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.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Why wouldn't it work out? Whats wrong with le Volts?

Chevy loses money on every Volt they sell, they've copped to that much. They deny Reuters claim that they lose 49,000 per car. For a car with a base model cost of 31k and fully loaded 39k that'd be an awful lot. So if they were to sell the car at cost that makes it as much as 80,000k; can you afford an 80k car, better yet would you? The actual estimates for the cost of that car are from the mid 70's to the low 90's. As far as electric cars go; these aren't the droids you are looking for. As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?
You were right to say hydrogen fuel cell cars would be better, maybe. Depends on how Hindenburgy they are. I don't have the answer but I know its not electric cars. At least until a majority of electricity is renewable...so basically never.

 AustonT wrote:
can you afford an 80k car, better yet would you?

Not now, but remember that this is still early technology. It's like that for everything, at first it's expensive then costs begin to drop. And eventually, even if electric cars are more expensive than "normal" cars, the savings in fuel costs over the life of the car will make up for it. But we're never going to reach that point if we just leave it at "it's too expensive" and drop the whole idea.

As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?

Sure, a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, but don't forget two important things:

1) There are options for renewable energy. Hydroelectric, nuclear (well, mostly), etc, can provide power without burning fossil fuels. As we're forced to move to those options it would be nice for electric car technology to be developing in parallel so both solutions are ready when they're needed. And of course if you live near a hydroelectric dam, well, your conscience is pretty clear.

2) Efficiency scales with size. Sure, you might still be burning fossil fuel, but you can do it in a power plant maximized for efficiency instead of throwing away a lot of it as waste heat in a car engine. Assuming the power plant is close enough to keep the transmission line losses down, it's quite possible that the electric car is still better.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Why wouldn't it work out? Whats wrong with le Volts?

Hydrogen fuel cell cars would be even better though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, really, all we need to do is mine the moon for helium 3... Some private companies already have their sights set on moon mining, so that might not be as distantly in the future as most people would think.

It's gettin' pretty sci fi in here...

Ya that's what you want to see. We have enough trouble with idiots and drunk driving. I really want them to be drunk driving something that's powered nuclear or hydrogene. /sarcasm

Instead of a dent in the house it gets blown up but hey at least it'll glow in the dark. Won't have to stub my tow gettin to the front door in the morning.

Um....40K...website....

 Jihadin wrote:
Um....40K...website....

Um...Off Topic Forum....of Wargaming Website. This is exactly what Off topic is for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Keep in mind we did invade two countries and caused the direct and indirect deaths of hundreds of thousands. I think that was a bit out of line as a reaction to Sept11th.

One was, one wasn't.

World War I kicked off because one guy got shot.

Really? One guy got shot? It was nothing to do with the Imperial Tensions that been building up between all the Major Powers in Europe?

You are mistaking the Catalyst of events with the Cause of Events.

On a side note, here's some interesting stuff that happened as a result of 9/11. Well, according to cracked.com, anyway:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20009_7-bizarre-ways-you-didnt-know-911-changed-world.html

hmmm....Whales were happier, standby for some Complex conspiracy involving Israeli, the illuminati, US intelligence and the order of Cetacea.

I was at Sea on September 11th, don't remember ships around the Globe stopping. There was more rigorous Port control in the US and shut down of US ports for a day or two. Don't think it made a huge impact on Trasatlantic trade, almost all ships carried on their way and anchored off or some even drifted for a few days NUC, well off the US Ports before being called in. Never mind the fact that most US Warships immediately put to Sea at speed as the US was in a defacto state of war with an unknown assailant.

Changes
1. Osama bin Laden slain.
2. Widespread arabian revoltutions. (the echo of 1848?)
3. Another kingpin. Gaddhafi fell from power and killed in the Libyan Civil War
4. Rise of Dubai. the new business centre of the world.

Saddam Hussein and family also dead. Don't forget that.
Mubarrak out. Syria teetering.
Hamas legally elected.
Israel and Iran about to go at it.
Iraq a democracy.
Afghanistan is a hole.

 Frazzled wrote:

Afghanistan is a hole.

Is that really a change though?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Afghanistan is a hole.

Is that really a change though?

Correct. I meant to say same old same old.

Well...we got them out of ....something




They don't have FEDEX there yet.

 Frazzled wrote:

not a damn thing. They want to sell the oil. they have nothing else in their economies of significance.

Of course they want to sell oil, but they can now sell it to other people, and they've already proved embargoes are things.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

not a damn thing. They want to sell the oil. they have nothing else in their economies of significance.

Of course they want to sell oil, but they can now sell it to other people, and they've already proved embargoes are things.

And? Oil is fungible.

 Frazzled wrote:

And? Oil is fungible.

Yes it is, but fungibility doesn't really matter if large suppliers start refusing to sell you goods, which becomes much easier if they have other markets to consider.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And? Oil is fungible.

Yes it is, but fungibility doesn't really matter if large suppliers start refusing to sell you goods, which becomes much easier if they have other markets to consider.

Yea it does actually actually. You buy cargoes from other sellers. Market readjusts.

The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea it does actually actually. You buy cargoes from other sellers. Market readjusts.

Eventually, and provided that the political will exists to sell you goods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)

That's true if you're the only, or dominant, consumer.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea it does actually actually. You buy cargoes from other sellers. Market readjusts.

Eventually, and provided that the political will exists to sell you goods.

Evenutally is same day (assuming the real stuff and not paper, which is ame second.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)

That's true if you're the only, or dominant, consumer.

No, not at all. The hydrocarbon market is quite fungible. If you are a sconsumer big enough to buy a cargo you're good to go.

Peregrine wrote:[

As a solution to fossil fuels use: where do people think electricity comes from?

Sure, a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, but don't forget two important things:

1) There are options for renewable energy. Hydroelectric, nuclear (well, mostly), etc, can provide power without burning fossil fuels. As we're forced to move to those options it would be nice for electric car technology to be developing in parallel so both solutions are ready when they're needed. And of course if you live near a hydroelectric dam, well, your conscience is pretty clear.

Hydroelectric power makes up 2/3s of the renewable energy in the US, and less than 7% overall. Let me repost this in case you missed it.

AustonT wrote:I don't have the answer but I know its not electric cars. At least until a majority of electricity is renewable...so basically never.

As it turns out I was aware of renewable engergy when I said that.

 Frazzled wrote:

The only way an embargo works is if total global production is lowered or the absolute supply is interrupted (US carriers looking at you Iran!)

You know Frazzeled, you have some wonderful nieghbours to the north of you who would love to sell you lots of oil, provided of corse you put the hippies in their place so we can get that pipeline built.
Best of all, you guys get ethical oil from a country that actually believes things like stoning women to death for showing off an ankle is wrong!

The Middle East needs the rest of the world. On the other hand, we don't actually need them.



If anything has changed since 9/11, it's that our governments have only just tried to play even nicer with the jihadists who still party like it's the year 999 and think those evil crusaders are still after their cattle. (sorry, I mean their women that they treat as sub-humans!)

I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.

 Frazzled wrote:


Iraq a democracy.

Riiiggghhhtt...the same Iraq where the VP was just sentenced to death right?...it may be a democracy in name, but thats about it

 Huffy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Iraq a democracy.

Riiiggghhhtt...the same Iraq where the VP was just sentenced to death right?...it may be a democracy in name, but thats about it

Hey whats a death senbtence or two between friends?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.

In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!

For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!

Lets not forget the sectarian violence that been cropping up in Iraq to.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.

In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!

For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!

No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.

 Jihadin wrote:
Lets not forget the sectarian violence that been cropping up in Iraq to.

In Iraq? NEVER?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.

In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!

For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!

No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.

A pipeline spill is minor. Don't get your tree hugger bindies in a bind. Plus you still need a pipeline to ship the refined products, except now a lot of that is easier to go BOOM!

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'd rather see Canada sell refined oil products to the US; rather than pump crude via a pipeline.

In a perfect world we would refine our own oil and then sell it to our southern friends... But then, we kinda need to have refineries for that to happen!

For the forseeable future, the Gateway pipeline is the best option, and at least the companies can be kept in check by the threat of massive, record setting lawsuits to keep them almost honest!

No, this is not a good option. It's being lauded as a job-creating project, even though those are temporary construction jobs, and will only create about 8 permanent jobs when it's done: additionally, the potential environmental damage is just ridiculous, considering it is a potential disaster that cannot be undone, no matter the level of cleanup. (Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez are great examples). There is absolutely no good reason for Canada (and especially BC) why the Gateway Pipeline Project should move forward.

A pipeline spill is minor. Don't get your tree hugger bindies in a bind. Plus you still need a pipeline to ship the refined products, except now a lot of that is easier to go BOOM!

Define "minor". And a tree hugger I am definitely not. However, I do object to someone building a pipe through BC without appropriate compensation, which is exactly what the Gateway Pipeline represents. Additionally, I do not have any inherent faith in oil companies to hold themselves accountable should any spills occur, nor has history given me any reason to think otherwise. Unless there is some rather draconian legislation put into place on the issue, I hope that the Gateway project ginds to a halt.