One of the major criticisms of John McCain's recent Financial Times op-ed that's been flying around has been his call to "reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources" with nuclear energy. "Foreign energy sources", of course, is just another way of saying oil, and only about 2% of our electricity is generated by oil. So more nuclear doesn't really help us replace oil. Right?

Well, maybe not. There is a kernel of unintentional truth here. While there are definitely problems with nuclear (cost, storage, and the difficulty of convincing communities to allow a power plant nearby), electricity can and probably will replace oil for transportation, especially once electric cars and plug-in electrics are widespread. At that point it doesn't matter if the energy source is coal or nuclear or wind. In the best case scenario, electric cars could be charged without increasing demand for electricity, and in the worst case, we could still recharge them using electricity generated without CO2. With biofuels losing favor and every car manufacturer picking up renewed interest in electrics and plug-in electrics, replacing gasoline with electricity seems like a safe bet. (And certainly much more feasible than a sci-fi hydrogen economy.)

The caveat here is "once electric cars and plug-in electrics are widespread", and the key to getting there will be for government to mandate electric and plug-in electric cars. John McCain isn't going to do that. But in the meantime, it's probably a good idea to rethink how we look at energy replacements. Energy is energy, whether it comes from coal or nuclear or wind or oil.

Tags: Global warming, Nuclear, Cars.

Email it Permalink 2 comments Add a comment

AutoblogGreen had a post up over the weekend about green cars and the need for sexiness in design, and inadvertently illustrates the problem with "greenness" as a consumer choice.

There is one major problem with the current list of electric or hybrid sedans on the market right now: they are seen as boring by many people. Sure, some drivers have fun in their hybrids by squeezing the most mileage that they can from a gallon of gas, and many people have a good time with the "eco-screen" that many vehicles come equipped with, but those features could hardly be described as "sexy".

But, it was just a few years ago that "normal" was seen as an important design direction for green cars, after years of concept cars that looked more like running shoes or fishbowls.

If only we could make them look like normal cars that everyone is already used to seeing, the logic went at the time, the public would snap them up, and we'd be on our way to a green car nirvana. Now we're headed back in the opposite direction: electric and hybrid cars are too normal, too boring, too boxy. If only we could emulate the Tesla's success at turning heads, we'd really be onto something!

But it's long past the point where green can be an option or a style, as if they were choosing a leather interior or a ski rack. It's time to give up the "sexy" vs "normal" vs "futuristic" design war for trying to sell greenness, and decide as a society that green isn't a consumer choice or a design statement; it's all you get.

READ MORE

Tags: Green design, Cars.

Email it Permalink 0 comments Add a comment