Comments on: Mercedes Takes Swiss Army Knife Approach to Electric Cars

By: Adianing Utari

Adianing Utari — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:40:18 +0000

I like Mercy B-class F-cell its the most elegance car.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:36:55 +0000

stupid!

By: Samie

Samie — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:09:49 +0000

Silly if you ask me maybe its our culture but it seems peps love to talk about one alternative energy other another. The only way some alternatives will work efficiently is to place them were they are optimal. Eg. wavetitle on coasts, wind in plains, coasts, or mountain ridges, solar in arid areas ect… Yes nuclear is needed but like others this has huge problems eg. waste disposal and competing interest for water resources so unlike crazy biofuel schemes alternative energy can be done but using a mix approach realizing that it will be along time before coal is phased out.

By: donee

donee — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:52:10 +0000

Hi All,

Global Warming might also be called Global Atmosphere Energization. So, taking energy out of the wind, would probably be synergistic with reducing CO2 emisions to reduce climate change. Just an educated guess on my part.

By: GOK

GOK — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:51:00 +0000

The skateboard doesn’t have anything to do with the volt…
This is the AUTOnomy which was GM answer to the high cost of fuel cells in 2002. I believed they dropped the idea. Where did you get your information for this article?

By: Gone with the wind

Gone with the wind — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:48:57 +0000

AP,

Do you know the amount of wind energy there is in our atmosphere? A windmill is perhaps 150-300 ft tall while a plane flys at 35,000 ft. All that wind between the top of the wind mill and the plane is unaffected not to mention the air mass above the airplane. If we covered the netire world with wind mills we would harness perhaps one millionth of the avaialbe energy. Definely not a concern.

By: Jo. A. Borras

Jo. A. Borras — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:03:26 +0000

Agree 100% with Boom-boom. If wind power generators are going to make these supposed huge differences in current wind patters, so too must cars, skyscrapers, dams, bridges, pyramids (not that we’ve built many of those in the past few thousand years, but still!) … it just seems like a very bizarre claim.

By: Dom

Dom — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:58:18 +0000

I agree with anonymous… forget the Volt. Build the Opel Flextreme instead. I’ll take a diesel engine instead of the gasoline engine any day. And I don’t like sedans at all.

By: Boom Boom

Boom Boom — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:45:26 +0000

AP,
There is no evidence that reaching 20 or 30% wind energy will do anything to the wind patterns. That is utterly ridiculous. There are drawbacks to wind power. It can be more expensive. It requires more transmission. Nuclear, too, has some rather significant drawbacks, like waste disposal and catastrophic failures.

Claiming that wind power is going to have an environmental effect by "removing energy from the air" is the same as claiming that babies all over the US will be born with two heads if we build another nuclear power plant. Neither is a reasonable criticism.

I'm not anti-nuclear. I think that to reach energy independence, we'll need a mixture of renewable and non-renewable clean electricity. But I wish that anti-wind folks would use valid arguments instead of fear-mongering.

By: Dan L

Dan L — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:38:18 +0000

AP, do you realize that nuclear electric puts more energy into the air (as waste heat) per unit of generated electricity than wind power takes out?