|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2001 : 19:31:02 [Permalink]
|
Some folks will hate this but it's something that I find to be true: Americans wait until the last minute(and sometimes past then) to fix anything. Part of me thinks that it will serve us right if the worst case scenario pans out. We can all sit around and point fingers at each other(another favorite American pastime) after the midwest begins to resemble the Sahara desert.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 20:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We can all sit around and point fingers at each other(another favorite American pastime) after the midwest begins to resemble the Sahara desert.
BTW, I'm only being partially sarcastic here.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 21:00:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We can all sit around and point fingers at each other(another favorite American pastime) after the midwest begins to resemble the Sahara desert.
No, we'll just blame the lack of prayer in school. What the hell, it's the cause of all of our other problems. ![]()
BTW, I'm only being partially sarcastic here.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 05:26:04 [Permalink]
|
Click here for information on how much regulation costs and how beneficial it is to both the environment and the economy.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 11:14:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Click here for information on how much regulation costs and how beneficial it is to both the environment and the economy.
Is it fair for me to just dismiss this as irrelavent without bothering to read it, since The American Prospect is claimed to be "the nation's most influential Liberal publication"?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 13:05:01 [Permalink]
|
Yep. you can discount the site, based on it's obvious bias...but you'll have a hard time discounting the data; the EPA (and other government agencies) make available most of their impact studies (seriously BORING reading!!!!), and with a little effort you can find reams of studies which say about the same thing.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personally, I am convinced by the data and by my knowledge as a chemist that there is a real and undeniable effect going on.
What makes is so terrible is that these days even slight climatological changes can have massive economic reprocussions.
Just look at the drought on the west coast of the US.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
This may be slightly tangent to greenhouse gasses, but, what do you think of Ballard Power Systems fuel cell idea. It's been tested in Chicago in buses for three years. The only problem they currently have is miniaturizing the power system enough to place it into a smaller vehicle frame.
I'm sort of looking forward to one. If only to stick it to the gasoline companies.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 16:59:26 [Permalink]
|
Fuel cells are wunnerful...but succeptible to fuel contamination and rather expensive to make.
Buses may be a good use, but I doubt it. Adapting them seems prohibitively expensive to make them survive the beating of travel, especially on the average city street. It seems to me that it'd be far simpler to have fuel cells hooked into the local electric trolly grid. Every couple of miles or so you'd have a fuel cell substation (I think CoEdison has one). That way, you'd be able to keep all of your nice and cheap electric buses. Note that you can use the same technique to run electric trains.
The best fuel to use is hydrogen. Hydrogen has the problem of energy density: you have to seriously compress the stuff to be able to practically use it for an bus or automobile engine. It can be done, but there's lot's of technical problems with it. But notice that if you are using hydrogen to power a stationary powerplant, gas tank size is of little consequence.
Now suppose that the catalytic production of hydrogen from water, using sunlight, as reported in 1983 in science magazine, is placed on the roof of the powerplant and some of the adjacent buildings so that the hydrogen and oxygen are collected and stored for fuel. Hmmmm.
If we decide to stick with powering electric trollies why not use HOT nuclear waste to run sterling engines in some of these powerhouses? Hmmmm.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 04:37:04 [Permalink]
|
What about the Aluminium Air fuel cell?
Its a new one, but it looks promising as it has a higher energy density and would work with atmospheric air.
Only problem is that the fuel would be solid, but that could be dealt with.
It has also been suggested that burning Boron in a car with Pure Oxygen would be a good idea.
TD: Are you just going to discount any data which shows that it is cheaper to prevent it then to clean up afterwards? Is it because it would undermine your main argument for why Kyoto shouldn't go ahead?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 11:56:05 [Permalink]
|
The best solution is to eliminate cars altogether. We waste an inordinate amount of resource on the damn things. I don't see how an automobile based society can even remotely be energy efficient.
Two words: urban sprawl. Think of the fuel wasted in comuting, the electricity lost due to transmission over the urban grid, the heating fuel required to warm all those individual little boxes. Talk about maximally efficient.
Theres a positive feed back loop going on. People move as far from the city as the highways will allow; the limiting factor is traffic jams. Usage makes highways grow, in that funding is based on traffic. This allows people to move further away, thus starting the cycle all over agin. In the Seattle area the example to cite is US-520.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 16:28:20 [Permalink]
|
It's a lot worse than most people probably realize!
I was watching a bit of road last night counting the SUVs that went by with a single passenger. I got up to 8 consecutive vehicles within seconds of beginning my count. Maybe I just got lucky there but then there are an awful lot of them around here. One couple of them really made me chuckle(Lexus).
I know we all have a right to do and buy what we want because we all have rights blah blah blah. But to me this is irresponsible and there is a cost involved with wasting finite resources in such a manner. They should at the very least be taxed heavily to cover these hidden costs or demonstrate a need for so large a vehicle.
I also have a problem with people deliberately moving 30 miles from where they work and then bitch about how bad the traffic is. It also wastes fuel and pullutes the air and eventually the government comes around and improvers the network of roads. Then those roads require more money for maintenance and repair and the once remore neighborhoods become suburbs so people move even further away to get away from it(LOL).
Here's my thought on this: Decide where you want to live(Country or City) then move there. Don't expect to have it both ways. When one person does it it is very logical and not a problem. When everyone does it, it is suddenly a huge problem.
People also seem to think that these networks of roads are a right and should be free. This is so incredibly stupid that I am not going to go into it right now(How about that transportation bill, eh Bozola?  ).
Somehow people also seem to dismiss light rail because it's
a) expensive
b) bound to end up being underutilized
c) a waste of resources when we just need more roads
I have been to cities with light rail and have used it in these cities. It was cheap(about $3 round trip vs parking alone costing $8-$15) and it was packed with people(standing room only and it was a Saturday). I wish people would actually try light rail before knocking it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 18:41:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I also have a problem with people deliberately moving 30 miles from where they work and then bitch about how bad the traffic is. It also wastes fuel and pullutes the air and eventually the government comes around and improvers the network of roads. Then those roads require more money for maintenance and repair and the once remore neighborhoods become suburbs so people move even further away to get away from it(LOL).
There are several books out that deal with this topic. Unfortunately, I have'nt read any of them yet. It appears that the great post WWII social engineering experiment has gotten out of hand. Communities have become very compartmentalized. Too many people neither work or shop anywhere near where they live. This has made us overly dependent upon our automobiles. Add in the fact that everyone seems to have a need to own the largest and least fuel-efficient vehicles they can afford, and it becomes clear that we are using too many resources for just day to day living.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 04:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Good luck banning cars.
Better to just make them all electric or other ZEV and use nuclear power to charge them.
Public Transport should have more emphasis then it currently does.
Also have a look at this
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 05:38:59 [Permalink]
|
I do not think that cars can or should be banned. My problem with cars is not just the fuel consumption and emissions. Those are very important but cars cause a lot more problems than that.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 10:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have a problem with people deliberately moving 30 miles from where they work and then bitch about how bad the traffic is. It also wastes fuel and pullutes the air and eventually the government comes around and improvers the network of roads. Then those roads require more money for maintenance and repair and the once remore neighborhoods become suburbs so people move even further away to get away from it(LOL).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several books out that deal with this topic. Unfortunately, I have'nt read any of them yet. It appears that the great post WWII social engineering experiment has gotten out of hand. Communities have become very compartmentalized. Too many people neither work or shop anywhere near where they live. This has made us overly dependent upon our automobiles. Add in the fact that everyone seems to have a need to own the largest and least fuel-efficient vehicles they can afford, and it becomes clear that we are using too many resources for just day to day living.
I'm one of those "30 milers"  . But I'm not complaining about the commute. It is the price I decided to pay. I weighed the pros and cons and made the move. So are a lot of people and the sprawl continues, but then what 'cha gonna do? I'm not going back to the 'burbs, EVER!
If people can't agree on what to do about polluting cars, let's start with something simpler. According to the Professional Lawn Care Association of America (PLCAA) there are 25 MILLION acres of grass in the U.S. Gee, how many gasoline powered lawn mowers is that? Are there any pollution standards, regulations or enforcements on small engines? Uh, no. Are people going to pay higher prices for mandatory pollution controls? Probably not. Are they going to pay higher prices for a battery powered electric lawn mower? Again, probably not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; in the whole Earth warming brew-ha-ha, it still comes down to what an individual is willing to change in lifestyle and habits to effect meaningful change to the environment.
If anyone asks why I moved so far away from the city and 'burbs, I'll be happy to share my decision making processes. Believe me, it wasn't done on a whim.
(:raig
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
