You should add a poll to see how wrong you are about electric cars 
Torque limitations are still there.
You should watch less of TopGear.
Change them, then.
How many electric cars do you see racing round a track, I never seen the Toyota Prius Grand Prix.
Ever heard of Audi R8 E-Tron?
308 whp power, 4500 Nm torque, 250km range.
250km range at 50kph constant...at Le Mans it should manage to do 3-4 laps and run out of power 
I thought that was regarding only FISSION reactors ( the kind that goes boom )?
The next generation of Nuclear Plant should be Fusion if I recall correctly? The safer kind of reactor?
btw the sun is safe, so let's hope it will be safe hehe
How much market share cell phones had compared to land lines in year 1991?
Seriously, stop making retarded arguments.
In theory yes, as there's nothing to "keep the reaction going". Although that's exactly why it doesn't work on a commercial scale yet :P
EDIT: And to stay on topic, hydrogen cars are the future.
Currently we're nowhere near a working fission reactor, we consider the fact that we can get the fission running at all a great success, it'll be a long time before the first fission reactor starts to generate electricity. On the other hand, until we run out of hydrogen, these reactors should provide a lot of power with no damage to the environment.
What I don't get is the fear of nuclear power. There have been only three major accidents, two of them caused by serious screw up on the part of the operators and one by tremendous natural catastrophe noone could've forseen. Unlike thermal power plants which pollute the environment with sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide with every watt of energy they produce, nuclear plants are dangerous only if something goes terribly wrong. Also with every accident we learn things about making nuclear energy safer, but I'm afraid there's nothing more to be done to make thermal power plants cleaner and more effective. Besides, why burn coal to generate electricity when we have alternate sources? Power plants can run on uranium, but a huge part of industry can't work without oil and petrol - yes, you can make petrol, diesel and other higher carbohydrates from coal, Germans were doing it during WW II.
Other way around - Fission Reactors work just nicely
THe fear of nuclear energy is because:
a: IF it goes wrong it can cause people in Madrid to spawn 4th legs...
B: if it goes horribly wrong it can decimate it's surrounding area, and your grandkids can come back to find what's left of your house, and still lose their hair.
a: IF it goes wrong it can cause people in Madrid to spawn 4th legs...
B: if it goes horribly wrong it can decimate it's surrounding area, and your grandkids can come back to find what's left of your house, and still lose their hair.
rather comical how most of the criticism in this thread is based on the ridiculous notion that somehow all cars on the road will immediately switch over to electric and the problems that might cause
and on the notion that projects and ideas like iter or desertec are completely nonexistant
for a similarly stupid problem scenario envision a world where suddenly all 7 billion people in the world would drive cars as much as the west does
and on the notion that projects and ideas like iter or desertec are completely nonexistant
for a similarly stupid problem scenario envision a world where suddenly all 7 billion people in the world would drive cars as much as the west does
I'm not against electric cars in LFS. Just i think there's millions of things lfs should have than electric cars.
End of the story.
Also how could electric cars be the future, if in a few years time there will be some sort of a solar storm and people wont have any electricity at all...
End of the story.
Also how could electric cars be the future, if in a few years time there will be some sort of a solar storm and people wont have any electricity at all...
lowlat
do you also believe in global warming?
Sims are supposed be escapism, not a morbid reflection of reality
lolwat
do you also believe in electric cars?
So nuclear power is perfectly safe provided there isn't an accident ?
That makes it ok then...............
Do try ignoring your media and find out what's really happening in Japan, and also see how much drift there's been over the US, oh, that's right, none because that's what your told to believe.
The reason they stopped measuring is not because there wasn't any drift.
But you'll all be fine because they've raised the 'safe' level of exposure so everyone will be unaffected - and if you believe that I've got a bridge for you to buy !
That makes it ok then...............
Do try ignoring your media and find out what's really happening in Japan, and also see how much drift there's been over the US, oh, that's right, none because that's what your told to believe.
The reason they stopped measuring is not because there wasn't any drift.
But you'll all be fine because they've raised the 'safe' level of exposure so everyone will be unaffected - and if you believe that I've got a bridge for you to buy !
Well, since this thread's gone OT anyway, I might as well tell you a few things you probably don't know about nuclear power and accidents it "caused".
Undoubtedly the worst accident in this respect was the Chernobyl. It's worth noting that it happened almost 26 years ago and it involved a different type of reactor to those that are in use today. It was caused by an insane screw up of the operators and could have easily been prevented had there been a competent overseers in the command center.
As a result, the whole reactor core (which wasn't sealed in any containment vessel) blew up. Fuel rods, moderator rods, the reactor vessel and a part of the building were the reactor was was thrown several kilometers up to the atmosphere. Apart from the increased occurrence of thyroid cancer in the mostly exposed area no other serious effects on health were noticed. Yes, the numbers and calculations may vary, but it also should be noted that public health was monitored more extensively in the years after the disaster, so any increase in diseases might go on account of more available data.
In Fukushima nothing like that happened, some radioactive products were released when the pressure within the reactor had to be reduced, some escaped with the leaking water as the core melted down. On the other hand, there were 57 deaths cause by acute irradiation in Chernobyl, none in Japan, only the upcoming years will show if the disaster had any long-term impact on public health.
Based on this logic, should we ban air travel, car travel or even the goddamn electricity at all? They're also perfectly safe unless there's an accident. There's about 400 nuclear power plants all over the world plus some aircraft carriers and submarines and so far there have been only three accidents, two of them absolutely preventable.
Thermal power plants pollute the environment day by day and if you count the amount of lung cancers and other pulmonary diseases caused by the smoke, you'll get a rather disturbing number, JO53PHS has already shown you the Deaths/TWh stats, there's also damage to the environment caused by extensive coal mining.
Undoubtedly the worst accident in this respect was the Chernobyl. It's worth noting that it happened almost 26 years ago and it involved a different type of reactor to those that are in use today. It was caused by an insane screw up of the operators and could have easily been prevented had there been a competent overseers in the command center.
As a result, the whole reactor core (which wasn't sealed in any containment vessel) blew up. Fuel rods, moderator rods, the reactor vessel and a part of the building were the reactor was was thrown several kilometers up to the atmosphere. Apart from the increased occurrence of thyroid cancer in the mostly exposed area no other serious effects on health were noticed. Yes, the numbers and calculations may vary, but it also should be noted that public health was monitored more extensively in the years after the disaster, so any increase in diseases might go on account of more available data.
In Fukushima nothing like that happened, some radioactive products were released when the pressure within the reactor had to be reduced, some escaped with the leaking water as the core melted down. On the other hand, there were 57 deaths cause by acute irradiation in Chernobyl, none in Japan, only the upcoming years will show if the disaster had any long-term impact on public health.
Based on this logic, should we ban air travel, car travel or even the goddamn electricity at all? They're also perfectly safe unless there's an accident. There's about 400 nuclear power plants all over the world plus some aircraft carriers and submarines and so far there have been only three accidents, two of them absolutely preventable.
Thermal power plants pollute the environment day by day and if you count the amount of lung cancers and other pulmonary diseases caused by the smoke, you'll get a rather disturbing number, JO53PHS has already shown you the Deaths/TWh stats, there's also damage to the environment caused by extensive coal mining.
i had a matiz, for 5 minutes...
daewoos and kia's just don't last in my hands... I need quality above all else.
btw electricity is more dangerous for the earth in some countries like India than Petrol...think about it
Indeed lot of country made electricity from Thermal power plants so.......hehe that's not as clean as nuclear (France forever the best).
Anyway, fyi neither PSA (Peugeot) neither Renault engineer believe in electricity as main power for cars. It would certainly stay a way to power for shopping trolley (basically your wife's car) but not for your car.
Do you believe global warming is a religion?
No, just like you don't die in real life after crashing your car in LFS
Also, power usage is measured in watts, not watt-hours.
Tristan is right everywhere on this post.What MadCatX said. Nuclear is undoubtedly the way forward in terms of energy production and I would happily live next to a nuclear powerplant. Nuclear power is less dangerous flying in terms of deaths and the only reason that people go "oh no not nuclear" is because of Japan and Chernoybl. They forget it's a one or two time problem.. Nuclear power is clean and in effect ever lasting. So...shove your conspiracist crap, no offense.
Just like with cars, stop reading greenpeace style stuff and the conspiracy "oh my god the Japanese are trying to kill us" stuff. Just as Nuclear is the only viable option for the future of our power, hydrogen fuel cell is the only viable option for the power of our motorised vehicles. However in our lifetimes that won't be a problem, we're nowhere near running out out oil, the only reason it's priced so high is because they can. They make BILLIONS of $$ PROFIT each year. I think the oil industry needs regulating, like the banks, with caps on prices etc, because when you're making billions of $$ profit and yet most people are struggling to fill their cars, where's the justice?
@Racer X NZ: Hey, really, there haven't been that many dead or injured from nuclear mishaps. Seems you are like those people who are afraid of terrorists bombs (like few thousands of deaths only in WTC, not that much, really), while they don't mind car accidents over the year or smoking of cigarettes (which goes into much higher numbers in total).
Just because it happens locally and suddenly doesn't mean it's the most dangerous thing to your life. Actually you are much more likely to die in car accident, then by bomb of some insane jerk. Once you die, it doesn't matter much, what was the reason.
I find the nuclear power plants much less dangerous to my life, then classic coal power plants, well, not just *I*, but the real life data facts find it less dangerous.
(I'm saying that as a person who was exposed to Chernobyl's accident as a small child, so my "health" fitness has been already lessened by nuclear power plant accident. I was living in Kosice/Slovakia, that's 700km from Chernobyl.)
Just because it happens locally and suddenly doesn't mean it's the most dangerous thing to your life. Actually you are much more likely to die in car accident, then by bomb of some insane jerk. Once you die, it doesn't matter much, what was the reason.
I find the nuclear power plants much less dangerous to my life, then classic coal power plants, well, not just *I*, but the real life data facts find it less dangerous.
(I'm saying that as a person who was exposed to Chernobyl's accident as a small child, so my "health" fitness has been already lessened by nuclear power plant accident. I was living in Kosice/Slovakia, that's 700km from Chernobyl.)
Electric cars in LFS?
(224 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG