PDA

View Full Version : Future car - Bye bye oil and it's inherent problems


baja
05-16-2009, 09:01 AM
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

Flex Gunmetal
05-16-2009, 09:30 AM
Why can't anyone even try to make an attractive alt-fuel car?

fdf
05-16-2009, 09:39 AM
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

Interesting way to store energy. I assume the inventor did not approve the video--the inventor was not talking nonsense, conceptually, there's nothing to prevent compressed air from being used to store energy (like a battery) and run a car.

But the video goes off into complete nonsense at the end. "What if we put the compressor on board to compress the air, it would be perpetual motion." The energy has to come from somewhere to compress the air. Air may be free. Compressed air is not. The energy to compress it is going to come from mostly fossil fuels or nuclear energy until there is a really big breakthru in solar, wind, or fusion.

The video was so stupid there at the end that, for a while, I thought they were joking. Sadly, I don't think they were.

fdf
05-16-2009, 09:48 AM
Why can't anyone even try to make an attractive alt-fuel car?

The main problem is, I believe, gasoline has tremendous energy density. That is, it holds a whole lot of energy in not very much space or weight. So you can carry a lot of energy with you. Batteries, hydrogen, etc hold much less energy per pound.

Once you decide to propel a car for more than a few miles at decent speeds with non-gasoline sources, you have to make the car light as a feather. If you don't, it'll go 20 miles at a top speed of 18 mph or something like that. I suspect the silly looking cars come from the compromises that have to be made to make them so light and to fit two people into such a tiny car. (Also because the batteries, or compressed air cylinders or whatever take up more space to hold less energy than gasoline, you have to find someplace to put them. That warps the car design too; or you lose your trunk to batteries).

The most promising technologies for realistic energy efficient cars are gas/battery hybrids (uses gas because of the above storage density considerations but uses the energy in the gas more efficiently) or ultra-capacitors (possibly much better storage capacity than batteries--but still some years down the line).

The big problem is that ordinary people cannot afford hybrids. They are still a rich man's luxury.

Flex Gunmetal
05-16-2009, 09:51 AM
The main problem is, I believe, gasoline has tremendous energy density. That is, it holds a whole lot of energy in not very much space or weight. So you can carry a lot of energy with you. Batteries, hydrogen, etc hold much less energy per pound.

Once you decide to propel a car for more than a few miles at decent speeds with non-gasoline sources, you have to make the car light as a feather. If you don't, it'll go 20 miles at a top speed of 18 mph or something like that. I suspect the silly looking cars come from the compromises that have to be made to make them so light and to fit two people into such a tiny car.

The most promising technologies for realistic energy efficient cars are gas/battery hybrids (uses gas because of the above considerations) or ultra-capacitors (possibly much better storage capacity than batteries--but still some years down the line).
There are plenty of good looking lightweight cars. The prius itself weights just under 3k lbs, IIRC, and it's the ugliest looking car on the road. (Aside from a number of GM products.)

~Crash~
05-16-2009, 09:53 AM
I also like hydraulics it is being used already in big brown trucks (UPS).

fdf
05-16-2009, 09:55 AM
There are plenty of good looking lightweight cars. The prius itself weights just under 3k lbs, IIRC, and it's the ugliest looking car on the road. (Aside from a number of GM products.)

I think it's the combination of required light weight and where do you put all the extra stuff. There's only so much room in a car. When you add x cubic feet of batteries in that space, stuff has to move around a lot. Gasoline storage takes up a lot less space than any of the alternatives because it stores so much energy per cubic inch compared to the alternatives. So you can pay more attention to making the car look nice.

~Crash~
05-16-2009, 09:59 AM
Interesting way to store energy. I assume the inventor did not approve the video--the inventor was not talking nonsense, conceptually, there's nothing to prevent compressed air from being used to store energy (like a battery) and run a car.

But the video goes off into complete nonsense at the end. "What if we put the compressor on board to compress the air, it would be perpetual motion." The energy has to come from somewhere to compress the air. Air may be free. Compressed air is not. The energy to compress it is going to come from mostly fossil fuels or nuclear energy until there is a really big breakthru in solar, wind, or fusion.

The video was so stupid there at the end that, for a while, I thought they were joking. Sadly, I don't think they were.

True that was kind of what I was tring to point out on the free energy video I put up ....I still think electric might be utilized any were since it is ever were.

~Crash~
05-16-2009, 10:09 AM
compressed air would take not much energy to make this is a great Idea and 200 miles is damn fine for a first car being made. In no time they could improve that mileage and the said 4 minuets to recharge if I heard that right damn fine idea . not everyone needs a 4x4 and pull thing with there autos...

watermock
05-16-2009, 07:54 PM
Ultra-capacitor hybrids are the future for now. Much more responsive than lithium-ion. They blow fuel-cells away.

WABronco
05-16-2009, 08:08 PM
Why can't anyone even try to make an attractive alt-fuel car?

Because most alternatives are either innefficient themselves or not feasible.

gyldenlove
05-16-2009, 08:19 PM
I think it's the combination of required light weight and where do you put all the extra stuff. There's only so much room in a car. When you add x cubic feet of batteries in that space, stuff has to move around a lot. Gasoline storage takes up a lot less space than any of the alternatives because it stores so much energy per cubic inch compared to the alternatives. So you can pay more attention to making the car look nice.

The only real alternative right now is Hydrogen, it runs with a slightly modified normal combustion engine so every moving part is the same, the storeage facility is approximately the same size as a large gas tank too.

The other problem with electric, air driven and other new means of car is that a lot of the parts that we currently use are either not used or replaced by different parts such as gear box, clutch etc.. That makes it quite hard to translate prototypes into real equipment because you can't use standard parts that have been tested through and through.

Dukes
05-16-2009, 08:27 PM
There's already a viable alternative to gasoline, made right here in Colorado.
http://www.electriccitymotors.com/
Yet I still don't see anyone involved with this "green" movement talking about them or buying them. Hell I doubt most of you have even heard of this company. Everyone is waiting for the big auto makers to come out with something, but are too blind to see it already exsists.

watermock
05-16-2009, 08:29 PM
Wrong. It's quite inefficient to use nuclear to split H2O into hydrogen, plus it has storage problems due to being a sealed system.

If we had nuclear running out of our ears, it will makemuch lighter car, is that's good I guess.

Sweden makes hydrogen from geothemal on ONE ROAD...good luck with that.

watermock
05-16-2009, 08:44 PM
There's already a viable alternative to gasoline, made right here in Colorado.
http://www.electriccitymotors.com/
Yet I still don't see anyone involved with this "green" movement talking about them or buying them. Hell I doubt most of you have even heard of this company. Everyone is waiting for the big auto makers to come out with something, but are too blind to see it already exsists.

Carbon Nanotube Enhanced Supercapacitors
Recent developments at MIT have shown that the performance of supercapacitors can be significantly improved by using nanomaterials. The energy storage capability of a capacitor is directly proportional to its capacitance which in turn is proportional to the area of the plates or electrodes. Likewise the current carrying capability is directly proportional to the area of the electrodes. By using vertically aligned, single-wall carbon nanotubes which are only several atomic diameters in width instead of the porous, amorphous carbon normally employed, the effective area of the electrodes can be dramatically increased. While the achievable energy density of 60Wh/Kg still can not match the level obtainable in Lithium Ion batteries (120Wh/kg), the power densities achieved of 100kW/kg are three orders of magnitude better than batteries.

Commercial products are not yet available but should be soon.



More information on Alternative Energy Storage Methods page.

See also History (Electrolytic Capacitors)

.

gyldenlove
05-16-2009, 08:46 PM
Carbon Nanotube Enhanced Supercapacitors
Recent developments at MIT have shown that the performance of supercapacitors can be significantly improved by using nanomaterials. The energy storage capability of a capacitor is directly proportional to its capacitance which in turn is proportional to the area of the plates or electrodes. Likewise the current carrying capability is directly proportional to the area of the electrodes. By using vertically aligned, single-wall carbon nanotubes which are only several atomic diameters in width instead of the porous, amorphous carbon normally employed, the effective area of the electrodes can be dramatically increased. While the achievable energy density of 60Wh/Kg still can not match the level obtainable in Lithium Ion batteries (120Wh/kg), the power densities achieved of 100kW/kg are three orders of magnitude better than batteries.

Commercial products are not yet available but should be soon.



More information on Alternative Energy Storage Methods page.

See also History (Electrolytic Capacitors)

Anything that involves carbon nanotubes has a "soon" that may or may not be in our lifetime.

I love how many uses they can find for these things, if they could just produce them with the same output rate as they can put out scientific papers about them it would be awesome.

TexanBob
05-16-2009, 08:58 PM
A car that runs on compressed air, huh?

Must be the FARTMOBILEHilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Good luck getting that up the side of a mountain. :thumbsup:

Dedhed
05-16-2009, 09:33 PM
Why can't anyone even try to make an attractive alt-fuel car?

A $0 gas budget seems pretty attractive to me.

Dukes
05-16-2009, 09:34 PM
A $0 gas budget seems pretty attractive to me.

What are you waiting for then?

fdf
05-16-2009, 10:25 PM
compressed air would take not much energy to make this is a great Idea and 200 miles is damn fine for a first car being made. In no time they could improve that mileage and the said 4 minuets to recharge if I heard that right damn fine idea . not everyone needs a 4x4 and pull thing with there autos...

You are bumping into physics. Compressed air is not magic. It is just a storage medium for energy made by other means. In other words, you make energy with electricity or fossil fuels and use that energy to compress the air. The compressed air now has energy in it and you use that to run the car.

It is a fundamental principle of physics (called the second law of thermodynamics) that every time you convert energy into one form from another, you lose energy to heat.

That means that if you take gasoline and run a compressor to compress the air and then use the compressed air to run the car, you burn more gasoline that way than if you just ran the car with the gasoline.

Same is true for electric cars. The batteries just store energy. Same is true for hydrogen cars. The hydrogen just stores energy. In other words, the compressed air, the hydrogen, and the batteries just store energy made somewhere else. They don't make energy.

Compressed air and hydrogen do have one advantage over batteries. Batteries are full of toxic heavy metals and have a limited life. If we had all electric cars, in about 8-10 years our land fills will start being piled high with toxic metals from used batteries.

So the only way to use this technology (or batteries or hydrogen) without burning more gasoline is to come up with a primary energy source than fossil fuels with which to make hydrogen, compress air, or charge the battery. Someday, solar might provide that. But solar is a LONG way from being ready. We could do it today with nuclear power plants. But the greens hate them and won't let us build them. Until we start building nuclear power plants or have some major breakthrus in solar and then spends billions building a solar infrastructure, battery powered cars, hydrogen powered cars and compressed air cars will all result in the burning of more fossil fuel than if we just ran the cars on gasoline directly.

fdf
05-16-2009, 10:36 PM
The only real alternative right now is Hydrogen, it runs with a slightly modified normal combustion engine so every moving part is the same, the storeage facility is approximately the same size as a large gas tank too.

Hydrogen has that advantage. But it is not really an "alternative." It is just a way to store energy made elsewhere. You have to split the water to make the hydrogen. It takes lots of energy to split the hydrogen. Where will that come from? Ta da, fossil fuel plants. And, it will take more fossil fuel to make the hydrogen to run a car 200 miles than it would if you just used the gasoline in the same size car to go the same 200 miles.

Alternative energy for cars that does anything other than make folks feel good about themselves is a very big and very expensive changeover and will probably require major investment in nuclear power. Not saying we should not try to figure out how to do it. But it takes a lot more than hope to accomplish that. It will take a lot of money out of your and my pockets.

The folks driving around in electric cars feeling green have to charge their batteries. Where do you think the energy to change the batteries comes from? Power plants using fossil fuel, most likely. And they are using more fossil fuel to run their cars that way than if they just used a fuel efficient gas powered car.

fdf
05-16-2009, 10:41 PM
Ultra-capacitor hybrids are the future for now. Much more responsive than lithium-ion. They blow fuel-cells away.

I agree. That's the most promising available technology. Last time I checked, it looked like it was still several years off.

Broncojef
05-16-2009, 10:49 PM
Just drill baby, and keep the fast lane open for my 427 to fly by that ugly piece of crap.

SportinOne
05-16-2009, 11:12 PM
Because most alternatives are either innefficient themselves or not feasible.

Orrr because all the money is stuck in oil and is being safely guarded by a handful of trillionaires. We've had the technology to be completely free of fossil fuel vehicles for a while now..think about it, we have the capability to send a shuttle into outerspace or a rover to mars but we can't figure out how to power a small piece of metal without using oil? Give me a break. It's a shame that greed trumps global well-being.

Cito Pelon
05-16-2009, 11:19 PM
Compressed air has a lot of acceleration power in short bursts for a lightweight vehicle. Theoretically, you could couple an electrical generator that kicks in on the deceleration cycle of a vehicle to power an electrical compressor to recharge the compressed air canisters. It's not gonna be a perpetual-motion machine, that's for sure.

Capacitive-discharge tripled up with compressed air for acceleration and a generator to recharge the air canisters upon deceleration would be an interesting combo. At some point an external electrical source will be needed to charge the capacitor and/or batteries.

I guess this is one of many plausible/possible solutions to the fossil-fuel problem.

Cito Pelon
05-17-2009, 12:08 AM
Hydrogen has that advantage. But it is not really an "alternative." It is just a way to store energy made elsewhere. You have to split the water to make the hydrogen. It takes lots of energy to split the hydrogen. Where will that come from? Ta da, fossil fuel plants. And, it will take more fossil fuel to make the hydrogen to run a car 200 miles than it would if you just used the gasoline in the same size car to go the same 200 miles.

Alternative energy for cars that does anything other than make folks feel good about themselves is a very big and very expensive changeover and will probably require major investment in nuclear power. Not saying we should not try to figure out how to do it. But it takes a lot more than hope to accomplish that. It will take a lot of money out of your and my pockets.

The folks driving around in electric cars feeling green have to charge their batteries. Where do you think the energy to change the batteries comes from? Power plants using fossil fuel, most likely. And they are using more fossil fuel to run their cars that way than if they just used a fuel efficient gas powered car.

Sure, it's all a tradeoff until nuclear power is safe.

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 01:15 AM
That car looked like it moved about 20 miles an hour. The said speeds up to 60, i bet they were going downhill with wind at there backs.

People want cars that are fast and sporty. How are they going to make it faster? I mean can you over compress the air more? The already have 3 huge tanks and the thing crawls like a snail.

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 01:17 AM
Whatever the solution is it will have to quick and fun to drive, or no one will buy it.

That is unless you foresee the new socialist republic of America making us all drive the same car.

Archer81
05-17-2009, 01:46 AM
Whatever the solution is it will have to quick and fun to drive, or no one will buy it.

That is unless you foresee the new socialist republic of America making us all drive the same car.


Bingo.


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-17-2009, 01:47 AM
Sure, it's all a tradeoff until nuclear power is safe.


It is safe.


:Broncos:

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 01:53 AM
Bingo.


:Broncos:

The bad news is there is only one model, the good news is it comes in 3 colors. Sorry no black cars because they require more airconditioning and are therefore energy hogs.

You can choose from Blue, Lighter Blue, or white. Or if you pay for the optional paint pallete you get to choose from Medium Blue, Light Blue, Really light Blue, or pink.

Don't complain or the govt will bail you out and then tell you how to live your whole life and making all your decisions. So the good news is you get to keep your house, the bad news is you have to have all compact CFL bulbs that cost 10 times as much and don't last. Oh yeah and they put mercury into the landfills so you have to pay an extra disposal tax when you throw them away.

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 01:55 AM
It is safe.


:Broncos:

Tell that to the kids of Chernobyl. Damn Russians made everyone scared of it when really it could power all our cities.

Seriously though were do we put the waste?

Archer81
05-17-2009, 02:11 AM
Tell that to the kids of Chernobyl. Damn Russians made everyone scared of it when really it could power all our cities.

Seriously though were do we put the waste?



Chrynobl was an old reactor that gave signs of meltdown, russians ignored it.

French use alot of nuclear power, what do they do with the waste material?

:Broncos:

SportinOne
05-17-2009, 02:15 AM
Whatever the solution is it will have to quick and fun to drive, or no one will buy it.

That is unless you foresee the new socialist republic of America making us all drive the same car.

I think, as a country, we need to stop being so selfish. So what if a car isn't quick or sporty. A vehicle is for transportation, not thrills. What it all boils down to, really, is that people need to stop thinking that they need to be entertained 24 hours a day. Does a car need to take note of your favorite music while you drive to get you to where you want to go? Does a car need to go 150 mph if the speed limit never gets over 75 in most areas? While I don't think we should all drive the same car, there should definitely be some sort of regulation set so that we are doing what's best for the environment, and not for the 10 year old inside of us.

That same line of thought could be applied to anything, really. The amount of money we waste on the enertainment industry is ridiculous and could be better spent in a variety of areas.

Archer81
05-17-2009, 02:21 AM
I think, as a country, we need to stop being so selfish. So what if a car isn't quick or sporty. A vehicle is for transportation, not thrills. What it all boils down to, really, is that people need to stop thinking that they need to be entertained 24 hours a day. Does a car need to take note of your favorite music while you drive to get you to where you want to go? Does a car need to go 150 mph if the speed limit never gets over 75 in most areas? While I don't think we should all drive the same car, there should definitely be some sort of regulation set so that we are doing what's best for the environment, and not for the 10 year old inside of us.

That same line of thought could be applied to anything, really. The amount of money we waste on the enertainment industry is ridiculous and could be better spent in a variety of areas.


So yet another regulation brought to us by a government increasingly seperated from its constitutional authority.

:Broncos:

SportinOne
05-17-2009, 03:07 AM
So yet another regulation brought to us by a government increasingly seperated from its constitutional authority.

:Broncos:

In case you haven't noticed, the earth is becoming increasingly separated from the condition that us humans found it in, and not for the better. If we, as individuals, can't make the necessary changes then someone is eventually going to have to do it for us, regardless of the constitution. Or would you rather we just titanic this whole thing and go down with it, engines gunned and landfills piled sky high?

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 03:42 AM
I think, as a country, we need to stop being so selfish. So what if a car isn't quick or sporty. A vehicle is for transportation, not thrills. What it all boils down to, really, is that people need to stop thinking that they need to be entertained 24 hours a day. Does a car need to take note of your favorite music while you drive to get you to where you want to go? Does a car need to go 150 mph if the speed limit never gets over 75 in most areas? While I don't think we should all drive the same car, there should definitely be some sort of regulation set so that we are doing what's best for the environment, and not for the 10 year old inside of us.

That same line of thought could be applied to anything, really. The amount of money we waste on the enertainment industry is ridiculous and could be better spent in a variety of areas.

That song by Rush about the air cars, gas cars being illegal, is starting to seem almost prophetic.

Someone call Getty and ask him when i should box a car up for my Nephew.

Seriously though performance is important. Electric has such good torque IMO that is the way to go. We can have fast cars and still get off oil. People being so convinced any of this will make a dent in Co2 is laughable to me.

If you want to make a dent in that go to china and build them all new power plants. Now that would reduce some CO2. Trying to do it with autos IMO won't accomplish much.

The jet airplanes are the real culprits but no one wants to talk about them because they see no alternative to the Jet engine. If Al Gore really worried about co2 no way he could bring himself to fly around like he does.

Also lets say one person fly's a lot, likes to travel, but looks down on someone who drives a hummer. Is that logical if the guy with big truck doesn't fly around? There are so many things unfair about singling out people who like trucks and sportscars.

Also what about Rvs and trucks, they will need gas, if gas stations all go under because people all in electrics, what do we do about trucks used to pull our boats, motorcycles etc. Sounds to me like environmentalist will love the fact it makes it harder to go boating. They hate boats, fishing, etc.

I have a sportfisher with twin v-8's, I can't wait to go out make some Co2.....As soon as I put one new motor in it. Better get the engine soon though pretty soon my boat will probably be outlawed.

cutthemdown
05-17-2009, 03:43 AM
In case you haven't noticed, the earth is becoming increasingly separated from the condition that us humans found it in, and not for the better. If we, as individuals, can't make the necessary changes then someone is eventually going to have to do it for us, regardless of the constitution. Or would you rather we just titanic this whole thing and go down with it, engines gunned and landfills piled sky high?

If not for all the publicity on warming, Al Gore's movie etc, would you really notice anything. Seriously can anyone tell any difference at all?

SportinOne
05-17-2009, 05:27 AM
If not for all the publicity on warming, Al Gore's movie etc, would you really notice anything. Seriously can anyone tell any difference at all?

From when you were born or from the way the earth used to be before humans?

I'm not saying we shouldn't cut down any trees or build any cities but YES, there is a huge difference.

You brought up some good points, though. While it may be true that other countries are contributing more to the problem I still think that we need to do everything that we can.

ND Bronco Fan
05-17-2009, 06:51 AM
90% of my driving is to and from work. We have a fuel efficient car in the garage for that.....my other vehicle is a not so efficient utility vehicle to haul stuff and that thing is over 10 years old but just nice to have to pull an occasional trailer or haul something.

This is the exact kind of vehicle I need to go to work 15 miles one way. I never get over 60 mph and would never spend another cent on gas. Think about your driving habits for a bit and I would gladly drive a vehicle that looks like Jake Plummer should driving it to never have to pay for gas again.

Dukes
05-17-2009, 07:09 AM
In case you haven't noticed, the earth is becoming increasingly separated from the condition that us humans found it in, and not for the better. If we, as individuals, can't make the necessary changes then someone is eventually going to have to do it for us, regardless of the constitution. Or would you rather we just titanic this whole thing and go down with it, engines gunned and landfills piled sky high?

I'm almost near the stance now that anyone who cries global warming will kill us all and who doesn't live in a grass hut with no electricity themselves is a ******* hypocrite.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon060308.gif

Dukes
05-17-2009, 07:10 AM
90% of my driving is to and from work. We have a fuel efficient car in the garage for that.....my other vehicle is a not so efficient utility vehicle to haul stuff and that thing is over 10 years old but just nice to have to pull an occasional trailer or haul something.

This is the exact kind of vehicle I need to go to work 15 miles one way. I never get over 60 mph and would never spend another cent on gas. Think about your driving habits for a bit and I would gladly drive a vehicle that looks like Jake Plummer should driving it to never have to pay for gas again.

Check out post #13 on the first page then.

Archer81
05-17-2009, 11:45 AM
In case you haven't noticed, the earth is becoming increasingly separated from the condition that us humans found it in, and not for the better. If we, as individuals, can't make the necessary changes then someone is eventually going to have to do it for us, regardless of the constitution. Or would you rather we just titanic this whole thing and go down with it, engines gunned and landfills piled sky high?


All you need is a tiny violin and you and AL Gore can go on tour together. Seperated by the condition that humans have found it in...you have any idea how asinine that statement is?


:Broncos:

Archer81
05-17-2009, 11:47 AM
From when you were born or from the way the earth used to be before humans?

I'm not saying we shouldn't cut down any trees or build any cities but YES, there is a huge difference.

You brought up some good points, though. While it may be true that other countries are contributing more to the problem I still think that we need to do everything that we can.



You do realize that the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now? Despite Al Gore's frenetic hysterics, the earth has actually cooled the last few years...it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history for Christ sake.

:Broncos:

lookin' glass
05-17-2009, 11:48 AM
Chrynobl was an old reactor that gave signs of meltdown, russians ignored it.

French use alot of nuclear power, what do they do with the waste material?

:Broncos:

The LIFE project at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab is an interesting idea for this.
Like a lot of theories it will take some time to develop. It is not a given either, just a possibility.

Bronx33
05-17-2009, 01:26 PM
And it will cost a bizillion dollars putting it out of reach of most people so it will have no impact whatsoever.

SportinOne
05-17-2009, 01:31 PM
You do realize that the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now? Despite Al Gore's frenetic hysterics, the earth has actually cooled the last few years...it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history for Christ sake.

:Broncos:

Look at you getting all squirmy. Did I say the words global warming? This is a broader issue than that, you don't think there are ANY consequences to burning toxic fuels and releasing the byproduct into the atmosphere at the level that we are? I'm not even going to respond to your ignorant backhanded insults. I'm not going to try and figure out why you are against trying to make the world a better place, i really don't understand why you would have a problem with anything that I said, other than the fact that you might have a hobby that includes driving fast cars. Like i said, people should still be able to do that but as mentioned above there are other ways to go about your every day transportation.

I once was in the military, i had the fast car like many in the military do (300HP 3000GT VR4 ;) ) But there came a point where I realized that it just wasn't a good idea. I sold it and bought a little acura that gets really good mileage. I didn't do it to save money, although that is a benefit. I also landed a job 6 blocks away from my place so I can park my car for days on end if need be. You don't have to do what I do but I believe it is important for each person, if they value this planet, to at least give their everyday actions a bit of a thought instead of treating it like their own personal playground.

SportinOne
05-17-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm almost near the stance now that anyone who cries global warming will kill us all and who doesn't live in a grass hut with no electricity themselves is a ******* hypocrite.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon060308.gif

Another statement saturated with ignorance. That's like saying that if you're going to eat more than nuts and berries you might as well just slam a four pack of big macs and two chocolate shakes.

That's like saying that if you're going to the store and you spend a couple bucks you might as well just empty your checking account.

No one is asking you to live in a hut. The idea is simply to control what you can, and live a life of as little waste as possible. For you, I think most people would be content that you recycled your everyday items and refrained from dumping used oil into the grass behind your house. It's up to you, though. The idea that we need to leave this place in usable condition for the tens, hundreds, and thousands of generations after us is not a fairy tale or a myth. It's reality in its purist sense.

rastaman
05-17-2009, 02:19 PM
A car that runs on compressed air, huh?

Must be the FARTMOBILEHilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Good luck getting that up the side of a mountain. :thumbsup:

Hey O'Brite one, the car is for stop and go city driving!Hilarious!

Bronx33
05-17-2009, 02:22 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_CbuQKT8SU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_CbuQKT8SU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Archer81
05-17-2009, 05:21 PM
Look at you getting all squirmy. Did I say the words global warming? This is a broader issue than that, you don't think there are ANY consequences to burning toxic fuels and releasing the byproduct into the atmosphere at the level that we are? I'm not even going to respond to your ignorant backhanded insults. I'm not going to try and figure out why you are against trying to make the world a better place, i really don't understand why you would have a problem with anything that I said, other than the fact that you might have a hobby that includes driving fast cars. Like i said, people should still be able to do that but as mentioned above there are other ways to go about your every day transportation.

I once was in the military, i had the fast car like many in the military do (300HP 3000GT VR4 ;) ) But there came a point where I realized that it just wasn't a good idea. I sold it and bought a little acura that gets really good mileage. I didn't do it to save money, although that is a benefit. I also landed a job 6 blocks away from my place so I can park my car for days on end if need be. You don't have to do what I do but I believe it is important for each person, if they value this planet, to at least give their everyday actions a bit of a thought instead of treating it like their own personal playground.


Generally because I despise junk science. The entire modern climate theory is wrong, so to make judgements that will have effects on the rest of society bugs me a bit, and having my government legislate what I "must" do irks me even more. Fossil fuels will not be the main source of energy forever, simply because its a finite resource and people dont stay with anything for that long anyway. I am glad you like to hug trees and bought an Accura. I'll stick with the Shelby GT500.

:Broncos: