Techdiplomacy

This is the first electric car

I know that everyone has seen or at least heard of, some version of an electric car. However did you know that they (electric cars) were first seen in the 1890′ s, with the advent of an electric vehicle invented by William Morrison.

That era was a time of innovators and people of vision. There were several versions of the electric car introduced in this period and New York City used the vehicles for taxis briefly. I mention these events in a time when we are bailing out our nation’s automakers for a good reason.

No, I didn’t mean that the bailout is a good idea, I meant bringing the history of the electric car into this is a good idea at this time. Maybe these geniuses would not be in the predicament they find themselves in, if they hadn’t discarded the idea of electric power for gas guzzling internal combustion engines. Let me explain, the story starts in the late 1800’s as I stated earlier.

There were around nine electric vehicles at the turn of the last century on the market so to speak.

Despite the notion that electric vehicles represent a new and what seems to be exotic technology, they have been around for a long time. During the early 1900s, cars powered by electricity were the fastest on the road. When the internal combustion engine was invented, electric cars dropped off the face of the planet, I’m sure the oil industry gave it a push. However, due to the many natural resource and environmental problems that we face now, electric cars, are in the mix once again. There are many kinds of electric vehicles. The most recognizable are electric cars, which can be the solution to our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. Scientists and corporations have developed new technologies and have refined electric car research and manufacturing. There are electric cars that are more efficient and more reliable than conventional cars, that are being developed and sold to the public. There are other kinds of electric vehicles available, such as buses and rail transportation.

This brings us back to the bailout, and the cars American auto manufacturers are producing, in this, their hour of need. There has been an increase in fuel prices over the last few years, everyone knows that this is the case. As a result of this, people have started looking for ways to save money on fuel. There have been various alternatives in recent years. Two of the alternatives are electric cars and hybrids. Electric cars are simply cars that run on electric energy. Hybrid cars are a combination of an electric engine system and a fuel engine system. What are the differences between electric cars and hybrid cars? Aside from how their engine systems work, there are a few notable differences between electric and hybrid cars. Hybrids perform differently on the road, since they have an engine that runs on fuel. They can travel longer distances using their gas components after their electrical charges have been depleted. However, electric cars are environmentally friendly, since they produce no emissions and do not use liquid fuel at all.

The point is, are the hybrids the answer? They use petroleum, only not as much. We as a nation need to learn about sacrifice. Electric cars, while not the perfect solution, yet, could solve that environmental problem once and for all. No emissions at all, ever again. We sacrifice a little to gain the world. It’s a no brainer, our children will thank us. No more petroleum powered cars of any sort. Let’s look at hybrids, since the industry that’s being bailed out has only hybrids to offer.

I know I’m repeating myself, but so there is no misunderstanding. Hybrid electric vehicles are vehicles that combine an internal combustion engine with a battery powered system. They are what you get when you mix a ‘regular’, petroleum fueled car with an electric one, which is why they are called hybrids. While hybrids do not have any advantages in performance that separate them from the rest, they are popular because the industry touts them as an environmentally acceptable alternative to ‘regular’ internal combustion engine powered cars. They are supposedly able to get the best of both electric and fuel powered cars. They are more efficient than fuel powered cars but not as efficient as those relying solely on electric power. Many large automobile manufacturers are offering hybrid versions of their cars. Companies (including the ones desiring bailouts) such as General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, and Honda are some of the car makers that have manufactured hybrid electric cars and trucks in the last few years.

We are at a fork in the road of our existence on this planet. We can transition into a new cleaner and sustainable future. Hybrids are not the answer, we mist go forward with all electric vehicles.

What is it that we will lose if we go with new ideas like the electric car? What is the sacrifice? Let’s see, we’ll need a new grid, however that’s a plus because it will create new jobs. Oh, I know, we’ll have to use electric cars, let’s look at that.

Unlike a hybrid car—which is fueled by gasoline and uses a battery and motor to improve efficiency—an electric car is powered exclusively by electricity. As battery technology improves—simultaneously increasing energy storage and reducing cost—major automakers are introducing a new generation of electric cars. Electric cars produce no tailpipe emissions, reduce our dependency on oil, and are cheaper to operate. Of course, the process of producing the electricity moves the emissions further upstream to the utility company’s smokestack—but even dirty electricity used in electric cars usually reduces our collective carbon footprint. Another factor is convenience: In one trip to the gas station, you can pump 330 kilowatt-hours of energy into a 10-gallon tank. It would take about 9 days to get the same amount of energy from household electric current. Fortunately, it takes hours and not days to recharge an electric car, because it’s much more efficient. Speaking of convenience, let’s not forget two important points: charging up at home means never going to a gas station—and electric cars require almost none of the maintenance, like oil changes and emissions checks, that internal combustion cars require. Electric motors develop their highest torque from zero rpms—meaning fast (and silent) zero-to-60 acceleration times.

The fact is we are in a transitional time with regard to life on this planet. The President of the United States recognizes this fact, and he is taking bold steps in the name of radical change. Citizens of the planet must unite and except this eventuality. Cars that need petroleum are causing great damage to us, and the environment. Manufacturing hybrids is not the answer, and it is an insult to our collective intelligence. They use petroleum and tease us with battery powered engines with very short ranges.

Finally, I would like to say that the answer lies within each of us, we hold the keys. If we want a future that does not allow the greed of the oil companies and the automobile industry to destroy our environment, well then we must draw a line in the sand now. Hybrids use petroleum and we don’t need them. Let’s go with the electric car. We need zero emissions from automobiles and other vehicles now. We simply have done too much damage as it stands to go for anything short of banning CO2 emissions from cars. We could accomplish this in the next 5 to 10 years. We need only look at this as an investment in our future, and not a sacrifice. Finally , I’d like everyone who reads this to comment. Its does not matter if you agree or disagree, give us your opinion on this and we’ll print it, it’s that simple.

See you around the galaxy…

Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Fulton, Missouri

The nuclear power industry is, in it’s effort to revive the building of new reactors, closing it’s eyes to the actual facts with regard to cost and safety.  Their opinion is that nuclear power must be included if we are to change our climate.  They see a nuclear renaissance as the number of applications for construction and operating permits rises.  This information comes from the nuclear regulatory commission, they have not seen this type of activity in over 30 years. 

The Department of Energy keeps a ongoing count of nuclear licensing applications.  The DOE is predicting 23 licenses for 34 reactors.  The industry hopes this will continue in 2009 in order to shore up their hopes in an effort to build new reactors.

The same climate change legislation that the renewable energy sector wants to see, the nuclear industry is counting on that very same legislation to get the country to back their efforts.  Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel, however it has been shown in several studies that any gain in cleaner emissions are offset by the dangerous process that is nuclear power.  The nuclear industry has started to release real prices instead of the low estimates that had been their stock in trade.  Now you see prices have doubled to well over 5 billion dollars per reactor which is double estimates from early 2008.  The DOE loan guarantee program would be new hope for these people.

It would be hope misplaced.  Nuclear power is not the way to go at this juncture.  High construction costs and complicated licensing procedures make this option economically not feasible.  There is no solution to this, we should use renewable energy sources to power our society.  The nuclear option should not be an option.  We need to view this option with extreme caution.  We don’t have a solution for the energy woes that we are experiencing now that could be solved by the nuclear power industry.  This industry touts itself as the new way to avoid CO2 emissions, although they have their share of this global warming causing element.  There is a movement among the utilities that operate nuclear power plants to grab a share of funds that would be better spent investing in clean renewable energy.

We have a new administration taking office this month and they will be deluged with requests for funding for various reasons.  The nuclear power industry not withstanding will make their demands for funds known and they will use the arguments that they have used for decades, clean power.  How about clean, safe power.  The industry said that waste storage is improving due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reaction to the license application for Yucca Mountain.  The NRC did proceed with the docketing process and evaluations on items such as environmental requirements.  The general thinking is that geologic storage is necessary for nuclear energy’s future.  That does not solve any problems with regard to what is stored.  This is a problem currently and will continue to be a problem.  Some see the waste as valuable material and would like to recycle the material.

There are plans to build nuclear power stations in several states.  We as people with a desire to power our planet safely should protest this direction that these utilities are taking to provide electricity.  As we have stated here in the past clean and safe  renewable energy is the way to go.  Any thoughts on this?  Let’s hear from you in our comment section.  In the meantime work for renewable energy sources, new jobs, help for our failing economy and a clean environment are ours’ for the future.

The taxpayers of America (you and I) are subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry at the rate of over $220 billion dollars per year. Fossil-fuel subsidies are an archaic and out dated practice. At one time in this country we needed to develop oil and coal for progress. This is no longer the case, fossil fuel burning has become a threat to our very way of life. Subsidies have led to special interest groups (lobbies) whose only agenda is to keep the status quo. In the last decade of the last century oil and gas companies have $154 million dollars in campaign contributions in order to protect special tax rates that save them billions of dollars. The oil industry has larger tax incentives in relation to it’s size than any other industry. This is a vile and evil system that is rewarding those who would destroy our planet. We are not vile or evil people for the most part, let us get rid of the evil in our system. We however, are not the only ones subsidizing the fossil fuel dynasty. German subsidies for the coal mining industry is (in their minds) justified by saying it is a job protection measure. At it’s worst they were subsidizing that industry at $90,000 dollars per year/per worker. They could have paid each miner half of that money to stay home and not mine coal and come out ahead. There are hidden subsidies. The oil industry gets a tax break based on the fact that an oil field will eventually run out of oil! The U.S. military spends over $60 billion dollars per year (according to the RAND Corporation) to protect access to oil in the middle east. This oil is only worth around $25 billion dollars. The $60 billion will increase as long as we continue the senseless war in Iraq. Seven years ago a study showed that our government used taxpayer dollars to subsidize internal combustion engine automobiles. At that time the amount of the subsidy was around $257 billion dollars. Even if you do not own an automobile or are too poor to afford one, you are helping to subsidize those who do and can. We need to ask our leaders about this policy and change course. Now the automobile industry is requesting a $25 billion dollar bailout. They approached the congress and the senate without a viable plan and simply asked for the money. They are at the end of their reign, they should be forced to do what they could have done 10-15 years ago. They should not receive a bailout unless they acquiesce. These funds could subsidize clean and renewable energy sources, along with electric automobiles which would not destroy our environment. If that is not enough, this energy could be had at a small fraction of the cost of utilizing fossil fuels.