100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Hybrid cars are destroying the environment | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Funny, the reason cars dont last anymore is that they have to make them lighter and put a million sensors on them and catalysts and such to comply with government regulations. The government created the disposable car. Motorcycles flew under the radar for a while. Thats why a harley sportster was essentially the same engine from 1957-1984. Parts are cheap and available and compatible in many cases across decades. The constant new regs force constant product changes that make it impossible to stock enough repair parts for anything. Now hey cost more and must be ordered so the disposable culture is born.
Once again, government is the root of the problem. In their zeal to save the earth they harmed it worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way we are not going to be a danger to the environment is if we go back to horse and buggy. 
You are totally correct. Even things like solar energy, wind power, and water power have adverse affects on the ecosystem. The problem is that people are so wasteful these days. When you used to buy a tv or radio, you had repairmen to keep it going. Now you just throw it away and buy a new one. Waste is what we are accustomed to. I do have a theory though. According to current science, matter as we know it doesn't exist. All we see, feel, hear, touch, etc. is merely energy at different constant frequencies. There is a way to harness this energy, we just have to figure it out. Maybe we could turn this waste into energy we could use. Sounds like science fiction, but i don't see it as being anymore impossible than flying through the solar system on spaceships. I am also thinking we could lessen our impact on the environment by using a balance of these different forms of energy and resources. You are on to something here. I saw a Tesla demonstration where they were running a model car on wireless transmitted power, uses no batteries. His ideas go back 100 years and he was a genius. People on this thread seem to be saying "But why?" I say, "Why not?" Use the Force Luke!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way we are not going to be a danger to the environment is if we go back to horse and buggy.
You are totally correct. Even things like solar energy, wind power, and water power have adverse affects on the ecosystem. The problem is that people are so wasteful these days. When you used to buy a tv or radio, you had repairmen to keep it going. Now you just throw it away and buy a new one. Waste is what we are accustomed to. I do have a theory though. According to current science, matter as we know it doesn't exist. All we see, feel, hear, touch, etc. is merely energy at different constant frequencies. There is a way to harness this energy, we just have to figure it out. Maybe we could turn this waste into energy we could use. Sounds like science fiction, but i don't see it as being anymore impossible than flying through the solar system on spaceships. I am also thinking we could lessen our impact on the environment by using a balance of these different forms of energy and resources. You are on to something here. I saw a Tesla demonstration where they were running a model car on wireless transmitted power, uses no batteries. His ideas go back 100 years and he was a genius. People on this thread seem to be saying "But why?" I say, "Why not?" Use the Force Luke!
The "why not" stems from the fact many of us are highly mobile, my weekends could be in NC, south florida, Georgia, or Alabama. When we artificially raise the cost of transportation to reduce driving and force new technology into the market, you have destroyed my way of life. My weekend trips that used to cost 30 get canceled or certainly reduced in frequency once it costs 120. Maybe I want to take my kids across country and see the gand canyon or the rainforest in washington state. I might even want to do it in a very large safe vehicle. Now I am priced out of the ability because some ******* who flies in a jet I pay for, burning more fuel in a day than I do in a year, tries to crusade to raise gas prices to make me stop going places on purpose. Nobody is against alternatives. We just dont want to sacrafice our mobility to do it. I live on a few acres in the country and drive an hour each way to work on average. My dream came true and not long after they are trying to penalize me for it. I dont want to live in the city yet they are trying to force me to by making it cost prohibitive. I am not a sinner for wanting a country life but having a job in the city. Henry Ford found a new way of manufacturing and brought a car to market that worked and was affordable, thats how we changed. He didnt advocate bills that fined carriage owners for animal droppings in order to force his product into the market. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way we are not going to be a danger to the environment is if we go back to horse and buggy.
You are totally correct. Even things like solar energy, wind power, and water power have adverse affects on the ecosystem. The problem is that people are so wasteful these days. When you used to buy a tv or radio, you had repairmen to keep it going. Now you just throw it away and buy a new one. Waste is what we are accustomed to. I do have a theory though. According to current science, matter as we know it doesn't exist. All we see, feel, hear, touch, etc. is merely energy at different constant frequencies. There is a way to harness this energy, we just have to figure it out. Maybe we could turn this waste into energy we could use. Sounds like science fiction, but i don't see it as being anymore impossible than flying through the solar system on spaceships. I am also thinking we could lessen our impact on the environment by using a balance of these different forms of energy and resources. You are on to something here. I saw a Tesla demonstration where they were running a model car on wireless transmitted power, uses no batteries. His ideas go back 100 years and he was a genius. People on this thread seem to be saying "But why?" I say, "Why not?" Use the Force Luke!
The "why not" stems from the fact many of us are highly mobile, my weekends could be in NC, south florida, Georgia, or Alabama. When we artificially raise the cost of transportation to reduce driving and force new technology into the market, you have destroyed my way of life. My weekend trips that used to cost 30 get canceled or certainly reduced in frequency once it costs 120. Maybe I want to take my kids across country and see the gand canyon or the rainforest in washington state. I might even want to do it in a very large safe vehicle. Now I am priced out of the ability because some ******* who flies in a jet I pay for, burning more fuel in a day than I do in a year, tries to crusade to raise gas prices to make me stop going places on purpose. Nobody is against alternatives. We just dont want to sacrafice our mobility to do it. I live on a few acres in the country and drive an hour each way to work on average. My dream came true and not long after they are trying to penalize me for it. I dont want to live in the city yet they are trying to force me to by making it cost prohibitive. I am not a sinner for wanting a country life but having a job in the city. Henry Ford found a new way of manufacturing and brought a car to market that worked and was affordable, thats how we changed. He didnt advocate bills that fined carriage owners for animal droppings in order to force his product into the market. You're right. Let's just sit on our azzes and not change a damn thing because Mr. Brewer wants to have it all his way. And by God nobody better mess with my freedom to be able to eat a greasy cheeseburger and fries while I smoke a cigarette and send a text message while I drive my SUV cross country. This here is America! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way we are not going to be a danger to the environment is if we go back to horse and buggy.
You are totally correct. Even things like solar energy, wind power, and water power have adverse affects on the ecosystem. The problem is that people are so wasteful these days. When you used to buy a tv or radio, you had repairmen to keep it going. Now you just throw it away and buy a new one. Waste is what we are accustomed to. I do have a theory though. According to current science, matter as we know it doesn't exist. All we see, feel, hear, touch, etc. is merely energy at different constant frequencies. There is a way to harness this energy, we just have to figure it out. Maybe we could turn this waste into energy we could use. Sounds like science fiction, but i don't see it as being anymore impossible than flying through the solar system on spaceships. I am also thinking we could lessen our impact on the environment by using a balance of these different forms of energy and resources. You are on to something here. I saw a Tesla demonstration where they were running a model car on wireless transmitted power, uses no batteries. His ideas go back 100 years and he was a genius. People on this thread seem to be saying "But why?" I say, "Why not?" Use the Force Luke!
The "why not" stems from the fact many of us are highly mobile, my weekends could be in NC, south florida, Georgia, or Alabama. When we artificially raise the cost of transportation to reduce driving and force new technology into the market, you have destroyed my way of life. My weekend trips that used to cost 30 get canceled or certainly reduced in frequency once it costs 120. Maybe I want to take my kids across country and see the gand canyon or the rainforest in washington state. I might even want to do it in a very large safe vehicle. Now I am priced out of the ability because some ******* who flies in a jet I pay for, burning more fuel in a day than I do in a year, tries to crusade to raise gas prices to make me stop going places on purpose. Nobody is against alternatives. We just dont want to sacrafice our mobility to do it. I live on a few acres in the country and drive an hour each way to work on average. My dream came true and not long after they are trying to penalize me for it. I dont want to live in the city yet they are trying to force me to by making it cost prohibitive. I am not a sinner for wanting a country life but having a job in the city. Henry Ford found a new way of manufacturing and brought a car to market that worked and was affordable, thats how we changed. He didnt advocate bills that fined carriage owners for animal droppings in order to force his product into the market. You're right. Let's just sit on our azzes and not change a damn thing because Mr. Brewer wants to have it all his way. And by God nobody better mess with my freedom to be able to eat a greasy cheeseburger and fries while I smoke a cigarette and send a text message while I drive my SUV cross country. This here is America!
The problem is that his example is right: change should be brought about by technological advancement paired with efficiency. It needs to be rooted in increased prosperity as opposed to some political agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are four different types of vehicles, in general. IC, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric.
There are two ways to store electricity, batteries and capacitors. IC, or internal combustion requires a LOT of excess horsepower capacity to climb hills, pass, accelerate up the freeway ramp, etc. However, having 250 hp available but needing only 15 hp to cruise down the highway results in an ineffecient engine. Also, turning all the momentum you have paid for in gas into heat in the brakes is a big waste of energy. Hybrids combine a small efficient IC engine with an electric motor/battery to cruise on the engine but accelerate on both engine and motor. As long as you don't use all your battery, the car has plenty of pep. The battery requirements are rather small since you only need it occasionally and you can use the motor as a brake which puts most of that energy of braking back into the battery. The big drawback is the battery which is expensive and doesn't last the life of the car. These will soon be replaced by ultra-capacitors which don't break, require no maintenance, and shouldn't cost much. This technology is available. Plug-in hybrids go one step farther by having a battery big enough to actually go somewhere (maybe not that far). When you get there or come back, you plug in a battery charger to recharge the battery so you aren't using fossil fuel. If you go too far, you have to use the IC engine. Once again, the batteries are the weak link. It will be a while (some years at least) before the capacitors are light enough to replace the batteries, but they will. Electric cars are just that ... electric motor with no engine... and a big problem with the batteries. However, when the capacitor technology catches up, you will be able to fill up the capacitor with electricity as fast as you can fill a vehicle with gas now, the capacitors will last forever and fossil fuel vehicles will begin to die out. We have very little oil left in the US. We have a lot of coal. We should be using the coal to make fuel as the Germans did in WWII in order to be energy self sufficient. We should also be using the coal exhaust from power plants to make cement (it gets rid of the pollution). We should be building nuclear power plants to power all the new electric cars ... and most everything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem was discussed by Bastiat, as an issue with seen vs unseen. While hybrid cars have some very attractive "seen" advantages, their "unseen" disadvantages are troubling. The rare earth minerals required for creating their batteries are quickly being used up. The mines where the minerals are taken from are open pits. The processing of the minerals is dangerous and many of the minerals are themselves poisonous. Add to this that the use of hybrids in the US is based on mostly coal power and that hybrids represent a great strain on our power grid, then hybrids aren't nearly as attractive as their "seen" advantages make them appear. So why do you think it is that the detrimental disadvantages of hybrid cars are rarely mentioned? If those who are pushing for them are really concerned about the environment, why do they push for the hybrid, when it's arguably the more polluting choice when the full life cycle is taken into account? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem was discussed by Bastiat, as an issue with seen vs unseen. While hybrid cars have some very attractive "seen" advantages, their "unseen" disadvantages are troubling. The rare earth minerals required for creating their batteries are quickly being used up. The mines where the minerals are taken from are open pits. The processing of the minerals is dangerous and many of the minerals are themselves poisonous. Add to this that the use of hybrids in the US is based on mostly coal power and that hybrids represent a great strain on our power grid, then hybrids aren't nearly as attractive as their "seen" advantages make them appear. So why do you think it is that the detrimental disadvantages of hybrid cars are rarely mentioned? If those who are pushing for them are really concerned about the environment, why do they push for the hybrid, when it's arguably the more polluting choice when the full life cycle is taken into account? If I may get technical, I beg to differ. The tendency of American society in the last several generations is to permit private ownership only to the extent that the State can regulate it. (this is why the national debt never goes down) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way we are not going to be a danger to the environment is if we go back to horse and buggy.
You are totally correct. Even things like solar energy, wind power, and water power have adverse affects on the ecosystem. The problem is that people are so wasteful these days. When you used to buy a tv or radio, you had repairmen to keep it going. Now you just throw it away and buy a new one. Waste is what we are accustomed to. I do have a theory though. According to current science, matter as we know it doesn't exist. All we see, feel, hear, touch, etc. is merely energy at different constant frequencies. There is a way to harness this energy, we just have to figure it out. Maybe we could turn this waste into energy we could use. Sounds like science fiction, but i don't see it as being anymore impossible than flying through the solar system on spaceships. I am also thinking we could lessen our impact on the environment by using a balance of these different forms of energy and resources. You are on to something here. I saw a Tesla demonstration where they were running a model car on wireless transmitted power, uses no batteries. His ideas go back 100 years and he was a genius. People on this thread seem to be saying "But why?" I say, "Why not?" Use the Force Luke!
The "why not" stems from the fact many of us are highly mobile, my weekends could be in NC, south florida, Georgia, or Alabama. When we artificially raise the cost of transportation to reduce driving and force new technology into the market, you have destroyed my way of life. My weekend trips that used to cost 30 get canceled or certainly reduced in frequency once it costs 120. Maybe I want to take my kids across country and see the gand canyon or the rainforest in washington state. I might even want to do it in a very large safe vehicle. Now I am priced out of the ability because some ******* who flies in a jet I pay for, burning more fuel in a day than I do in a year, tries to crusade to raise gas prices to make me stop going places on purpose. Nobody is against alternatives. We just dont want to sacrafice our mobility to do it. I live on a few acres in the country and drive an hour each way to work on average. My dream came true and not long after they are trying to penalize me for it. I dont want to live in the city yet they are trying to force me to by making it cost prohibitive. I am not a sinner for wanting a country life but having a job in the city. Henry Ford found a new way of manufacturing and brought a car to market that worked and was affordable, thats how we changed. He didnt advocate bills that fined carriage owners for animal droppings in order to force his product into the market. You're right. Let's just sit on our azzes and not change a damn thing because Mr. Brewer wants to have it all his way. And by God nobody better mess with my freedom to be able to eat a greasy cheeseburger and fries while I smoke a cigarette and send a text message while I drive my SUV cross country. This here is America!
The problem is that his example is right: change should be brought about by technological advancement paired with efficiency. It needs to be rooted in increased prosperity as opposed to some political agenda. Thank you. The gentleman didnt even read the post or if he did it wasnt in an open minded way. Please 1956deluxe go read the last 2 paragraphs again. You are displaying precicely the attitude thats ruining this country. Advance a radical agenda regardless of the negative effect on society because one guy think he knows whats best for us little peons. You have the scene totally wrong btw. Brewer has a vegetable oil powered diesel SUV. I am building a small hydrogen cell to inject into my motorcycle engine. If I was traveling around I would be more likely eating a sandwich made of my homemade bread, free ranged at my land chicken, with greens and tomato I grew on it as well. I would be rinking tea, possibly sweetened with the stevia my buddy grows, and a cold homemade beer or mason jar of homeade mead when I stopped for the night. Its funny you mention tobacco, I admit I smoke a few cigars a year. I grow an heirloom variety of virginium tobbacum and hand roll a few dozen cigars a year, on vacation I miht smoke one. The difference between myself is most who support these draconian environmental laws drive a petroleum vehicle while pontificating about saving the earth. I do it out of choice and would never attempt to legislate my lifestyle on anyone. Not everybody has a friend who owns 4 chicken restaurants or is mechanically inclined, so my unique solution is my own. The green revolution doesnt need the government. Im not going to put a solar array on my house because some hippy told me to and sicked the government on me. I am doing it because I have no faih left in the governments committment to maintaining cheap available power. Obama openly states his new laws will double electricity bills within a decade. Same reason I went veggie in '04, I saw it coming. Plus its way too expensive to run a generator for a week after the hurricane knocks out power:) Point is that its going to happen, let it be a social movement of individuals, dont spoil it by making it a tool of government. You just allow them to exploit what might be a perfectly legitimate cause. You dont really think these guy care about the earth do you? While flying around in jets with the key to 1000 nuclear bombs? Are you kidding me? Legislating green is just a tool for americas enemies and the domestic crod that hates free market capitalism to gain a backdoor way to bring down the US economy, and with it, our pre-eminance in the world. Thus far we are the best steward of the post despite our problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are four different types of vehicles, in general. IC, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric. There are two ways to store electricity, batteries and capacitors. IC, or internal combustion requires a LOT of excess horsepower capacity to climb hills, pass, accelerate up the freeway ramp, etc. However, having 250 hp available but needing only 15 hp to cruise down the highway results in an ineffecient engine. Also, turning all the momentum you have paid for in gas into heat in the brakes is a big waste of energy. Hybrids combine a small efficient IC engine with an electric motor/battery to cruise on the engine but accelerate on both engine and motor. As long as you don't use all your battery, the car has plenty of pep. The battery requirements are rather small since you only need it occasionally and you can use the motor as a brake which puts most of that energy of braking back into the battery. The big drawback is the battery which is expensive and doesn't last the life of the car. These will soon be replaced by ultra-capacitors which don't break, require no maintenance, and shouldn't cost much. This technology is available. Plug-in hybrids go one step farther by having a battery big enough to actually go somewhere (maybe not that far). When you get there or come back, you plug in a battery charger to recharge the battery so you aren't using fossil fuel. If you go too far, you have to use the IC engine. Once again, the batteries are the weak link. It will be a while (some years at least) before the capacitors are light enough to replace the batteries, but they will. Electric cars are just that ... electric motor with no engine... and a big problem with the batteries. However, when the capacitor technology catches up, you will be able to fill up the capacitor with electricity as fast as you can fill a vehicle with gas now, the capacitors will last forever and fossil fuel vehicles will begin to die out. We have very little oil left in the US. We have a lot of coal. We should be using the coal to make fuel as the Germans did in WWII in order to be energy self sufficient. We should also be using the coal exhaust from power plants to make cement (it gets rid of the pollution). We should be building nuclear power plants to power all the new electric cars ... and most everything else. Sheer nonsense about oil. The gull island pool in alaska alone has a century+ worth at the current rate of growth. We have enough shale to last that long again that could be processed for what were paying now. Furthermore, oil is a renewable resource, the earth is constantly making it. Wells that were caped due to low production in the 70's are now gushing in alot of areas. I think the strategy was to deplete the middle east and other places and save ours for last, then we would hold all the power...literally...Now with the instbility across the world is time to go to our own supply. In addition, a very minor midification can make any gas engine run on natural gas or propane. Natural gas burns clean, is abundant domestically, and does not have the corrosive aspects of ethanol. Even smarter would be to gravitate to an all diesel fleet. Diesels are less complicated, last 2 or 3 times the miles, and are on average 40% more efficient. In a relatively small area we can produce oil from algea that can run diesels with minimal processing. The same algae can also be pressed into pellets that are a direct replacement for bituminus coal except theres no mercury fallout. Lets pretend for a second that there actually was an oil shortage, they are going after it all wrong. Everyone can keep the machines we are driving. As the algae fuel supply grows and its cheaper than petrol, more people buy the diesels. This reduces gasoline demand and allows the poorer folks who will be the last to switch, a downward trend in fuel price and an abundance of good deals on used vehicles, instead of destroying them for scarp as the government did with the cash for clunkers cars. After a few decades all the gas cars will be phased out and collectors who want them for antiques can make their own ethanol to run them. Nuclear power costs 4 times that of coal and solar and wind are still totally impractical cost wise. What we o is ontinue to build simple, cheap coal plants. We build the algae farms next to the new plants and old ones where we can. This way the fuel is made on site, no energy in shipping involved. You recycle the heat from the power plant to warm the algae and increase the yield. Gradually you use less and less coal and its phased out. There it is, simple, doesnt drive prices sky high or force anything on anyone. 100% domestic energy with no commodity traders mucking up the works as the coal is grown on site of most plants. No more mercury in the water which is the main beef against coal. They know this in washington, they just are allowing the special interests o exploi the issue to accomplish their goal of knocking america out of the high seat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are four different types of vehicles, in general. IC, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric. There are two ways to store electricity, batteries and capacitors. IC, or internal combustion requires a LOT of excess horsepower capacity to climb hills, pass, accelerate up the freeway ramp, etc. However, having 250 hp available but needing only 15 hp to cruise down the highway results in an ineffecient engine. Also, turning all the momentum you have paid for in gas into heat in the brakes is a big waste of energy. Hybrids combine a small efficient IC engine with an electric motor/battery to cruise on the engine but accelerate on both engine and motor. As long as you don't use all your battery, the car has plenty of pep. The battery requirements are rather small since you only need it occasionally and you can use the motor as a brake which puts most of that energy of braking back into the battery. The big drawback is the battery which is expensive and doesn't last the life of the car. These will soon be replaced by ultra-capacitors which don't break, require no maintenance, and shouldn't cost much. This technology is available. Plug-in hybrids go one step farther by having a battery big enough to actually go somewhere (maybe not that far). When you get there or come back, you plug in a battery charger to recharge the battery so you aren't using fossil fuel. If you go too far, you have to use the IC engine. Once again, the batteries are the weak link. It will be a while (some years at least) before the capacitors are light enough to replace the batteries, but they will. Electric cars are just that ... electric motor with no engine... and a big problem with the batteries. However, when the capacitor technology catches up, you will be able to fill up the capacitor with electricity as fast as you can fill a vehicle with gas now, the capacitors will last forever and fossil fuel vehicles will begin to die out. We have very little oil left in the US. We have a lot of coal. We should be using the coal to make fuel as the Germans did in WWII in order to be energy self sufficient. We should also be using the coal exhaust from power plants to make cement (it gets rid of the pollution). We should be building nuclear power plants to power all the new electric cars ... and most everything else. Sheer nonsense about oil. The gull island pool in alaska alone has a century+ worth at the current rate of growth. We have enough shale to last that long again that could be processed for what were paying now. Furthermore, oil is a renewable resource, the earth is constantly making it. Wells that were caped due to low production in the 70's are now gushing in alot of areas. I think the strategy was to deplete the middle east and other places and save ours for last, then we would hold all the power...literally...Now with the instbility across the world is time to go to our own supply. In addition, a very minor midification can make any gas engine run on natural gas or propane. Natural gas burns clean, is abundant domestically, and does not have the corrosive aspects of ethanol. Even smarter would be to gravitate to an all diesel fleet. Diesels are less complicated, last 2 or 3 times the miles, and are on average 40% more efficient. In a relatively small area we can produce oil from algea that can run diesels with minimal processing. The same algae can also be pressed into pellets that are a direct replacement for bituminus coal except theres no mercury fallout. Lets pretend for a second that there actually was an oil shortage, they are going after it all wrong. Everyone can keep the machines we are driving. As the algae fuel supply grows and its cheaper than petrol, more people buy the diesels. This reduces gasoline demand and allows the poorer folks who will be the last to switch, a downward trend in fuel price and an abundance of good deals on used vehicles, instead of destroying them for scarp as the government did with the cash for clunkers cars. After a few decades all the gas cars will be phased out and collectors who want them for antiques can make their own ethanol to run them. Nuclear power costs 4 times that of coal and solar and wind are still totally impractical cost wise. What we o is ontinue to build simple, cheap coal plants. We build the algae farms next to the new plants and old ones where we can. This way the fuel is made on site, no energy in shipping involved. You recycle the heat from the power plant to warm the algae and increase the yield. Gradually you use less and less coal and its phased out. There it is, simple, doesnt drive prices sky high or force anything on anyone. 100% domestic energy with no commodity traders mucking up the works as the coal is grown on site of most plants. No more mercury in the water which is the main beef against coal. They know this in washington, they just are allowing the special interests o exploi the issue to accomplish their goal of knocking america out of the high seat. I looked it up. The Gull Island story is a hoax. Oil is a renewal resource? Sheer Nonsense? Geeze. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Sun 09/27/09 02:49 PM
|
|
I see a difference in posts in this thread
some speak of the technical mechanics of different fuels and system and some speak of idealogical application of fuels and systems and some try to mix the two and just sound weird although the internal combustion engine is wasteful and ineficient it still is the best we have. fuel cells and electric just havent developed the technology yet to be very practical. there is no electric/hybrid motor that can drive a semi truck Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut oil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
although the internal combustion engine is wasteful and ineficient it still is the best we have. fuel cells and electric just havent developed the technology yet to be very practical. there is no electric/hybrid motor that can drive a semi truck Actually, there are hybrid semis. Electric motors have a great deal of torque, trains have been hybrids for many years. But I agree that the alternative propulsion methods aren't ready for the wider market. Another 10 years and we might be there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are four different types of vehicles, in general. IC, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric. There are two ways to store electricity, batteries and capacitors. IC, or internal combustion requires a LOT of excess horsepower capacity to climb hills, pass, accelerate up the freeway ramp, etc. However, having 250 hp available but needing only 15 hp to cruise down the highway results in an ineffecient engine. Also, turning all the momentum you have paid for in gas into heat in the brakes is a big waste of energy. Hybrids combine a small efficient IC engine with an electric motor/battery to cruise on the engine but accelerate on both engine and motor. As long as you don't use all your battery, the car has plenty of pep. The battery requirements are rather small since you only need it occasionally and you can use the motor as a brake which puts most of that energy of braking back into the battery. The big drawback is the battery which is expensive and doesn't last the life of the car. These will soon be replaced by ultra-capacitors which don't break, require no maintenance, and shouldn't cost much. This technology is available. Plug-in hybrids go one step farther by having a battery big enough to actually go somewhere (maybe not that far). When you get there or come back, you plug in a battery charger to recharge the battery so you aren't using fossil fuel. If you go too far, you have to use the IC engine. Once again, the batteries are the weak link. It will be a while (some years at least) before the capacitors are light enough to replace the batteries, but they will. Electric cars are just that ... electric motor with no engine... and a big problem with the batteries. However, when the capacitor technology catches up, you will be able to fill up the capacitor with electricity as fast as you can fill a vehicle with gas now, the capacitors will last forever and fossil fuel vehicles will begin to die out. We have very little oil left in the US. We have a lot of coal. We should be using the coal to make fuel as the Germans did in WWII in order to be energy self sufficient. We should also be using the coal exhaust from power plants to make cement (it gets rid of the pollution). We should be building nuclear power plants to power all the new electric cars ... and most everything else. Sheer nonsense about oil. The gull island pool in alaska alone has a century+ worth at the current rate of growth. We have enough shale to last that long again that could be processed for what were paying now. Furthermore, oil is a renewable resource, the earth is constantly making it. Wells that were caped due to low production in the 70's are now gushing in alot of areas. I think the strategy was to deplete the middle east and other places and save ours for last, then we would hold all the power...literally...Now with the instbility across the world is time to go to our own supply. In addition, a very minor midification can make any gas engine run on natural gas or propane. Natural gas burns clean, is abundant domestically, and does not have the corrosive aspects of ethanol. Even smarter would be to gravitate to an all diesel fleet. Diesels are less complicated, last 2 or 3 times the miles, and are on average 40% more efficient. In a relatively small area we can produce oil from algea that can run diesels with minimal processing. The same algae can also be pressed into pellets that are a direct replacement for bituminus coal except theres no mercury fallout. Lets pretend for a second that there actually was an oil shortage, they are going after it all wrong. Everyone can keep the machines we are driving. As the algae fuel supply grows and its cheaper than petrol, more people buy the diesels. This reduces gasoline demand and allows the poorer folks who will be the last to switch, a downward trend in fuel price and an abundance of good deals on used vehicles, instead of destroying them for scarp as the government did with the cash for clunkers cars. After a few decades all the gas cars will be phased out and collectors who want them for antiques can make their own ethanol to run them. Nuclear power costs 4 times that of coal and solar and wind are still totally impractical cost wise. What we o is ontinue to build simple, cheap coal plants. We build the algae farms next to the new plants and old ones where we can. This way the fuel is made on site, no energy in shipping involved. You recycle the heat from the power plant to warm the algae and increase the yield. Gradually you use less and less coal and its phased out. There it is, simple, doesnt drive prices sky high or force anything on anyone. 100% domestic energy with no commodity traders mucking up the works as the coal is grown on site of most plants. No more mercury in the water which is the main beef against coal. They know this in washington, they just are allowing the special interests o exploi the issue to accomplish their goal of knocking america out of the high seat. I looked it up. The Gull Island story is a hoax. Oil is a renewal resource? Sheer Nonsense? Geeze. OK, so Ill give you more mainstream links below. Theres plenty of non-controversial evidence on the subject. Besides that what do you think of the solution I proposed? On renewability of oil: http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645 http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/systems/energy_capture/capture.html At least 140 years of oil: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814230 Oil shale resources in the Colorado, Wyoming and Utah Green River formation estimate 1.8 trillion barrels of oil are located beneath the surface. A RAND Corporation study estimates that while not all resources are recoverable, the upper limit is 1.1 trillion barrels with a lower limit of 500 trillion. The midpoint of this recovery, 800 trillion barrels of oil is 3 times LARGER than any known etimate of that of Saudi Arabia.. ------------------- THERE IS PLENTY OF OIL THROUGH OUR GRANDKIDS LIFETIMES!!!STOP THE INSANITY!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
although the internal combustion engine is wasteful and ineficient it still is the best we have. fuel cells and electric just havent developed the technology yet to be very practical. there is no electric/hybrid motor that can drive a semi truck Actually, there are hybrid semis. Electric motors have a great deal of torque, trains have been hybrids for many years. But I agree that the alternative propulsion methods aren't ready for the wider market. Another 10 years and we might be there. Diesel engines running on algae oil running generators for the electric train motors. I thought thats how some of then already did it except for the fuel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was all on the algae bio fuel bandwagon till I did some research on it
there is no production facilty capable of mass producing algae bio fuel for less than around $30 a gallon. Oil would have to be $800 a barrel for this to be economically viable the land area for algae bio fuels to replace even half of our gas consumption would require 10% of the land area in the United States maybe in 20 years or so they can advance it enough to be viable but it aint there yet http://snrecmitigation.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/bleak-future-for-mass-production-of-algae-biodiesel/ http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was all on the algae bio fuel bandwagon till I did some research on it there is no production facilty capable of mass producing algae bio fuel for less than around $30 a gallon. Oil would have to be $800 a barrel for this to be economically viable the land area for algae bio fuels to replace even half of our gas consumption would require 10% of the land area in the United States maybe in 20 years or so they can advance it enough to be viable but it aint there yet http://snrecmitigation.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/bleak-future-for-mass-production-of-algae-biodiesel/ http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf exactly. it's fine in the sense of old cooking oil where a byproduct is used, but creating biodiesel is far too expensive. right now, petroleum is our most economically viable option. Forcing another onto the population will not help anything but special interests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was all on the algae bio fuel bandwagon till I did some research on it there is no production facilty capable of mass producing algae bio fuel for less than around $30 a gallon. Oil would have to be $800 a barrel for this to be economically viable the land area for algae bio fuels to replace even half of our gas consumption would require 10% of the land area in the United States maybe in 20 years or so they can advance it enough to be viable but it aint there yet http://snrecmitigation.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/bleak-future-for-mass-production-of-algae-biodiesel/ http://www.nanostring.net/Algae/CaseStudy.pdf exactly. it's fine in the sense of old cooking oil where a byproduct is used, but creating biodiesel is far too expensive. right now, petroleum is our most economically viable option. Forcing another onto the population will not help anything but special interests. Please quote the whole statistics: ---------------------------------- Algae biofuel startup Solix, for instance, can produce biofuel from algae right now, but it costs about $32.81 a gallon, said Bryan Wilson, a co-founder of the company and a professor at Colorado State University. The production cost is high because of the energy required to circulate gases and other materials inside the photo bioreactors where the algae grow. It also takes energy to dry out the biomass, and Solix uses far less water than other companies. By exploiting waste heat at adjacent utilities (one of our favorite forms of energy around here), the price can probably be brought down to $5.50 a gallon (see Will Waste Heat Be Bigger Than Solar?). By selling the proteins and other byproducts from the algae for pet food, the price can be brought to $3.50 a gallon in the near term. ------------------------------------- So by using heat from nearby facilities....as I suggested.....and selling the byproduct...that wont give them mad cow I might add...we can do it for 3.50 a gallon in the near term. It was almost 5 a gallon not long ago so theres at least a stable point right there. I alread said to retain and use the cheap domestic petroleum, thats my point. If we can do it at 3.50 a gallon in 140 years I am convinced we can breed a good algae strain and work the bugs out of the process. It would not require 10% of the land mass. It would require an area the size of delaware locaded ideally in uninhabited southwestern deserts. But could be supplemented by coal algae plants heated by the adjacent power plant. Many plants are already built with buffer zones so many have thousands of acres around them ready to go. Im telling you its a feasable goal in 140 years. Look where we were 140 years ago! |
|
|
|
|
