Nissan Looking At Roadbed Electrification

Slotted "roadways" only work indoors sheltered from the elements for toy cars all about the same size.

Imagine the added distraction of drivers worrying about that, too.

Imagine the electrical efficiency while you're at it.

The gasoline-powered IC engine is a technological wonder. It starts instantly, has lots of power, is reliable, and can go most anywhere,

John

Smart steering and braking would make driving much safer and easier w/ or w/o without electrification.

The only hope is to go to higher and higher technology.

That's the argument for trolley rail or wire.

Maybe the Japanese have less potholes as well as less petroleum than the US which may be why they are considering it first.

Best of all ICE only costs 2 cents/watt -- the cheapest prime mover ever!

If they can get rid of the rare earth metals in performance electric motors and if the price of copper doesn't soar too much then EV and hybrid drive trains might eventually be only a few cents/watt too.

Bret Cahill

That 40 mile bridge section of I-10 through the bayou west of New Orleans could have the wires _under_ the bridge.

Bret Cahill

You haven't a clue why they put freeways on bridges in Louisiana, do you?

Toyota is sure doing a good job of it.

"Toyota's runaway-car worries may not stop at floor mats"

The fast there only about 79 million total vehicles (buses, cars, motorbikes, etc) in Japan and the US has about 251 million cars alone has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

Economies of scale are always important.

We need to get everyone to agree to the same system.

Bret Cahill

They're afraid of gators.

Bret Cahill

So sell your car and take the train.

Only hope? My car works just fine.

Unlikely. Batteries are expensive, short-lived, heavy, toxic, and slow to recharge. Roadbed electrification is absurd.

So, what do you drive?

John

We already have, and it works great.

John

Ever try to deliver red leaf lettuce with a train?

Even more on point, driving "by the seat of your pants" isn't cute. It isn't romantic.

It's dangerous. It's a complete waste of brain cells' time.

Even if yours does others' don't.

Batteries can be much smaller and/or last much longer if they are infrequently used.

I just called up GEICO and told them it was in "storage." I only use it in emergencies.

Bret Cahill

That goes a long way in explaining why you appear to know little to nothing about how vehicles and roads work in the real world.

Bret Cahill

Stop breathing. That will help me meet my quota.

John

What has this to do with your lack of knowledge about how vehicles and roads work in the real world?

But since fires annually generate far more CO2 than all normal human activities, if you want to reduce CO2 levels, invest in firemen.

Renewables like food aren't included, or they are only included as far as the energy required to grow and transport the food.

Some algae can grow in petroleum. If that were used as food then (356 days/year)(8,000 BTU/day)/(16,000 BTU/lb) =3D 178 lbs carbon/year =3D 650 lbs CO2/year.

Bret Cahill

What does your question begging have to do with anything on this thread?

That's exactly what they are trying to do: put out the fires in the cylinders of your motor vehicle.

Bret Cahill

It goes to why your schemes to save the world are nonsense in the real world.

The point went over your head as usual.

The amount of CO2 generated by cars compared to the amount of CO2 generated by fires is so tiny is like an ant pissing in the Pacific Ocean.

If all the cars in the world dissapeared, you would hard pressed to be able to measure the difference.

And then there are volcanoes...

Forests -- including their fires -- are sustainable.

This falls under the same kind of ignorant scam argument as "but water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas" and "but a lot of artic ice is refreezing right now . . ."

Depends on if the cars burned fossil fuels.

More of the usual ignorant talking points of deniers.

Why didn't you try the water vapor scam?

Saving that for later?

Bret Cahill