Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So this thorium, does it remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be dumped deep underground once it's used up?
Any nuclear waste is not cleaner, its still dangerous poisaness by product that has to be dealt with.

Renewable energy is better, but you have people protest against wind farms because they look ugly, or solar panels but no one wants to invest in those, no, man seems to only want to kill the ozone layer or make everything radioactive.
Not saying renewables are the ultimate solution, but their seems little interest in developing them to where they could be.

Renewables have been getting huge tax subsidies for years. They aren't panaceas. Solar farms take up massive amounts of space and reflect lots of heat in a concentrated area. Wind turbines have been known to harm wildlife, as well. One problem with wind is that it is most effective at night, when power use is lower. Batteries can help store that electricity, but there is naturally the issue of what the batteries are made of, and how efficient they are at storing electricity.

The reality is that we'll need a combination of energy sources for a long time. How this factors into Apple's car plans remains to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
It doesn't matter. To me the point of electric cars is not really that it's all in all greener right now. The point to me is that electric cars are just better cars than traditional cars, by a lot. They are nicer to drive, they are not as loud, they don't stink and they are basically the ultimate solution. If some day the energy problem is solved (say, fusion power becomes viable), you only have to slowly transition the power grid to that new technology and not every single car that's still driving around.

They don't have the range, disposal of batteries is a major problem, and don't be surprised if governments require electric cars to make noise when they become more popular (think pedestrian safety). They may be the solution eventually, but they are not right now, and so it could be years before Apple is ready to release a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I disagree with your point about nuclear waste. Sure, it may be a problem, but it's one that's easier to solve that carbon output. For a start we can burry it, as you mentioned, which while it sounds unpleasant probably isn't actually a very big deal I suspect - how much space is required for the use of spent nuclear fuel rods? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a fairly small amount.

The U.S. was going to store spent nuclear rods under a mountain in Nevada, but Harry Reid kept blocking it because of NIMBYism. Right now storage of spent rods is a serious issue, because they are generally stored onsite, which means that many of our major cities are located less than 75 miles from nuclear waste. France is the most advanced in this regard, since they have managed to find ways of using "spent" rods to generate more energy (thus reducing overall use of nuclear material).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I hate this daft 'multiquote' system of this site! Nearly as silly as the removal of the system where it automatically placed your several replies in a row into one post^^^^^^^^

I disagree with your point about nuclear waste. Sure, it may be a problem, but it's one that's easier to solve that carbon output. For a start we can burry it, as you mentioned, which while it sounds unpleasant probably isn't actually a very big deal I suspect - how much space is required for the use of spent nuclear fuel rods? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a fairly small amount.

As for people protesting about wind turbines, etc - sod 'em! Or to put it less heartlessly, sorry guys, but it has to be done. Besides, in time people will (and already have) come to like them. It mirrors the attitude to viaducts - during the industrial revolution people complained about them ruining the country side, now they're considered one of the most beautiful parts.

Also, renewables can often be built in sparcely or un-populated areas - at sea, in deserts, etc, plus making use of otherwise wasted roof space (although personally I'd rather sea our cities' roofs be opened up into roof gardens).

I don't think the rods can go anywhere though, due to their harmful nature I 'think' they go into certain geology, well into concrete bunkers in the geology I think anyway. But it's still not a good idea I don't think. Still I suppose it's better than destroying the ozone layer, causing global warming.
In the UK the government when it had the money built the biggest offshore windfarm in the world I believe, but they have now scrapped subsidies for small scale solar farms just this week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33619017

They could of course force new build homes to have solar panels built in. But the city fat cats wouldn't like that.

Renewables have been getting huge tax subsidies for years. They aren't panaceas. Solar farms take up massive amounts of space and reflect lots of heat in a concentrated area. Wind turbines have been known to harm wildlife, as well. One problem with wind is that it is most effective at night, when power use is lower. Batteries can help store that electricity, but there is naturally the issue of what the batteries are made of, and how efficient they are at storing electricity.

The reality is that we'll need a combination of energy sources for a long time. How this factors into Apple's car plans remains to be seen.

Subsidies are being stopped as per my link above. Offshore wind farms I think are safer to wildlife? How does it affect wildlife on the ground anyway? Serious question.
 
So this thorium, does it remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be dumped deep underground once it's used up?
Any nuclear waste is not cleaner, its still dangerous poisaness by product that has to be dealt with.

Renewable energy is better, but you have people protest against wind farms because they look ugly, or solar panels but no one wants to invest in those, no, man seems to only want to kill the ozone layer or make everything radioactive.
Not saying renewables are the ultimate solution, but their seems little interest in developing them to where they could be.

Sure - The waste still exists. But there are other ways of dealing with that these days...

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation....clear-waste-problem-in-conventional-reactors/

We need more innovation... Wind turbines wear too easily and require too much maintenance.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...tricity-by-shaking-not-spinning-10257275.html
 
I disagree with your point about nuclear waste. Sure, it may be a problem, but it's one that's easier to solve that carbon output. For a start we can burry it, as you mentioned, which while it sounds unpleasant probably isn't actually a very big deal I suspect - how much space is required for the use of spent nuclear fuel rods? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a fairly small amount.

As for people protesting about wind turbines, etc - sod 'em! Or to put it less heartlessly, sorry guys, but it has to be done. Besides, in time people will (and already have) come to like them. It mirrors the attitude to viaducts - during the industrial revolution people complained about them ruining the country side, now they're considered one of the most beautiful parts.

Also, renewables can often be built in sparcely or un-populated areas - at sea, in deserts, etc, plus making use of otherwise wasted roof space (although personally I'd rather sea our cities' roofs be opened up into roof gardens).

I disagree.

Wind turbines are a blight on the landscape. They are incredibly ugly, and will always be so. They destroy the beauty of the countryside and no-one wants to live near them or have them despoiling the local neighbourhood.

The best place for them is way out to sea where they are not visible from land.
 
Last edited:
I'm an European, but I always thought the Americans has a better taste in car design

Part of it may be we aren't focused on it being so compact and fuel efficient and nimble enough to parallel park in small spots. In Europe a car with these attributes is much sexier I think.
 
I think in the argument vs hydrogen power and it having higher energy density and a faster 'fill time' that battery technology will continue to improve to the point where the differences between these two technologies won't matter to the user, if we aren't there already today. I imagine some form of liquid cooled very high current electric charging into some improved chemistry cells that would give you a few hundred miles of charge in minutes. Plus that people are able to always have their car topped off at home while they sleep makes the need for quick on the go charging less important. At what point do people completely lose their range anxiety for a car, 400 miles?
 
I think in the argument vs hydrogen power and it having higher energy density and a faster 'fill time' that battery technology will continue to improve to the point where the differences between these two technologies won't matter to the user, if we aren't there already today. I imagine some form of liquid cooled very high current electric charging into some improved chemistry cells that would give you a few hundred miles of charge in minutes. Plus that people are able to always have their car topped off at home while they sleep makes the need for quick on the go charging less important. At what point do people completely lose their range anxiety for a car, 400 miles?
When you are seldom far from a refueling station, you don't have range anxiety. I can remember driving in the early 1980s when many small towns didn't have a single station that was open all night. At least twice, we ended up huddling in the car in sub-freezing weather while we waited for a station to open in the morning. Driving at night was not something to be done without preparation.

Hydrogen reliant cars will lose the range anxiety problem when you can expect that even if you run out of fuel, you can walk to a nearby station and come back with enough fuel to get you to the next fill-up. Right now, practically no one with a hydrogen reliant car is likely to leave the state of California in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
The i3 is a joke. Apple and the German's? Seriously? Come on Apple. You have no soul any longer. Who are you? What do you want (besides high margins?)
Where are you going? Can anyone confirm that the new Apple Car will come with an Apple Watch to place your iPhone on your wrist? :apple:
 
BMW's i3 is on the road now for sometime. Watch out - their instruction manual asks them to break hard and early to maximize the regenerative power of the breaking system to recover as much electricity as possible! This is apparently what BMW wants their customers to do while driving the i3!!

This leads to some of the drivers not having an eye on the rear-view mirror before the "hard" breaking! Even at 40mph, that sets you up, in the car behind, for a collision. My own experience, the newbies in the i3 ahead of me braked so hard to manage a red light 150 yards away! I saw the expected brake lights, I was slowing down, and still the rapid deceleration caught me off guard. Managed to stop before any "accident", angrily honked at the car, and wondered at the near future when a lot of these collisions are going to happen as the volume of these cars increase.

Ugly car, b.t.w., just what we thought when the Prius first came to the streets!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
The i3 is a joke. Apple and the German's? Seriously? Come on Apple. You have no soul any longer. Who are you? What do you want (besides high margins?)
Where are you going? Can anyone confirm that the new Apple Car will come with an Apple Watch to place your iPhone on your wrist? :apple:

Where is the problem? German cars at least work reliable - not like the junk american car companies sell.
 
BMW's i3 is on the road now for sometime. Watch out - their instruction manual asks them to break hard and early to maximize the regenerative power of the breaking system to recover as much electricity as possible! This is apparently what BMW wants their customers to do while driving the i3!!

This leads to some of the drivers not having an eye on the rear-view mirror before the "hard" breaking! Even at 40mph, that sets you up, in the car behind, for a collision. My own experience, the newbies in the i3 ahead of me braked so hard to manage a red light 150 yards away! I saw the expected brake lights, I was slowing down, and still the rapid deceleration caught me off guard. Managed to stop before any "accident", angrily honked at the car, and wondered at the near future when a lot of these collisions are going to happen as the volume of these cars increase.

Ugly car, b.t.w., just what we thought when the Prius first came to the streets!

And it would have be your fault - You always have to keep enough space to stop *IN ANY CASE*. Many driver forgetting this.
 
Totally untrue. The car has strong regenerative braking by simply lifting from the accelerator. This braking can be supplemented by applying the actual brakes. The recommendation is to use the regen braking as much as possible to achieve higher efficiency and reduce wear on the brakes. My wife and I have an i3 and it is a fantastic city car. More fun to drive than my 1996 Miata was.

BMW's i3 is on the road now for sometime. Watch out - their instruction manual asks them to break hard and early to maximize the regenerative power of the breaking system to recover as much electricity as possible! This is apparently what BMW wants their customers to do while driving the i3!!

This leads to some of the drivers not having an eye on the rear-view mirror before the "hard" breaking! Even at 40mph, that sets you up, in the car behind, for a collision. My own experience, the newbies in the i3 ahead of me braked so hard to manage a red light 150 yards away! I saw the expected brake lights, I was slowing down, and still the rapid deceleration caught me off guard. Managed to stop before any "accident", angrily honked at the car, and wondered at the near future when a lot of these collisions are going to happen as the volume of these cars increase.

Ugly car, b.t.w., just what we thought when the Prius first came to the streets!
 
  • Like
Reactions: balconycollapse
Still find this whole car idea utterly stupid. So the only thing Apple can think of, according to rumours, to make as its next big thing is a car! Something it has no clue or experience in what so ever, a market that sells millions each year and is very well established and not new in any way, and a market with prices and technology covering all price ranges.

This is the most compelling argument I've seen for Apple making a car. The cellular phone market was exactly as you describe. Admittedly this is a tall order but doable when you have smart management and hundreds of billions of dollars lying around. It also follows one of Apple's key principles, which is reducing impact on the environment. They might not make the same margins they do on the phone, but there won't be as many customers around to sell iPhones to if we don't limit emissions and stop polluting ourselves. They see that and they see the value of having a complete ecosystem. Phones, computers, wearables, entertainment, home automation and automobiles.

Cars are one of the next big spaces for computers and software. Apple has always been a company that likes making their own hardware. I kinda see CarPlay like the Motorola ROKR (which I owned before getting the first iPhone). It's a neat idea but flawed since it's not a complete design thought. It's a test. I hope they take their time with it. I feel like as things progress, cars may become more similar with somewhat standard components and the external design, capacity, battery life and software features will be a primary differentiator.
 
The i3 is a joke. Apple and the German's? Seriously? Come on Apple. You have no soul any longer. Who are you? What do you want (besides high margins?)
Where are you going? Can anyone confirm that the new Apple Car will come with an Apple Watch to place your iPhone on your wrist? :apple:
No one here can confirm anything about Apple making a car, let alone what accessories it comes with. What is your beef with "the German's", anyway? It seems a bit knee-jerk.
 
The i3:

The front: Good
The sides: Overdone a bit and kind of weird
The back: Like something from a Godzilla movie set.

It's kind of like Beats.
 
I think we're all getting the wrong concept here...... maybe Apple are looking at the idea of producing a vehicle similar to the Go Car found in SF and other major cities using maps and battery technoligies

Can we really see Apple producing a car normal day to day running I'm not sure after all Apple is a tech company focused on selling iPhones etc but a car .....mmmmmm just my thoughts
 
if this is a project that may never see the light of that, that's one expensive project and good way to waste money..

If they wanna throw money away give it to me to me.... . I always wanted to to be rich :D

If Apple were keen on a car, wouldn't we be hearing more reliable rumors or sources by now ?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.