• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans

I would rather see wind and solar pushed more.

As what, exactly? These technologies are decades away from being able to distribute energy on a large scale; they're also somewhat impractical and difficult to maintain. Why shift resources away from a proven technology (nuclear) to fanciful alternatives that are viable only as supplements?
 
Why not? There are already electric buses out there, so why couldn't we develop a truck?

Actually, it looks like Battery electric vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia some places already have:



That sounds more substantial than your average truck user's needs.

The fact that it doesn't yet work perfectly for one thing doesn't mean it's useless for all things. I'd guess that at minimum, 60% of the vehicles in this country could already be replaced with electric vehicles without requiring a significant change in day to day activity. As the technology gets better over time and they continue to expand the range, there's no reason why it couldn't replace combustion in nearly all vehicles.

Can it pull 80,000 lbs+ over mountains? It would not last and would take to long to recharge.

I will not get an electric Harley
 
As what, exactly? These technologies are decades away from being able to distribute energy on a large scale; they're also somewhat impractical and difficult to maintain. Why shift resources away from a proven technology (nuclear) to fanciful alternatives that are viable only as supplements?

The only reason why they may be decades away (although I don't believe it's that long) is because our antiquated mode of transmission. If the government would work on that we'd have it much sooner. We need to anyway.

For God's sake China is doing it and they aren't nearly as advanced as we are.


Meanwhile, China could well be on its way to blowing the U.S. out of the water when it comes to harnessing wind energy.

This is a rare energy success story for a country whose carbon emissions were recorded as the highest in the world last year, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
But the Chinese energy revolution has been quietly gaining strength, observers say.

Like their American counterparts, Chinese tycoons are increasingly directing their investment into renewable power.

Zhu Yuguo, ranks at 102 on the Forbes China Rich List, with a personal fortune of 5.71 billion Yuan and has invested heavily in the wind power industry.

Steve Sawyer of the Global Wind Energy Council said: "China's wind energy market is unrecognizable from two years ago."

"It is huge, huge, huge. But it is not realized yet in the outside world," Sawyer said in an interview with London's Guardian newspaper.

China's wind generation has increased by more than 100 percent per year since 2005 and 20 per cent of the power supply to the venues of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games will come from wind generators, according to the official state agency, Xinhua.

It was initially hoped the country would generate 5 gigawatts of wind by 2010, but that goal was met three years early in 2007. The 2010 goal has now been revised to 10 gigawatts but experts say this could well hit 20 gigawatts.

The Guanting Wind Farm in Beijing has installed capacity of 64.5 megawatts and has supplied 35 million kilowatts of electricity to Beijing so far.

The wind farm is estimated to supply 100 million KWH per year to Beijing, or 300,000 KWH per day, enough to satisfy the consumption of 100,000 households.


U.S., China lead way in tapping wind power - CNN.com
 
As the technology gets better over time and they continue to expand the range, there's no reason why it couldn't replace combustion in nearly all vehicles.


Thinking outside the box can produce new technology that could be totally different from what we know today, removing some of the 'obstacles' of why something won't work.

This research uses magnets to produce electricity rather than chemical reaction.


Researchers at the University of Miami and at the Universities of Tokyo and Tohoku, Japan, have been able to prove the existence of a "spin battery," a battery that is "charged" by applying a large magnetic field to nano-magnets in a device called a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ).

The new technology is a step towards the creation of computer hard drives with no moving parts, which would be much faster, less expensive and use less energy than current ones. In the future, the new battery could be developed to power cars.

Spin Battery: Physicist Develops Battery Using New Source Of Energy
 
Can it pull 80,000 lbs+ over mountains? It would not last and would take to long to recharge.

I will not get an electric Harley

What's your point? Just because motorcycles and uber-enormous trucks might not be the best fit for electricity doesn't make the technology worthless for everything that ISN'T in those niches.
 
Can it pull 80,000 lbs+ over mountains?

Can your truck?

It would not last and would take to long to recharge.

With the current technology, that's probably true.

I will not get an electric Harley

You seem to be operating under the impression that an engine powered by electricity is somehow fundamentally different in terms of output than an engine powered by gasoline. That's not the case. Assuming a powerful enough battery, it doesn't matter what's making the wheels turn so long as they turn.

While it's true that the current technology is not there yet to entirely replace gasoline engines, there is nothing to indicate that it won't be there eventually.

25 years from now, there will be electric Harleys that have twice the horsepower and 5 times the range of gasoline Harleys, all while costing 1/5th as much to ride. You think you'll still want a gasoline one then?
 
The Tesla Roadster, which is already in use across the US, gets 244 miles per charge. Its next generation car, the Model S, will cost half as much and get 300 miles per charge once it makes its way into the market place in approx 2 years.

It cost $100K, plus....and I will bet you an apology that the model S won't be for sale at half the price 2 years from now.
Electric cars at this point, and 2 years from now, are only good for SHORT commutes....
 
It cost $100K, plus....and I will bet you an apology that the model S won't be for sale at half the price 2 years from now.

Almost...the retail price will be $57K for the regular version, or $65K for a premium model with a 300+ mile range. I think people underestimate how quickly the prices drop for emerging technologies.

UtahBill said:
Electric cars at this point, and 2 years from now, are only good for SHORT commutes....

By the time we could get nuclear plants online in 10 years, electric cars will be cheap enough and powerful enough to enter the mainstream.
 
It cost $100K, plus....and I will bet you an apology that the model S won't be for sale at half the price 2 years from now.
Electric cars at this point, and 2 years from now, are only good for SHORT commutes....

A hand held calculator was at least $100.00 when it first came out. Now they give them away. What's your point?
 
It cost $100K, plus....and I will bet you an apology that the model S won't be for sale at half the price 2 years from now.
Electric cars at this point, and 2 years from now, are only good for SHORT commutes....

As Kandahar pointed out, it's $57k or $65k (not counting the $7500 federal tax credit). Furthermore, the reason it's so expensive is because it's a luxury vehicle.

Roadster:

tesla_roadster2.jpg


tesla-roadster-sport-interior.jpg


The Roadster is a sportscar designed by Lotus and goes from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.

The Model S is a luxury sedan:

3388564188_4427beac12.jpg


The price isn't that outlandish when you think of comparable cars.

Furthermore, how do you figure they're only usable for short commutes? I don't think the average person drives more than 240 miles in a day.

The point is that in approximately six years, we'll have gone from no viable electric cars to $110k cars that can travel 240 miles on a single charge to $58k cars that can travel 300 miles on a single charge. I wouldn't be surprised if 15 years from now they're comparably priced to regular cars.
 
What's your point? Just because motorcycles and uber-enormous trucks might not be the best fit for electricity doesn't make the technology worthless for everything that ISN'T in those niches.

They need a lot of work to make them efficient and affordable.
 
Can your truck?



With the current technology, that's probably true.



You seem to be operating under the impression that an engine powered by electricity is somehow fundamentally different in terms of output than an engine powered by gasoline. That's not the case. Assuming a powerful enough battery, it doesn't matter what's making the wheels turn so long as they turn.

While it's true that the current technology is not there yet to entirely replace gasoline engines, there is nothing to indicate that it won't be there eventually.

25 years from now, there will be electric Harleys that have twice the horsepower and 5 times the range of gasoline Harleys, all while costing 1/5th as much to ride. You think you'll still want a gasoline one then?

I will keep my Harley that you can hear coming.

Big trucks use power and gears to climb mountains. To get an electric motor and batteries to do that may take to much room and have to much weight. It will be a longtime in coming.
 
Almost...the retail price will be $57K for the regular version, or $65K for a premium model with a 300+ mile range. I think people underestimate how quickly the prices drop for emerging technologies.



By the time we could get nuclear plants online in 10 years, electric cars will be cheap enough and powerful enough to enter the mainstream.

Keep dreaming
 
Included in this proposal is a 10% increase in spending on nuclear weapons programs, although Obama said in his state of the union speech that he "seeks a world without them."
 
What an intelligent, well thought-out rebuttal. You completely changed my mind. :roll:

Just saying don't hold your breath for an affordable electric car. Not all can afford 60 thousand dollars. Many can't afford 30 thousand.
 
I will keep my Harley that you can hear coming.

You don't think it would be possible to come up with some other method to hear you coming? ****, they could design a recording of a harley engine that would be synced to the electric motor. Does that work?

Big trucks use power and gears to climb mountains. To get an electric motor and batteries to do that may take to much room and have to much weight. It will be a longtime in coming.

Just saying don't hold your breath for an affordable electric car. Not all can afford 60 thousand dollars. Many can't afford 30 thousand.

And as the personal computer has shown, new technologies can get exponentially faster, lighter, more powerful, and cheaper over relatively short periods of time.

Does the computer you're typing on cost $100,000 and look like this?

1970-1970s-control_~o4050.jpg
 
****, they could design a recording of a harley engine that would be synced to the electric motor. Does that work?

Hahahaha!!! omg! I'm seriously cracking up just picturing this in my mind. It's like that South Park episode...
 
A hand held calculator was at least $100.00 when it first came out. Now they give them away. What's your point?

Think about scaling up to something that takes a lot of POWER. Just because we can cheaply build (relatively speaking) low power technology does not mean it will scale up to high power technology. The internet grid was a piece of cake compared to an electric power grid that supports solar, wind, etc.
Here in AZ, they are about to build a solar facility that requires 3 square miles, to generate only 280 megawatts.
Solar farm to rise over 3 square miles - Environment- msnbc.com
The issue is power density. Nuclear has it, even oil has it. Wind and solar do not.
Obama is right to support loans for nuclear. THe loans will be paid back and the taxpayer will make money on the deal.
 
Included in this proposal is a 10% increase in spending on nuclear weapons programs, although Obama said in his state of the union speech that he "seeks a world without them."

source please?
 
It cost $100K, plus....and I will bet you an apology that the model S won't be for sale at half the price 2 years from now.
Electric cars at this point, and 2 years from now, are only good for SHORT commutes....

That's why I'm actually looking forward to the Volt and partially hoping its in the 20-30k range if we're lucky for price.

40 miles a day is more than enough for my commute up here in Northern VA, with it almost never being more than that. The gas engine used to recharge the battery gets it up to 500+ miles I believe which would be more than enough to get me to my parents house and back.

I will keep my Harley that you can hear coming.

attachment.php


;)
 
Back
Top Bottom