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.
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.
I sincerely doubt that this is lehmur.
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?
Hydrogen car...yeah that one is a problem. Its the same concept as the gaz car. I'd rather like the electric car then the hydrogen since I don't need to depend on a hydrogen sales men and prices of hydrogen going up and down just like the price of gaz.
Another point, yes hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Problem is, its so light that it usually rises way up in our atmosphere and may even leave (in gaz form) which is why most of the hydrogen is located in compounds (H2O, CH4, etc). So we require to split Hydrogen from those compounds, which requires alot of energy, so then again you require electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen, so why not just have an electric car? cut the middle man...
The hydrogen car is the same concept of control as the fuel car, we are addicted to fuel and are dependent on it even thought it fluctuates up and down, someone is always controlling the input/output of production and sales and we dance as puppets.
We've many ways to produce clean electricity, I vote for the electric car. Or!! the compressed air car look it up.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world know true peace."-Jimi Hendrix
""They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority""-Gerald Massey
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?
Sorry about the bad grammar.
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.
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.
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%!
Electrolysis (the process of separating hydrogen and oxygen by passing a current throught it) requires a lot of energy. I find that the hydrogen car, should be skipped unless we find a much better and more efficient way to acquire hydrogen.
P.S. english isn't my primary language, I try to remove the maximum of errors in my text.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world know true peace."-Jimi Hendrix
""They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority""-Gerald Massey
I guess in my absence I have to repeat myself for the slower members of the class...
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.
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.)
Begs the question as to why you expect us to totally ignore ONE source of energy that is very available, convenient, and useful?
This amounts to conspiracy theory. There's no market for electric cars, which don't even help the goddamned environment.
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.
Yeah, that and the energy issue involved with supplying the power to the wall.
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.I guess in my absence I have to repeat myself for the slower members of the class...
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.
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.Fucking eco-faggots never recognize this
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.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.)
I don't get this at all...elaborate on your enlightened view of the god you truly are with your...economic major?...There's no market for electric cars, which don't even help the god damned environment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world know true peace."-Jimi Hendrix
""They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority""-Gerald Massey
+ rep Kealran.
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.
Moving on
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.
The term is ad hominem and the pot is calling the kettle black.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Coal-powered electric cars and I am clinging to death itself.
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.
Just because you can debate a point doesn't mean you can condense 267 pages worth of text into a thread to get a good point across; funny how you use the grounds of the context of the story to find a way to rip on it. Something tells me you don't belong here.
Originally Posted by Atmosfear;53330
Coal-powered electric cars and [b
The idea is to change the source of energy all-around (our power grid should come from a combination of these other resources than from oil, is what we're getting at). Even if there's a detrimental effect to all the others, they would be much less detrimental than our current sources. Do you realize how much destruction they have to cause to ecosystems simply to dig for some oil (in South America, for example), where they essentially destroy the way of life of some indigenous (sp) people? Or how burning/disposing of these products is EXTREMELY detrimental to the environment as well? There's hardly any disposal waste when we are dealing with solar, wind, geotherman etc.
The idea is on the large scale rather than the small scale, BUT everything has to start somewhere on the small scale before it can create an effect on the large scale. Any step towards this is a good step in the right direction.
I would still encourage you to read the book even though I'm almost positive you would never take the 3 hours to read it.
Telling stupid people they are idiots since 1987
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaB...nceVsFaith.png
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.
As someone who doesn't know anything about the topic at hand, I learned something from reading this thread.
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstein
Ok, back from vacations.
As I look back at this entire discussion I see that we've (Me and Kozzle) never truly explained Ishmael.
Very nice observation Dalai Lama, the story does revolve around a telepathic gorilla (the teacher) and a man (the student) but that isn't even grazing the point of the book. The author Daniel Quinn, wrote this book as a story concerning these two characters. The book goes through human history (anthropology) and erases and clears out points of views that we take from granted that just aren't true. He even analyzes the story of Genesis quite well for those that are religious.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.
The point of the book is that the journey in which you'll travel throughout the book will change the way you see the world today. All it offers is a trip through the history of the human species and our ''facts'' that we take for granted because we we're raised in this society that shows these ''facts'' everyday and everywhere. These presumptions that we accept for facts are very hard to see unless you truly look for them, that is why reading the book clarifies things and shows you a different version of the world.
The point of telling you to read the book is not to debate the book but to gain a new perspective in order to see things from a different angle. Sorry for the miss communications about the book, but that was the point of reading it.
Now for the Atmosfear's post, I've little to debate. There seems to be no point. Just a few observations that strike out that seem just weird.
electric cars aren't a quick fix or even a fix at all. It's a dirty Bandaid applied to a gushing woundYes this is mildly or maybe very ironic. From my point of view, I don't see the electric car as the dirty bandaid but the hybrids as a temporary band aid to a gushing wound.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.
Second point, look your facts up straight for nuclear power. Yes the actual creation of nuclear power is...somewhat clean (I'm not even getting into details)but the creation is just the tip of the iceberg.
The extraction of the resource for nuclear power is so incredibly toxic to the environment its not even an option.
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.
Can't believe you mentioned nuclear energy...
EDIT:
Added note to the description of Ishmael.
I always seem to have a hard time explaining this book to anyone I present it too and if you read it you'll see why. There are various points and observations and subject that the book takes on, but the global idea is the same.
If i were to describe it into our generation's most laymen terms it would be that :
Ishmael is our societies red pill (in reference to the movie The Matrix)
That is as straight forward as I can be explained.
Last edited by Kealran; 01-06-2009 at 12:52 AM.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world know true peace."-Jimi Hendrix
""They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority""-Gerald Massey
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.
Ah crap! What was I thinking, I guess maybe if you would have found something fishy about me saying that a very non toxic gas is dangerous you would have double checked my facts! You can look again if you think im changing information...its not argon but Radon which is a radioactive inert gas responsible for alot of cancer.
Oh yes...good defense...look for another week of information :P while you debate we have great technology to extract it...show me! The extraction of resources for nuclear power is toxic, there is no if's and butts about it. Either find this " we have great extraction technology" or accept it. Since they want to extract uranium where i live and i've seen presentations on the damage it did in other areas of my country. Yes uranium mining is bad.
"It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"- Jiddu Krishnamurti
"Only when the power of love overcomes the love of power will the world know true peace."-Jimi Hendrix
""They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather then truth as authority""-Gerald Massey
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.
Bookmarks