That's the government, by the way, with all the black attack helicopters, tanks, cluster bombs, tactical nukes etc etc who won't give much of a damn about their rifles or their puny little pistols.
None of which are any good without people to man them. Helicoptors, tanks, cluster bombs, even tactical nukes can be stolen, and what better way to steal them then with a handgun?
If I have to have a 600sq ft array of Si cells to generate 1/5th the power needs of my home being able to buy them cheaper doesnt help me.
Sure it does. It makes that array of Si cells cheaper.
Is there even enough energy coming from the sun and falling on your roof to power your whole house? I'm pretty sure solar power isn't a complete solution for a house in the city without producing it outside the city and piping it in on the grid.
Although with Si panels themselves... if everyone had 1 panel on their home in this northern midwest town tied to the grid it would make a significant difference in the electrical supply andthe amount of coal we burn every day to make that electricity...
Although not anywhere as much as simply changing every lamp in your home from Incandesant and regular Flourescent to Compact flourescent.
I'm not so sure about that. Lighting only takes up about 5% of the energy usage in the average home.
And don't change your bathroom lights. Compact flourescents which go on and off very often have to be replaced much more quickly.
Mainly because they are smaller. An NEV weighs about 1/10th as much as a SUV. To a first approximation that also means 1/10th the emissions!
If they were gas powered, they'd be even smaller. Batteries are much heavier than gas, for the same amount of power.
Many studies indicate that cars are ultimately a very poor solution to urban transportation.
Cars are an important part of the solution. Granted, subways, buses, trains, bikes, and even NEVs serve their own particular niche, but these "studies" don't indicate the realities of urban transportation. If I want to get from 10th street to 75th street in Manhattan, I'm generally going to save a helluva lot of time taking a taxicab. If I'm going outside the city, I probably want to take a car. If I'm going to 42nd street in the middle of the day, I should probably take the subway. Sometimes the bus is the best solution, though I have to admit that I haven't been in such a situation very often. Most people know what form of transportation is best for the situation. And the powers that be generally do a decent job adjusting the taxes of various products to adjust those prices to reflect the true costs of using a particular transportation method.
They consume massive amounts of real estate (65% is a typical figure...probably a lot more in a "car shopping" (big box/mall) district.
Are you including taxicabs under the category of "cars?"
They aren't even a particularly fast way to get about, averaging 10-15mph in an urban environment.
Then why do people use them? Perhaps because their starting point and destination don't offer a better alternative? And why is that? Perhaps because their particular locations are not travelled between in high enough volume during that time of the day to justify it?
It all depends how you phrase the question. If your end goal is to reduce pollution at any cost, then obviously we have a long way to go. But if you accept that a little bit of pollution can be a fair trade for increasing the general standard of living, then I think we're balancing things fairly well.
To put it on a more personal level, let me pose this question:
Would you accept the inconvenience of walking a block if it meant that the street you live on would be closed to IC vehicles?
Well, since I live on a corner, it wouldn't be a problem. But assuming I had to walk a block to get to my car, I'd probably move somewhere without such draconian laws. I mean, this place isn't that great to begin with. I'm sure I could find something in this are which was just as good, cost about the same amount of money, and had parking. If it cost me too much to move, then yeah, I'd accept it. Actually first I'd talk to the fire department to see if they could obtain a waiver for me in two weeks when I become a member. Forcing me to run a block would cut hurt my response time, after all. I'm sure something could be worked out with the local police.
You'd think if these did things like causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham, or the Trent to divert to Newcastle, we'd know about it.
I didn't say you can't gain power from water without causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham. I said you can't gain power from water without rerouting it.
This type of pollution, like all others, isn't a big deal if it's done in moderation. But our current energy needs are much greater than they were during the industrial revolution.
But the EX has a better engine. I'm not sure I'd compare a hybrid to an EX... But even assuming an EX, you'd have to drive 12,000 miles/year for more than 13 years to make up for that extra $2,290 (and I disagree with the author that accounting for inflation would lower that, since if you're going to account for inflation then you should also account for the interest you would earn on that $2,290). Even that would be in your benefit if the battery lasted forever, but the $2000 battery only has a warranty for 8 years.
Overall I guess it's close, if you like the features of the EX. Personally I drive a DX, so it would cost me quite a bit to upgrade to the hybrid.
you've yet to prove "solar is worse than gas" and good luck trying.
OK, admittedly, solar is better for some things, like powering a calculator.
but now, you're moving on to saying "solar as a power source for a general purpose car sucks"...that's different. there is no -one- power solution that is perfect, all trade-offs you've yet to prove anything.
Right, but that's what we're talking about here. A power source for a general purpose car.
of course we need gas, coal, wind nuclear, solar, hydro, we need it all, unless we all decide to check out. the challenge is-- control the pollution to small areas, use a source that won't run out for a while and doesn't cost too much to gather once you're up and running.
And right now the best solution for that is good old gasoline. Hybrids have promise for the future, but right now they're too expensive to make to be worth it.
It's certainly worse than gas. I don't know much about coal.
okay, you've jumped the shark. -some- dams reroute water, some hydro-power does not.
You can't gain power from water without rerouting it. It's impossible. You simply can't do it.
you need to do some research and see that all the ways we power the world have trade-offs.
I know that. I'm not saying solar is worse in general. It's great for some things. But as a power source for a general purpose car, it sucks.
Again, you have to look at the whole cost. Sure, we might have slightly cleaner air with solar power. So we might live 3 days longer. But how much suckier is our life going to be? How much more time will we have to spend working in factories building solar panels? How much longer will we spend driving? How much more will we have to pay in taxes when we eliminate a huge source of government funding?
Overall, when you add up all the costs, most people agree that solar power just isn't worth it. That's why it's more expensive.
nothing is for free. the only way to have zero impact is to kill yourself...it's all about tradeoffs. solar has the least compared to other forms.
I disagree. I think solar has the most compared to other forms.
"this is important because motor vehicles are Washington's largest source of air pollution, accounting for about 57 percent of air pollution statewide"
Oh... For Washington... I thought you were talking about national. It's really not fair to count only Washington, since they import many of their products from elsewhere.
actually, that's not true. at least in my state.
You deny that dams reroute water?
i have a solar array, so i'm even off that grid.
How much land do you have to operate this solar array? And like I said, how much pollution do you think was caused creating and distributing those solar panels? I bet it was a lot more than would be created by being on the grid.
you should do some reading...here's a quick link, there are a million more. http://innovations.copper.org/global/ev_clean.html
That link only measures direct costs, and it only measures air pollutants. If you want to measure all costs, direct and indirect, it's very simple. You look at the price.
Your total efficiency still exceeds the brake efficiency of most car engines by several percentage points. Also, car engines lose energy at the clutch and transmission, must waste energy while idling, and cannot recoup energy from braking.
Unless you're driving a hybrid. Too bad they cost so damn much.
i have a solar array, my power comes from the sun.
Unless it's fission, everyone's power comes from the sun.
How about all that silicon? Where'd that come from? What about all the workers who made those solar arrays? How did they get to work? What about the machines made to create the solar arrays? Did they run off solar power too?
in seattle, most of the power comes from hydro. our #1 source of pollution is not powerplants, it is from the millions of independently owned cars.
Show your source. I'm sure commercial pollution is more of a problem than personal car use.
And what type of pollution are you worried about? You think hydro doesn't pollute? Dams destroy the country's natural ecosystems. Entire species of plants and animals are wiped out because of it.
electric powered vehicles are -net- better, that's the goal.
I don't see how electric powered vehicles could possibly be net better. We already tax energy enough to more than make up for the pollution it causes. And to drive an electric car at the same speeds that you drive a regular car is more expensive, even after the taxation subsidies. I'd say it's a net loss, not a net gain.
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Then why doesn't everyone have one? Is this some sort of conspiracy? Or is it just that the increased efficiency is more than outwieghed by the decreased efficiency in production?
We already have a method to determine how much of a drain on resources a particular power system is. It's a free market economy.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source
Just because it's renewable doesn't mean it's better. If that were the case we'd all be cutting down and burning trees to power our homes.
Electric cars pollute too. Where do you think electricity comes from, the tooth fairy?
Hell, even bikes pollute. That energy that you use to pedal the bike comes from somewhere, after all. Unless you grow your own organic vegetables for your entire food intake, I doubt your food source is created without causing any pollution.
but they do use gasoline and we really should work on cutting back on our dependance on fossil fuels.
Why? I'm not dependant on fossil fuels. I use fossil fuels because they're the cheapest alternative. When they cease to be the cheapest alternative, I'll stop using them. I'll buy a diesel, and start using vegetable oil. Or I'll buy an electric, since everyone else will have one, it won't be as annoying going so frickin' slow.
Use of fossil fuels is not the same as dependence on fossil fuels.
Are you aware that reporting this is financially and morally supporting the police department, who in turn finance people who plant evidence, beat up minorities, commit perjury, and shoot innocent victims?
The whole point of the technology is to appeal to those consumers that don't want to take the dvd back to the store when they're done with it.
Where did you read that?
If you're gonna return it, degrading discs would actually be BAD for the business model.
Why is that? It seems like Blockbuster could buy degrading discs a lot cheaper than non-degrading ones. That would be great for those titles which appear in large quantities for a few weeks then disappear into the "Previously Viewed" bin.
Nope, I'm baffled by how acceptable theft has become.
Theft has always been acceptable. It just used to be harder to do it without getting caught.
I know the big media companies are bad and want to restrict our rights, but that does not justify consuming their product and not paying for it.
Depends on your values. Some people believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Some people believe that just because their parents were poor they shouldn't be forced to accept a lower standard of living than those whose parents were rich.
Others are content to live their life as a proletarian working all day for a system with no real chance to ever enjoy most of the benefits offered by "the big media companies." You appear to be in that category. But not everyone is.
Or better yet, I would just return it after it expires and tell them that it never worked right in the first place. It's not like they could prove otherwise.
Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't suspect that you're the only person who has the same problem every single time you rent from them.
Do you currently scratch dvds out of recognition right before you return them, and say that they were broken?
If there's no incentive to bring the movie back, they have no recourse to charge a late fee, bye bye extra income.
Plus if you come back to return the movie, there's a pretty good chance you're going to rent another one while you're there.
The way this would work best for blockbuster is for them to use self-destructing DVDs and charge a fee for late or no return. Plus then they can properly send the DVDs back to the distributor for recycling.
In other words, there's no direct benefit for the consumer. The biggest benefit is for Blockbuster. They don't have to pay $15 or so for a new DVD when someone steals or destroys one. Instead, they just pay the $0.50 or whatever recycling deposit, which they've already collected from you (as profit) when you rented. Also, they have much less in capital expenditures to keep movies in stock. A large percentage of the costs of a DVD rental business is in capital. You have to buy lots of DVDs, and you have to buy or provide yourself with insurance against people stealing DVDs from you.
Yes, in the end, that will probably help the consumer indirectly in the form of lower prices, but I don't think this is about never having to return DVDs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the government, by the way, with all the black attack helicopters, tanks, cluster bombs, tactical nukes etc etc who won't give much of a damn about their rifles or their puny little pistols.
None of which are any good without people to man them. Helicoptors, tanks, cluster bombs, even tactical nukes can be stolen, and what better way to steal them then with a handgun?
If I have to have a 600sq ft array of Si cells to generate 1/5th the power needs of my home being able to buy them cheaper doesnt help me.
Sure it does. It makes that array of Si cells cheaper.
Is there even enough energy coming from the sun and falling on your roof to power your whole house? I'm pretty sure solar power isn't a complete solution for a house in the city without producing it outside the city and piping it in on the grid.
Although with Si panels themselves... if everyone had 1 panel on their home in this northern midwest town tied to the grid it would make a significant difference in the electrical supply andthe amount of coal we burn every day to make that electricity...
Although not anywhere as much as simply changing every lamp in your home from Incandesant and regular Flourescent to Compact flourescent.
I'm not so sure about that. Lighting only takes up about 5% of the energy usage in the average home.
And don't change your bathroom lights. Compact flourescents which go on and off very often have to be replaced much more quickly.
Maybe one day we'll have solar panels that don't require more energy to make than we ultimately get out of them.
Mainly because they are smaller. An NEV weighs about 1/10th as much as a SUV. To a first approximation that also means 1/10th the emissions!
If they were gas powered, they'd be even smaller. Batteries are much heavier than gas, for the same amount of power.
Many studies indicate that cars are ultimately a very poor solution to urban transportation.
Cars are an important part of the solution. Granted, subways, buses, trains, bikes, and even NEVs serve their own particular niche, but these "studies" don't indicate the realities of urban transportation. If I want to get from 10th street to 75th street in Manhattan, I'm generally going to save a helluva lot of time taking a taxicab. If I'm going outside the city, I probably want to take a car. If I'm going to 42nd street in the middle of the day, I should probably take the subway. Sometimes the bus is the best solution, though I have to admit that I haven't been in such a situation very often. Most people know what form of transportation is best for the situation. And the powers that be generally do a decent job adjusting the taxes of various products to adjust those prices to reflect the true costs of using a particular transportation method.
They consume massive amounts of real estate (65% is a typical figure...probably a lot more in a "car shopping" (big box/mall) district.
Are you including taxicabs under the category of "cars?"
They aren't even a particularly fast way to get about, averaging 10-15mph in an urban environment.
Then why do people use them? Perhaps because their starting point and destination don't offer a better alternative? And why is that? Perhaps because their particular locations are not travelled between in high enough volume during that time of the day to justify it?
It all depends how you phrase the question. If your end goal is to reduce pollution at any cost, then obviously we have a long way to go. But if you accept that a little bit of pollution can be a fair trade for increasing the general standard of living, then I think we're balancing things fairly well.
To put it on a more personal level, let me pose this question: Would you accept the inconvenience of walking a block if it meant that the street you live on would be closed to IC vehicles?
Well, since I live on a corner, it wouldn't be a problem. But assuming I had to walk a block to get to my car, I'd probably move somewhere without such draconian laws. I mean, this place isn't that great to begin with. I'm sure I could find something in this are which was just as good, cost about the same amount of money, and had parking. If it cost me too much to move, then yeah, I'd accept it. Actually first I'd talk to the fire department to see if they could obtain a waiver for me in two weeks when I become a member. Forcing me to run a block would cut hurt my response time, after all. I'm sure something could be worked out with the local police.
You'd think if these did things like causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham, or the Trent to divert to Newcastle, we'd know about it.
I didn't say you can't gain power from water without causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham. I said you can't gain power from water without rerouting it.
This type of pollution, like all others, isn't a big deal if it's done in moderation. But our current energy needs are much greater than they were during the industrial revolution.
But the EX has a better engine. I'm not sure I'd compare a hybrid to an EX... But even assuming an EX, you'd have to drive 12,000 miles/year for more than 13 years to make up for that extra $2,290 (and I disagree with the author that accounting for inflation would lower that, since if you're going to account for inflation then you should also account for the interest you would earn on that $2,290). Even that would be in your benefit if the battery lasted forever, but the $2000 battery only has a warranty for 8 years.
Overall I guess it's close, if you like the features of the EX. Personally I drive a DX, so it would cost me quite a bit to upgrade to the hybrid.
The problem with this scheme is that if every house had 802.11G the 2.4 GHz spectrum would be a mess of broadband noise...
I didn't think the range of 2.4GHz was enough to interfere that much. And if it became so, you could always just turn down the power.
you've yet to prove "solar is worse than gas" and good luck trying.
OK, admittedly, solar is better for some things, like powering a calculator.
but now, you're moving on to saying "solar as a power source for a general purpose car sucks"...that's different. there is no -one- power solution that is perfect, all trade-offs you've yet to prove anything.
Right, but that's what we're talking about here. A power source for a general purpose car.
of course we need gas, coal, wind nuclear, solar, hydro, we need it all, unless we all decide to check out. the challenge is-- control the pollution to small areas, use a source that won't run out for a while and doesn't cost too much to gather once you're up and running.
And right now the best solution for that is good old gasoline. Hybrids have promise for the future, but right now they're too expensive to make to be worth it.
you're saying solar is worse than coal or gas?
It's certainly worse than gas. I don't know much about coal.
okay, you've jumped the shark. -some- dams reroute water, some hydro-power does not.
You can't gain power from water without rerouting it. It's impossible. You simply can't do it.
you need to do some research and see that all the ways we power the world have trade-offs.
I know that. I'm not saying solar is worse in general. It's great for some things. But as a power source for a general purpose car, it sucks.
Again, you have to look at the whole cost. Sure, we might have slightly cleaner air with solar power. So we might live 3 days longer. But how much suckier is our life going to be? How much more time will we have to spend working in factories building solar panels? How much longer will we spend driving? How much more will we have to pay in taxes when we eliminate a huge source of government funding?
Overall, when you add up all the costs, most people agree that solar power just isn't worth it. That's why it's more expensive.
nothing is for free. the only way to have zero impact is to kill yourself...it's all about tradeoffs. solar has the least compared to other forms.
I disagree. I think solar has the most compared to other forms.
"this is important because motor vehicles are Washington's largest source of air pollution, accounting for about 57 percent of air pollution statewide"
Oh... For Washington... I thought you were talking about national. It's really not fair to count only Washington, since they import many of their products from elsewhere.
actually, that's not true. at least in my state.
You deny that dams reroute water?
i have a solar array, so i'm even off that grid.
How much land do you have to operate this solar array? And like I said, how much pollution do you think was caused creating and distributing those solar panels? I bet it was a lot more than would be created by being on the grid.
you should do some reading...here's a quick link, there are a million more. http://innovations.copper.org/global/ev_clean.html
That link only measures direct costs, and it only measures air pollutants. If you want to measure all costs, direct and indirect, it's very simple. You look at the price.
Your total efficiency still exceeds the brake efficiency of most car engines by several percentage points. Also, car engines lose energy at the clutch and transmission, must waste energy while idling, and cannot recoup energy from braking.
Unless you're driving a hybrid. Too bad they cost so damn much.
i have a solar array, my power comes from the sun.
Unless it's fission, everyone's power comes from the sun.
How about all that silicon? Where'd that come from? What about all the workers who made those solar arrays? How did they get to work? What about the machines made to create the solar arrays? Did they run off solar power too?
in seattle, most of the power comes from hydro. our #1 source of pollution is not powerplants, it is from the millions of independently owned cars.
Show your source. I'm sure commercial pollution is more of a problem than personal car use.
And what type of pollution are you worried about? You think hydro doesn't pollute? Dams destroy the country's natural ecosystems. Entire species of plants and animals are wiped out because of it.
electric powered vehicles are -net- better, that's the goal.
I don't see how electric powered vehicles could possibly be net better. We already tax energy enough to more than make up for the pollution it causes. And to drive an electric car at the same speeds that you drive a regular car is more expensive, even after the taxation subsidies. I'd say it's a net loss, not a net gain.
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Then why doesn't everyone have one? Is this some sort of conspiracy? Or is it just that the increased efficiency is more than outwieghed by the decreased efficiency in production?
We already have a method to determine how much of a drain on resources a particular power system is. It's a free market economy.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source
Just because it's renewable doesn't mean it's better. If that were the case we'd all be cutting down and burning trees to power our homes.
Electric cars pollute too. Where do you think electricity comes from, the tooth fairy?
Hell, even bikes pollute. That energy that you use to pedal the bike comes from somewhere, after all. Unless you grow your own organic vegetables for your entire food intake, I doubt your food source is created without causing any pollution.
but they do use gasoline and we really should work on cutting back on our dependance on fossil fuels.
Why? I'm not dependant on fossil fuels. I use fossil fuels because they're the cheapest alternative. When they cease to be the cheapest alternative, I'll stop using them. I'll buy a diesel, and start using vegetable oil. Or I'll buy an electric, since everyone else will have one, it won't be as annoying going so frickin' slow.
Use of fossil fuels is not the same as dependence on fossil fuels.
The crime has already occurred.
Are you aware that reporting this is financially and morally supporting the police department, who in turn finance people who plant evidence, beat up minorities, commit perjury, and shoot innocent victims?
I thought you had to be actively involved in covering up a felony to be an accessory. It seems to me that not reporting would be passive, not active.
If you deleted the files as police were breaking down the door, that would be active.
The whole point of the technology is to appeal to those consumers that don't want to take the dvd back to the store when they're done with it.
Where did you read that?
If you're gonna return it, degrading discs would actually be BAD for the business model.
Why is that? It seems like Blockbuster could buy degrading discs a lot cheaper than non-degrading ones. That would be great for those titles which appear in large quantities for a few weeks then disappear into the "Previously Viewed" bin.
The "something better" being advocated here is better only for the consumer.
Most content producers I know are also the biggest consumers.
Nope, I'm baffled by how acceptable theft has become.
Theft has always been acceptable. It just used to be harder to do it without getting caught.
I know the big media companies are bad and want to restrict our rights, but that does not justify consuming their product and not paying for it.
Depends on your values. Some people believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Some people believe that just because their parents were poor they shouldn't be forced to accept a lower standard of living than those whose parents were rich.
Others are content to live their life as a proletarian working all day for a system with no real chance to ever enjoy most of the benefits offered by "the big media companies." You appear to be in that category. But not everyone is.
Or better yet, I would just return it after it expires and tell them that it never worked right in the first place. It's not like they could prove otherwise.
Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't suspect that you're the only person who has the same problem every single time you rent from them.
Do you currently scratch dvds out of recognition right before you return them, and say that they were broken?
Good job preventing piracy, guys!
Good strawman argument.
Don't be so narrowminded. Not everything is about preventing piracy.
Yea, if you mail the disk to a recycler Missouri. Using your own envelopes, stamps, time, effort. Yea, that will happen quite a bit around here.
What if you just have to return the DVD to blockbuster, to receive your $0.50 deposit back?
If there's no incentive to bring the movie back, they have no recourse to charge a late fee, bye bye extra income.
Plus if you come back to return the movie, there's a pretty good chance you're going to rent another one while you're there.
The way this would work best for blockbuster is for them to use self-destructing DVDs and charge a fee for late or no return. Plus then they can properly send the DVDs back to the distributor for recycling.
In other words, there's no direct benefit for the consumer. The biggest benefit is for Blockbuster. They don't have to pay $15 or so for a new DVD when someone steals or destroys one. Instead, they just pay the $0.50 or whatever recycling deposit, which they've already collected from you (as profit) when you rented. Also, they have much less in capital expenditures to keep movies in stock. A large percentage of the costs of a DVD rental business is in capital. You have to buy lots of DVDs, and you have to buy or provide yourself with insurance against people stealing DVDs from you.
Yes, in the end, that will probably help the consumer indirectly in the form of lower prices, but I don't think this is about never having to return DVDs.