T
tasoli
Guest
Controversy is my middle name baby.
It's not necessarily the topic itself that is bad... it is the way in which people discuss those topics. Eye poking, knife jabbing replies that may come across in other ways than the author may have intended, such as something to the effect of "You're an idiot if my point of view isn't the obvious right choice", is what ruins good discussion.
As my signature states: "To each their own", or another "Agree to disagree".
I guess a good guideline to controversial issues might be to ask each other why they feel the way they do, but respect the fact that you're view may not change theirs, and theirs may not change yours. Expect everyone to disagree with you, and don't get snappy, defensive, offended or what have you, when they do... instead, be happy when someone agrees
Take the above as a grain of salt and advice toward everyone and no one in particular. It is the way I think, and I highly, HIGHLY doubt anyone thinks like me Also, please don't take that as "Hero's Hall Gospel"... it is mine alone, as a participant in discussions, who likes controversial discussion without drama... hehe.
~ Jaraeth
As my signature states: "To each their own", or another "Agree to disagree".
I guess a good guideline to controversial issues might be to ask each other why they feel the way they do, but respect the fact that you're view may not change theirs, and theirs may not change yours. Expect everyone to disagree with you, and don't get snappy, defensive, offended or what have you, when they do... instead, be happy when someone agrees
Take the above as a grain of salt and advice toward everyone and no one in particular. It is the way I think, and I highly, HIGHLY doubt anyone thinks like me
Also, please don't take that as "Hero's Hall Gospel"... it is mine alone, as a participant in discussions, who likes controversial discussion without drama... hehe.~ Jaraeth
Ikiru
Cadet
This probably doesn't have anything to do with the topic but I was wondering, What's the big differences between this Electric car and the Hydro car that seems to be in development?
I know the basic difference is one runs on Electricity and the other has some chemical process involving Hydrogen but is that the only difference?
I got involved with a conversation on this with my friends Dad, who works at a local Nukelear plant, and he mentioned that if we as a people were to start using Hydro cars gas stations would be replaces with small Nukelear stations (Nuke Stations? ) to get our fuel. Neat Idea but I can't help thinking of little fallout zones popping up if one fails.
Would it better overall to have Hydro Cars...or are Electric cars the way we should be heading ?
I know the basic difference is one runs on Electricity and the other has some chemical process involving Hydrogen but is that the only difference?
I got involved with a conversation on this with my friends Dad, who works at a local Nukelear plant, and he mentioned that if we as a people were to start using Hydro cars gas stations would be replaces with small Nukelear stations (Nuke Stations?
) to get our fuel. Neat Idea but I can't help thinking of little fallout zones popping up if one fails. Would it better overall to have Hydro Cars...or are Electric cars the way we should be heading ?
Karetyr
Cadet
Electric cars don't work and won't work, and hydrogen cars don't work but will work. That's the biggest difference.Originally posted by Ikiru@May 21 2006, 08:30 AM
This probably doesn't have anything to do with the topic but I was wondering, What's the big differences between this Electric car and the Hydro car that seems to be in development?
I know the basic difference is one runs on Electricity and the other has some chemical process involving Hydrogen but is that the only difference?
I got involved with a conversation on this with my friends Dad, who works at a local Nukelear plant, and he mentioned that if we as a people were to start using Hydro cars gas stations would be replaces with small Nukelear stations (Nuke Stations?
Would it better overall to have Hydro Cars...or are Electric cars the way we should be heading ?
Also, regarding hydrogen fueling stations - no, they won't be nuclear. They'll simply store hydrogen gas - technically explosive, but so is storing gasoline.
T
tasoli
Guest
Electric cars don't work and won't work, and hydrogen cars don't work but will work. That's the biggest difference.Originally posted by Riceman+May 21 2006, 06:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Riceman @ May 21 2006, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ikiru@May 21 2006, 08:30 AM
This probably doesn't have anything to do with the topic but I was wondering, What's the big differences between this Electric car and the Hydro car that seems to be in development?
I know the basic difference is one runs on Electricity and the other has some chemical process involving Hydrogen but is that the only difference?
I got involved with a conversation on this with my friends Dad, who works at a local Nukelear plant, and he mentioned that if we as a people were to start using Hydro cars gas stations would be replaces with small Nukelear stations (Nuke Stations?
Would it better overall to have Hydro Cars...or are Electric cars the way we should be heading ?
Also, regarding hydrogen fueling stations - no, they won't be nuclear. They'll simply store hydrogen gas - technically explosive, but so is storing gasoline. [/b][/quote]
Why is it that you say they don't work? I mean, in the video they're running fine, so you must mean on a mass scale they won't work as a solution to vehicles fueled by our current (fossil) fuels, right?
I am sorry Rice, but you are So wrong on both counts. Both Hydrogen and Electric cars work, and work just as well as any stock gas vehicle on the road, barring heavy equipment. The only reason they havent been developed for mass consumers is the vehicle production and oil production industries straglehold on the market.
Its the same reason that you cant get a cell phone the size of a watch, although the technology has been invented (pulse signal distribution) because current cell tech providers (that use wave signal production) are incompatable with the new tech.
Electric cars run on a charge contained in a battery cell that needs recharging at intervals, whereas a hydrogen car uses a chemical reaction (not combustion) to create an electrical charge, powering the veicle. The big difference is where you "refill" your vehicle. Any electrician can install a hookup for an electric car in your home (and no, it doesnt come near to doubling your electrical bill), but hydrogen cells would be refilled at a hydrogen fueling station. Hydrogen cells last longer on a "tank" than both electric cars and gas cars (using the current technology standards as examples) and have a better power loss ratio than the electric cars (more efficient).
The main problem is, while anyone could build an electric or hydrogen car (if they have the tech expertise to do so), doing so would be so cost prohibitive as to not be worth it. Meanwhile, the companies that could produce them for much cheaper because they allready have the equipment and manpower in place to mass produce vehicles are pressured by the oil industry to keep producing gas cars to keep oil demand up.
Basicly, for the same reason your medical bills in the US are so high, due to pharmacutical companies... but thats another rant
I dont expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope whoever reads this does so with an open mind and that at least start to think about the possibilities.
Xhar
This is the same reasoning I have on the issue. My curiousity is if there is something else that I'm not aware of?Originally posted by Xhar@May 21 2006, 12:54 PM
...
Basicly, for the same reason your medical bills in the US are so high, due to pharmacutical companies... but thats another rant
I dont expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope whoever reads this does so with an open mind and that at least start to think about the possibilities.
Xhar
I know additional piece of info in my own experience, having recently bought a 4 Cyl Kia Rio5. I wanted to replace my aging Grand Am with something less expensive, and more fuel efficient. I did look into a companies Electric/Gas Hybrid vehicle, I think Honda, but I don't recall. The price was a bit high, but I was willing, if the financing was available, and if it fit two other criteria: 1) Cost of Insurance and 2) ability to go up and down mountains with enough horsepower to not lose speed while on an incline.
According to the sales person, it could handle inclines and mountains fine, though slower than most 6 cyl vehicles in might compare in HP to a lower end 4 cyl, such as the Kia I now have. Insurance though, was what killed me... it would have nearly doubled my vehicle insurance. WHY?!?! My insurance company rep. couldn't explain exactly what about the vehicle caused their company to need to increase my rates so high... so, back to gasoline I went.
Sadly, my 4 Cyl Grand Am GT w/ manual transmission (and equal HP to the automatic 6 cyl model) got better gas mileage than my Kia. I just couldn't afford to repair the vehicle any longer as it kept dying once a year with $5,000+ repair bills.
~ Jaraeth
F
frostydf2
Guest
That's also why the United States is the envy of the world when it comes to medical discoveries. Who would like to go to Iran, and recieve treatment? No one.
Also, a lot of people aren't just about 'saving gas'. Honestly, in my eyes, unless something for me can give me the performance I want on a different type of fuel. Whether that be electric, ethenol, or hydrogen fuel, I want nothing to do with it.
Also, a lot of people aren't just about 'saving gas'. Honestly, in my eyes, unless something for me can give me the performance I want on a different type of fuel. Whether that be electric, ethenol, or hydrogen fuel, I want nothing to do with it.
Karetyr
Cadet
Oh, I know electric and hydrogen vehicles are perfectly operational right now - in fact, Los Angeles uses a hydrogen-fueled bus as part of its public transportation system.
However, I'd like to go over a couple points.
First, in terms of power production, current electric/hydrogen vehicle technology can't compete with gasoline combustion engines in the full spectrum of the powerband. As a drift racer, I'm not the slightest interested in weaker vehicles.
Second, while electric cars would require little in the way of infrastructure change, hydrogen cars would require a complete overhaul of the country's infrastructure. Not only would you need hydrogen refueling stations, but you'd also need new controls on the automotive industry. Hydrogen fuel cells are cleaner than gasoline, but they aren't without their own impact on the environment. That means a lot of time wasted while the bureaucrats argue about environmental controls and other felgercarb like that.
--
Don't take this as a "we'll never use anything but gas" statement. Personally, I'm pleased at the prospect of a new, non-Arabic fuel source. However, I don't think it's likely we'll see hydrogen cars overtake gasoline cars within the next few decades in production numbers, and electric cars will almost certainly never outnumber other fuel types.
deathmetal
Cadet
Hah, I remember years ago all that talk about flying cars coming out after the year 2000 and such.
Anyways, yeah the oil companies have too big of a hold on things for any real alt. fuel progress to be made. I think it would be pretty sterile and boring anyways if every car in the future was electric and made no noise at all. Just a bunch of silent cars driving about everywhere. Why do the few current electric cars have to look so rediculous too? That doesn't help.
Growing up I was and still am really into muscle cars and I like that aggressive powerful sound they make. It's part of the fun of driving a car like that. I'd rather see us move to cleaner burning fuels than electricity.
Anyways, yeah the oil companies have too big of a hold on things for any real alt. fuel progress to be made. I think it would be pretty sterile and boring anyways if every car in the future was electric and made no noise at all. Just a bunch of silent cars driving about everywhere. Why do the few current electric cars have to look so rediculous too? That doesn't help.
Growing up I was and still am really into muscle cars and I like that aggressive powerful sound they make. It's part of the fun of driving a car like that. I'd rather see us move to cleaner burning fuels than electricity.
T
tasoli
Guest
All I've seen so far is people who enjoy fast/loud cars opting for the old fuel, while people who care about the environment and the future of humanity opting for a revolution in fuel cell technology.
deathmetal
Cadet
Wow that is a huge generalization right there. You are basically saying everyone who owns a fast car doesn't care about the environment or the future of humanity. This reminds me of that Southpark episode with all the smug hybrid car drivers.
To put it another way without the generalizations, why do people put their own entertainment/enjoyment in front of the environment and dependancy of a finite fuel source? "Me me me" thinking is what drags the world down as a whole. Its almost as bad as "why abolish slavery, I dont want to pick the cotton myself."
Ok, that admittedly may seem a bit harsh, but still...
Also, my "exept for heavy equipment" statement should have been "exept for heavy equipment and performance vehicles". I have no problem volunteering and agreeing to that, I just dont see why a few ten thousand hobbyists and motorsports professionals (who are sponsored by who? you guessed it...) have to override a few HUNDRED MILLION who are stuck having to pay way more on a tank of gas than they would on their electric bill.
Also, the "environmental impact" of producing hydrogen is a myth propogated by the oil conglomerates (based on a few existing coal burning plants). Hydrogen can be produced just as easily by existing hydro-dam powerplants, creating no further environmental impact than what allready exists. Add to that the fact that Hydrogen could be introduced slowly into the system, like say one hydrogen pump added to each fueling station to start. You know, the way Diesel started out? Diesel fuel requires a completely different engine and fuel, but did that stop the companies from adding them? NO, why? Because that is an OIL based fuel (actually, Diesel is a by-product of refining gasoline)!
I can guarantee you that if Hydrogen was produced by the same companies that produce Oil (just like Diesel) we would have seen Hydrogen fuel pumps back in the 70s when the first huge oil crisis came up. Instead all we have is Big oil getting better profits than it has ever seen, and getting bigger subsidies from the US government for god knows what, AND they are applying to drill in more and more eviromentaly protected areas.
All of this so a few huge companies can get even more money, and a (relative) few can have their joyride/adrenaline rush.
A simple solution would be to keep the fossil fuels for the sportsters, and get the "alternative" (I hate that term) fuel vehicles out for the millions of people crying out for them. What is going on right now is simply aggressive market manipulation. If there is no/little supply then the demand, regardless of how verbose it is, is limited.
Capitalism and free enterprise only works when the market is completely open and free of manipulation by from big companies. Its what the anti-trust laws are supposed to protect us from, but no one wants to go up against the oil companies brigade of lawyers and lobyists.
OK, this post is long enough, though I had more to say I will quit ranting.
Xhar
P.S. No, I dont like the smell of my own farts, lol (South Park, that was a funny assed episode)
Ok, that admittedly may seem a bit harsh, but still...
Also, my "exept for heavy equipment" statement should have been "exept for heavy equipment and performance vehicles". I have no problem volunteering and agreeing to that, I just dont see why a few ten thousand hobbyists and motorsports professionals (who are sponsored by who? you guessed it...) have to override a few HUNDRED MILLION who are stuck having to pay way more on a tank of gas than they would on their electric bill.
Also, the "environmental impact" of producing hydrogen is a myth propogated by the oil conglomerates (based on a few existing coal burning plants). Hydrogen can be produced just as easily by existing hydro-dam powerplants, creating no further environmental impact than what allready exists. Add to that the fact that Hydrogen could be introduced slowly into the system, like say one hydrogen pump added to each fueling station to start. You know, the way Diesel started out? Diesel fuel requires a completely different engine and fuel, but did that stop the companies from adding them? NO, why? Because that is an OIL based fuel (actually, Diesel is a by-product of refining gasoline)!
I can guarantee you that if Hydrogen was produced by the same companies that produce Oil (just like Diesel) we would have seen Hydrogen fuel pumps back in the 70s when the first huge oil crisis came up. Instead all we have is Big oil getting better profits than it has ever seen, and getting bigger subsidies from the US government for god knows what, AND they are applying to drill in more and more eviromentaly protected areas.
All of this so a few huge companies can get even more money, and a (relative) few can have their joyride/adrenaline rush.
A simple solution would be to keep the fossil fuels for the sportsters, and get the "alternative" (I hate that term) fuel vehicles out for the millions of people crying out for them. What is going on right now is simply aggressive market manipulation. If there is no/little supply then the demand, regardless of how verbose it is, is limited.
Capitalism and free enterprise only works when the market is completely open and free of manipulation by from big companies. Its what the anti-trust laws are supposed to protect us from, but no one wants to go up against the oil companies brigade of lawyers and lobyists.
OK, this post is long enough, though I had more to say I will quit ranting.
Xhar
P.S. No, I dont like the smell of my own farts, lol (South Park, that was a funny assed episode)
F
frostydf2
Guest
Some people enjoy racing, and having a fun car to drive around in. I for one am putting out $150 a month in GAS ALONE. If I can afford to put that gas into my Blazer, then I should have the right to drive around as much as I please. Thats my opinion.
We (at least in pricipal) just agreed with each other from opposite sides of the spectrum. What people want to do in their free time is none of my business, let alone anything I should be able to control.
However, my point was that big oil business, through the practice of constricting the automotive market, is telling me and millions like me that I cannot drive the type of vehicle I want! This is done by refusing the backing of the alternative fuel vehicles production, making them cost prohibitive on the lot, and impractical by not backing the Hydrogen fueling stations.
You know, its sad... Kinda reminds me of the research I did on Galileo. His research was supressed by the Vatican because it didnt go along with what they supported. That kind of thinking put the human race behind in scientific discovery by who knows how many years?
Xhar
If the price of gasoline included the cost to repair the environmental damage done by fuel emissions, then I'd say do what you want.
But the truth is that no one is paying for that, so we all share the cost in the long run. It's telling me that my children have to suffer an uglier, less healthy world because someone else wanted to drive a fast car. And I'm not supposed to be angry about that?
Now if there was some way to make a fast car that wasn't also a gas guzzler...or a way to make people also pay for the environmental damage they cause....then do whatever the heck you like with it. As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, it's your own business what you do for fun.
(<--- one of those "smug hybrid car drivers" since 2001, though I'd prefer a hydrogen cell car)
