biasko je napisal/-a:aha nisem vedel da že obstaja tema o tem. Noja, kakorkoli. Jaz bi takoj priusa nabavil če bi bil kakšen miljon ceneje. Čeprav mi ni preveč všeč.

Polo78 je napisal/-a:Dejstvo je, da bi npr. Američani lahko že zdavnaj iznašli bolj napredno, učinkovito in okolju prijazno energijo za cestna prevozna sredstva, v kolikor ne bi tiste milijarde $$$ namenili za vojno v Iraku, ki je po Vietnamu itak daleč največja napaka njihove administracije z Bushmanom na čelu. Na drugi strani je pa tu potem še naftni lobi, ki je izredno močan in ki se ne bo pustil kar tako. Oboji so mafija v pravem pomenu besede. Medtem pa se Zemlja pregreva, naravne katastrofe bodo iz leta v leto večje, Američani pa istočasno nonšalantno trdijo, da izpustov toplogrednih plinov za voljo njihovega gospodarstva že ne bodo šli zmanjšat.

sebaveh je napisal/-a:Je pa še nekaj, kar mislim da do sedaj ni noben upošteval: Recimo, da bi res šli skoraj vsi na električne avte, ki bi po možnosti imeli še zmogljive baterije, ki bi jih lahko napolnili v le nekaj minutah. Pač se zato polnijo z soraznerno velikim tokom (teoretična kapaciteta baterije = čas polnjenja × tok polnjenja). No, in kaj bi se zgodilo, ko bi vsi hoteli polniti baterije, naprimer čez noč? Kolaps električnega omrežja

Polo78 je napisal/-a: Oboji so mafija v pravem pomenu besede. Medtem pa se Zemlja pregreva, naravne katastrofe bodo iz leta v leto večje, Američani pa istočasno nonšalantno trdijo, da izpustov toplogrednih plinov za voljo njihovega gospodarstva že ne bodo šli zmanjšat.

Polo78 je napisal/-a:....Oboji so mafija v pravem pomenu besede. ....

ExxonMobil earns record $39.5 billion in 2006

Posted Feb 2nd 2007 1:34PM by Chris Shunk
The oil empire that is ExxonMobil generated $39.5 Billion in profits in 2006 by providing to us the one thing we need most, good old-fashioned oil. A big reason for what amounts to the largest profit ever in U.S. history is the $3 per gallon gasoline that ruined our love for SUVs and trucks last year. Gas prices fell towards the end of the year, but ExxonMobil had already made its money by that point.

Many lawmakers want to heavily tax ExxonMobil for being too wealthy, but the oil guys point out that they spend a lot of money finding more oil so they can keep the crude coming. As it turns out, it's more expensive to drill a mile deep in the middle of the ocean than it is to poke a straw in the Saudi Arabian desert. Yeah, they're buying back a lot of stock too, but at least they're giving us the energy we need whenever we need it, which is better than the alternative.

[Source: The Car Connection]

As if they didn't already have enough... Exxon still trying to pay off scientists?

Posted Feb 2nd 2007 5:04PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski
To go along with our previous coverage of the newest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Guardian in the U.K. is reporting that the American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 each to any scientist willing to undermine the I.P.C.C.'s report. The AEI is funded by... drumroll... ExxonMobil.

Again, according the the Guardian, "The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees." And, they also offered travel expenses. "The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organization had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report."

I think that they were kind of cheap on this one. I mean, if they made $1,252.54 every second last year, they could have ponied up more than that! A measly ten seconds of their time (in profit) to each scientist. For shame.

Tad Murty, Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, all of whom believe that humans do not contribute anything to global warming, all are to be in London on Monday to refute the findings of the I.P.C.C. The Guardian reports that this London meeting is being paid for by ExxonMobil as well.

If you don't believe in global warming, or don't think that humans have anything to do with it... remember: despite the fact that I don't disagree with the findings of the I.P.C.C., I'm just reporting the news, I don't write it.

Science teachers reject free copies of "An Inconvient Truth" under pressure from ExxonMobil

Posted Nov 28th 2006 1:56PM by Sam Abuelsamid
The National Science Teachers Association was offered 50,000 free copies of the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth for classroom use. The group however decided to decline the offer because they didn't want to upset Exxon\Mobil. The oil company is a major financial supporter of the organization and decided it wasn't worth the risk of upsetting a contributor. The NSTA said they didn't want to offer any political endorsement of the film and saw little benefit to the group or it's members in accepting the DVDs. In their rejection letter to producer Laurie David, they said that accepting the DVDs would place, "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters is the ExxonMobil Corp." Clearly, the group cares more about keeping the flow of oil money going than they do in providing kids exposure to a viewpoint contrary to that of the oil companies.

[Source: BoingBoing]

$39.5 billion profit in one year = $39,500,000,000.00 = $759,615,384.62/week = $108,219,178.08/day = $4,509,132.42/hour = $75,152.21/minute = $1,252.54/second.

I could do a lot with $1,200 a second. What does Exxon Mobil do with it? Paying off scientists in an effort to mislead the public on global warming and pressuring teachers not to show An Inconvenient Truth in schools. In the mean time, Exxon only spends 0.1 percent of its total annual capital investment on sustainable technologies such as renewable energy.

Other oil companies, like ConocoPhillips and Shell, also made billions last year. Phillips made $15.55 billion and Shell earned $4.37 billion (just in the last three months of the year). Again, these are profit numbers, not revenue.

1. Potrebne so ogromne investicije za ustrezno pridobivanje in distribucijo vodika

2. Hkrati so potrebne ogromne investicije v nadzor distribucije vodika. Ne pozabimo - vodik naj bi se distribuiral po cevovodih pod pritiskom ali utekočinjen (ohlajevanje na več kot - 200 st Celzija). Zaradi načina distribucije bi bila le-ta zelo občutljiva na kakršnekoli teroristične napade ali tudi samo nesreče - in tu ne govorimo o varovanju recimo kvadratnega kilometra prostora okoli neke jedrske elektrarne, ampak o stotisočih kilometrih cevovodov pod pritiskom.

3. Seveda je za samo pridobivanje vodika potrebna ogromna količina energije. Le-ta je potrebna tudi za distribuiranje, v avtu na gorivno celico ima tudi le-ta (g. c.) precejšnje izgube, hkrati pa vodik dokaj hitro izhlapi tudi iz dobro zatesnjenih tankov - ponovne izgube. Že sama energetska računica se ne izide, kaj šele ekonomska.

4. V navezavi na tretjo točko (uhajanje iz cevi in rezervoarjev) je vodik izredno nevaren za ozonski plašč - precej bolj kot dosedanji polnilni plini v sprejih. Močneje kemično reagira, je dosti lažji in gre hitro ves navzgor in najvišje v najbolj občutljive dele atmosfere (že stratosfere). Bi lahko hitro ostali brez ozona- vse bi bilo ena sama luknja.

5. V vsakem primeru bi do večinske uveljavitve vodikove ekonomije moralo preteči več desetletij, kar je za naš bogi planet milo rečeno prepozno. Marsikomu bolje obveščenemu se zdi, da je verjetno prepozno že sedaj, še posebno s krepitvijo novih tigrov (Indija, Kitajska itd), kar bo onesnaževanje še precej povečalo (ponekod na Kitajskem je že toliko onesnaževanja, da že sprejemajo nekatere ukrepe za omejevanje le-tega).

1. VE bi zaradi naštetih razlogov prinesla popolno centralizacijo distribucije vodika in še bolj nadzora le-te, kar bi posledično pomenilo popolno odvisnost in nadzor naših življenj od vlade in maloštevilnih megakorporacij. Kaj je lepša vaba in motiv od takega monopola?
Ob tem se Orwellov 1984 lahko skoraj skrije. Le malo SciFi knjig ali filmov je ponudilo tak črn scenarij. Bushman et & verjetno v tem vidijo realno možnost.

2. Hkrati bi VE zahtevala ogromne finančne, tehnološke in kadrovske investicije, ki so jih sposobne le megakorporacije. Tako bi le-te ohranjale svoj monopol (in postavljale nove Bushmane na oblast). Začaran Orwellov krog je tako sklenjen.

1. Hrana bi se močno podražila

2. Marsikje bi ljudje (še bolj kot sedaj) masovno umirali od lakote. Kar zaradi odvisnosti od le-te spet pomeni večji vpliv in nadzor ZDA v svetu in kontrolno pozicijo na trgu hrane in bioenergentov.

The Top Ten electric vehicles you can buy right now (for the most part)


Posted Feb 7th 2007 1:24PM by Sebastian Blanco
I think all the news of the Tesla Roadster and the Chevy Volt that came out since last summer has reminded a lot of people that there are some serious contenders to the gasoline engine. The electric vehicle (EV) community certainly thinks 2006 was a good year for EVs. In fact, the past has seen some truly cool EVs, and the list of retired EVs is long and, for some, emotional: the EV1, the Ranger EV, the RAV4 EV and so on. But there should be no time for mourning and instead a look toward the future. Actually, we don't even need to guess what great EVs are coming down the pipe, there are already some wicked cool EVs available today. If you're ready to get off the gas in 2007, consider one of these, the Top Ten Electric Cars of 2007 (Aside from the Roadster, which certainly deserves the Number 1 spot, the list is in no real order).

Tesla Roadster - This car has reinvigorated the EV market like no other. While technically no one can buy it this year (all 100 vehicles that will be available later in 2007 have already been spoken for, I can't help but place it at No. 1. With a 0-60 time beneath four seconds and a look that makes you just want to hop in and drive, the Roadster.

več o tem avtu

foto galerija Tesla roadster
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/tesla-roadster/

UEV Spyder - Universal Electric Vehicle's Spyder made an impressive debut at the Santa Monica Alt Car Expo last December, even though I heard a lot of people ask, "Is this the Tesla?" This EV will be available with different battery configurations at different price levels (some comparable to the Roadster). You don't hear so many people talk the Spyder up, but it seems to share many of the same qualities that make the Roadster so exciting: speed, zero emissions, and sports-car styling.

več o tem avtu


Phoenix SUT – Yeah, it's expensive ($45,000), but EVs aren't cheap. Heck, retired Toyota RAV4 EVs regularly go for more than $50,000 on eBay, and the batteries in those things are old. Phoenix has been working with Altairnano Technologies on new batteries and is bringing this sports utility truck to market with better range than the RAV4 (but, admittedly, not as much size). Phoenix says they hope to sell 500 SUTs by the end of the year. Perhaps a better name will pump up sales.

več o tem avtu

Miles ZX40 – While the Spyder and the Roadster don't really ask the driver to make any sacrifices (aside from in the bank account), EVs like those from Miles are not a replacement for a "standard" car, but a solid contender for second vehicle for certain families or individuals, or as a main vehicle for those who don't have to go very far. The Miles ZX40 is like a lot of NEVs – limited to a top speed of 25 mph, a range of around 50 miles per charge and a price of about $12,000-$20,000. (We don't actually know the price of the ZX40, but other NEVs are priced in this range). Another Miles model, the OR70, can go 35 mph.

več o tem avtu

ZENN – Another player in the NEV field, ZENN's cars are "zero emission, no noise." Get it? ZENN. These NEVs have a lower range than Miles' offerings (only about 35 miles) and are a bit smaller, too. When I drove one in D.C. last year the battery was on its last legs and in need of a charge, but still drove well. The various options can add up to $2,500 to the $12,500 base price. But the most exciting part about ZENN's offerings are yet to come: the EESTOR ultra capacitor is still shrouded in mystery, but the potential is great for this new EV power source (as is the disappointment if the EESTOR doesn't live up to the hype).

več o tem avtu

GEM e2 – Yes, they look funny. No, they can't go very far or very fast. But GEM electric vehicles have been available for years and the company has a wide range of models available (two through six seats, with or without a flatbed) and prices ($7,000-$12,500). GEMs are used around the country on various campuses, but models like the e2 are obviously targeted to home users.

več o tem avtu


Smart EV - Available in Switzerland and the UK, the tiny Smart EVs are zero-emission versions of their fossil-fuel drinking cousins. These cars share the easy-parking abilities and unique styling of the standard Smarts, but are only available in the fortwo configuration and only to "to blue chip companies who are happy to meet our requirements to power the cars using only renewable energy sources," says Smart UK. Conversions for your standard Smart are also available.

več o tem avtu

Mullen L1X-75 – Some of our readers are skeptical of Hybrid Technologies, maker of the Mullen L1X-75, saying their press releases promise more than they can ever deliver. The L1X-75 certainly promises a lot - 100-mile range on a 4-6 hour charge - and this comes at a price ($125,000). Still, the sports car look will attract the eye of those you zip by, and I'd certainly give one a whirl.

več o tem avtu

G-Wiz EV – available in the UK (and desired by Sir Elton John), the G-Wiz costs a little bit (£8,299 to £6,999) more than some of the short-range EVs in America, but you get something extra in England, too: exemption from certain taxes and London congestion charges and free parking in some areas. There are even free charging stations in some locations.

več o tem avtu

Kurrent – A tiny and very distinctive-looking NEV, the Kurrent's price ($10,600) includes home delivery because, as American Electric Vehicle president Scott Thornton told AutoblogGreen, if AEV allowed the Kurrent to be sold at just any dealership, the customer might not be able to drive it home thanks to U.S. laws that restrict NEVs to roads with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or below. Lead-acid batteries deliver a range of about 40-mile range.


več o tem avtu

foto galerija Kurrent (from Ptuy, Corromandya)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/aev-kurrent/

For Number 10, I cannot ignore all of the homemade EVs and converted EVs. People have been creating their own electric vehicles for year, and the trend continues. Za primer, preberi več tu , tu in tu .


There are more EVs available today, and if you feel I should've included any in this Top Ten list, add it yourself in the comments. Also, there are a lot of upcoming EVs to get excited about - Tesla's WhiteStar sedan, Zap!'s Lotus APX - so if you're sick of gassing up your car, consider going all-electric. They're not for everyone, but they might be perfect for you.

sebaveh je napisal/-a:Je pa še nekaj, kar mislim da do sedaj ni noben upošteval: Recimo, da bi res šli skoraj vsi na električne avte, ki bi po možnosti imeli še zmogljive baterije, ki bi jih lahko napolnili v le nekaj minutah. Pač se zato polnijo z soraznerno velikim tokom (teoretična kapaciteta baterije = čas polnjenja × tok polnjenja). No, in kaj bi se zgodilo, ko bi vsi hoteli polniti baterije, naprimer čez noč? Kolaps električnega omrežja

kolesar je napisal/-a:irak ma najbolšo nafto na svetu!!! najbol kvalitetno!!
je tudi ena najbolših za bitumne ki pa so zelo dragi in takih naft je malo...

drugače pa tista najnovejša elektrarna če se ne motim je na vodik v franciji ki jo je eu naredil je samo za raziskave ker sama sebe komaj preživlja ker se ni dosti razvit vodik...

je pa vsekakor zanimivo spremljati napredek..

marsikdo kaj pogrunta, pa če bi se vsi skupaj vsedli......

esem je napisal/-a:

Polo78 je napisal/-a:....Oboji so mafija v pravem pomenu besede. ....

No, no, pretiravat res ni treba. Za sodelovanje z Mafijo se vsak sam odloči (tistih, ki jih prisilijo, je skoraj zanemarljiv procent), medtem ko smo vpliva Bushmanske vlade in naftnih lobijev deležni čisto vsi - Američani in Neameričani. Poleg tega napad na Irak ni bila napaka, kot je bila v Vietnamu (tja so pač padli brez razmišljanja, predvsem hladna vojna oz zmaga nad rdečkarji jih je motivirala).