On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:37:40 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: >>>Unless nuclear power makes as comeback, that means burning more >>>coal or oil. Plus, since, IIRC, electrical power transmission has about >>>50% losses to homes, we're talking about even more fuel being burned.
This is a huge assumption. This vehicle has many inherent efficiencies that might overcome these losses. >>You forgeth Hydroelectricity & wind power. It's more coal than gas, so >>the oil / gas cartel would oppose it. It's also a good thing because >>more oil can be used for things other than fuel, like plastics. >No, I didn't forget. We are tapped out on hydro in the western world. We >might be able to squeeze another 1% of the total electric energy budget, >but not likely. There is some potential for additional hydro in the third >world, but its going to be pretty well spoken for with other increased >electricity usage. You underestimate the intentions of third world countries. One of the steps in reaching developed country status is cleaning up air quality. Improvements in transportation is likely to come before, or at least along side, residential air conditioning. >Any switch from gasoline to electricity will have to be powered by >conventional fuel plants. There will be no overnight switch to electric vehicles. This does not diminish their potential. The greatest value in zero emission vehicles is in centralizing harmful emissions. Moving the exhaust source from the tailpipe to the smokestack gives the ability to control and position emissions so they don't impact urban airsheds in the same way. Although they may not limit total emissions, planners now have the abilty to apply more efficient pollution controls and distribute it over a larger area. While this may not affect global warming, it may make Houston smell better. :) >As for wind, a good first order approximation is that it is a PR cost for >major oil companies and politicians. It has to be highly subsidized to >compete. That statement is quite true and I would expect no less from oil companies or politicians. Wind has no immediate large profit potential, as did, or does, nuclear, in an economy with an established oil and coal infrastructure. Wind has been far less subsidized than nuclear and has been growing at a phenominal rate over the past 10 or so years. Worldwide wind energy output doubling every 3 years or something like that. While i don't buy into many conspiracy theories of oil companies suppressing innovation in transportation or power generation, I do believe they purvey the image that it is inefficient, experimental and only of interest to engineering students and tree-huggers. However, for oil companies and politicians, everything is PR, right? :) >Finally, OPEC has enough trouble just staying together. A conspiracy to >stop a switchover to coal by stopping compressed air cars is just a bit >much. Indeed, all they would have to do is point out how much better >natural gas is for the environment than coal. >IMHO, articles such as this one shows the power of wishful thinking. What the air car offers is a clean energy storage option. This is the technology needed to make intermittent renewables like solar and wind viable for transportation. Research and development is warranted. I could imagine a version of this car could become popular in urban environments all over the world. Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
