Post by: Desertdog on July 25, 2008, 04:39:08 PM
The way the global warmist talk you would think that every one of the gas guzzlers would be dead and buried in about 5 years if they get their way.
'Renewable energy good, but we need oil now'
Perino objects to Dem plan to keep prices high, 'move beyond petroleum'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70473
Renewable energy is a praiseworthy goal, but the U.S. needs more oil now, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
She told a press briefing today it's going to take time to switch from oil and gas to "alternatives and renewables."
Her comments came in response to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.
He asked: "On Bloomberg Television, Washington State's Democrat U.S. Sen. [Maria] Cantwell said that Democrats don't want to increase oil supplies because they want to wean Americans off petroleum and into 'things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas.' And my question: Does the White House believe this is at all helpful to our present rising costs of more than $4 a gallon?"
"We have said that we believe there needs to be a transition period between the traditional oil and gas use that we have today to when we would [be] able to run on alternatives and renewables," Perino said, "and it's going to take a little while of time.
"That's why we think that we need to open up more of our own resources here at home so we can add more supply to the market," she said.
Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."
Her negative point was underlined by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who said Democrats are not even permitting debate on legislation and amendments designed to increase the supply of oil and gasoline to U.S. consumers.
"Today, the appropriations markup that was going to include amendments that would open up the outer continental shelf and maybe even shale in Colorado and Utah was canceled," she told the same Bloomberg interviewer. "It wasn't postponed, it was canceled. So that indicates to me that the majority is not going to try to have an open debate, but I hope I'm wrong. If they have an open debate, and we're allowed to have amendments, and we have a balanced plan that includes production in all the sectors, then I believe we can meet this problem in a bipartisan way, and that's what we should be doing for America."
In a second question, Kinsolving asked, "Does the White House believe that our nation's media should strive for neutrality in covering the presidential race? And do you believe that most of them are neutral, or that most of them are biased in support of one candidate?"
"I'll answer the first, but not the second. Yes, I think that everyone should try to cover candidates equally. But it will be up to everybody else to analyze," Perino said.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 05:02:21 PM
Post by: Scout26 on July 25, 2008, 05:51:41 PM
Post by: longeyes on July 25, 2008, 06:59:20 PM
Post by: ilbob on July 25, 2008, 07:13:25 PM
Post by: Scout26 on July 25, 2008, 07:23:31 PM
while i am in general areeemnt that we need to dril, we also need to develop new energy sources if we want to get the economy moving again. our economy is based in large part on expending a lot of energy per capita. we will end up being mexico or europe if we have to continue to reduce our per capita energy consumption.
I'm all in favor of off-shore (as "out in" or "underwater") nuclear plants turning seawater into hydrogen and pumping it to the coasts for distribution to hydrogen transportation refueling stations.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 25, 2008, 08:26:43 PM
while i am in general areeemnt that we need to dril, we also need to develop new energy sources if we want to get the economy moving again. our economy is based in large part on expending a lot of energy per capita. we will end up being mexico or europe if we have to continue to reduce our per capita energy consumption.
Europe? No, France of all places has reactors all over.
Embarassing.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 25, 2008, 08:34:14 PM
while i am in general areeemnt that we need to dril, we also need to develop new energy sources if we want to get the economy moving again. our economy is based in large part on expending a lot of energy per capita. we will end up being mexico or europe if we have to continue to reduce our per capita energy consumption.
Europe? No, France of all places has reactors all over.
Embarassing.
Post by: Scout26 on July 25, 2008, 08:58:28 PM
For some reason, we've been "blessed" with a green party that's totally batshit insane.
We'd happily send you all of ours to go along with the ones you have !!!!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 25, 2008, 09:06:23 PM
For some reason, we've been "blessed" with a green party that's totally batshit insane.
We'd happily send you all of ours to go along with the ones you have !!!!
. The ones we have cause enough trouble as it is. I'd have a bunch of the German ones over though to "indoctrinate" our own on the joys of nuclear power.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 26, 2008, 01:59:32 AM
Can someone please explain to me how my car is going to run on Wind or Solar. A giant Mainsail on a pole through the roof ?? Solar cells covering the rest of car ?? How do I go anywhere if there's no wind/calm or it's dark out ??
You use an electric car and charge it from the grid.
Seriously, the level of our society's moral corruption is shown by the fact this has become a political issue.
The method chosen to produce energy should not be a political issue. It should be an issue for investors and power consumers to work out.
If you can maintain a wind farm and make profit from it, more power to ya.
Post by: Regolith on July 26, 2008, 04:16:04 AM
Now, what that does mean is that gasoline or diesel/electric hybrids that can be run purely on electric power for short trips, and kick in the fossil fuel when the batteries start to run low are a good idea. So, for a five mile trip to the store, you wouldn't burn anything, but if you need to run to the next town over, you might burn a few gallons of fuel.
However, even once these cars get popular, you STILL have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of older vehicles out there that drivers simply aren't going to be willing to replace because they do not have the money to do it. That alone is going to mean that gasoline is going to be required for the next couple of decades.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 26, 2008, 04:18:20 AM
However, even once these cars get popular, you STILL have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of older vehicles out there that drivers simply aren't going to be willing to replace because they do not have the money to do it. That alone is going to mean that gasoline is going to be required for the next couple of decades.
Like me.
I.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
And there's millions of people just like me.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 26, 2008, 04:24:53 AM
Post by: Regolith on July 26, 2008, 04:26:41 AM
However, even once these cars get popular, you STILL have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of older vehicles out there that drivers simply aren't going to be willing to replace because they do not have the money to do it. That alone is going to mean that gasoline is going to be required for the next couple of decades.
Like me.
I.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
And there's millions of people just like me.
Same here. Although I don't mind the idea of having a hybrid that I could run just on electricity to do errands around town, I do not have the money to buy one. Full stop. Won't for several more years.
And by hybrid, I do not mean something like a Prius. No way in hell; I'm not even sure if I'd even fit in one of those. I'm thinking more something like this:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/video-ford-f-150-hybrid-pick-up-truck-gets-41-mpg/
It even gets a boost in torque due to the electric motors.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 26, 2008, 04:40:23 AM
It is the size and capacity of a current model Corolla (in terms of luggage and human carrying capacity).
It can do at least 70mph in moderately mountainous terrain (think Blue Ridge Mtns).
It can go at least 300 miles on a single charge.
Can be charged at home via a 220V (120v even better) outlet overnight and at special charging stations ("gas" stations) in no more than 15 minutes.
0-60 in less than 15sec with a driver, one passenger, and a moderately full trunk (think average weekend trip).
Those specs will make the car usable to me. They're not ideal, but it overcomes any hurdles I currently have about the technology. I can forgo the charging stations as long as I can go at least 500 miles and charge from 120v outlets overnight.
Chris
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 26, 2008, 04:43:02 AM
Post by: Waitone on July 26, 2008, 05:33:35 AM
Quote
Those specs will make the car usable to me. They're not ideal, but it overcomes any hurdles I currently have about the technology. I can forgo the charging stations as long as I can go at least 500 miles and charge from 120v outlets overnight.
I suggest you add to your specs the requirement for a kevlar lining of the battery compartment. It will be sorely needed when the batteries blow. What intrigues me is the selection of batteries. Seems I remember from somewhere (like experience for example) the highest demands on an engine and therefore on mileage occurs during acceleration and the greatest of waste of energy is during braking. That being the case why would not the propeller heads design a hybrid that shifts to a non-internal combustion power source during the time when energy demands are the lowest (steady state cruising)?
Why not supplement the IC source during periods of highest demand? Why not recover the lost energy expended during braking?
I would love to have an automotive design engineer explain why flywheel technology and regenerative braking are not part of the solution being developed. As a concept flywheel energy would be tapped to assist the engine in acceleration. During steady state driving when the engine is at its highest efficiency the flywheel's energy state would be restores. Then when the vehicle is braking a hydraulic regenerative system would feed energy back into the flywheel. My suggestion would be an absolute candy land for mechanical engineers while the electrical guys would have to go sit over in the corner. The technology is old, proven and reliable. The biggest downside is as reliable as a flywheel is when it fails catastrophically it is a sight. Then again a battery fire is ugly also.
Sorry to intrude with my engineer's inquisitive nature.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 26, 2008, 05:34:00 AM
What about moving freight. Don't think electric is a good option for that. Now if you could create a decent vehicle that ran on CNG that could solve that problem. Otherwise diesel is still the best option for that.
While they do it a bit differently, trains essentially use electric to move freight (they just bring the power station along for the ride). Anyway, I'm only thinking about individually owned cars/trucks, not heavy freight capabilities. Just like the hardware for that is fairly specialized and different than what's used in "normal" cars and trucks, it will continue to be so even if people use electric cars for transport. I see no problem with that.
Chris
Post by: Desertdog on July 26, 2008, 05:38:49 AM
It does not get any more, maybe less MPG, but is a cleaner air vehicle if you really give damn. Advantages of no fuel delution of engine and engine stays clean internally and last longer. Disadvantage is there are less places to fuel up.
Could be a good fleet fuel as you can have your fueling station on your property.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 26, 2008, 05:44:04 AM
Chris
Post by: longeyes on July 26, 2008, 06:11:25 AM
Isn't the problem that the green movement is based on fantasy and, more to the point, emotion? The enviro-fanatics don't really care what "works," because they have no grounding in science and engineering, only in quasi-religious notions of How The World Ought To Be. Their movement runs on emotion, and if they had their way, technology would run on emotion too. Their is really a pre-technology mind-set, back in the good old days of dungeons, dragons, and tyrants.
Post by: lysander on July 26, 2008, 07:28:40 AM
Quote
Rational men have been exploring, and continue to explore, modern vehicular technology for two centuries. It's not as if stuff isn't being done, tried, explore. Constantly. In depth.
We are gonna get there...and we should be trying. Trying very, very hard. Let's at least be real and accept that oil is, at best a mid 20th century power source. Electric, compressed air, fuel cells...it is all coming...and the market will support it, because consumers want it.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 26, 2008, 08:00:41 AM
Also, natural gas isn't all that cheap these days, but I have no idea of the actual cost comparrison. The Houston Metro used to have a bunch of buses that ran on LNG. I think the scrapped the project when the tax incentives ran out.
My senior design class converted a Dodge minivan to propane for a competition. We used vapor fuel injectors. The performance was almost the same as gasoline except you lose some top end power at speed. We were actually able to rent a minivan and do some 1/4 mile runs to compare. The range was somewhat less than with gas. This was all 10 or 12 years ago though.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2008, 09:24:05 AM
What about moving freight. Don't think electric is a good option for that. Now if you could create a decent vehicle that ran on CNG that could solve that problem. Otherwise diesel is still the best option for that.
They don't call them diesel electric locomotives for nothing.
Essentially the diesel engine on a train powers a HUGE electrical generating plant. IIRC one D-E locomotive can power something like 150 homes.
The power is fed to electric traction motors on each axel, and that is what propells the train.
I suspect, however, you mean overhead gantry wires, the kind the power trollies and the like. No, I don't believe those would be suitable for moving freight. Too many trains pulling too much power at one time could be a problem.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 26, 2008, 09:43:04 AM
Can you image what would happen if a tree branch fell on one?
Post by: Physics on July 26, 2008, 09:52:22 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2008, 10:03:14 AM
The trains use overhead service wires.
The branch from Harrisburg to Philadelphia has been, I believe, de-electrified.
Post by: Physics on July 26, 2008, 10:05:26 AM
Cars don't last forever, so I'm quite sure I'll be replacing mine eventually. That said, I'll gladly consider an electric car as long as:
It is the size and capacity of a current model Corolla (in terms of luggage and human carrying capacity).
It can do at least 70mph in moderately mountainous terrain (think Blue Ridge Mtns).
It can go at least 300 miles on a single charge.
Can be charged at home via a 220V (120v even better) outlet overnight and at special charging stations ("gas" stations) in no more than 15 minutes.
0-60 in less than 15sec with a driver, one passenger, and a moderately full trunk (think average weekend trip).
Those specs will make the car usable to me. They're not ideal, but it overcomes any hurdles I currently have about the technology. I can forgo the charging stations as long as I can go at least 500 miles and charge from 120v outlets overnight.
Chris
It is the size and capacity of a current model Corolla (in terms of luggage and human carrying capacity).
It can do at least 70mph in moderately mountainous terrain (think Blue Ridge Mtns).
It can go at least 300 miles on a single charge.
Can be charged at home via a 220V (120v even better) outlet overnight and at special charging stations ("gas" stations) in no more than 15 minutes.
0-60 in less than 15sec with a driver, one passenger, and a moderately full trunk (think average weekend trip).
Those specs will make the car usable to me. They're not ideal, but it overcomes any hurdles I currently have about the technology. I can forgo the charging stations as long as I can go at least 500 miles and charge from 120v outlets overnight.
Chris
Tesla Motors makes a car that almost meets your expectations. The only one it doesn't meet is the range requirements, it can go ~220 miles between charges, but still must charge overnight. It has a top speed of 125, and will go from 0-60 in 4 seconds. If I remember correctly, that is better than the original Dodge Vipers for acceleration. http://www.teslamotors.com/
I think it costs around $100,000 though.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 26, 2008, 10:12:25 AM
It's a start, but "not quite there yet".
Chris
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2008, 10:24:29 AM
However, it wouldn't work out so well with Mason, trips to Mom's, etc.
Post by: Firethorn on July 26, 2008, 10:47:14 AM
Quote
Those specs will make the car usable to me. They're not ideal, but it overcomes any hurdles I currently have about the technology. I can forgo the charging stations as long as I can go at least 500 miles and charge from 120v outlets overnight.
I suggest you add to your specs the requirement for a kevlar lining of the battery compartment. It will be sorely needed when the batteries blow. What, compared to when the gas tanks blow?
Quote
What intrigues me is the selection of batteries. Seems I remember from somewhere (like experience for example) the highest demands on an engine and therefore on mileage occurs during acceleration and the greatest of waste of energy is during braking. That being the case why would not the propeller heads design a hybrid that shifts to a non-internal combustion power source during the time when energy demands are the lowest (steady state cruising)?
This is already a function of many/most hybrid vehicles. If they're running the engine during a steady cruise it's either because the battery is too low or you're going too fast for the motor to keep the vehicle's speed up.
Quote
Why not supplement the IC source during periods of highest demand? Why not recover the lost energy expended during braking?
Again, standard part of a hybrid design. During a hard accel from a stop, the motor will start the accelleration process, then the engine starts and proceeds to provide it's power to the accelleration. What it does when speed levels off depends on the programming/mode of the hybrid vehicle, the state of the battery, the speed it's cruising at, the power needed to maintain that speed, etc...
Quote
I would love to have an automotive design engineer explain why flywheel technology and regenerative braking are not part of the solution being developed. As a concept flywheel energy would be tapped to assist the engine in acceleration.
I keep seeing regenerative braking being part of the solution, where does it say that it's not going to be. While flywheel tech is neat, thus far it hasn't beaten batteries in energy density/cost/usability.
As for not switching over - well, I want my house at 68-70 24-7, drive a car at 100mph, never shut off my computers, etc...
That'd be too expensive financially(and safely), so I'll reach a compromise.
Mtnbkr, you listed what you wanted out of an EV. What if they came up with a vehicle that meets most of your requirements? Say, the charge takes 45 minutes, not 15. 250 miles range with you having it loaded down and going 70mph.
The trick? Gas is $10/gallon.
How about a much cheaper electric vehicle, that only has a 60 mile range@70mph, but you can buy or rent a generator in a small trailer that provides extra storage space as well as a high efficiency IC engine(could be gasoline, diesel, or even ethanol, propane, CNG, etc...). You only hook up the trailer for long trips.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2008, 10:49:42 AM
Post by: Scout26 on July 26, 2008, 11:42:32 AM
Can you imagine how much current those overhead trolley wires would have to carry?
Can you image what would happen if a tree branch fell on one?
Can you image what would happen if a tree branch fell on one?
Don't have to. Lots of rail lines in Germany have the over head electric. Once when we we're rail-loading to
Post by: Desertdog on July 26, 2008, 12:17:36 PM
Quote
The only issue with CNG and propane is that fuel leaks can lead to problems. Natural gas can trap in cover areas or in the passenger compartment. Propane is heavier than air and can trap in low spots. There is also the danger that you are driving around with pressurized fuel tanks that will release nice little vapor clouds of flammable gas if they are punctured. Might be a little more dangerous than gasoline.
As a retired propane man of 40+ years, driver/service and NG service, I definately agree with you on propane settling in low spots. Natural gas can accumulate in closed areas, but very seldom, as most spaces are ventilated enough for it to dissipate. When they do blow up, it is big news, mainly because it happens so seldom. Very seldom is a propane tank punctured. usually it is a hose breaking, or a valve broken off. For broken valves, clear the area and make sure there is no sourse of ignition. FD can hose, preferrably fog, the area to help dissapate the vapores.
Electric caused fires are are so frequent that they are lucky to make the news.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 26, 2008, 03:15:23 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 26, 2008, 03:16:20 PM
There is a company called Valcent Products Inc. that does a vertical growth system of algae for biofuel. The theory is that surface area exposed to light is the major factor in algae growth, so Valcent went vertical. http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039 is the site. They claim they can get 20,000 barrels of oil per acre per year. Also, they can tailor the species of algae to the type of fuel needed. It is still in the testing phase, but it appears to be quite promising, especially paired with solar/wind power for the pumping system.
I have seen at least 2 or 3 articles in the last 6 months about seemingly good biofuel options. I guess we will see how those pan out over the next few years.
Post by: Physics on July 26, 2008, 09:34:14 PM
Post by: taurusowner on July 26, 2008, 10:48:22 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 27, 2008, 03:03:24 AM
Do the greenies have a no-oil solution to jet fuel and air travel/shipping? Other than their usual "don't use it answer.
No, they don't have any solutions to that. I'd suggest nuclear power myself 
.
Post by: Regolith on July 27, 2008, 04:19:45 AM
Do the greenies have a no-oil solution to jet fuel and air travel/shipping? Other than their usual "don't use it answer.
No, they don't have any solutions to that. I'd suggest nuclear power myself .I don't think nuclear would work too well for air travel...
Now shipping on the other hand...it'd be extremely efficient for those massive cargo ships. The greenies would throw a hissie fit, though.
Post by: Firethorn on July 27, 2008, 06:56:02 AM
I don't think nuclear would work too well for air travel...
Now shipping on the other hand...it'd be extremely efficient for those massive cargo ships. The greenies would throw a hissie fit, though.
Now shipping on the other hand...it'd be extremely efficient for those massive cargo ships. The greenies would throw a hissie fit, though.
Actually.... The USAF came up with a nuclear powered bomber once.
But yeah, I'd go for the big cargo ships first. Better yet, though, I'd generally go for local manufacture.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 27, 2008, 07:11:41 AM
Do the greenies have a no-oil solution to jet fuel and air travel/shipping? Other than their usual "don't use it answer.
No, they don't have any solutions to that. I'd suggest nuclear power myself .I don't think nuclear would work too well for air travel...
Now shipping on the other hand...it'd be extremely efficient for those massive cargo ships. The greenies would throw a hissie fit, though.
Greenies throwing hissie fits is good. If they want to get upset enough to eventually cause themselves to have heart attacks, then it's their fault
.
Post by: Iain on July 27, 2008, 07:36:55 AM
I.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
Do. Not. Want. Sponge. Cake. Want. Chocolate.
Quote
And there's millions of people just like me.
And they're all under five.
Post by: RocketMan on July 27, 2008, 08:01:09 AM
Actually.... The USAF came up with a nuclear powered bomber once.
But yeah, I'd go for the big cargo ships first. Better yet, though, I'd generally go for local manufacture.
But yeah, I'd go for the big cargo ships first. Better yet, though, I'd generally go for local manufacture.
It was the NB-36H, a test aircraft based on a B-36 Peacemaker bomber. The reactor did not actually provide propulsive power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36
RE: Nuclear powered cargo ships, I toured this one when it visited Portland, OR in the Sixties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
Post by: longeyes on July 27, 2008, 08:02:08 AM
Think Amish.
Without God.
Post by: lupinus on July 27, 2008, 08:47:10 AM
I.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
Do. Not. Want. Sponge. Cake. Want. Chocolate.
Quote
And there's millions of people just like me.
And they're all under five.
I don't want an electric car either. Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one. Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying? That's not being a five year old, thats being a consumer of the product you want.
Post by: Physics on July 27, 2008, 09:39:13 AM
Post by: Regolith on July 27, 2008, 09:55:28 AM
Valcent Products Inc. can make jet fuel out of algae lipids, or so they say. This is why algae seems so good, is because you can obtain different fuels from different algae species. Again, according to them.
My guess is that the total amount of jet fuel they've derived can fit in a small jar.
Algae is promising, but it has a LONG ways to go.
Post by: taurusowner on July 27, 2008, 10:48:37 AM
A green America?
Think Amish.
Without God.
Think Amish.
Without God.
Great. A monotonous, hard, and depressing lifestyle without the one thing that makes it bearable. Sign me up
Post by: Iain on July 27, 2008, 11:19:58 AM
So, because a certain side doesn't like something we have to go along or we are five year olds?
I don't want an electric car either. Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one. Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying? That's not being a five year old, thats being a consumer of the product you want.
I don't want an electric car either. Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one. Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying? That's not being a five year old, thats being a consumer of the product you want.
It was more the manner of delivery, but your rant isn't much better.
[1901 rant mode]I've got a perfectly serviceable horse, it runs on grass, hay and straw. I'll have no truck with that new-fangled infernal combustion engine. They're more expensive to run, they're noisy and you can't give them sugar lumps.[/1901 rant mode]
See how that turned out. Electric cars may not replace the petrol engine, but something will. And you damn well will be 'forced' to buy it - because it'll be better, and hopefully cleaner, and petrol engines will not be put in whatever it is we drive. Probably will be our lifetimes too.
Post by: lupinus on July 27, 2008, 11:49:55 AM
The difference here is the other side outright refuses to let the market take its course and insists on regulating my preferred vehicle away because they got a bug up their ass.
Post by: Iain on July 27, 2008, 12:04:28 PM
Quote
Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one. Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying?
You have a point about regulation, even if I do think the intentions are good (road to hell and all that)
There will come a day when whatever replaces the internal combustion engine is clearly the superior option, better range, cleaner, probably quicker. It's shortsighted (as in the view from 1901) to refuse to acknowledge that, and to declare that you just don't want one. I want one, and I want mine to fly and do warp speed.
I'm not going to cling to my petrol engine because it makes me look all anti-green.
Post by: taurusowner on July 27, 2008, 12:05:37 PM
Post by: lupinus on July 27, 2008, 12:30:09 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 27, 2008, 12:32:38 PM
I.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
do.
not.
WANT.
an electric car.
Do. Not. Want. Sponge. Cake. Want. Chocolate.
Quote
And there's millions of people just like me.
And they're all under five.
Unlike your country, we value the ability to choose what we want, here. Freedom. It's fun, once you try it. You've not had it in so long over there you probably don't understand, any more than you can describe a sunrise to someone who has been blind since birth.
I want to eat meat, not tofu. I want a "military-styled" rifle, not a sporting one. I want a gasoline-powered car, MY car that I've spent countless hours messing with and tweaking the performance on, not an electric one. I want to smell gasoline, hot metal and oil, not ozone. And that's my freedom of choice, and I resent leftists trying to force otherwise.
Roll over and enjoy your nanny state, and call people who know freedom "childish" if you want. I could care less. It's all you've ever known, you don't know better.
It's just ironic that someone of a complete and utter nanny state, where cameras on every corner are tolerated and self-defense is not, where the people obey like tiny tots being watched by an all-seeing governess...would call Americans childish for wanting free choice.
Whatever.
Post by: Iain on July 27, 2008, 01:01:59 PM
My point, as explained to lupinus, has nothing to do with regulation (I've made no argument in favour of them) and everything to do with the march of technology. You will want an electric/fuel cell/'whatever' car, because they'll be powering F1, lapping the Nurburgring and hammering around NASCAR tracks. That's the future.
Your freedom to own a gasoline powered car will hopefully still exist, but it will be an anachronism one day. No point declaring you don't want one now because of freedom, that's like declaring the calculator will never replace the slide rule unless we are all made serfs.
Post by: taurusowner on July 27, 2008, 01:23:13 PM
Backtrack and clarify all you want, but that is definitely the impression your 5 year old comment made.
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 02:11:31 PM
There are all kinds of "freedoms" that might be claimed here that are completely ridiculous if we reject this princple:
1. "I want the freedom to paint my house with lead based paint! Why won't the government let ME worry about my kids' lead poisoning?"
2. "If I want to do my hobby gold mining with mercury, why shouldn't I be able to!? I believe in reliving the spirit of 49, and I'm a re-enactor, so why shouldn't I have the right to run my mines with mercury?"
3. "But DDT is the best insecticide there is, it's my right to spray my thousands of acres of farm land with it! I won't let the runoff and damage to the water supply get in the way of MY FREEDOM"
I don't see how these are any different than: "So what if my car spews poison gas into the atmosphere? I should still have the freedom to poison the air even though I can no feasibly avoid doing so because it's my FREEDOM!"
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 02:14:43 PM
Well Iain, you're statement about five year olds and cake certainly didn't sound like you wanted people to still have the choice. By using that analogy, you implied that the consumer is like a child who wants something bad, and government is like parent who knows what's best.
Backtrack and clarify all you want, but that is definitely the impression your 5 year old comment made.
Backtrack and clarify all you want, but that is definitely the impression your 5 year old comment made.
I would say it's at least unreasonable-why should people be allowed to go on damaging the health and safety of others just because they want to play with engines from a bygone era?
I can see allowing the damage when there's no reasonable alternative. But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available, what gives you the right to poison the air I'm breathing?
Liberty doesn't mean you get to impose harm on other people for fun.
Post by: Ben on July 27, 2008, 02:36:00 PM
Quote
But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available
So there's an electric vehicle out there that's highway approved, 4X4, with a 600 mile range, that can haul a ton in the bed, with a 5 year/ 50K warranty, that doesn't cost any more to maintain than my current vehicle, and that costs under $40K? Please give me directions to the nearest dealer.
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 02:37:35 PM
Quote
But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available
So there's an electric vehicle out there that's highway approved, 4X4, with a 600 mile range, that can haul a ton in the bed, with a 5 year/ 50K warranty, that doesn't cost any more to maintain than my current vehicle, and that costs under $40K? Please give me directions to the nearest dealer.
Notice the conditional in the sentence you quoted, and you see why this response is....a bit puzzling.
Post by: Ben on July 27, 2008, 02:45:28 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 02:48:16 PM
Not at all puzzling. It's what half the posters in this topic have been saying. When a reasonable alternative exists, there's no reason not to consider it. When one doesn't, there's no reason to regulate me into something that doesn't do what I need. If someone can get by with a Prius or whatever, more power to them. The alternatives out there now don't do what I need. My current vehicle does, and I'm not poisoning anyone's air. My vehicle will pollute less in it's lifetime than a Prius will.
Yeah, but that's not what everyone here is saying. See:
Quote
I want a gasoline-powered car, MY car that I've spent countless hours messing with and tweaking the performance on, not an electric one. I want to smell gasoline, hot metal and oil, not ozone. And that's my freedom of choice, and I resent leftists trying to force otherwise.
Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.
That comment was in response to this entirely reasonable one:
Quote
There will come a day when whatever replaces the internal combustion engine is clearly the superior option, better range, cleaner, probably quicker. It's shortsighted (as in the view from 1901) to refuse to acknowledge that, and to declare that you just don't want one. I want one, and I want mine to fly and do warp speed.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 27, 2008, 03:52:20 PM
Quote
Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.
I can pour emission-neutral fuels into my gasoline engine, making your argument moot.
And for the record: I do believe it should be my right to paint my house with lead-based paint. If you don't like it, don't visit.
Post by: Desertdog on July 27, 2008, 04:03:17 PM
Quote
Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.
You want a reasonably pollution free vehicle that can carry big loads, accelerate rapidly and all that BS that the gasoline engine does.Get yourself a propane (LPG) powered vehicle. They are legal, by governmet, to operate continuosly in warehouses and in mines. LPG can power the biggest trucks on the road. They are as reliable, or more so, than any gas powered engine.
They should be the perfect solution for the greenies.
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 04:08:08 PM
Quote
Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.
I can pour emission-neutral fuels into my gasoline engine, making your argument moot.
And for the record: I do believe it should be my right to paint my house with lead-based paint. If you don't like it, don't visit.
Actually, lead paint with a caveat-you ensure it's cleaned up before you die and leave the rubble/result to someone else.
But yeah, pouring emission free fuel doesn't negate my argument. That just says there's a way to meet it with the engine.
I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends.
It's a matter of principle-you don't have the right to force other people to suffer the consequences of your whims.
So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 27, 2008, 09:23:51 PM
So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.
And I suppose you green fascists will be the sole arbiters of what fuels "poison" other people. Right?You always have a good excuse for trying to control other people, don't you?
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 09:35:26 PM
So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.
And I suppose you green fascists will be the sole arbiters of what fuels "poison" other people. Right?You always have a good excuse for trying to control other people, don't you?
No, scientific information is a good arbiter of what is "poison". It's really not terribly difficult to figure out when something is a proven toxin, versus safe, versus unknown.
Pointing out that individuals do not have a right to cause harm to other people without their consent is not fascism.
I think the attitude that there's an inherent right to poison other people's air and water, for no reason other than a personal hobby, is decidedly anti-liberty and much more in accord with fascism.
Just think for a second about how Orwellian this is: "Don't like the fact that I'm your neighbor and pumping our shared ground water full of tanning waste? Tough-it's a FREE COUNTRY!"
Post by: Desertdog on July 27, 2008, 10:28:05 PM
Quote
I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends.
Bull Sh#t. Right now, and for the forseeable future, there is absolutly NO reasonable alternatives for the gas/diesel powered vehicles.Drill Now, Drill Anywhere.
PS. When I was a child there was an oilwell on the property connecting to us and it was maybe 100' behind our house. I played around it many times.
Post by: De Selby on July 27, 2008, 10:36:31 PM
Quote
I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends.
Bull Sh#t. Right now, and for the forseeable future, there is absolutly NO reasonable alternatives for the gas/diesel powered vehicles.Drill Now, Drill Anywhere.
PS. When I was a child there was an oilwell on the property connecting to us and it was maybe 100' behind our house. I played around it many times.
Okay, how is this a response to what I'm saying here?
I do recall posting this:
Quote
I can see allowing the damage when there's no reasonable alternative. But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available, what gives you the right to poison the air I'm breathing?
There is a bizarre and irrational attachment to oil growing up in America, it seems. If you talk about technology that might replace it, "it'll never be! DRILL DRILL DRILL!", and if you point out that in the future it might even be unreasonable to keep using it, you're a fascist who wants to deprive people of the right to sniff fumes from their good ol' gas engines.
I honestly don't think these attitudes have anything to do with reason, liberty, or much of anything besides a knee-jerk hatred for anything that might possibly associated with environmentalism.
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2008, 04:58:29 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 28, 2008, 05:13:53 AM
3. "But DDT is the best insecticide there is, it's my right to spray my thousands of acres of farm land with it! I won't let the runoff and damage to the water supply get in the way of MY FREEDOM"
That's an interesting example you use, considering that the elimination of DDT, which was perfectly safe for humans and way overstated in impact on wildlife, is DIRECTLY responsible for the return of bedbugs to American cities. They were pretty much eliminated by DDT. It's been proven that a light coating on walls, harmless to people, kills them. They do it in third-world countries. But not here. So now everything from apartments to New York City luxury hotels have serious bedbug infestations, which are a pain in the ass to get rid of and involve destroying all the mattresses, furniture, and even carpet. And one bit of clothing with eggs can bring them all back. Losses have been in the hundreds of millions so far.
Oops. See what happens when leftists make emotional decisions and scream BAN! without considering all impacts?
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2008, 05:16:03 AM
So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 28, 2008, 05:24:14 AM
Then there's the fact that since the wide-scale elimination of DDT Malaria, which had been pushed out of MANY nations around the world, has been making an extremely strong come back.
So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.
So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.
And compare this:
DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program[44] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[14] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[45] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[46]
vs. what we use in the US now for mosquito control:
Malathion breaks down into Malaoxon, which is 61 times more toxic [10] than Malathion. For this reason, if Malathion is used or somehow enters an indoor environment, as it breaks down into Malaoxon, it can seriously poison the occupants living or working in this environmnent.
Foot, self, shot.
Post by: longeyes on July 28, 2008, 05:34:56 AM
Maybe because it's like having a bizarre and irrational attachment to one's own blood?
When I think bizarre and irrational I think of Nancy Pelosi playing Mother Superior and pretending to be an environmentalist (a word she can't spell).
We bristle because we smell what's BEHIND the fancy ecological planet-saving rhetoric. Same old tyrants, just in new clothes. Every generation it's a different costume and a different set of reasons.
Post by: roo_ster on July 28, 2008, 06:34:17 AM
Post by: Physics on July 28, 2008, 10:07:35 AM
However, I think you guys need to look at what the scientists are saying. Not the environmentalists, the scientists. The combustion of oil produces NOx compounds, which is where smog comes from. Burning oil produces Sulfur dioxide, which produces acid rain. Burning oil produces CO2, a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases absorb IR light. The IR light that is being absorbed by this carbon dioxide molecule makes the molecule jiggle more. This jiggling makes the molecule hit other molecules, which absorb some kinetic energy and they hit other molecules. So basically all the molecules in the air around this little CO2 are all moving a little bit more because the CO2 absorbed some IR light. This means that the temperature of that little area of air is higher.
Now, the actual atmosphere is a lot more complicated, so a localized increase in temperature on the molecular scale won't necessarily translate into a global temperature increase, but it will have some kind of impact, because the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is quite high. To be honest, I don't think the scientific community really knows what to expect, but what if it does turn out bad? This community seems to be pretty savvy on taking preventative measures on possible risks, being prepared for any situation. Well, here is something to be preventative about.
Post by: De Selby on July 28, 2008, 10:44:41 AM
Then there's the fact that since the wide-scale elimination of DDT Malaria, which had been pushed out of MANY nations around the world, has been making an extremely strong come back.
So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.
So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.
And that's perfectly acceptable, just as it's perfectly acceptable to use engines that damage other people's air when there's no other feasible means of powering the economy.
But I don't see any personal liberty interest in doing such harm just because one likes the smell of gas fumes from his classic car, or just becuase DDT is a penny cheaper than some safer alternative.
I don't see why that point is terribly controversial-if there's no need to do harm to others, it's unreasonable to do so, fond memories of exhaust [yikes!] notwithstanding.
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2008, 07:59:24 PM
Except for the fact that there isn't a safer more effective alternative.
There's the fly in your argument. But don't let facts disuade you.
DDT's toxcicity is FAR below that of other pesticides of similar efficacy in dealing with malarial mosquitos.
As for the entire line of ad absurdam line of argumentitive discussion you've adopted re: rights to create pollution...
So you're telling us that you are the sole sinless individual in the world.
Your continuing existence doesn't impact someone else in such that you are a 0% polluter, both by commission and by association.
That's.... cute.
Retarded, but cute.
Drum circle flower child psychoses not withstanding, trying to tie this to some sort of rights argument is retarded, as is this entire thread.