Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Speaking of which, what's the deal with the black leather bibs around the grille and headlights? Saw them first and only in the US, and no one could tell me what purpose they serve.

If it's what I think you're talking about, they are "bra's". Mostly just aesthetic, but also serves to prevent rock chips. Though the dust and dirt that accumulates underneath them does far more damage than the occasional errant flying rock.

camero-home.jpg

Edited by blunce
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is done and I agree is stupid and short sighted. However, hybrids are not doing that. Nor will electric vehicles. There are costs, but those costs are FAR less than the costs of using oil. People that support drilling complain about mining for battery elements, ignoring the facts that drilling is damaging in and of itself and that mining is required by drilling so that you can get the materials you need to process the oil you're drilling for. They oppose electrics for mining, but support drilling AND mining for oil? WTH? Not to mention that they want to use the Canadian tar sands for their oil, which requires the most destructive and polluting forms of mining in existence.

And there is no single greater demonstration of human stupidity than arguing against protecting the environment because of the costs to an economy that does not exist without the environment that's being destroyed.

I was mainly thinking about trying to get all our power from wind/solar by covering all open areas with great swathes of machines. The World would be a much nastier place to live if all the countryside was covered in giant windmills and blue panels. Same with the ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your source for that assertion please, Les?

Personally, I think they are highly underdeveloped (unsurprising: it's hardly likely the extremely rich and hence influential petroleum industry would exactly encourage the competition) and possible very viable sources of energy, that are effectively infinite. I'd add wave power, too. As opposed to the noticeably dwindling global oil reserves.

Not Greenpeace tree hugger, just pragmatic and interested in the future...

Patrick

Without heavy subsidies the wind / solar that we see even today would be years behind. Even with massive subsidies these two constitute less than what? 15% of the world's total electricity output and nothing says it will be much better any time soon.

Now if you want to pay triple, quadruple or even more your costs to harness these forms into more useable energy? You can, but even at that they will still fall many times short of global needs.

I'm not saying do not look to use wind or solar where they can prove more viable but they are not and likely will not be our energy saviors.

Be wary of men who promise you grand things, especially those with cap in hand and have not given any proof to back up said promises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hybrids - little concern here in BC since most of our power is clean hydroelectric. :)

Get ready for more importing and at much higher rates dirty power in B.C's future especially when the what 6 native Indians who live up in the area of the province and a handful of environmentalists for pure political and bureaucratic ideals keep trying to block Site C dam which this province WILL SOON NEED!

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Redwoods,

PLEASE stop falling for this gobbledygook. They are all white lies, distortions or even generally BULL $H*T and most would be rather easily discredited once peer reviewed.

For one, solar to power a compressor to then provide compressed air to drive a car is not feasible. If it were we'd see these cars and the systems to charge them up being made and sold. This idea is SIMPLY INEFFICIENT! It's for only fools to fall for and hand money to the con artists who peddle it. Another form of snake oil!

You noted (that with all the subsidies) Germany itself only gets about 17% of its electrical power from all renewables. Not all of these renewables are universally feasible in all locations on Earth and not all nations can nor will invest vast amounts of tax dollars to subsidize these things.

Take away the subsidies that Germany for one puts to these renewables and you would not even see 17% estimated use.

So where do you want to get the US for one to get the tax monies to subsidize this stuff like Germany does? You want to see your taxes rise up markedly? Where do you want cuts in programmes, military, courts, social security, medicare, the borders, public education, civil infrastructure?

Many say, "Electric cars are the future." Yes, but the future never seems to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ge ready for more importing and at much higher rates dirty power in B.C's future especially when the what 6 native Indians who live up in the area of the province and a handful of environmentalists for pure political and bureaucratic ideals keep trying to block Site C dam which this province WILL SOON NEED!

Eh, two solutions.

1: Stop exporting.

2: Stop importing more people we don't need and can't accomodate without displacing those already here.

I'm more irritated by the undermining of BC Hydro buy disallowing it from building its own power-generation sites, having them instead built by private corporations who will then sell the power to BCH. Nice way to undermine W.A.C. Bennett's intent in turning BC Electric into a Crown corporation... and the Liberals call themselves Social Credit's heirs, pfffft.

But I'll stop now as this is getting way off topic and towards the rather political.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, two solutions.

1: Stop exporting.

2: Stop importing more people we don't need and can't accomodate without displacing those already here.

I'm more irritated by the undermining of BC Hydro buy disallowing it from building its own power-generation sites, having them instead built by private corporations who will then sell the power to BCH. Nice way to undermine W.A.C. Bennett's intent in turning BC Electric into a Crown corporation... and the Liberals call themselves Social Credit's heirs, pfffft.

But I'll stop now as this is getting way off topic and towards the rather political.

B.C. Hydro only exports electricity that is being in excess when our own demand is low, aka; like in the later evenings etc. When our demand is high we are now getting to the point of having to import and typically dirty coal made power from outside the province.

As per the greedy, stupidity of the B.C. Liberals by denying B.C. Hydro to fund and build its own projects (short of Site C which has been grandfathered or paying to upgrade its existing dams) well its all to make MOOLAH for their greedy corporate cronies many come calling from the USA. BTW I'm not trying to bash these US corps or any, but the govt. handicaps B.C. Hydro so as to not have it compete against the other private corps. B.C. Hydro has built decades of profitable legacy, earned its top rated Credit rating and the B.C. Liberals for the last decade have punished it as a result. So much for true competition.

B.C. Hydro has one of the world's best credit ratings and can borrow money to fund new projects cheaper than ANY, REPEAT ANY PRIVATE corp. that the B.C. Liberals are in bed with today.

As to importing people well that is pure ebb and flow of society. Population growth and in or out migration is a part of human society.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's what I think you're talking about, they are "bra's". Mostly just aesthetic, but also serves to prevent rock chips. Though the dust and dirt that accumulates underneath them does far more damage than the occasional errant flying rock.

Aesthetic? Thy look trashy to me :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without heavy subsidies the wind / solar that we see even today would be years behind. Even with massive subsidies these two constitute less than what? 15% of the world's total electricity output and nothing says it will be much better any time soon.

Now if you want to pay triple, quadruple or even more your costs to harness these forms into more useable energy? You can, but even at that they will still fall many times short of global needs.

I'm not saying do not look to use wind or solar where they can prove more viable but they are not and likely will not be our energy saviors.

Be wary of men who promise you grand things, especially those with cap in hand and have not given any proof to back up said promises.

What "massive subsidies" does wind and solar enjoy? Please feel free to provide a source for these claims you make.

Are these "subsidies" you mention comparable to the $41 BILLION in subsidies we give to big oil every single year?

Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually.

Source: Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year/%28page%29/2

Redwoods,

PLEASE stop falling for this gobbledygook. They are all white lies, distortions or even generally BULL $H*T and most would be rather easily discredited once peer reviewed.

For one, solar to power a compressor to then provide compressed air to drive a car is not feasible. If it were we'd see these cars and the systems to charge them up being made and sold. This idea is SIMPLY INEFFICIENT! It's for only fools to fall for and hand money to the con artists who peddle it. Another form of snake oil!

Prove it. Feel free to provide sources. Because I've seen it work.

You noted (that with all the subsidies) Germany itself only gets about 17% of its electrical power from all renewables. Not all of these renewables are universally feasible in all locations on Earth and not all nations can nor will invest vast amounts of tax dollars to subsidize these things.

Take away the subsidies that Germany for one puts to these renewables and you would not even see 17% estimated use.

WHAT SUBSIDIES?

I "noted" no such thing.

You say I mentioned Germany's subsides? WHERE? Because I don't remember saying a single thing about that anywhere.

They've got 17% (2% more than you admit is possible) while cutting the subsidies and they'll still have 40% in 8 or 9 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/germany-solar-idUSLDE71N2KG20110224

They cut them 6 months earlier than they thought they would and it is still the biggest photovoltaic market on earth with a capacity of 18,000 Megawatts (photovoltaic).

The US has what...75 Megawatts of photovoltaic? Whoo! Gooooo America!

So where do you want to get the US for one to get the tax monies to subsidize this stuff like Germany does? You want to see your taxes rise up markedly? Where do you want cuts in programmes, military, courts, social security, medicare, the borders, public education, civil infrastructure?

Many say, "Electric cars are the future." Yes, but the future never seems to come.

Why don't we just take the money we've been giving to big oil and use it elsewhere? There's at least $41 BILLION every year we could use to fund our future and it would raise taxes one cent.

Or shall we just continue to let China own our butts like they currently do.

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html

How much of our budget do you propose we use teaching America's children to speak Chinese so that they can understand when their new masters command them?

Got to be honest, this defeatist nonsense that's the current policy doesn't sit well with me. I'd prefer we fought back instead.

This is the United States of America. We compete to win.

It's time to stop funding problems and start funding solutions.

Edited by redwoodmodels
Link to post
Share on other sites

Redwood,

GERMAN SUBSIDIES.

Solar subsidies in Germany

more German solar subsidy issues

BTW I do not argue continued subsidies for big oil either. But it's clear these renewables you call for are NOT sustainable without subsidies. The Germans have seen this as a fact and all other nations doing the same would mirror such

Also in 2010 wind contributed only 6% of German electrical production. It too is heavily subsidized.

Oh don't hold your breath they will get 40% from renewables by 2020. Promises, promises, which are not likely to be met.

As per the nonsense of compressed air drive, how far can one take a typical mass produced passenger vehicle to a tank of this compressed air? How much energy is used to make the compressed air in comparison to the air efficiency powering said cars?

Answer, MUCH LOWER EFFICIENCY than gas/diesel engines and it likely will never become as efficient.

And also the power from compressed air gets lower and lower as the tank would empty, NOT GOOD. With gas/diesel you get the same energy be it a full tank or one about to run dry.

How will you power up the compressor at night when your magical solar power is down or your wind ain't blowin?

If this concept was feasible in both financials and in consumer useability it would be in full force as a market/product today.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a dream buster here. But reality must take hold. These mostly Charlatans are quick to promise you wonderful tomorrows while they pick your pockets today.

There are real scientists and engineers doing great things with more conventional and feasible ideals/technologies but the nutters who only see their (blind) ideals and their own wallets being filled with half baked ideas and pipe dreams would rather you/we not know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, you're right in stating that currently no alternative offers the performance, reliability, cost per mile, etc. of the Otto/Diesel engines. However, at the beginning of the XX century, no alternative offered the performance, reliability, cost per mile, etc. of Equus caballus.

Even if the pollution caused by burning fossile fuel did not affect climate, or did not affect health, there's still the matter that these are base materials which took millions of years to form, and once they're gone, they're gone. IIRC there's an oil field in the making somewhere in Caucasus, but it's still in its primitive form of a very smelly swamp. Oil is still the cheapest base material for making plastics, paints, adhesives, fabric, drugs, etc. It's like burning banknotes to keep you warm: it makes sense from a thermodynamics point of view, but reason demands alternatives are seeked. Right now, the demand is so low that only government grants can keep companies going, but the head start might be useful in a few years' time - even if it's just a head start in knowing what doesn't work. There are worse ways of spending the taxpayer's money than covering part of the cost for solar panels and insulation, believe me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, you're right in stating that currently no alternative offers the performance, reliability, cost per mile, etc. of the Otto/Diesel engines. However, at the beginning of the XX century, no alternative offered the performance, reliability, cost per mile, etc. of Equus caballus.

Even if the pollution caused by burning fossile fuel did not affect climate, or did not affect health, there's still the matter that these are base materials which took millions of years to form, and once they're gone, they're gone. IIRC there's an oil field in the making somewhere in Caucasus, but it's still in its primitive form of a very smelly swamp. Oil is still the cheapest base material for making plastics, paints, adhesives, fabric, drugs, etc. It's like burning banknotes to keep you warm: it makes sense from a thermodynamics point of view, but reason demands alternatives are seeked. Right now, the demand is so low that only government grants can keep companies going, but the head start might be useful in a few years' time - even if it's just a head start in knowing what doesn't work. There are worse ways of spending the taxpayer's money than covering part of the cost for solar panels and insulation, believe me...

I'm all for greener fuels. One stares right at us and can free up the fossil fuels, oil and gas for other things. NUCLEAR. The most efficient form of electricity production we have today. On top of that it can help provide hydrogen for motor vehicles use as well. But Noooooo too much silly paranoia over its safety. It is by magnitude many times safer than most any other form of production.

That said by failing to further develop a more viable commercial nuclear system we will burn more gas, oil and worse coal. There are said to be thousands of years worth of coal to be used. The pollution from coal and the radioactivity spewed into the air by it is A'OK to the anti-nukes I guess.

As to nuclear waste even with current technologies up to 90% of it can be reprocessed. The resulting left over can be very safely dealt with if we'd stop thinking "Oh No Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukashima.

1: Chernobyl was a human error and was a shoddy Soviet designed reactor that no other nation uses as a template. Even at that had it not been bureaucratic issues leading to human error it would not have been the disaster it was.

2: Three Mile Island was not a melt down and its issue was human error. The plant's safety systems kept it from melting down.

3: Fukashima withstood the earth quake and only suffered as result of the 33ft high Tsunami flooding the breathers for the generators and that caused the problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for greener fuels. One stares right at us and can free up the fossil fuels, oil and gas for other things. NUCLEAR. The most efficient form of electricity production we have today. On top of that it can help provide hydrogen for motor vehicles use as well. But Noooooo too much silly paranoia over its safety. It is by magnitude many times safer than most any other form of production.

That said by failing to further develop a more viable commercial nuclear system we will burn more gas, oil and worse coal. There are said to be thousands of years worth of coal to be used. The pollution from coal and the radioactivity spewed into the air by it is A'OK to the anti-nukes I guess.

As to nuclear waste even with current technologies up to 90% of it can be reprocessed. The resulting left over can be very safely dealt with if we'd stop thinking "Oh No Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukashima.

1: Chernobyl was a human error and was a shoddy Soviet designed reactor that no other nation uses as a template. Even at that had it not been bureaucratic issues leading to human error it would not have been the disaster it was.

2: Three Mile Island was not a melt down and its issue was human error. The plant's safety systems kept it from melting down.

3: Fukashima withstood the earth quake and only suffered as result of the 33ft high Tsunami flooding the breathers for the generators and that caused the problems.

Out of morbid curiosity, how did we get from discussing car fashion faux pas to the pros and cons of nuclear power in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the potential of nuclear energy, however there's that, 3 INES Level 6 or 7 accidents in less than a human lifespan, the last of which happened in a densely populated country in which establishment of an "exclusion zone" is unthinkable. In hindsight, all could have been avoidable with proper design, construction, maintenance, training... in truth, no one can tell what will cause the next failure. Sadly, year after year the picture drawn by the IAEA accident reports stays the same: complacency and poor training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the potential of nuclear energy, however there's that, 3 INES Level 6 or 7 accidents in less than a human lifespan, the last of which happened in a densely populated country in which establishment of an "exclusion zone" is unthinkable. In hindsight, all could have been avoidable with proper design, construction, maintenance, training... in truth, no one can tell what will cause the next failure. Sadly, year after year the picture drawn by the IAEA accident reports stays the same: complacency and poor training.

Coal mining kills thousands of people each year. Affects of coal burning kills over 24,000 people in the USA alone each year.

Nuclear industry is much safer than any other traditional forms in terms of mass electrical production.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI, the wave that hit Fukushima Dai-ichi was not 33ft. Official reports say 50ft, but I've seen video footage of a wave climbing nearly 2/3 up the plant's smoke stack, which is probably closer to 100ft. Regardless, the people in charge calculated that most tsunami waves would be less than 18ft, so that's how they built the sea wall.

Complacency and poor training were not issues either. The first issue was that of Japanese culture--circle talk, pretty talk, and dancing around the point are all natural to the Japanese, not that it makes it any less confusing and vague. The second issue was that portions of Japan operate on 50hz and others on 60hz, which made fixing the electrical system at Fukushima a nightmare.

Fortunately, Fukushima Prefecture is not that densely populated and an exclusion zone was established.

At any rate, if the same two-punch earthquake/tsunami combo hit a nuclear reactor in any other country, the same thing would have happened.....minus the Japanese circle-talk, of course.

Coal mining kills thousands of people each year. Affects of coal burning kills over 24,000 people in the USA alone each year.

Don't forget civil wars and organized crime based on illegal coal-mining and trade in Africa.

Edited by Jinro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of commercial nuclear reactors have worked safely for decades. The accident to hours of safe use on these is extremely low. Every ton of coal burned affects global human health.

The estimated radiation effects at the Fukashima Town Hall over two weeks following the accident was 100 micro sieverts. A mammogram is 400 micro sieverts. Typical dose over two weeks at Fukashima in the Exclusion Zone was about 1 milli sievert. A head CT scan is 2 milli sieverts.

Maximum dose of radiation following Three Mile Island was about at 1 milli sievert. A chest CT scan is 7 milli sieverts.

Any form of energy production has its possible problems and risks, nuclear is among the lowest to worry or fear over.

Cut global electricity production by say 1/3rd and watch how many people subsequently suffer and die due to the results of lost power output.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to subject...

One I find truly skivvy-ripping offensive? People who use crappy lights on ugly beaten-up vehicles trying to "play Knight Rider." As someone who's been a mamber of the serious KITT-replica community for years (as a student of it, not a builder myself yet), I can tell you there's no way to do KITT cheap and not have it look like a rolling turd--it's an all-or-nothing that you really have to spring for The Good Stuff to do it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...