NationStates Jolt Archive

Electric cars, with the power garnered from renewable energy sources, is the best direction IMO. Hydrogen is still a long way off from being viable; meanwhile there are already electric cars easily usable for a vast majority of the population. Within a decade with the proper money put into it they could easily replace petroleum-powered cars.

Thoughts?

I would say electric.

Methane, so we could have methane-powered dunebuggies to fight in the post-apocalyptic desert with.

We should be focusing on not replacing them. Public transportation ftw.

Methane, so we could have methane-powered dunebuggies to fight in the post-apocalyptic desert with.

ugh, you do realize your farts are made of methane. Do we really want fart smelling cars?

We should be focusing on not replacing them. Public transportation ftw.

The only problem is, Nationwide Public Transportation in the United States is impossible.

Coal.

Speed global warming, flood the continents, and then we can make the full switch to personal kayaks.

We should be focusing on not replacing them. Public transportation ftw.

We are always going to need personal transportation vehicles, but I agree; more public transport is logical.

ugh, you do realize your farts are made of methane. Do we really want fart smelling cars?

Well, since I fart so much, my car already does smell like farting.

The only problem is, Nationwide Public Transportation in the United States is impossible.

I don't particularly care about US minutiae, but on a larger scale most people live in cities, where cars are an unnecessary nuisance, as they are when moving between the cities.

Hydrogen/electric hybrids. Keep a stack of hydrogen cells running at their peak efficiency. When the power is not needed, use it to charge the battery; when it is not enough, use the battery to help out.

I don't particularly care about US minutiae, but on a larger scale most people live in cities, where cars are an unnecessary nuisance, as they are when moving between the cities.

Yea, well, not everyone is going to move to the city just to save the Earth. I'm actually very happy to live out in the middle of no where.

Yea, well, not everyone is going to move to the city just to save the Earth. I'm actually very happy to live out in the middle of no where.

Suit yourself then when you have to pay more for gas, or settle for an eco-friendlier alternative; hopefully you'll be penalised through taxes should you fail to do so. I'm just saying cars ought to be banned within cities, as they are ineffective and wasteful within them.

Suit yourself then when you have to pay more for gas, or settle for an eco-friendlier alternative; hopefully you'll be penalised through taxes should you fail to do so. I'm just saying cars ought to be banned within cities, as they are ineffective and wasteful within them.

Wow, hostile much? Jeez want to penalized me because I don't want to live in a dirty smelly city that never shuts up? Jeez, take a chill pill.

Wow, hostile much? Jeez want to penalized me because I don't want to live in a dirty smelly city that never shuts up? Jeez, take a chill pill.

No, you should be penalised for failing to choose an eco-friendlíer alternative (there are several available even today). Want your car that runs on petrol? Fine, but you should also be ready to pay the price for such an irresponsible decision.

Currently, petroleum-run vehicles are the only realistic option for most people in rural or semi-rural areas. I'd be a lot less concerned about penalizing people in rural areas for their much-needed cars and farm equipment and more concerned about the glitzy idiots in the cities driving Humvees three blocks to get some milk.

No, you should be penalised for failing to choose an eco-friendlíer alternative (there are several available even today). Want your car that runs on petrol? Fine, but you should also be ready to pay the price for such an irresponsible decision.

and why should I be? I fly an airplane for fun, want to penalized me for that too?

Where I currently live (very poor and rural), though, there are still some things being done - octane and ethanol levels have been increasing in the gasoline, and biodiesel is widely available.

The internal combustion engine is still the only viable option. The only current biofuel that has a net EROEI (energy return on energy investment) is biodiesel. All other technologies are yet to be invented.

When 64% of the world's electricity is produced from fossil fuel sources, using electricity to power cars isn't going to solve the overall pollution problem. The only problem with biodiesel is the required capacity. 5% of current comsumption could be produced by cultivation, after that arable land runs out.

and why should I be?

Because petrol-driven cars are more environmentally deleterious than already available alternatives and you should be discouraged from using petrol-driven cars.

I fly an airplane for fun, want to penalized me for that too?

Yes. The Earth's resources aren't endless, you know, and we need to conserve them. Those who frivolously waste them or show disregard for the environment should not be dawdled with.

Because petrol-driven cars are environmentally deleterious and you should be discouraged from using them.

and who is going to impose these fines? Because I doubt the government will, why because it'll hurt the oil industry, and they have one hell of a lobby in Congress.

Yes. The Earth's resources aren't endless, you know, and we need to conserve them. Those who frivolously waste them or show disregard for the environment should not be dawdled with.

I don't consider my entertainment as well as the one thing that may actually keep me sane frivolous and a waste.

and who is going to impose these fines? Because I doubt the government will, why because it'll hurt the oil industry, and they have one hell of a lobby in Congress.

And again, I don't care about US minutiae. You do know there are other countries and other forms of government out there, don't you?

I don't consider my entertainment as well as the one thing that may actually keep me sane frivolous and a waste.

Resource-wise it is, very much so. I'm not saying you should be banned from it, I'm saying you should be made to pay a price which limits your ability to indulge.

And again, I don't care about US minutiae. You do know there are other countries and other forms of government out there, don't you?

Oh trust me, the oil industry has it hands in more than one country.


Resource-wise it is, very much so. I'm not saying you should be banned from it, I'm saying you should be made to pay a price which limits your ability to indulge.

If you think a "fine" will limit my ability to fly every weekend, you are sadly mistaken.

Oh trust me, the oil industry has it hands in more than one country.
But not all are as quick to kneel to it.
If you think a "fine" will limit my ability to fly every weekend, you are sadly mistaken.
The fine is to fix the damage it does, not stop you.

Oh trust me, the oil industry has it hands in more than one country.

And trust me, there are countries out there that penalise petrol use. Do compare petrol prices in the US with, say, a Western European nation. US petrol prices are scandalously low.

If you think a "fine" will limit my ability to fly every weekend, you are sadly mistaken.

It won't be a fine. It will be a range of taxes. A tax on owning something with an engine that consumes so and so much fossil fuels. A tax on the fuel itself. A tax on the accoutrements needed for the hobby and so on and so on (while there will be lesser taxes on eco-friendlier activities). On the larger scale higher prices will sting more in people's wallets encouraging them to conserve. Seeing as people are stupid and refuse to make the tough decision to cut back on their use of fossil fuels on their own, they need their arms twisted.

Plug-in hybrids are best -- drive all day on electricity with gas as a back-up. We just need better batteries for them.

Correction: We have better batteries, they're just all owned by Chevron. :headbang:

And trust me, there are countries out there that penalise petrol-use. Do compare petrol prices in the US with, say, a Western European nation. US petrol prices are scandalously low.

Well, we don't all live in small countries, or live on an island. Here, our prices has to be low because we rely on trucks, ships, airplanes, and other mode of transportation that uses the "horrible" combustion engine to keep our economy going. I'm glad the oil industry is keeping our prices low, alot of us can't board a train or bus to go to work. Some of us rely on our cars.


It won't be a fine. It will be a range of taxes. A tax on owning something with an engine that consumes so and so much fossil fuels.


That part is taxation, and aviation fuel is taxed.


A tax on the fuel itself.


Already done.


A tax on the accoutrements needed for the hobby and so on and so on (while there will be lesser taxes on eco-friendlier activities).

Now that's a fine. You fly an airplane so we're going to "tax" you for it.


On the larger scale higher prices will sting more in people's wallets encouraging them to conserve. Seeing as people are stupid and refuse to make the tough decision to cut back on their use of fossil fuels on their own, they need their arms twisted.

So you basically think that we're all idiots who need "government" to look out for us. Yea... No thanks, I can look out for myself, I don't need Gov. Co. to babysit me.

You want to know why flying a General Aviation aircraft is so cheap (relativity speaking)? it's 1. Politicians use private jets to fly, and private jets fall into "General Aviation". 2. Because of such groups as the AOPA (Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association) who are supported by Pilots like me that make sure General Aviation stays affordable for people like me, they have some serious swing in our Congress. They win alot of battles, but they lose some too.

www.aopa.org

Plug-in hybrids are best -- drive all day on electricity with gas as a back-up. We just need better batteries for them.

Correction: We have better batteries, they're just all owned by Chevron. :headbang:
Electric on its own is horrid. If some effective way to quickly charge a battery was found, then it would be the way to go, but until then it can only really be a backup.

Plug-in hybrids are best -- drive all day on electricity with gas as a back-up. We just need better batteries for them.

Correction: We have better batteries, they're just all owned by Chevron. :headbang:

We have even better, just most manufactures insist on reinventing the wheel.

Hydrogen/electric hybrids. Keep a stack of hydrogen cells running at their peak efficiency. When the power is not needed, use it to charge the battery; when it is not enough, use the battery to help out.

Where you gonna get the hydrogen?

So you basically think that we're all idiots who need "government" to look out for us.

Actually, it has nothing to do with stupidity. Your actions harm others; you're penalized for it. If you were not, then you and everyone else who makes such decisions without thinking about the welfare of others would make them to the detriment of everybody else, and ultimately everyone would lose.

Well, we don't all live in small countries, or live on an island. Here, our prices has to be low because we rely on trucks, ships, airplanes, and other mode of transportation that uses the "horrible" combustion engine to keep our economy going. I'm glad the oil industry is keeping our prices low, alot of us can't board a train or bus to go to work. Some of us rely on our cars.

You will pay the price for that eventually. As I said, the Earth's resources are not infinite. Your economy may be floating now, but it is heading towards an ice-berg which you basically are doing your best to go "lalalalalalaalalalalala-it's not there" about.

That part is taxation, and aviation fuel is taxed.
Already done.

They are taxed pitifully compared with the damage they're doing. There won't be any painless fix for your addiction, no magic wand to make it all go away and solve itself.

Now that's a fine. You fly an airplane so we're going to "tax" you for it.

Just like alcohol is taxed, and smoking, and several other deleterious things that are damaging on a larger scale the individual is all too happy to stay wilfully ignorant of.

So you basically think that we're all idiots who need "government" to look out for us. Yea... No thanks, I can look out for myself, I don't need Gov. Co. to babysit me.

Obviously you do need a baby-sitter since you're not making responsible decisions.

You want to know why flying a General Aviation aircraft is so cheap (relativity speaking)? it's 1. Politicians use private jets to fly, and private jets fall into "General Aviation". 2. Because of such groups as the AOPA (Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association) who are supported by Pilots like me that make sure General Aviation stays affordable for people like me, they have some serious swing in our Congress. They win alot of battles, but they lose some too.

www.aopa.org

As I said, irresponsible and just another part of the problem that needs to be crushed.

No thanks, I can look out for myself, I don't need Gov. Co. to babysit me.

Thing is, you only really look after yourself.

We should be focusing on not replacing them. Public transportation ftw.

Some cities already use electric busses already. Even public transport can be improved ;)

Thing is, you only really look after yourself.

That's the thing these people don't seem to get. Their irresponsibility has consequences beyond themselves. It's like the drunkard who goes "Why can't I drive while inebriated? It should be my choice - I can take care of myself!"

Actually, it has nothing to do with stupidity. Your actions harm others; you're penalized for it. If you were not, then you and everyone else who makes such decisions without thinking about the welfare of others would make them to the detriment of everybody else, and ultimately everyone would lose.

Who says my hobbies harm anyone? I'm a safe pilot who makes responsible decision about his flight and his aircraft. So far I haven't had any reports filed about me to the FAA, nor have I had any accident. Also, who would you put in charge to determine what is harmful and what isn't, The Government? Don't make me laugh.

What I do, with my own time, and my own money, as long as it's legal, is no one else's business, not yours or the government. As far as I can tell, flying a small single prop aircraft is still legal.

Some cities already use electric busses already. Even public transport can be improved ;)

Oh, many do. No busses in my town use petrol. The thing is, the public transportation grid needs to be enlarged and cars simply not allowed within cities, or they should at least be subject to entrance tolls.

Short term, we're probably going to see a lot of ethanol burners. Once Petroleum costs are higher than mass-produced alcohol, a lot of people will change over. I'd expect a lot of Eth-Elec Hybrids.

Long term, high-capacity batteries will probably be the most economic, juiced by nuclear power plants (or alternatives in those few areas that can take advantage of such).

Where you gonna get the hydrogen?
Magic pixie dust!

Or maybe separate it from water or methane.

Who says my hobbies harm anyone?

They harm us all in the end by contributing to the environmental crisis. Sure, you might like to turn a blind eye to what your use of fossil fuels leads to, but it's just another aspect of irresponsibility.

You will pay the price for that eventually. As I said, the Earth's resources are not infinite. Your economy may be floating now, but it is heading towards an ice-berg which you basically are doing your best to go "lalalalalalaalalalalala-it's not there" about.

We've survived 200 years just fine, I think we can survive another 200 years. Humanity has a way of surviving and adapting to changes, we can adapt to an oil shortage just fine, we don't need Gov. Co. to hold our hand for us and to spank us when we don't do what you want us to do.

They are taxed pitifully compared with the damage they're doing. There won't be any painless fix for your addiction, no magic wand to make it all go away and solve itself.

Who said I wanted to be cure? I love aviation, it's a magical thing to fly in your own aircraft, to look into the sky and marvel at God's creation. I will defend aviation with every inch of my being.

Just like alcohol is taxed, and smoking, and several other deleterious things that are damaging on a larger scale the individual is all too happy to stay wilfully ignorant of.

Show me how General Aviation is harmful.

Obviously you do need a baby-sitter since you're not making responsible decisions.

Who's to say what's a responsible decision is? One's person responsible decision may be another person's insane decision.

As I said, irresponsible and just another part of the problem that needs to be crushed.

Well, good luck with trying to "limit" Recreational and General Aviation, because you'll be up against a few million pilots.

Who says my hobbies harm anyone?

The fact that they pollute and waste valuable resources means that they harm others.

What I do, with my own time, and my own money, as long as it's legal, is no one else's business, not yours or the government.

Genuine libertarians recognized long ago that actions that harm others cannot simply be brushed away as manifestations of personal liberty.

Muttering about "Gov. Co." changes nothing.

Thing is, you only really look after yourself.

*shrugs* so? Oh and By the By, I also look out for my family and friends, as well as my pets. But you are right, when it comes to my hobby, which I am passionate about, I don't really give a crap what you think about me flying every weekend.

Magic pixie dust!

Or maybe separate it from water or methane.

The obvious question then is, where are you getting the power to crack the H2O or the Methane? If the source of THAT power isn't clean, you're not doing anything for the environment.

They harm us all in the end by contributing to the environmental crisis. Sure, you might like to turn a blind eye to what your use of fossil fuels leads to, but it's just another aspect of irresponsibility.

Better turn off that computer. The electricity it runs on pollutes (either directly or indirectly) and is irresponsible. Why should the fate of all life on the world hang on your personal addiction? It shouldn't.

They harm us all in the end by contributing to the environmental crisis. Sure, you might like to turn a blind eye to what your use of fossil fuels leads to, but it's just another aspect of irresponsibility.

You sound like an alarmist, and as a personal rule, when I hear an alarmist, I change the freq on my radio, because as history has shown, alarmist has tend to be wrong most of the time.

The fact that they pollute and waste valuable resources means that they harm others.

However, I pay for my share of that resource, and once I paid for it, it really shouldn't matter what I do with it.

Genuine libertarians recognized long ago that actions that harm others cannot simply be brushed away as manifestations of personal liberty.

Muttering about "Gov. Co." changes nothing.

Once again, show me how General Aviation harms others.

I'm actually hoping for $10 gas. It would amuse me.

Oh, many do. No busses in my town use petrol. The thing is, the public transportation grid needs to be enlarged and cars simply not allowed within cities, or they should at least be subject to entrance tolls.
I fucking hate public transit so much. It takes fifteen minutes to get five minutes down the road.

Better turn off that computer. The electricity it runs on pollutes (either directly or indirectly) and is irresponsible. Why should the fate of all life on the world hang on your personal addiction? It shouldn't.

Thank you.

I pay for my share of that resource

No, you don't. You pay for a portion of it - the portion about which the seller cares, namely the cost of extracting and shipping it.

You don't pay for the damage it causes to the environment - or at least, if you do, it is solely due to the kinds of taxes Fassigen was talking about.

Once again, show me how General Aviation harms others.

I just told you.

I fucking hate public transit so much. It takes fifteen minutes to get five minutes down the road.

Walk. Ride a bicycle. Or get the government wherever you live to increase the rate of the busses.

We've survived 200 years just fine,[ I think we can survive another 200 years. Humanity has a way of surviving and adapting to changes, we can adapt to an oil shortage just fine, we don't need Gov. Co. to hold our hand for us and to spank us when we don't do what you want us to do.

And the Mayans were around for much longer than that. Where are they now? You'll find out, since you're heading in the same direction.

Who said I wanted to be cure? I love aviation, it's a magical thing to fly in your own aircraft, to look into the sky and marvel at God's creation. I will defend aviation with every inch of my being.

See, that's the irresponsible thing. You refuse to see the damage your use of fossil fuels causes and you refuse to cut back on it. For that thing exactly you need to be penalised, not dawdled with like the petulant child whose actions you are emulating.

Show me how General Aviation is harmful.

This is a thread about fossil fuels. Did you not read the thread or something?

Who's to say what's a responsible decision is? One's person responsible decision may be another person's insane decision.

It is quite objectively insane what people are doing today, guzzling down fossil fuels with no thought for what they do to the environment and no thought for what they will do when they inevitably run out.

Well, good luck with trying to "limit" Recreational and General Aviation, because you'll be up against a few million pilots.

You seem to think there is a choice. Well, there is: Either curbing the use of fossil fuels and doing something to halt the damage being caused, or simply ignoring it and suffering the consequences. I wonder how you'll fly that plane once there is no more oil, or, well, much of anything else, really.

No, you don't. You pay for a portion of it - the portion about which the seller cares, namely the cost of extracting and shipping it.

You don't pay for the damage it causes to the environment - or at least, if you do, it is solely due to the kinds of taxes Fassigen was talking about.

News flash genius, if there was any environmental repercussions of my hobby, I would be affected to. Do I care, eh not really. Do I care that it "harms" other, nah. Until you show a direct link between General Aviation and people or environment being harmed by it, *shrugs* I'll keep on flying. If you do find a direct link, I'll still keep on flying.

I fucking hate public transit so much. It takes fifteen minutes to get five minutes down the road.

That's because public transport in North America is so fucking bad. And it's bad because it's usually a political football, run by people who don't actually give a fuck about transporting people.

Look at new york city. The 'light' commuter rail runs on a freight rail gauge. How fucking stupid is that? I mean, its not like people would take the train into manhattan or anything, is it.

And don't even get me started on the subway.

And the Mayans were around for much longer than that. Where are they now? You'll find out, since you're heading in the same direction.

Actually the Mayans died out because of invaders.


See, that's the irresponsible thing. You refuse to see the damage your use of fossil fuels causes and you refuse to cut back on it. For that thing exactly you need to be penalised, not dawdled with like the petulant child whose actions you are emulating.

*shrugs*

This is a thread about fossil fuels. Did you not read the thread or something?

Still no direct correlation.

It is quite objectively insane what people are doing today, guzzling down fossil fuels with no thought for what they do to the environment and no thought for what they will do when they inevitably run out.

Then you're telling me that having cars that yes runs on Gas, but has higher Gallons Per Miles, and can go further on little amount of gas, as well as having EPA regulators was just all a waste of time?

You seem to think there is a choice. Well, there is: Either curbing the use of fossil fuels and doing something to halt the damage being caused, or simply ignoring it and suffering the consequences. I wonder how you'll fly that plane once there is no more oil, or, well, much of anything else, really.

Luckily, several aviation fans like myself, as well as engineering firm are working on an alternative fuel that we can use in General Aviation aircrafts. One of them being Ethanol. Another one, Bio-Fuel.

News flash genius, if there was any environmental repercussions of my hobby, I would be affected to.

You still don't get it. You are affected, but the harm of your actions to you is exceeded by their benefit to you. The problem is that your actions harm others as well, and they don't get any benefit from them.

Do I care that it "harms" other, nah.

Precisely. That's why we have to make you care - by making you pay for it.

Until you show a direct link between General Aviation and people or environment being harmed by it, *shrugs* I'll keep on flying. If you do find a direct link, I'll still keep on flying.

You just told me you didn't care - why should I bother?

By the way - have you ever heard of global warming?

Better turn off that computer. The electricity it runs on pollutes (either directly or indirectly) and is irresponsible. Why should the fate of all life on the world hang on your personal addiction? It shouldn't.

I actively chose a power provider who only supplies electricity from hydroelectric plants and wind power. I also pay a premium for "green electricity" and I also pay an environmental tax on it (which is lower than tax on other sources of electricity since the choices I've made are meant to be encouraged), and I gladly do so. My home has been fitted with several adaptations to lower its dependence on non-renewable resources, and all of the appliances in it I chose to be the most conserving kinds available; that includes my computer, which I chose actively thinking of its power use.

Was this all easy? Or cheap? No. Can I do more? Of course I can. And I strive to. Do I bitch about having to do it? No. Because it needs to be done.

You still don't get it. You are affected, but the harm of your actions to you is exceeded by their benefit to you. The problem is that your actions harm others as well, and they don't get any benefit from them.


The only people who are "harmed" by it are idiots who think they have the right to a "quiet" neighborhood because of those noisy airplanes landing and taking off. However, they tend to ignore the little fact that the airport was there before the community went up, so in all logic, the airport should have the right of way. However, that still doesn't keep the idiots from complaining. Here are some more harms that General Aviation does.

http://www.angelflightamerica.org/

http://www.cap.gov/

http://www.alecbuck.com/airambulance/

http://www.helispot.com/photos/category/00010.html

Here's a great website showing how beneficial those "small airplanes" and "jets" really are.

http://www.gaservingamerica.com/index.htm

Yes, damn General Aviation and it's EBillness.

Precisely. That's why we have to make you care - by making you pay for it.

Five bucks says my accountant can find a loophole.

You just told me you didn't care - why should I bother?

By the way - have you ever heard of global warming?

Because I think you're insane and an alarmist. Also, the jury is still out on what exactly causes Global Warming, and in fact if we should be worried about it.

Actually the Mayans died out because of invaders.

For reasons which are still much debated, in the 8th and 9th centuries AD (the "Terminal Classic" period) Maya culture went into decline, with most of the cities of the central lowlands abandoned. Detailed monumental inscriptions all but disappeared. Although there is no universally accepted theory to explain Mayan decline, current theories fall into two categories: non-ecological and ecological. Non-ecological theories of Mayan decline are divided into several subcategories, such as foreign invasion, peasant revolt, and the collapse of key trade routes. Ecological hypotheses include catastrophe, epidemic disease and climate change. The archaeological evidence of the Toltec intrusion into Yucatán in Seibal supports the theory of foreign invasion. However, most Mayanists don’t believe that foreign invasion was the main cause of collapse; they postulate that no one military defeat can explain or be the cause of the protracted and complex Classic collapse process.*yawn*

*shrugs*

That sums it up, pretty much for you. And for all those who need babysitting and their wrists to be slapped to snap out of it.

Electric cars, with the power garnered from renewable energy sources, is the best direction IMO. Hydrogen is still a long way off from being viable; meanwhile there are already electric cars easily usable for a vast majority of the population. Within a decade with the proper money put into it they could easily replace petroleum-powered cars.

Thoughts?

I'd prefer Hydrogen because of the quantity of cheap fuel.
Electric appears will get here first with Chevrolet's announcement of a electric gas hybrid with a fuel rating of 500 miles per gallon by 2010.

the remaining question is which type of fuel production creates less pollution.

You know, aircraft only contribute to about 3% of global warming, and since Wilgrove presumably flies a small light aircraft I'd say it would be much much less proportionally. Flying a plane isn't any more horribly environment-crushing than using electricity (from a normal provider, as most people do) or eating steak or dairy products, so I don't see why you're all bashing Wilgrove.

The obvious question then is, where are you getting the power to crack the H2O or the Methane? If the source of THAT power isn't clean, you're not doing anything for the environment.
My power comes from almost entirely hydro power. We do by power from your smog plants at night for pennies per kilowatt (while letting our reservoirs fill up so we can sell you our excess power for ten of dollars per kilowatt during peak usage), because the unfortunate thing is, your coal/gas plants can't really be shut down. Well they could, but they take so long to start backup that you'd have blackouts every morning. So they'd be running all night anyways.


Besides that, burning the gas/coal in a massive power plant, converting the heat energy into electricity and then storing it in hydrogen, releasing in as electricity again, then converting it into electricity is more fuel efficient than burning the gas in a car. A good sedan can get 35mpg. Taking into account all the power losses in that long string of conversions, burning it at the plant will get you more mpg. Large scale power plants operate with efficincies in the 80-90% range, while the internal combustion engine is in the low 30%.

But that is just for electrolysis of water. Extracting the hydrogen from methane, is actually a net producer of power. Also, it does not produce any greenhouse gases (well except water). The system would only require a source of methane and some compressed gas to get it started.

Because I think you're insane and an alarmist.

I think the term "truthiness" was invented to describe people like you.

Also, the jury is still out on what exactly causes Global Warming, and in fact if we should be worried about it.

Case in point.

You know, aircraft only contribute to about 3% of global warming, and since Wilgrove presumably flies a small light aircraft I'd say it would be much much less proportionally. Flying a plane isn't any more horribly environment-crushing than using electricity (from a normal provider, as most people do) or eating steak or dairy products, so I don't see why you're all bashing Wilgrove.

I fly a Piper Cherokee 180, a small 4 seater aircraft with a 180hp four cylinder Lycoming engine. It consume about 8.8 Gallons Per Hour. Depending on the winds, that can get me anywhere from 50 miles to 100 miles per hour.

I think the term "truthiness" was invented to describe people like you.

Case in point.

They do like to bury their heads in the sand, don't they? Anything to be able to stomach their own lifestyle...

Genuine libertarians recognized long ago that actions that harm others cannot simply be brushed away as manifestations of personal liberty.


Actually Libertarians Views as well as my own is that Government has no right to tell you what to do on your own private property, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's right. My hobby/obsessions with aviation is on my own private property (the aircraft is private) and my hobby does not infringe on the right of you, Fass, or anyone else. So, nice try, but too bad.

The U.S. is only a small % of the world population yet it creates the most pollution.

I really don't see the need for all of them to drive 7 litre V8's. They don't go that fast anyway.

It's taken this long for Bush to realise that there might be an issue with global warning, probably too late. Start walking and riding bikes, you might lose some weight and get healthier in the long run.

Rubber, kinetic and clockwork cars are the way to go.

I love aviation, it's a magical thing to fly in your own aircraft, to look into the sky and marvel at God's creation.

News flash genius, if there was any environmental repercussions of my hobby, I would be affected to. Do I care, eh not really. Do I care that it "harms" other, nah. Until you show a direct link between General Aviation and people or environment being harmed by it, *shrugs* I'll keep on flying. If you do find a direct link, I'll still keep on flying.

So, you love God's creation, but don't care about it? Hypocrisy ftw!

I'd prefer Hydrogen because of the quantity of cheap fuel.
Electric appears will get here first with Chevrolet's announcement of a electric gas hybrid with a fuel rating of 500 miles per gallon by 2010.

the remaining question is which type of fuel production creates less pollution.

Hydrogen is used for storing energy, it does not occur naturally. You must get the energy from somewhere else and store it as hydrogen. So the question is, what cheap and clean energy can be stored as hydrogen?

Sunlight maybe?
Wind?
Tidal?
Hydro?

My power comes from almost entirely hydro power. We do by power from your smog plants at night for pennies per kilowatt (while letting our reservoirs fill up so we can sell you our excess power for ten of dollars per kilowatt during peak usage), because the unfortunate thing is, your coal/gas plants can't really be shut down. Well they could, but they take so long to start backup that you'd have blackouts every morning. So they'd be running all night anyways.


Besides that, burning the gas/coal in a massive power plant, converting the heat energy into electricity and then storing it in hydrogen, releasing in as electricity again, then converting it into electricity is more fuel efficient than burning the gas in a car. A good sedan can get 35mpg. Taking into account all the power losses in that long string of conversions, burning it at the plant will get you more mpg. Large scale power plants operate with efficincies in the 80-90% range, while the internal combustion engine is in the low 30%.

But that is just for electrolysis of water. Extracting the hydrogen from methane, is actually a net producer of power. Also, it does not produce any greenhouse gases (well except water). The system would only require a source of methane and some compressed gas to get it started.

That's cool. The main reason I asked is that many proponents of Hydrogen as a propellent for cars haven't really thought it through.

Unfortunately, not every area is as blessed with easily tapped Hydro (or Geothermal or other easily renewable and non-environmentally damaging) power sources. What should happen is the closing of all those coal and oil power plants and replacement with nuclear ones, but I don't know how long it will take before the politicians bite the bullet and actually do that.

The most logical choice is Ethanol. The distribution infrastructure is already there (gasoline), and most cars built today are already E85 compatible. Older cars can be upgraded, requiring only SS (stainless steel) gas lines and SS or polymer gas tanks. Carbureted cars would also require an SS carburetor.

Ethanol can be made from most any crop. Corn and soy are some of the better ones I'm told, and here in the US we have a plethora of farmland in which the gov't is actually paying farmers to plow under their crop because there is a surplus.

The problem with electrics is where to get the electricity from. A coal burning power plant? Same with hydrogen fuel cells. You can only get as much energy from hydrogen as it takes to get the hydrogen from water. And again, where do you get the electricity to split the water molecules? Hydrogen is also extremely difficult to store, and dangerous for that matter. It is so small it will leak past most fittings, and so reactive that the smallest spark will result in what mechanics refer to as a "thermal event".

Solar is only so reliable because most of the US gets indirect sunlight, and much of that is blocked because of clouds. Where we have all the water, we have the most clouds, and where we have the most sun, there is almost no water. Solar panels have advanced 200% atleast in the last 20 years, but they are still not nearly efficient enough to provide a viable means.

Geothermal, hydroelectric, and windmills are all excellent energy sources, but the problems with these are they are limited in output and geography. If it isn't there, you can't harvest it.

The immediate future will likely be plant-based fuels. Farther on we will likely have to pursue nuclear alternatives, and hopefully solar alternatives will be more viable.

ugh, you do realize your farts are made of methane. Do we really want fart smelling cars?Methane is odourless. What you are smelling is sulphur and bodily pheremones, and odours that come out with the methane.

Hydrogen is a fairly good choice. It can easily and cheaply be manufactured in sunny coastal regions (solar energy), the process also produces many byproducts that may be sold on very profitably - such as halogens (F, Cl, Br, and I).

Hydrogen fuel is excellent for urban areas as no carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide is produced, nor any other pollutants associated with carbon-based fuels.

Much of the infrastructure to sell hydrogen at the pump already exists, at least in the UK. Many petrol stations in the UK have been installing LPG (liquified petroleum gas) pumps.

Hydrogen can also be manufactured in areas with with access to water and electricity. Since the planet is two thirds water, finding water shouldn't be too much of a problem. Electricity is slightly more problematic. However, renewable energy sources have advanced dramatically in recent decades. Sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, tidal, wave, hydroelectric, biomass. Other sources could include ethanol, nuclear, 'green' coal (of which there are phenominal reserves of) and others.

The main benefit of Hydrogen in my view is that there is no pollution produced at point of use, and depending on the type of energy used, minimal pollution in the manufacturing process.

edit: I heard on the news today that the UK accounts for 2% of pollution/global warming gases/whatever. If the UK was to turn off completely today, China would make up the difference in two years. What this means to me is that carbon-neutral fuels should we taken up by developed countries as quickly as possible. This will create a market for such fuels which developing countries can integrate into. Many developing countries complain that the west expects them to give up growth to be green. If a market can be created whereby being green and growth are not mutually exclusive then China has no grounds to complain. The technology is already there, so no investment on their part is required. It's green. It will be able to replace fossil fuels without sacrificing growth. Developing countries are the fastest growing polluters (and some of the biggest), so efforts should be concentrated on helping them to curb their emissions.

Get on your bikes and ride!

*Air guitars*

I was waiting for someone to suggest clockwork.

Oh well.:(

I actively chose a power provider who only supplies electricity from hydroelectric plants and wind power.

Hydroelectric plants. Uh huh. And damming up a river is good for the environment how, exactly?

And of course, these power providers don't come magically out of an elf grove. They have to be constructed, and the construction Uses Valuable Resources.

I also pay a premium for "green electricity" and I also pay an environmental tax on it (which is lower than tax on other sources of electricity since the choices I've made are meant to be encouraged), and I gladly do so. My home has been fitted with several adaptations to lower its dependence on non-renewable resources, and all of the appliances in it I chose to be the most conserving kinds available; that includes my computer, which I chose actively thinking of its power use.

So really, you only chose "green" because it's taxed less. I guess that might be appealing in a place where so much of your life gets sucked away by the government in the form of taxes.

Was this all easy? Or cheap? No. Can I do more? Of course I can. And I strive to. Do I bitch about having to do it? No. Because it needs to be done.

Of COURSE you bitch about having to do it - primarily by bashing those who don't. You either dismiss (US minutiae) those who aren't "penalized" enough for not being "green" enough, or you bash them. I.E you and Soheran having this little three-way with Wilgrove. It's not helpful at all towards making your point, in fact it makes me rather glad to be an American where, alas, the only "penalty" for using evil cars inefficiently in a city and irresponsibly is the risk of death by accident and the constant upkeep cost in terms of both maintenance and fuel.

There's a way to solve the environmental problem, but that way is not necessarily yours, or Sweden's, way.

http://www.castlewales.com/trebucht.jpg

Great for short commutes.

Hydrogen, possibly stored in the form of Ammonia. It's already been done. (http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=512)

http://www.castlewales.com/trebucht.jpg

Great for short commutes.
Although it won't Get Two Jags to work, on account of the weight.

Oh, and that's our Deputy PM for those not in the know.

Although it won't Get Two Jags to work, on account of the weight.

Oh, and that's our Deputy PM for those not in the know.

You just fling the passenger along the desired trajectory.

ugh, you do realize your farts are made of methane. Do we really want fart smelling cars?

You do realise methane is odourless and it's the sulfur that smells like farts?

You just fling the passenger along the desired trajectory.
Well, in Prescott terms, the desired trajectory is something along the lines of Outer Space.

Methane, so we could have methane-powered dunebuggies to fight in the post-apocalyptic desert with.

Methane? And you think NYC smelled bad yesterday?

I don't particularly care about US minutiae, but on a larger scale most people live in cities, where cars are an unnecessary nuisance, as they are when moving between the cities.
I have family scattered across the country. Going to see them necessarily requires I drive for at least 14 hours.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all of these options are viable, and will be used at different places and different times depending on several factors including their relative viability, whether someone can make a buck out of it, whether someone can save a buck out of it, and a host of other reasons.

In the end, what matters more than the type of fuel is how well you can close the loop so that a minimum of matter and energy is lost. If all waste products can be reused, then who cares what you're burning/fermenting/puncturing/incubating/strapping under the hood.

Hydrogen, possibly stored in the form of Ammonia. It's already been done. (http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=512)*blinks* Why on earth would you use Ammonia instead of hydrogen as fuel when Ammonia is made from Hydrogen gas? Add to that the reaction used to create ammonia is exothermic it is questionable why you would want to use ammonia. The only answer is greater energy density in ammonia. 1 mol of Ammonia contains 3 mols of hydrogen (1.5mols of hydrogen gas). Hydrogen gas releases 118kcal/mol when burnt. Turning ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen requires 92kcal/mol. Essentially meaning you get less energy per mol in ammonia than hydrogen. Again, my question, why ammonia? :confused:

Buttered toast/cat. Tie buttered toast to a cat's back. Buttered toast always lands butter side down. Cat's always land on their feet. If you then throw the cat up in the air the buttered toast/cat engine will spin there indefinately. You can use the phenomenon to spin a turbine and generate electricty.

Luckily, several aviation fans like myself, as well as engineering firm are working on an alternative fuel that we can use in General Aviation aircrafts. One of them being Ethanol. Another one, Bio-Fuel.

Which is fine, and therefore should not by punished as much as the use of gas.


The only people who are "harmed" by it are idiots who think they have the right to a "quiet" neighborhood because of those noisy airplanes landing and taking off

oil use? global warming? why are you making up strawmen?


Five bucks says my accountant can find a loophole.

An accountant? How is he buying cheap gas for you? It's not like you have to pay this kind of tax by adding it to your tax return... You pay it directly at the store...

Actually Libertarians Views as well as my own is that Government has no right to tell you what to do on your own private property, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's right.
Right to live in a well-climated world anyone?

My hobby/obsessions with aviation is on my own private property (the aircraft is private) and my hobby does not infringe on the right of you, Fass, or anyone else. So, nice try, but too bad.

And how does paying taxes infringe on your rights?

We should be focusing on not replacing them. Public transportation ftw.
QFT.

*blinks* Why on earth would you use Ammonia instead of hydrogen as fuel when Ammonia is made from Hydrogen gas? Add to that the reaction used to create ammonia is exothermic it is questionable why you would want to use ammonia. The only answer is greater energy density in ammonia. 1 mol of Ammonia contains 3 mols of hydrogen (1.5mols of hydrogen gas). Hydrogen gas releases 118kcal/mol when burnt. Turning ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen requires 92kcal/mol. Essentially meaning you get less energy per mol in ammonia than hydrogen. Again, my question, why ammonia? :confused:
Ammonia decomposes to form Nitrogen and Hydrogen at the temperatures reached in some fuel cells, so the energy released per mole of Hydrogen input is identical. No Ammonia is combusted at all. Furthermore, the reaction to produce Ammonia from Methane is in modern chemical plants energy neutral (using heat exchangers to take heat from exothermic stages to endothermic stages), so that gives us time to create the infrastructure for producing Ammonia/Hydrogen from water, and gives us instant supply of 'clean' fuel in the interim.

However, the real reason why we can't use Hydrogen in its; raw form is that it is well and truly impossible to store. It's really too light and has a very low energy density (kJ/m^3), a flammable gas, leaks like a bitch and turns metal brittle. Ammonia reduces these problems if used as a storage medium.

Buttered toast/cat. Tie buttered toast to a cat's back. Buttered toast always lands butter side down. Cat's always land on their feet. If you then throw the cat up in the air the buttered toast/cat engine will spin there indefinately. You can use the phenomenon to spin a turbine and generate electricty.

That's ingenious!

You shoul get the Nobel price for your great idea. ;)

(Or I could start building such a device and get the Nobel price for myself. :p )

Right to live in a well-climated world anyone?

Sorry not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

And how does paying taxes infringe on your rights?

Excessive taxation that is used to "punish" someone is an infringement on my rights.

All of you people saying that gasoline usage should be taxed are only working with part of the picture. All you know is that he is using an airplane. So he's using some sort of gasoline, also, there are already taxes on gasoline involved. You don't know how much. You guys all use some gasoline too, for all you know you are using more. What if you are not using more? Why is the bar at your level. From your tones it's like you think your level is environmentally friendly saints, and the guy flying the plane is a gass guzzling punishment needing cohort of the devil. Where exactly is that line drawn?

You act like there are no safe guards involved, in America everything that needs to produce emissions has a class. If it produces that amount or less than everything is fine, if it's more I believe you are fined, and you need to ake steps to solve the problem. For example, all cars in the US are required to have regular smog checkups. I have never had a car that failed one, so I am not 100% sure on what happens when you do. But anyways, the system is there. It's not like he is flying up to 120k feet, or however high it is, and blasting away at the ozone layer with a smog cannon. He's flying his regular old, probably pretty clean running plane. Buying his fuel, and paying all the necessary taxes associated with it. And as long as he keeps his plane in good condition, keeps on buying that fuel, and keeps on paying those taxes, he can do it as often as he likes. And, really, that seems to be exactly what you want him to do, so I really can't see why you people are so angry at him.

Sorry not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Indeed, after a quick look into your constitution it seems to me that while you have to right to assemble, you do not have the right to live. However,


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Not precisely what I looked for; still, "You can't make a law to tax my hobby because there is no law saying the damage it causes to other people is to be avoided"? What kind of argument is that?

Sorry not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.



Excessive taxation that is used to "punish" someone is an infringement on my rights.

You do realise that most of the biosphere is not located within the USA, right?

Therefore your arguments concerning these documents whn discussing ecological issues is limited at best and pointless at worst.

Excessive, i.e. unnecessary, pollution that contributes to the rate of disease among children is an infringement of the child's life.

The people who suffer most from environmental degradation are those who are already suffering: those who live in endemic poverty. By limiting our impact on the environment, we help those less fortunate than ourselves.

After all, Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble. (Psalm 41:1)

You guys all use some gasoline too, for all you know you are using more. What if you are not using more?

Ah, but I'm sure Fass pays his taxes as well, provided he drives a car. Which is the point of the whole discussion; having to pay for the amount of gas you use so you try to minimise it as much as possible. Only that Fass wouldn't need this kind of incentive, as he seems to be responsible by himself.
Moreover, for my part, that would have to be indirect fuel consumption only (given that I don't even own a car).

Buying his fuel, and paying all the necessary taxes associated with it. And as long as he keeps his plane in good condition, keeps on buying that fuel, and keeps on paying those taxes, he can do it as often as he likes. And, really, that seems to be exactly what you want him to do, so I really can't see why you people are so angry at him.
Indeed, though it seems he doesn't understand that. We just don't think the taxes are high enough yet.

Ammonia decomposes to form Nitrogen and Hydrogen at the temperatures reached in some fuel cells, so the energy released per mole of Hydrogen input is identical. No Ammonia is combusted at all. Furthermore, the reaction to produce Ammonia from Methane is in modern chemical plants energy neutral (using heat exchangers to take heat from exothermic stages to endothermic stages), so that gives us time to create the infrastructure for producing Ammonia/Hydrogen from water, and gives us instant supply of 'clean' fuel in the interim.

However, the real reason why we can't use Hydrogen in its; raw form is that it is well and truly impossible to store. It's really too light and has a very low energy density (kJ/m^3), a flammable gas, leaks like a bitch and turns metal brittle. Ammonia reduces these problems if used as a storage medium.Thanks for the post. Whilst looking up ammonia internal combustion engines and fuel cells I found that a hydrogen ICE will produce NOx if it sources Oxygen from air.
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/download/2005/Ganley_fuelcell.pdf
On page 13 it show that a direct burn of ammonia would be less polluting as any NOx produced can be further reacted with ammonia to produce water and nitrogen before the exhaust is released into the atmosphere.

Thanks for the post. Whilst looking up ammonia internal combustion engines and fuel cells I found that a hydrogen ICE will produce NOx if it sources Oxygen from air.
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/download/2005/Ganley_fuelcell.pdf
On page 13 it show that a direct burn of ammonia would be less polluting as any NOx produced can be further reacted with ammonia to produce water and nitrogen before the exhaust is released into the atmosphere.
No probs. I found an interesting site about using cells with direct Ammonia that seems quite interesting:
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/download/2005/Ganley_fuelcell.pdf

It also deals with NOx emissions briefly too.

Indeed, after a quick look into your constitution it seems to me that while you have to right to assemble, you do not have the right to live. However,

and so far my hobby does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. See this is where we differ. I argue from the base of law and logic. You argue from emotions.

Not precisely what I looked for; still, "You can't make a law to tax my hobby because there is no law saying the damage it causes to other people is to be avoided"? What kind of argument is that?

Its an argument void of emotions and uses the written law.

No probs. I found an interesting site about using cells with direct Ammonia that seems quite interesting:
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/download/2005/Ganley_fuelcell.pdf

It also deals with NOx emissions briefly too.haha, did you mean to post the same link as me?

The Protonic Ammonia fuel cell on page 22 looked pretty good.

You do realise that most of the biosphere is not located within the USA, right?

Yes, but since I do live under USA laws, and I do fly only within US Airspace, I only have to worry about the US and it's laws and regulation.


Therefore your arguments concerning these documents whn discussing ecological issues is limited at best and pointless at worst.

Meh.


Excessive, i.e. unnecessary, pollution that contributes to the rate of disease among children is an infringement of the child's life.

Proof.


The people who suffer most from environmental degradation are those who are already suffering: those who live in endemic poverty. By limiting our impact on the environment, we help those less fortunate than ourselves.

And I'm sure we can do that without taxing the crap out of people who's hobby involved a combustion engine.

Indeed, though it seems he doesn't understand that. We just don't think the taxes are high enough yet.

and that is why I am fighting this. You think that just because I fly for fun, that I should be "taxed" more. Government shall make no laws or taxation that will in effect change my lifestyle, when government gets that power, then we're pretty much screwed because the government has taken away our right to choose.

And I'm sure we can do that without taxing the crap out of people who's hobby involved a combustion engine.

No, sorry. Can't. It's too bad. Pay.

Yes, but since I do live under USA laws, and I do fly only within US Airspace, I only have to worry about the US and it's laws and regulation.



Meh.



Proof.



And I'm sure we can do that without taxing the crap out of people who's hobby involved a combustion engine.

Don't you love socialism? Tax those who have it to pay for those who don't. Etc.


No, hydrogen/electric are NOT the wave of the future. E-85 and Biodiesel are MUCH more viable alternatives. Easier to use, no radical changes, less cost, etc.

No, sorry. Can't. It's too bad. Pay.

Uh huh, so I guess making more efficient combustion engine, having those little devices that limits the amount of pollution an engine puts out, and having engine gets more and more miles to the gallons or Gallons per Hour was all worthless and we should just all stop improving the combustion engine right?

Uh huh, so I guess making more efficient combustion engine, having those little devices that limits the amount of pollution an engine puts out, and having engine gets more and more miles to the gallons or Gallons per Hour was all worthless and we should just all stop improving the combustion engine right?

No, improve it til it poops candy. Pay extra taxes on the fuel you use. Make those taxes go to developing your more efficient engines and alternate fuels.

No, hydrogen/electric are NOT the wave of the future. E-85 and Biodiesel are MUCH more viable alternatives. Easier to use, no radical changes, less cost, etc.

I actually hate socialism for that very reason. I happen to have enough money to enjoy the magic of flight in a small 4 seater single piston engine aircraft, so I should be taxed enough so I can't enjoy it as much.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot tell you how many aviation fans like myself, as well as aviation engineering firms are working on making the General Aviation engines adaptable to E-85 and Biodiesel. Hell we're even working on Bio-Fuel. I was at AirVenture last Summer, and they show an airplane much like mine running on E-85, and really it only required a few modification to the engine.

No, improve it til it poops candy. Pay extra taxes on the fuel you use.

I love the oil lobbyist, I really do. I also love the General Aviation lobbyist like the AOPA too. I love them both!

I actually hate socialism for that very reason. I happen to have enough money to enjoy the magic of flight in a small 4 seater single piston engine aircraft, so I should be taxed enough so I can't enjoy it as much.

You are absolutely correct. I cannot tell you how many aviation fans like myself, as well as aviation engineering firms are working on making the General Aviation engines adaptable to E-85 and Biodiesel. Hell we're even working on Bio-Fuel. I was at AirVenture last Summer, and they show an airplane much like mine running on E-85, and really it only required a few modification to the engine.

Capitalism is teh suxxor!11!!!!


:p

No, improve it til it poops candy. Pay extra taxes on the fuel you use. Make those taxes go to developing your more efficient engines and alternate fuels.


SUBSIDIZING THE BIG HYBRID COMPANIES!!1111!!! OH NOES11!!!11!!! HYBRIDBURTON! THE EVIL EMPIRE!!111!! NO WAR FOR HYBRIDS11!!!!

Capitalism is teh suxxor!11!!!!


:p

When did responsibility become a war on capitalism?

SUBSIDIZING THE BIG HYBRID COMPANIES!!1111!!! OH NOES11!!!11!!! HYBRIDBURTON! THE EVIL EMPIRE!!111!! NO WAR FOR HYBRIDS11!!!!

OK, sweet-ums. Settle down.

When did responsibility become a war on capitalism?

Well right about the time you and people like you think that it's ok to force people to change their lifestyle through taxation.

Well right about the time you and people like you think that it's ok to force people to change their lifestyle through taxation.

You don't have to change it. You just have to accept responsibility for it. I mean, unless you want to go ahead and plant some trees or something.

You don't have to change it. You just have to accept responsibility for it. I mean, unless you want to go ahead and plant some trees or something.

My family lives in 13 acres of nothing but trees. But if planting trees will mean I don't have to pay extra taxes, sign me up.

My family lives in 13 acres of nothing but trees. But if planting trees will mean I don't have to pay extra taxes, sign me up.

How many trees you live around means nothing.

I'm not sure what sort of plans would be going into effect but I think there ought to be a way of offsetting your emissions through deeds like planting trees. It would probably involve more paperwork and labor than you'd be willing to give when you could just pay the tax but you seem like a man of principle.

Yes, but since I do live under USA laws, and I do fly only within US Airspace, I only have to worry about the US and it's laws and regulation.



Meh.



Proof.



And I'm sure we can do that without taxing the crap out of people who's hobby involved a combustion engine.

Yes, it is true that the only concerns you will be forced to accept responsibility for are those that your governments will enforce on you. That is not what I was trying to point out. Ecology teaches us that life is interdependent and the actions of one organism can have impacts on the rest of the biosphere. Therefore the actions of those of us who live in, and enjoy the fruits of, advanced western capitalist societies will have an ecological impact on the rest of the biosphere.

The example I used was increased rates of disease in children due to the proximity of toxic emissions from internal combustion engines.

You asked for proof.

Here:
What this paper adds
It elaborates previous findings of a link between internal combustion engine fuelling/operating and births of children later developing cancer/leukaemia. Shows further evidence that the link is through exhaust gases and that 1,3-butadiene is the most probable causal agent. Establishes short (0.1–0.5 km) effective ranges and shows that over 24% of child cancers are thus initiated. Infers probable occurrence of "biological magnification" with mothers accumulating and concentrating carcinogens over extended periods.

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/60/2/136

Therefore people who enjoy recreational use of internal combustion engines should be taxed enough to pay for the care and treatment of these children. As a libertarian and a christian, I would assume that you would be able to shoulder the responsibility of caring for those who are harmed by your actions.

Or at least own up to it with more than a 'meh'.

Hydroelectric plants. Uh huh. And damming up a river is good for the environment how, exactly?

You obviously have not seen how that's been done in Sweden.

And of course, these power providers don't come magically out of an elf grove. They have to be constructed, and the construction Uses Valuable Resources.

Actually they used recycled and renewed materials and had very rigorous environmental standards applied to their construction as to be ecologically sustainable.

So really, you only chose "green" because it's taxed less.

I would have chosen it regardless, as I have character. The fact that not everyone has the same high moral fibre as I do in the matter means the government must encourage this behaviour, and punish the leaches and moochers and idiots that don't, and I'm glad it does.

I guess that might be appealing in a place where so much of your life gets sucked away by the government in the form of taxes.

If your entire life is measured by how little you pay in taxes, then you are a pitiful creature indeed. Excuse me for not stopping to feel that pity towards you, I'm busy enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Of COURSE you bitch about having to do it - primarily by bashing those who don't.

Wait, so I'm complaining about something by not complaining about it? Your logic is certainly impeccable. The non-sequitur is quite not understandable.

You either dismiss (US minutiae)

Of course I do, because I don't give a shit about US politics and don't care about its congress and whatnots.

those who aren't "penalized" enough for not being "green" enough, or you bash them. I.E you and Soheran having this little three-way with Wilgrove. It's not helpful at all towards making your point, in fact it makes me rather glad to be an American where, alas, the only "penalty" for using evil cars inefficiently in a city and irresponsibly is the risk of death by accident and the constant upkeep cost in terms of both maintenance and fuel.

You are the most polluting country out there. It comes as no surprise that you should act this spoilt, but you yourself aren't that unique, unfortunately. 300 million of you are ignoring a problem that cannot be fixed painlessly. So, all you can bring yourselves to do is to go "lalalalalalala!"

There's a way to solve the environmental problem, but that way is not necessarily yours, or Sweden's, way.

One thing's for certain, it's not the US way, as the US has no way.

How many trees you live around means nothing.

I'm not sure what sort of plans would be going into effect but I think there ought to be a way of offsetting your emissions through deeds like planting trees. It would probably involve more paperwork and labor than you'd be willing to give when you could just pay the tax but you seem like a man of principle.

Anything to not pay "extra" taxes is pretty much the whole reason I'm willing to plant trees or do something for "mother earth". Let's be clear about that, I'm not doing it because I believe in your philosophy, it just won't sting my wallet as much.

I have family scattered across the country. Going to see them necessarily requires I drive for at least 14 hours.

What, I'm supposed to commiserate with you for choosing to live where you do? That's your problem. Not up to the eco-system to support or facilitate your deleterious choices.

Anything to not pay "extra" taxes is pretty much the whole reason I'm willing to plant trees or do something for "mother earth". Let's be clear about that, I'm not doing it because I believe in your philosophy, it just won't sting my wallet as much.

I wonder how it would work out. If the taxes would work out to be less than the cost of seedlings, plus the man hours required to plant them.

I wonder how it would work out. If the taxes would work out to be less than the cost of seedlings, plus the man hours required to plant them.

I got tools to plant the seedlings.

What, I'm supposed to commiserate with you for choosing to live where you do? That's your problem. Not up to the eco-system to support or facilitate your deleterious choices.
I won't apologise for living in a huge empty country.

But since the marginal effects of my driving are negligible, I feel no incentive to change my behaviour.

I won't apologise for living in a huge empty country.

And I won't shed a single tear for you over it.

But since the marginal effects of my driving are negligible, I feel no incentive to change my behaviour.

And my point has been in this thread that the incentive must be imposed. This dawdling with your kind needs to end.

and so far my hobby does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. See this is where we differ. I argue from the base of law and logic. You argue from emotions.

My logic, however, requires that you be alive in order to enjoy any further rights.

You think that just because I fly for fun, that I should be "taxed" more. Government shall make no laws or taxation that will in effect change my lifestyle, when government gets that power, then we're pretty much screwed because the government has taken away our right to choose.
Do I think so? I thought I think everybody should pay the same tax, regardless if it's a hobby or anything else, but who am I to say what I'm thinking?
...and didn't you say there was already some taxes? It seems you were still able to choose flying, no?

Uh huh, so I guess making more efficient combustion engine, having those little devices that limits the amount of pollution an engine puts out, and having engine gets more and more miles to the gallons or Gallons per Hour was all worthless and we should just all stop improving the combustion engine right?

By now, you should be aware nobody talks about taxing combustion engines, right? Improving the combustion engine means less gas use, so less taxes. This means incentive taxes give an incentive to improve them (therefore the name)...

You obviously have not seen how that's been done in Sweden.

Oh, obviously. Maybe you've got matter-energy converters.

Actually they used recycled and renewed materials and had very rigorous environmental standards applied to their construction as to be ecologically sustainable.

Recycled and renewed plastic and metal and machinery, eh? Too bad that still uses (wastes) resources. Frivolously!

I would have chosen it regardless, as I have character. The fact that not everyone has the same high moral fibre as I do in the matter means the government must encourage this behaviour, and punish the leaches and moochers and idiots that don't, and I'm glad it does.

I know you like to think that choosing whatever you're told is eco-friendly makes you have character, but I also know your central tenet seems to be "people are stupid" and "government knows best," so I can only view your comments regarding "leaches" to be hypocrisy.

If your entire life is measured by how little you pay in taxes, then you are a pitiful creature indeed. Excuse me for not stopping to feel that pity towards you, I'm busy enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Actually, because I *have character*, I tend to oppose the idea of other people controlling, or trying to control, me. I don't want nor need your pity anymore than I'd need it from a slave. Your high standard of living comes at a cost, an undeniable cost, and one that comes at the expense of those with lesser standards of living.

Wait, so I'm complaining about something by not complaining about it? Your logic is certainly impeccable. The non-sequitur is quite not understandable.

The form your complaint takes is one of hostility towards others. It's a pretty common form of complaints. "They have it better," "they have it worse," "they are leaches," "they are wasting mah resources," "blah blah blah your kind blah blah blah dawdling blah blah blah you should be made to pay taxes like I do!"

Of course I do, because I don't give a shit about US politics and don't care about its congress and whatnots.

Pretty small-minded considering the importance of the USA to global politics and environment. I guess you only care about your tiny section of the world. Fine, so be it - but then you have no place harping on against Wilgrove and others who don't seem to fit into your preferred paradigm of eco-totalitarianism. In fact your tendency to do so tells me that you do indeed give a shit. It's just unfortunate that's all you're giving.


You are the most polluting country out there. It comes as no surprise that you should act this spoilt, but you yourself aren't that unique, unfortunately. 300 million of you are ignoring a problem that cannot be fixed painlessly. So, all you can bring yourselves to do is to go "lalalalalalala!"

You must be right due to that amazing Swedish mind-reading ability, and 300 million people are all "ignoring the problem" just because I and Wilgrove happen to disagree with your bullshit on this forum on this thread.


One thing's for certain, it's not the US way, as the US has no way.

We pretty much invented the modern environmental movement.

But I know that for all you like to pretend you don't give a shit about the US, you can't miss an opportunity to remind us lowly, spoiled, idiotic, dawdling and inexplicably irrelevant peons just how inferior our country is.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/

Hydrogen. All they need is a few more fuel stations (there are only two in Germany at the moment). Combine with Prius-style hybrid electric motors, and you have a pretty decent solution.

Recycled and renewed plastic and metal and machinery, eh? Too bad that still uses (wastes) resources. Frivolously!
It's not about being perfect, it's about trying. And encouraging people who don't give a shit to not polluting the air.


Actually, because I *have character*, I tend to oppose the idea of other people controlling, or trying to control, me. I don't want nor need your pity anymore than I'd need it from a slave.

Slave, huh? I, on the other hand, happen to believe people are equal, slave or CEO.
Your high standard of living comes at a cost, an undeniable cost, and one that comes at the expense of those with lesser standards of living.
How so? Is ecological energy produced in sweatshops?


Pretty small-minded considering the importance of the USA to global politics and environment. I guess you only care about your tiny section of the world.
Then again, you don't even care about YOUR section of the world, so why would you be on a higher ground there?

It's not about being perfect, it's about trying. And encouraging people who don't give a shit to not polluting the air.

Condescension and mockery on an internet forum doesn't incourage anyone to do anything but respond in kind.

Slave, huh? I, on the other hand, happen to believe people are equal, slave or CEO.

That's nice... I tend to believe the same.

How so? Is ecological energy produced in sweatshops?

To answer this question, you would have to track the make and manufacture of every single component in the station's construction and maintenance, including all those used in transportation and trade of components and materials, and harvesting of the materials to begin with. Now, I'm not a genius, but I know that is a whole lot of stuff, and it is too much to accept that every single bit of that involved NO pollution. To say nothing of the usage of finite and valuable resources.

Then again, you don't even care about YOUR section of the world, so why would you be on a higher ground there?

Well, the difference is I am not taking a position of superiority by bashing other posters and "their kind" for the foul crime of not being me or from my country.

And frankly you don't have a clue about how much I care about my section of the world.

Electric cars, with the power garnered from renewable energy sources, is the best direction IMO. Hydrogen is still a long way off from being viable; meanwhile there are already electric cars easily usable for a vast majority of the population. Within a decade with the proper money put into it they could easily replace petroleum-powered cars.

Thoughts?
Not now. I voted for electric because I do think that they will be the best bet in the not too distant future but as of now they just plain suck. The EV1 from GM got a piss-poor 60 miles per charge. A good car will be able to get about 300 miles to the tank. Tesla Motors has an electric car that they claim can go 250 miles on a charge and still deliver good performance but it takes almost 4 hours to charge and costs 100 grand. Until both the charge time and price drop it will be nothing but something the rich can show off.

That being said, I do think the price will drop with time but you have to understand that power doesn't just come out of thin air. Wind is too intermitent and the power can drop a lot faster than the wind speed. Solar works best around the equator in areas with little cloud cover like deserts and worst near the poles and/or in areas with lots of or varying cloud cover. You could cover a desert in solar cells but the cost would be huge. Hydro-electric dams can only go up where you have a river and half the time eco-nuts bitch about how it'll screw up a river ecosystem. Hydrogen takes power to make so you start off in the red and only go downhill from there. Fusion technology doesn't exist. Everybody hates coal. Everyone's afraid of fission even though it's got really low accident rates, is very clean, compact, and reliable.

Condescension and mockery on an internet forum doesn't incourage anyone to do anything but respond in kind.

True. The right kind of tax does, though.


That's nice... I tend to believe the same.

That's fine. This I don't want nor need your pity anymore than I'd need it from a slave. , then, means you regard Fass's pity as highly as your own. I'm not going to investigate why you would make that comment in the first place.


To answer this question, you would have to track the make and manufacture of every single component in the station's construction and maintenance, including all those used in transportation and trade of components and materials, and harvesting of the materials to begin with.

That's not the point, is it? Although, with regards to fuel related pollution, apply the tax anywhere on the world on it will simply add up. It's a bit more complicated on a worldwide scale, though.


And frankly you don't have a clue about how much I care about my section of the world.
Wilgrove's comments, however, indicate that he doesn't give a shit (he says so himself, after all). Fass's mostly responded to him. With you attacking Fass, I assumed you agreed with Wilgrove.

Anyway, I wish you a good... evening? In any case, it's getting 2 a.m. here, so I'm off for tonight.

Right now, hybrid vehicles that run on biofuels, hydrogen, electricity, natural gas, and LPG. It would make sense to use conventional hybrids as a stepping stone to agrofuels/LPG/natgas hybrids, then to cellulosic ethanol/algae biodiesel/biogas hybrids, and then to hydrogen and electric vehicles. Butanol and methanol could also play a role in this if an economi

We're not going to be able to put all our energy needs in to one fuel at this point in time; it's going to be a gradual transition to increasingly renewable sources of fuel, but will start with the conventional petroleum and natural gas fuels we have now.

OK, its 2007.... WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR!?!?!?! We were supposed to have flying cars by now dammit!!!! :cool:

OK, its 2007.... WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR!?!?!?! We were supposed to have flying cars by now dammit!!!! :cool:

Eh, I'd rather have a personal spacecraft than a flying car. Taking a spin to Jupiter or a vacation to the Centauri system would be a lot cooler than just flying around in a vehicle on Earth.

One can dream...

OK, its 2007.... WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR!?!?!?! We were supposed to have flying cars by now dammit!!!! :cool:
There are a few flying cars. They usually cost over a hundred thousand dollars. Many are custom built. You'd probably be better off with a small helicopter.

Eh, I'd rather have a personal spacecraft than a flying car. Taking a spin to Jupiter or a vacation to the Centauri system would be a lot cooler than just flying around in a vehicle on Earth.

One can dream...
That'd be next to impossible. A long-range ship would never be able to actually land on a planet, it would carry landers with it about the size of a Delta Clipper or Shuttle. And the trip to the Centauri system would take your whole life if you were using NPR's, NERVA's, and ion engines firing the whole trip. If you used anything less you'd die in transit. And the mass ratio would be astronomical with the 3 engine types listed and impossible with chemical rockets. An anti-matter plasma engine might do the trick but you'd need to find anti-matter and it's in short supply.

Okay, okay guys, get this: I've got a great idea that I've not seen anyone suggest yet:

What if...we put windmills...ON CARS?

Think about it. The whole problem with windmills is that the power generation is entirely subjective to the power of the wind. What's more, the amount of power generated sharply goes up or down depending on wind speed. Well even the slow speeds of thirty-five miles per hour on most city streets is more than enough for a windmill to generate significant power relatively speaking for its size. So why not take advantage of the air drag on cars by putting windmills on them to help charge up electric batteries?

That'd be next to impossible. A long-range ship would never be able to actually land on a planet, it would carry landers with it about the size of a Delta Clipper or Shuttle. And the trip to the Centauri system would take your whole life if you were using NPR's, NERVA's, and ion engines firing the whole trip. If you used anything less you'd die in transit. And the mass ratio would be astronomical with the 3 engine types listed and impossible with chemical rockets. An anti-matter plasma engine might do the trick but you'd need to find anti-matter and it's in short supply.

I figured it would be...what're we looking at for the antimatter? 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? Chances are, I'm not going to be here to see it but you never know...

Okay, okay guys, get this: I've got a great idea that I've not seen anyone suggest yet:

What if...we put windmills...ON CARS?

Think about it. The whole problem with windmills is that the power generation is entirely subjective to the power of the wind. What's more, the amount of power generated sharply goes up or down depending on wind speed. Well even the slow speeds of thirty-five miles per hour on most city streets is more than enough for a windmill to generate significant power relatively speaking for its size. So why not take advantage of the air drag on cars by putting windmills on them to help charge up electric batteries?

Hmm, I could see someone getting their head chop off.

Okay, okay guys, get this: I've got a great idea that I've not seen anyone suggest yet:

What if...we put windmills...ON CARS?

Think about it. The whole problem with windmills is that the power generation is entirely subjective to the power of the wind. What's more, the amount of power generated sharply goes up or down depending on wind speed. Well even the slow speeds of thirty-five miles per hour on most city streets is more than enough for a windmill to generate significant power relatively speaking for its size. So why not take advantage of the air drag on cars by putting windmills on them to help charge up electric batteries?

That would just burn even more fuel. The windmills would not take advantage of the drag already there, it would produce more drag. You would be getting electricity solely from the speed of the car, which would be coming as a result of the engine. So the engine would have to work the normal amount to keep the car going whatever speed it is going, then put in the extra energy to overcome the added drag. Now, if it was a perfect system you would break even, but with how efficient it is possible to make things you'd probably only get like 30% of it back. The other 70% would just come straight from your mileage.

That would just burn even more fuel. The windmills would not take advantage of the drag already there, it would produce more drag. You would be getting electricity solely from the speed of the car, which would be coming as a result of the engine. So the engine would have to work the normal amount to keep the car going whatever speed it is going, then put in the extra energy to overcome the added drag. Now, if it was a perfect system you would break even, but with how efficient it is possible to make things you'd probably only get like 30% of it back. The other 70% would just come straight from your mileage.

I know that, but no one else was coming up with anything. They were just fighting with each other. We need more innovation. Without innovation, we have nothing.

I know that, but no one else was coming up with anything. They were just fighting with each other. We need more innovation. Without innovation, we have nothing.

If we have nothing, that means we have less windmills in odd places.

The sun is probably the only source of energy in the future. Solar, wind and bio-diesel.

My friend runs his van on home made bio, but this is illegal. The government want nearly £2000 a year from him in taxes and licenses, so he does it without telling them.

Whatever the future, we can't do it without big business and government say so.

That would just burn even more fuel. The windmills would not take advantage of the drag already there, it would produce more drag. You would be getting electricity solely from the speed of the car, which would be coming as a result of the engine. So the engine would have to work the normal amount to keep the car going whatever speed it is going, then put in the extra energy to overcome the added drag. Now, if it was a perfect system you would break even, but with how efficient it is possible to make things you'd probably only get like 30% of it back. The other 70% would just come straight from your mileage.

Incorrect.

The initial movement of the car would cause the windmill to rotate, providing power to the wheels, causing them to spin faster, hence speeding up the car.
This would make the windmill rotate faster and increase the acceleration of the car further.

The vehicle's velocity would increase exponentially until it reached the speed of light, at which time the windmill would be rotating so fast that the vehicle would transcend the logical plane of existence, and teleport to the illogical plane of existence.

This is why there is no physical existence of such a device, and all the scientists who have ever created a prototype mysteriously disappeared during their maiden voyage.

Methane, so we could have methane-powered dunebuggies to fight in the post-apocalyptic desert with.

I second this. lets all be pig farmers.

And my point has been in this thread that the incentive must be imposed. This dawdling with your kind needs to end.
Why do you get to engage in this kind of social engineering?