Briebee72
Well-Known Member
Oh god no..lol. I get trade in bug about a year in lolOf course not. I just remember thinking about spending a million miles in the same car. Not me!
Sponsored
Oh god no..lol. I get trade in bug about a year in lolOf course not. I just remember thinking about spending a million miles in the same car. Not me!
It takes all kinds. Remember this.
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2012/10/22/volvo-240-reaches-1-million-miles/
Crazy, right?
I’m actually waiting for the all hydroelectric-powered vehicle.I actually want Nuclear (fission and fusion).... It is the only viable technology as it stands today to supply our energy needs without fossil fuels in a large grid. Solar is useful for micro grids and local home power generation but do have issues scaling up to a large grid. And I do not mean Nuclear reactors from the 50s.... Much more modern and better designs out there for reactors that solve ALOT of issues (not the least of which being meltdowns...)
The local electric, and irrigation water, provider, Modesto Irrigation District (MID) gets most or all of its electrons from hydro. So, a BEV charged locally would be pollution-free (if you don't count all the canyons flooded by dams, roads to-and-from and canals).I’m actually waiting for the all hydroelectric-powered vehicle.
Here you go.......No I just want a little dam and waterfall on top of the car.
Well, I alluded to some of the consequences, and you made all sorts of assumptions of what kind of person I am (Disclaimer: I'm a 'gentleman' farmer*, gun-owner and aircraft and automobile enthusiast). Maybe if I used all caps (I know subtlety has been highly downgraded these days):If we're talking about saving the whales, hugging polar bears, and being actually environmentally conscious, hydro has some of the worst environmental impact of all energy sources. Those dams wreck the ecosystems both up and downstream. It takes decades to centuries for a stable equilibrium to establish dependending on the size of the flood zone/amount drained downstream. I'm not just talking about the local effects either. Enough damming can change weather patterns and create pockets of more arid land in the surrounding area. Nuclear is much lower impact. Now we just need to get Arizona to look the other way while we drop the spent fuel a mile deep in the mountains, far away from habitable land and any aquifers...
Agreed. None of the alternatives are really clean, but we need to find something to replace fossil fuels. So pick your poison, nuclear, wind, sun, or water.On a related note, how about the strip mining for the metals in batteries? Bottom line is, we are really bad at living here. May as well enjoy it while it lasts. I just find it funny when people mention "hydro" and "clean energy" in the same sentence.
Point taken, and I'll be more careful in my wording next time (I should have said 'relatively'). I took it on faith that the readers of this forum would understand that all sources of energy--including solar--as having some resource and environmental negative impacts (solar cells contain cadmium and lead, are not recyclable so are their own form of toxic waste) . Unfortunately, (new) nuclear is all but a non-starter in the US due to fear from the uninformed--the recent screening of "Chernobyl" on HBO certainly didn't help matters--and the waste disposal issues.On a related note, how about the strip mining for the metals in batteries? Bottom line is, we are really bad at living here. May as well enjoy it while it lasts. I just find it funny when people mention "hydro" and "clean energy" in the same sentence.
Cold fusion.