QuoteFord plotting small-car strategy
Associated Press
July 23, 2008
Ford Motor Co. plans to revamp some U.S. plants and bring six small vehicles to the U.S. market from overseas to meet customers' growing demand for more fuel-efficient options.
Ford has no immediate plans to close U.S. plants despite overcapacity in a slumping market. Instead, the automaker will retool plants to increase production of smaller cars and engines. Ford isn't confirming details until Thursday, when it releases second-quarter earnings.
The moves will further accelerate Ford's efforts to ease its dependence on trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans, which accounted for 45 percent of its sales in the first half of this year. Ford's U.S. sales dropped 14 percent in the first six months of 2008 as consumers shocked by rising gas prices sought smaller vehicles.
â€" The Associated Press
with this gem of a quote in the comments section
QuoteWe don't want smaller cars, we want better gas mileage. Make a large car that's efficient and we will buy it. Ford SUVs have always been gas hogs compared to other brands.
[bang]
Smaller!? that's unamerican, damnit. I mean, how else are you and your coffee supposed to get to work? I want a huge SUV that gets 800 mpg, has 11tybillion horsepower, makes lattes, has a 42" plasma on the dash, a 14" lift, 22" chrome wheels and low profile street tires. (and could you throw in and the 4x4 package in case the mall parking lot has a puddle?)
It is not completely idiotic. Sure, the physics of having a bigger car will negatively effect gas mileage but that is not to say that you can make gas engines a little more efficient to squeeze a little more mpg out of it. Or maybe make big SUV's a little more aerodynamic.
Or it could be as simple as making a car that is just "big" enough to meet "American" demand/needs/want (Which I am trying to say that Americans favor larger cars than super tiny ones) yet since now it has become physically smaller, it should be able to squeeze out more mpg.
What it boils down to is that Americans want to keep their big cars and have better gas mileage. It is not completely unreasonable. somewhat having cake and eating it too but it is not completely out of the realm of possibility to make a big car more fuel efficient.
But yes, the easiest way to get better fuel economy is (all things equal) make the load of the engine lighter.
Slip a 2.0 liter diesel under the hood of that Escalade, and it'll get pretty good mileage.
I read an article once that stated aerodynamic drag accounted for up to 50% of a cars fuel efficiency past 55mph. So if you made an SUV that was more aerodyanmic, dispite being larger, it could still be fuel efficient. Thats why you have cars like the Corvette Z08, which has a massive 7liter engine, that can still get upwards of 28mpg highway, when an v6 3.8L ford explorer can barely 19mpg highway.
Arent those big 16 wheeler mack trucks 5.0turbo diesels?
edit: Then again i think the biggest impact on fuel efficiency is how you drive your car. more so than weight or aero.
Quote from: He Man on July 23, 2008, 03:53:37 PM
edit: Then again i think the biggest impact on fuel efficiency is how you drive your car. more so than weight or aero.
True, but that comes down to the individual. What you can do to affect the whole populous across the board is be design something more efficient. So yeah, the individual can drive like a gas guzzler but that is not to say that a more efficient car that is driven in the exact same way by the individual will not be more fuel efficient.
I noticed that every year the HP goes up on most cars but the MPG stays the same. By my logic couldn't the hp stay the same and MPG go up? Not in the USA though HP is our freedom [roll]
Quote from: He Man on July 23, 2008, 03:53:37 PM
edit: Then again i think the biggest impact on fuel efficiency is how you drive your car. more so than weight or aero.
+1 I get 5 more MPG when I am not trying to Educate
train the other drivers. I was shocked when I did the math.
How could you battle penis envy with a SUV that didn't look like a semi?
An aerodynamic suv wouldn't fulfill the need to look mean that "Johnny Subdivision" is looking for.
I love the reason people give when I ask them why they need a SUV/Pickup: "I need to haul stuff!" HA
I have a motorcycle and a snowmobile. I like to build shit and am constantly hauling something... yet I do just fine with a Volvo 850 and a $600 4x8 trailer. I always find it funny when my friend who "needed" a Tahoe calls me to use my trailer to haul something, or another friend who has an extended cab/short box pickup needs my trailer to haul his bike.
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 23, 2008, 04:01:35 PM
+1 I get 5 more MPG when I am not trying to Educate train the other drivers. I was shocked when I did the math.
Sometime, i like to coast and say that im hypermiling. Then i get the SMUG sense of satisfaction that comes over me and i feel that im Da Bomb. Then i observe myself in the 3rd person and want to kill my self for realizing how much of a douche im being.
Ducati's haul more important things than "stuff" [thumbsup]
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 23, 2008, 04:00:29 PM
I noticed that every year the HP goes up on most cars but the MPG stays the same. By my logic couldn't the hp stay the same and MPG go up? Not in the USA though HP is our freedom [roll]
Getting more hp out of engine design X and gasoline Y is about getting the engine to use the fuel more wisely. Getting more mileage out of it is strictly in terms of how much fuel you are using to get that kind of power. Most of it is lost due to fighting wind resistance and moving 5000lbs of car.
if your car is using a quart of gas every minute at 5000 revs, the only thing you can do to make it more efficent is to harness as much power as you can out of that quart of gas by having the engine make more hp with it. Thats why theres technology like lean burn engines. They purposely cut down on fuel and create a lean situation to increase mpg, or hybrid cars that stop the engine entirely and rely on an electric motor.
Have you seen that video? Toyota Prius vs BMW M3 (i think it was an m3 atleast). with the toyota prius on a track and riding as hard as possible, the BMW M3 still got better mpg than the prius. HP doesnt dictate your MPG.
Rev. Millertime, sport hybrid suvs are getting popular. Ford Edge, Inifnit FX series, Lexus RX they are more aero than Tahoes and all that crap. and just casue i wanna say it, the Avalance is a PIECE OF SHIT that cant haul anything.
Quote from: He Man on July 23, 2008, 03:53:37 PM
Arent those big 16 wheeler mack trucks 5.0turbo diesels?
By 5.0 do you mean 5 Liter engines?
If so, you're off by just a little bit.
While US car companies are talking about it, Honda is doing it:
(http://ecotality.com/life/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/honda_fcx_clarity.jpg)
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
The most effective thing that could be done would be:
A: Getting off our collective fear of oil power and bringing in some decent European spec diesel powertrains (4.0L twin turbo V8 in an Audi A8? That gets almost 40mpg?! AND YOU WON'T SELL IT HERE?!?!)
B: Once again modifying the IC motor for greater efficiency. The most promising possibility is homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) which uses diesel-style self-ignition to increase fuel economy AND power by burning the fuel mixture completely and efficiently. There are other (more crackpot) designs in the works, but that one is the easiest to build and theoretically the most effective in improving efficiency without sacrificing any power.
Quote from: NeufUnSix on July 23, 2008, 04:37:34 PM
The most effective thing that could be done would be:
A: Getting off our collective fear of oil power and bringing in some decent European spec diesel powertrains
Something like this http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=219949 or http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/john-neff/
Both would be a lot of fun to drive and get bettter than 50 mpg.
Quote from: He Man on July 23, 2008, 04:19:07 PM
Getting more hp out of engine design X and gasoline Y is about getting the engine to use the fuel more wisely. Getting more mileage out of it is strictly in terms of how much fuel you are using to get that kind of power. Most of it is lost due to fighting wind resistance and moving 5000lbs of car.
if your car is using a quart of gas every minute at 5000 revs, the only thing you can do to make it more efficent is to harness as much power as you can out of that quart of gas by having the engine make more hp with it. Thats why theres technology like lean burn engines. They purposely cut down on fuel and create a lean situation to increase mpg, or hybrid cars that stop the engine entirely and rely on an electric motor.
Have you seen that video? Toyota Prius vs BMW M3 (i think it was an m3 atleast). with the toyota prius on a track and riding as hard as possible, the BMW M3 still got better mpg than the prius. HP doesnt dictate your MPG.
Rev. Millertime, sport hybrid suvs are getting popular. Ford Edge, Inifnit FX series, Lexus RX they are more aero than Tahoes and all that crap. and just casue i wanna say it, the Avalance is a PIECE OF SHIT that cant haul anything.
So why can't they make smaller more fuel efficient engine with the same HP as last year model?
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 23, 2008, 07:43:38 PM
So why can't they make smaller more fuel efficient engine with the same HP as last year model?
Because making a smaller engine requires new machines, new designs. $ to make new casts, engine needs to be tested again to pass emissions, thats why many cars share the same engine.
Example of some widely used american platforms...V6 3.8L, V8 4.6L for all v8 lines (Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Mustang, Linclon Town Car, Mercury Maurader) V8 5.4Liter for the larger trucks.
A lot of lexus and toyota shares the same engine, as well as nissan/infinitis and honda/acura.
Smaller engines are getting more and more powerfull too, they just arent popular in larger cars. I think the 2.4L 4cylinder engine is a popular compact engine, but they only have enough power to move a small car. Yea you can shove a ford focus engine into a Ford explorer, but youll be stomping the gas pedal at everylight just to keep up with grandma. At that point the engine is running at such a high RPM, its burning a huge amount of fuel.
Dont forget, a lot of the fuel that gets injected into your engine does not fully combust. the slower the engine moves, the more time each combustion has to complete. As your engine RPM rises, you need to dump more and more gas into it each combustion just to keep up with your demand of the engine, meanwhile, less combustion is taking place.
now picture a 2.4L 4cyl at 7,000rpms and a v8 4.6L at 3500rpms. which one do you think is burning more gas if they were both in the same car?
Ever try to drive a 2.4L 4cyl wrangler? That thing is not aerodynamic, it isnt really heavy, or very light and has heavy wheels. It only gets about 16/21mpg. Same engine in a small subcompact could probably do 25/35.
my 4cly wrangler only got 12/15 mpg's when i had it.
Quote from: mitt on July 23, 2008, 04:30:22 PM
While US car companies are talking about it, Honda is doing it:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
The bad boy is running on hydrogen? Bravo honda!
The thing I love about hydrogen is that it is available to EVERYONE. Sure, cracking it out is energy intensive... but if your energy is zero emissions, what does that matter.
Imagine if large cities in the US each had a hydrogen refinery, powered by either offshore turbines, possibly a tidal generator, or a badass inland solar thermal tower? Now THAT would be energy independence! [thumbsup]
a typical midsize diesel/electric hybrid SUV would get between 30 and 40 mpg.
Seems to me Detroit needs to think outside of the box and stop following Japanese companies.
It would be nice if the first diesel/electric hybrid on the road was a GM or Ford.
FlexFuel is such bullshit. I can't believe they actually sold it. Morons.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 24, 2008, 05:36:12 AM
FlexFuel is such bullshit. I can't believe they actually sold it. Morons.
+1 - it is a 'make yourself feel good' type of energy management, not an actual solution. It might even be worse for the planet than fossil fuels depending on whose data you believe.
mitt
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on July 24, 2008, 01:59:47 AM
The bad boy is running on hydrogen? Bravo honda!
The thing I love about hydrogen is that it is available to EVERYONE. Sure, cracking it out is energy intensive... but if your energy is zero emissions, what does that matter.
Imagine if large cities in the US each had a hydrogen refinery, powered by either offshore turbines, possibly a tidal generator, or a badass inland solar thermal tower? Now THAT would be energy independence! [thumbsup]
What is bad about hydrogen (or any source of energy that is heavily reliant on water) is that water is limited. other examples of energy that need water to produce would be bio diesel and nuclear energy. One stat mentioned something like 20 something gallons of water is needed to produce one gallon of bio-diesel. Nuclear power plants need a crap load of water to cool the reactors.
People have this notion that water is always going to be readily available. You have to remember that humans have a tendency to over emphasize the benefits and totally ignoring or not properly assessing the cost.
Quote from: mitt on July 24, 2008, 05:53:14 AM
+1 - it is a 'make yourself feel good' type of energy management, not an actual solution. It might even be worse for the planet than fossil fuels depending on whose data you believe.
mitt
GM did that to increase their fleet MPG rating since it reduces the potential gasoline use. Around me, E85 is about 50 cents/gal cheaper than regular, so people are using it.
From what I have read not only does it have worse effects on the environment, it also uses high-quality food crops. There is something disgusting about using high-quality food crops to burn for a car when there are people starving in the world.
Diesel engines were originally designed running peanut oil. The beauty of diesel is you can burn almost any oil imaginable, so you can make biodiesel from surplus crops (keeps cost low) and also use multiple sources (reduce waste) and you don't need high-quality food sources.
Two of the best biodiesel sources are soy and rape (canola for the PC types), both of which are super cheap and rape is not edible except for the oil.
Hypothetically, you can extract biodiesel from almost any source which produces oil: pine trees, hemp, any nut, and so on.
And the big advantage of biodiesel is that you produce CO2 that was extracted from the air, so as far as CO2 it is a zero-sum source. (trees/plants use C02 to grow, and burning them releases it)
Here is an excellant thread on running diesels on alternative fuels.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=206587
The thing on the horizon that I'm excited about is bio-d from algae. We all know how fast algae can grow.
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on July 24, 2008, 01:59:47 AM
The bad boy is running on hydrogen? Bravo honda!
The thing I love about hydrogen is that it is available to EVERYONE. Sure, cracking it out is energy intensive... but if your energy is zero emissions, what does that matter.
Imagine if large cities in the US each had a hydrogen refinery, powered by either offshore turbines, possibly a tidal generator, or a badass inland solar thermal tower? Now THAT would be energy independence! [thumbsup]
the problem is that that bad boy is only available for a 600+ dollar a month lease, only in LA, and would cost 1.5 million to buy, just for honda to break even.
[thumbsup] to them, now they have to figure how to make the tech and infrastructure cheap
The other problem is that besides the expense of the car the issues of a possible exploding hydrogen tank and the tons of emissions from manufacturing hydrogen. Also the eventual disposal of those batteries from each car.
I'm skeptical about hydrogen being our messiah until I see more numbers.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 24, 2008, 06:00:46 AM
What is bad about hydrogen (or any source of energy that is heavily reliant on water) is that water is limited. other examples of energy that need water to produce would be bio diesel and nuclear energy. One stat mentioned something like 20 something gallons of water is needed to produce one gallon of bio-diesel. Nuclear power plants need a crap load of water to cool the reactors.
I understand water is needed, but our planet is a closed loop system, the water that is converted to steam eventually returns as water. I am worried about the pollutants and warming of the water, especially in fresh waters like our great lakes, but besides the Western US, water is abundant (especially this year :-[ ).
mitt
Returns to water again, but is pretty useless at this time if it ends up in a body of salt water.
Quote from: Rameses on July 23, 2008, 04:26:56 PM
By 5.0 do you mean 5 Liter engines?
If so, you're off by just a little bit.
Just a little. ;)
Quote from: He Man on July 23, 2008, 08:27:35 PM
Because making a smaller engine requires new machines, new designs. $ to make new casts, engine needs to be tested again to pass emissions, thats why many cars share the same engine.
Example of some widely used american platforms...V6 3.8L, V8 4.6L for all v8 lines (Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Mustang, Linclon Town Car, Mercury Maurader) V8 5.4Liter for the larger trucks.
A lot of lexus and toyota shares the same engine, as well as nissan/infinitis and honda/acura.
Smaller engines are getting more and more powerfull too, they just arent popular in larger cars. I think the 2.4L 4cylinder engine is a popular compact engine, but they only have enough power to move a small car. Yea you can shove a ford focus engine into a Ford explorer, but youll be stomping the gas pedal at everylight just to keep up with grandma. At that point the engine is running at such a high RPM, its burning a huge amount of fuel.
Dont forget, a lot of the fuel that gets injected into your engine does not fully combust. the slower the engine moves, the more time each combustion has to complete. As your engine RPM rises, you need to dump more and more gas into it each combustion just to keep up with your demand of the engine, meanwhile, less combustion is taking place.
now picture a 2.4L 4cyl at 7,000rpms and a v8 4.6L at 3500rpms. which one do you think is burning more gas if they were both in the same car?
Ever try to drive a 2.4L 4cyl wrangler? That thing is not aerodynamic, it isnt really heavy, or very light and has heavy wheels. It only gets about 16/21mpg. Same engine in a small subcompact could probably do 25/35.
So it is just a cost issue then? I don't see the issue using a smaller engine in a larger car when the engine produces more HP that a older engine. Unless I misunderstood you are saying that a 2008 2.0 4 cyl making 170 hp can not power a car any larger than an 1997 2.0 4 cyl making 87 hp. The Jeep 2.4 was super low tec. If the jeep has the same size engine in it, and it made more hp/torque wouldn't it get better MPG because it's using more gas to move the car and not wasting it by not burning?
Quote from: mitt on July 24, 2008, 08:15:55 AM
I understand water is needed, but our planet is a closed loop system, the water that is converted to steam eventually returns as water. I am worried about the pollutants and warming of the water, especially in fresh waters like our great lakes, but besides the Western US, water is abundant (especially this year :-[ ).
mitt
I do realize that the water cycle is a closed loop system. The thing is, some places get more water than others. Or rather, some places get more water than they use while others use more water than they get. Who is to say that the hydrogen making plant in Las vegas will get the exact same amount of water that it uses up from rain? May be in 50 years or so the water levels of the hoover damn may go back up to previous levels. You do have to give nature some time to work things out but now your adding to the equation where you are quite possibly using exponentially more water than previous consumption levels.
That is my concern. If one city uses up X amount of water, it is not guaranteed that they will get the same X amount of water through rain.
Quote from: NeufUnSix on July 23, 2008, 04:37:34 PM
The most effective thing that could be done would be:
A: Getting off our collective fear of oil power and bringing in some decent European spec diesel powertrains (4.0L twin turbo V8 in an Audi A8? That gets almost 40mpg?! AND YOU WON'T SELL IT HERE?!?!)
B: Once again modifying the IC motor for greater efficiency. The most promising possibility is homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) which uses diesel-style self-ignition to increase fuel economy AND power by burning the fuel mixture completely and efficiently. There are other (more crackpot) designs in the works, but that one is the easiest to build and theoretically the most effective in improving efficiency without sacrificing any power.
diesels are know as oil burners for a reason ;)
A: the reason they won't sell that vehicle here is emissions standards in the US. They tend to be more strict then euro standards on diesel, pertaining to a specific gas called NOx. its what turns the sky brown (despite all the CO2, were all going to die BS, there can be some nasty gases, NOx probably not the worst but still gross, I'll leave those to HC and CO for being really bad).
NOx, and its cause is heat, during a very hot combustion process, nitrogen from the air bonds with oxygen and other random things floating around (hence the x) this stuff generally reacts with sunlight in a strange manner, it turns brown and the air looks like ass.
B: HCCI.. uses heat to auto combust the a/f mixture of gasoline.. seeing how its very difficult to get a steady octane rating on fuels, this would not be the most efficient way of burning fuel, slightly higher octane, charge doesn't go off. if its too low, it goes BOOM which isn't good either. Who in there right mind would set a system up without positive ignition?
Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.
The issue is with squeezing out more efficency is NOT with a/f ratios, or burning all the fuel, the loss in engines is threw HEAT, and some threw mechanical forces. thats it nothing magic about it, and its not like its easy to get around.
Vehicles making more power, is simply due to more efficiently designs in head flow, new materials that allow rings to move further up the piston, lighter materials, direct injection, turbo charging. all these things have a positive impact on fuel efficiency too, but really, these gains show more in the power area, and if you drive your vehicle rather hard, its gonna get less mileage.
my 90 jetta, got 24/30mpg, and made 140hp I thought it was fast at the time :P .. my 03 GTI gets 24/32, actually gets out of its own damn way, makes 210hp, and weighs 1000lbs more and is vastly safer.. I'd say its a good trade off.
I've worked enough refinery / chemical plant turn-arounds to have some first experance with hydrogen.
One of the common ways to make it is to react natural gas with steam......CH4 + (2)H2O >> CO2 + (4)H2
On the good side it burns clean the only by-product is water.
On the bad side when it burns the flame is invisible except in a really dark room.
The stuff is really hard to seal, you pressure test with N2 and every thing is good, put H2 in and the damn thing leaks [bang]
H2 is very reactive and forms some interesting unstable compounds, when you take a H2 compressor apart, some of these metal-hydrides spontaneous combust when the air hits them others wait until they're physically disturbed ( like cleaning gasket surfaces, wear FRC's and gloves ).
Quote from: acalles on July 24, 2008, 09:05:14 AM
diesels are know as oil burners for a reason ;)
A: the reason they won't sell that vehicle here is emissions standards in the US. They tend to be more strict then euro standards on diesel, pertaining to a specific gas called NOx. its what turns the sky brown (despite all the CO2, were all going to die BS, there can be some nasty gases, NOx probably not the worst but still gross, I'll leave those to HC and CO for being really bad).
exactly, which is the reason for the Bluetec diesel technology in use by BMW and VW (and soon, others) which is clean-burning diesel.
Quote
NOx, and its cause is heat, during a very hot combustion process, nitrogen from the air bonds with oxygen and other random things floating around (hence the x) this stuff generally reacts with sunlight in a strange manner, it turns brown and the air looks like ass.
yep, one component of smog as well as SO2 and a few other things, but the new diesels eliminate these almost entirely.
QuoteB: HCCI.. uses heat to auto combust the a/f mixture of gasoline.. seeing how its very difficult to get a steady octane rating on fuels, this would not be the most efficient way of burning fuel, slightly higher octane, charge doesn't go off. if its too low, it goes BOOM which isn't good either. Who in there right mind would set a system up without positive ignition?
Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.
PD type diesels burn very well and with proper emissions controls, they are clean burners and you end up with better mileage and a longer lasting engine.
My '05 Golf TDI gets about 45 mpg on the highway, about 33-34 in the city.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 24, 2008, 09:03:20 AM
Or rather, some places get more water than they use while others use more water than they get. Who is to say that the hydrogen making plant in Las vegas will get the exact same amount of water that it uses up from rain?
That is a pre-existing problem today w/o hydrogen plants, so I guess I don't see why that is a deterrent for future technology? The west is using more water than they receive, but there is nothing being done about it. I see just as many car washes and lush golf courses in CA as IA. If today's problem is addressed, which seems like it needs to be now, than it won't be an issue for future technology.
mitt
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 24, 2008, 09:11:04 AM
exactly, which is the reason for the Bluetec diesel technology in use by BMW and VW (and soon, others) which is clean-burning diesel.
yep, one component of smog as well as SO2 and a few other things, but the new diesels eliminate these almost entirely.
PD type diesels burn very well and with proper emissions controls, they are clean burners and you end up with better mileage and a longer lasting engine.
My '05 Golf TDI gets about 45 mpg on the highway, about 33-34 in the city.
yep, NOx scrubbers, and VERY, VERY hight injection pressures have made this MUCH better..
I'm some what a vw nut (actually, was expert certified vw specialist before I opened my own shop if you ever have any questions about your golf, shoot me a PM and I'll do my best to answer)
the PD was a great engine, but it wasn't allowed to continue here because of its NOx levels. the Tuareg V10 TDI was still allowed because it's considered a light truck and has to meet different standards.
I'm pretty excited about the new engines, almost as much as the 2.0T. I have about 10 customers on waiting lists for jetta sportwagon TDI's.
Quote from: acalles on July 24, 2008, 09:22:15 AM
yep, NOx scrubbers, and VERY, VERY hight injection pressures have made this MUCH better..
I'm some what a vw nut (actually, was expert certified vw specialist before I opened my own shop if you ever have any questions about your golf, shoot me a PM and I'll do my best to answer)
the PD was a great engine, but it wasn't allowed to continue here because of its NOx levels. the Tuareg V10 TDI was still allowed because it's considered a light truck and has to meet different standards.
I'm pretty excited about the new engines, almost as much as the 2.0T. I have about 10 customers on waiting lists for jetta sportwagon TDI's.
I was led to believe the NOx levels of the PD were pretty modest in comparison to most. I love my car, it runs beautifully.
we test drove the '09 "Loyal Edition" Jetta TDI. Very nice, probably get one to replace the Volvo since they won't bring the D5 to the US. Which sucks since I love Volvos (4th, all 850/S70s) and we liked the D5 that we rented in Italy...
Quote from: acalles on July 24, 2008, 09:05:14 AM
Diesels tend to be more efficient, not because they burn better (they don't, in fact its worse, hence the smoke) but because it contains WAY more energy then gasoline.
I looked it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
RUG 125,000 btu's / gallon......Diesel 138,700 btu's / gallon............Ethanol 84,600 btu's / gallon
Diesel has about 15% more energy per gallon. But diesel cars tend to get 30 - 40% better mileage.
As injection pressures climb and get more refined the smoke and clatter will go away. The worst offenders that I see are grossly overfueled pick-ups ( trying to get the last Hp / ft lb, who cares about a little smoke)
A couple of things that everyone in general and the CARB in specific forget.
VOC's gasoline is very volatile, diesel isn't. By their own rules VOCs are really bad hence all the restrictions on paint, solvents, etc
Gasoline is flamable, diesel is combustable. If you're ever in a wreck which fuel do you want onboard, one the readly burns or one that is almost impossible to ignite.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 24, 2008, 10:03:55 AM
Gasoline is flamable, diesel is combustable. If you're ever in a wreck which fuel do you want onboard, one the readly burns or one that is almost impossible to ignite.
the one that requires a HAZMAT team and high voltage protection!!! (jab at hybrids)
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 24, 2008, 11:12:55 AM
the one that requires a HAZMAT team and high voltage protection!!! (jab at hybrids)
(http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/eatlight.jpg)
I've always liked Uncle Fester.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 24, 2008, 11:37:15 AM
(http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/eatlight.jpg)
I've always liked Uncle Fester.
yeah, ole Fester the Molester..
Cousin It was the one I worried about. What was he really saying?? :o
Quote from: sno_duc on July 24, 2008, 11:48:56 AM
Cousin It was the one I worried about. What was he really saying?? :o
he was speaking perfect Urdu, what do you mean?
Quote from: mitt on July 24, 2008, 09:20:15 AM
That is a pre-existing problem today w/o hydrogen plants, so I guess I don't see why that is a deterrent for future technology? The west is using more water than they receive, but there is nothing being done about it. I see just as many car washes and lush golf courses in CA as IA. If today's problem is addressed, which seems like it needs to be now, than it won't be an issue for future technology.
mitt
my critique was not so much to stress individual usage. That you can control. You have no control over how much rain water a certain geographical area receives.
Also, the west gets more water than they should. What I mean by that is that the mountain ranges just east of cali gets all the rain/ sucks the clouds of rain dry. When the clouds go past the mountain range, there is no rain left for those areas.
So for people of the west, not only do they get more water than they should, they use more water than they get.....Which means if you let this play out, other parts of the US just east of the mountains will suffer even leaner water shortages.
The situation that you mention would be under worse conditions if you add to the already over usage of water.
I am not saying that this is a reason to halt technological development for hydrogen. Developing the technology will not have an environmental effect. It is implementing that technology and overcoming the logistics that will put a strain on the resource of water.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 24, 2008, 09:03:20 AM
I do realize that the water cycle is a closed loop system. The thing is, some places get more water than others. Or rather, some places get more water than they use while others use more water than they get. Who is to say that the hydrogen making plant in Las vegas will get the exact same amount of water that it uses up from rain? May be in 50 years or so the water levels of the hoover damn may go back up to previous levels. You do have to give nature some time to work things out but now your adding to the equation where you are quite possibly using exponentially more water than previous consumption levels.
That is my concern. If one city uses up X amount of water, it is not guaranteed that they will get the same X amount of water through rain.
So just replace oil refineries with desalination plants. Hydrogen generation facilities can get their water from them instead of from the fresh water supply.
Quote from: Triple J on July 24, 2008, 04:40:28 PM
So just replace oil refineries with desalination plants. Hydrogen generation facilities can get their water from them instead of from the fresh water supply.
The cost of desalination plants are so high no one uses them for anything but drinking water.
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 24, 2008, 04:46:46 PM
The cost of desalination plants are so high no one uses them for anything but drinking water.
I understand they are expansive...but so are refineries, and so is oil. If people are worried about the hydrogen option depleting our fresh water supplies, which is a very valid concern IMO, I would bet that a desal plant would work financially.
Compare the cost of a desal plant to a new refinery. I'd bet they are similar.
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 24, 2008, 04:46:46 PM
The cost of desalination plants are so high no one uses them for anything but drinking water.
i was under the impression it was just the opposite-- that the expense to produce potable water is so great means only light brackish water is produced for crop use (i.e. is cheaper to produce)
that's what Israel is doing with their desalinization plants.
Quote from: Triple J on July 24, 2008, 04:40:28 PM
So just replace oil refineries with desalination plants. Hydrogen generation facilities can get their water from them instead of from the fresh water supply.
What i was addressing is that someone mentioned that a hydro plant be in every major city. Not every major city is near the ocean.
Better yet, we can make a huge man made river/canal that transports ocean water inland, use that water to cool nuclear reactors. Collect the steam and make fresh water. Build a hydro plant next to the nuclear plant so that it can use the steam/fresh water to produce hydrogen while the nuclear plant can provide electricity for the the electrolysis needed to produce the hydrogen. GENIUS!!
why would you desalinate water to extract hydrogen?
Pure water isn't particularly conductive, it's when it's got salts/minerals in it that it carries current. I learned this in chemistry 15 yrs ago.
Electricity is what you run through water to break off the hydrogen.. so why not just run it through saltwater?
I remember the experiment we did, and no salt = no hydrogen.
No one's mentioned the happy bi-product of the hydrogen plants... all that oxygen that can go to your local "oxygen bar"... did i mention i live in LA?
Er....easiest way to get more mileage out of any given motor.....is change the gearing of the rear end/transmission....
Quote from: zedsaid on July 24, 2008, 08:01:15 PM
why would you desalinate water to extract hydrogen?
Pure water isn't particularly conductive, it's when it's got salts/minerals in it that it carries current. I learned this in chemistry 15 yrs ago.
Electricity is what you run through water to break off the hydrogen.. so why not just run it through saltwater?
I remember the experiment we did, and no salt = no hydrogen.
No one's mentioned the happy bi-product of the hydrogen plants... all that oxygen that can go to your local "oxygen bar"... did i mention i live in LA?
Im not for sure but i thought that if the water was pure, the byproducts of electrolysis would be just oxygen and hydrogen. Im not sure if the salt in the water produces a different gas that would be mixed with the hydrogen or oxygen. I could be wrong but that was my thinking in needing fresh water.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 24, 2008, 09:37:05 AM
I was led to believe the NOx levels of the PD were pretty modest in comparison to most. I love my car, it runs beautifully.
we test drove the '09 "Loyal Edition" Jetta TDI. Very nice, probably get one to replace the Volvo since they won't bring the D5 to the US. Which sucks since I love Volvos (4th, all 850/S70s) and we liked the D5 that we rented in Italy...
From what I understood, they fired much leaner mixtures, at significantly higher pressures.. so the combustion was very hot, burned up most of the particulates.. but the cat was to reduce the NOx.
the SO2 problem was mostly a fuel issue, it should be resolved now (or significantly reduced) with the newer ultra low sulfer fuels. It also makes it possible to run the new cars at even higher pressures.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 24, 2008, 10:03:55 AM
I looked it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
RUG 125,000 btu's / gallon......Diesel 138,700 btu's / gallon............Ethanol 84,600 btu's / gallon
Diesel has about 15% more energy per gallon. But diesel cars tend to get 30 - 40% better mileage.
As injection pressures climb and get more refined the smoke and clatter will go away. The worst offenders that I see are grossly overfueled pick-ups ( trying to get the last Hp / ft lb, who cares about a little smoke)
one is more energy, two is the ability to run very lean, since fuel is injected causing the burn, at light loads (cruse) the fuel can be injected at very lean levels (I believe it can burn at up to 40:1), and since the injection is what causes the ignition it only burns very small amounts of fuel with little to no danger, especially once you add the EGR, and fill 30-40% of the cyl with exhaust gases, which will not burn again.
basically makes the cyl smaller. get all these things right and you have a awesome running vehicle, power when you need it, and great efficiency when you just want to put around.
even with the high efficency of the newer diesels (like the PD) there is still quite a bit of unburnt fuel, much more then with gasoline.. don't belive me? check out the EGR cooler. the higher pressures of common rail systems should help get rid of this problem.
Quote from: someguy on July 24, 2008, 08:04:07 PM
Er....easiest way to get more mileage out of any given motor.....is change the gearing of the rear end/transmission....
Only for higher speed cruising. Too high of a final drive ratio will lead to load too high for the lower rpm and tq. The engine will bog. Now if you keep the first few gears normal, and go real high for the higher gears for highway cruising. Problem is though, most of the wasted fuel is due to high traffic in city driving. Idling wastes tons of fuel...
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 24, 2008, 08:28:37 PM
Im not for sure but i thought that if the water was pure, the byproducts of electrolysis would be just oxygen and hydrogen. Im not sure if the salt in the water produces a different gas that would be mixed with the hydrogen or oxygen. I could be wrong but that was my thinking in needing fresh water.
There'll be corrosion and whatnot, but i don't know if any impurities would escape into the gas... besides, there'll be valves and such to sort any contaminates...
here's a page with info about the conductivity of water at least...
http://www.lenntech.com/water-conductivity.htm
and a quote from it...
Pure water is not a good conductor of electricity. Ordinary distilled water in equilibrium with carbon dioxide of the air has a conductivity of about 10 x 10-6 W-1*m-1 (20 dS/m). Because the electrical current is transported by the ions in solution, the conductivity increases as the concentration of ions increases.
Thus conductivity increases as water dissolved ionic species.
Typical conductivity of waters:
Ultra pure water 5.5 · 10-6 S/m
Drinking water 0.005 â€" 0.05 S/m
Sea water 5 S/m
when you talk about numbers of gallons of freshwater, you must think large scale. I was just reading about this the other day.
The city of Memphis has more than a quadrillion gallons in one of the cities underwater aquifers. Clean water. (Some of the best tasting right out of the tap too, of all the cities I've visited).
Quadrillion. A number I can't fathom. Then again, it rains a lot in Memphis and its stupid humid, and referred to as "the jungle" (for many reasons).
Its not the only aquifer for the city either.
That's a lot.
Quote from: ato memphis on July 24, 2008, 09:33:52 PM
when you talk about numbers of gallons of freshwater, you must think large scale. I was just reading about this the other day.
The city of Memphis has more than a quadrillion gallons in one of the cities underwater aquifers. Clean water. (Some of the best tasting right out of the tap too, of all the cities I've visited).
Quadrillion. A number I can't fathom. Then again, it rains a lot in Memphis and its stupid humid, and referred to as "the jungle" (for many reasons).
Its not the only aquifer for the city either.
That's a lot.
Not all cities get their water from underground aquifers though. For instance NYC and Seattle (the supplies I'm familiar with) get theirs from lakes. These rely on yearly rainwater for replenishment. Add in a few drought years and things can get tight. Add in millions and millions of gallons of fresh water being used to create fuel, and you could feasibly have a downright crisis.
Just to present an intteresting #...NYC uses approximately 960 million gallons of water
per day. This is quite a bit below the "safe yield" of their watersheds, i.e. the amount that is replenished by rainwater; however, they're currently looking at system expansion to ensure they can always meet their goals.
I'm just not a fan of ever using something people
need to live (i.e. freshwater or food) for the production of fuel. It causes the cost of said commodity to go higher, and raises the possibility that survival needs will have to compete with energy needs.
Quote from: Triple J on July 25, 2008, 08:14:35 AM
Not all cities get their water from underground aquifers though. For instance NYC and Seattle (the supplies I'm familiar with) get theirs from lakes. These rely on yearly rainwater for replenishment. Add in a few drought years and things can get tight. Add in millions and millions of gallons of fresh water being used to create fuel, and you could feasibly have a downright crisis.
Just to present an intteresting #...NYC uses approximately 960 million gallons of water per day. This is quite a bit below the "safe yield" of their watersheds, i.e. the amount that is replenished by rainwater; however, they're currently looking at system expansion to ensure they can always meet their goals.
I'm just not a fan of ever using something people need to live (i.e. freshwater or food) for the production of fuel. It causes the cost of said commodity to go higher, and raises the possibility that survival needs will have to compete with energy needs.
They don't need to use potable water.... there's plenty of waste water wherever there's settlement.
Quote from: someguy on July 24, 2008, 08:04:07 PM
Er....easiest way to get more mileage out of any given motor.....is change the gearing of the rear end/transmission....
That's basically what many manufacturers are doing as a half-assed attempt at improving mileage. The latest generation of 6+ speed autos are programmed to upshift into the highest gear possible as fast as possible - some are into 6th by the 30-40 mph range if you are light on the pedal. What results is horrible shifting and dreadful response because the 'box is constantly aiming for the highest gear rather than a gear that would be optimal for acceleration and exploiting the torque curve. The only way they'll hold a gear and shift acceptably is if you have a lead foot, which of course kills the fuel economy gains.
Quote from: zedsaid on July 25, 2008, 02:13:38 PM
They don't need to use potable water.... there's plenty of waste water wherever there's settlement.
Good point...I didn't think of that. [thumbsup]
Quote from: Triple J on July 25, 2008, 04:35:59 PM
Good point...I didn't think of that. [thumbsup]
I agree with your stance that you made earlier triple as to using water for fuel can bring a water shortage (what i was stating). Even if they use non potable water, where is this non potable water coming from? our toilets? I still say that since the water cycle is a dynamic process, there will be some strain on the fresh water supply.
Any future fuel source will have to be considered carefully whether it's water or biofuel since they both have limitations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7525613.stm
Quote from: Pakhan on July 26, 2008, 08:22:38 AM
Any future fuel source will have to be considered carefully whether it's water or biofuel since they both have limitations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7525613.stm
Biodiesel is a far better fuel than almost any other. Diesel can be made from any leftover crops available, whether or not it is a food source. Pine trees and hemp are an excellent source of oil (and if using pine, everything will smell so clean). Hemp is a much better source since it produces far more oil per acre and it grows much quicker and requires much less water than anything else.
Ethanol from biomass (i.e. corn stalks or peanut plants, both not used for food) is also a decent source of fuel, because the harvesting is already done (for the food crops) and thus reduces the enviro impact. The problem is that converting biomass to ethanol is much more energy intensive than converting anything to biodiesel.
Also, using leftover or waste food crops for biodiesel means it's already harvested, so the impact is lessened there as well.
Instead of selling all that grain to Cuba, we should just use it for biodiesel. Let the caribe communists rot.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 26, 2008, 05:29:25 AM
I agree with your stance that you made earlier triple as to using water for fuel can bring a water shortage (what i was stating). Even if they use non potable water, where is this non potable water coming from? our toilets? I still say that since the water cycle is a dynamic process, there will be some strain on the fresh water supply.
Typically treated water from wastewater treatment plants, called effluent, is discharged into large bodies of water which are not used for drinking water. For instance, coastal cities discharge into the ocean and bays. Because of this I don't see it affecting the potable water supply.
The only exception that I am aware of is the Los Angeles area, where highly treated effluent is discharged back into one of their water supply reservoirs. They are the only place which does this AFAIK, and it is also a relatively new practice. Their main plant still discharges into the Pacific...and there is another deep ocean outfall currently being designed to do the same.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 26, 2008, 08:43:31 AM
Biodiesel is a far better fuel than almost any other. Diesel can be made from any leftover crops available, whether or not it is a food source. Pine trees and hemp are an excellent source of oil (and if using pine, everything will smell so clean). Hemp is a much better source since it produces far more oil per acre and it grows much quicker and requires much less water than anything else.
Ethanol from biomass (i.e. corn stalks or peanut plants, both not used for food) is also a decent source of fuel, because the harvesting is already done (for the food crops) and thus reduces the enviro impact. The problem is that converting biomass to ethanol is much more energy intensive than converting anything to biodiesel.
Also, using leftover or waste food crops for biodiesel means it's already harvested, so the impact is lessened there as well.
Instead of selling all that grain to Cuba, we should just use it for biodiesel. Let the caribe communists rot.
I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil. It uses two resources. First, the most obvious is the food. Second is the usage of water to grow it. We all have this perception that water is infinite. I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.
Sort of reminds me of something I heard. When children from "civilized" countries are confronted with children from the third world, the "civilized" children can not fathom why the children from the third world are hungry and are starving. They think that all you have to do is open the refrigerator and feed your self. That is pretty ignorant and that is how I feel a lot of people view the resources we have today; which we have used technology to make them readily available to us.
But we must remember that Just because technology makes it easier to get does not mean that the resources are not scarce/limited.
Quote from: Triple J on July 26, 2008, 09:13:18 AM
Typically treated water from wastewater treatment plants, called effluent, is discharged into large bodies of water which are not used for drinking water. For instance, coastal cities discharge into the ocean and bays. Because of this I don't see it affecting the potable water supply.
The only exception that I am aware of is the Los Angeles area, where highly treated effluent is discharged back into one of their water supply reservoirs. They are the only place which does this AFAIK, and it is also a relatively new practice. Their main plant still discharges into the Pacific...and there is another deep ocean outfall currently being designed to do the same.
Like someone mentioned here/posted a hyperlink to an article. Just because the water is not potable does not mean that it can be used without consequence. The article mentioned that wetlands are threated by the increase usage of water. Just because we dont use it for drinking does not mean other organic things dont use it. If that water ends up in our gas tanks instead of being used by other organic life, we will just start another problem.
Also, I know what most plants do with the treated water. They purify it to about 95% purity and dump it into some natural water way/river/lakes. there are some projects where they try to use this water and send it to some wetlands where naturally they are purified by nature step by step in hopes that it will become potable again. Did something like that on a small scale in science class years ago.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 26, 2008, 09:20:30 AM
I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil. It uses two resources. First, the most obvious is the food. Second is the usage of water to grow it. We all have this perception that water is infinite. I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.
He also mentioned using leftover plants of non-food items as a fuel source. What's wrong with that? Going to miss your daily dosage of corn stalks? They are something that would be grown either way, just now, put to better use.
What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?
Quote from: NAKID on July 26, 2008, 09:48:56 AM
What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?
Halloween decorations, and probably much needed compost.
Shush now.
Quote from: someguy on July 26, 2008, 09:43:25 AM
He also mentioned using leftover plants of non-food items as a fuel source. What's wrong with that? Going to miss your daily dosage of corn stalks? They are something that would be grown either way, just now, put to better use.
Im not completely against it. Being efficient and using our resources effectively is a good thing. Better use of products that we once considered as waste but now using them as resources is wonderful. The thing is, one of my focal points has been the use of water.
The problem become this, "over growing" corn so that we can use its corn stocks for fuel. This takes water. I must point out that in this particular example, there are two demands here or two principles of thought.
The two demands are food for our stomach and food for our cars. Lets establish a model where fuel is ONLY made by the byproducts of corn, the stuff we can not eat. The overriding demand that should control the end result of how much corn should be planted within this model should be the demand for food. In no time or rather I BELIEVE that in no time should the demand for fuel ever affect this model.
Think about the principle of the model, The reason why i set it up where fuel can only be made from the byproducts is to shut up people like me that do not like the idea of replacing food on the table to put fuel in the car.
The problem arises when the demand for fuel is greater than the byproducts produced from the demand for food. One "crafty" way to meet this demand is to increase corn production so that you can have the byproduct to meet this demand, all the while not using the actual food for fuel. I mean, we arent using the actual FOOD for fuel so people like me, STUF~! The principle behind this thought/justification is just messed up. And people like me cant really say much because our original argument is that we did not like using food for fuel and that condition is being met but it is being met at a cost.
That cost is the scarce resource of water. Things are dynamic and the solution is not always simple.
Quote from: NAKID on July 26, 2008, 09:48:56 AM
What do they currently do with the corn stalks after harvest?
Bedding for animals
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 26, 2008, 09:20:30 AM
I still dont like the idea of turning food into oil. It uses two resources. First, the most obvious is the food. Second is the usage of water to grow it. We all have this perception that water is infinite. I mean, we just turn a valve and it just gushes out.
which is the beauty of biodiesel. you can produce it from any crop or almost any oil-producing plant.
and as far as water goes, you are making the assumption that the target crop is irrigated. many "Christmas tree" farms are not irrigated, they just plant them so the trees are harvested in a 4 year cycle and use rainwater. the same type of thing could be done for biodiesel using hemp and pine trees -- use a quarter of the growing field, harvest it every four years. each year, plant a different quarter.
QuoteSort of reminds me of something I heard. When children from "civilized" countries are confronted with children from the third world, the "civilized" children can not fathom why the children from the third world are hungry and are starving. They think that all you have to do is open the refrigerator and feed your self. That is pretty ignorant and that is how I feel a lot of people view the resources we have today; which we have used technology to make them readily available to us.
But we must remember that Just because technology makes it easier to get does not mean that the resources are not scarce/limited.
shit happens. that's why it sucks to be poor. if poor people could eat from the fridge, then no one would bother working and developing wealth and education. thank God for civilization. groups of people incapable of developing civilizations are just that -- uncivilized. Tocqueville said people get the government (society) they deserve. which i don't say to be mean, but not every group on this planet has evolved at the same rate.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 26, 2008, 03:26:07 PM
shit happens. that's why it sucks to be poor. if poor people could eat from the fridge, then no one would bother working and developing wealth and education. thank God for civilization. groups of people incapable of developing civilizations are just that -- uncivilized. Tocqueville said people get the government (society) they deserve. which i don't say to be mean, but not every group on this planet has evolved at the same rate.
I think your missing my point. It is not an "Us vs Them" thing. It show how ignorant, stupid and naive the civilized children are. They have no sense of reality. They are taking things for granted. It hints at entitlement.
I like to think that I am self aware. maybe you dont get it like I do (not to say that you dont have the capacity). To be honest, i use to think the same way as the civilized children did in regards to food. Then one day i realized how stupid i was for thinking like that.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 26, 2008, 10:48:08 PM
I think your missing my point. It is not an "Us vs Them" thing. It show how ignorant, stupid and naive the civilized children are. They have no sense of reality. They are taking things for granted. It hints at entitlement.
I like to think that I am self aware. maybe you dont get it like I do (not to say that you dont have the capacity). To be honest, i use to think the same way as the civilized children did in regards to food. Then one day i realized how stupid i was for thinking like that.
So it's not an "us vs them" but the "them" are stupid and you're not? Hmm...
at some point, everyone will realize that resources on this planet are finite. and then the "us vs them" thing will just be a matter of survival.
Peak oil by definition means that oil is finite, if you subscribe to that belief.
Other energy sources are problematic unless they are strictly controlled by rationing or price. Coal CAN be clean burning, but I seriously doubt if those plants in China are clean.
Therefore, pollution and clean air becomes a scarce resource.
Solar is currently inefficient and doesn't produce enough output for the cost.
Wind farms use HUGE amounts of land -- so where do people live? In high-rises and high-density housing of course. Time to bulldoze the Rockefeller estate? It's a waste of land.
Any kind of internal combustion, petrol, diesel, ethanol, produces pollution and uses resources of some kind.
Point is, human history is ALWAYS "us vs them" regarding resources, whether land, water, oil, gold, women, etc. That's just the nature of life.
Really. It is.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 27, 2008, 08:07:00 AM
So it's not an "us vs them" but the "them" are stupid and you're not? Hmm...
What? That was the criticism I was pointing at you. The tone of what you wrote before me was heartless and cold. I totally understand your position as that is my pragmatic position but that does not mean my ideals have to be that way.
I know ultimately it is "us vs them" as human beings are inherently selfish. It does not mean that one should expect it, embrace it, and come off in a way where oneself is entitled to act selfishly.
It is nice that we are able to enjoy the benefits of having energy, and although you disagree, it does not mean that we are entitled to the benefits of energy such as air conditioning, electronics, the internet and such.
Who are you (and i mean you as in plural/every/anybody) that you are entitled to something while someone else pays for it.
We have and do pay for it. 2 wars against the British, WWII to keep the Germans on the other side of the ocean, taxes, national dept etc.
I never really thought about it but some cultures are better designed to survive. Otherwise why isn't the "cradle of life" home to any super powers. Even though it was not PC what he said it is true. IMHO designing a government, paying for and protecting a government and society is not the same as acting as if we are entitled to it. We are used to clean water, computer, ps3 etc etc because of how we and our predecessors laid the stitches of the United States The Americas. Do I think my country is perfect, no we need to improve as do all other countrys. Do I love it? Hell yea with all of my heart down to my last drop of blood [thumbsup]
(http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o292/ducatiloo/flag3-1.gif)
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 27, 2008, 12:04:00 PM
What? That was the criticism I was pointing at you. The tone of what you wrote before me was heartless and cold. I totally understand your position as that is my pragmatic position but that does not mean my ideals have to be that way.
I know ultimately it is "us vs them" as human beings are inherently selfish. It does not mean that one should expect it, embrace it, and come off in a way where oneself is entitled to act selfishly.
selfishness can be a virtue if it is enlightened selfishness. for instance, is it selfish of me to demand good, clean air and water? of course it is, because I want it for ME (and my family). I could give a shit if someone else got it. Practically, that means that if everyone acts selfishly in the pursuit of things like clean air and water that they will "own" the issue and take it seriously, rather than let some bureaucrat do it for them.
QuoteIt is nice that we are able to enjoy the benefits of having energy, and although you disagree, it does not mean that we are entitled to the benefits of energy such as air conditioning, electronics, the internet and such.
Who are you (and i mean you as in plural/every/anybody) that you are entitled to something while someone else pays for it.
I am entitled to it. I pay for it every month in my electrical/gas/water bills and my taxes and so on. I am entitled because people fought and died so that we could enjoy these things. I've put a lot of time and energy supporting the things that I believe in, rather than just coasting along.
It's not heartless to say that people get the society they deserve. I don't think other people are stupid for not having the things I do, I think they are making choices that I would not make. Maybe plenty of them ARE stupid, but that's not relevant -- they may not value education, plenty of people don't.
I remember during the Ethiopian civil war, they were interviewing fighters (it was PBS) and one of them was asked about getting supplies for their children -- food, medical, etc. he said (i paraphrase) "send us guns. we can make more children later."
Choices.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 27, 2008, 02:44:28 PM
I am entitled to it. I pay for it every month in my electrical/gas/water bills and my taxes and so on. I am entitled because people fought and died so that we could enjoy these things. I've put a lot of time and energy supporting the things that I believe in, rather than just coasting along.
It's not heartless to say that people get the society they deserve. I don't think other people are stupid for not having the things I do, I think they are making choices that I would not make. Maybe plenty of them ARE stupid, but that's not relevant -- they may not value education, plenty of people don't.
I remember during the Ethiopian civil war, they were interviewing fighters (it was PBS) and one of them was asked about getting supplies for their children -- food, medical, etc. he said (i paraphrase) "send us guns. we can make more children later."
Choices.
Your reasons given for entitlement is not sufficient. Your not in the position of power here (neither am I) to say that we are entitled to anything. In the same sense, the power companies should be entitled to charge how much they want.
And the thing about people deserve the societies they have. What about the children born to those societies.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 27, 2008, 08:09:01 PM
Your reasons given for entitlement is not sufficient. Your not in the position of power here (neither am I) to say that we are entitled to anything. In the same sense, the power companies should be entitled to charge how much they want.
Earning it doesn't make it yours? Really?
Quote from: someguy on July 27, 2008, 10:33:22 PM
Earning it doesn't make it yours? Really?
Earning it like how? What entitles us to demand cheap oil. I mean, arent the middle eastern countries entitled to charge however much they want? It belongs to them, on their land, so they are entitled to it more than anyone else. You are not entitle to my property and therefore I am entitled to charge what ever I want for it. May not mean you will buy it from me.
Hey, I am entitled to buy your Monster from you for $1 and you WILL sell it to me because I am entitled to it. You know why? because im going to fight for it. Im going to send people your way to take it from you and they may die. So that fulfills the requirement for people dieing for it. I support the monster community. I have my own monster and paid for it (fulfilling the "paying every month for electricity). Basically, I am going to take your monster from you and therefore I will be entitled to it. (Im sorry for sounding like an ass but I am just trying making a parallel argument.)
What I am seeing is a view that is "America/American" centric. Sure, we are the "world power" now but that does not mean that we are entitled to other people's stuff. If someone else becomes the "world power" I dont think our "America" centric views will change but we wont have a faux reason to base our entitlement. It also does not mean that the new world power should be entitled to our stuff. Im attempting to bring to light the other side and pointing out that this is a double edged sword. We can cut our enemies with this logic and also cut oursleves.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 06:14:33 AM
Earning it like how? What entitles us to demand cheap oil. I mean, arent the middle eastern countries entitled to charge however much they want? It belongs to them, on their land, so they are entitled to it more than anyone else. You are not entitle to my property and therefore I am entitled to charge what ever I want for it. May not mean you will buy it from me.
Hey, I am entitled to buy your Monster from you for $1 and you WILL sell it to me because I am entitled to it. You know why? because im going to fight for it. Im going to send people your way to take it from you and they may die. So that fulfills the requirement for people dieing for it. I support the monster community. I have my own monster and paid for it (fulfilling the "paying every month for electricity). Basically, I am going to take your monster from you and therefore I will be entitled to it. (Im sorry for sounding like an ass but I am just trying making a parallel argument.)
sounds like you're entitled to it to me..
Might does make Right you know? Love it or hate it.
When someone else is more powerful than the US, then we can whine and pregnant dog about it then. But that's just the way the balls bounce.
Quote
What I am seeing is a view that is "America/American" centric. Sure, we are the "world power" now but that does not mean that we are entitled to other people's stuff. If someone else becomes the "world power" I dont think our "America" centric views will change but we wont have a faux reason to base our entitlement. It also does not mean that the new world power should be entitled to our stuff. Im attempting to bring to light the other side and pointing out that this is a double edged sword. We can cut our enemies with this logic and also cut oursleves.
yep, it is a double edged sword.
that's why it pays to be a better swordsman.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 28, 2008, 06:50:14 AM
sounds like you're entitled to it to me..
Might does make Right you know? Love it or hate it.
When someone else is more powerful than the US, then we can whine and pregnant dog about it then. But that's just the way the balls bounce.
yep, it is a double edged sword.
that's why it pays to be a better swordsman.
My objective is to show the other side. From what you say, it tells me that you at least acknowledge it. Entitled (for either of us)? maybe not. Do we benefit.....Yes. I know thats how the ball bounces but world powers come and go. That is just history. And what I was hinting at is that Might does not make right. I myself would rather be the mighty than the weak but might is not a justification for exploitation. There is always someone mightier than me/you(plural).
If your stance is "I know that im doing wrong but you cant do a F**king thing about it" then im fine with that. But it does not make might right.
An undertone of how you say things make it seem like you are invincible. Being the better swordsman does pay, but we all get old and someone better does and will come along. There is something called "you reap what you sow" or karma and it has a way of "ironically" presenting itself. I take the stance that i take to minimize karma being a pregnant dog to me because I am far from perfect.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 28, 2008, 06:50:14 AM
Might does make Right you know? Love it or hate it.
The problem with that is that someone else will always be bigger and stronger either now or later, or they'll gang up on you if you're heinous enough. The Japanese were the mightiest in the east for decades and it ended it the complete destruction of their nation and hundreds of thousands killed. The British had a mighty empire which was not nearly as cruel as the Japanese empire and thusly was not treated the same.
Quote from: B.Rock on July 28, 2008, 09:54:44 AM
The problem with that is that someone else will always be bigger and stronger either now or later, or they'll gang up on you if you're heinous enough. The Japanese were the mightiest in the east for decades and it ended it the complete destruction of their nation and hundreds of thousands killed. The British had a mighty empire which was not nearly as cruel as the Japanese empire and thusly was not treated the same.
yep, that is the problem. whomever is on bottom gets shit. but recognizing that doesn't change that it's just the natural order of things.
for example, we'd like to think we're all civilized because we have forums like the UN, but the UN is powerless to do anything unless the Security Council agrees to it, unanimously. The end result is a lot of feelgood stuff getting done (some useful, some not) and serious issues like regional instability due to terrorism or governmental breakdown often results in little action.
Many children who grow up today don't realize the necessary hardship that must be taken to provide a comfortable living. I don't view it as much as a form of entitlement, but rather appreciation.
No one will ever come out as a full all around winner. Yes as a country we have fought and earned our way into today's world, and we have every right to claim the luxary of living in the states as ours. How many of us sit down and think about how we came to this land? I know i do. I am a first generation born here, and it strikes me deep in the gut when i ever i hear someone talk smack about how we are wrong to have fought every country and fight for what we want. I get furious when i hear people talk shit about our soldiers and how we arent entittled to live. This comes from people who live amoung us, in OUR communities that reap the benefits of this nation. Are THEY entitled to it? According to Ducatizzz, they are. According to Ownytony, they arent. But rahter, if you ask, do they appreciate it? They defintely do not.
This is why children need to be educated and shown how hard it is outside of their parents $180k a year job.
it is strange, many times ,it is the poor who strive to be better and appreciate everything that has come before them, and the rich, who have nothing to work for, that want to find a way to better the world with their money that appreciate the world the most.
Everyone should find a way to teach their children to appreciate the things we take for granted. Religion used to be a good way, but that has folded over in our society.
So back on topic, kind of. We're all going to die in the puddle of shit we made ourselves. The game is, how long we can last, because everything great will come to an end one day. SO what were we talking about anyway? I like water, please dont take it away from me.
Quote from: He Man on July 28, 2008, 12:09:20 PM
Many children who grow up today don't realize the necessary hardship that must be taken to provide a comfortable living. I don't view it as much as a form of entitlement, but rather appreciation.
No one will ever come out as a full all around winner. Yes as a country we have fought and earned our way into today's world, and we have every right to claim the luxary of living in the states as ours. How many of us sit down and think about how we came to this land? I know i do. I am a first generation born here, and it strikes me deep in the gut when i ever i hear someone talk smack about how we are wrong to have fought every country and fight for what we want. I get furious when i hear people talk shit about our soldiers and how we arent entittled to live. This comes from people who live amoung us, in OUR communities that reap the benefits of this nation. Are THEY entitled to it? According to Ducatizzz, they are. According to Ownytony, they arent. But rahter, if you ask, do they appreciate it? They defintely do not.
This is why children need to be educated and shown how hard it is outside of their parents $180k a year job.
it is strange, many times ,it is the poor who strive to be better and appreciate everything that has come before them, and the rich, who have nothing to work for, that want to find a way to better the world with their money that appreciate the world the most.
Everyone should find a way to teach their children to appreciate the things we take for granted. Religion used to be a good way, but that has folded over in our society.
So back on topic, kind of. We're all going to die in the puddle of shit we made ourselves. The game is, how long we can last, because everything great will come to an end one day. SO what were we talking about anyway? I like water, please dont take it away from me.
Ok, I was going to stop posting in this thread because I thought I accomplished putting my point across to Ducatizzz and I felt that how he posted after my remarks were indicative that he acknowledges my points.
The word "entitled" is a strong word. I have been getting this vibe that this entitlement is based on "might is right". Also, the topic has been broad. Yes, I will say we are "entitled" to basic freedoms or to be treated and treat others with basic respect. But what makes us entitled to luxuries? Electicity is a luxury. Just because we have come to be accustomed to them does not mean we are entitled to it. That is where we are getting hung up on. Because we fought for it? Because we won? These things are based on "might is right". I say that through "might is right" we may have acquired these "luxuries" such as cheep energy but that does not mean we are entitled to them.
Your point about children not realizing the necessary hardships was one of my point when i mentioned that children from civilized countries do not comprehend hunger. They think the answer is simply going to the fridge to feed yourself. That shows ignorance as to all the logistics behind what makes that possible such as; having a "stable" government, a stable economic system where people are able to have jobs, systems of moving output so that they are readily available, all sorts of things that make it possible for you to grab something out of the fridge to feed yourself.
In defense of myself of you saying that I do not appreciate what I have, If I claim that we are entitled to nothing, does it not mean that or rather there is some connotation that I am not taking things for granted? That indeed I do appreciate the benefits? This is a "yes or no" question.
Who would appreciate something more, someone who feels that they are entitled to it, or someone who does not? The answer, bluntly stated, is the later.
I dont want to flame you or anything and it could be a misunderstanding but how can you go about and "judge" rather or not Ducatizzz or I do not appreciate what America has done for us? Our argument was if we are "entitled" to the benefits we receive. Not on if we appreciate them or not. Ducatizzz stance was "I enjoy what I have and we are entitled to the benefits because might is right". My stance was "just because we are stronger does not mean we are entitled to these benefits but however we acquire them, i do appreciate them."
What I said was a summary and I dont want to put words in Ducatizzz mouth. If he disagrees than feel free to correct me.
I only agree to the extent that you accurately portrayed what I said or did not say and not any less.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 28, 2008, 01:18:27 PM
I only agree to the extent that you accurately portrayed what I said or did not say and not any less.
Would you clarify? The only words that I were putting in your mouth was
"I enjoy what I have and we are entitled to the benefits because might is right"
your statement seems a little open ended.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 01:28:49 PM
Would you clarify? The only words that I were putting in your mouth was
"I enjoy what I have and we are entitled to the benefits because might is right"
your statement seems a little open ended.
i am just being catty
i think you stated it right. i am a firm believer in human nature and that being a selfish nature. that doesn't mean a selfish person doesn't act altruistically, it just means that altruism TRULY is usually within the context of selfish motives. (That's why rich people always want their names on their grants -- cases in point:
Brought to you by the "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation."
The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation etc etc. donate money so people can see how nice you are -- selfish motive.
And I am NOT saying that it is a BAD motive, it is a normal, human desire to be appreciated! But the base definition is that it is a form of selfishness (i.e. concern for oneself).
Likewise, in the global scheme of things, people have to act selfishly if they are to succeed and not act pathologically altruistic. Mother Theresa acted in this manner, and while it works for one person, society would fall apart if everyone pulled a "mother Theresa." There would be no wealth to donate, and poverty would be worse than before.
My comment about "Might makes right" comes from this notion of selfishness. It is simply the rule of the world. When two people disagree, they can walk away from one another. But when two different peoples (societies) disagree, and the disagreement is over who has a right to a limited resource, the result is negotiation and/or armed conflict.
Considering the history of mankind, both paths have been employed since the beginning of time. The UN was not the beginning of negotiation. We see examples of it in Babylonian times, under the code of Hammurabi, who actually defined rules for how to talk to an adversary, and even how to retreat.
Some now in the modern like to believe that the ancients were only about killing and fighting, but they are dead wrong. Even the Romans understood the value of a good negotiation.
That being said, when negotiations break down it is might that determines the new reality - -and the explanation of it in a historical context (i.e. "History is written by the victors").
And just like Flavius Josephus on down, the victors NEVER portray themselves as aggressors or acknowledge that their adversary may have had a legitimate claim or complaint. The victors want history to see them as peaceful, contented people, no matter how bloodthirsty or imperialistic they were.
Might does make right. Like it or not.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 28, 2008, 02:06:57 PM
i am just being catty
i think you stated it right. i am a firm believer in human nature and that being a selfish nature. that doesn't mean a selfish person doesn't act altruistically, it just means that altruism TRULY is usually within the context of selfish motives. (That's why rich people always want their names on their grants -- cases in point:
Brought to you by the "John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation."
The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation etc etc. donate money so people can see how nice you are -- selfish motive.
And I am NOT saying that it is a BAD motive, it is a normal, human desire to be appreciated! But the base definition is that it is a form of selfishness (i.e. concern for oneself).
Likewise, in the global scheme of things, people have to act selfishly if they are to succeed and not act pathologically altruistic. Mother Theresa acted in this manner, and while it works for one person, society would fall apart if everyone pulled a "mother Theresa." There would be no wealth to donate, and poverty would be worse than before.
My comment about "Might makes right" comes from this notion of selfishness. It is simply the rule of the world. When two people disagree, they can walk away from one another. But when two different peoples (societies) disagree, and the disagreement is over who has a right to a limited resource, the result is negotiation and/or armed conflict.
Considering the history of mankind, both paths have been employed since the beginning of time. The UN was not the beginning of negotiation. We see examples of it in Babylonian times, under the code of Hammurabi, who actually defined rules for how to talk to an adversary, and even how to retreat.
Some now in the modern like to believe that the ancients were only about killing and fighting, but they are dead wrong. Even the Romans understood the value of a good negotiation.
That being said, when negotiations break down it is might that determines the new reality - -and the explanation of it in a historical context (i.e. "History is written by the victors").
And just like Flavius Josephus on down, the victors NEVER portray themselves as aggressors or acknowledge that their adversary may have had a legitimate claim or complaint. The victors want history to see them as peaceful, contented people, no matter how bloodthirsty or imperialistic they were.
Might does make right. Like it or not.
I totally understand what you are saying. I too believe that every motive (including myself) is selfish. I use to believe in "might is right" like you do. That is my nature. I have consciously steer myself away from it because of religion (i will stop there). I still feel the way you do but I know it to be "wrong".
To sum up myself, I am an idealist but I am very pragmatic. Thinking something and doing something in reality are two different things. Reality just does not allow for a utopia.
"might is right" is the policy of how the world function but it does not mean that Might is Right.
What i feel you should have concluded your statement is
Rather you like it or not, the world functions on a policy where the strong imposes his will on the weaker. But this does not mean that Might is a defined as being right.
OwnyTony, i wasnt talking about you, im talking in general. I dont know you, so im not going to make a judgement like that against, you. ANd i never said, Ducatizz or you did not appreciate this country's benifits. It was ment as a POV using your ideal. Anyone who cares enough to be intrested in this thread already appreciates everything that has been giving to them. And its the beauty of this country. We may not agree on how things work, but you can always have a point of view without being killed. I've learned, everyone has their own vision of the world and its problems, and everyone is right (except for communists!!!) just dont pressure your view on anyone. And thats how im appraoching this topic. It is not a flame towards you, or anyone. Understand, learn and live.
In regards to "might is right".... and our "entitlement to luxury". Theres an idea that what your parents work hard for, is passed down to you. In fact that is how all of humanity was designed to work. Thats how thousands of years of cumulative knowledge has led us to a modern society. How does it apply to our discussion?
Everyone who has passed through here and decided to stick around has worked hard to give their children what they didnt have. It is our responsibility to pass our earnings onto our children. So if everyone before has fought hard to give us luxurys like electricity, why is it not our right to be entitled to that? Do I need to spill my own blood and invent my own way to make electricity? No, someone has already done that, what we need to do is to appreciate what we have and work to make it better. But not every single one of us has the mind and ability to find alternative sources for energy. Those of us who can, will, the rest will do something else.
QuoteRather you like it or not, the world functions on a policy where the strong imposes his will on the weaker. But this does not mean that Might is a defined as being right.
If you consider might as a form of militaristic power, then yes, you are true. but i guess i misunderstood it. I viewed it as the people who are more willing to do something is right because they didnt just sit on their ass and wait for a plate to be handed to them.
Just a question.
Why do you think you deserve the luxury that you currently live with today?
Well since I have taken more than a few physics classes I thought I'd check in and see if there was a discussion of Newton or Einstein. Some how you dudes got into a conservative dominated discussion of how the worlds social, political, and economic system works. Why are the loudmouths at the end of the bar always on the right? I'm out-a-here. [drink] [popcorn]
(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/Sour%20Grapes.jpg)
Quote from: akmnstr on July 28, 2008, 02:59:43 PM
Why are the loudmouths at the end of the bar always on the right? I'm out-a-here. [drink] [popcorn]
Because the loud mouths on the left are not smart enough yet smart enough to know that they cant logically hang with the loudmouths on the right. Your statement assumes that only the right has loudmouths. My statement is half joke/wit and other half retort.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
Because the loud mouths on the left are not smart enough yet smart enough to know that they cant logically hang with the loudmouths on the right. Your statement assumes that only the right has loudmouths. My statement is half joke/wit and other half retort.
d'ohhhh
this is a good time for the Team America "dicks, pussies and assholes" speech.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qEiB4qazq4k
In that regard, I gladly accept that im a Dick.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
Because the loud mouths on the left are not smart enough yet smart enough to know that they cant logically hang with the loudmouths on the right. Your statement assumes that only the right has loudmouths. My statement is half joke/wit and other half retort.
On the other hand, they are often smart enough to check their facts or at least mind check what they are getting ready to spill out. Come on now, when you rip on someone make sure it makes sense.
Burn post require at least one proof read.
Makes sense to me, not smart enough to hang, but smart enough to realize that they can't hang.
Quote from: fwtcc on July 28, 2008, 03:31:23 PM
On the other hand, they are often smart enough to check their facts or at least mind check what they are getting ready to spill out. Come on now, when you rip on someone make sure it makes sense.
Burn post require at least one proof read.
It makes total sense. Your pointing out that I used "smart enough" back to back. My dog is not smart enough to have a conversation with me yet he is smart enough not me mess with me. If you dont get that........Ducatiloo explained it perfectly.
Watching TV right now...
APS and Green Fuel.
Algea that is grown and harvested. The process of growing Algae leaves behind a sludge that is used to make bio diesel. The algae itself needs CO2 to grow, so you recycle Co2 as well. The algae liquid is also refined to make ethanol. Further more, the liquid can be condensed into a solid rock form (similar to solid methane crystals) and burned in a powerplant. Since it is a clean burning fuel, so you reduce toxins too.
Also the leading use of energy is to light buildings and cool homes. I did not know that
Quote from: He Man on July 28, 2008, 02:55:22 PM
OwnyTony, i wasnt talking about you, im talking in general. I dont know you, so im not going to make a judgement like that against, you. ANd i never said, Ducatizz or you did not appreciate this country's benifits. It was ment as a POV using your ideal. Anyone who cares enough to be intrested in this thread already appreciates everything that has been giving to them. And its the beauty of this country. We may not agree on how things work, but you can always have a point of view without being killed. I've learned, everyone has their own vision of the world and its problems, and everyone is right (except for communists!!!) just dont pressure your view on anyone. And thats how im appraoching this topic. It is not a flame towards you, or anyone. Understand, learn and live.
In regards to "might is right".... and our "entitlement to luxury". Theres an idea that what your parents work hard for, is passed down to you. In fact that is how all of humanity was designed to work. Thats how thousands of years of cumulative knowledge has led us to a modern society. How does it apply to our discussion?
Everyone who has passed through here and decided to stick around has worked hard to give their children what they didnt have. It is our responsibility to pass our earnings onto our children. So if everyone before has fought hard to give us luxurys like electricity, why is it not our right to be entitled to that? Do I need to spill my own blood and invent my own way to make electricity? No, someone has already done that, what we need to do is to appreciate what we have and work to make it better. But not every single one of us has the mind and ability to find alternative sources for energy. Those of us who can, will, the rest will do something else.
If you consider might as a form of militaristic power, then yes, you are true. but i guess i misunderstood it. I viewed it as the people who are more willing to do something is right because they didnt just sit on their ass and wait for a plate to be handed to them.
Just a question.
Why do you think you deserve the luxury that you currently live with today?
Then our "beef" was a misunderstanding. That is what I stated it could have been before I retorted against you.
As to rather or not i deserve the luxury that i currently live with today.....That is relative. I sure am accustomed to it. I too am first (or second how you choose to count) generation American born in the states. I was actually born on the most patriotic of days, the day America declared independence.
I knew that most of our energy we used today was to light buildings and especially on heating and air. I have had the privilege to visit abroad. One thing you will notice is how they do at least have the technology and some what on the same scale to supply heating and air, they do not turn it on on the same scale as we do or to the level I am accustomed to in the states. WHY? Because electricity is more expensive then in the states.
I am accustomed to the "luxuries" I have today but morally counting the cost so that I can enjoy it, I am not nor can say with a clear conscience that I am entitled to it.
Like I said, entitlement is a very strong word/concept. It means regardless of the circumstances, it should belong to you and readily accessible by you at your whim. I mean, what do you(plural) think you are to be able to expect that, a king?
Quote from: He Man on July 28, 2008, 04:22:10 PM
Watching TV right now...
APS and Green Fuel.
Algea that is grown and harvested. The process of growing Algae leaves behind a sludge that is used to make bio diesel. The algae itself needs CO2 to grow, so you recycle Co2 as well. The algae liquid is also refined to make ethanol. Further more, the liquid can be condensed into a solid rock form (similar to solid methane crystals) and burned in a powerplant. Since it is a clean burning fuel, so you reduce toxins too.
Also the leading use of energy is to light buildings and cool homes. I did not know that
i saw something on biodiesel made from algae, i am not surprised they can make ethanol from it.
sounds like a plan.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 03:43:32 PM
It makes total sense. Your pointing out that I used "smart enough" back to back. My dog is not smart enough to have a conversation with me yet he is smart enough not me mess with me. If you dont get that........Ducatiloo explained it perfectly.
There are these little guys called commas. They are what you are lacking in the sentence. Once again, proof read your punk outs.
Quote...are not smart enough, yet smart enough to know...
Quote from: fwtcc on July 28, 2008, 08:17:09 PM
There are these little guys called commas. They are what you are lacking in the sentence. Once again, proof read your punk outs.
Ok. One shallow and petty victory for you. EDIT: I lack one.
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 09:51:29 PM
Ok. One shallow and petty victory for you. EDIT: I lack one.
rofl
Quote from: OwnyTony on July 28, 2008, 09:51:29 PM
Ok. One shallow and petty victory for you. EDIT: I lack one.
No need to get huffy. I guess when you can't be right, be angry at the guy questioning you. That's the other right mantra, correct? When putting down someone else's intelligence, be sure that you do it intelligently. When you mess it up twice,... FAIL. I'm just sayin'.
Quote from: fwtcc on July 29, 2008, 05:52:43 AM
No need to get huffy. I guess when you can't be right, be angry at the guy questioning you. That's the other right mantra, correct? When putting down someone else's intelligence, be sure that you do it intelligently. When you mess it up twice,... FAIL. I'm just sayin'.
Um.......The conversation I was having was mostly between Ducatizzz and me. It did not warrant an outsider jumping in and talking smack. Our conversation (Ducatizzz and me) did not resort to calling each other names.
When "Pandora's" box was open, I did not limit myself from making a cheeky remark. Twice fail? Again, you take two commas (or the lack of me putting in 1 comma for two separate statements) and try to manipulate that into some major victory for yourself?
I was not being huffy on my "Ok. One shallow and petty victory" statement. I am "huffy" now. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe i should
have wrote "Ok. One shallow and petty victory for you [roll]" Maybe then you will get the nuances of what I said and realize the tone was suppose to be received as sarcasm.
Why would I start smack within the monster family. I enjoy and value this community. If someone starts smack and it is directed towards me, I will "defend" myself. Most of my posts were as PC as i deemed necessary so to minimize "bad blood".
In this regard,... you FAIL, I'm just sayin'. You like the tone of that?
Dude, really, all in good fun. The first was merely an interjection for the respect of "the burn". I actually hate grammar nazis, but it is a shame to see a good retort ruined by irony.
This little guy:
QuoteI guess when you can't be right, be angry at the guy questioning you. That's the other right mantra, correct?
was merely a joking reference to this little guy:
QuoteMy statement is half joke/wit and other half retort.
Again, all in good fun my friend. Now back to Team America and A-ric Ball-rin. Sorry my attempt at a minor, humorous interjection turned into a huge one.
Quote from: fwtcc on July 29, 2008, 06:57:53 AM
Dude, really, all in good fun. The first was merely an interjection for the respect of "the burn". I actually hate grammar nazis, but it is a shame to see a good retort ruined by irony.
This little guy:was merely a joking reference to this little guy:
Again, all in good fun my friend. Now back to Team America and A-ric Ball-rin. Sorry my attempt at a minor, humorous interjection turned into a huge one.
YOU'RE CALLING ME LITTLE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:( :o......... ;)
There is a reason why I add those comments. It is to show, or help with the tone of what was written. You can't "hear" what is written. Tone and inflections in one's voice are also means of communication. I can say one thing and it will literally mean one thing, while the tone and way I say it may make it mean something totally different. Sarcasm would be a good example of this.
Didn't take time to read the whole thread, but...
We just traded my fiancée's car (2004 Malibu with 2.2L I-4) for a larger car. 2008 Impala with 3.5L V6. She went from 20-21mpg (the 2.2 was really overworked in the Malibu) to 28-30mpg. Bigger car bigger motor. It's an E85 compatible. Seems in order to get decent mileage on the E85, they had to make it as efficient as possible. Ford also screwed up with they dropped the Vulcan V6 (3.0L, 12 valves) out of the Taurus lineup. I've got one with 175,000 miles that STILL consistent ly gets 27-29mpg.
JM
How do i make it so that this thread no longer shows up in my "replies" filter?
It's sooooo far off topic it's not funny.
Well, maybe it'd be funny if i were in a better mood. But really it's just irritating.
Could everyone who's butt sore put the claws away and back away from eachother?
Let it die.
How about this as a mid term solution.
(http://automobiles.honda.com/images/2008/civic-gx/overview/pano.jpg)
It runs on compressed Natural Gas. CNG is much cleaner burning and costs about $2.75 A gal.
Don't know where to get natural gas where you live?
How about at Home. That's right, the same stuff that runs your stove top and furnace will run this Car. There is a filling kit you can buy and you just pipe it in to the NG line in you house & fill up in the driveway.
Quote from: MendoDave on July 29, 2008, 02:40:13 PM
Don't know where to get natural gas where you live?
How about at Home. That's right, the same stuff that runs your stove top and furnace will run this Car. There is a filling kit you can buy and you just pipe it in to the NG line in you house & fill up in the driveway.
...bring on the Taco Bell jokes...
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 29, 2008, 02:43:06 PM
...bring on the Taco Bell jokes...
I would, but the make the beast with two backstards took away the only Tacobell within 4 miles of me. You know what they turned it into? A make the beast with two backsing commerce bank. And you know hat happened on oepning day? it got robbed. [bang]
And mendodave, not everyone has natrual gas in the house. Theres still alot of people on electric stoves.
Great until we use Nat Gas to the point that the price goes up on it, then watch people try to heat their homes.
Too much of a Band-aid fix for me. And I'd like hydrogen except for the fact that they use methane to make the the hydrogen via Steam reforming. If they ever can find a cheep way to create hydogen via Electrolysis I would be all for it. But right now it looks no better than a electric car hooked up to coal plant.
Quote from: Ducatiloo on July 29, 2008, 02:57:24 PM
If they ever can find a cheep way to create hydogen via Electrolysis I would be all for it. But right now it looks no better than a electric car hooked up to coal plant.
with a price tag of 10-20x as much
I realize that not everybody has it, but lots of people do. That would make us less dependent on someone else's oil, because this stuff is our stuff, it's not brought it on a ship. There is No one solution that's going to fix it all. But for millions of people this stuff comes right out of their garage. I think you can get a tax credit for it too. Remember those old LPG conversion kits people had on their cars? My uncle had one. His wife worked for Suburban propane so he got a discount on it. Anyway these work the same way. you run it on Compressed Gas until it runs out then you turn the Valve and run on gasoline like normal.
I don't think the Honda does that though.
(http://automobiles.honda.com/images/2008/civic-gx/refueling/refueling-image.jpg)
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/refueling.aspx