admin answers:

The electric car was among the earliest automobiles — small electric vehicles predate the Otto cycle upon which Diesel (diesel engine) and Benz (gasoline engine) based the automobile. Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Scottish businessman Robert Anderson invented the first crude electric carriage. Professor Sibrandus Stratingh of Groningen, the Netherlands, designed the small-scale electric car, built by his assistant Christopher Becker in 1835.[4]

Practical and more successful electric road vehicles were invented by both American Thomas Davenport and Scotsmen Robert Davidson around 1842. Both inventors were the first to use non-rechargeable electric cells.

What advantages do EVs offer? EVs produce zero emissions at the point of use. An electric motor is 400% to 600% more efficient than an internal combus tion engine. An EV, per mile, uses one-half the fossil-fuel resources an ICE consumes. An EV produces only 5% to 10% of the emissions of an ICE per mile traveled. All of the EV’s emissions occur at a (oil- or coal-fueled) power plant, which runs 400% to 500% more efficiently than an ICE and scrubs its own exhaust. EVs can use electricity from anywhere including sustainable energy resources (wind and sun). EVs are simple, silent, and affordable to operate.

Zero-Emission or Emission-Elsewhere? It is a major step for an automobile to no longer emit exhaust gases. In fact, it is nearly inconceivable. That’s why consumers will love zero-emission vehicles. They may not be driving a solar-powered car, but they will be helping the sun to once more shine through clear skies.

In the literal sense, of course, the EV is the “emission-elsewhere” car. The electricity to power the car has to be generated somewhere. And, though some energy is available from sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and water power, the bulk comes from coal- and oil-fueled power plants. Isn’t this just transplanting the problem somewhere else?

The answer is both yes and no. Yes, the pollution is transferred to another region. However, this matter has been scrutinized extensively by the U.S. Depart ment of Energy and several California agencies charged with air-quality manage ment. The bulleted list above reflects their findings.

EVs are very efficient. They have to be. A pound of battery has 1/100 of the energy of a pound of gasoline. On average, a 30 mpg ICE car uses only 5% to 10% of the energy of its fuel, whereas the EV converts 70% to 80% of the battery’s pack into propulsion, for the same mile.

Running costs

Electric car operating costs can be directly compared to the equivalent operating costs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. A litre of gasoline contains about 8.9 kW·h of energy.[39] To calculate the cost of the electrical equivalent of a liter of gasoline, multiply the utility cost per kW·h by 8.9. Because automotive internal combustion engines are only about 20% efficient, then at most 20% of the total energy in that liter of gasoline is ever put to use.

Also Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

admin answers:

You can purchase from local company by supporting them
you can purchase value pack which mean instead of 24 pack, you can buy a 2L bottle instead in order to reduce waste.
Make sure you recycle all empty bottles and cans
make sure you purchase those ones that can be recycled.

admin answers:

Hey Brian, interesting question, and one that gets to the heart of many renewable energy myths today. Your explanation might have a couple apples vs oranges. The sun produces much more power than 120,000 terawatts, or terawatts per year, but I’m not sure if TW/Y represents either of those. Total electrical energy use on our globe is about 15 terawatts continuously, or 132,000 TW hours each year. Since solar panels are about 12 to 14 % efficient today, it would take an area of 192 square miles to produce that much power. Problem is, you would need it to work 24/7, and most places on our globe are dark at night. Accomodating for night time, and twilight hours in the morning and evening when the panels would be operating below peak power, the number jumps to about 890 square miles, or about 39,000,000 acres. That sounds huge, but consider that Rhode Island takes up over 1500 square miles, and is one of the smallest states in the US, really that scenario is feasible. The fact is we are never going to do that. The cost, the enourmous demand for silicone, wiring, grids, and so on make it totally impractical. There is also the fact that Rhode Island is pretty cloudy.

Now enter the Germans, they have a fantastic plan to mine solar power from the Sahara Desert. It doesn’t involve solar panels, instead they are going to use solar thermal collectors that will heat oil to several hundred degrees, which will be circulated back into huge insulated tanks, then the hot oil will be used to boil water into steam ,which will turn a steam turbine. This idea has several advantages. First, since we can use both the light of the sun, and its resultant heat as opposed to a silicone panel, which uses only the incoming photons, the efficiency jumps to about 60%. Second, since oil does not boil until around 550 degrees, we can use the stored hot oil well into the night until it cools substantially. Now we have access to solar power at night. And the concentrators and oil(which gets continuously recycled each day) cost much less per unit power than any panel in production today. Since the efficiency is much higher, they will only need 30 to 40 square miles to power all of Europe. If you want to check it out, google, “North African Solar Project,” and read some of the resulting websites. If the system works as well as they plan, it will run most of Western Europe, and then we will probably have one in our desert southwest a few years later. This concentrator will not offset any wildlife, beyond a few scorpions and rattlesnakes living in the far out areas of the desert, and since they will be using sea water to boil into steam, the byproduct of the electrical production will be fresh water. That fresh water will be used for irrigation to farm small quantities of sunlight intensive farm stock in what is now a completely dry desert. Adding small amounts of plant life to the northwest corner of the desert where none exists now will not alter the climate, but does offer another opportunity for carbon to be converted to oxygen, reducing the CO2 content of the atmosphere slightly. There will be jobs there, installation, technicians, maintenance and operations, and as long as the sun shines in the desert, we won’t run out of fuel.

We’ve been powering our home for 11 years now on wind and solar power. I’ve learned many things during that time. One item is that there are two things in large supply in solar power, the sun, and missinformation. Lots of people have been posting interesting “facts” here about solar and wind power, having never laid a hand on a panel or wind turbine. Wind turbines do not kill as many birds each year as living room windows do, powering homes with solar panels does not require massive amounts of space, silicone panels do not need massive amounts of toxic chemicals to manufacture them, and people do not get cancer from spinning wind turbines. These are just a few of my favorites, there are many more. If you want to learn more about this technology, check out some sources below. Take care Brian, Rudydoo

admin answers:

Several new studies, including a gigantic one released this year from the US Department of Energy, show the corn to ethanol process to have a significantly larger positive net energy yield than previously shown. These improvements were largely due to greater efficiency modifications and technological advancements at ethanol plants. In some cases, specific ethanol plants have an almost infinitely positive net energy yield due to groundbreaking technologies used to power the plant such as wind turbine technology.

This study published in january 2009 shows the net energy yield of corn to ethanol to be +50% to 80%:

http://www.americanfuels.info/search?q=net+energy+yield&x=0&y=0

Here are the latest numbers from the Dept. Of Energy, published in May 2009. Go to page 16 of the 20 page summary. In the conclusions section the US DOE concludes that the entire corn to ethanol process yields at least 34% more energy that it takes to make the numbers could be as high as 67% due to rising corn yields secondary to farming improvements and ethanol plant technology improvements. The DOE concludes that corn ethanol is “energy efficient and becoming more energy efficient as time goes on”. They study also concludes that only 17% of the energy used to make ethanol actually comes from fossil fuels:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf

Lastly, some ethanol plants are producing ethanol and using virtually zero fossil fuels at all. Many are converting to wind power to generate the electricity for their plants. This makes sense for several reasons. First, wind and corn go hand in hand. The areas in the midwest that grow corn tend to be very windy in general. Secondly, the plants see this as a way to save huge amounts of money on energy costs. Thirdly, using wind turbines makes the net energy yield of producing ethanol even more hugely positive. Cornplus ethanol in Winnebago, Minnesota is one such plant that is producing ethanol from almost entirely renewable sources. Here are 2 links to read about it:

http://connectbiz.com/2005/11/keith-kor/

http://fairmontsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/500116.html?nav=5003

And here is one more study that shows corn ethanol yields 67% more energy than it takes to produce:

http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2008/04/biofuel-myths-vs-facts.html

Now, I want to hear arguments from people that dispute these facts. All 3 studies mentioned above have been published in 2009. Can you provide a newer more current study that shows differently? If you want to argue that the yield is negative please back it up with FACTS and DATA and provide LINKS, as I have done. Otherwise your argument has no weight. If you are going to argue against the net energy yield of ethanol back up your argument with facts, not just your false beliefs. Then again, I guess ignorance is bliss.

Chui, please see my link which addresses the issue you mentioned. We have thousands and thousands of miles of unused land in the US to plant corn and other crops.

Http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/10/maize-ing-fact-one-bushel-of-corn.html

admin answers:

And where does one get the certificate? =D

admin answers:

I’m not really sure about a course that you need to install solar panels on houses. I’m doing certificate II in electrotechnology and I know that there is also a certificate IV in electrotechnology where you learn about renewable energy so i searched Google for a TAFE in Perth that offers this sort of course and found this: http://psc.central.tafe.wa.edu.au/Search/List.aspx?Keyword=renewable%20energy&CourseNumber=&CourseType=&DeliveryLocation=&InternationalProduct=&Status=&StudyMode=&AccreditationWeeks=&MOUP=&MOUC=&ASCO=&ANZSIC=&ReviewDate=&searchBy=adv&currentlyThisSemester=&availableNextSemester=&courseNationalNumber=

I hope this helps! (I’m actually thinking of installing solar panels when I’m older too)

admin answers:

First point, we are talking about nuclear power as it exists at present, fission reactors that use uranium as a fuel.

It is difficult to make very strong points in favour of nuclear power, though it has been fashionable to try in some countries lately. It is basically non-renewable and so the uranium fuel is a limited and valuable resource that may be best kept for other purposes. This is the main point against it, just not sustainable.

The most common plus point put up in recent years is that it is clean power with low or zero emissions. You can use this in your argument, as have many politicians, but be aware that it is semantic nonsense. I think Japan went from a very “dirty” country to a clean country by introducing nuclear power plants. “Emissions” is an avoidance word though. Nuclear power has pollution as do other systems, though in different ways. Its downside is that the by-products need continuous care for hundreds of years. The up-side is that if properly contained (if) then the volume is small. There has been a lot of hysteria about dangers and contamination, but these are not easy to justify. The effects of other systems are probably just as life threatening, each in their own ways. There is a lot of drum beating going on around the various energy debates, presumably because a lot of money is involved, and also because it catches public interest.

Cost. Nuclear power is promoted as an intermediate cost between fossil fuel power and alternate energy power. Before alternate energy systems, it was the alternate energy system itself, and the most expensive. Once again this is a point for your answer, but it is not all that clear cut for whole of life cycle. Costing must take into account the long term safekeeping of hazardous material, and cleanups after shutdown or rare accidents. This is borne by the public, or so do utilities hope to avoid it. They can declare themselves bankrupt if things look bad, but the problem is then left for the public to pay. Basically nuclear power is subsidised in most places it is used, but then so are other power industries in various ways.

Security of supply. This is the third point. Nuclear power provides significant percentages of power in some countries. It provides an existing system that continues to operate, presumably as long as nuclear fuel is available (about 80 years). It seems to make sense to keep it in operation rather than dismantle it too soon. Dismantling it may well divert funds from alternative systems, and increase the use of fossil fuels.

Another plus point is that it is seen as less disruptive to human life as the natural radiation is higher than having a lot of properly run nuclear plants would be. This is compared to the large quantity of toxic substances output from coal stations.

Another point (a reason, not a good thing) is that it is seen as a status symbol in some countries, a sort of coming of age or “we can do nuclear”. This makes it desireable.

The link below is from the International Atomic Energy Association, and lists the pros and various arguments..

admin answers:

Barack Obama’s Plan

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. Are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. And deployed around the globe.

Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. Technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. Is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

Support Next Generation Biofuels

Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.

Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.

Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.

Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

Barack Obama’s Record

Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called “real as opposed to hypothetical results.”

For More Information about Barack’s Plan http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/