0

Transportation uses a lot of energy, so when you talk about alternate energy then alternate transportation becomes an important issue.

What forms of transportation would you consider in your situation to minimize energy consumption?

Would it be a petrol saving minicar?

Just in the news, Tata, an Indian carmaker just introduced the Nano, a minicar. The Nano is scheduled to sell in Europe for 1700 Euro ($2,500). The Nano seats five passengers, has four doors and has a 33HP motor. It is safety engineered.

How about a hybrid car or a fully electric car? The expensive battery is the soft spot here. Also, the cost of electricity has to come way down for the fully electric car.

How about a watercraft? Did you know that it takes the QE2 luxury liner one gallon of diesel to move 6 inches?

Railroads, buses, aircraft, zeppelins, rockets, "beam me up Scotty", whatever, feel free to contribute and make us think.

19
Contributors
123
Replies
124
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by GrimJack
Featured Replies
  • 1

    Diesel engines are by now as clean as petrol engines or cleaner. The cancer scare is just that, a scare created by greenies in order to pressure for higher taxes and more draconian anti-car regulation (especially against company cars, which appeals to the far left who can then sell the … Read More

  • 1

    The current breed of "environmentalists" are purely political creatures who don't care about the environment except as a means to an end, the end being absolute political power. Personally I like to have clean air (and soil, etc.) as much as the next guy. But I also realise that the … Read More

  • There is something misanthropic about cars that run on food. I can just see some rich jerk running a car on steak and eggs. Read More

0

hybrids are a scam, huge amounts of acid rain and deforestatiin are caused in places like canada/alaska extracting the nickel and cadmium for the batteries and the copper for the coils.

the true electric cars tend to charge from coal fired power stations, producing more co2 than gasoline does.

also hhybrids are useless for fast driving. The motor only runs at low speeds, otherwise the petrol engine is used but it runs with an even lower fuel efficiency (mpg) than in a normal car due to the added weight and reduced size. In fact, something like 85% of all the savings made due to having a hybrid car are due to it switching off the engine while brake.

0

diesel if you ask me. the old ones - without the turbo. very cost effective (25km per 1 litre on a 2.0 litre engine is flippin' excellent)

0

~~~
the true electric cars tend to charge from coal fired power stations, producing more co2 than gasoline does.
~~~

I think the idea is to charge those from nuclear power stations over the long term. You are right, present batteries are not good enough. Something to put bright minds on then.

Presently diesels spew out cancer causing soot. Another thing that can be engineered to a minumum.

0

Hey I was watching this thing on NatGeo about this magnetic train system they're building in Europe that China ordered. Didn't finish watching it (fell asleep) but it seemed pretty cool

0

Ah yes, the MagLev. Magnetic Levitation. It's quite expensive and probably impractical, but that doesn't stop it from being cool.

0

Hey I was watching this thing on NatGeo about this magnetic train system they're building in Europe that China ordered. Didn't finish watching it (fell asleep) but it seemed pretty cool

Yeah, there is one of those running in Shanghai, connecting downtown with the airport at about one half airplane speeds. Not quite sure if I should call this a railroad or and air_road. I think it can do the 30 mile run in about 7 minutes.

0

What forms of transportation would you consider in your situation to minimize energy consumption?

Back local politicians who would propose extra lanes on the major throughways on which I drive my Chevy Silverado.

1

Diesel engines are by now as clean as petrol engines or cleaner. The cancer scare is just that, a scare created by greenies in order to pressure for higher taxes and more draconian anti-car regulation (especially against company cars, which appeals to the far left who can then sell the scheme as "not hitting the poor" as anyone knows only "rich people" get company cars).

The idea is NOT to get electric cars charged from nuclear power stations. Electric cars are another scam from the environmentalist movement.
Get everyone to use electric cars while at the same time trying to get every single means of producing electricity shut down.

Votes + Comments
happy birthday =D
0

A city car can be driven with compressed air for a distance of about 100 miles. Compressed air can be supplied by stations using electricty from nuclear power plants. The problem is that compressing air generates heat that needs to be used to heat homes, industry or green houses to be usefull rather than waste.

As the car drives it exhausts cold air.

0

Hey I was watching this thing on NatGeo about this magnetic train system they're building in Europe that China ordered. Didn't finish watching it (fell asleep) but it seemed pretty cool

there is very small a mag lev train here - i think its at manchester for the airport or something

0

A city car can be driven with compressed air for a distance of about 100 miles. Compressed air can be supplied by stations using electricty from nuclear power plants. The problem is that compressing air generates heat that needs to be used to heat homes, industry or green houses to be usefull rather than waste.

As the car drives it exhausts cold air.

Wow, compressed air instead of a battery to store the energy to move a small car. I assume the pressure cylinders are a part of the car's structure then. Could be a sturdy little car that would stand up to one of those klutzy SUVs.

Actually I found this on google, might be interesting for our Indian friends:
http://www.theaircar.com/tata_agreement.html

0

hydrogen cells are also a scam as most hydrogen for them is created by electrolysis (using vast amounts of electricty) or by reacting natural gas, releasing co2 and soot

0

Mass transit doesn't work, unless a lot of people want to make the same trips. In a city like mine, there are so many different possible trips that mass transit to cover even a tenth of them is prohibitively expensive.

There still is no concrete proof that global warming as a large scale effect is in fact happening, and even less that human actions are causing it. What we have are the opinions of "concerned" scientists with axes to grind.

We do have proof that Mars has global warming.

While we do have better light sources, that is not a justification for Congress banning the old ones. There are special uses without substitutes.

Too much of the whole issue is scare tactics, not science.

The best solution for the CO2 problem is to let the rainforests regrow.

0

I'm alwyas amused by Americans who say X/Y doesn't work. If you're going to say that, say it doesn't work in America. Because mass transit does work in other countries

0

About mass transit: the point of mass transit is not to taxi you from point A to point B; rather it's to find a series of points A', B', etc... such that people will be able to make up the difference with their intended route easily. If people weren't scared to walk a little, mass transit can be a very effective system.

On the other hand, there are situations in which mass transit is simply not feasible. In larger cities, (e.g. London, LA, NYC, etc), it works quite well, but I would attribute this to the density of desired destinations (on both ends of the trip). However, in smaller places, like where I live, it's not as effective. We do have public busing, and it does cover a good bit of ground, but it isn't sufficient to replace a car for most families. And then if you were to go out to a rural area, public transit would be either a joke, or a typical government waste of funds.

0

That's why gov't policies attempt to force higher population densities to create the "demand" for their billion dollar boondoggles.

0

That is sort of what I was saying. In the US, only the 15 largest cities are really well distributed enough for mass transit to support itself. It works very well in Chicago (I have used it). You can get almost anywhere in two hours or less. New York City isn't so well sited, because of the bottlenecks at the bridges.

In smaller places, mass transit is provided at government expense, solely for people who don't drive. It takes forever to get to any one destination, because the bus takes a circuitous route to reach all of the nursing homes, retirement villages, and dormitories.

I have seen only one smaller town where it might work. The town runs along a river valley. It is long, but only three blocks wide (with two streets running the full length end to end). A steep cliff and the river prevent further development from making the town wider.

In rural settings, forget it.

In my city, I could not ride the transit to work, because the first bus from my home gets to my work an hour after starting time. The last bus that leaves the area of my work passes before I get off work. And one day a week, I have to go to a location 22 miles away.

How far you can walk to the transit depends on your age and abilities, and how much you have to carry.

The demands for swiftness in business also prevent the use of mass transit. The boss wants it done before the bus can get there.

My point was that mass transit is not the panacea that most environmentalists citing only fuel-consumption figures see it as.

My favorite joke on mass transit:

"It is called "mass transit" because the vehicle is heavy. Because of this, it takes a great deal of time to get up to speed. That's why it is always late."

0

If people weren't scared to walk a little, mass transit can be a very effective system.

In freezing temps, walking a half a mile sucks. Throw in a little wind and it really sucks.

0

:icon_cheesygrin:

Note that all of the mass transit proponents live in southern California. They don't know about freezing temperatures, bridge bottlenecks, unpaved roads turning into quagmires, foot-deep snow on unshoveled walks, thunderstorms, and flooded sidewalks.

:icon_cheesygrin:

0

:icon_cheesygrin:

Note that all of the mass transit proponents live in southern California. They don't know about freezing temperatures, bridge bottlenecks, unpaved roads turning into quagmires, foot-deep snow on unshoveled walks, thunderstorms, and flooded sidewalks.

:icon_cheesygrin:

Note that mass transportation is not necessarily equal to public buses. :icon_cheesygrin:

0

public transport is too expensive here.

a 15 minute train journey costs me £7.95 return

A ~ 2mile bus journey is like £1.90 return

car is cheaper

0

hydrogen cells are also a scam as most hydrogen for them is created by electrolysis (using vast amounts of electricty) or by reacting natural gas, releasing co2 and soot

Hydrogen at best is a dangerous way to store energy. It would only take a small amount of hydrogen gas leaking out of your car to turn your whole garage into a giant bomb.

0

:icon_cheesygrin:

Note that all of the mass transit proponents live in southern California. They don't know about freezing temperatures, bridge bottlenecks, unpaved roads turning into quagmires, foot-deep snow on unshoveled walks, thunderstorms, and flooded sidewalks.

:icon_cheesygrin:

Those folks know a lot about earthquakes, mudslides, flashfloods and wild-fires. The best way there is to use a horse for personal transportation, at least the horse has some sense.

0

public transport is too expensive here.

a 15 minute train journey costs me £7.95 return

A ~ 2mile bus journey is like £1.90 return

car is cheaper

And automobile drivers subsidize public transportation! That way you get to pay anyway. :)

0

public transport is too expensive here.

a 15 minute train journey costs me £7.95 return

A ~ 2mile bus journey is like £1.90 return

car is cheaper

Let's compare apples with apples here. How far does a 15 minute train ride get you? I hope it's more than 2 miles.

Also, how much would you spend on petrol and other car costs (insurance, parking, car loan interest etc.) covering the train miles?

0

9 miles thats:

7.95 = 795p

796 / 9 = 88.3p per mile = $1.72 a mile

which is more than a car

1 EU litre = 0.22 UK gallons

Diesel is under £1.10 a gallon and my dads diesel car does 56.4 mpg

1 gallon = approx £5
i need to go 9 miles at 56.4 mpg

so its a hell of a lot cheaper to use a car than a train (works out at approx 80p for the 9 mile trip)

0

9 miles thats:

7.95 = 795p

796 / 9 = 88.3p per mile = $1.72 a mile

which is more than a car

A whopping 9 miles, many SUVs in this country would use a whole gallon of gas for that. Hmmm, 9 miles in 15 minutes, that is a very slow train.

How about the other costs?
Price of the car $25,000 (6 year lifetime)
Price of the loan $10,000
Price of insurance $1000/year (if you are young)
Parking $8.00 (any larger city)

0

still think the car is cheaper, and its easier

once i get tp the station i have to walk like 0.5 mile down an firt path

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.