I am 100% with you on every single comment you made! I guess i just cant put my thoughts into writing as well as you can.:biggthumpup:
Sputnik? Pish posh. One battle but not the war. You forget, we had Skylab! :biggrin: And why should we sign a treaty? Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you find a rock. Most unfriendly nations are run by crazy dictators or brutal oligarchs. History shows that they always violate agreements entered into by pacifist governments in good faith. Refusing to play that game shows that our leaders have a least some brains. Or am I the only person who remembers the deal Clinton struck with the North Koreans, where we gave them everything they wanted (fuel, money, food, technical assistance) in exchange for their pledge not to develop a nuclear capability, and then they went and did it anyway? :roll: Now they use the carrot of dismantling their POS nuclear capacity to try and get more money, while they help Syria build a reactor and are the largest counterfitter of Superbills?
I take it you are someone that has the social and intellectual footing to make generalizations about other people's intelligence.
True, his post is a good point if you completely ignore the fact that nuclear waste can be re-processed to be used again as fuel for reactors.
^ It is absolutely ludicrous that we are not exploring this. Not that it is a surprise legislators will not go for something beneficial to us and the world. All this heat about carbon emissions and there is technology to eliminate 95% of carbon from coal fired power plants, with chlorine (from making the sodium hydroxide) and baking soda as byproducts. These systems will cost about the same as the "scrubbers" that they have to install anyways, and will do a better job of capturing heavy metals than the scrubbers.
What ever happened to people just being people? Before all this politikin', what else was there to divide people... plenty! Have people forgot how many times politics have been used to subvert a culture/civilization? Who else can see through all the junk, and see that politics is just another way to play the people. Make your stand, it is your choice, part of your free will. Nationalism also, has been used all throughout history to conjure up superiority, megalomania, and downright hatred. "What we've got here is failure to communicate" "I don't need your civil war It feeds the rich while it buries the poor." Yes, it is perplexing and a conundrum. A country needs to prepare for war to secure peace, peacetime is just a period of preparation for outright war, the planning, strategy, bla bla bla... sigh. What is the problem? This system of things. Watching the news is just like a game of risk, territories won and lost, all I know is, take Kamchatka! j/k. The futility of warring over land that is not anyones to have, we are just the caretakers of the Earth, and we're doing a piss poor job. I'm no leftist or rightist, certainly no hippie. I just like history and come from a spiritual upbringing, and can see all sorts of stuff going full circle, again and again. People need to go and watch Idiocracy. Fair and balanced, you decide. :laugh: [/commence flaming]
I think it's a dumb idea. We finally have had a month or two where nationwide fuel consumption has decreased, likely due to fuel costs. Clearly, the people are capable of doing something about it on their own. Now we want to increase consumption to levels higher than they were before. Sure, it isn't talking about consumption directly but that will certainly be a result. The combined MN/federal tax is ~$0.40 per gallon which would put current prices around $3.20 without the tax. I doubt the fuel price would drop $0.40 overnight unless it's written into the legislation. For all the bitching about oil companies, this is one case where there would actually be cause to complain - their profits would increase because they are going to raise their price a bit to make up for some of the savings. Instead of $3.20, we'd probably see something like $3.35 - I mean, after seeing $3.60, $3.35 is a bargain! Right? One reason given for the high prices is refining capacity. How is more consumption going to fix that? With high demand and low production capability, there will always be a built-in excuse for high fuel prices, even after the speculators cool their jets.
Maybe the dems are voting against every idea because in reality the ideas are very expensive? And we don't have enough to cover everything?
If people didn't drive SUV's who do not need their capability, we'd save about a million barrels of oil a day
Maybe my parent's neighbor knows? As far as I know Honda has give/leased a fuel cell car to some family in CA. (Not the above family [yeah, its Merc, but I figured someone would make a comment], one of them works at a fuel cell company in NorCal). they will be expanding the program to more people. This doesn't mean there will be more than like 25-50 out there. Still thats some progress. The main issues for fuel cell is cost and getting fuel (which is a chicken/egg thing) as far as I can tell.
It's money, plain and simple. Oil fuels our economy (no, I'm not one of those 'no blood for oil' people) everything we use, we depend on, uses it in some way. and .. if i remember my economics class from HS, supply and demand if we require this to fuel our basic machines then the demand goes up, because everyone uses it demand for alternative solutions goes down, and they become more expensive and you're left with this what we got = what we have to deal with because people are lazy and they don't want to funnel their money into something that takes time to develop when they have whatever they need at their disposal. If we were living on, say, corn oil, we'd be in a similar situation, only fighting over corn instead of oil. It's just too expensive to deviate from the "norm"
Hydrogen is FTL. It takes more energy to create than what you get out. And they have been promising hydrogen for fifty years. It ain't going to happen. And since 7% of our oil imports is refined gasoline, I would say adding refinery capacity would be a good thing. We haven't built a refinery in thirty years. It'd be like driving on roads from the 70s.
I screwed up on my numbers a touch. The bill doesn't mention eliminating the fuel tax imposed by the individual states. The federal excise tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon, roughly 5% of the current price of fuel. If you fill up once per week at 12.5 gallons, this will save you a whopping $2.25 per week. In an interview a week or two ago, McCain also mentioned (I think Clinton said the same thing shortly after) temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel (not sure if they mean to include diesel). If you look at the numbers, it's just politics: fuel and oil prices are updated virtually every news break on the radio and we're all told it's hurting us so it's something we think about all the time. This is an easy way to make it look like they're doing something about a situation that is being plugged as a national problem. Roughly 60% of this tax goes toward highway projects. That includes things like, oh I dunno, replacement of our deteriorating bridges. I'm all for lowering taxes, but this decrease is just a way for the parties to snipe at each other. The actual effect on the average family will be negligible.
The tax cut is not going to do anything. 18cents for 4 month will net like 50 bucks of savings that is stupid. If they were to cut fuel prices in half that would make a difference. And by cutting 18 cents out of the fuel prices the only thing they are going to do is to loose a tens of billions of dollars that they could spend on reconstructing bridges around the country. This is a short fix with bad consequences an I am pretty sure the bill will not pass. This is just a PR move for Clinton and McNasty who want stupid people to believe try are helping them. On hydrogen, its a good idea and we have a great amount of it and so far its the best and most efficent fuel we got. We are going to run out of oil sometime sooner or later and destroying wild life refuge will not help us. Over time people will get used to the high prices of gas and oil companies will not decrease the prices even if they can. People are greedy and will make money any time they can. Some companies are praying right now that the war will keep going for 100 year cause they are making money on it.
On hydrogen...here is what the European Fuel Cell Forum had to say about the Hydrogen Cell... Hydrogen has a very low volumetric energy density at ambient conditions, equal to about one-third that of methane. Even when the fuel is stored as a liquid in a cryogenic tank or in a pressurized tank, the volumetric energy density (megajoules per liter) is small relative to that of gasoline. Because of the energy required to compress or liquefy the hydrogen gas, the supply chain for hydrogen has lower well-to-tank efficiency compared to gasoline. Currently, on the road, the most efficient vehicle is using gasoline to power itself. High compression, direct injection cars get better than excellent fuel economy with nearly zero emissions. Gasoline is the most efficient fuel we have.
We will run out of oil and someone has to start figuring out what we are going to do about it. Even tho we have to get hydrogen out of either fosil fuels or water using electrolysis its still much better than using gas. You can split water using solar energy, hydro energy, geothermal and nuclear which is our best bet. Looks at the rest of the world. More than a half of the cars in Europe are diesel and get 40+mpg mixed cycle. Why we don't have thouse cars here? If every one in CA and other sunny states had solar panels we would save an a lot on coal, and oil. Many companies are working on more efficient solar panels that will be much more efficient. The thing is that it is so much easier to just take what you have and put it into your car but that will end soon.
The reason we don't have more fuel efficient diesel cars is because they can't pass CA's stringent emissions standards. And thus all the dittohead states that adopt CA emissions standards wont allow those diesels either. And so, there is no market here for them, because CA has basically outlawed them through their emissions laws. And we aren't going to run out of oil any time soon. There is no shortage. No oil company has any incentive to pump more. At the rate they are pumping it out of the ground, they are recieving record profits. If they pump more, that means that supply goes up, demand remains the same, and thus the price goes down and they make less per barrel. Why would they want to do that? And last I checked, California has nuke plants. So, there would be no incentive really to using solar, since they are costly and require installation. Plus, there are plenty of MONTHS in winter time when the sky is overcast for long stretches of time.
There are several reasons why those things aren't happening. Diesel: the motor got a bad rap from several poor passenger-car implementations, especially in the 70s and early-80s. IIRC, there was a GM diesel that was a particularly poor motor. It has taken a while for that stigma to go away. Diesel motors cost more to produce, anywhere from $2-10,000 dollars, raising the price of an otherwise identical car. Last, fuel is still cheap. Gasoline-powered trucks and SUVs are STILL flying off the dealer lots, because despite $3.60 gallon fuel. In other words, despite all the talk about fuel costs, people will find a way to drive what they want. Right now, they don't want diesel. And with an $0.80 per gallon premium for the fuel, it's going to be a hard sell for a while yet. Solar panels are equally expensive. We've looked into this option recently; to take our house off the grid will cost anywhere between $30-70,000. That's a lot of money for a house that costs $150k or so. With our annual power bill around $2000 or so, the payoff would take me into retirement age even with increasing costs for electricity. Until recently, solar solutions have been unsightly eyesores that most folks simply do not want on the roof or in the yard. With the new solar shingles that may change but they are also more expensive and not quite as efficient as plain ol' panels. Last, there is the issue of storage batteries. In wintertime, we need capacity to power our homes for almost 13-16 hours after the sun sets. Those batteries also are not inexpensive, are not small, are a source of new toxic hazards in the household, need to be replaced periodically at significant cost, and need to be recycled. OTOH, water heating systems are very reasonable - you can get hot water for $3-5,000. Still, that's only one small part of your utility needs so the payoff can take several years. Some day, maybe sooner rather than later, pure electric-car technology will give us cars like Subarus (super-safe, AWD, reliable, fun) that can go for 200+ miles on a charge, and with batteries that weigh less, cost less, charge quickly, and are not recycling nightmares. At that point, solar may come into its own. For certain, greater demand on the power grid is going to cause problems in some areas of the country, like California, with the rolling brownouts of several years back. Recharging you car at night with electricity stored in the battery that you charged during the day will give you almost free power not counting initial installation costs. But dang, it's expensive getting to that point. Even with electric cars, I'm personally stuck with gas or diesel because of the driving I do. For instance, tomorrow I drive up to Duluth to see a customer. I can't do that with an electric - I wouldn't even make it to the Cities before the battery died, and then it takes 8 hours to charge up again. Hydrogen? No infrastructure out in the boonies. So while there are solutions available, keep in mind a few things: - they aren't cheap to implement - they aren't suitable for every driver - there are other economic hurdles to leap over, such as diesel fuel costs - we're looking at supporting upwards of 5 or 6 different types of fuel - gas (in three different grades, E85, diesel, biodiesel, electricity, and hydrogen. The automakers will have to spend an awful lot of money to make all those types of motors available in quantity, plus there are support costs after-the-sale. Technology is doing some good things but we can't look at a couple hydrogen cars currently in testing and say, "See? There's the answer!" Well, umm, no it's not. At least not yet and not for quite a few years from now. Until then, fossil fuel consumption simply needs to go down. Making the fuel cheaper is not going to cause that to happen. Quite the opposite, in fact.
This is why I'm so against people driving SUV's and trucks daily. People don't need to drive a vehicle that weighs 5000lbs and has an oversized V8 to the office. Its just not necessary. Its the american way though. Use, use, use, who cares if it is a waste. There are plenty of other examples. Plastic bags and bottled water are massive wastes of oil. As I see it, people are lazy and oblivious to how their actions affect this country.
It becomes a matter of people caring about the future, if we are only here for one lifetime. The fuel supply isn't running out in a hundred years, and none of us are going to live any longer than that. Overcoming apathy is what it will take to get something done. Easier said than done.
Almost 20 years ago ev1 could do 150 miles on one charge and it took two hours to charge it 80%. And that's on metalhydrate(sp) batteries. Now we have much lighter a and more efficient lipo batteries. I am sure if you stuff thouse betteries in that same ev1 that was a first production fully electric car it would go dr atleast 250+ miles. Its a pollitical issue that is enfluenced by corporations.
You cannot just say it is that easy. Todays cars are much larger, heavier, and have many more features and complexities than cars of the 70's and 80's. Back then, safety was of very little importance. If crash safety and other things stayed equal, cars would have gotten lighter over the years from advancement in technology and design. Regulations have not allowed that. Remember, we need to protect ourselves, from ourselves.
This is what I can't believe nobody can figure out. To get more efficient vehicle on the road, there has to be consumer demand for them, and the only way that's going to happen is to allow gas prices to climb. Unfortunately, no one in government is brave enough to allow that because they need to get reelected and people get upset when they're gas is too expensive. Obviously, the only solution is to make me emperor of the United States.
You'll have competition. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2213762389 If you're ghey enough to have facebook you can see it. Otherwise, rest assured. Its ghey.
Not accurate. VW pulled their diesels (which didn't pass CARB for a while) because they couldn't pass federal EPA regs. Merc's Bluetecs do pass both CARB and EPA regs. Honda also has an engine that passes and VW and BMW will be coming to market with clean diesels as well. NOx, which diesels produced in abundance is a major issue, esp in the valley cities which CA has in abundance. Europe has very lax NOx and other SMOG forming pollution laws because they're all carried out to Russia with the wind. Agreed 100%. Also note that refineries, despite there being a shortage of capicity are still not running at capacity. We have an artifical shortage. Also note that while there have been no new refineries, refineries have no problems in upgradeing existing capacity. They just don't. Also the number of applications for new refineries is not high at all. This is not excessive regulation, this is companies realizing that the refinery glut of the 80s, when refinries were shut down., sucked, and if they keep this market, they'll make a killing. Because California needs more power? And the overcast issue is less of a problem from what I've heard. (Also, at least in CA a huge amount of demand is from AC which will be used most during clear days) John Doliitle still want to build his giant Auburn Dam on a ****ing fault line right above a metro area of 2 million people. The main advantage to hydrogen and/or electric cars is that it helps move pollution to easily defined point sources. We shrink the number of sources from hundreds of millions to thousands. This has advantages because: bigger engines (aka power plants) are more efficent if a new technology comes along, its easier to retrofit thousands of plants than hundreds of millions of cars easier to make sure these sources are following regulations emissions controls aree easier to implement -- for example, weight is not as issue for a power plant. It is on a car.
I lived in San Diego for 7 years. There are enough overcast days from November to March to cause issue. And I agree, the energy needs drop during winter months due to decreased need for A/C, but I don't think you'd get enough sunshine during those months to keep the batteries charged.
Solor power is very useful in dealing with peak demand. California (like all states) makes more power than it needs at night when I'd imagine most charging can be done (and the solar plants aren't needed) Yeah, i'd like to get rid of Duluth too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 If they still produced this car we would all be driving electric cars now. With technology we have now it would be so easy to make this car even more efficient.
