The Corvette which was built 1955 already had composite fenders, doors and rear quarter panels and it also had a Chevy small block engine.

Germany has meanwhile over a million (if not several million) PV-systems installed. If fires were a common problem of PV-systems, Germany would be on fire. PV-module manufacturers typically warrant >80% of power after 25 years of operation: http://us.sunpowercorp.com/homes/products-services/solar-panels/e20/ Also, if PV-systems would commonly fail, Germans would have stopped installing PV-systems by now, since a PV-system that doesn't produce any kWh is not receiving any FIT and therefore not generating any return on investment. Germany is a free country and not one single German has been forced to put PV on his roof.

The C7 does have a rear mounted transmission (transaxle). A 3 L diesel engine is heavier than a LS3 engine. Most people who would like a fuel efficient car with a diesel engine, wouldn't buy a Corvette. (One could also ask for a Corvette with pedals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike )

Since the US has significantly more flexible gas power than China it is even better suited to integrate Wind and PV into the current grid than China: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ Also, the US has a high air conditioning demand in the summer which very much welcomes PV on existing roofs. The LCOE of wind is meanwhile between $33 and $65 /MWh: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/stat-of-the-day-winds-levelized-cost-now-at-an-all-time-low/ As soon as natural gas prices rice again, wind will be pretty competitive: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/02/shale-gas-production-currently-not-profitable/ Even small PV-systems in Germany are meanwhile being built for less than €1.5 /W. http://www.photovoltaikforum.com/angebote-f41/14974-7kwp-1250eur-talesun-1460eur-kingdom-solar-t86065.html This means that Americans should in principle also be able to build complete PV-systems below $2/ W (hardware costs don't differ and US salary's are about the same). With 1700 sunhours per year, that leaves amortization costs of 7.8 cents/kWh (15 year amortization). The introduction of net-metering should be enough to promote the growth of PV on existing roofs in the US. Since a PV module has no moving parts, there's no reason why it shouldn't last over 30 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJPd7oVG9N4

China will install 49 GW of renewable capacity in 2013 (21 GW hydro, 18 GW wind and 10 GW PV): http://www.coalguru.com/china/china_unveils_big_renewable_energy_ambitions_for_2013/6491 China added 34 GWth of solar hot water capacity in 2010: http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/activities/gsr/GSR2012_low%20res_FINAL.pdf According to IAEA China has brought 1 GW of new nuclear online (2012).

Darius. Germany's CO2-emissions were lower in 2011 than in 2010: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/kohlendioxid-ausstoss-in-deutschland-geht-zurueck-a-825251.html In 2010 renewables in Germany accounted for 16.4% and nuclear for 22.4%. In 2012 renewables in Germany accounted for 21.9% and nuclear for 16%. So, German nuclear was not replaced by coal but mostly by renewables. http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/viewpage.php?idpage=65 And of course PV has obviously reduced peak electricity prices during daytime, since PV has practically zero marginal costs (this is called merit order effect): http://ooe.gruene.at/fileadmin/oberoesterreich/benutzerinnen/presseunterlagen12/20120626_grafik04-sv.png The reason why coal consumption primarily in Britain has increased is because of lower coal prices since the US is consuming less coal thanks to cheap shale gas (as opposed to Germany, Britain is intending to build more nuclear): http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2012/12/20/9626392/coal-tops-uks-q3-12-electricity-generation-mix.html EDF wants up to £140/MWh for its new nuclear power plants in Britain and this doesn't include decommissioning: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2187888/EDF-wants-taxpayers-cash-pay-nuclear-power.html This is more than the feed-in tariffs for PV in the UK above 4 kW: http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20February%202013%20PV%20Only.pdf Large complete PV systems are meanwhile built for less than €1200 /kW in Germany: http://www.photovoltaikforum.com/angebote-f41/97724-154kwp-1162eur-yingli-t85721.html (and definitely not $4000 /kW as your link suggests). Germany has been subsidizing coal and nuclear almost 10 times more than feed-in tariffs were paid for renewable energies: http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Soziale-Energiewende.pdf So it's no surprise that coal is still being consumed in large amounts in Germany. If nuclear proponents are interested in reducing GHG-emissions, why are they typically attacking renewables and not subsides for fossil fuels or the large utilities which operate coal power plants or SUVs or inefficient buildings?

Davemart: Why are you slandering renewables and at the same time claim that you are supporting solar? Since you've ignored the facts from Fraunhofer, here they are again: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/aktuelle-fakten-zur-photovoltaik-in-deutschland.pdf On page 27 one can clearly see that PV and Wind complement each other very well, since there's always more Wind in the winter. And on page 26 one can clearly see, that solar is produced when the power demand is higher and unburdens the grid during daytime (also because it can be consumed locally), such that less costly peak power is needed (which primarily means less gas and less black coal is consumed). Even on the sunniest days in spring, German solar doesn't affect baseload power since the day-demand is still significantly higher than the night demand (on page 26). Even the peak power plants in the Netherlands reduce their gas consumption, thanks to German roof top power: http://www.z24.nl/economie/artikel_374604.z24/Duitse_zonnestroom_legt_Nederlandse_gascentrales_plat.html The feed-in tariffs for solar are currently between 11.78 and 17.02 cents/kWh (on page 8 of the Fraunhofer report). That's 14.4 cents/kWh on average. If Germany were to continue to install 7.5 GW of PV per year and the wholesale electricity prices stay at 5 cents/kWh, the net-costs (not giving any value to jobs, fuel import reductions, CO2-reductions etc.) of those PV additions per year amount to only €0.64 billion at 900 sunhours per year (that's just simple math). If one already considers €0.64 billion roof top power a bloody silly idea (even though it just reduces fuel imports and keeps jobs), what does one have to think about the US defense spending which amounts to over $1000 billion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States Since 1970 Germany has subsidized coal with €398 billion, nuclear with €213 billion and renewables only with €67 billion, but mostly with feed-in tariffs and no taxpayer-money (subsidies): http://www.die-klima-allianz.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Soziale-Energiewende.pdf According to the VDE Germany can go over 70% renewable power without building any storage: http://www.vde.com/de/Verband/Pressecenter/Pressemappen/documents/2012-06-11/etg-speicherstudie_bpk_2012-06-11-v5_handout.pdf Bavaria already gets 10% of its power from its roofs and Bavaria went from 1% to over 10% roof-power in the same time frame Finland has been building one new nuclear reactor, which unfortunately is still not online. In addition, the US gets only 6.4 % of its power from hydro electric power plants. Does that therefore mean American hydro power must be useless?

Germany has reduced its CO2 emissions since 1990 by 26%. Germany has increased its renewable proportion in the last decade by almost 20% thanks to the introduction of feed-in tariffs. Germany is currently export world champion. However, despite the fact that Germany reduced its fuel imports, it still pays €100 billion for fuel imports (€60 billion more than 2004!). The renewable industry in Germany not only generated hundred-thousands of jobs and reduced fuel consumption, it also increased Germany's tax revenue. The profits of the four big German utilities are actually higher than the costs of the feed-in tariffs. German coal production has received almost 5 times more subsidies since 1970, than what all the feed-in tariffs have been amounted to since their introduction. Thanks to the low feed-in tariffs, the extra electricity costs is less than €1 billion per year, even if Germany were to continue to install 7.5 GW of PV per year (the US defense budget is over $1000 billion and is not reducing fuel dependence). A PV system even on a German roof can easily produce more electricity than what the entire house underneath requires. PV reduces peak electricity prices in Germany and PV & Wind complement one another very well (page 26 & 27): http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/aktuelle-fakten-zur-photovoltaik-in-deutschland.pdf Renewable power also reduced German wholesale electricity prices and Norsk has decided to triple aluminum production in Germany.

This study doesn't include the tax-payer paid military expenditures spent to protect the fossil fuel interests in the middle east. Besides, renewables also create local jobs, reduce emissions, reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and also hedge against their high price volatility and inflation as do efficiency measures.

Kelly. 1. These turns were introduced for safety reasons. Nobody cares about EPA-ratings in motorsport. 2. It's not about the extra distance. It's about the fact that the new racecars need to decelerate and accelerate twice just in this long straight. Besides, hybrid does actually make more sense in motorsport than in normal driving, because 40% of the energy is used for braking. Recycling braking energy reduces the amount of fuel/weight needed to carry around and/or reduces the number of time consuming stints needed. For comparison: Non-race car drivers sometimes drive 2 hours without even touching the brake once.

One can also reduce payroll taxes or taxes on earnings and increase gas/diesel taxes and companies will save more with such devices.

Assuming a hypothetical LFTR-reactor was commercially available, it may be more cost effective to not waste any neutrons on Pa-231 or any decay products from the U or Pu needed to sustain the reaction and just leave this waste to future generations. After all a hypothetical LFTR-reactor would have to prevail in an increasingly competitive low-carbon energy production and energy savings market and would thus be forced to maximize its cost effectiveness.

Besides that any LFTR-reactor would also need a neutron source (e.g. artificially bred U233) to start the reaction and also produces Pa231 with a half life of over 30,000 years: LFTRs reactors are not commercially available. It would not be sensible to wait decades for affordable LFTR reactors to appear and not invest in commercially available and affordable efficiency measures, renewable energy options and forestation measures now. These alternative options are already available in numerous varieties now and undoubtedly can reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately.

Apart from simplicity, volume and weight, a conventional 2-cycle or 4-cycle engine has the advantage of not having a hot cylinder which is constantly exposed to very high temperatures...

ai_vin. The crops have a higher energy content - not the fuel. (Needless to say that a wind farm could produce much more fuel (e.g. hydrogen or methane) than any crop per area. And a PV system on a parking roof can easily power an electric car. On the other hand: Crops on a parking roof could not even power a moped.)

Just SAYING green technology will save money does not make it true. Actually, according to facts efficiency measures not only save money, but also generate a high return on investment: http://hes.lbl.gov/consumer/profitable

What if private, free entrprise funds the most cost effective indutries. We get more cost effective industry for FREE. Actually, the fossil fuel and nuclear industry in the US are not free and are receiving and have received far more subsidies than the renewable industry probably ever will: http://bit.ly/qw33Im

If one were to purchase a gasoline Fiat instead of diesel BMW one could easily replace appliances with efficient appliances and improve house insulation or install a solar hot water or even a photovoltaic system and drastically reduce CO2 emissions for the same €/$ spent and on top of that: Reduce the electricity and heating bills. Besides that a diesel engine is more costly and heavier than a gasoline engine - if everybody started to produce and use diesel engines only, there would be a serious fuel supply problem.

This may have potential in gas/methane generators (CHP-plants) where spark plugs have to be replaced on a regular basis and where combustion chambers are much larger.

Well, European workers typically do not need to tow more than 7000 lbs (not many workers own yachts) and if they need to tow heavy equipment such as a bulldozer or an excavator they just use a dump truck with a flat bed trailer (which there are plenty to choose from: Iveco, Scania, MAN, Renault, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, DAF).

The Iveco Ecodaily with a 3 Liter Diesel engine has a payload of 9400 lbs. This is significantly more payload than what the F350 currently offers. Not sure why American 'workers' require more expensive vehicles with less payload, less space and lower mileage than European 'workers'.

Switzerland is a tiny country in Europe with less hydro capacity than Austria, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Spain and has a hydro storage capacity of 8765 GWh : http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=00766 In other words: The current hydro lakes in tiny Switzerland could provide 50% of the German power demand for 256 hours alone (with an appropriate turbine upgrade), should there be absolutely no German sun, wind, biogas, hydro during this entire time period. No soup for you. Next. (Besides: The EU spends about 3% of its current GDP on oil. Oil costs cannot compete with rent, tax and health-care costs even if they double. And if they double oil-furnace-owners can still dress for the season and gas-guzzler-owners can still use public transport.)

In ancient times some people liked to sit on tall horses and nowadays the same sort of people may like to sit in tall, big cars. The ads which tell them that they can tow big boats (which they don't own) up high mountains on dirt roads (which they don't live nearby) does not brainwash but certainly help (otherwise these ads wouldn't exist). Regardless, one thing is certain: Americans wouldn't buy big SUV's and pick-up trucks in large numbers if they had to deal with a reasonable gas tax.

Actually, I doubt that families buy Suburban's as opposed to Sienna's because of their slightly bigger seating capacity. (Besides most families can't fill either car and even they could, these cars are still mostly driven around with one occupant.) In any case: Car companies could be supported in their weight reduction efforts, if income taxes where reduced in favor of healthy gas taxes...

EP, here's the link again: http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/161274/publicationFile/8924/PVLeistungMonat_2009_2010pdf.pdf UA, coal is more abundant than imported oil but not as abundant as you think it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575617810380509880.html?mod=googlenews_wsj And in 2009 the world added 80 GW of renewable power in one single year: http://goo.gl/aP5zu Also, wind power as well as PV have still a double digit growth worldwide.