TheSamba.com :: View topic

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:41 pm

Quote: I could look up the numbers but wont, but the comparison between one lb of gas and one lb of battery and on lb of H2 in energy storage is something along the lines of 100:45:230. just kidding, those are completly made up, but that is the general idea.

it really isnt how much power you can get out of a pound of- hydrogen and battery respectively... its how much it costs per mile that matters, either in terms of electricity cost for the battery or electricity cost to split the water. two very drastically different comparisons.

Quote: The batteries make sense with shorter trips and light vehicles. Trucks, long distance trips are going to require something with a denser and easier refill.

batteries actually make as much sense with heavier vehicles too, just not longer distances. just needs more batteries. trucks are actually quite efficient for transport, the same way that buying in larger volume is for a retailer. it is the front and rear of the vehicle that uses the most energy aerodynamically. so a long aerodynamic truck will use less fuel-per mile-per pound carried than lighter vehicles do. its the hills that will suck down a directly proportional quantity of energy regardless of vehicle weight.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:44 pm

steponmebbbboom wrote: Adventurewagen wrote: Only comment is that while your point is extremely valid and very realistic we also have to factor in whether or not a return of "30" is necessary based on environmental issues and how far that and money may affect the answer or solution.

and my only comment to YOU is that $200/b oil equals total economic collapse. Do you understand just how much our way of life depends on cheap, abundant oil? do you really think that we will just be /driving/ less? youre damn right we will be, well be doing a whole hell of a lot of things less. like eating.

I was practically stoned to death on the rants forum for saying this!
Just stop the making of new cars that cannot return 40mpg and dont drive down to the local shop- walk or cycle instead. If everyone in the developed world did this we'd save plenty of oil!
P.S. Home wind generators sold in this country are a joke
but not as much as solar water heating units as it rains most of the year!

Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:40 pm

Devon-Dyno-Soar118 wrote: steponmebbbboom wrote: Adventurewagen wrote: Only comment is that while your point is extremely valid and very realistic we also have to factor in whether or not a return of "30" is necessary based on environmental issues and how far that and money may affect the answer or solution.

and my only comment to YOU is that $200/b oil equals total economic collapse. Do you understand just how much our way of life depends on cheap, abundant oil? do you really think that we will just be /driving/ less? youre damn right we will be, well be doing a whole hell of a lot of things less. like eating.

I was practically stoned to death on the rants forum for saying this!

so dont say it in the rants.

Quote: Just stop the making of new cars that cannot return 40mpg and dont drive down to the local shop- walk or cycle instead. If everyone in the developed world did this we'd save plenty of oil!

not nearly enough to sustain our way of life. and im done. its already been discussed

Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:02 pm

Quote: so dont say it in the rants

good point. i dont say anything in the rants. too many F'in drunko hooligan knuckle draggers. Everett put it best when describing the Rants: "mostly garbage" should have also added, "for entertainment purposes only"

Quote: and my only comment to YOU is that $200/b oil equals total economic collapse. Do you understand just how much our way of life depends on cheap, abundant oil? do you really think that we will just be /driving/ less? youre damn right we will be, well be doing a whole hell of a lot of things less.

and why should we want a lifestyle that depends on such abuse of natural resources? 20 years from now we will wonder WTF we were thinkin to live like we are now. bout time we were forced to change. and it isnt just about saving money or the environment. it is possible, no , likely, that life would be more prosperous and convenient for us all if we found a different way of going about it all.

its mostly about where we place ourselves with respect to where we work. and the rest is about how we shop for and obtain the items we need. i personally find the current system to be very awkward and inconvenient as well as expensive. it has been easy for me to live near work, but i look forward to a world that distributes goods more efficiently.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:45 pm

Here's a vintage bug from the factory that gets 84 MPG! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XUKOUbp_PA

Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:57 pm

Stanley Meyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BAODqqcpQ

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:14 pm

Not good for the environment but interesting.

Wood burning kubel

Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:35 pm

man that is one fuggin fugly krautwagen. i dont care if it does burn wood, you couldnt pay me to drive it. so pimitive, i might as well be driving the fred flintstone mobile... 'sides, they would surely put me in prison for rolling it- on what charge i am not sure, but they would find something.

Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:57 pm

:lol:

Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:06 am

dansvans wrote: ...on what charge i am not sure, but they would find something.
They'd get you for getting out and pushing it up the hills in the middle of traffic.
These monsters only had 25HP on gasoline, and half the power burning the carbon monoxide from the wood cooker.

Rob

Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:55 am

Quote: carbon monoxide

so..... i wouldnt even live to see prison? the fred flintstone mobile is looking better all the time.

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:23 am

My .02
1st: Batteries are toxic, costly and high maintance.

2nd: most people don't drive more then 20 miles to work. So why would you need a 100 mile commuter car.

Longer trips you may have to take the other car that runs on gas

3rd If every house in the sun belts say zone 2 and 3 (if i didn't get it backwards) had full solar paneled roofs. and all surplus power is used to make hydrogen, When everyone is at work and school during the day all that solar power is being stored in tanks as a gas. tanks are cheap easy to maintain and can be put anywhere. at night the gas is burned for heat cooking and in fuel cells to charge the car. (that sits on a pad that recharges it automatically so no plug ins

the factory I work in has a flat roof of 98.3 acres what If 90% of that was used as solar power production? Thats just one of the buildings!

Oil will run out. period there is no getting around it. its going to take wind solar hydrogen and anything else we can come up with.

better solar cells are being worked on so that will help..

Heres one more that will cause a fuss "batteries don't store electricity"
not itn the way a gas tank stores fuel.

And please no "It just won't work" If you have the time, back it up with something.

thanks

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:28 am

greggholmes wrote:
And please no "It just won't work" If you have the time, back it up with something.

thanks

Thank you!
:)

Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:10 pm

Quote: 1st: Batteries are toxic, costly and high maintance.

batteries arent ideal storage, but it is still the best we have right now if the aim is the reduce gases. i prefer to not drive at all. changing our society for the better in many ways is the best solution of all right now.

Quote: 2nd: most people don't drive more then 20 miles to work. So why would you need a 100 mile commuter car.

Longer trips you may have to take the other car that runs on gas

when insurance companies stop taking advantage of those who insure two cars but only drive one, this will be more possible. i still havent mastered the art of driving two cars at once :roll:

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:05 pm

dansvans wrote: when insurance companies stop taking advantage of those who insure two cars but only drive one...
=D>

Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:57 pm

ghostwagens wrote: greggholmes wrote:
And please no "It just won't work" If you have the time, back it up with something.

thanks

Thank you!
:)

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135339

knock yourselves out.

Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:17 am

[quote="dansvans"] Quote:
when insurance companies stop taking advantage of those who insure two cars but only drive one, this will be more possible. i still havent mastered the art of driving two cars at once :roll:

I'm in the same boat, one driver, many vehicles. BUT, when I started at the Evil Insurance Company, I found out why they do that. When the claims started coming in, we couldn't help but notice that somebody that wasn't listed as a driver in the household was driving. Turns out lots of "one driver" households, weren't. And Underwriting was charging for one driver, not multiples, so now we, you and me, get to pay for the cheats.

Global warming is happening and there's nothing we can do about it. I've got a Geology textbook from 1971 that mentions that the planet has been getting warmer since the 1870's. They based it on sea level going up and glaciers retreating up the mountain. Weren't many SUV's or coal burning power plants in 1870.

This is just another battle between the leftys and capitalists. Who's going to be in charge. Back when the leftys were screaming about the coming Ice Age, they had a solution for that too. Care to guess? We have to stop burning fossil fuels. The soot would form aerosols in the atmosphere and water would collect on that and form clouds that would reflect sunlight back out into space and cool the planet.

The leftys took a page from the 8th Air Force in WW2, they bombed the shit out of the german oil industry to shut down the economy. It worked. You shut down power generation, you shut down the economy. That's the goal, leftys want to go back to living in teepees and being one with nature. BUT, with a high speed internet connection and first world medical when they get sick. Can't have both.

Using nuclear is a way to get off the Middle East oil tit. That we should do.

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:08 am

steponmebbbboom wrote: Adventurewagen wrote: Only comment is that while your point is extremely valid and very realistic we also have to factor in whether or not a return of "30" is necessary based on environmental issues and how far that and money may affect the answer or solution.

and my only comment to YOU is that $200/b oil equals total economic collapse. Do you understand just how much our way of life depends on cheap, abundant oil? do you really think that we will just be /driving/ less? youre damn right we will be, well be doing a whole hell of a lot of things less. like eating.

I've spent a lot of time in and around the oil industry and have a pretty good take on what we use oil for outside of just gasoline for our cars. There is a major part of our society based solely on petroleum products and it would cause economic disaster if something were to drastically change. So yes I understand very well what oil means to our economy right now.

My point was vague at best but it was questioning when the advantages of oil used for cars (not the other stuff) will be passed up for an alternative energy source whether more efficient or not.

Right now it's cost effective to fill up with gas even though it's over 3 bucks a gallon here in Seattle, I'm just saying at a point the Net Energy will be out weighed by your 200 dollar barrel of oil. People will be forced to consume less as more of our oil will go to business and military that need it if that ever comes about in the unforeseeable future.

Personally I don't see us moving away from petroleum for a very long time anyway and the whole "Peak Oil" dilemma is way off if you ask me. The oil industry is a dying dinosaur but I believe they'll be around far longer than most people think. It doesn't mean I don't believe in Peak Oil but I just disagree slightly in the current time line. We've got reserves of oil in Colorado that dwarf what they've recently found in Canada 3 or 4 fold and then there's the pockets of hydrates they are finding in the ocean. Directional drilling on oil rigs has taken off in the last 10 years so I believe for many more years we'll be able to process more oil longer than people expect.

The industry is going to continue to change but don't think just cause I believe alternative fuel will continue to work it's way into the automotive industry it will decrease our need, production or use of crude oil any less.

Hydrogen cars and hybrids are just toys right now but they are the beginning to a solution that needs to be found when eventually our oil does dry up. So while I don't disagree our economy would collapse without oil I don't think the automotive industry continuing to focus on alternative methods is going to cause the collapse or increase in oil prices like you said.

Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:36 am

Quote: Back when the leftys were screaming about the coming Ice Age, they had a solution for that too. Care to guess? We have to stop burning fossil fuels. The soot would form aerosols in the atmosphere and water would collect on that and form clouds that would reflect sunlight back out into space and cool the planet.

The leftys took a page from the 8th Air Force in WW2, they bombed the shit out of the german oil industry to shut down the economy. It worked. You shut down power generation, you shut down the economy. That's the goal, leftys want to go back to living in teepees and being one with nature. BUT, with a high speed internet connection and first world medical when they get sick. Can't have both.

i think we have a capitalist in our midst! :shock:

BTW, the effect that soot in the atmosphere has on the intensity of sunlight is scientific fact at this point. so they were right about that effect, they just didnt realize that the CO2 increases would counteract the sunlight dimming effect. but i suppose the capitalist would deny that either effect even occurs. funny thing about capitalists, when science works to promote capitalism they are all for it, but when it is used to explain climate change, they get all skeptical. but the laws of nature cant be bent to conform to ones chosen political convenience.

and regarding the two effects, consider that we might be painting ourselves into a corner environmentally. if we do run short of fuel, the soot would fallout quickly but the CO2 would stay around. especially since we got rid of earths CO2 scrubber, the Amazon.

Quote: ...The leftys took a page from the 8th Air Force in WW2, they bombed the shit out of the german oil industry to shut down the economy. It worked. You shut down power generation, you shut down the economy. That's the goal, leftys want...

incomprehensively paranoid statement. and the assertion that those on the left all want to live in teepees is way out of proportion. get real- leftys like most all the same things that conservatives do, the main difference is that leftys are offended by the same things that rightys will tolerate in their pursuit of cash...

Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:44 am

dansvans wrote: Quote: Back when the leftys were screaming about the coming Ice Age, they had a solution for that too. Care to guess? We have to stop burning fossil fuels. The soot would form aerosols in the atmosphere and water would collect on that and form clouds that would reflect sunlight back out into space and cool the planet.

The leftys took a page from the 8th Air Force in WW2, they bombed the shit out of the german oil industry to shut down the economy. It worked. You shut down power generation, you shut down the economy. That's the goal, leftys want to go back to living in teepees and being one with nature. BUT, with a high speed internet connection and first world medical when they get sick. Can't have both.

i think we have a capitalist in our midst! :shock:

BTW, the effect that soot in the atmosphere has on the intensity of sunlight is scientific fact at this point. so they were right about that effect, they just didnt realize that the CO2 increases would counteract the sunlight dimming effect. but i suppose the capitalist would deny that either effect even occurs. funny thing about capitalists, when science works to promote capitalism they are all for it, but when it is used to explain climate change, they get all skeptical. but the laws of nature cant be bent to conform to ones chosen political convenience.

and regarding the two effects, consider that we might be painting ourselves into a corner environmentally. if we do run short of fuel, the soot would fallout quickly but the CO2 would stay around. especially since we got rid of earths CO2 scrubber, the Amazon.

Quote: ...The leftys took a page from the 8th Air Force in WW2, they bombed the shit out of the german oil industry to shut down the economy. It worked. You shut down power generation, you shut down the economy. That's the goal, leftys want...

incomprehensively paranoid statement. and the assertion that those on the left all want to live in teepees is way out of proportion. get real- leftys like most all the same things that conservatives do, the main difference is that leftys are offended by the same things that rightys will tolerate in their pursuit of cash...

I think we have a lefty in our midst. :shock:

The thing you won't hear from most of the media and "scientists" about GW is they really don't know how much the various factors, like sunlight, clouds, green house gases, and the hundred other that cause the climate to be what it will be.

They try with computer models, then they tested them by feeding the weather date from 50 years ago and see if they could accurately predict today's climate. It was about 40% high on predicting the temp. So now they are "adjusting"??? how much weight they gave to some of the factors to see if they can get it right. Without any scientific basis for making that change. Just to see if they can publish something to get the leftys scared.

Do you know about the "hockey stick" graph? It showed a gradual increase in temps and then sharp increase, hence hockey stick. When somebody else got ahold of the original research, they tried just random numbers in the formula. Everything they tried drew a hockey stick graph!!! It was the nature of the program.

Sierra Club had an article on their website about utopia, everybody lived in big cities on the coasts, three times the density of Manhattan, and the rest of the country was a big national park. Go live in a teepee while visiting, no motor vehicles, of course. You gotta walk or horse ride in.

Why do leftys always bring in the straw man about money? In the 2000 election, 90%+ of the million dollar checks went to the dems. They got the bucks, not the conservatives. Where I live, the big buck areas are the most left wing in the country, SF, Marin, Silicon Valley. You might, might, get 20% voting Republican. Only if the dem died before the vote.

Get alternative fuel supplies, but for security reasons, not GW. It's gonna get warmer, nothing were going to do to stop it. There's GW on Mars, the ice caps are melting, how you gonna blame conservatives for that?

:lol: