One more link to put the Prius vs Hummer story to bed...

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/ ... udies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

Solar Hydro

Don't get me wrong, I *want* the Prius to be as green a car as possible, just like I want all cars to be greener than they are. I just think that (like all things that I don't actually fully understand) there will always be arguments.

I am sure there is a document which argues why the responses to the pacinst.org report are wrong and invalid and shouldn't be believed. Unless I know all the facts, and quite frankly I am never going to, I am never going to know which one I should actually believe is right.

oh dear, getting too deep now

/leaves conversation

Tim

ps just noticed that the Washington Post link confirms that I was right in post #198 above! hey hey, first time for everything

basically a car is not going to be green full stop. I think it would be better to find alternatives to cars than design new and better 'green' ones that need more energy to build in the firstlplace.

Good luck finding it! Trains - crap. Buses - crap. Bicycles - slow. M'bikes - non-green. Planes - no good for shorter journeys, and not exactly green.

If you think of something, we're all ears. I'm sure it's not impossible, but it's not very likely.

Solar powered roller skates.

A Little OT, sorry Solar

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w1C44JQU7Pc&feature=dir

There are similar posts about the clean solution...(which is not exists yet)

IMO the point is getting people to use automobiles for tasks that they are better at - simple as that. Overusing them in urban areas is pretty much pointless and in several cases ultimately slower and more costly than pedestrians or cyclists.

Machines like cars are great for covering large distances and hauling heavy things or multiple people. If people were more sensitive to prudent use of a machine powered by an internal combustion engine and serviced their machines properly so they work as they should then we wouldn't really need anything marketed as "green". However, now that we've come to what we've come it's best to actually explore alternatives in practice and not just theorise or spew concept cars here and there - at least the Prius exists.

well at best humans can only cut greenhouse gases about ten percent with our green machines and way of life. The sad truth is that the decomposition and bodily functions of all living things on earth account for 90 or more percent of all the greenhouse gases. But hybrid vehicles are a start, maybe next is cutting down on livestock, who knows?

Subject says it all...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2 ... ad-in-the-tesla-roadster/

Solar Hydro

Why oh why is the focus still on performance? With all the environmental problems that we have, why is it that even a progressive manufacturer like this still has to promote the sporting characteristics? What is so wrong about focussing on maximising the energy conservation, using narrower tyres, or using gearing that maximises efficiency within the speed limit?

Well, assuming theres no sarcasm in your post, it's because NO-ONE wants the things you listed, they want performance.

With finite resources on this planet, that is perhaps not the best way of living. We could do so much more to ensure there is a legacy.

Well thats all about changing people attitudes about things, which isn't going to be accomplished by a new all singing all dancing car that runs for a week from a mear fart.
People want performance, and generally don't really care about the planet. That attitude needs to change before manufacturers start to make cars with the planet FULLY in mind.

Quote from bozo :

With finite resources on this planet, that is perhaps not the best way of living. We could do so much more to ensure there is a legacy.

Depends if you believe the polititians (who we all know lie), or choose to look at the facts yourself. The simple thing is we are discovering more oil, coal and gas every day, and our KNOWN reserves have remained roughly constant for the last 50 years. Nuclear power is being expanded, and other decent forms of electricity are being worked on.

Unfortunately, Joe Public actually believe the polititians when they say Solar, Tidal and Wind power are green - they are not - they are just as destructive as fossil fuels IF NOT MORE SO IN THE LONG TERM.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Unfortunately, Joe Public actually believe the polititians when they say Solar, Tidal and Wind power are green - they are not - they are just as destructive as fossil fuels IF NOT MORE SO IN THE LONG TERM.

How would a windmill or solar panel be destructive in the long run?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Depends if you believe the polititians (who we all know lie), or choose to look at the facts yourself. The simple thing is we are discovering more oil, coal and gas every day, and our KNOWN reserves have remained roughly constant for the last 50 years. Nuclear power is being expanded, and other decent forms of electricity are being worked on.

Don't worry, I have never believed a politician. Equally I have never believed that fossil fuels are anything but a finite resource when they are extracted at current rates. If you were in a position to strategically manage the world for the next 500 years, would you allow the population to plunder all the resources in the shortest possible time? Only a sadist would opt for that route.

I wouldn't classify nuclear as a 'decent form of electricity', but I'll leave that one for now.

Be interested to understand how geothermal heat generation, tidal power, wind power and solar heating can be so destructive. I'm always open to new thinking, but I'm not convinced by your argument yet.

Quote from Solar Hydro :

Subject says it all...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2 ... ad-in-the-tesla-roadster/

Solar Hydro

That's funny, the hills it was driving on is right in my backyard!!!

It is pretty wet over here at the moment, but those windy hills are like my version of The Ring, and lots of sportscars and motorcycles go up there and drive pretty fast .

Strange though, I saw this very same Tesla on the road nearby my house about 3-4 months ago, I don't know why they are testing it now

Quote from frokki :

How would a windmill or solar panel be destructive in the long run?

Where does the energy come from with wind power, what happens to the wind with less energy, and what implications will that have on downwind (and, potentially, upwind) habitats and environments? In order to extract a meaningful amount of energy (sufficient to play a major role in the National Grid, for example) then this will MASSIVELY disrupt air currents, and cause untold damage to habitats and environments. People keep saying the world is fragile, and that the weather hangs on a balance, but are happy to play with it anyway.

Solar - apart from the fact that the reflected light is less likely to escape (it's wavelength is altered so that, in effect, it's Greenhouse Light), solar panels have lots of nasty metals and chemicals in them, which do not degrade, and are not currently processable. In fact, I believe that 1 tonne of solar panels contains MORE nasty stuff than 1 tonne of spent nuclear rods!

Tidal - again, it's the changes to currents, even if they are merely coastal currents. What will that change do to everything else? Fish stocks? Whales? Also, to remain a little light hearted, if you extract energy from the tides, then you are also altering the Moon's orbit (albeit not by much )!

No, fossil fuels are not the way to keep going, even though we are certainly nowhere near 'running out'. Nuclear currently remains the cleanest fuel source, with by far the least risk. And that's just facts not opinion. What waste there is is being reduced (per tonne of fuel) annually by the works of Sellafield and equivalent organisations.

The trouble is that most people think "oooh, wind power. Must be safe and green, because it's just there", completely failing to realise the further issues that might be caused downstream.

And when it's all said and done, we want electricity (generally), and it all ends up as heat, so Greenhouse or not, the more energy we use, the quicker we cook. But instead they made up some stuff, and got the world to blame CO2, which is hardly the main contributor to the big con of "Global Warming".

Interesting points, but who am I supposed to believe? Tristan Cliffe, or the big bad lying governments?

Would be best to make up my own mind, but since I don't have a spare life to dedicate for it, I think I just believe the majority of the guys who have done that. They say that global warming is true, and exponentially growing co2 emissions are the reason. Replacing fossile energy sources with "green" energy reduces co2 emissions.

However, as an individual, I don't care. This is the warmest winter ever and I'm loving it (Ok, some snow would be nice though)
IMO it's ridiculous if a European thinks he can save the world by using an energy saving light bulb in his bathroom.

tristancliffe you are exaggerateing here…

Yes Politicians mainly lie … but usually they use general truths to base their lies.
Renewable forms of energy such us solar or wind power are way less destructive than the usual burning thing we do with any other energy source. The fact that hypocrites "count" on them to pretend they care about environment doesn’t prove that these kinds of energy sources are useless and destructive…

I haven’t searched for info nor have I read in any researches that prove how the resistance caused by the wind generators can effect so badly the climet…
But if they could effect the wind so badly… so what about cities full of skyscrapers?? They don’t effect the environment resisting the winds?


Anyway I haven't any clue about that so I will just have it in mind for search...



But.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Solar - apart from the fact that the reflected light is less likely to escape (it's wavelength is altered so that, in effect, it's Greenhouse Light), solar panels have lots of nasty metals and chemicals in them, which do not degrade, and are not currently processable. In fact, I believe that 1 tonne of solar panels contains MORE nasty stuff than 1 tonne of spent nuclear rods!

You are completely wrong about that.
Solar panels are made with silicon, some plastic and some copper based metal mainly… and we already use plenty of these materials in many ways…
There is nothing nastier in solar panels than what we have in any electronic part in any device we use everyday.
As for the reflected light is way less than what we see on fashionable glass buildings.
The color and the matt glass you can see at solar panels prevent reflection for the simple reason that it reduces their effectiveness

YOu are wrong. It's a well known fact that making a solar pannel is such a dirty job it reeks havoc on the enviroment a lot mroe than you get from the pannel itself. It's not just silicon and copper but loads of heavy metals, mercury for example being one.

No it is not a fact and it depends on the working procedure to make a solar panel…

And as I said.. The procedure and the material usage to make a solar panel is extremely close to whatever silicon based electronic device we have around us.

Quote from frokki :

Interesting points, but who am I supposed to believe? Tristan Cliffe, or the big bad lying governments?

Me, obviously Seriously, I'm not saying believe me, I'm saying don't JUST believe what you are told - find the facts out yourself. This applies to everything, from taking your car to a service to the presence of aliens. You will rarely be told the whole truth (often for convenience as the whole truth may or may not be very complicated)...

Quote :

Would be best to make up my own mind, but since I don't have a spare life to dedicate for it, I think I just believe the majority of the guys who have done that. They say that global warming is true, and exponentially growing co2 emissions are the reason. Replacing fossile energy sources with "green" energy reduces co2 emissions.

But dig a little bit, and you'll find there is no evidence for 'global warming', and that CO2 isn't actually a major contributor to it anyway.

Quote :

However, as an individual, I don't care.

A good thing - I don't care about global warming, but I do care that a vast majority have fallen for the joke hook, line and sinker.

Quote :

This is the warmest winter ever and I'm loving it (Ok, some snow would be nice though)
IMO it's ridiculous if a European thinks he can save the world by using an energy saving light bulb in his bathroom.

For starters, energy saving lightbulbs ALSO have some nasty chemicals and metals in them (and/or used in their production) that are bad for the environment.

Quote from kaynd :

tristancliffe you are exaggerateing here…

Yes Politicians mainly lie … but usually they use general truths to base their lies.

No, they use whatever is convenient.

Quote :

Renewable forms of energy such us solar or wind power are way less destructive than the usual burning thing we do with any other energy source.

At the moment this is true. Because 'renewable' makes up less than 1% of the worlds power. Scale it up to 100% (which is the ideal if they are so good) and suddenly the small downsides become MAJOR problems. For example, it takes more energy (and therefore emissions) to put up, service and decommission a wind turbine than it will save/generate in it's working life. How can that be good when the basic analysis says the world (as a whole) would be better of for each wind turbine NOT erected?

Quote :

The fact that hypocrites "count" on them to pretend they care about environment doesn’t prove that these kinds of energy sources are useless and destructive…

But, sadly, they are.

Quote :

I haven’t searched for info nor have I read in any researches that prove how the resistance caused by the wind generators can effect so badly the climet…
But if they could effect the wind so badly… so what about cities full of skyscrapers?? They don’t effect the environment resisting the winds?

Because skyscapers just sit there. They aren't actively removing energy from the wind. Each wind turbine only takes a small amount. But a decent wind farm of, say, 1000 turbines will make a massive difference to the wind currents. Fact. Whether or not that is bad is actually unknown for sure (until it happens I guess), but how can changing the world's weather help?

Quote :

You are completely wrong about that.
Solar panels are made with silicon, some plastic and some copper based metal mainly… and we already use plenty of these materials in many ways…
There is nothing nastier in solar panels than what we have in any electronic part in any device we use everyday.
As for the reflected light is way less than what we see on fashionable glass buildings.
The color and the matt glass you can see at solar panels prevent reflection for the simple reason that it reduces their effectiveness

Maybe do a bit more research into solar panels

“Because skyscapers just sit there”
so they do not add any resistance to our system… hmm

“Maybe do a bit more research into solar panels”
I will sure do mainly because it is part of what I am studying…
There is nothing more I can argue about here.
I don’t know if you really know what you are talking about or you just have read some openminding articles.
You don’t know if I know what I am talking about. (and I am not willing to prove anything)

You have more posts than me -> you win

Quote from Primoz :

YOu are wrong. It's a well known fact that making a solar pannel is such a dirty job it reeks havoc on the enviroment a lot mroe than you get from the pannel itself. It's not just silicon and copper but loads of heavy metals, mercury for example being one.

Where exactly in the process do those heavy metals get introduced? Because from what I've actually seen of the process there was no need for any of that, unless they did it with sleight of hand tricks and I didn't get to see it. And the most popular ways of generating silicon don't have anything to do with mercury or whatever. So I guess that phase of construction is also out of the picture.