[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. :)
The largest problem in any of these initiatives still is the storage. In order to store a certain amount of energy you need a battery. Batteries are neither cheap nor clean. They rely on heavy metals and acids. And countrary to popular believe recycling of batteries isn't simple. The limited lifecycle of rechargeble batteries is also a big problem, since recycling of those is very difficult due to the nature of the materials they are made from. > 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? :) Renewable energy is getting bigger. Denmark is currently the leader in Europe as to the percentage of it's energy gained from especially large off-shore and also on land wind-mill installations. The Netherlands is starting to catch up. What started as a small initiative is getting bigger, less subsidezed and more commonplace by the day. Sonja _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
