The Observation Deck

Nuclear Power + Electric Cars =

Jim DeVito wrote:Nuclear Power + Electric Cars =

Don't we have both of these to one degree or another?

Phil Florian wrote:

Jim DeVito wrote:Nuclear Power + Electric Cars =

Don't we have both of these to one degree or another?

Correct, however we do not have them to the degree that will have any meaningful impact. We need to ramp up our production of both products and find some way to force a change in popular thought. We do not need to be driving big @## suv's that get 10 MPG to the coffee shops buy ourselves. We can drive electric cars, sure they may not have the get up an go that you want but how often do you really need to go 0-60 in 4.8 sec or whatever.

nuclear power and comfortable walking shoes.

Jim DeVito wrote:

Phil Florian wrote:

Jim DeVito wrote:Nuclear Power + Electric Cars =

Don't we have both of these to one degree or another?

Correct, however we do not have them to the degree that will have any meaningful impact. We need to ramp up our production of both products and find some way to force a change in popular thought. We do not need to be driving big @## suv's that get 10 MPG to the coffee shops buy ourselves. We can drive electric cars, sure they may not have the get up an go that you want but how often do you really need to go 0-60 in 4.8 sec or whatever.

I agree with the creation of more economical cars, that's for sure. Sadly, whatever is good for you in the car world also is sold as "boutique" and usually out of the range of reasonable. You can't find one under $20K. Purely electric cars are limited by battery life and probably cost even more. It is better to buy a tiny gas-efficient car vs. the more expensive "greener" cars.

My reservations is more around the nuclear power. I like the idea of nuclear power but they still haven't answered what to do with the waste. If the by-product wasn't so toxic and hard to get rid of I would line up but sadly, sticking piles and piles of radioactive goo into barrels under a variety of mountains isn't the way to go. Something needs to be found that is more sustainable without the long term impact.

But boil the idea down to "better power creation and more efficient modes of transportation" and you have captured the successful American future.

To me, anyway.

There was this science fiction show on reruns when I was a kid.

This family - The Bradys - lived in a suburb in California. They packed six kids into two bedrooms. Even though Mike Brady had a white collar job. all the kids walked to school. Jan and Marcia walked to town to work in an ice cream shop in town.

they had this domestic servant working with them. Even though she was white and a legal resident, she spoke english well and worked for minimum wage and board. She didn't have tattoos or smoke cigarettes. Her boyfriend owned and worked at a butcher shop in town. Apparently there were still butcher shops back then.

The series ended before we got to find out if the kids got addicted to heroin or became wall street coke heads.

A future technology will be smaller sized retail stores spaced out at pedestrian-friendly distances. like the old woolworths and small appliance stores. The big box places might be retrofitted as small warehouses or distribution centers or factories.

Of course there is global competition too. Small, cheap, efficient cars can be made - and seem to have appeared in cycles for the last 50 some years starting with the first car of the people, the Volkswagon.

Tata Motors in India has the Nano. US$2500. I'm hoping that BJ's wholesale or Home Depot stocks them soon, as they compete in price with some high end John Deere lawn mowers.

Mercedes Smart car

.