| Author |
Topic |
Aliraxi
Gallente
Throat Slitters
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:39:00 - [ 61]
Edited by: Aliraxi on 16/04/2010 20:38:48
Pfft.
As long as there isn't a shortage of cookies & milk, im 99% sure ill be fine.
EDIT: Page tree snipah? |
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:44:00 - [ 62]
I love these threads. It brings out all the stupid americans. It also brings out all the stupid non-americans. In addition it brings out the fake stupid americans being impersonated by stupid non-americans and vice versa. How awesome is that for a fabulous jingolistic discussion?  |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:59:00 - [ 63]
 Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 16/04/2010 18:29:27
Originally by: Umega
Oh yeah how every single war ever fought has had invested interest from outside sources since history was being kept.
So to use the arguement 'we did it alone' doesn't work with anything, at all.. anywhere in time really concerning warfare.
So I don't understand the crutch of saying America never did anything 'alone'. cept maybe the little mexican and spanish stints, and the little number we did upon japan? Oh wait, I'm sure materials and other goods came from other countries to help support.. which could be said about any other nation that was ever in a war.
So again.. whats the point of claiming America never won something alone when such was never the case for anyone?
Actually fuels my point that when/if America closes up shop, shuts down borders and withdraws all troops from outside the 50.. who is other countries goin' look to when some of these sleeping giants decide to use what they got to get what they want?
Again.. good luck.
Burma. Look it up as most Americans seem to forget that British forces were in the far east protecting the empire. Aslo everyone here is talking about real military help not just simple supply shipments. Britain does not need the US to protect itself.
The example I was thinking of was the Falklands, seeing as it's somewhat more recent. American military top brass (apparently) said that retaking the islands was a military impossibility. They were proven wrong. |
Dramund
Sodom Eye Systems |
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:41:00 - [ 64]
At first I was offended, now it's pretty funny to watch the ignorant circle-jerk that is America bashing every time a thread with the letter "A" pops up in out of pod discussion. It probably really boils your blood that Americans don't even think of European affairs on a monthly basis. Meanwhile, there is some sort of bizarre infatuation with us across the pond - "How can you enjoy life when your government doesn't spoonfeed you from day one?" It's called freedom - to make your own mistakes and we pay and accept a statistical price for it. I know you'll never understand but we wouldn't have it any other way. Well, about half of us. |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance |
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:44:00 - [ 65]
|
failpirate
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:51:00 - [ 66]
we should stop using oil anyway, tbh. oily foods, trans fats, salt...it's all bad. stick to a healthy diet and we'll be ok. |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:58:00 - [ 67]
Originally by: Umega
Edited by: Umega on 16/04/2010 18:20:29
Oh yeah how every single war ever fought has had invested interest from outside sources since history was being kept.
So to use the arguement 'we did it alone' doesn't work with anything, at all.. anywhere in time really concerning warfare.
So I don't understand the crutch of saying America never did anything 'alone'. cept maybe the little mexican and spanish stints, and the little number we did upon japan? Oh wait, I'm sure materials and other goods came from other countries to help support.. which could be said about any other nation that was ever in a war.
The Colonies won the Revolutionary war with direct military/naval assistance from France, and did not rely solely on foreign supply lines. It could be argue that during the war with Japan there was no non-US military personel on the gorund, but I would bet someone could find numerous examples of things that were done by other countries that aided in our future victory in the Pacific. Originally by: Umega
So again.. whats the point of claiming America never won something alone when such was never the case for anyone?
As for this question, I think it is laughable when non US citizens say this type of stuff also. That is so because as you state, one would be hard pressed to find many if any military conflicts that were won solely with a single nations forces. At the very least, most military conquests in mans history involved mercenaries, which easily nullifies the thoughts that a military conflict was won independently, so saying that any country has done it by themselves is hardly accurate. The arrogance, as it has to do with militarism/imperialism, on both sides of the ponds irks my nerves most times. Slade |
Tozmeister
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:37:00 - [ 68]
|
AdmiralJohn
Gallente
Origin of Sanshaa |
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:25:00 - [ 69]
<3 the Monroe Doctrine. |
Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:40:00 - [ 70]
Edited by: Taedrin on 16/04/2010 23:40:20OK, time to clear some things up. First of all, we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. According to a 2000 USGS report, there was an estimated 6 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth. Half of which are unconventional reserves - heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc etc... Of the remaining 3 trillion barrels of oil, roughly half has been consumed. According to this website, we have 1.3 trillion barrels of (EDIT: Proven, conventional) oil left. But you see, those unconventional reserves of oil aren't impossible to get to. We have the technology - it is just expensive. So what is going to happen is that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, a certain threshold will be crossed, and these "unconventional" sources will suddenly become economically viable to extract. Once this happens, we will have an extra 3 trillion barrels of oil (most of it here in the western hemisphere). Once THAT runs out, we will probably just switch to coal as our primary energy source. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:49:00 - [ 71]
Originally by: Taedrin
Edited by: Taedrin on 16/04/2010 23:40:20
OK, time to clear some things up.
First of all, we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. According to a 2000 USGS report, there was an estimated 6 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth. Half of which are unconventional reserves - heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc etc... Of the remaining 3 trillion barrels of oil, roughly half has been consumed.
According to this website, we have 1.3 trillion barrels of (EDIT: Proven, conventional) oil left.
But you see, those unconventional reserves of oil aren't impossible to get to. We have the technology - it is just expensive. So what is going to happen is that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, a certain threshold will be crossed, and these "unconventional" sources will suddenly become economically viable to extract. Once this happens, we will have an extra 3 trillion barrels of oil (most of it here in the western hemisphere).
Once THAT runs out, we will probably just switch to coal as our primary energy source.
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand... |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:51:00 - [ 72]
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 16/04/2010 23:52:50 Originally by: Taedrin
Edited by: Taedrin on 16/04/2010 23:40:20
OK, time to clear some things up.
First of all, we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. According to a 2000 USGS report, there was an estimated 6 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth. Half of which are unconventional reserves - heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc etc... Of the remaining 3 trillion barrels of oil, roughly half has been consumed.
According to this website, we have 1.3 trillion barrels of (EDIT: Proven, conventional) oil left.
But you see, those unconventional reserves of oil aren't impossible to get to. We have the technology - it is just expensive. So what is going to happen is that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, a certain threshold will be crossed, and these "unconventional" sources will suddenly become economically viable to extract. Once this happens, we will have an extra 3 trillion barrels of oil (most of it here in the western hemisphere).
Once THAT runs out, we will probably just switch to coal as our primary energy source.
Because coal will NEVER run out. So... a quarter of the world's oil supply as of 2000 has been used up. Even assuming no growth in oil consumption (which is a very bad assumption), that leaves us with 30 years of fuel. News just in: 30 years is a very short amount of time. And you're right, the price will increase exponentially as it runs out. All we can hope for is that this happens gradually enough for new things to be invented to run our cars on. I'm hopeful for hydrogen powered cars, with the hydrogen extracted using energy from nuclear power stations. Because that's the only way I can see our way of life continuing after we run out of oil. Originally by: Zions Child
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand...
You can't run a car on wind or solar energy. The car would have to be enormous just to get enough sunlight to fall on it. As for wind, are you proposing some sort of sail arrangement? |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:58:00 - [ 73]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Zions Child
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand...
You can't run a car on wind or solar energy. The car would have to be enormous just to get enough sunlight to fall on it. As for wind, are you proposing some sort of sail arrangement?
First, Hydrogen Powered cars are ridiculously overly complex. And you can run a car on any source of energy, you just need a way to store that energy. Li+ batteries are good, there are many others which are being developed to be lightweight and last a very long time. The only problem is charging them quickly, which can be done. I'm proposing the oh so incredibly simple solution of a basic electromagnetic motor. Current creates a magnetic field, which can be used to turn the wheels. Hydrogen power was really just a hand wave by the auto industry. Distract them by making electric cars absurdly far off into the future, when they had functioning electric cars in the early nineties. Hydrogen Power will not be economically feasible for at least another ten years, when we can just use lithium batteries, which can give us around two-hundred miles now. |
SemiCharmed
Clans of the Sanctums |
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:29:00 - [ 74]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 16/04/2010 23:52:50
Originally by: Taedrin
Edited by: Taedrin on 16/04/2010 23:40:20
OK, time to clear some things up.
First of all, we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. According to a 2000 USGS report, there was an estimated 6 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth. Half of which are unconventional reserves - heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc etc... Of the remaining 3 trillion barrels of oil, roughly half has been consumed.
According to this website, we have 1.3 trillion barrels of (EDIT: Proven, conventional) oil left.
But you see, those unconventional reserves of oil aren't impossible to get to. We have the technology - it is just expensive. So what is going to happen is that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, a certain threshold will be crossed, and these "unconventional" sources will suddenly become economically viable to extract. Once this happens, we will have an extra 3 trillion barrels of oil (most of it here in the western hemisphere).
Once THAT runs out, we will probably just switch to coal as our primary energy source.
Because coal will NEVER run out.
So... a quarter of the world's oil supply as of 2000 has been used up. Even assuming no growth in oil consumption (which is a very bad assumption), that leaves us with 30 years of fuel. News just in: 30 years is a very short amount of time. And you're right, the price will increase exponentially as it runs out. All we can hope for is that this happens gradually enough for new things to be invented to run our cars on. I'm hopeful for hydrogen powered cars, with the hydrogen extracted using energy from nuclear power stations. Because that's the only way I can see our way of life continuing after we run out of oil.
Originally by: Zions Child
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand...
You can't run a car on wind or solar energy. The car would have to be enormous just to get enough sunlight to fall on it. As for wind, are you proposing some sort of sail arrangement?
Yes you can, and yes you can, solar has already been done however one little cloud and you go slow (so it would save lives from speeding lol) wind, it can be done, however its so stupidly complex. Hydrogen is the way forward, however you need to burn stupid amounts of coal/oil/nucular power to get the dam stuff. And those people that have electric cars and think they are "Green" are totally the opposite, those need to ask, how is the energy i put into my car made.. big HUUUUUMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... |
RipperZane |
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:04:00 - [ 75]
Man if we run out of oil, China is gonna be ****ED! It's ok to **** them off, right?  |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:27:00 - [ 76]
Originally by: SemiCharmed
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 16/04/2010 23:52:50
Originally by: Taedrin
Edited by: Taedrin on 16/04/2010 23:40:20
OK, time to clear some things up.
First of all, we aren't going to run out of oil anytime soon. According to a 2000 USGS report, there was an estimated 6 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth. Half of which are unconventional reserves - heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc etc... Of the remaining 3 trillion barrels of oil, roughly half has been consumed.
According to this website, we have 1.3 trillion barrels of (EDIT: Proven, conventional) oil left.
But you see, those unconventional reserves of oil aren't impossible to get to. We have the technology - it is just expensive. So what is going to happen is that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, a certain threshold will be crossed, and these "unconventional" sources will suddenly become economically viable to extract. Once this happens, we will have an extra 3 trillion barrels of oil (most of it here in the western hemisphere).
Once THAT runs out, we will probably just switch to coal as our primary energy source.
Because coal will NEVER run out.
So... a quarter of the world's oil supply as of 2000 has been used up. Even assuming no growth in oil consumption (which is a very bad assumption), that leaves us with 30 years of fuel. News just in: 30 years is a very short amount of time. And you're right, the price will increase exponentially as it runs out. All we can hope for is that this happens gradually enough for new things to be invented to run our cars on. I'm hopeful for hydrogen powered cars, with the hydrogen extracted using energy from nuclear power stations. Because that's the only way I can see our way of life continuing after we run out of oil.
Originally by: Zions Child
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand...
You can't run a car on wind or solar energy. The car would have to be enormous just to get enough sunlight to fall on it. As for wind, are you proposing some sort of sail arrangement?
Yes you can, and yes you can, solar has already been done however one little cloud and you go slow (so it would save lives from speeding lol) wind, it can be done, however its so stupidly complex.
Hydrogen is the way forward, however you need to burn stupid amounts of coal/oil/nucular power to get the dam stuff.
And those people that have electric cars and think they are "Green" are totally the opposite, those need to ask, how is the energy i put into my car made.. big HUUUUUMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Cars have been made that use solar power, yes. But you can't really call them viable alternatives to petrol or diesel cars. They're tiny and in direct sunlight will go slightly faster than an inebriated sloth. And as you said, its performance is too heavily reliant on uncontrollable conditions. The reason I suggest hydrogen cars (and yes, some have been made that perform at least as well as normal car; it's actually an electric car which uses hydrogen fuel to recharge the battery), is that you don't HAVE to use fossil fuels to obtain the hydrogen. There's nuclear power, as well as the more tree-hugger-friendly power sources. You can't run a car directly on these things, but you can use the energy to extract the hydrogen which a car CAN viably run on. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:01:00 - [ 77]
Edited by: Zions Child on 17/04/2010 18:02:08 Originally by: ReaperOfSly
The reason I suggest hydrogen cars (and yes, some have been made that perform at least as well as normal car; it's actually an electric car which uses hydrogen fuel to recharge the battery), is that you don't HAVE to use fossil fuels to obtain the hydrogen. There's nuclear power, as well as the more tree-hugger-friendly power sources. You can't run a car directly on these things, but you can use the energy to extract the hydrogen which a car CAN viably run on.
Originally by: Zions Child
First, Hydrogen Powered cars are ridiculously overly complex. And you can run a car on any source of energy, you just need a way to store that energy. Li+ batteries are good, there are many others which are being developed to be lightweight and last a very long time. The only problem is charging them quickly, which can be done. I'm proposing the oh so incredibly simple solution of a basic electromagnetic motor. Current creates a magnetic field, which can be used to turn the wheels.
Hydrogen power was really just a hand wave by the auto industry. Distract them by making electric cars absurdly far off into the future, when they had functioning electric cars in the early nineties. Hydrogen Power will not be economically feasible for at least another ten years, when we can just use lithium batteries, which can give us around two-hundred miles now.
Amazingly, my posts are not just for trolling. Hydrogen Power is about 60% efficient at holding charge in terms of it being an overpriced inefficient battery. Lithium is 99.9% Efficient at holding charge (the problem being loss of capacity... at mostly full charge and room temperature, they'd have lost around 76% of their capacity in six years...) Electric cars, using any form of battery, can be run on ANY power source. Hydrogen is inefficient. Its over priced. It will remain like this for many, many years. Why have an efficient, cheap(er) solution now. We aren't using it. This is bad. |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.17 21:18:00 - [ 78]
Originally by: Zions Child
Edited by: Zions Child on 17/04/2010 18:02:08
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
The reason I suggest hydrogen cars (and yes, some have been made that perform at least as well as normal car; it's actually an electric car which uses hydrogen fuel to recharge the battery), is that you don't HAVE to use fossil fuels to obtain the hydrogen. There's nuclear power, as well as the more tree-hugger-friendly power sources. You can't run a car directly on these things, but you can use the energy to extract the hydrogen which a car CAN viably run on.
Originally by: Zions Child
First, Hydrogen Powered cars are ridiculously overly complex. And you can run a car on any source of energy, you just need a way to store that energy. Li+ batteries are good, there are many others which are being developed to be lightweight and last a very long time. The only problem is charging them quickly, which can be done. I'm proposing the oh so incredibly simple solution of a basic electromagnetic motor. Current creates a magnetic field, which can be used to turn the wheels.
Hydrogen power was really just a hand wave by the auto industry. Distract them by making electric cars absurdly far off into the future, when they had functioning electric cars in the early nineties. Hydrogen Power will not be economically feasible for at least another ten years, when we can just use lithium batteries, which can give us around two-hundred miles now.
Amazingly, my posts are not just for trolling.
Hydrogen Power is about 60% efficient at holding charge in terms of it being an overpriced inefficient battery. Lithium is 99.9% Efficient at holding charge (the problem being loss of capacity... at mostly full charge and room temperature, they'd have lost around 76% of their capacity in six years...)
Electric cars, using any form of battery, can be run on ANY power source. Hydrogen is inefficient. Its over priced. It will remain like this for many, many years. Why have an efficient, cheap(er) solution now. We aren't using it. This is bad.
Because a purely electric car takes an extremely long time to charge up, and has a very short range. An electric car which charges up from hydrogen combustion will charge continuously while the car is running and you have some fuel, so there's no waiting around for hours while you car charges up. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 21:28:00 - [ 79]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Because a purely electric car takes an extremely long time to charge up, and has a very short range. An electric car which charges up from hydrogen combustion will charge continuously while the car is running and you have some fuel, so there's no waiting around for hours while you car charges up.
We've developed techniques that will allow you to charge a Lithium battery in about an hour from zero charge. Italy is testing a "battery exchange" type gas station, where you exchanged depleted batteries with charged ones. The Tesla Roadster has a charge that will last 200 miles with normal driving (i.e. not going past 60 or 70 miles per hour for very long). Do you really drive over 200 miles a day? Scratch that, do you drive over 100 miles a day? If you could charge your car while at work, do you live more than 100 miles from work? Yes, long road trips would be an issue, but... well... that's something which can be worked on. Plus, its not like you'd have to own just an electric car. As for hydrogen... Hydrogen is not combusting to drive the car, it is recombining with oxygen, which produces electricity. To separate hydrogen from oxygen, you need electricity to run through cathodes. There is very little natural H2 on Earth. In other words, it is impossible for you to refill on hydrogen as you drive. Yes, you can electricity from outside sources, but hydrogen is only 60% efficient as a battery. If you were using recursive braking or solar cells, you would get 99.9% of that energy back again from a Li+ battery. The only difference is that you would be able to fill up on hydrogen at refueling stations. Which brings me to my next point: Storage. Hydrogen is not easy to store, it's fairly flammable, and readily reacts with ANY oxygen. You would need an airtight pressurized container. These are expensive. No, you can not refit gas stations. You would have to build new ones. There are more efficient and useful technologies than Hydrogen already available to us. Why should we continue to waste millions into research that is not really furthering anything... |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.17 21:42:00 - [ 80]
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 17/04/2010 21:43:01I'm pretty sure anything recombining with oxygen (yes, even rusting) counts as combustion. But that's just semantics. Originally by: Zions Child
We've developed techniques that will allow you to charge a Lithium battery in about an hour from zero charge. Italy is testing a "battery exchange" type gas station, where you exchanged depleted batteries with charged ones.
An hour? It takes me less than a minute to refill a petrol or diesel car. I'm sure it would take less than a minute to fill a car with hydrogen. Originally by: Zions Child
The Tesla Roadster has a charge that will last 200 miles with normal driving
My 17 year old vauxhall will do about double that, and that's without efficient driving. Sorry, but 200 miles range is not particularly impressive. And yes, I have driven more than 200 miles in a day before. As for it being expensive to store hydrogen, so what? It used to be expensive to store petrol safely, but we managed it. It will work like this: demand for these expensive containers and fuel tanks will increase. The people who make them realise they're on to a winner, so they increase production. Other companies join the bandwagon. After a while, there are so many people making airtight hydrogen containers and fuel tanks, that they become really cheap. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:00:00 - [ 81]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
I'm pretty sure anything recombining with oxygen (yes, even rusting) counts as combustion. But that's just semantics.
It depends on the method. Oxygen + Hydrogen is the inverse of electrolysis, which is what I would call Galvanization, but I don't think that's right. Combustion doesn't produce electric potential. But thats just semantics. Originally by: ReaperOfSly
An hour? It takes me less than a minute to refill a petrol or diesel car. I'm sure it would take less than a minute to fill a car with hydrogen.
Yes it would. But it would take at least ten years to produce the technology required for fuel cells to be reasonable for use in cars. Plus read the part about trading depleted battery sets for charged ones at stations designed for that. Charge a premium or whatever. Not very difficult. Won't take more than a minute or two if you develop the car right. Simple, easy, clean. Originally by: ReaperOfSly
My 17 year old vauxhall will do about double that, and that's without efficient driving. Sorry, but 200 miles range is not particularly impressive. And yes, I have driven more than 200 miles in a day before.
I've been on road trips myself, bud. Plenty of people at some point in time drive more than 200 miles a day. However, how often do you do that? Every day? Every Week? Every Month? It's not particularly often, is it? Originally by: ReaperOfSly
As for it being expensive to store hydrogen, so what? It used to be expensive to store petrol safely, but we managed it. It will work like this: demand for these expensive containers and fuel tanks will increase. The people who make them realise they're on to a winner, so they increase production. Other companies join the bandwagon. After a while, there are so many people making airtight hydrogen containers and fuel tanks, that they become really cheap.
Its still absurdly difficult to transport oil. Hydrogen adds an entirely new set of infrastructure challenges. Again, why go through all that trouble, when we have a solution that is literally staring us in the face, begging us to use it? Why? Lithium technology is so much easier to perfect. So much easier to deal with. And yet, we pursue this pie in the sky idea of using Hydrogen as a battery. |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:16:00 - [ 82]
These batteries which can take you 200 miles. How big are they? How heavy? Because if you want to swap empty-for-full, and use this as a viable alternative for fuel, they're going to have to be small and light enough for little old ladies to do it. |
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:14:00 - [ 83]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
These batteries which can take you 200 miles. How big are they? How heavy? Because if you want to swap empty-for-full, and use this as a viable alternative for fuel, they're going to have to be small and light enough for little old ladies to do it.
Robotized Watch the video at the end.Design phase yes, but it's actually possible, and relatively cheap compared to Hydrogen Power infrastructure that would be needed. Also, I need to correct something. Charging stations can charge a battery from 10 - 80% in about ten minutes. |
Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:35:00 - [ 84]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 16/04/2010 23:52:50
Because coal will NEVER run out.
Coal WILL run out. It'll just take a lot longer to do so. The United States has an estimated 261 BILLION short tons of recoverable coal reserves. That should be enough to last the US 234 years. It is estimated that there is a total of 3.9 TRILLION short tons of coal in the US (including "undiscovered" reserves and unrecoverable - read uneconomical - reserves). And this is just the US (granted, the US has more than 25% of the world's coal) The TL;DR is this: We aren't going to run out of coal for a long, LONG time. Source: US Department of Energy Quote:
So... a quarter of the world's oil supply as of 2000 has been used up. Even assuming no growth in oil consumption (which is a very bad assumption), that leaves us with 30 years of fuel. News just in: 30 years is a very short amount of time. And you're right, the price will increase exponentially as it runs out. All we can hope for is that this happens gradually enough for new things to be invented to run our cars on. I'm hopeful for hydrogen powered cars, with the hydrogen extracted using energy from nuclear power stations. Because that's the only way I can see our way of life continuing after we run out of oil.
B) The price shouldn't increase exponentially. True, oil is a relatively inelastic good - but it's not THAT inelastic. As it becomes excessively expensive, alternatives will be used instead. The only issue that I see would be with regards to transportation, as that is the only place where oil can not be readily replaced. There is a rather large investment in gasoline infrastructure (although at least in Europe they have mass transit to rely on). But I personally believe that as oil becomes expensive, electric cars will be made available. If you believe the rumors, the only reason why electric cars AREN'T being aggressively developed right now is because the oil companies. The problem here is that the US's electric grid probably can't handle the strain of powering so many electric cars. If a transition is made to electric cars, it will have to be done gradually. Quote:
Originally by: Zions Child
Or someone might actually think of a way to use that magical thing called BURNING BALL OF NUCLEAR FUSION IN THE SKY! For cheap, renewable power. Or at the very least, wind power... Would make cars a hell of a lot simpler. Stupid impossibly complex internal combustion engine... At least electricity and magnetism are easy to understand...
You can't run a car on wind or solar energy. The car would have to be enormous just to get enough sunlight to fall on it. As for wind, are you proposing some sort of sail arrangement?
You CAN run a car on solar power, but you CAN'T run a car off of wind power (something about perpetual motion machines and the second law of thermodynamics) unless you try to sail it like a boat (but that's kind of hard to do on a road). |
SkyLordUK
Amarr
EVE Protection Agency
M.U.T.I.N.Y. |
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:39:00 - [ 85]
|
Pr1ncess Alia |
Posted - 2010.04.18 14:16:00 - [ 86]
as has been said, electric cars make the best sense w/ our level of technology (and into the visible future)
electricity can be generates using solar and wind power. we can also build tidal generators that could generate a massive amount of electricity.
we need to take a responsible approach.
yes there is oil left. there are plenty of fossil fuels left.
if our civilization is to survive beyond us, we need to stop the attitude of 'well, we can cross that bridge when we actually run out'
this is the mentality of most of the huge corporations globally. not because they are stupid, just they are cheap. they will research the next best thing but they won't switch to it until they absolutely have to, because that would be an unnecessary expenditure they would rather put off until tomorrow.
we have the technology, we just need to get over that hurdle that prevents us from achieving all great things... human greed and the incessant want to save a $ |
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 14:30:00 - [ 87]
|
Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 15:02:00 - [ 88]
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.18 15:12:00 - [ 89]
|
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 15:41:00 - [ 90]
|
|
All Channels
Out of Pod Experience
was going to use for his invasion force, we would have beat germany in the end you guys just jumped in and stole the fanfair 
