Recent Comments:
Honda unveils Japanese FCX Clarity - now with more heated seats! {Autoblog Green}
Jul 2nd 2008 3:54PM We all keep saying this, meme, but still hydrogen gets massive subsidies, and still people like a.brien think it's a great idea. Somehow people haven't picked up on the fact that this was yet another of Bush's terrible ideas. Perhaps because so few people were watching that speech?
A-Class Mercedes: Goodbye fuel cell, hello Tesla battery? {Autoblog Green}
Jun 30th 2008 9:48PM HOORAY!
Finally someone ditches idiotic fuel cells for efficient BEVs!
*opens champagne*
John McCain doesn't know how much gas costs {Autoblog Green}
Jun 30th 2008 9:43PM I am much too far to the left to even consider a vote for McCain, but I'll be honest--this quote is taken completely out of context. I agree with the other posters here who pointed out that the question was about the cost of gas WHEN HE LAST PUMPED IT. Not now.
John McCain has a huge number of problems as a presidential candidate, from a lack of understanding of basic economics (tax cuts will save us!) to a completely wrongheaded foreign policy based on incorrect assumptions (bomb Shi'ite Iran because they're supporting Sunni al Qaeda!). But let's give the man some credit--he's a war hero, he's an extremely decent human being, and he knows what gas costs these days.
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 2:53PM *sigh* People just don't get it. The cost to operate a nuclear power plant is very low, yes. In fact, it's ahead of fossil fuels in terms of operating cost alone. And yes, the 0.10/kwh you pay now is competitive with other sources of power.
But I have news for you: first of all, that nuclear power plant got heavy subsidies from the government. More than that, though, is that the absolutely staggering cost of building that sucker has been paid off (or mostly so) by now. That means it'll be cheaper to draw on the existing plants, but to build more capacity will require a massive investment, one that utilities are not willing to make, because it just isn't competitive with fossil fuels (read the Salon article I linked to). And I love how you use the going rate for nuclear power (thus leaving out capital expenditures) but take the up-front cost for solar.
And more news: there are perfectly viable ways to store excess energy produced by solar and wind power, so that demand at night can be met. It's called solar thermal, and numerous companies are working on ever-cheaper ways to do it. Meanwhile, no one is working on nuclear power, and for good reason: the capital costs are far too high, and no one wants a nuclear power plant next door. Between those two, you'll be very hard-pressed to get a plant built without putting a huge percentage of the up-front costs on the government's tab.
I don't have a problem with nuclear per se. I just don't want my tax dollars spent building the plants. If the industry wants to build nuclear plants, then they have my blessing. But if the government is going to spend money, I'd rather it be on a trans-continental high-speed rail system, or a nationwide superconducter smart grid, or wind, or solar thermal, or tax credits for plug-in hybrids. All of those would be better ways to spend money than nuclear power. Especially when we're already spending so much money trying to get nuclear power's cleverer and prettier sibling, fusion, off the ground.
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 11:56AM What I'm saying is, nuclear isn't economically viable, never mind the environment. So anyone who wants it isn't paying attention to the facts, because it will NEVER WORK short of a massive scientific breakthrough. Natural gas is about the cleanest commercially viable mainstream power source we've got.
And just in case anybody doesn't know, clean coal projects are being cancelled due to being WAY overbudget. The idea that nuclear and clean coal can provide us with easy answers to the energy quandary we face is ridiculous. If it seems to good to be true, IT IS.
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 11:16AM "The notion that we can replace all our our dirty generation in short order with just Solar and Wind is a fantasy. Period, end of story."
Fair enough. But the notion that we can replace all our dirty power generation in any amount of time with nuclear power is worse than just a fantasy, it's plain idiotic.
See here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/
Or here:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Or here:
http://energy.ihs.com/News/Press-Releases/2008/North-American-Power-Generation-Construction-Costs-Rise-27-Percent-in-12-Months-to-New-High-IHS-CERA.htm
Or here:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917
Or perhaps here:
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf
Any questions?
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 10:39AM Never mind the environment. Nuclear power does not make economic sense. The costs to build them are too high, the price of uranium is going up too rapidly, and solar and wind power combined with thermal energy storage can do the same job as nuclear power plants for a lower initial investment with dramatically lower maintenance and operating costs.
People who like nuclear have not done their homework. The utilities have, and thats why we haven't had any plants built for so long. Not because of regulations (although they don't improve the numbers any), but because of cold hard economics.
As for clean coal, how's that working out for the current administration?
At Witz' End - Lies and Deceptions {Autoblog Green}
Jun 10th 2008 12:53PM I'm willing to leave the climate science to climate scientists, with full understanding that they can be wrong.
But as for vehicle quality, he's nuts. Why do Japanese cars depreciate more slowly? Because everybody knows that an old Honda or Toyota or Nissan will go for 250k+ miles without having to spend more than the car is worth to repair it. American cars? Not so.
I admit that this is more applicable to older cars from the 90s and early 00s. Yes, Detroit has been doing better on initial quality surveys and "reliability" measures. But those are based exclusively on car's early life--under 100k miles. No one much cares what happens to the car when it's under warranty (it's just an inconvenience). It's after the warranty that things really go wrong. The new Detroit cars are going to have to prove that they can last as long as Japanese cars do. Until we see American cars with 180k miles selling for over $3500, I sure as hell won't believe that Detroit's cars can match Japan's.
Vibering concept warns of impending vehicles {Autoblog Green}
Jun 5th 2008 12:14PM A very interesting idea, and much better than the ridiculous demand that we add noisemakers to electric cars.
By the way, speaking of electric drive, the Aptera shows up in a video on CNN.com today.
Europe's longest Solar Rally headed for a 250-mile, sun-powered week {Autoblog Green}
Jun 3rd 2008 10:36AM Did they offset the carbon emissions from building and shipping the solar panels?
