Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is a common reaction to crisis - to see conspiracy where there isn't one. It was an accident.

Sure, but there’s accidents and there’s accidents where poor company safety protocols greatly increased the likelihood of catastrophe.

Yes, of course. But the suggestion that they somehow did it on purpose? Puh-lease.

Fateweaver wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Goliath wrote:Not all of the blame can be attributed to BP, and none at all to Britain as a whole.

Well. duh.

It's all Obama's fault.

Amen to that.

What's worst is that several BP gas station owners have reported vanadalism. It's no surprise people are so narrow minded as to think the owners of BP gas stations are to blame.

God, I hate this countries population sometimes (actually most of the time, this example doesn't do much to reinstill my faith in society as a whole).

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, I'll let you know when I stop laughing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Boycott? Really?

It's not like they did it on purpose.

See my previous post.

Albatross wrote:Yes, of course. But the suggestion that they somehow did it on purpose? Puh-lease.

Yeah, cool, just clarifying. And yeah, the idea that they did it on purpose is ridiculous.

Fateweaver wrote: I suppose next people will say Tupocs death is a conspiracy, that he faked it to be able to live in Jamaica under a new identity and create raps with Elvis.

Geez.

Nah, Tupac is in South America with Lefteye, working for the CIA. Elvis lives in a rest home in Texas... fighting mummies and stuff.

Hail to the King baby!

With recent disclosures of BP internal e-mails from the ongoing investigation there have been several revelations that really make BP indefensible. While my previous posts backed up BP with my experience in the oilfield and how nobody knew exactly where fault laid, I have to retract my support for BP given this latest information.

That aside, my choice in where I buy gas has more to do with where it comes from. I submit the following:

Are you aware that the Saudis are boycotting American products? In addition, they are gouging us on oil prices.
How about leaving American Dollars in America and reduce the import/export deficit?
An appealing remedy might be to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up your car you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia . Just purchase gas from companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.
Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill up my tank, I'm sending my money to people who I get the impression want me, my family and my friends dead. The following gas companies import Middle Eastern oil:

Shell..................................... 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco...................... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil.......................... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway.............. 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco................................... 62,231,000 barrels
7/11 stores and CITGO oil is imported from Venezuela by Dictator Hugo Chavez who hates America and openly avows our economic destruction! (We pay Chavez's regime nearly $10 Billion per year in oil revenues!)

The U.S. currently imports 5,517,000 barrels of crude oil per day from OPEC. If you do the math at $100 per barrel, that's over $550 million PER DAY ($200 BILLION per year!) handed over to OPEC, many of whose members have abysmal human rights records and some who advocate violence against the US. It won't stop here - oil prices could go to $200 a barrel or higher if we keep buying their product..

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
Sunoco..........................0 barrels
Conoco/ Phillips..........................0 barrels
0ASinclair.....................0 barrels Phillips
BP.................. 0 barrels
Hess................................0 barrels
ARC0...............................0 barrels
Maverick........................0 barrels
Flying J...........................0 barrels
Valero...........................0 barrels
Murphy Oil USA *.........0 barrels
*Sold at Wal-Mart , gas is from South Arkansas and fully USA owned and produced.
*Not only that but they give scholarships to all children in their town who finish high school and are legal US citizens.

The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Most of the electrical generation in the US comes from Coal, Natural gas, and Nuke plants. Water and wind generation also make up a good protion of the power generation. Pertoleum plant only make up about 1% of the total.
The problem with Hydro is the need for flood plains behind the generation dam.
Wind has a ton of potential, as seen in Allentown, PA and Atlantic City, N.J., for example. Unfortunately, there are people that could benefit from wind that are of the "Not in my backyard/vista" mind frame. The proposed Nantucket wind farm is one such case.

About 70% of the oil this country uses is for transportation, almost half of that is in the form of gasoline with another quarter used for diesel type fuels.

Hybrids go a good way toward cutting that thirst, but are more expensive to buy.
Electrics are not yet efficient enough to be viable outside of cities. Limited range and speed are the major hurdles still for electrics.

Tyras wrote:With recent disclosures of BP internal e-mails from the ongoing investigation there have been several revelations that really make BP indefensible. While my previous posts backed up BP with my experience in the oilfield and how nobody knew exactly where fault laid, I have to retract my support for BP given this latest information.

What emails? I havent read them, and cant find them.

Orlanth wrote:

Tyras wrote:With recent disclosures of BP internal e-mails from the ongoing investigation there have been several revelations that really make BP indefensible. While my previous posts backed up BP with my experience in the oilfield and how nobody knew exactly where fault laid, I have to retract my support for BP given this latest information.

What emails? I havent read them, and cant find them.

I think that he's quoting those emails that are often forwarded. Kind of like chain mail in a way.

I am going to fill up at bp as much as possible. The last thing we need is them to go completely bankrupt. Thats 90,000 people out of work, from the last figures I heard.

Also, there was outrage at bush for katrina, because somehow its his fault. "george bush doesnt care about black people".

Where the hell is the outrage at obama.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Tyras wrote:With recent disclosures of BP internal e-mails from the ongoing investigation there have been several revelations that really make BP indefensible. While my previous posts backed up BP with my experience in the oilfield and how nobody knew exactly where fault laid, I have to retract my support for BP given this latest information.

What emails? I havent read them, and cant find them.

I think that he's quoting those emails that are often forwarded. Kind of like chain mail in a way.

Tharts obvious, but forward where. Tyras implies they have been leaked and are fairly damning. The press would be all over them if this was so.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:I am going to fill up at bp as much as possible. The last thing we need is them to go completely bankrupt. Thats 90,000 people out of work, from the last figures I heard.

Also, there was outrage at bush for katrina, because somehow its his fault. "george bush doesnt care about black people".

Where the hell is the outrage at obama.

I take it you haven't been reading the thread or watching conservative press.

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Hydrogen is the ticket: either in fuel cell fom or burning. thats the only way and we can do it now.

*Start mandating:
1. All cars and transports will have above by 2015.
2. Set up the infrastructure now via existing private stations.
3. start tolling up power generation to accomodate the hydrogen splitting. It doesn't matter how we generate the power, as that can change. It matters that the power is generated.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Hydrogen is the ticket: either in fuel cell fom or burning. thats the only way and we can do it now.

*Start mandating:
1. All cars and transports will have above by 2015.
2. Set up the infrastructure now via existing private stations.
3. start tolling up power generation to accomodate the hydrogen splitting. It doesn't matter how we generate the power, as that can change. It matters that the power is generated.

Hydrogen is 'free' fuel and non polluting, but it costs a lot of energy to create. This is often overlooked by its proponents. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store, it normally requires high pressure containment which is expensive and dangerous.

A far better option if to burn commercially grown plant oils in addition to mined oils. Many plant oils burn in a diesel engine with minimal filtering and the technology is tried and tested. 'Small Oil' however cannot compete with 'Big Oil'.

Ultimately the US has to use less energy and that can only be achieved by lifestyle change. The average American and Canadian will travel far further on non essential journeys and burns more energy in heating even compared to other developed nations. Domestic consumption is the real issue, but its one thast politicians are not willing to address. Oil is too cheap, long journeys too casual, public transport, especially rail is underused.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Hydrogen is the ticket: either in fuel cell fom or burning. thats the only way and we can do it now.

*Start mandating:
1. All cars and transports will have above by 2015.
2. Set up the infrastructure now via existing private stations.
3. start tolling up power generation to accomodate the hydrogen splitting. It doesn't matter how we generate the power, as that can change. It matters that the power is generated.

Hydrogen is 'free' fuel and non polluting, but it costs a lot of energy to create. This is often overlooked by its proponents. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store, it normally requires high pressure containment which is expensive and dangerous.

A far better option if to burn commercially grown plant oils in addition to mined oils. Many plant oils burn in a diesel engine with minimal filtering and the technology is tried and tested. 'Small Oil' however cannot compete with 'Big Oil'.

Ultimately the US has to use less energy and that can only be achieved by lifestyle change. The average American and Canadian will travel far further on non essential journeys and burns more energy in heating even compared to other developed nations. Domestic consumption is the real issue, but its one thast politicians are not willing to address. Oil is too cheap, long journeys too casual, public transport, especially rail is underused.

Its not economically feasible. To fuel the US economy, everyone would starve.
Hydrogen economy is workable with proper power supplies. Everything else is someone's trippy way to gain control.

This...

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

And Frazzled is right about the amount of plants needed to be grown just to make bio-diesel.

However a number of changes can be done to reduce energy consumption as well as producing new sources.

For example, a lot of people tumble-dry their clothes instead of using an airer.

Big heavy cars use more fuel than smaller lighter ones.

Collect used cooking oil from restaurants and make it into bio-diesel.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Hydrogen is the ticket: either in fuel cell fom or burning. thats the only way and we can do it now.

*Start mandating:
1. All cars and transports will have above by 2015.
2. Set up the infrastructure now via existing private stations.
3. start tolling up power generation to accomodate the hydrogen splitting. It doesn't matter how we generate the power, as that can change. It matters that the power is generated.

Hydrogen is 'free' fuel and non polluting, but it costs a lot of energy to create. This is often overlooked by its proponents. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store, it normally requires high pressure containment which is expensive and dangerous.

A far better option if to burn commercially grown plant oils in addition to mined oils. Many plant oils burn in a diesel engine with minimal filtering and the technology is tried and tested. 'Small Oil' however cannot compete with 'Big Oil'.

Ultimately the US has to use less energy and that can only be achieved by lifestyle change. The average American and Canadian will travel far further on non essential journeys and burns more energy in heating even compared to other developed nations. Domestic consumption is the real issue, but its one thast politicians are not willing to address. Oil is too cheap, long journeys too casual, public transport, especially rail is underused.

Its not economically feasible. To fuel the US economy, everyone would starve.
Hydrogen economy is workable with proper power supplies. Everything else is someone's trippy way to gain control.

Hydrogen is a gakky faux technology that is unproven, untested, and unworkable with current techology (hence its absolute abandonment). Simply battery power will replace oil, thats it. No giant infrastructural change is needed, no (non lithium) mineral or oil reserves are needed, and we already have the technology. In the last decade battery tech has improved several orders of magnitude and it will keep doing so.

Hydrogen was just a boondoggle funded by the auto companies so that they could look like they were doing something. They knew it was a failure of a technology insofar as largescale transportation power is concerned, and as predicted it's faded away and been replaced with all electric already.

Now take everything I just said about hydrogen. Make my paragraphs twice as harsh and mocking and then replace hydrogen with biodiesel.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA consumes about 20% of the oil production and actually controls (within its borders) about 2% of the reserves.

Cutting back on oil use would be a good thing from strategic as well as balance of payments considerations.

Outside a few urban areas such as Manhattan, Americans are highly dependant on cars to get around.

If cars are gradually replaced with hybrid or electric vehicles that will help as long as electricity generation is not done by oil burning.

Hydrogen is the ticket: either in fuel cell fom or burning. thats the only way and we can do it now.

*Start mandating:
1. All cars and transports will have above by 2015.
2. Set up the infrastructure now via existing private stations.
3. start tolling up power generation to accomodate the hydrogen splitting. It doesn't matter how we generate the power, as that can change. It matters that the power is generated.

Hydrogen is 'free' fuel and non polluting, but it costs a lot of energy to create. This is often overlooked by its proponents. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store, it normally requires high pressure containment which is expensive and dangerous.

A far better option if to burn commercially grown plant oils in addition to mined oils. Many plant oils burn in a diesel engine with minimal filtering and the technology is tried and tested. 'Small Oil' however cannot compete with 'Big Oil'.

Ultimately the US has to use less energy and that can only be achieved by lifestyle change. The average American and Canadian will travel far further on non essential journeys and burns more energy in heating even compared to other developed nations. Domestic consumption is the real issue, but its one thast politicians are not willing to address. Oil is too cheap, long journeys too casual, public transport, especially rail is underused.

Its not economically feasible. To fuel the US economy, everyone would starve.
Hydrogen economy is workable with proper power supplies. Everything else is someone's trippy way to gain control.

Hydrogen is a gakky faux technology that is unproven, untested, and unworkable with current techology (hence its absolute abandonment). Simply battery power will replace oil, thats it. No giant infrastructural change is needed, no (non lithium) mineral or oil reserves are needed, and we already have the technology. In the last decade battery tech has improved several orders of magnitude and it will keep doing so.

Hydrogen was just a boondoggle funded by the auto companies so that they could look like they were doing something. They knew it was a failure of a technology insofar as largescale transportation power is concerned, and as predicted it's faded away and been replaced with all electric already.

hydrogen fuel cells have been used for freaking decades.
Isn't he cute! Talking like batteries are worthwhile. You're so cute, yes you aww yes you aww!

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/hydrogen

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html

hydrogen fuel cells have been used for freaking decades.

Fraz, I know you're an unrepentant and somewhat experienced troll so I'm just going to copy paste something I posted then make fun of you.

They knew it was a failure of a technology insofar as largescale transportation power is concerned, and as predicted it's faded away and been replaced with all electric already.

hydrogen fuel cells have been used for freaking decades.
Isn't he cute! Talking like batteries are worthwhile. You're so cute, yes you aww yes you aww!

Do you drive a space shuttle to work fraz? Do you? I don't. I don't think most people do. When you're going to troll me try and use your fething brain instead of telling me I'm cute (Thank you) and then giggling and posting two totally worthless links.



Do you know what this is fraz? Of course not. Otherwise you wouldn't of posted your post. This is a car that gets 240 miles on a single charge using a battery. Batteries go in all kinds of things.



For instance batteries power this. This is a portable computer. You can take it anywhere and it will be able to work for hours without being plugged in. It doesn't even need to replace or refil it's fuel cells, it runs totally off of electricity! Your grandkids might have one, you should ask if you can look at it. Don't touch though! You wouldn't want to break it.



Do you know what this is fraz? THIS IS THE GOD DAMN SPACE SHUTTLE the same thing that you linked me too! It's also not a car! Do you know that lion batteries power more things in the ISS than hydrogen cells? Did you know that while they have a lower power density they don't explode? They also can be recharged by things like the sun, nuclear power, or coal and they don't need special stations which are inherently dangerous! Hydrogen cells are great when you need significant power density and output with low fuel weight and have a significant enough cooling system to control the reactive heat generated by the inefficiency! Such systems being highly technical and expensive outside of the necessity of a totally revamped national infrastructure for refueling! Something consumer model cars don't have! And something the american national infrastructure never will!

Each fuel cell power plant is 14 inches high, 15 inches wide and 40 inches long and weighs 255 pounds.

Thats just the power plant, one of three, not the sizeable cooling system or the physical mechanics required for refueling or purging (weighing more than a car itself)! It's like you don't even read your own fething articles and have no idea what the hell you're talking about! It's cute when grandpa wants to talk about electronics.

Fuel cell efficiency is limited because "the energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use... For comparison, the 'wind-to-wheel' efficiency is at least three times greater for electric cars than for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles."[3]
The efficiency of the vehicle's engine does not take into account the efficiency at which hydrogen is produced, stored, and transported today. Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen may have a power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of 22% if the hydrogen is stored as high-pressure gas, and 17% if it is stored as liquid hydrogen.[4] In addition to the production losses, some of the electricity used for hydrogen production, comes from thermal power, which only has an efficiency of 33% to 48% resulting in emission of carbon dioxide.

For further study lets look at the pure inefficiencies of hydrogen vehicles! Like how the fuel cells fall apart when used in cars! Or how they are significantly less efficient than batteries (assuming you have the titanic infrastructure for distributing the hydrogen)!



While I'm at it lets dispell the "newness" argument you laid down in your first sentence. This is a battery operated electric car from 106 years ago.



This is the ev-1. Its battery weighed over 3 times what the tesla roadsters did. It got roughly a third the mileage on a charge and has half the horsepower. It's just over a decade old. Looking at trends in efficiency and technology electric battery storage and output became about 12 times as capable in 12 years. Thats a one to one improvement per year. With those numbers the electric vehicle field is looking at having a 300 pound battery and 720 miles on a charge with 600 horses by 2020. Given current and dramatic improvements in battery density of Li-on batteries (Which are on their way out as lithium is replaced) it's likely that could well happen.

Sorry newness was your argument.

Batteries are expensive, don't hold a charge to be sufficient for real distances (300 or more miles), and brilliantly toxic.

You can use hydrogen now. Electric cars stilld on't have the range for daily use at an economic level. Nnnn wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

Frazzled wrote:Sorry newness was your argument.

Batteries are expensive, don't hold a charge to be sufficient for real distances (300 or more miles), and brilliantly toxic.

You can use hydrogen now. Electric cars stilld on't have the range for daily use at an economic level. Nnnn wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

Sorry about that, I edited and added two more paragraphs before I saw your post. Try again.

Also, how the feth do I use hydrogen now? Where am I gonna get the hydrogen fraz? I don't think it comes out of the hose at a gas station and I certainly can't plug my (non existent) hydrogen vehicle into the wall. Are you just being intentionally trollish or do you seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Cursory research will show you they are already cheaper, more efficient, less environmentally destructive, longer lasting, and significantly safer. Cursory research will also show you that they have improved significantly over the last fifteen years while hydrogen cells have not.

But you haven't done your research. You're just spouting off something you saw on a commercial once.

Also how the hell was newness my argument? Are you drunk?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sorry newness was your argument.

Batteries are expensive, don't hold a charge to be sufficient for real distances (300 or more miles), and brilliantly toxic.

You can use hydrogen now. Electric cars stilld on't have the range for daily use at an economic level. Nnnn wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

Sorry about that, I edited and added two more paragraphs. Try again.

Also, how the feth do I use hydrogen now? Where am I gonna get the hydrogen fraz? I don't think it comes out of the hose at a gas station and I certainly can't plug my (non existent) hydrogen vehicle into the wall. Are you just being intentionally trollish or do you seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Cursory research will show you they are already cheaper, more efficient, less environmentally destructive, longer lasting, and significantly safer. Cursory research will also show you that they have improved significantly over the last fifteen years while hydrogen cells have not.

But you haven't done your research. You're just spouting off something you saw on a commercial once.

Show me a commercial - else you're trolling yet again without facts or support.
You can't get electrical hookups either.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sorry newness was your argument.

Batteries are expensive, don't hold a charge to be sufficient for real distances (300 or more miles), and brilliantly toxic.

You can use hydrogen now. Electric cars stilld on't have the range for daily use at an economic level. Nnnn wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

Sorry about that, I edited and added two more paragraphs. Try again.

Also, how the feth do I use hydrogen now? Where am I gonna get the hydrogen fraz? I don't think it comes out of the hose at a gas station and I certainly can't plug my (non existent) hydrogen vehicle into the wall. Are you just being intentionally trollish or do you seriously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Cursory research will show you they are already cheaper, more efficient, less environmentally destructive, longer lasting, and significantly safer. Cursory research will also show you that they have improved significantly over the last fifteen years while hydrogen cells have not.

But you haven't done your research. You're just spouting off something you saw on a commercial once.

Show me a commercial - else you're trolling yet again without facts or support.
You can't get electrical hookups either.

Not sure what you're on about as far as commercials go considering were talking about the future and not a single one of the technologies being discussed will be established in the next decade (oils still cheap and realistically no one cares where the gas comes from).

http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/20/charging-the-chevy-volt/

Seriously. You just don't know what you're talking about.

The battery field is one of the most active engineering fields on the planet today with air zinc batteries (contested against nanoscale altered Li-ons and a few others) set to totally replace traditional Li-ons..

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2009-12/making-powerful-lightweight-batteries-nothing-nanotube-ink-and-paper
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/molten-metal-batteries-could-store-extra-juice-power-grid
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/05/toshibas-super-charge-ion-battery-gets-90-full-in-10-minutes/
http://www.popsci.com/article/2008-01/two-day-battery
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/durable-silicon-anode-can-improve-li-ion-battery-capacity-five-times
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/07/toyota-already-looking-beyond-lithium-ion-batteries/

Hell, these guys got 600 miles.

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2010-05/ev-powered-sanyo-laptop-batteries-cruises-600-miles-single-charge

I was going to give you a bunch of wiki links but you hate those. I hope you don't mind a cursory travel down engadget and pop sci for your links.

Blah blah blah blah

Frazzled wrote:Blah blah blah blah

So you're conceding the point? Thank you.

To be fair Fraz the Battery power car (based upon a Lotus I believe) went into production this year and was featured on Top Gear as well.

It is also worth noting that they went through tree of them during testing because the batteries either failed or didn't last even half the time stated by the manufacturers.

Hydrogen will produce the most similar results to petrol, electric is still too limited.

Hybrids still seem like the first best step to a new cleaner power source to me.

Go Toyota! (if only they did brakes!)

500 not out! Well done me!

Frazzled wrote:..... else you're trolling yet again without facts or support.

Look its Frazzie complaining about trolling, spurious 'facts' and unsupported comments.

Frazzled wrote:Blah blah blah blah

Shumagorath: 1

Frazzled: -1 (The argument presented was so poor, that it merited a deduction.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Cursory research will show you they are already cheaper, more efficient, less environmentally destructive, longer lasting, and significantly safer.

Those are all essentially self-evident, aside from efficiency, before research even begins. Safety, in particular, is a comparison between one system which requires regular infusions of a dangerous, difficult to contain element, and another in which the most volatile components are self-contained for factory level maintenance.