OK well I tell you what; how about I, and most of the rest of us enjoy cheap, clean power. You can sit there saying "oh noes we're all gonna die from nuclear1!11!!/1!" and how your babies and your babies babies will have 3 heads. You can get no power as you think it's all going to die.
And you're mixing and matching scenarios, saying you'd be using weapons grade plutonium as a fuel for a nuclear powerstation. Seriously...? That's not the only fuel they use nor is it even the most common. What a joke.
Clearly you have no interest in anyone other than yourself, that's fine.
Do you have the right to determine future generations health, you seem to believe they can just lump it as long as your all fine, great attitude mate.
Some of us believe we only have this planet on loan for future generations, we should try to pass it on in a live able condition but it's up to each off us to make that choice.
If you feel an irradiated wasteland is what the future deserves then that's up to you, however NZ as a country has made a different choice and we will continue to suggest that nuclear power is not safe.
Try reading the comments at the bottom of the 'banana' article, there are different types of radiation, but that would involve research !
What's my nuclear standpoint got to do with concern for others? My standpoint is that logically and risk vs reward it's safe and yes I would happily raise my family on nuclear power. Livable conditions, yeah right; the caves we'll have to live in in about 200 years would be great for everyone because some people don't do what is necessary to ensure the continuous supply of power to the people.
I mean what part of nuclear powerplant doesn't equal irradiated wasteland don't you get, I think you're just being obtuse because you enjoy it. I've read the banana article because I actually saw it on Wednesday when it was published on BBC as I read it at work from time to time. Fact.
DU is pretty scary stuff. But it's a tiny amount in one round. It's not like every DU shell or bomb has a reactor's worth of uranium in it. I'm not advocating its legality, quite the opposite.
HOWEVER...a nuclear meltdown has the potential to spread radiation over a larger area (e.g. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island radiation panic, Seascale fire and concerns).
Consider that from Chernobyl, radiation was found in Sweden within two to three weeks. Whereas from Fukushima, radiation was found outside of Japan...when exactly?
I wouldn't call it far greater. It is not great enough that it is a viable long-term alternative to fossil fueled energy. Electric cars will likely be the future when oil starts peaking (they are already economically competitive) but long term electricity supply will have to be met with a sustainable source other than uranium, as it will barely outlast oil, especially if large fleets of vehicles start being powered by it.
Offshore wind has potential, as do thorium reactors (although the dirty nuclear industry has proven it is not forthcoming to the public with negative effects of nuclear energy).
A Nissan Note which is a small family hatchback costs TWICE, yes, TWICE as much as a normal family hatchback. There is a Peugeot which is even more and about half the size of the Nissan. The only electric car cheap enough for most people to buy is the G-Wiz and that's shit. I'd rather walk around London in rush hour with my penis out, on a cold and frosty winter morning, than even be a passenger in one.
Hydrogen is the future for automotive power, this has already been debated and proven beyond any recourse. You can continue to use existing filling stations, just replace the petrol/diesel with Hydrogen gas tanks and dispensers, you can continue to drive as you do now, fill up (takes 2 minutes) and carry on with your journey, you only use what you need (unlike electric which is wasted, eg when on charge and reached max power), streets will not be cluttered with charging points/cables, and I mentioned the couple of minutes to refuel, compared to the 12-18 hour recharge time of an electric car... last week I had to drive to Kent on work. It was 260 mile round trip, I left at about 7pm and arrived at my Hotel around 10:30, and then drove back the next day. All done in comfort and style.
It would have taken me 3 days to drive there EACH WAY with an electric car, so would have been near as makes no difference a full week to get there and back, plus I'd have girls laughing at me for driving such a crap car to begin with. How is that progress, and electric power comes from power stations don't forget, most of which still run fossil fuel.
Add to that the fact that if you "fast" charge the batteries (so 3-6 hour charge) frequently, which you will have to do in order to be able to do anything, like GO TO WORK, or GO TO THE SHOPS, then you will end up ruining the very toxic, very environmentally unfriendly batteries (of which there tend to be THOUSANDS in an electric vehicle) so...
To quote James May, the reason the car of the future is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell, is because it's exactly like the car of today.
And when did anyone mention nuclear powered cars, that wouldn't work. You use Nuclear/renewable energy for electricity, providing power to peoples homes, etc, and use Hydrogen to fuel your cars, buses, etc.
Yeah the wind and sea power (the big long wiggly snake) have some good figures but wind power is not actually as effective as you might think. There is one very large turbine next to a business park close by, which even on the most windy day is not powerful enough to supply the 3 (large admittedly) office buildings so in my eyes is more of a band-aid than a cure.
No. 230 years of supply (including predicted future discoveries) at the current rate of consumption (significantly less if accounting for increasing energy demands) is not a viable long term sustainable energy supply.
Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Especially for US customers.
Although I don't disagree that hydrogen may also be a viable solution. When it is not produced via fossil fuels it is essentially like a battery electric vehicle with a more practical energy storage system and cooler engine. The problem of generating huge amounts of sustainable electricity (to produce hydrogen sustainably) remains.
Wee bit of an exaggeration if considering the current level of technology.
But the efficiency/emissions when run on fossil fueled generated electricity is still far greater than for internal combustion engines. Many countries generate mostly sustainable electricity though.
I was talking about using nuclear to generate the electricity which charges the batteries in electric vehicles...
A one million strong fleet of battery electric vehicles could be powered by the equivalent energy produced by less than 200 current generation wind turbines (in countries with fairly high and consistent winds), with wind turbine efficiency continuing to increase and costs (currently the most prohibitive factor) continuing to decrease.
Funny how the permanently banned demo user who came back despite being told to never come back doesn't realise that Hydrogen doesn't need to be "made" per se, it needs to be split down. Hydrogen is the most abundant substance on earth, the problem with hydrogen is getting it from water, for example, and then storing it.
Yes it is.
It looks like me when I got my face stuck in the doors of a lift. It's horrible.
It's not "also a viable solution" it's about 10 times better than a battery powered vehicle. Yes, it's an electric vehicle but the important part is that you don't have to hang around for days on end waiting for it to charge.
No, it's actually not. A full charge from 20% on most electric cars takes over 12 hours.
Oh. Well we're back to battery powered cars so I don't want to talk to you about that because it's daft.
And what countries have fairly high and consistent winds, England and most of America don't, for example.....
Electric cars are not really very good, even hybrids. I'm right in remebering that a new Merc S500 is less damaging to the environment over the life of the car than a Toyota Prius....
It somewhat amuses me that you keep coming back to this thread hoping to see furthered debate over whether development resources should be directed towards implementing electric cars in LFS, only to be disappointed upon discovering that after 6 pages a spin-off conversation has emerged which is not directly helping to resolve the seemingly very important issue to you of electric cars in LFS.
Do you always tell other people how to live? Are we getting in the way of all the raging debate over the merits of electric vehicles in LFS? Also interesting is that you would like us to give you a rest. May I suggest either not returning to this thread (hint: there are better things to spend LFS development resources on than EVs), or simply skipping over the posts made by those of us debating the future of personal transportation (though I'm not sure what posts you would be left with).
Yes it is ghastly, but the point was that it is an example of the technology being already more economical than internal combustion engines.
I too would much prefer to see hydrogen become the future of motoring rather than electric vehicles, but so far it is EVs being brought to the market place en mass.
Most of the major manufacturers who are producing half decent models are around the 8 hour mark these days.
England has highly productive offshore wind farms and Texas has ideal conditions for wind farms.
Hybrids are terrible. People buy them because they want to appear environmentally friendly, not because they want to be environmentally friendly. To say electric vehicles are not very good is ignoring that the i-MiEV is more energy efficient than nearly any other private passenger car on the market.
Incorrect assumption AndreNZ, wasn't me who started this thread, and I actually think it's a stupid idea to squander already stretched dev resources on electric simulated vehicles in this sim.
As for all the rest, it's pretty annoying to see personal rants hijacking any thread, not just this one.
I am aware you did not start this thread and I didn't once assume you did. Read my previous reply to you again with that in mind.
Hijacking a thread implies the original topic was still being hotly discussed. Expanding on the topic to areas some people find interesting in the dying stages of a thread (how many pages does it take to establish EVs in LFS are a waste of dev resources?) is not hijacking a thread.
I am sorry that other people getting into spin-off discussions after the main theme of the thread has died annoys you, but I am not going to withdraw from the interesting conversation I have been having just to cater to your irrational annoyance. I am also not going to start a new thread for the purposes of our conversation just to cater to your annoyance of conversation extending slightly beyond the original topic of the thread. My advice on preventing this annoyance of yours is to either stop taking life (and internet forums) so seriously, or simply choose to refrain from reading posts which you think are likely to sway too far from the original topic and hence annoy you.
Lets get this back on topic, you'd think that with 115 years of progress electric cars might have been developed slightly further.
Well, there's now a steering wheel but ............
And exactly how much has been spent to advance this technology ?
As the New York Times reported September 5, “For General Motors and the Obama administration, the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid represents the automotive future, the culmination of decades of high-tech research financed partly with federal dollars.”
Meet the Roberts electric car. Built in 1896, it gets a solid 40 miles to the charge — exactly the mileage Chevrolet advertises for the Volt, the highly touted $31,645 electric car General Motors CEO Dan Akerson called “not a step forward, but a leap forward.”
But while the Roberts electric car clearly lacked GPS, power steering and, yes, air bags, the distance it could achieve on a charge, when compared with its modern equivalent, provides a telling example of the slow pace of the electric car.
Driven by a tiller instead of a wheel, the Roberts car was built seven years before the Wright brothers’ first flight, 12 years before the Ford Model T, 16 years before Chevrolet was founded and 114 years before the first Chevy Volt was delivered to a customer.
That's all cool and stuff but progress is there - energy density of batteries (remember, there weren't LiIon / LiPo / NiMH, not even NiCad) back then was around 20-30 Wh / kg, while modern batteries have 8+ times more.
What you fail to notice is that Robert's electric car has max speed of 7 mph. Modern electric cars can do 400+, if not 800+, miles at that speed.
Especially for US customers. 
