It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undercoverchef
I think what Bulldog is trying to say is that the electric motor has the potential to be more efficient than the traditional combustion engine. And with the use of solar panels it would be free to fill up
Now before anyone starts shouting "THE TECHNOLOGY AINT THERE YET" "THE BATTERIES ARE TO BIG" blah blah blah...
originally posted by Qwas
The logic that a cellphone batteries are better now than 15 years ago is also bad. That is because the cellphone uses less power not because the batteries are that much better. If batteries are that strong, why don't we have battery powered toasters, coffee pots, and microwave ovens
because no one needs to cary a microwave around in there pocket,although acoffee pot would be pretty cool
[edit on 4-6-2005 by TahoeSkiBum]
Now, how many cars would you like in a city? Lets say a nice size city like London or New York ends up with 1,000,000 of these electric cars (small percentage of all cars). You would need an additional 25 megawatts of power just to charge these cars. That means more power plants, more transmission lines, more distribution plants, etc...
The logic that a cellphone batteries are better now than 15 years ago is also bad. That is because the cellphone uses less power not because the batteries are that much better. If batteries are that strong, why don't we have battery powered toasters, coffee pots, and microwave ovens?
Solar power is not free. Solar cells are very expensive, produce only a few watts, and last just a few short years. Solar technology has a long, long way to go before it is a plausible answer.
Originally posted by undercoverchef
Point i am making is that if the right amount of money were invested we would soon (maybe as soon as 5-10years) have a clean and free energy source for cars.
Only a long way to go because there is not enough investment. At the start of WW2 America still had a mounted Calvary and Britain still used Bi-Planes. 6 years later the atom was split and the first jet fighters were in the air. When there is a need we can make massive technological advances in short time.
I really don’t understand why you are so opposed to solar power and electric motors... sure the technology aint there yet but why does that mean we have to give up trying???
Originally posted by dave_54
...and battery technology has a long way to go before it becomes practical for most people. Batteries have a very limited range and need complete replacing every few years.
Maybe some day all-electric cars will be practical for large numbers of consumers, but we are not there yet.
I see these arguments over and over. I believe there are other alternatives further than just solar, nuclear, fossil, etc. according to what I have studied
I hope to prove at least one of the energy ideas works in the near future.
It seems these alternatives are being suppressed, and are not wanted to be known to any great degree.
One possibility (not the idea I will be testing). Think about enzymes and bacteria in our own bodies that break down foods, so we can use it as nurishment and energy. Something like this is allready being thought about for use in cell phone batteries. What about a Bio-Vehicle, that in a way eats (with enzymes and bacteria) to supply its energy? I think there may be all sorts of alternatives for energy.
And I hear the arguments against alternatives. Not efficient. Not feasable. Not this. Not that. What purpose does this serve? Hearing "it can't be done" gets old, and it helps us none.
We had better figure out how it "can be done."