into the sun without risking it blowing up and sprinkling the countryside.  Maybe we could drop it onto enemy nations...

Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel.  It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day.  After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.

If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels.  That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.

[Manedwolf]

It's pointless, Tecumseh.  These people HATE anybody who tries to conserve anything.  Yet they call themselves 'conservatives'.  Go figure.

I think a truer statement would be that Conservatives are all for conservation...

But not at the cost of sanity and all of the various and sundry unintended consequences (in some cases, some of them quite severe) that come from the mad liberal dash to conserve so as to show fealty with poor mother earth.

Anyone who DARES question the "Green Agendists" as to the true long-term consequences of the "solution" is met with stuttering horror are emotionally distraught wailing about how we "just don't understand" and how we "hate the earth."

One of these days I hope to move back to Pennsylvania. When I do, I most certainly will do my part to conserve home heating oil.

By burning coal.

Pellet coal stoves are pretty awesome. Cheaper to run than wood pellet, and the coal comes damp in the bag so it doesn't blow powder all over the room when you pour it in the hopper.

People here are starting to install pellet coal furnaces with a hot-water-supply loop boiler as well. They just have to fill the hopper twice a week, and it's cheaper than natural gas.

Also, they use low-sulfur coal, so your neighbors won't show up with torches and pitchforks. 

[Paddy]

Nukes are the way to go.  Coal, not so much.  Unless you want 'black lung disease' listed as the cause of death on your check out certificate.

[K Frame]

Nukes are the way to go.  Coal, not so much.  Unless you want 'black lung disease' listed as the cause of death on your check out certificate.

Everyone dies from something.

Life is a fatal illness.

[Manedwolf]

Didn't someone estimate that the US has over 500 years of coal left?

[charby]

Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel.  It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day.  After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.

If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels.  That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.

I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.

On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.

-C

[Manedwolf]

Dirty little secret: The 'waste' from a nuclear reactor is still 90-95% usable fuel.  It just needs reprocessing - but that's been banned due to fears of nuclear proliferation by Ford/Carter way back in the day.  After you yank that out, the remaining 5-10% has a much shorter half life.

If nothing else, waiting 30-40 years makes reprocessing much easier due to lower radiation levels.  That and newer technologies open the possibility of much cheaper, safer, and cleaner reprocessing.

I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.

On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.

-C

That we know of. Depends how deep we go. Remember, a good bit of the earth's core heat could well be from decaying radioactives. That's a LOT of material.

[Firethorn]

I bring up that argument a lot about reprocessing the fuel when people complain about nuclear energy and the smart ones of the group tell me the same thing that research on it was stopped in the 70's.

In the USA.  Reprocessing is alive and well in France and Japan.

Matter of fact - improper processing lead to the deaths of a couple japanese workers a few years ago - of course, they used a steel bucket rather than the $$$ equipment intended for the processes, and stuffed enough material into the bucket for a dozen rounds or so.

The result was that critical mass was researched, radiation levels spiked and they got cooked.

I feel sorry for them, but then again, I think they were deserving of a Darwin award.  After all, they were workers in a nuclear processing facility, violated regulations in a rather extreme way, and mixed stuff together that anybody trained in nuclear physics should be able to predict might go critical.

On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.

It'll last centuries even using current technology.  In that time we might be able to crack fusion, get solar & wind to be actually work, etc...  If nothing else, we can make reactors that use other trans-uranics, and there's a lot of them around.

[Sergeant Bob]

On the other hand I do feel that there is a finite source of nuclear fuel on the planet and that does need to be considered.

-C

Heh, what are we saving it for?

[Tallpine]

Other than cost, what about geothermal?

Anywhere on earth, if you drill down far enough, it is extremely hot.  Pump water down, get steam back out to run generator turbines.

Although after a couple centuries of that, I can see the greenies complaining about the danger of "global cooling" 

[RocketMan]

Other than cost, what about geothermal?

Anywhere on earth, if you drill down far enough, it is extremely hot.  Pump water down, get steam back out to run generator turbines.

Although after a couple centuries of that, I can see the greenies complaining about the danger of "global cooling" 

What the "greenies" are really afraid of, is anyone turning a profit off of energy production.  Or making a profit off anything else, for that matter.

[K Frame]

Geothermal is really only feasible in areas where there is near-surface thermal activity.

Something like 80% of homes and businesses in Iceland are heated by geothermal means.

[Tallpine]

Geothermal is really only feasible in areas where there is near-surface thermal activity.

Maybe right now ... but given higher fossil fuel costs and improvements in drilling technology, why not?  You just have to drill deep enough.

[Firethorn]

Geothermal is really only feasible in areas where there is near-surface thermal activity.

Maybe right now ... but given higher fossil fuel costs and improvements in drilling technology, why not?  You just have to drill deep enough.

Maybe so, but when you'd have to dig so deep that you'd displace more than the building's volume, it's not very economical.  Many other solutions that are much cheaper at that point.

Maintenance would also kill.

[Gewehr98]

Do they really have to drill that deep?

I ask because the new high school here in town is going geothermal, running 96 pipes to a depth of 300 feet:

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/268072&ntpid=2

Second Sun Prairie school to use geothermal system

The Sun Prairie School District is set once again to tap into the Earth's natural body temperature to warm and cool its newest elementary school.

Creekside Elementary, located on the city's south side, will be the second of three Sun Prairie schools the district plans to heat and cool using a geothermal system.

Geothermal technology has seen "an explosion of growth in the last seven years or so in Wisconsin," said Manus McDevitt, principal with Sustainable Engineering Group in Madison. "It's coming to a point now where electricity and gas prices are so high ... that really the argument for geothermal becomes stronger and stronger. For school districts it makes a lot of sense."

The systems can cut schools' energy use by 10 percent to 40 percent, McDevitt said.

The Madison, Verona and Monona Grove school districts also have or plan to incorporate geothermal technology into school construction. Evansville and Fond du Lac high schools have used the technology for several years.

Geothermal systems work by running water through hoses in underground pipes, where it is exposed to the Earth's constant temperature of between 50 and 55 degrees. Heat pumps in the schools then further heat or chill the water, which is used to warm or cool classrooms.

When Sun Prairie first started using a geothermal system at Horizon Elementary, which opened in fall 2005, maintenance workers had some concerns about operating a totally different system and a boiler was installed as a backup to the geothermal unit, said Phil Frei, deputy district administrator for the Sun Prairie School District.

More than two years later, the district is more confident in the technology and doesn't plan to have a backup boiler for Creekside.

"I think that we're over that hurdle," Frei said. However the district hasn't decided if the new high school, also slated to use geothermal technology, will have a backup boiler or not.

Across Wisconsin, about a dozen schools use or plan to incorporate geothermal technology  including Fort Atkinson, which retrofitted three existing schools and plans to do one more.

But that's a far cry from Iowa, which has more than 100 schools built or converted to use a geothermal system, said Leo Udee, who heads up the geothermal information office for Alliant Energy.

Cost is the No. 1 concern for school districts.

A commercial geothermal heating and cooling system can cost 5 percent to 20 percent more than a traditional boiler system, McDevitt said.

However, the district can see a payback seven to 10 years, depending on the cost of natural gas and electricity, he said. "Every year you're saving money because it's using 10 (percent) to 40 percent less energy," he said.

To help with the additional upfront costs of the Horizon Elementary geothermal system, the district received a $70,000 grant from Sun Prairie Water and Light.

More incentives are expected from the utility and the state's Focus on Energy program, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, for Creekside and the high school, but the amounts are still being determined, he said.

Typically in a geothermal system, about 75 percent of the heat needed to warm a building comes from the Earth and the other 25 percent is added by electricity, McDevitt said. "We have 75 percent free heat from the Earth."

[K Frame]

We're talking two very different kinds of geothermal here, folks...

Tallpine is talking geothermal of the kind that will boil water and return steam, the kind that you get in Iceland or other volcanic transvergence (right term? Not sure anymore) zones where you have very hot rock very close to the surface.

This kind of geothermal will produce steam that is hot enough to do actual work, as in spin turbines that will generate electricity.


Gewehr, the kind of geothermal that that school is going to use is COMPLETELY different. It is using the thermal mass of the earth, which at a few feet underground is pretty steady at about 54 degrees F, to provide heating and cooling. In essence, the school is putting in heat pumps that are very similar to air exchange heat pumps, but which in this case are ground exchange heat pumps. In winter, you pump latent heat out of the earth, and in summer you pump heat into the earth.

That kind of geothermal is EXTREMELY different from Icelandic geothermal. You generally can't get enough heat to boil water to create high pressure steam.

[Gewehr98]

not worth it.