Thread: For Atmosfear

I hate to say it, but though Atmosfear and the others have tried somewhat to bring intelligent discussion, the faggotry of lehmur has ruined whatever benefits could've been gathered from this thread.

But my last post saved it.

Originally Posted by hydro

I sincerely doubt that this is lehmur.

OH WELL

On the environment, did anyone see Top Gear a few weeks ago? James May did a piece about a car...god I cannot remember if it was a Toyota or a Honda. It used Hydrogen if I remember right, basically its only emissions were water, filling it up took about the same time to fill up a car with petrol and you could get a good 200 miles out of it before it went dry.

May reckoned the future of cars had arrived and that this was the most important car ever built because it demonstrated what seems to be a completely eco friendly car which is practical. With only something like 1 moving part, the lifetime of these things should be longer than current cars. He was talking to Jay Leno, he reckoned this was the way forward to and it will save sports cars, using these eco cars for work, sports cars for leisure. However they are only available in California just now, and would need massive investment to set up hydrogen refueling stations, and indeed facilities to get the hydrogen.

Alot of eco cars, hybrids use electricity, which tend not to last long and takes a long time to recharge, which consumes electricity generated often from power stations, which cause harmful emissions. I will need to hunt around and find out the name of the car. And since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it is practically infinite. If you could switch cars to this, that could be some real nice progress.

Clearly getting the infrastructure in place would be costly and time consuming, but it would be worth it, it looks like it could be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. And if investment and research is done, who knows how such systems could be developed and advanced?

It's gas, not gaz.

Yea, actually collecting the hydrogen would be a problem, however electric cars simply aren't practical, at least not in their current state. Surely the energy expended in collecting the hydrogen would be less than the over all energy costs of using electricity to power cars?

I guess in my absence I have to repeat myself for the slower members of the class...

Originally Posted by Kealran

What energy is used to govern the atmosphere? GeoTHERMAL? what energy do we take from solar energy? Thermal energy is the only energy that we truly suck at using... its mostly waste to us. We never generate electricity throught heat...so the thermal energy is still acquired by the earth.

Didn't you first mention the "law of conservation of mass"? Well that would be fantastic if it were 1930 but, unfortunately, ever since a little project in the 40s it's been called the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy which states that neither mass nor energy can be created, though one can be converted to the other. You are ignoring that there are indeed a finite number of photons carrying a finite amount of energy and if they begin hitting solar panels instead of the Earth's surface then the majority of their energy is transferred to the panel and not to the surrounding environment.

The form of the energy is immaterial; there is a theoretical limit to the amount of energy available to us at any given time. Though the sun is a renewable resource (every day we get the same amount of energy from it), it still represents a system constraint. Every photon that hits the Earth contributes; while there is likely some amount of change we can make that will render few direct effects to environmental quality, there's still a limit. Fucking eco-faggots never recognize this.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Can't be much worst then the C02 where putting in the atmosphere. It has many repercussions. CO2+water? Carbonic acid, so right now our oceans are acting like a carbon sink, a very large and powerful one. Too bad the oceans are a ticking bomb, what happens when the acidity level increases to a point that plancton can't create their test(shells)? Then we loose one of our biggest supplies of oxygen on the planet.

It's funny that you mention CO2 pollution but promote the electric car (faithfully recharged by fucking COAL BURNING power plants!) I guess if you pick an issue to hammer home and bury your head in the sand you get something accomplished (just nothing particularly useful to our health.)

Originally Posted by Kealran

Anywho, we dont have to depend totally on ONE source of energy, thats idiocy. The world...the UNIVERSE has one simple thing to observe from. No two things alike, no animals live exacly the same way, in the exact same ecosystem in the exact same niche, no planet is the same nothing is alike. Diversity is key, so diversify your energy sources...and be less energy dependant. Our ancestors lived with no electricity for millenia on millenia, i think we can live by doing more with less.

Begs the question as to why you expect us to totally ignore ONE source of energy that is very available, convenient, and useful?

Originally Posted by Kealran

I know electric cars aren't very efficient at this point, but the fact remains few companies place vasts amount into their development because it's of very low profit for them and their allied companies. Certainly when the car industry is so closely linked to the oil industry.

This amounts to conspiracy theory. There's no market for electric cars, which don't even help the goddamned environment.

Originally Posted by Kealran

A gas car requires, oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, brake fluid, gasoline, etc. Most of these fluids are oil based.

When the electric car comes out, it requires none of those, once you buy the car you are no longer dependent on any of these dirty oil products. You only need to charge you battery in an outlet.

Is this a fucking joke? An electric car still requires lubricants. Maybe if you wanted to make it out of delrin or other so-called "self-lubricating" (read: naturally smooth) materials you could operate it without lubricants... But oh wait, those are oil-based synthetics themselves.

Originally Posted by Kealran

The fact that the only thing keeping the electric car behind is the battery developement, well we only need to enhance the battery life and we are good to go, its actually being done in this very moment. Look up on the internet about Professor Cho Jaephil who currently is about to make a breakthrough increasing battery life by 800%!

Yeah, that and the energy issue involved with supplying the power to the wall.

+ rep Kealran.

Originally Posted by Kealran

that is why the entire conversation started on Kozzle saying that you should all read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

A New Age book about a telepathic gorilla is clearly superior to science.

Also "Read this book, then we'll talk" isn't a proper method of debate. If that book didn't equip you with necessary knowledge to debate on this issue then it probably isn't a book cut out for dispensing knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Oh very nice, yes please do insult my intelligence with your mighty words of ignorance. First off, if you would just have read the book that Kozzle had suggested we wouldn't be at this point. Your cultural blind is so embedded in your mind you can't see past your nose.

Moving on

Originally Posted by Kealran

Ok, on the law of conservation I did a mistake, a big mistake but it doesn't change the concept behind it at all. I didn't say use ONLY solar power, or ONLY wind power, or ONLY geothermal, or ONLY tidal power, or ONLY wave power. I'm saying diversify your power sources and use renewable energy sources.

Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, etc all cause devastating effects to the environment. Sure the global effects may be less noticeable (or even preferable) but the local effects can be horrendous. Do you want to sacrifice your comfortable, familiar home for the benefit of the entire world? We can't even get Yucca Mountain finished without 30 years of arguing who is going to volunteer to devastate their local ecology in a much more visible way? When you absorb sunlight, when you absorb geothermal heat, when you dam rivers, and when you remove power from the wind, you drastically change the surrounding area.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Thank you for your nice comment of ignorance. I didn't bash anyone I stated facts and observations. You can relax on the attack and be civilized, on wait, we call ourselves intelligent species and yet we wage devastating wars...anywho, that's off subject.

The term is ad hominem and the pot is calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by Kealran

I don't get you? Do I have to spell it out for you? Are you 5 years old? Yes we do make power through coal burning plants at the moment, but the electric car by itself is less polluting then a combustion engine. If we create a power grid based on renewable energy that won't even be a problem anymore.

IF we do this, and IF we do that, and IF a bunch of blah blah blah bullshit. This plan has too many variables to be called a solution. I'm not saying the current means is sustainable, but electric cars aren't a quick fix or even a fix at all. It's a dirty Bandaid applied to a gushing wound. You want a near-term solution? Remove the ban on nuclear power, lift the ban on uranium recycling, and, at the very least, allow for modernization and upkeep of current plants reaching the ends of their life expectancy. That's a low cost, low impact 50-year solution utilizing the safest available resource.

Originally Posted by Kealran

I don't get this at all...elaborate on your enlightened view of the god you truly are with your...economic major?...

BS and a BBA, thanks.

We have already addressed how widespread use of electric cars (assuming a market existed for them) would be vastly detrimental to the environment (and ignored that fact that a sudden shift would likely increase the power consumption to the point we would all be living like California summers--whatever, ideal world.)

How do I know there's no market for them? Because the technology exists and they aren't selling. Because electric cars have been in the early adopter stage for 20 years. It amuses me that you are touting some great conspiracy of major corporations to milk profits at the expense of the environment, but believe that these industries are willing to forego some vast market. If they could make more money with environmental cars (by selling them) then these soulless profit-driven corporations would.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Fine, the electric car needs lubricants, why not plant based ones? and even thought we would requires some lubricants, its a lot less then our ''conventionnal'' combustion engine.

I agree: why not? Because there aren't any suitable plant-based alternatives that compare to the cost-effectiveness, durability, and performance of oil-based lubricants. Either way, this is such a small factor in the big scheme, you can't possibly believe this is an actual selling point.

Originally Posted by Kealran

The point is to think outside the box, we know our current way of life is destroying the environment, which are the life support system of the planet. We require a change in the ways we see it, that is why the entire conversation started on Kozzle saying that you should all read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

Market-based policies such as RGGI and those adopted by the EU achieve the environmental standards with allocative efficiency and simultaneously encourage the development and adopted of lower-cost alternatives. "Big Oil" as it is popularly termed is more accurately "Big Energy" and it is best for the entire global economy if the energy firms that currently exist, minus a few firms exiting and a few firms entering, continue to maintain their market share. So much of the world's money is invested in these firms it would be idiotic to endorse their dismantling or disbanding. If you think we are heading for recession with relatively limited mortgage defaults, imagine every single pension, retirement plan, IRA, or mutual fund in the entire world taking a hit, because that's who owns the oil companies.

Originally Posted by Kealran

I define intelligence through perspective, there two sides to a coin, see both of them and then debate, broaden your horizons by seeing the many ways to analyze any problem. The social and economic blinds you possess are truly impressive.

This is mildly ironic because you are tied to this idea of solar power and electric cars and ignoring viable near-term solutions like nuclear power and hybrids.

Originally Posted by Kealran

You seem to want to cling to death itself by refusing alternative energy sources, we KNOW we are destroying the environment, we KNOW we are using finite resources at an ever increasing rate. Whats your point of arguing when, unless you are truly blind and ignorant, you know that our way of life is extremely destructive.

Coal-powered electric cars and I am clinging to death itself.

Originally Posted by Kealran

Anywho, I'm going on vacation for a little more then a week so have fun debating while I'm gone. You should read the book while I'm gone, then come debate its only 267 pages.

Not only is that not the way to conduct any type of discussion of ideas (I found this book I am going to defend--you read it and try to disprove it ok go!), the book has been critiqued to your hearts content. I wouldn't need to read the book to link a thousand google hits.

i buy toilet paper .. then wipe my ass with it.
not exactly am i the one doing the tree killing, but what do you think they're families are feeling?
dying, just to wipe my ass.

ironic

hey you guys, i am a dilettante who knows surprisingly little about history, economics, world politics, science and political ideologies. i think i will fit well in this thread. i am a blindingly stupid nationalist as well as a guy who just read a book and who uses it to defend one hundred percent of my arguments related to the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by jack burden

hey you guys, i am a dilettante who knows surprisingly little about history, economics, world politics, science and political ideologies. i think i will fit well in this thread. i am a blindingly stupid nationalist as well as a guy who just read a book and who uses it to defend one hundred percent of my arguments related to the subject at hand.

your perfect!
welcome aboard!

Originally Posted by Kealran

Uranium/plutonium mining leaves behind so much toxic residues from argon escaping in the atmosphere to pools of radio active waste that are just barricaded by concrete walls at the extraction site (these walls require continuous maintenance so they don't leak. Oh wait! the residue last for 75 000 years!!!!). Not to mention that radio active materials outside the rock barrier that once shielded the environment from its dangerous effects (while it was underground) are very detrimental to the environment. Winds can pick up dusts and other such components and spread them in the surrounding area. Nuclear power is just BAD.

While this was a very noble try, I don't think anyone is going to be afraid of a little argon, the colorless, tasteless, non-flammable, inert, noble gas with no known detriment to physical or reproductive health from acute or chronic exposure. Do your best not to enclose yourself in unventilated areas with high argon concentration, though, because it does carry an unfortunate risk of simple asphyxiation due to oxygen displacement the same way that, say, every gas does.

You have false information that can't be confirmed and is in direct violation of the US' policy regarding uranium mining. Considering you seem to live in a some altered dimension where the world is still in 1970 with regards to technology, energy demands, and best practices, I'm going to assume that this was a concern in the 60s when we launched men to the moon with a single graphing calculator. However, in the real world, uranium is so rare that mining is limited and most of the risks of mining it are similar to the risks associated with mining copper (which is how uranium is found.)

It's okay, take another week off to find some facts.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

While this was a very noble try, I don't think anyone is going to be afraid of a little argon, the colorless, tasteless, non-flammable, inert, noble gas with no known detriment to physical or reproductive health from acute or chronic exposure. Do your best not to enclose yourself in unventilated areas with high argon concentration, though, because it does carry an unfortunate risk of simple asphyxiation due to oxygen displacement the same way that, say, every gas does.

You have false information that can't be confirmed and is in direct violation of the US' policy regarding uranium mining. Considering you seem to live in a some altered dimension where the world is still in 1970 with regards to technology, energy demands, and best practices, I'm going to assume that this was a concern in the 60s when we launched men to the moon with a single graphing calculator. However, in the real world, uranium is so rare that mining is limited and most of the risks of mining it are similar to the risks associated with mining copper (which is how uranium is found.)

It's okay, take another week off to find some facts.

To be fair, mining for copper really isn't particularly environmentally friendly. In fact, most mining operations are poorly constructed, rape and run practices that tend to leave behind singnificant toxins and damage to the area where they are run, cause constant problems for the locals and the reward is barely worth the effort put into it - metal prices fluctuate quite a bit, and the return for the work required for proper practices is pretty slim.