Conquer Club

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Fre ... &From=News

With ford reporting a 30% drop in sales for the month of October, and GM doing no better.... Could Air Cars be a replacement? Especially given that their incredibly cheap to run...

I love how beyond-ugly the little things are.

I would never by that thing.

Sounds.... ambitious. Also, make it look more car like and I would consider buying it. I don't mind it being small, but it looks stupid as it is now.

Who gives a f*ck how it looks? That's just amazing.

InkL0sed wrote:Who gives a f*ck how it looks? That's just amazing.

4 of the 5 people that have posted in this thread so far do, myself included.

Why are these alternative fuel vehicles always either super tiny and odd looking or really expensive super cars?

Where does the electricity come from to compress the air?

bedub1 wrote:Where does the electricity come from to compress the air?

FTA

"On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil."

Matroshka wrote:Why are these alternative fuel vehicles always either super tiny and odd looking or really expensive super cars?

Tiny cars means less weight to lug around which mean less energy to move the vehicles. Why they're odd looking, I don't know... Perhaps to just grab peoples attention? Or to make people think "Car of the future!". If they're really expensive super cars, chances are the technology in them is extremely experimental (for an "off the shelf" product) so they market them to rich people who won't really car if it breaks down and they have to wait a week to get it fixed. It's a good way for testing new technologies.

Also, I could be driving a god damned giant potato for all I car, the damn thing gets 106 miles per gallon!

bedub1 wrote:Where does the electricity come from to compress the air?

You plug it into a wall outlet.

hecter wrote:Also, I could be driving a god damned giant potato for all I car, the damn thing gets 106 miles per gallon!

And that's on gasoline!
It costs less than a Smartcar and get's waaayyy better milage.... eat your heart out Prius!

Juan_Bottom wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Where does the electricity come from to compress the air?

You plug it into a wall outlet.

Think about where that comes from.... It's not really any better is it.

Nickbaldwin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Where does the electricity come from to compress the air?

You plug it into a wall outlet.

Think about where that comes from.... It's not really any better is it.

Yes it is.
http://www.popsci.com/node/24984

And a car fueled by even coal-derived electricity (the source of nearly half of America's power) will generate only 0.7 pound of CO2 per mile for every pound of CO2 emitted by a conventional gasoline-powered car.

I see.

But while it is a step forward it still isn't a solution. Surely if everyone used it there would need to be more electricity being generated to meet the demand, and therefore more CO2 per km?

That's the way I'm seeing things. It's an alternative to using petrol but we will see the effects in other fossil fuels. Petrol or not, it's still going to use fossil fuels and that's what we're trying to avoid in the long run surely?

Nickbaldwin wrote:I see.

But while it is a step forward it still isn't a solution. Surely if everyone used it there would need to be more electricity being generated to meet the demand, and therefore more CO2 per km?

That's the way I'm seeing things. It's an alternative to using petrol but we will see the effects in other fossil fuels. Petrol or not, it's still going to use fossil fuels and that's what we're trying to avoid in the long run surely?

No, because the CO2 being put out by the coal would still be 70% that of the CO2 that would have been put out for equal amounts of gasoline. Plus, since, let's say, a regular car gets 50mpg, this one gets twice that. So to travel the same distance, you'd put out 35% of the CO2.

Can someone explain to me what the big deal about CO2 is anyway? I know people blame it for global warming, but I don't think it is responsable for global warming. I think that is a lie.

So I really don't care about the CO2, what I care about is the economy, and operational cost. I bet this thing is as cheap as heck in the long run. Certainly there are far fewer parts than a regular car.

Well, it 'causes global warming... While you think that's a lie, any scientist worth his salt when talking about global warming doesn't. It's pretty well excepted in the scientific community that global warming 'caused by man (ie man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere) is a fact. Just like evolution. Sure, there are some naysayers, but there were naysayers to the fact that the earth was round and that the earth rotated around the sun.

I don't know why, hecter, but you just bring out the whore in me.

hecter wrote:Well, it 'causes global warming...

Again, I disagree.

hecter wrote:While you think that's a lie, any scientist worth his salt when talking about global warming doesn't.

Again, I disagree.
Any scientist worth his weight will tell you historically that CO2 levels rise after global climate change. I have yet to see any conclusive proof that CO2 causes, or is causing global warming; and I have looked pretty hard. I think the climate change is solar.

hecter wrote:It's pretty well excepted in the scientific community that global warming 'caused by man (ie man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere) is a fact. Just like evolution.

No, it isn't! That's just something that they say on CNN to get everyone to buy into this. American scientsts that disagree seem to get the axe pretty quickly too. When I was debating this with Player I couldn't find any proof that global CO2 emmissions are causing Global Climate change. It seems obvious to anyone who looks that the cause is much more likely solar.
Meaning the Carbon Tax/Going Green movement is just about making money and controling people. Serious, do some research.

hecter wrote:Sure, there are some naysayers, but there were naysayers to the fact that the earth was round and that the earth rotated around the sun.

I am a naysayer, but I think that I've been shown to be open-minded. There's no proof, so I won't buy into it. Kinda like there being a God. It sounds good, but there's all the evidence is only accepted by the people presenting it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full
http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?/ ... 1&fuid=598
Those two articles right there seem to indicate that global temperature is rising at an alarming rate. I mean, the fact that global temperature would fluctuate a degree over tens of thousands or millions of years and we've gone up nearly a degree in 100 is clear indication that something fishy is going on. Looking at some of the graphs they've got, and others I've seen, it seems that CO2 levels and temperature change pretty well hand in hand. Plus, grade 9, 10 science teaches you about a little thing called the "greenhouse affect". Besides, you have to look at the options here.

Note: I'm using global warming in the "caused by greenhouse gas" definition here.

1. Global warming is true, we do nothing. We're fucked.
2. Global warming is false, we do nothing. Everybody is happy!... Except fossil fuel prices continue to rise and rise until we just plain run out.
3. Global warming is true, we get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels. We create thousands of new jobs in the alternative energy sector, giving everybody clean and cheap sources of energy that will be around for ever. Global catastrophe (hopefully) averted.
4. Global warming is false, we get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels. We create thousands of new jobs in the alternative energy sector, giving everybody cheap sources of energy that will be around for ever.

hecter wrote:Those two articles right there seem to indicate that global temperature is rising at an alarming rate.

Yet the mean global temp is dropping. So now we have to call it "Global Climate Change." I'm not argueing that global climate change isn't happening, I'm saying CO2 is not a likely cause. In fact, it's unlikely. I don't believe that you'll ever see anything being done about it on a global scale... because not everyone is going to fall for it. I'd wager that only the western cultures will.

hecter wrote: Looking at some of the graphs they've got, and others I've seen, it seems that CO2 levels and temperature change pretty well hand in hand.

But only after. CO2 levels rise after the temperature goes up.


Now I've seen your list before, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but flip over the coin once because you've really got to weigh your options here.

hecter wrote:1. Global warming is true, we do nothing. We're fucked

Let's say global warming is fake... and we do do something?
What would we have done? Given the people who've made this up exactly what they wanted? Carbon Tax? Carbon footprint tax?

hecter wrote:2. Global warming is false, we do nothing. Everybody is happy!... Except fossil fuel prices continue to rise and rise until we just plain run out.

We have other options... this is just a matter of those with the power telling us where we'll spend our money... For us, breaking free of fossil fuels means breaking free from Congress... of course, once we run out, I suspect we'll be ready and changing over already.

hecter wrote:3. Global warming is true, we get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels. We create thousands of new jobs in the alternative energy sector, giving everybody clean and cheap sources of energy that will be around for ever. Global catastrophe (hopefully) averted.

We're also ending a few million jobs. Probably somewhere around 15-22 million. But in the long run there are so many popular forms of alternative enrgy we are prolly going to making a more competative market. $$$ going up!
But as a solution, provided Global Climate Change were true, this is the only solution.

hecter wrote:4. Global warming is false, we get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels. We create thousands of new jobs in the alternative energy sector, giving everybody cheap sources of energy that will be around for ever.

And I don't think it matters how cheap energy is to produce... so long as there is a lobby, it'll be controlled cost.
The problem is the forced change-over... if(and I think so) Global Climate Change is fake, who stands to profit? And why, OH WHY, would I want to give them what they want? This discussion has been going on for a while, and if it's a fake, who's pushing the buttons?
I personally think this is all about Carbon Tax... everything produces carbon... it's in our breath... a carbon tax could be a gianormous tax generator for the government... and it's the only reason I can forsee for anyone to push the Global Climate Change agenda.

http://rael.berkeley.edu/old-site/renew ... s.2006.pdf
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:T4E ... s.2006.pdf
Look at that PDF, (HTML version found below) at Table 3, you can see, quite clearly, that renewable energy provides many many more jobs than fossil fuels in both installation and processing.

FYI, people do not produce CO2, nor does any animal I know of. Did you guys not learn the carbon cycle in school? Carbon sinks trap CO2 (algae and other plants are examples of CO2). When carbon sinks die and collect and get put under immense amounts of heat and pressure for millions of years, you get oil. Now, you're taking carbon that was not in the atmosphere before, and in effect, taken out of the carbon cycle, and dumping it into the atmosphere. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuate for a number of reasons, but the fact that we're taking thousands of tons of carbon that was taken out of the cycle and putting it back in is having an effect. There's no way it couldn't. Humans breathing, however, isn't. The carbon dioxide we breathe out is simply the carbon dioxide that was in the air and we didn't use. We're not adding, nor subtracting, any carbon to the cycle. A carbon tax wouldn't even affect the average Joe that drives to work everyday. It will only affect big polluters, providing incentive to them to stop polluting and move to cleaner energies.

How about one of these?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/eco-f ... /212380419

I am involved

hecter wrote:Look at that PDF, (HTML version found below) at Table 3, you can see, quite clearly, that renewable energy provides many many more jobs than fossil fuels in both installation and processing.

I can't view PDF files, but I'm not disagreeing. I believe renewable energy should create many more jobs.... it's just too diverse.

hecter wrote:Did you guys not learn the carbon cycle in school?

Yup, but I was talking footprint tax. And anyway...
Your cells produce CO2 as a function of living. The CO2 is transported to the lungs and expelled. In an injust and cruel world, a footprint tax would tax that.

The original "footprint note" placed before the UN (in 73?) talked about carbon being "in your breath, in your clothes, and interwound within our lives." It also tried to go so far as to say that a huge explosion of humans would choke off the supply of oxygen in the atmosphere. Crazy stuff, but when I researched this in high school I never saved any of it.

hecter wrote:The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuate for a number of reasons, but the fact that we're taking thousands of tons of carbon that was taken out of the cycle and putting it back in is having an effect. There's no way it couldn't.

Again, there's still no proof though. While our planet is getting warmer, the mean temperature is still dropping. At the same time, every planet in our solar system appears to be getting warmer. Now sure they all have different atmosphere's and whatnot, but I as a scientist we can't just throw away the data and call it a co-incedence.

And I am also under the impression that during the Industrial Revolution we actually dumped more CO2 into the atmospher than ever, yet it did not effect the atmospere. I don't understand the actual "cycle shock" values here? Does anyone have a graph as to how much CO2 our atmosphere can handle?

hecter wrote: A carbon tax wouldn't even affect the average Joe that drives to work everyday. It will only affect big polluters, providing incentive to them to stop polluting and move to cleaner energies.

No, you're looking at it all wrong. A "footprint tax" would tax everyone. You would even be taxed for every mile that you drive.
And since every industry uses vehicles..... and produces carbon in some way.... it's a blanket tax on everyone.
The question is is how for will a tax go? The original thing pushed for was the "footprint tax." Now that's been backed away from, but the Carbon Tax is still very real... just evolved... Obama plans to make it law. And untill I see it proven that CO2 is behind this, it'll never get my support.
Heck, CO2 wasn't even really the accepted culprit untill George Bush's appointee to the EPA said that it is. I'm not calling him a liar, but I don't see it.

HapSmo19 wrote:I am involved

I can't watch videos eother... I have AOL dail-up...

Carbon tax is all about the tragedy of commons, come to think of it.

Then click on the HTML one I gave you, it'll pop up just like a normal webpage. I also don't get what you mean, "I know it creates more jobs, I just think it should create more". Please, explain. You talk about this footprint tax, and I'd have to agree, the idea that you should tax everybody like that is ludicrous. However, I doubt it will ever come to that, and I believe that a carbon tax - ie taxing big polluters - is a very good idea. Want to know another thing that's ludicrous? The thought that we'll one day run out of oxygen in the atmosphere. It's just not going to happen, the ratio of CO2 to oxygen is just far, far to weighted to oxygen. Now, the question is, can we afford to NOT switch to clean energy sources? Let's look at the facts:

• Fossil fuels will one day run out, forcing us to switch anyway
• Fossil fuel prices will continue to rise as sources become more difficult to find and retrieve
• Clean energy will create more jobs than that will be lost
• Clean energy is cheaper and will always be available

And now we have some possibilities...

• Not switching could cause a catastrophic climate change, possibly resulting in one or more of the following:
  
  • Massive evacuations of coastal areas
  • Farmland becomes harder to find due to rising sea levels, 'causing higher food prices, famine, ect.
  • Economic recession (oh, wait...)
  • Wars, riots and general badness
• Switching could cause some economic issues, due to the need to invest in new infrastructure, which at this time (being a recession) might be a bad idea

So, you're pretty well left with "Switch now and risk some more economic badness" and "Switch later and accept rising fossil fuel prices for now and risk global catastrophe".

hecter wrote:"I know it creates more jobs, I just think it should create more". Please, explain.

No no no, I'm completly agreeing with you! No matter where you go on earth, oil is the same(over simplifying I know).

But clean energy is diverse! Whether it's wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, thermal, tesla, peat heat, or some crazy knew thing not yet invented... There's so much diversification it must create more jobs.

Unless, we are counting all the industries that really depend on oil. Like the manufacture of tires, or plastics.


But I am wholly agreeing with you.