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…

The smokestack crew would like to share in the stimulus citing rising demand for electric power.
This group includes coal fired power stations, the oil industry, and all fossil fuel power plants. They are mobilizing their collective might in order to propogandize their Industry. Never mind the carbon dioxide emissions caused by their efforts.

We cannot forget the coal industry`s effort to market ‘clean’ coal which simply does not exist. The president once mentioned this myth while campaigning, he has not mentioned it since. I’m sure he was advised of the lack of veracity concerning ‘clean coal’. This effort by the coal industry shows the lengths they will go to in order to keep destroying our environment.

This industry has made some half hearted attempts to clean up some of their CO2 emmisions to no avail. There is no Incentive for them to do so. This is the problem, they have held sway for so long. Let me explain.

Coal fired power plants are not labor intensive, they are usually powered by a device called a programmable logic controller. This device is operated by one man in a control booth. Therefore the entire plant is operated by a single person. Not inducive to full employment is it? The power company charges top dollar and they have a small payroll to meet.

The renewable energy Industry is labor intensive. It has been shown that investing in renewables will create millions of jobs. The president has signed the stimulus and with help from a Colorado solar business operator has urged Americans to embrace renewable energy resources. We have no choice, we need to embrace solar, wind, and geothermal energy to power our society. There would be a resurgence of American pride in our accomplishments. Jobs would be created. Global warming could be stopped and the effects perhaps reversed. Careers could be made as we perfect this technology. The possibilities are limitless.

In order to get to the point, (I know it’s too late) I will paraphrase my title. The fossil fuel Industry will try to get a share of the stimulus package, and we should oppose that notion. They are desperate to maintain their windfall profits in the face of legislation requiring lower carbon emissions. We as a people need to keep this industry from benefiting from the stimulus package, fossil fuels are not the answer. Renewable energy is the only answer to America’s energy and economic needs. Write your elected officials!

Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Plants in Your Neighborhood?

Nuclear power reactors are slated by the year 2050 to produce more than a fifth of the world’s electricity.  Countries like China and India, from a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are demanding power on a scale larger than ever before.  There are 439 reactors operating in the world.  Another 50 countries are considering nuclear power and 12 are preparing to implement it.  Over 90 new plants are in the planning stage and have been approved, according to the World Nuclear Association.  Twenty reactors have filed applications in the United States.  By June of 2008 41 reactors were being built around the world.  It takes a liittle over 5 years to build a plant according to OECD.

There is enough uranium to last the industry until 2050, the OECD released a report saying that the ratio of resource to comsumption is better that than of gas or oil.  This would mean that countries around the world would continue to build these dangerous plants for another forty years.  There is no question about the inherant danger in continuing to build nuclear power stations.  The point now is, here is another resource that is declining because of our eagerness to experiment with substances that are in short supply and unpredictable, we have no knowledge of how to harness this power without the spector of waste that includes weapons grade plutonium. If we would simply consider renewable energy resources we could generate the power the world needs, and we could (if we have the patience to wait and see) find another use for the power the we can generate if we experiment with uranium until we come up with safe uses for this precious natural resource.  Uranium is not a renewable energy resource, it is declining every day.  The money spent today on an unreliable and dangerous source of power (nuclear) could be spent on a new power grid and investing in renewable energy sources.  We would find ourselves propelled into a safer and cleaner environment in the near future.

A call has gone out from IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei  for international control over the nuclear fuel cycle to prevent using a civilian atomic energy industry for weapons development.  This would possibly be similar to the US’s NRC.  The idea would be to start a nuclear fuel bank under the IAEA to bring new enrichment and reprocessing operations under multinational control and eventually include existing facilities.  This would according to the director general help to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. 

Perhaps this would provide some measure of protection, however it still does not address the problem of waste disposal, part of which is weapons grade plutonium.  The only solution is to completely phase out nuclear power to generate electricity as it is expensive and dangerous.  We must rethink the generation of power and start encouraging investing in renewable energy.  The days of fossil fuel power stations or nuclear power stations are at an end due to global warming and other far more ominous concerns.  We must convince the world community that renewables are the future and it will be  a brighter and safer future for all concerned.