Given that oil company's are likely to have a very good idea of how much oil is left and I can't imagine once that it runs out they will say "that's it" and shut up shop. Can we assume that they already have some sort of alternative?
There is a lot of oil left. They just discovered a shed load near where I live. The problem is "peak oil" coming soon, where we use more per day than we extract. THAT is the problem, because we aren't running out any time soon. Not in my lifetime anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s (i think it was then), blockaded the guy who invented a way of turning plastic bags into oil again etc etc.
Fuel wise, get a diesel and run cooking oil or bio-diesel. The engine was invented to run on peanut oil anyway, there's loads of alternative fuels.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:There is a lot of oil left. They just discovered a shed load near where I live. The problem is "peak oil" coming soon, where we use more per day than we extract. THAT is the problem, because we aren't running out any time soon. Not in my lifetime anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s (i think it was then), blockaded the guy who invented a way of turning plastic bags into oil again etc etc.
Fuel wise, get a diesel and run cooking oil or bio-diesel. The engine was invented to run on peanut oil anyway, there's loads of alternative fuels.
Not running out within YOUR lifetime is not good enough. Is there enough oil to last until 2100 or 2200 at the current rates of expansion?
And yes, peak oil is going to be a HUGE issue. If you think gas is expensive now, see what happens when that event happens. Thats when supply and demand will really rear it's ugly head.
About the current adminstration's policies, I am happy he is trying to move us in that direction but I think this is the wrong way to do it. Cause misery to move us forward?
Until gas starts getting really expensive, there will be little-to-no public pressure on automotive industry to make affordable alternate-energy vehicles.
How much is a hybrid compared to a regular car of the same capabilities? And that still uses gas! How much is an all-electic car in comparison?
Oversize SUVs and Trucks are still very popular vehicles. So are not-terribly-efficient sports cars. Station Wagons are pretty much gone. Minivans are limping along. And what do people use those oversize vehicles for the most? Driving themselves back and forth to the office, with no other passengers, sitting in rush-hour traffic while that V-8 guzzles fuel.
Anything that gets communters into more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good thing, in my opinion. Because that makes the auto industry WANT to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But are they shrewed enough to have something already in their back pocket? Ok the stuffs not running out yet and the price will go up, but there will be less to sell in the future. So is the plan to run the companys into the ground or do they have something planned for the future. If so, is it available now or are they still working on ideas?
Vulcan wrote:
Anything that gets communters into more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good thing, in my opinion. Because that makes the auto industry WANT to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Anything?
You do know right, that it doesn't just impact Joe SUV driver but every length of the transportation network for all goods and services including electricity for your vaunted electro cars right?
I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.
So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.
Yeah, and higher fuel costs quite literally kill people in the crappier parts of the world, who have need of it to provide heat, and cooked food n' whatnot. Not that I particularly care, but most people seem to.
streamdragon wrote:I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.
So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.
ON the plus side, due to new environmental laws adopted by the maritime fleets, all those freighters will be shifting from crappier bunker fuel to cleaner diesel, putting further pressure on diesel prices.
Who, having to go to the restroom, looks around and sees that they only have 4 rolls of toilet paper left says it's time to move to an alternative source and uses paper towels, etc. instead?
Phanatik wrote:
Who, having to go to the restroom, looks around and sees that they only have 4 rolls of toilet paper left says it's time to move to an alternative source and uses paper towels, etc. instead?
Someone trying to make sure everyone's ass gets wiped when you can't buy any more toilet paper and all your neighbors are coming over as house guests for an indefinitely long "Bean Burrito Fest" the next day.
To be perfectly frank, I don't think running out of fossil fuels is going to be our big problem this century. It's going to be dealing with the ongoing results of using fossil fuels that's going to be our big problem.
This Febuary, in Missouri, we had several separate occasions where the high temperature was well into the 60's, borderline 70's (degrees Fahrernheit). I don't think the Mississippi river has ever had ice on it in the past two decades. 100 years ago, the Mississippi used to ice over so completely that trucks were driven over it.
Now tell me high atmospheric CO2 levels haven't caused global warming again...
streamdragon wrote:I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.
So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.
ON the plus side, due to new environmental laws adopted by the maritime fleets, all those freighters will be shifting from crappier bunker fuel to cleaner diesel, putting further pressure on diesel prices.
Time to sell that 4x4 than. On the plus side the air won't get as poisonous as fast.
Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.
In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time. SUVs have similar fuel economy to trucks and most SUVs have diesel variations.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.
In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.
True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.
I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.
In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.
True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.
I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.
The fuel mileage standards for SUVs is based on their intended usage. If the majority of people are treating them like big sedans than they need to alter the standards back to what they used to be. Once upon a time they had the standards of vans which was significantly closer to their actual use and much stricter than trucks (as they are considered now). The lobby for loosened fuel economy back then was pretty strong.
streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.
Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.
Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.
In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.
True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.
I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.
The fuel mileage standards for SUVs is based on their intended usage. If the majority of people are treating them like big sedans than they need to alter the standards back to what they used to be. Once upon a time they had the standards of vans which was significantly closer to their actual use and much stricter than trucks (as they are considered now). The lobby for loosened fuel economy back then was pretty strong.
Whats the "intended purpose" of an SUV you're on about?
Frazzled wrote:Whats the "intended purpose" of an SUV you're on about?
Hauling a half-dozen people, moderate amounts of stuff, and potentially a trailer in an off-road environment. Basically a pickup truck that carries more people than stuff. This is an application where a large engine is needed to provide extra power to compensate for the weight and/or lack of traction involved. Steamdragon's use of one to haul animal feed is a perfect example. Sure, his main use may be to get to work, but he DOES use it for what it was intended. And I'd bet it bears the scars from that use with pride.
Contrast that to the spotless, shiny SUV driven by the person to-and-from the office... and that's ALL it does.
WTF would you want to put caps on cars or mandated fuel economy standards on vehicles?
If a consumer decides to buy a 15MPG vehicle, they already (in the US) pay a 'gas guzzler' tax. They also pay more in taxes on fuel as the consume more. The gov't benefits from both those. States and Counties add a tax based on the type/year/make of vehicle as part of the registration costs as well. The consumer makes the choice to buy anyway. Let them.
What good does limiting the consumer's choice more really do? You already have taxes to influence his/her behavior.
If someone wants a muscle car or huge ass SUV, let them have it. They pay for it, and pay taxes for the privilege.
I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.
For the record, I have a long bed crew cab F350 4WD diesel that does get used as a work truck. It hauls hay, feed, fencing, the horse trailer, my flat bed trailer and so on. A few weeks ago I carried 60 fifty-pound bags of mulch, 4 sheets of 3/4 inch treated plywood, and 4 12-foot treated 6x6s in the bed in a single load. Last week I got 200 bales of hay (two 100-bale trailer loads). But if I choose to drive it for gaks and giggles, why shouldn't I be allowed? I pay for the diesel. I pay the road taxes.
Of course, at some point such frivoulous uses as 'for the giggles' is gonna really start impacting the price of fuel (right now we are somewhat buffered by an excess in production).
If a consumer decides to buy a 15MPG vehicle, they already (in the US) pay a 'gas guzzler' tax. They also pay more in taxes on fuel as the consume more. The gov't benefits from both those. States and Counties add a tax based on the type/year/make of vehicle as part of the registration costs as well. The consumer makes the choice to buy anyway. Let them.
It also harms GDP by reducing what consumers can spend on things that aren't related to gas. Apparently they value the macroeconomy over the profits of individual oil companies. Inneficient vehicles are bad for the economy in the exact same way that high fuel prices are bad for it.
I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.
Because vehicle choices effect others. The roads aren't designed for SUVs, they drive up fuel prices, they pollute more than comparable vehicles. They're obnoxious to everyone outside of your easy-to-flip urban tank and they are actively detrimental when used in a suburban setting (as most are).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, I have a long bed crew cab F350 4WD diesel that does get used as a work truck. It hauls hay, feed, fencing, the horse trailer, my flat bed trailer and so on. A few weeks ago I carried 60 fifty-pound bags of mulch, 4 sheets of 3/4 inch treated plywood, and 4 12-foot treated 6x6s in the bed in a single load. Last week I got 200 bales of hay (two 100-bale trailer loads). But if I choose to drive it for gaks and giggles, why shouldn't I be allowed? I pay for the diesel. I pay the road taxes.
You don't pay more taxes than I do and the old lady with the 4WD Diesel next door to me tears up the road a hell of a lot more than I do. Likely so do you. So no. It's not your "equal share".
I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
His use of the vehicle sounds fine. What I don't like is the indignant attitude he purchased with it. He shares the road and the air with others. HIs choice in regards to what vehicle he wants to use effects everyone that shares the road with him and in a larger sense everyone that requires air to breathe or oil to do whatever it is they do with oil.
CptJake wrote:I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.
Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate nice cars and there are a fair few cars that I would love to have, that I would also be happy to see effectively banned from being made. German made cars are already limited to (a rather ridiculous) 155mph - why not go further, and limit the top speed to 100 (a reasonable top speed when most countries have a maximum speed limit of 70), a top engine capacity/fuel consumption, etc?
Hell, I can see the need for industrial/farm/etc users to have more powerful vehicles and there is nothing stopping this to be allowed - farming fuels are already taxed differently in the UK, as are farming vehicles (as I understand it).
I understand that the concept of governments "cracking down" on "freedoms" is not something everyone likes the sound of, but there are some things that you really have to wonder about.
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?
They're the exact kind of thing that will cause an SUV to flip over like a coin. Most consumer SUVs are not particularly worthy of rough terrain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Anbn3OYZ0I Youtube won't let me embed this one, but it's pretty indicitive of why these vehicles are bad at offroad. They roll over like pencils.
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?
I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?
They're the exact kind of thing that will cause an SUV to flip over like a coin. Most consumer SUVs are not particularly worthy of rough terrain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Anbn3OYZ0I Youtube won't let me embed this one, but it's pretty indicitive of why these vehicles are bad at offroad. They roll over like pencils.
True that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.
To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?
Yep. My Civic dodges them just fine.
My teenage boy has found the secret is to just drive really fast and float over them. My wife is too busy hitting curbs and pedestrians with her van to notice a little thing like potholes.
SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?
I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
Only if you're army men are two tonne soccer ball shaped fake-trucks that you endanger everyone with while you drive your 12 year old to soccer practice. That said, the new Tyrannofex model is pretty awesome.
biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
We have energy star rated appliances, but it reeaaallly doesn't take much to be one. It's almost meaningless.
biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.
Pretty simple really.
Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).
ShumaGorath wrote:We have energy star rated appliances, but it reeaaallly doesn't take much to be one. It's almost meaningless.
I'd say it is similar here - a tightening of the standards would be part of my drive to try and get energy and environmental efficiency as good as possible.
biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.
Pretty simple really.
Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).
I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.
biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.
Pretty simple really.
Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).
I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.
Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
Frazzled wrote:Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).
We pay twice as much as you for petrol. I don't know about our road/car tax, but I bet it is substantially higher than yours and is based on various factors including how polluting a vehicle is. 4x4's and other "gas guzzlers" are still popular here.
China and India are a great opportunity for the West to step in and help them go down a better path - China are firing up vast numbers of coal fueled power stations; the US has a lot of experience with nuclear power generation, as do a number of other countries in the West - why not step in, give them some cut price reactor designs and contract out some nuclear experts? Win for everyone in terms of money, etc, and more coal which can be processed into oil, and significantly less pollution.
biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.
Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.
In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?
You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.
A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.
Pretty simple really.
Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).
I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.
Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
Theres pretty strong correlation between U.S. vehicle fuel standards and those mandated in China. As the worlds largest traditional car market most companies base fuel economy in vehicles on our laws. You're also taking this into a ridiculous contrast, we can't make high fuel prices go away by mandating better fuel economy, but we can lessen the burden on our economy and citizens by doing so. This isn't a freedom of choice thing. Without better mandated standards than the choice is made for the consumer by the auto companies. Theres a reason combustion engine energy efficiency in autos as a technology was stagnant for almost 30 years. The carmakers have no incentive to improve without being coerced into it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.
Not really, we've already paid for most of the military hardware, it would simply be a matter of using it effectively.
It's much simpler to wipe out a few billion people than trying to balance CAFE standards with economic growth.
Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?
Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?
1. You didn't "eek" anything out. 2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do. I don't drive a gas guzzler, not because of the government, but because I drive between cities and its too expensive. Inversely, I don't drive a hybrid because they are too expensive.
Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?
1. You didn't "eek" anything out. 2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do.
They'll do the same thing years after it becomes helpful. The "free market" isn't forward thinking and never has been, it's purely reactionary. It's not a tool for social engineering or environmental protection. It'll feth the future to make money today every single time.
Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.
So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?
1. You didn't "eek" anything out.
2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do.
1) You reduce consumption in one area while maintaining the same output, while another area increases output and also increases consumption, leading to a net stability in consumption for an increase in output. To me that is eeking out a bit of capacity in the system, as if you didn't increase efficiency in the first area, fuel consumption would have risen by an amount corresponding to the efficiency savings. Not entirely sure how you are failing to see that any saving, even offset by increased consumption in another area, is still a net saving if output remains the same or increases.
2) Really not - see my post above about UK fuel prices and road taxes.
ShumaGorath wrote: You don't pay more taxes than I do and the old lady with the 4WD Diesel next door to me tears up the road a hell of a lot more than I do. Likely so do you. So no. It's not your "equal share".
Wrong. If we use more fuel, we pay more fuel taxes (state and federal) which are supposed to go for road maintenance.
Add in that diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gasoline at the federal and state levels...
My truck does incur a higher tax penalty to be able to drive the roads than other vehicles. Obviously the state and county consider that my 'equal share'. If they didn't they would adjust the rates.
Wrong. If we use more fuel, we pay more fuel taxes (state and federal) which are supposed to go for road maintenance.
They don't go for road maintenance in my state, but we don't live near eachother so our experience in that regard isn't going to be particularly similar. We have tolls and gakky roads. As for the property tax, well duh. Everyone pays those. Is my garage paying for the roads as well? Sure, I guess in some really grasping way. Is it a strawman? You betchya.
My truck does incur a higher tax penalty to be able to drive the roads than other vehicles. Obviously the state and county consider that my 'equal share'. If they didn't they would adjust the rates.
Well than we could learn something from you up here in the frozen north. We're well above that 33% number for truck class vehicles on road. It's hell to try and navigate in this city when half of it owns a durango.
i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.
where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.
i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.
Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.
where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.
i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.
Mostly agree with this.
I live in rural Maryland, but work in D.C.. D.C. has one of the highest commuter work forces in the nation; the vast majority of people who work in D.C. live in Virginia or Maryland, with people even coming as far as Pennsylvania or the New England states (CT, VT, NH, DE, etc.) D.C. also has a pretty awesome metro subway system that reaches into VA and MD pretty well; despite that it's still a 45 minute (roughly 25 mile) drive from my place to the metro, and another 45 minutes on the train itself for roughly 1.5 hours each way (assuming normal traffic and no train delays). Conversely, with moderate traffic the drive is only an hour each way.
Really the issue with most cities isn't even the efficiency of the vehicles, but rather the number. The vast majority of commuters simply prefer to drive their own vehicle rather than car pool, van pool or take other forms of mass transit. L.A. is notorious for this. You can implement things like High Occupancy Vehicle (H.O.V.) lanes where only cars with a certain number of people are allowed to use them, but even that doesn't really have any major impact on traffic. There's an intersection between the HOV-2 (meaning your car is allowed to use the road as long as there are 2 people in it) portion of I-95 (a major interstate) and VA-6400 (a major parkway for Virginia) where the cops literally just sit at a light, wait for it to turn red for HOVers and then just walk up the line ticketing people without the right number of people. They're there every single day and people get caught every single day, yet people would rather get the ticket than put another person in the car. Insanity, but there's really not much you can do to change people's minds.
Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.
There's always alternatives. For example, you could pay a bit more in taxes and fund the creation of a mass transit system composed of Buses and Trains. The fact that you choose not to if no one's fault but your own. (Not you, the individual, but you, the collective society that has elected the legislators.)
Deathklaat wrote:where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.
Live closer to work and walk? Ride a bike? Why do you "HAVE" to drive?
Deathklaat wrote:i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.
In large cities, they don't really need that policy, as people tend not to have the big SUVs or pickups. We tend to have smaller cars (so you can actually parallel park in a small space, or fit into your garage off the super-narrow alley) and take the train. It's all those suburban people who drive the SUVs and pickups.
Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.
There's always alternatives. For example, you could pay a bit more in taxes and fund the creation of a mass transit system composed of Buses and Trains. The fact that you choose not to if no one's fault but your own. (Not you, the individual, but you, the collective society that has elected the legislators.)
Deathklaat wrote:where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.
Live closer to work and walk? Ride a bike? Why do you "HAVE" to drive?
Deathklaat wrote:i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.
In large cities, they don't really need that policy, as people tend not to have the big SUVs or pickups. We tend to have smaller cars (so you can actually parallel park in a small space, or fit into your garage off the super-narrow alley) and take the train. It's all those suburban people who drive the SUVs and pickups.
What asinine comments. I live in rural Georgia. You couldn't put in effective mass transit at anything near an efficient amount of tax payer money. The population density just doesn't support it, and it is a lot higher than in many areas. When we lived near El Paso I worked up in MacGregor Range at the base camp, easily 50 miles each way and there wasn't an acceptable way to 'live closer' nor was ther ever going to be 'mass transit' to get there.
CptJake wrote:I live in rural Georgia. You couldn't put in effective mass transit at anything near an efficient amount of tax payer money. The population density just doesn't support it, and it is a lot higher than in many areas. When we lived near El Paso I worked up in MacGregor Range at the base camp, easily 50 miles each way and there wasn't an acceptable way to 'live closer' nor was ther ever going to be 'mass transit' to get there.
Agreed. Many people don't seem to grasp exactly how much space is taken up by "nothingness" in farming states. There are often only a handful of people making the commute, so it would take literally decades for any sort of mass transit to pay itself off, if it ever did.
Ride a bike? The average speed of my commute is ~50mph along MD-97, and it STILL takes me 45 minutes to get to the train.
Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.
There's always alternatives. For example, you could pay a bit more in taxes and fund the creation of a mass transit system composed of Buses and Trains. The fact that you choose not to if no one's fault but your own. (Not you, the individual, but you, the collective society that has elected the legislators.)
Deathklaat wrote:where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.
Live closer to work and walk? Ride a bike? Why do you "HAVE" to drive?
Deathklaat wrote:i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.
In large cities, they don't really need that policy, as people tend not to have the big SUVs or pickups. We tend to have smaller cars (so you can actually parallel park in a small space, or fit into your garage off the super-narrow alley) and take the train. It's all those suburban people who drive the SUVs and pickups.
What asinine comments. I live in rural Georgia. You couldn't put in effective mass transit at anything near an efficient amount of tax payer money. The population density just doesn't support it, and it is a lot higher than in many areas. When we lived near El Paso I worked up in MacGregor Range at the base camp, easily 50 miles each way and there wasn't an acceptable way to 'live closer' nor was ther ever going to be 'mass transit' to get there.
Yeah, you sound like you have a legitimate use for the vehicle. Contrast that with the fact that the majority of Americans live in cities (as do the majority of SUV owners) and suddenly the SUV owning community looks a lot less legitimate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:So, move closer to your job! I can't believe their isn't any housing within 10 miles of your job (easy biking distance).
Grakmar wrote:So, move closer to your job! I can't believe their isn't any housing within 10 miles of your job (easy biking distance).
Why should I? I like living on my family's farm, and helping my family with the daily running of the place. I loathe living in the city, and DC suburbs are either ghettos (Anacostia, for instance) or extremely expensive (Arlington). I hate the city; it's dirty, noisy, crowded and cluttered. I live on 5 quiet acres in a rural area where I don't have to hear police sirens every hour like I did when I lived in Baltimore... *shudder*
Out of curiosity, are you rural, suburban or city?
Edit: Biking 10 miles in business clothes? No thanks.
ShumaGorath wrote:10 miles is not easy biking distance.
10 miles is less than an hours cycle for a moderately fit person with a mountain bike on pavements. I used to cycle to the nearest town regularly in about 30-40 minutes and depending on where I was going in town it was between 7 and 9 miles.
If you have a road bike 10 miles is probably only 30 minutes for a moderately fit person.
ShumaGorath wrote:10 miles is not easy biking distance.
10 miles is less than an hours cycle for a moderately fit person with a mountain bike on pavements. I used to cycle to the nearest town regularly in about 30-40 minutes and depending on where I was going in town it was between 7 and 9 miles.
If you have a road bike 10 miles is probably only 30 minutes for a moderately fit person.
This also requires roads fit for bicycles to be on. My commute is mostly along highways where bicyclists would simply not be safe, even if they weren't going the full distance that I am.
Grakmar wrote:So, move closer to your job! I can't believe their isn't any housing within 10 miles of your job (easy biking distance).
Depends on how you define 'any.'
If we are talking about DC, within 10 miles of the major government centers has two types of neighborhoods. The first is the high-class areas where elected officals have apartments (Watergate, etc.) which cost an arm and a leg to live in... even by East Coast standards. The other type is the urban blight that one should be sentenced to live in, and probably would be none too safe for a middle- or upper-middle-class resident of any racial background. After all, having more makes you a bigger target, and being accessable makes you an easier target. That goes double for riding a bike....
And if you've ever lived in the humid American southeast, riding a bike any distance will require a shower at the end of the trip. Not exactly practical for a business or government communter.
There's a reason he lives that far away, and it's not because he likes spending a boatload of money on gas...
streamdragon wrote:This also requires roads fit for bicycles to be on. My commute is mostly along highways where bicyclists would simply not be safe, even if they weren't going the full distance that I am.
Yeah, this annoys me as well. I could cycle to work in about 15-20 minutes if I could go along the "highways", but instead I would have to cycle all round the houses and it would take about 40 minutes.
They really need to lay down cycle lanes alongside the main road system.
streamdragon wrote:This also requires roads fit for bicycles to be on. My commute is mostly along highways where bicyclists would simply not be safe, even if they weren't going the full distance that I am.
Yeah, this annoys me as well. I could cycle to work in about 15-20 minutes if I could go along the "highways", but instead I would have to cycle all round the houses and it would take about 40 minutes.
They really need to lay down cycle lanes alongside the main road system.
Agreed, though I think that should be pretty standard practice for all rural road systems, not just highways. I stopped taking the back roads to and from the train, mostly because I was always coming across cyclists who had nowhere else to go.
I respect that you want to ride your bike and stuff, but get out of the way!
ShumaGorath wrote:10 miles is not easy biking distance.
10 miles is less than an hours cycle for a moderately fit person with a mountain bike on pavements. I used to cycle to the nearest town regularly in about 30-40 minutes and depending on where I was going in town it was between 7 and 9 miles.
If you have a road bike 10 miles is probably only 30 minutes for a moderately fit person.
ShumaGorath wrote:10 miles is not easy biking distance.
10 miles is less than an hours cycle for a moderately fit person with a mountain bike on pavements. I used to cycle to the nearest town regularly in about 30-40 minutes and depending on where I was going in town it was between 7 and 9 miles.
If you have a road bike 10 miles is probably only 30 minutes for a moderately fit person.
ShumaGorath wrote:10 miles is not easy biking distance.
10 miles is less than an hours cycle for a moderately fit person with a mountain bike on pavements. I used to cycle to the nearest town regularly in about 30-40 minutes and depending on where I was going in town it was between 7 and 9 miles.
If you have a road bike 10 miles is probably only 30 minutes for a moderately fit person.
Just like a Brit who thinks in british climate terms. Try that crap in 105 degree heat and you're a dead man.
CptJake wrote:Doing it in freezing temps and high wind would suck too.
We may not often get extremes but our weather is some of the most changeable in the world
This morning it was freezing and the fog was so thick that you could probably use it to build houses (and given what is left of most American houses every time it gets a bit windy, maybe Americans do ), it went through some nice freezing rain, then was blazing sunshine with gusting arctic winds. We even had to open the windows in the office because it was boiling hot. Hell, there was random snowfall at the weekend with temperatures within about an hour either side being 12-16 celcius (which is pretty toasty this time of year).
At Christmas last year we had been having snow for weeks, and this year we had one of the warmest winters on record
One of the reasons that we talk about the weather so much is because you can go into a shop for a sandwich and come out 5 minutes later to totally different weather
And Frazz - don't you all ride horses everywhere? If it was good enough for your pappy, surely it is good enough for you?
CptJake wrote:Doing it in freezing temps and high wind would suck too.
We may not often get extremes but our weather is some of the most changeable in the world
This morning it was freezing and the fog was so thick that you could probably use it to build houses (and given what is left of most American houses every time it gets a bit windy, maybe Americans do ), it went through some nice freezing rain, then was blazing sunshine with gusting arctic winds. We even had to open the windows in the office because it was boiling hot. Hell, there was random snowfall at the weekend with temperatures within about an hour either side being 12-16 celcius (which is pretty toasty this time of year).
At Christmas last year we had been having snow for weeks, and this year we had one of the warmest winters on record
One of the reasons that we talk about the weather so much is because you can go into a shop for a sandwich and come out 5 minutes later to totally different weather
And Frazz - don't you all ride horses everywhere? If it was good enough for your pappy, surely it is good enough for you?
The record winter cold in the last 20 years in my home town is -25ish farenheight. The record summer heat is about 118. Having it randomly rain would be pleasant. This year we got 22 inches of snow on halloween night. It was 50 degrees three days later.
I've actually heard the fusion reactors aren't too far off, but the gov't stopped putting money into them for other matters in the midst of developments.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Sounds like Cold Fusion is on the horizon?
I've actually heard the fusion reactors aren't too far off, but the gov't stopped putting money into them for other matters in the midst of developments.
Shiny shiny shiny. I wouldn't mind riding a motorcycle to work. Except in the winter and summer, but both are tolerable depending on where you live and the kind of jacket you have.
ShumaGorath wrote:The record winter cold in the last 20 years in my home town is -25ish farenheight. The record summer heat is about 118. Having it randomly rain would be pleasant. This year we got 22 inches of snow on halloween night. It was 50 degrees three days later.
Not bad, a couple of degrees colder than the coldest UK temperature
Samus_aran115 wrote:Sounds like Cold Fusion is on the horizon?
I've actually heard the fusion reactors aren't too far off, but the gov't stopped putting money into them for other matters in the midst of developments.
You heard wrong.
Possibly. My grandfather told me. He's got a master's in Physics from UMD and currently works as a patent examiner for the patent office in virginia, but really, I was skeptical.
ShumaGorath wrote:The record winter cold in the last 20 years in my home town is -25ish farenheight. The record summer heat is about 118. Having it randomly rain would be pleasant. This year we got 22 inches of snow on halloween night. It was 50 degrees three days later.
Not bad, a couple of degrees colder than the coldest UK temperature
Samus_aran115 wrote:Sounds like Cold Fusion is on the horizon?
I've actually heard the fusion reactors aren't too far off, but the gov't stopped putting money into them for other matters in the midst of developments.
You heard wrong.
Specifically, every part of what you heard is wrong.
1) Cold Fusion is still really far out there and there's no foreseeable way it will work at all. There have been a few scientists that have reported Cold Fusion working, but it only works in their lab when no one is around.
2) Fusion reactors are starting to get energy profitable (meaning you get more out than you put in), but they're still a long way from being commercial viable. Most estimates put it at 40 years away (which is better than the estimates of 50 years away they were making 50 years ago).
3) The government is still putting money into research for fusion. There's an entire branch of the DoE that is dedicated to making Fusion energy possible.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Sounds like Cold Fusion is on the horizon?
I've actually heard the fusion reactors aren't too far off, but the gov't stopped putting money into them for other matters in the midst of developments.
You heard wrong.
Possibly. My grandfather told me. He's got a master's in Physics from UMD and currently works as a patent examiner for the patent office in virginia, but really, I was skeptical.
We're still testing laser fusion ignition on a massive scale (way to large to be commercialized) and we don't have any fusion reactors yet that won't melt under the minimum temperatures they would experience. There's a lot of good progress being made, but we're far from commercialization.
ShumaGorath wrote:If I count the entire state then the record is -48!
Where abouts are you in the US?
Personally I would love less variation minute to minute in exchange for greater extremes - at least then we might get AC installed into buildings so we don't die during the summer.
ShumaGorath wrote:If I count the entire state then the record is -48!
Where abouts are you in the US?
Personally I would love less variation minute to minute in exchange for greater extremes - at least then we might get AC installed into buildings so we don't die during the summer.
I live in Maine. It's an empty frozen hellscape and I hate it. It's got impressive day to day extremes. Being in a consistent low pressure system so far up north means that we're usually chilly but occasionally it gets very warm very fast.
ShumaGorath wrote:I live in Maine. It's an empty frozen hellscape and I hate it. It's got impressive day to day extremes. Being in a consistent low pressure system so far up north means that we're usually chilly but occasionally it gets very warm very fast.
The UK is right on the border between 2 major weather systems and reasonably near to the jet stream, meaning that we have 2 weather systems fighting each other, and then the jet stream can shift and bring the north pole knocking
ShumaGorath wrote:I live in Maine. It's an empty frozen hellscape and I hate it. It's got impressive day to day extremes. Being in a consistent low pressure system so far up north means that we're usually chilly but occasionally it gets very warm very fast.
The UK is right on the border between 2 major weather systems and reasonably near to the jet stream, meaning that we have 2 weather systems fighting each other, and then the jet stream can shift and bring the north pole knocking
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s
still going on
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Fuel wise, get a diesel and run cooking oil or bio-diesel. The engine was invented to run on peanut oil anyway, there's loads of alternative fuels.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s
...still going on...
Oy.
You can't make a "water powered car" unless you've somehow developed cold fusion.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:
On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s
...still going on...
Oy.
You can't make a "water powered car" unless you've somehow developed cold fusion.
Tell that to cal tec (think that's right), who were proudly showing one on The BBCs tomorrows world. In the 1970s.
Vulcan wrote:In the final anaysis, water fuel cells breaking down H2O into O2 and H2 are just batteries, storing the electical energy used to break apart the H2O.
It takes energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen from one another. You could use hydrogen fuel cells as a battery (and this is a decent proposal), but not water. Even so, the conversion process from H2O -> H2 + O -> H2O is pretty inefficient.
I'm curious what the "physics" are of a water-powered car. Does it use water as a gas substitute? Separate and recombine the molecules, releasing helium and oxygen?
You use an electrolysis cell to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen. You then oxidize (i.e. burn) the hydrogen in a fuel cell to create energy and power the car (generating water in the process).
Yes, it takes energy to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen in the first place. Yes, you need to put more energy in than you will get out.
But, like with pure electric cars, the power grid does produce energy cleaner than your personal car does. Gas is not a great way to generate power in terms of efficiency, it just as a very high energy density (so you can run a car for a long time on just a few gallons of gas). If we could find a storage method that lets you store the same amount of energy as a gas tank (and lets you recharge it in a reasonable amount of time), we'd cut down significantly on pollution. That could be a chemical battery, or it could be hydrogen (either generated in the car or purchased from a hydrogen station).
Oh yes, from a green standpoint it's much better than gasoline. And using an on-board electrolysis cell means you don't have to store large quantities of hydrogen a la the Hindenberg. It also goes a long way to fixing our oil addiction, which I am all in favor of.
But it's not a magical fix for all our problems. Pollution and CO2 overproduction also need addressing.
Grakmar wrote:You use an electrolysis cell to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen. You then oxidize (i.e. burn) the hydrogen in a fuel cell to create energy and power the car (generating water in the process).
Yes, it takes energy to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen in the first place. Yes, you need to put more energy in than you will get out.
Why have the electrolyser and oxidizer in the car in the first place? Just stick in a battery and an electric motor. It will be more efficient.
If you're simply talking about a hydrogen cell, no problem. But water electrolysis is a pretty inefficient means of producing hydrogen.
Because batteries are REALLY HEAVY, and prone to degrade in performance over time. Oh, and they are REALLY HEAVY too. Weight pays a big role in performance, both top speed/accelleration and endurance.
so i live on the east coast in PA where its largely rural. one of the largest problems we have in PA is our roads in general. they suck. they fall apart or have loads of holes. half the time when they fix a road its already under repair a few months down the road.
we also have this problem that practically every town is historical and it really limits expansion. for any real fix to the problem they have to forcively buy out people's houses to expand the roads.
i hate the NE US so much because of this. everything is so cramped because there is no place to expand to. drive in Philly and tell me it was fun.
when you go out west everything is spread out and easier to get about which makes taking a bus, car pooling or even using the highway a breeze.
