NationStates Jolt Archive

Please vote yes, we need to lower pollution.

Just a quick post, and I'll be kind. (Its late here, :wink: )

1) Post the proposal here so we can see it.

2) Explain why its so good.

3) Expect to have to answer some questions and or requests.

I'm being nice, your a new nation, I just want to add, make sure you know the rules, read the F.A.Q. and see the stickies in moderation and above, in this forum. Its the best thing to do if you want to have the best playing experience.

Yours,

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

Hope that helps you some.

In my nation, cars are illegal... however with cars that run on air it could decrease pollution and stop many of the protestors that ride their bikes through my nation.

Thank you,
The Republic of Shoostguk

Interesting proposal, and I like the idea. But yet I would like to see a need for why being that Mother Nature causes 10 billion times more damage to the environment than what man could ever imagine doing and it would hurt countries that rely on oil for their economies.

But we do have cars that run on air- they are internal combustion vehicles. They use the oxygen from the air and fossil fuels to cause a combustion which through a mechanism causes the wheels of the vehicle to turn. Granted the energy ultimately comes from the fossil fuel, but oxygen is a part of the chemical reaction.

We can't run a car on "air" alone because there is no energy source in the air. We could use the oxygen in the air to cause a combustion reaction with something else besides fossil fuels, such as hydrogen, which would not produce the pollutants a car produces.

I don't know what the content of the proposal is, but the premise of the proposal seems to be unrealistic, so it will not recieve Bootai-Bootai's support.

This Proposal quite possibly violates the Laws of Thermodynamics and at any rate suggests an extremely inefficient use of energy resources. It will not have my support. The reasons for this are glaringly obvious.

The idea is to run cars on compressed air.

The air must be compressed first. The compression of air and its subsequent use to power a rotating machine is an extremely inefficient process. That is, the energy going into the compressor is far greater than the energy released by the car's propulsion system.

The compression must be achieved by a compressor taking as its energy input either a fossil fuel or electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. It is vastly more efficient to just use the fossil fuel to power the car. The compression process and compressed air motors introduce unnecessary inefficiencies into the system.

The electricity could of course be renewably generated. However, there are far better uses for renewably generated electricity than motor transport. In any case, chemical batteries are a more dense energy store than compressed air.

The vision the Proposal puts forward is simply not achievable.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

:shock: how can this be??????????

komokom made a grammatical error in his above post????

i believe that your should have been you're. :D

i agree with tacical. this violates the laws of physics and is impossible. it shouldnt even be considered. its like saying "lets all just get along." it just dosent work.

:shock: how can this be??????????

komokom made a grammatical error in his above post????

i believe that your should have been you're. :D

Oh gasp, oh shock, oh horror.

Good to see you riding your high horse off into the sun-set as always, :wink:

Also, if you pay attention to my other posts, grammar-shammer, if its not in a proposal, just as long as people can read it with minimal difficulty, sheesh. Some people.

(Shrugs)

:)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

relax, komokom, i am merely poking fun at the people who are always bitching about other peoples errors. it was not personal. 8)

Why would you want cars that run off air? The only way to get any decent amount of energy from that is to use an anti-matter reactor.

Moontian is able to sell catalytic bacteria to create hydrogen from plant matter, so if you want hydrogen-powered cars, it's quite economical.

My auto industry is crucial to my country. Can you explain how exactly this would have an effect on sales. They better stay the same or get better. Otherwise I won't approve or vote for this.

Interesting proposal, and I like the idea. But yet I would like to see a need for why being that Mother Nature causes 10 billion times more damage to the environment than what man could ever imagine doing and it would hurt countries that rely on oil for their economies.


Ten billion times??? Wow, that is the biggest lie I have ever heard. The planet was fine until man started polluting it to hell. We clearly need to protect our planet...

I will vote for your proposal to start development of alternative engines... I even pledge 100 million dollars to get said development started.

You write up the proposal, if you do a good job and don't ruin it by saying "immediately ban all non-alternative fuel sources", then you have my vote, my support, and my grant money.

:)