6 Responses

  1. Thank You for bring Denmark into the picture and people look around for more on Denmark it’s really amazing what they have done so far and we in Amerika haven’t.

  2. The idea that this is a solution anywhere beyond an island environment of this type is absurd. I don’t think it would work well in New York or London. What is needed is a whole new approach to battery technology. If we can ever make a battery perform as well as a tank full of gas and recharge in less than say, twenty minutes, then I think we have a real chance at a solution to global warming. We can produce clean electricity, but I suggest we have gone as far as we can with a with pollution free combustion engine.

    • What is the point of asserting something such as you did without offering any data and justification to back it up?

      There are journal articles giving detailed analysis of how this would work, such as the work at U. Delaware. I suggest you actually check out what is going on this area before posting unjustified blog comments.

      Also, one can buy a car today that can be charged to add 150 miles of range in 30 minutes. Technology has a way of improving with time, so there is no reason not to expect faster charge times and greater range.

  3. The California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Owner Survey found that 44% of EV owners had PV systems, and an additional 17% were planning on installing PV, so many of the EVs out there today are being fueled with sunshine.

    Wind is an even better match to EVs than PV though, so Denmark has the right idea. In many places in the world, wind generates best at night, which is when EVs are parked and plugged in. The ability of EVs to charge when the wind blows and pause (or even feedback power to the grid via V2G) when it doesn’t can be helpful in smoothing out the intermittent nature of wind power.

  4. Let one hundred flowers bloom, let every idea for non-fossil fuels be tried.

    But there are NON-FLOWERS. FOSSIL-FUELS are non-flowers and we should be weaning ourselves from them as fast as possible: for fuels for cars, airplanes, home and building heating and cooling, for plastics-manufacture and other manufactures from petroleum feed-stocks (if these contribute to global warming).

    High-mileage cars would be nice, but if they burn gasoline they are (also) a no-no. More and better public transport would be preferable. WE MUST CHANGE OUR HABITS AND REDUCE OUR POPULATIONS.

    If a strong policy of no-more-fossil-fuel development (or use) can be spoken (President Obama, are you listening?) the value of OIL RESERVES and GAS RESERVES and COAL RESERVES might plummet, the prices of these fuels might rise, and the economic-impetus (aka market forces) to find alternatives would be in place.

Comments are closed.