Please tell be what resources are limited. I've heard countless people denounce "western cultures" for "excessive consumption", but none have every explained what resources they are talking about. Energy is not a limited resource, because of the huge amount of sunlight hitting the earth, and the abundance of uranium and thorium. Water can be made by desalination.
Hydrogen tanks are actually very expensive, so the cost of adding more energy to the system is nonzero. A better way would be to create a small zinc economy with zinc-air fuel cells.
Until stuff starts to run out. Say,water. Or farmland. Or beachfront property.
I see three types of resources:
1. Inexhaustible resources: like solar energy, it's just really hard to use em up
2. Synthesizeable resources: like gasoline and water, can be produced by using energy
3. Limited resources: like indium and other forms of unobtainium, we will have to stop using these
We won't run out of anything except the unobtainium. That, we can replace with other stuff, like organic compounds that behave the same.
It depends on what's being consumed. At the moment, we are the consumables.
What do you mean by that? Whose consuming us? It is the nature of biology to fail and fall apart. Until we eliminate it, we will die.
You sound like an earnest person who means well, Mr Jobs. If you're going to invent something that's going to save us, please do it soon. But I don't think the iPad is it.
I'm no Steve Jobs. The iPad will save us. It will bring people to consumerism, which will bring them away from war. I'm trying to reverse the process of combustion of gasoline, and to develop better batteries.
Increased weight always increases the amount of power required to travel at a given speed.
As far as I know, increased weight only effects energy use during acceleration, because E=1/2*m*v^2, and tire rolling resistance. The tire rolling resistance is a relatively small fraction of the drag energy.
We may or may not be a decade away from a truly usable electric car. The problem is that an electric vehicle is only as good as its batteries, and so we need a better battery.
The Tesla does have range issues, but it's a real EV (not a golf cart or alien spaceship contraption), and gives us a benchmark as to the energy that will be sucked out of the batteries/fuel cells/flow cells. That's why I mentioned it. I'm also kindof a car guy, and also a bit of a mad scientist, so I experiment to try to develop better batteries.
My conclusion is that we either have two options:
1. Some type of flow/fuel cell that can have the "fuel" pumped out and replaced - I.E. zinc or aluminium air fuel cells.
2. A battery, like a NiCad or NiFe that's charged using conventional charging, and a little biofuel generator that turns on once we're out of electricity.
The problem with fast charging is that it pulls to much power out of the grid, and most just can't handle it.
A far more effective way would be to put some dollars in reversing the process of combustion, and synthesizing gasoline (the best way to store hydrogen).
So is Japan, China, South Korea, Britain, and France. So is the whole world, for all of human civilization. The fact is that every culture in history was decided by wealth, by profit. Even Native Americans had a hierarchy - and guess what? The people at the top got more stuff. Thus they were seen as better. It's the same everywhere you go. Consumerism and wealth based society is everywhere. This is a good thing in my view for two reasons. First, if people are just clicking buttons on phones and watching movies, they won't fight wars over religion. It's known that more consumerism = less extremism = less war. Have the consumerist countries gone to war with each other? No they have not. This is because they do not need to fight for god. They have fought the faithful, the commies, and the nazis. Second, consumerism and wealth leads to people having less kids, which means no more population growth. Consumerism is good, spirituality is bad. Want to stop population growth? Support economic growth.
consider being more efficient with fuel until we suffer a shock to the system.
Capitalists (like me) are already working on products people will buy that will either eliminate the use of those fuels (electric cars), or offer unlimited supplies of them (using solar energy to reverse the process of combustion). The fact is that silicon valley, the people who brought you the internet, is now working on bringing you unlimited energy. Be a part of it!
The success of the coming transition in civilisation hinges on the ruling elites willingness to take a major hit in their lifestyle over the next three or four generations so that the fifth, sixth and so on generations will have a sufficiently stratified civilisation to maintain their presence as an elite.
The coming transition revolves around liberals and hippies giving up there opposition to nuclear energy. If not, China and Japan will drag the world into the atomic age, kicking and screaming.
None of those links you presented are at all promising. In fact photovoltaic technology is not very promising. Why? Not patents, corruption, or anything else. It's purity and unobtainium. First purity. What is the purity of the silicon in the solar panels? Very high. It sucks up a heck of lot of energy to remove all the crud from the silicon, and involves lots of horrible chemicals. Second, indium, a material used to make transparent conductors, is a component of solar panels. Indium is extracted from zinc ore at the rate of 1-4 gram of indium/ton of zinc ore. Want promising solar technology? Get a steam engine. Or use mirrors to melt down chemicals and break them down.
The same thing is happening with batteries. The lithium-ion battery requires exceptionally high purity. The price of the chemicals is a fraction of the price of the battery (less than 10%). Meanwhile the energy intensive process is needed to purify the chemicals and rip out all the crud. A friend told me that 1 sodium atom will prevent 10,000 atoms of lithium from acting as a battery. This purity requirement means that crud (like water) can diffuse through the casing of the battery, and leads to the short shelf life of the battery. This leads to the fact that almost all batteries on the market cost more than the electricity they will ever store. The one battery that costs less is the nickel-iron battery (greatly improved by Edison). Some batteries from Edison's original factory are still powering cars today. Since these batteries don't require high purity, I'm trying to procure some nickel and iron foil and make one myself.
I think the best approach would be the following:
1. A car full of nife's that take it 100 miles on a charge
2. A biodiesel generator that takes it forever
3. $2500 worth of solar panels to recharge it
We all know who is really responsible for most CO2 emissions: greenpeace and other antinuclear groups. Please ask China how much nuclear power costs when you strip off the red green tape. The answer is that it is cheaper than gas, coal, oil, solar, wind, and basically everything except hydroelectric power. So, please stop the environmentalists, and start the building.
A mechanical switch is not a waste of time. It is just another (quite cheap) back up system that protects the driver. The old Camry I drive can easily overcome the parking brake with the engine.
I think it will actually get better with electric cars. If the complicators are kicked out, all you need to run an electric car's motor is one monster transistor, and one pwm signal. In Australia, it's mandated that all electric cars have a big huge mechanical switch on the dash between the motor and the speed controller. We should mandate this on EV's here.
I'm sorry but there's no such thing as consuming too much energy. Only producing too much pollution.That's like saying you read too many books. The automobile is the future of transportation, because it is the most efficient large-scale system we have. Even in Europe, %85 of all journeys are made by car. Except in places like New York, the amount of public transport lines needed is just too big. Also, many of the trains and buses will run empty, so they less efficient than cars. The most efficient form of transport right now is an e-bike or scooter (biking and walking consumes energy to make food).
Anyway, I like the huge space between buildings, the huge parking lots, etc. The only reason for traffic jams is because there are not enough roads. As cars get bigger, have more safety features, and more advanced technology, they will be safer. The car of the future will run on either solar or nuclear energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell be what resources are limited. I've heard countless people denounce "western cultures" for "excessive consumption", but none have every explained what resources they are talking about. Energy is not a limited resource, because of the huge amount of sunlight hitting the earth, and the abundance of uranium and thorium. Water can be made by desalination.
We've created a sad culture
So get out of it. Head to China, Japan, Europe, or Africa.
N/t
Hydrogen tanks are actually very expensive, so the cost of adding more energy to the system is nonzero. A better way would be to create a small zinc economy with zinc-air fuel cells.
I plan to make them with no toxic chemicals. Even so, people are going to recycle them because they can sell the metal to make more batteries.
Thanks for the good luck.
Competition is kindness.
Until stuff starts to run out. Say,water. Or farmland. Or beachfront property.
I see three types of resources:
1. Inexhaustible resources: like solar energy, it's just really hard to use em up
2. Synthesizeable resources: like gasoline and water, can be produced by using energy
3. Limited resources: like indium and other forms of unobtainium, we will have to stop using these
We won't run out of anything except the unobtainium. That, we can replace with other stuff, like organic compounds that behave the same.
It depends on what's being consumed. At the moment, we are the consumables.
What do you mean by that? Whose consuming us? It is the nature of biology to fail and fall apart. Until we eliminate it, we will die.
You sound like an earnest person who means well, Mr Jobs. If you're going to invent something that's going to save us, please do it soon. But I don't think the iPad is it.
I'm no Steve Jobs. The iPad will save us. It will bring people to consumerism, which will bring them away from war. I'm trying to reverse the process of combustion of gasoline, and to develop better batteries.
Increased weight always increases the amount of power required to travel at a given speed.
As far as I know, increased weight only effects energy use during acceleration, because E=1/2*m*v^2, and tire rolling resistance. The tire rolling resistance is a relatively small fraction of the drag energy.
We may or may not be a decade away from a truly usable electric car. The problem is that an electric vehicle is only as good as its batteries, and so we need a better battery.
The Tesla does have range issues, but it's a real EV (not a golf cart or alien spaceship contraption), and gives us a benchmark as to the energy that will be sucked out of the batteries/fuel cells/flow cells. That's why I mentioned it. I'm also kindof a car guy, and also a bit of a mad scientist, so I experiment to try to develop better batteries.
My conclusion is that we either have two options:
1. Some type of flow/fuel cell that can have the "fuel" pumped out and replaced - I.E. zinc or aluminium air fuel cells.
2. A battery, like a NiCad or NiFe that's charged using conventional charging, and a little biofuel generator that turns on once we're out of electricity.
The problem with fast charging is that it pulls to much power out of the grid, and most just can't handle it.
Please mod parent up.
Or, we could add regenerative braking. With regen in a real EV (like a Tesla), weight is not really a problem.
A far more effective way would be to put some dollars in reversing the process of combustion, and synthesizing gasoline (the best way to store hydrogen).
America is about consumption.
So is Japan, China, South Korea, Britain, and France. So is the whole world, for all of human civilization. The fact is that every culture in history was decided by wealth, by profit. Even Native Americans had a hierarchy - and guess what? The people at the top got more stuff. Thus they were seen as better. It's the same everywhere you go. Consumerism and wealth based society is everywhere. This is a good thing in my view for two reasons. First, if people are just clicking buttons on phones and watching movies, they won't fight wars over religion. It's known that more consumerism = less extremism = less war. Have the consumerist countries gone to war with each other? No they have not. This is because they do not need to fight for god. They have fought the faithful, the commies, and the nazis. Second, consumerism and wealth leads to people having less kids, which means no more population growth. Consumerism is good, spirituality is bad. Want to stop population growth? Support economic growth.
consider being more efficient with fuel until we suffer a shock to the system.
Capitalists (like me) are already working on products people will buy that will either eliminate the use of those fuels (electric cars), or offer unlimited supplies of them (using solar energy to reverse the process of combustion). The fact is that silicon valley, the people who brought you the internet, is now working on bringing you unlimited energy. Be a part of it!
The success of the coming transition in civilisation hinges on the ruling elites willingness to take a major hit in their lifestyle over the next three or four generations so that the fifth, sixth and so on generations will have a sufficiently stratified civilisation to maintain their presence as an elite.
The coming transition revolves around liberals and hippies giving up there opposition to nuclear energy. If not, China and Japan will drag the world into the atomic age, kicking and screaming.
None of those links you presented are at all promising. In fact photovoltaic technology is not very promising. Why? Not patents, corruption, or anything else. It's purity and unobtainium. First purity. What is the purity of the silicon in the solar panels? Very high. It sucks up a heck of lot of energy to remove all the crud from the silicon, and involves lots of horrible chemicals. Second, indium, a material used to make transparent conductors, is a component of solar panels. Indium is extracted from zinc ore at the rate of 1-4 gram of indium/ton of zinc ore. Want promising solar technology? Get a steam engine. Or use mirrors to melt down chemicals and break them down.
The same thing is happening with batteries. The lithium-ion battery requires exceptionally high purity. The price of the chemicals is a fraction of the price of the battery (less than 10%). Meanwhile the energy intensive process is needed to purify the chemicals and rip out all the crud. A friend told me that 1 sodium atom will prevent 10,000 atoms of lithium from acting as a battery. This purity requirement means that crud (like water) can diffuse through the casing of the battery, and leads to the short shelf life of the battery. This leads to the fact that almost all batteries on the market cost more than the electricity they will ever store. The one battery that costs less is the nickel-iron battery (greatly improved by Edison). Some batteries from Edison's original factory are still powering cars today. Since these batteries don't require high purity, I'm trying to procure some nickel and iron foil and make one myself.
I think the best approach would be the following:
1. A car full of nife's that take it 100 miles on a charge
2. A biodiesel generator that takes it forever
3. $2500 worth of solar panels to recharge it
We need a new name for people like you and I so the extremists don't color us wrong.
We all know who is really responsible for most CO2 emissions: greenpeace and other antinuclear groups. Please ask China how much nuclear power costs when you strip off the red green tape. The answer is that it is cheaper than gas, coal, oil, solar, wind, and basically everything except hydroelectric power. So, please stop the environmentalists, and start the building.
A mechanical switch is not a waste of time. It is just another (quite cheap) back up system that protects the driver. The old Camry I drive can easily overcome the parking brake with the engine.
I think it will actually get better with electric cars. If the complicators are kicked out, all you need to run an electric car's motor is one monster transistor, and one pwm signal. In Australia, it's mandated that all electric cars have a big huge mechanical switch on the dash between the motor and the speed controller. We should mandate this on EV's here.
Hillary Clinton!!!
I'd prefer a zinc-air fuel cell alarm clock.
Especially because it amounts to turning down the radio in a hummer to save gas.
Conservation includes the word CON for a reason.
I hate San Francisco for precisely that reason. San Jose is a model for our car-based future (which is inescapable).
In my ideal capitalist utopia, you'll drive your Hummer to the park, and re-fuel it with synthetic gasoline.
I'm sorry but there's no such thing as consuming too much energy. Only producing too much pollution.That's like saying you read too many books. The automobile is the future of transportation, because it is the most efficient large-scale system we have. Even in Europe, %85 of all journeys are made by car. Except in places like New York, the amount of public transport lines needed is just too big. Also, many of the trains and buses will run empty, so they less efficient than cars. The most efficient form of transport right now is an e-bike or scooter (biking and walking consumes energy to make food).
Anyway, I like the huge space between buildings, the huge parking lots, etc. The only reason for traffic jams is because there are not enough roads. As cars get bigger, have more safety features, and more advanced technology, they will be safer. The car of the future will run on either solar or nuclear energy.