Slashdot Mirror

Sorry to contradict you, but I think you misunderstood my point, and you're factually wrong about the cost of stopping and starting your car. Here's a little info on both points I mentioned as examples, along with their sources (one Canadian, one American). These are just a couple of many insignificant changes we can make that have the potential to make a really big difference. My point is that we can do a lot without making any of those draconian lifestyle changes everybody's afraid of.

"If every driver of a light duty vehicle avoided idling by five minutes a day, collectively, we would save 1.8 million litres per day of fuel, almost 4500 tonnes of GHG emissions, and $1.7 million in fuel costs every day (assuming fuel costs are $0.95/L). There is lots of opportunity to achieve that goal. Research indicates that Canadian motorists idle their vehicles an average of 5 to 10 minutes a day. One study suggests that in the peak of winter, Canadians voluntarily idle their vehicles for a combined total of more than 75 million minutes a day - equivalent to one vehicle idling for 144 years! We idle about 40 percent less in summer, but it still amounts to an enormous waste of fuel and money. Research has shown that if you are going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds (except in traffic), you will actually save on fuel by turning off then restarting the engine. The catalytic converter will stay warm for up to 25 minutes after the engine is shut off so frequent restarts will not produce the large amounts of harmful emissions equivalent to cold starts."

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/idling/issues/why-idling-problem.cfm?attr=16

"If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars."

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I'd be interested in hearing your response. I had a hard time believing how much we just piss away, too. There's lots more of these silly little changes that could be made that don't cost anything but have real effects when they're all added up.

I think one of the things that helps Canadians embrace technology is that we have a low density on average, and we have relatively few highly dense population centres. It gives us the ability to roll out new tech infrastructure to a majority of people with little wasted lines. Also, you can connect the denser areas in fairly direct lines, with maybe 5 branches. Here's a map that will give you an idea. This is an ideal situation for fibre. And given how spread-out the population centres are, it supports our economy to have those population centres connected by technology. There's nothing like money to give the government and business a reason to do something.
All this leads to huge penetration with e-banking, ATM density, interac usage, and other technologies that fall directly into the average person's lap.

Anyone that isn't into business or economics up here gets excited about the CDN dollar being stronger because it translates into better cross border shopping for a very small minority...

In 2001, most of Canada's population of 30 million lived within 200 kilometres of the United States. In fact, the inhabitants of our three biggest cities -- Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver -- can drive to the border in less than two hours.

You sell us oil? You're joking right?

We sell *you* you're oil ... and beef ... and lumber ...

Read up http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/trade/fuel_st1-4.htm

In Canada, I believe that Alberta (our version of Texas, if you will) also has similar legislation.

It's not legislation (in fact, I'm not aware of any legislation passed to this effect). It's reality. There are a number of wind farms in southern Alberta, including Cowley Ridge, which has been running since the early 90s, The McBride Lake Wind Farm, which has been running since 2003, The Summerview Wind Farm , which opened in 2005, and many others I'm sure I've missed, with more being planned.

Of course not.

Guess what... a thermometer has 400 times more mercury than a CFL . So do many of your other household products you use every day.

Can we go back to saving energy and the air now? I don't want to die of skin cancer by 2012.

Thanks.

"Why are they importing instead of exporting right now? Because oil is currently dirt cheap, compared to what it will be in 20 years. Canada is just sitting back, watching the world tear itself apart over oil, all the while not sharing what they have."

Those smug Canadians, floating on their pools of black gold.

It's a load of nonsense. Firstly, you're wrong. Canada is a net exporter of oil (read the section titled "Consumption and Trade"). Canada exports all it can, the vast majority to the U.S., and it is developing pretty much everything that is currently economic. And oil is only part of the equation: Canada also exports vast amounts of natural gas and hydroelectric power to the U.S. We provide energy on the cheap, and from a strategically and politicaly secure location. We keep your lights on, and you pay us in hard currency (which helps to explain the relative erosion of the US dollar versus Canadian dollar in the last several years, but I digress). Anyway, it is a good deal for both parties. It sure as hell is cheaper for the U.S. than getting energy from, say, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East. Arguably it is also better than depending on Venezuela (also a big U.S. source).

While it is a net exporter, Canada does import oil. Why? The main reason is simple: it's cheaper to import it by sea from elsewhere than to ship it cross-country by pipeline, pipelines which, in some cases, don't exist to the relevant areas (e.g., to Atlantic Canada -- the pipelines leading from the main production in western Canada stop in Quebec). Sometimes it is also a matter of supply bottlenecks in the pipeline system and the type of crude oil that is needed at a given refinery (e.g., the "light" stuff, which is better for gasoline). There's nothing nefarious or stingy about it. And if you look at the huge reserves and figure we're hoarding it, no, the Tar Sands, while vast, are extraordinarily expensive to produce. That's the real problem: getting it extracted. If you look at what's called "conventional" oil (the type that is easy to pump out of the ground), Canada is quite far down the list on the global scale (though still the biggest supplier to the U.S.).

If you want the cynical view, the U.S. is sucking Canada dry like some kind of oil vampire, paying us money for the service, and we accept the fact that, down the line, as indigenous resources dwindle, we may wish we didn't sell it off so early and cheaply. A good example of the real dynamic with the U.S. is the development of a big natural gas project offshore Nova Scotia. Probably 90% of the natural gas is shipped to Boston, not Canada, and the project probably would have never happened were it not for the US market. So, we're getting paid, and the U.S. is getting a stable resource. That's fair.

Anyway, I take some offense at the idea that we're holding something back. As a Canadian, and thinking longer-term, I kind of wish we were, but we're clearly not.

The amount of mercurty in 5 CFLs is approximately the same amount as 1 WATCH BATTERY. And those 5 CFLs will light your house for around twice as long as that watch battery lasts.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ENERGYSTAR/english/consumer s/questions-answers.cfm#mercury

I fail to see why the majority of people insist on ignoring the superior technology of the AECL's CANDU reactor. It uses unenriched fuel, does not produce bomb grade waste and cannot meltdown.

Maybe because it's not American its not valid or allowed? Sort of like the Avro Arrow?

There is no shortage of uranium for CANDU reactors.
http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=493
http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=497&oid=1188#Fact_Sheet

TFA is a load of BS.

I fail to see why the majority of people insist on ignoring the superior technology of the AECL's CANDU reactor. It uses unenriched fuel, does not produce bomb grade waste and cannot meltdown.

Maybe because it's not American its not valid or allowed? Sort of like the Avro Arrow?

There is no shortage of uranium for CANDU reactors.
http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=493
http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=497&oid=1188#Fact_Sheet

TFA is a load of BS.

You do realize that Canada is the world largest producer of Uranium?

http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=430

Add to the fact that Alberta has more petrol than the rest of the world combined (although embedded in sand), I bet the invasion is not that far....

I agree with everything you said, but as has been noted, CFL have mercury in them.

How to use the ellipsis.

Population density does not determine broadband penetration. Population density distribution does. Look at this map and this table to see the distribution of Canada's population. Over 80% of Canada's population lives on maybe 10% of its land. That's a perfect storm for high broadband penetration with low overall population density.

For Canada: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001

I leave it the reader to find similar stats for the other countries.

http://earth.esa.int/applications/dm/archdm/disman /db/synthesis_reports/SRCanada.html: Look at figure 3.

and http://www.canadainfolink.ca/chartten.htm

or http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-71476

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001 gives some general information.

-dave

Don't confuse population density with decentralization. More than 90% of Canada's population lives within 200km of the US, and 41% of actual Canadian soil contains less than .3% of the population.

Canada's actually got a considerably more centralized population than the US. You've got the vast majority of your people living in a narrow strip of land.

Reference:
Canada
Canada

Well you must have a bad batch, I have had every light on my house running on CFLs for over 2 years now, not a single burnout. They should have had a 5 year warranty on them - why didn't you pursue it?

As far as mercury content - I suggest you read up. Not only is the amount 1/5 of that found in a common watch battery, because you only replace the bulbs every 5-6 years you're using less mercury than someone who buys one AA battery in 5 years :

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumer s/questions-answers.cfm?attr=4#mercury

Eventually demand will surpass capacity to produce
Remember, this is just one source of vegetable oil / biodiesel.
Biodiesel can be made from many other organic products or waste:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/fuels/biodie sel/biodiesel-benefits.cfm?attr=16
One more for the list, and possibly even the most important source; biodiesel from algae:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Back in 1999 I had an internship at a "spaceport" in idaho competing to be the home of Lockheed's failed Venture Star (X-33). The advantages in Idaho are you start at about 5000 feet elevation and if you want a polar orbit the farther north the better. Since the plan was to pick 2 sites idaho (like about 30 other sates) thought they could have a compelling reason to be the second, every one assumed florida would be one. Based on my experience there and the problems we were facing because we would have to fly close to calgary and edmonton I have to say flying over DC is definately a very long shot. The population density of the east coast will be very problematic for anyone trying to launch east that is not on the coast. If you launch from the mid west by the time you get to the coast your rocket will have enough velocity to bring many more cities into play during an error/failure than those you fly directly over (Boston, NYC, Phili, Baltimore, DC). I am not saying it is impossible but you will have a very hard time proving to the FAA and the public that there is a 10E-9 or even 10E-6 chance of killing someone during an error (these were the kinds of numbers we were trying to show for launching north from idaho). For reference population densities of canada can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001 and population densities of america can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001.

Back in 1999 I had an internship at a "spaceport" in idaho competing to be the home of Lockheed's failed Venture Star (X-33). The advantages in Idaho are you start at about 5000 feet elevation and if you want a polar orbit the farther north the better. Since the plan was to pick 2 sites idaho (like about 30 other sates) thought they could have a compelling reason to be the second, every one assumed florida would be one. Based on my experience there and the problems we were facing because we would have to fly close to calgary and edmonton I have to say flying over DC is definately a very long shot. The population density of the east coast will be very problematic for anyone trying to launch east that is not on the coast. If you launch from the mid west by the time you get to the coast your rocket will have enough velocity to bring many more cities into play during an error/failure than those you fly directly over (Boston, NYC, Phili, Baltimore, DC). I am not saying it is impossible but you will have a very hard time proving to the FAA and the public that there is a 10E-9 or even 10E-6 chance of killing someone during an error (these were the kinds of numbers we were trying to show for launching north from idaho). For reference population densities of canada can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001 and population densities of america can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001.

Looks at the population density per province, not a national whole. It's a lot higher once you remove the territories (i.e. most are near the 38th and in the Golden Horseshoe area). Almost the entirety of the populace (99.7%) is in little over half the country's landmass (59%).

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001

It's not a nuke.

Compare the purported "nukular test":
http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_d ata/INCN_24hr.html

Notice how long this lasts.

To a _real_ nuclear test
http://can-ndc.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/980528_e.php

It's not a nuke.

Compare the purported "nukular test":

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_d ata/INCN_24hr.html

Notice how long this lasts.

To a _real_ nuclear test

http://can-ndc.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/980528_e.php

Again, notice how long this lasts. Hint: look at the scale of both graphs.

One of these things is not like the other.

I'm sure that you can figure it out for yourself.

--
BMO

Or you find kmberlite in the artic, buy up a shit load of frozen acres, and develop diamond mines there. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/ms/diam/index_e.htm

Just like these.

here: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e. php

Actually, that's the dipole approximation of the Earth's magnetic pole as seen from above the Article Circle. The link said:
Although almost 90% of the observed magnetic field can be approximated by a dipole, the 10% left over, called the non-dipole field cannot be ignored. In places it can be large relative to the dipole field, thus altering noticeably the shape of the observed field.
Hence I was referring to this image of the total field intensity.

From the link I posted:
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
So if we were to plot 'magnetic field strength magnitude' over 'Earth surface', it would have two local maxima. (in other words, see the picture.) At the moment, the one over Canada is stronger. The North Pole appears to 'move' when you are at a distance because the field strength of the Siberian maxima is getting stronger relative to the Canadian maxima. It is a simple average of two magnetic fields.

The poles actually move around quite a bit with no real predictability although, fluid models of the Earth's inside have been able to reproduce pole reversal. this page: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e. php has some nice maps of where the Pole's been for the last few hundred years. The way they figure out where magnetic north was in 1600 is by the magnetic polarization of sea floor near spreading areas. Each new piece of the sea floor cools with a record of the magnetic field when it was created.

The magnetic north pole is in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Canada (roughly 80 degrees north and 110 degrees west).

It's been moving north over a hundred years. If it continues it will get to Siberia around 2050.

Here are a few links from the Geological Survey of Canada:
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.p hp
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e. php

The magnetic north pole is in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Canada (roughly 80 degrees north and 110 degrees west).

It's been moving north over a hundred years. If it continues it will get to Siberia around 2050.

Here are a few links from the Geological Survey of Canada:
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.p hp
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e. php

Two magnetic norths? Are you referring to the two center points in this image? One is magnetic north, the other is geographical or geometrical north -- the center of the 37.5* arc that the Earth rotates around.

But this site sure has them and this site has some too.
Read them. They are worth it.

It looks like there are two magnetic norths on the planet. Our current one looks like it is just the additive of the major and minor magnetic fields of the earth with their collective strengths oscillating over time... hence the apparent movement.

What if MS had put a fridge in the Xbox 360? Surely, that'd be a good enough cooling system, wouldn't it? It'd have to be the best they could possibly do at any price, right? And it'd get down to below 32F in there! Surely, we're set up!

But what happens if you put this fridge-designed Xbox 360 in an entertainment console which doesn't vent any air? Since the "hot side" and "cool side" are now in the same box, it does nothing. And since the system is taking in energy, both to be a game machine, and also to (uselessly) move freon around, it will heat up in that box. The temperature in the box, even the cool side will rise until the box it is in can radiate heat well enough to maintain a stable temperature.

I will say it again, for the millionth time, you don't understand thermodynamics. No matter how good or poor MS' cooling system is, you completely defeat it (actually make it work against you) if you put it in a stereo cabinet that has no ventilation. Your fridge would not work if put in an enclosed space either. You simply don't have an enclosed space large enough to put it in. It will work in a corner, it won't work in a box. And also to note, it doesn't have anything inside it that is generating 160W of heat. It has stuff inside it that is generating exactly 0W of heat. It simply has to fight entropy, not fight actual heat generation.

As to this fridge you speak of using less power than an Xbox 360, a typical fridge in 2002 uses 440KWh of power per year http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/english/page16.cf m?PrintView=N&Text=N. That's 1200Wh per day. That's 1/3rd what an Xbox 360 would use if it were turned on all day (160W*24h/day = 3840Wh/day). And the Xbox 360 takes up only about 1/3 of a cubic foot, a standard fridge probably is about 20 cubic feet (on the outside), thus it has many times the surface area with which to radiate/convect heat away, oh, and unlike an Xbox in a sealed container, it can blow exhaust air to eliminate heat. So I mention again, are you really understanding what is going on here?

Again, the laws of thermodynamics don't give you the choice of making a completely enclosed cooling system work. It gives you a couple options:

1. Vent the enclosed space. This is the best option, but it isn't under MS' control.
2. Make the 360 work at the temperatures it could possibly reach if fully enclosed. If this were possible, then the Xbox 360 wouldn't even have a fan in the first place, because radiative/convective cooling would be enough to keep it running in all conditions. Note that since the exhaust temps on my 360 can reach 140F, that means making the 360 work when the entire system is significantly hotter than that.
3. Make the 360 use less power, and thus heat up less. This is definitely possible, but if done, it would make the system not a better performer than current generation systems.
4. Make the 360 large enough that it won't fit in any enclosure people are likely to have around (stereo cabinets). This would suck since the DVD drive on it is so damn loud. Plus it would cost too much to ship from where it is made.

So, 1 can't be done by MS. 2 can't be done by anyone. 3 & 4 make the unit unsellable.

What is your suggestion again? Oh, that MS should mention that you can't put it in an enclosed space. Did you perhaps check page 2 of the manual? http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/re trieve.cgi?attachment_id=581228&native_or_pdf=pdf

Xbox 360 doesn't overheat unless you restrict its good cooling system from working (by putting it in a box or possibly the power supply on deep shag). It's in the same place as your fridge, despite being at a significant handicap as to power dissipation and surface area.

I do think it's a shame that video games now use so much power and em

I can vouch that they are in fact based in British Columbia. I work for NRCan and deal with them on a regular basis. Well, I don't actually speak to anyone there, but I send them data to process from one of our stations.

I'm not sure I can talk too much about it, but feel free to check this out:
http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/

So you're getting 4.5 l/100km. So which of Honda Insight, Toyota Prius or Smart Twofour do you have? None of those are your average "mid-size" car. Even the VW's with the TDI engines aren't that efficient.

Efficiency numbers here:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/personal/buy ing/compare.cfm?attr=8

I went on a tour of the Pacific Geoscience Centre a couple of years back. They had a presentation showing world maps of water temperatures over the past one hundred years. The temperatures have gone up significantly.

A number of vessels have recently made it (or almost made it) through the Northwest passage. The central (and east) still freezes up quickly but the Beaufort Sea is open much longer.

I could go on and on but there might be something more entertaining on Foxnews that is begging for my apathy and attention.

The Canadians have been operating one since 1995 (http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/data/satsens/rad arsat/rsatndx_e.html). This was the first satellite to radar image the entire south pole.

hmmm really: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration .htm
america: coal 50% nukes, 20%, hydro 7%
yes majority, but still 20% is a fair amount

http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=454&oid=779
canada: 60% hydro, 16% nuke, 20% fossil fuels
the majority is hydro.

IN FACT! if we go here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/elec.html

and look at 6.3 World Net Electricity Generation by Type, 2002

we see that the world totals are:
World Totals
fossil fuels 9,905.81
hydro: 2,619.10
Nuclear 2,546.01
total: 15,363.07

so fossil is 64% of the WORLD and 34% is nuke or hydro. Considering fossil is older its no wonder it generates more, yet still 34% is a fair bit. but again your missing the point.

not only is it moveing the source of generation to more efficent and cleaner stations, burning coal/gas/oil in central places like a powerplant allow you to put in expensive scrubbers to clean the air, and use more efficent converion metholds. cars will never be that clean OR efficent.

also once hydrogen is used to power cars and fueling stations are widespread, it hopefully can be used to power more things like generators and anything needing portable power.

and personaly i'd much rather have a few fossil plants somewhere far away and all the cars in the city no longer putting chemicals and pollutants into the air I breath thank you.

so go suck a tailpipe form a fossil fuel car

A little googling places the Model T at 25 mpg (see http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?link id=23218).

This is slightly better than something like a porsche Carrera 2 (which http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/personal/buy ing/ reckons can get 22mpg city and 34mpg on the motorway).

Now is the Porsche an average vehicle? Not round here it isn't :)

Actually, diesel automobiles (such as the VW TDI, Peugeot 307 and SMART car) are typically amongst the lowest greenhouse polluters according to the Government of Canada and the EPA. Even urban particle count measurements have automibile diesel engines scoring well compared with gasoline engines. You are most likely confusing the modern diesel automobile with older trucks widely used in the transportation industry. I'd be quite interested in the 'stark facts' you suggest. Perhaps you can post a link?

3 litres/100 km is way better than most good fuel economy cars, especially in N. America where small cars seem to be banned ;) Seriously, check the mileage rates from the government of Canada.

Here's the top 25 (sorry, I tried to format it better, but /.'s braindead lameness filter wouldn't have any of it):

HONDA INSIGHT 3.9/3.3
TOYOTA PRIUS 4/4.2
MERCEDES-BENZ SMART FORTWO CDI 4.6/3.8
HONDA CIVIC HYBRID 4.9/4.6
HONDA CIVIC HYBRID 5.2/4.3
VOLKSWAGEN GOLF TDI 6.2/4.6
VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI 6.2/4.6
VOLKSWAGEN NEW BEETLE TDI 6.2/4.6
VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI WAGON 6.5/4.6
VOLKSWAGEN NEW BEETLE TDI 6.5/5.2
TOYOTA ECHO HATCHBACK 6.7/5.2
TOYOTA ECHO 6.7/5.2
VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI 7.3/5
VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI WAGON 7.3/5
VOLKSWAGEN GOLF TDI 7.3/5
TOYOTA COROLLA 7.1/5.3
TOYOTA ECHO HATCHBACK 7.1/5.5
TOYOTA ECHO 7.1/5.5
HONDA CIVIC 7.5/5.7
FORD ESCAPE HYBRID 6.6/7
TOYOTA COROLLA 7.8/5.6
HONDA CIVIC Si 7.6/5.9
HONDA CIVIC 8/5.7
TOYOTA COROLLA MATRIX 7.9/5.9
PONTIAC VIBE 7.9/5.9


Note: 3.3 l/100km ~= 86 mpg (I didn't calculate if that's US or Imperial gallon); 7.9 l/100km ~= 36 mpg

As you can see, the list hardly even gets in to the average (inefficient) car you will see on the roads this side of the Atlantic. Yes, Honda Civics do sell well here in Canada, but most of them are twice a far far worse than the fuel consumption rate that you quoted for the A380.

Just go the whole hog and have car exlusionary zones! I chose to live in a place where I can cycle all year around (downtown Toronto) and my life would be easier without the cars :D

I also think the government should impose taxes on guzzlers and use them for rebates for non-guzzlers. Take an arbitrary fuel consumption number like 10 litres/100km (I'll let you calculate that in mpg), and then tax cars that can't do that. Say for each litre per 100km over that limit, there is an annual tax of 1% of the vehicle's original value. The owner of a vehicle that cost $20K new that does 12 l/100km will have to pay $400/yr extra tax. Give that as a rebate to people who chose to buy cars that do less than 5 l/100km, there aren't many at the moment. So the big three aren't willing to take any initiative and say they do what the market demands... well this will kick-start a change in the market!

Because the step to an all electric car was longer than the step to a hybrid. I work for the Office of Energy Efficiency (part of Natural Resources Canada) and we're testing a verity of fuels. Yesterday I went for a ride with a biodiesel converted Smart car, and it worked fine. But I doubt it will catch on though, since the cost for biodiesel is still too high. Gasoline/electric hybrids is the next step, since it's still the most cost-effective alternative (Hydrogen cars would have been cooler, but the infrastructure is not there yet.).

Because the step to an all electric car was longer than the step to a hybrid. I work for the Office of Energy Efficiency (part of Natural Resources Canada) and we're testing a verity of fuels. Yesterday I went for a ride with a biodiesel converted Smart car, and it worked fine. But I doubt it will catch on though, since the cost for biodiesel is still too high. Gasoline/electric hybrids is the next step, since it's still the most cost-effective alternative (Hydrogen cars would have been cooler, but the infrastructure is not there yet.).

Hydrogen and other alternative fuels.

Hydrogen and other alternative fuels.

I looked and looked, but everywhere I checked said that either Denmark or more often no one "owns" the north pole.
Of course, since it's not land anyway, I'm not sure anyone could truly own it.
Do you have a source I could see?

You could ask the government of Canada.
Or CNN.
You didn't even bother to look at Wikipedia?

Passive solar doesn't mean much except in temperate areas where little fossil fuel is used today for heating homes.

You need to stop adding alcohol to fuel to keep farmers producing grain - when the grain production uses more diesel fuel than is saved by the alcohol.

They're all as safe or unsafe. More information on alternative fuels.