AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-02-24, 19:18   Link #341
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
@Solar power: Right now, it's not the greatest form of electricity generation. However, there isn't any hard things preventing the efficiency from increasing. It's more a matter of R&D then anything else. In more proven parts of the silicon industry (EG computer chips) you see very fast technological progress. If the money was there, the same could be true for Solar.

Governments could speed things along if they gave solar panel developers/manufacturers greater stability through feed in tariffs and other guaranteed prices. What's holding a lot of Solar (and other renewables) back is that they're afraid that tomorrow the price of Oil/Gas will drop again, rendering what seemed like a profit making project into one making severe losses. A feed in Tariff would belay those fears, as they'd be able to make reasonable profit projections of a product that usually takes years to pay off it's initial investment.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 20:08   Link #342
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
You do realize that the map I put up, was made with the current limitations of solar panels? That means, today, with today's solar panels, if we covered those areas, we could cover today's energy needs. Solar cells only need to be 10-30% efficient. Why? Because if they absorbed too much sunlight, they'd build up way too much heat, which would necessitate extreme cooling. Keep the efficiency in a certain range, though, and you can go for quantity over quality.
Actually it's with the assumed capability of current Solar Panels at peak collection.
The reality is somewhat different for a variety of reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I do think we will reach the point of Solar Power surpassing most everything else.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves and screw it up.
We need panels that have high effeciency, not 100%, hell not even 70% to meet our needs, but 50-60% range would make it a reality that is cost effective and efficient enough to be practical.
And there are those working on said types of Solar Panels right now.

Quote:
And gasoline powered cars have batteries, too. And your hydrogen-powered car will have batteries, too. Electric cars are just as "bad" as hydrogen ones, then.
Indeed they do, and in the case of gasoline autos those batteries are gawd awful for the environment.
We cannot escape the problem of useing batteries (at least not right now), however, we can reduce the size (and thus pollution) of lithim-ion batteries by using them in Hydro-Electric vehicles (been reading more about them today, and I like what I read).
Hydro-Electric gives us the benefit of a small battery (for the electric motor) and the hydrogen to charge the battery all within the vehicle so no strain on the power grid.
Ultimately a truly Solar Powered vehicle would meet my standards but that is so far off that I'll be dead before it happens, though some of you might live to see it.

Quote:
I reminded of the extreme environmentalists, who demand that unless something is 100% not bad for the environment, it can never be done.
I'd have to admit that I am an extremist with environmentalism in that I want this level of pollution to stop.



I know we can't get 100% clean, but we need to get as close as we can and still maintain our civilization which is why I want to see all avenues pursued to achieve that goal.
What aggrivates me is when someone tries to close one avenue by claiming that a current technology will solve all our power needs. It's going to take a combination of technologies, not just any one.

Quote:
We literally had boats that could have gone into the gulf and sucked up the oil and water, and cleaned out 97% of the oil while putting the water back into the ocean. We couldn't use them, because of regulations saying you can't dump water into the ocean if it is above a certain small threshold.
Don't get me started on BP, that whole situation pisses me off.
There is so much that could have been done in the clean up, should have been done to prevent it in the first place, and needs to be done to stop it every happening again....not a good subject for me, makes me very angry.

Quote:
Are electric cars 100% nature friendly? No. And neither will hydrogen cars. The fuel cells themselves will require exotic materials like platinum, which will require heavy mining to get enough platinum, will be be bad on the environment. Yet, electric car batteries, which has so far managed to last 10+ without needing to be changed (with evidence they can go 15-20 years), are somehow really bad for the environment. Despite the fact that they can be mostly recycled.
No argument there, both have problems.
However, my point is that we shouldn't abandon either of them.
Electric is only so good, and the same can be said of Hydrogen.
A marriage of both technologies holds more promise than either of them by themselves.

Quote:
I wonder how you'd feel about fuel cells being used and dumped? What if fuel cells were only 96% recyclable, and left toxic materials and was a dirty process? Because odds are, at least the first fuel cell cars will be.
Like Solar, the technology of hydrogen fuel cells is too young, but we must continue to pursue it. Even though, like with Solar and EVs, there's going to be some initial problem with pollution, those problems are already being worked out.

Quote:
Actually, given the way our water supplies are going, we are going to need to start filtering our dirty water to recycle and re-drink it. Astronauts already do this in space. Thus, there WILL be less water available if we try to do hydrogen as well. It's a bit like ethanol, and growing food to burn in our cars, instead of to feed people.
Agreed 100%. The "ick" factor needs to be swept aside and we need to start mass water filtration and clean up through re-drinking what we use (after it's filtered/cleaned ). There have been too many years of water pollution for us not to do something about it now.

Quote:
The strain of the grid isn't an option. We'll need to upgrade it here soon anyway (was one of Obama's goals, but he wasn't able to make headway on it due to other issues), so we'll get our smart grid. But even ignoring that, because it is not an issue if you have solar power at home to charge your car. And many of the stations Tesla is putting in, rely on solar power. Sure, it might draw some power from the grid if needed, but it is mostly solar powered.
Yes we need a full overhaul of our infrastructure, not just the power grid, but roads, bridges, water, communications, etc.
That requires tax money, but getting the idiots in congress or the white house to agree on who to tax, how, and how much is why we have gridlock. I honestly don't think any of them (Dem or GOP) want to solve these problems. Otherwise they would have started on it in the 1970s during the oil embargo when they should have realized that our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels was a bad idea that needed fixing.
It's not a matter of the few cars on the road using pure electric right now, it is when the shift comes to ALL cars going to an alternative that power needs cannot be met wtih current Solar Panel technology (unless we cover the landscape with Solar Panels on roofs, over parking lots, etc. which is feasable).

Quote:
I'll point you to Google's Solar Power Parking lot of how things will work in this future. Not only does the solar power parking lot charge your car with local power and NOT from the grid, but it also shades your car and keeps it cool for you.

In short: Solar power + electric car = no need to worry much about the grid.
Best to stick with an onboard source of fuel/power for the electric motor to use.
Ultimately the goal of hydrogen fuel is to be able to pour water into your tank without the need for a compressed liquid hydrogen or cracking. We're still a ways off from that, but that is the goal and a good one.
That's why I said electric is a stop-gap measure. If engineers and/or chemists can figure out how to crack water inside the vehicle and provide direct hydrogen gas from water stored onboard, then that would be the best fuel source (of those under development) outside of an actual Solar Powered car.

Quote:
Gonna stop you right there. You are making an assumption that solar panels are so bad, that they can't charge your car without help. The issue of charging is not just of power, but how long you leave your car to charge, and how much you want to charge your battery (charging to a 100% is no recommended, as it is too time consuming). If it was so bad, millions of homes and companies(like Google above) would not be installing solar panels.
That's not what I meant.
I meant that Solar Panels need help to charge the car in the same manner as a normal vehicle.
Let me put it differently.
A "quick" recharge of an EV with the best Solar Panel recharging equipment takes a minimum of 30 minutes.
A refuel at the pump for hydrogen or gasoline takes 3 minutes.
As for business or homes, they don't consume much power as it is compared to a factory that manufactures goods. I imagine at some point in the near future Solar Panel technology will be able to provide the level of power needed for a factory, but right now it isn't there.
In other words, have patience.

Quote:
I mentioned before I am near Seattle, Washington. When you think of this area, what comes to mind? Rain, right? Even with our cloudy situation, we still generate enough power via solar for much of our needs. I've been looking into seeing if I can get panels on my condo. And Germany, which gets LESS sun than my location, can get anywhere from 3% to 40% of their power in any given day from solar.

It works. Today. With today's technology. So remove the "power from other sources" thing up there.
I know that cloud cover won't inhibit Solar. My parents have had solar panels on their home since the 1980s (as far as I know they upgraded them every few years as new technology came out) and they live in Massachusetts. So I'm familiar with how they work and I am for the continued development of them because the technology is sound.
However, we have to face the reality of what we are living in right now and see that a basket of technologies is going to be required to get us off hydrocarbons.
It's going to take more than 40% peak power to make this work in the short term.
Long term I can see Solar as providing most, if not all of the world's power, but that is still far into the future.

So yes, additional power is needed for electric cars (as a whole, not individually) to work in society.
I think we had a misunderstanding there.

Quote:
Actually, Nuclear impacts the environment less than many other energy sources. Since the fuel provides so much power, there is minimal mining for uranium or thorium needed. And reprocessing can further use spent rods. Coal plants put out more radioactivity than Nuclear plans do.
Yes and no.
Provided the nuclear power plants are produced with all of the proper safety features they are fine, but recently, there is a bit of scandal brewing over nuclear power plants.
I agree that coal has simply got to go.
It was good when it was the best technology for the job, but now it needs to be retired.
However, that said, we need to go about transfering from coal to better power sources as smoothly as possible without destroying the flow of power to consumers.
Again, a group of new technologies is the best way to go about this. Combine Solar, Hydrogen, and nuclear (if we must).
Italy has had a succesful hydrogen power plant for years now.
I'd like to see that type of thing developed and expanded here in the US on a larger scale (even if natural gas has to be used).

Quote:
Soylyndra failed because the Chinese are flooding the market with cheap panels that work decently well. They simply couldn't match the slave labor prices of China (which heavily subsidizes their solar panel companies). China is investing much into wind and solar power. One might begin to wonder why.
Not sure why they are doing that, but it is estimated that as many as 180 Solar Power companies may go under or get absorbed by other companies as a result of the saturation in the market.

Quote:
So much of a joke, that "French car manufacturer Peugot Citreon has announced that it will release the first air-powered hybrid car in 2016." Ya know, I'm gonna have a real difficult time deciding between the air hybrid, and an electric car, when I eventually retire my gas/electric hybrid in 2025.

I know, not many people hear of things like this, but I follow slashdot a lot (a news for nerds website), so I hear about stuff like this all the time. Air cars are a reality already, as many prototypes have been made. They aren't quite road-worthy yet, which is why this air/gas hybrid car is so interesting; it makes the air car ready for the road, much in the same way gas/electric hybrids did.
Holy shit!
I had no idea, I'm so used to seeing the "air-powered" car used by anti-Hydrogen types that think we can never get off fossil-fuels that I thought you were using it as a pejorative. I stand corrected.
That is actually really neat.


Quote:
The Sun provides the Earth with 20,000 times more energy than the entire human race uses, in a year(ALL energy needs). Even if a solar cell is 1% efficient, that still captures all the energy we need. And we have panels that are approaching 30%, if not already there.
Yes the Sun does, and we will eventually harness it as we advance towards a Type-1 civilization, but right now Solar Cells cannot provide the energy we need. It isn't as simple as saying 1% of the quads will give us the power we need, there are many other factors which come into play (as is so often the case).
We need Panels that can reliably collect 50% (at least) power and provide that power to the grid continuously no matter the load.
Unless there is a drop in population, and thus power consumption, on a large scale, we are going to see power needs rise with or without pure electric cars.
That's why I'm harping on a Hydro-electric hybrid, it metaphorically kills two birds with one stone. The power for the car is generated by a clean fuel source, the battery for the car is relatively small reducing the toxicity of recycling, and the emmissions are water vapor. Is it perfect? No. But it is better than either technology by itself until Solar Panels reach a point that direct Solar can power a vehicle.

Oddly enought Kaijo, I think we are mostly on the same "page" here with regard to the need for alternative fuels/energy to that of hydrocarbons, even if we may have minor disagreements on how we as a society should go about it.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-24, 21:22   Link #343
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
I think we are somewhat on the same page here, and for what it is worth, I am not saying to stop research on hydrogen. Just that electric cars are ready *now* and offer a HUGE benefit over gas vehicles. Considering the polluting and oil nature of gas vehicles, let's do what we can to get them off the road now. Exchange the huge polluting vehicle for something MUCH less polluting. Maybe, in the future, if Hydrogen works out, we can do something with it. But not right now.

Although, I think there might be a minor misunderstanding here. You seem to be operating under the assumption that you will just pour water into your car to have it go. That's not how a hydrogen car would function. Instead, you would have to put pure hydrogen into your car, which would then combine it with oxygen from the air to create water (or water vapor). It takes energy to crack HO2 apart into hydrogen and oxygen, but you get energy by recombining the two. So, even in a hydrogen car, you are using hydrogen to create electricity, and the electricity to run the car. Whereas an electric car cuts out the middle step and just focuses on electricity.

Hydrogen is essentially more of an energy storage compound, like a battery; not energy generation. It takes energy to make hydrogen, and thus when you ultimately use it to power something, you're getting less energy from it than it took you to make it. That's the biggest issue with it.

I will say that hydrogen compares favorably as far as energy storage goes, compared to gasoline. The main problem is that it requires a MUCH heavier and bulkier tank to store the gas. A heavier car will require more energy to run, so this is something you have to keep in mind. The lighter you can make your car, the less energy it takes to move it. There have been some experiments with small marble-like pellets, but that is proving to be even heavier. The other main benefit is the ability to use gasoline as a fuel until a hydrogen infrastructure is in place. This is the major reason why the hydrogen car has any real traction, because the oil companies would rather people buy hydrogen cars then electric cars, so they can sell more oil. Thus, what you usually see pushed, are fuel cells which can do both gasoline and hydrogen.

I'd encourage you to read a book called "The Hype about Hydrogen". Despite the title, it is written by a "hydrogen realist" who knows what he is talking about. He knows the potential, but also knows that it has a looong way to go, currently. There are engineering problems we haven't been able to surmount. While he figures we eventually will, the fact remains that we have technology NOW which is just as good. Again, not saying to stop working on hydrogen, as a breakthrough could make it ideal. But electric cars work now, and so let's do that. I think you can agree to that much, since it does look like we mostly agree on things.

One other thing that isn't mentioned, is that an electric car is vastly cheaper to maintain, due to less moving parts (this is partly why GM helped kill their electric car, the EV1). The more you put into a car, the more it will cost to maintain it. Both an electric car and a hydrogen car will have batteries (and quite a few of them, as the benefits of regenerative braking are much too good to pass up). Hydrogen cars add more parts in the form of fuel cells, which means there are naturally more maintenance costs.

And lastly, about solar power... yes, that chart was about peak, but remember, we are talking about mostly deserts here. They get peak sun practically every day. Even if we assume they only get half of that peak on average, we can simply double the number of panels to get the energy we need, and it still takes up an incredibly small fraction of Earth's land area. I don't know what else to tell you, other than countries like Germany and China are going full bore on solar power now, to great benefit. It is a mature technology, and there are companies in the US which will install solar panels for you, that eventually pay for themselves after 3 to 10 years.

You say we need 50% panels, but that's not a good idea. Remember, the more energy they absorb, the more heat they build up. Too much energy, and they melt and become non-functional, unless you have some clever cooling options. I've seen a few; mainly one that rotated a kind of "tree" of panels slowly, thus giving the panels not facing the sun, time to cool down a bit. But that required energy. 20-30% is pretty much idea, because then they don't get warm enough to fail. In most areas, they can radiate enough of the heat to keep functioning.

If you want to know how far solar panels have come, recognize that we can keep a solar powered aircraft aloft indefinitely! NASA's Pathfinder project(nonpiloted drone) demonstrated that you could keep a solar-powered aircraft aloft even during the night, and I'd keep an eye on the Solar Impulse project. It's actually piloted, and has already made a 24 hour trip. The next goal is to circumvent the globe in 20-25 days (in 3-4 day hops to change pilots), but eventually have a full, around the world trip with a later two-seater.

And the solar powered car you want is practically here. Only, instead of taking the solar panels with you (which add extra weight and thus increase energy expenditure), you simply stop at places with solar powered charging. From that point of view, it makes little sense to carry solar panels with you. In 10-15 years, every metropolitan and suburb will have solar paneled charging areas. Business centers will have them. Parking garages will have them. Restaurants and shopping malls. In fact, I usually see the charging spots closest to the door at places like Walmart or near the elevator in parking garages. So not only are you getting a free charge, but you get the closest parking spots, too!

Honestly, the only two reasons why I don't get an electric car now(if I needed a new car now, it would be a Volt), one of which is partly because I want to get more use out of my current car. But the other main reason is I am on the second floor in a condo complex. There are no charging stations here yet (though I've seen quite a few around in my suburb and in Seattle). I'd like to be able to plug in at night, which I can't do yet. So, I'm hoping in 10 years I'll either move to some place that has charging stations, or convince my condo association to invest in some. Or somehow run a cable up to my condo, heh.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 00:54   Link #344
Ithekro
Space Battlecarrier
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
One of the problems with being optimistic about EV is that it was 20 or so years ago that they said we'd all be driving EV in 10-15 years. California even mandated by law that a certain percentage of all cars sold in California would have to be EV by I think 2010. It was nowhere near that percentage.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 08:27   Link #345
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
One of the problems with being optimistic about EV is that it was 20 or so years ago that they said we'd all be driving EV in 10-15 years. California even mandated by law that a certain percentage of all cars sold in California would have to be EV by I think 2010. It was nowhere near that percentage.
For reasons why not, watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Or at least read that wiki page. It is very enlightening. The Bush administration(under pressure from the oil industry) sued to stop California's law.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 17:32   Link #346
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Someone increase the NASA budget already:

Quote:
NASA has suffered budget cuts and freezes the past several years, but apparently things are looking up for the U.S. space agency. Today, NASA announced that it was creating a new organizational division geared toward investing in space technology, equipment, and exploration.

"A robust technology development program is vital to reaching new heights in space -- and sending American astronauts to new destinations like an asteroid and Mars," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "A top priority of NASA is to invest in cross-cutting, transformational technologies. We focus on collaboration with industry and academia that advances our nation's space exploration and science goals while maintaining America's competitive edge in the new innovation economy."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...tion-division/

If NASA had a budget even 25% of the DoD... just think of what could have been done already...
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 18:22   Link #347
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
In the "how stupid do you have to be to forget to breathe" department, Teabaggers and the extreme rights go ballistic because the First Lady took part in a small part of the Oscars last night. They get nearly every aspect wrong, of course, in the froth and spittle.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...13/02/25/61190
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...he_oscars.html

The stupid burns and stings to even stand near (last 50 years at least of First Ladies participating in the arts, education, even picking up litter).

(note to any of the stupid before they whine: Ronald Reagan also taped his own video message for the 53rd Academy Awards in 1981)
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 18:58   Link #348
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
lol fail.

I'm starting to believe it's an organized Troll Party.
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 18:59   Link #349
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
In the "how stupid do you have to be to forget to breathe" department, Teabaggers and the extreme rights go ballistic because the First Lady took part in a small part of the Oscars last night. They get nearly every aspect wrong, of course, in the froth and spittle.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...13/02/25/61190
Looking at the Civil Rights Movement link ... the Twitter responses posted there... that shows the extent of American Fascism's propagation.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 19:24   Link #350
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Um, why hasn't anybody mentioned bio-diesel, or motorcycles as alternative means of transportation or fuel?
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 21:16   Link #351
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
Um, why hasn't anybody mentioned bio-diesel, or motorcycles as alternative means of transportation or fuel?
Bio-diesel seems attractive because we wouldn't rely on foreign oil imports, but there are issues with raising production enough to meet serious demand. Doesn't it also suffer from the same criticisms as ethanol additives in regular fuel: that we're using resources that could be used for food, for fuel? No matter how you slice it, electricity is cheaper to generate and "transport" than any liquid fuel. Combine it with the fact that electric cars that are available today should easily cover the majority of driving needs, and we're ready to go: all that we need is to expand our electric production capabilities.

As for motorcycles, I can think of many reasons. You're exposed to the environment, they're more dangerous than cars, they have extremely limited storage capacity. Sure, we can redesign many motorcycles to be enclosed, easier to handle (like the "motor tricycles"), and to have more storage space... but I don't think that would be popular. I got my motorcycle license for the fuel efficiency factor, but I have never met any motorcycle rider who stated that as their reason. It's an interesting idea, but we're having a hard enough time of moving people away from huge vehicles over to tiny cars; why would they make the jump to an even tinier vehicle that may lack the "coolness" factor of a traditional motorcycle?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-25, 21:21   Link #352
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
As for motorcycles, I can think of many reasons. You're exposed to the environment, they're more dangerous than cars, they have extremely limited storage capacity. Sure, we can redesign many motorcycles to be enclosed, easier to handle (like the "motor tricycles"), and to have more storage space... but I don't think that would be popular. I got my motorcycle license for the fuel efficiency factor, but I have never met any motorcycle rider who stated that as their reason. It's an interesting idea, but we're having a hard enough time of moving people away from huge vehicles over to tiny cars; why would they make the jump to an even tinier vehicle that may lack the "coolness" factor of a traditional motorcycle?
Yea, and consider the number of people... who suck at driving a car. Give these same people a motorcycle... they won't be able to get anywhere... not in one piece anyways.

Personally, I'm a good driver - one of the more smarter ones. However, I don't trust myself with a motorcycle either. Yet, if I were to own one, that'd motivate me to travel around more. Having a car is nice - but traveling around with it can be a pain in the ass... especially to large cities where parking is an issue.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 18:28   Link #353
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCBa7te1thk&sns=em
Yes, bio-diesel does come from food products, including water oil from fryers. Woukd it not be better to actually burn said waste oil, than dump it? And since we produce soy beans more than anything it should be cheap.
Ethanol was a by product of corn, and just as everybody was to jump on the bandwagon, the price of corn suddenly skyrocketed. The same could happen with soybeans too, but it's an abundant product.
If not motorcycles, why not those vehicles than run on engines measured in cc instead of cid? Like the Honda Beat, or the older Mini Cooper?
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!

Last edited by Lost Cause; 2013-02-26 at 19:39.
Lost Cause is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 19:35   Link #354
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
No CPAC Invite for Christie Because of ‘Limited Future’ in Republican Party
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson
Quote:
Christie has a “limited future” in the national Republican party given his position on gun control, the source tells National Review Online. As a result, the CPAC insider says, the focus of this year’s conference, “the future of conservatism,” made Christie a bad fit.

Christie, the source adds, is simply not a conservative in the eyes of organizers.
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 19:41   Link #355
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
No CPAC Invite for Christie Because of ‘Limited Future’ in Republican Party
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson
So in short, Christie is right now not considered the future of his party... He better decide soon if he should go independent or not.

I think this means he is not in the running for the 2016 presidential nomination.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 20:00   Link #356
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Not surprising considering that New Jersey has never been a gun friendly state.
Yet I like the guy, he has moxy, and did a hell of a job after Sandy hit them!
Politics aside I rather like the guy and wouldn't be surprised if he threw his hat in the ring in 2016!
Did you also see where the media tried to down play his possibilities just because of his weight?
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 20:08   Link #357
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post

As for motorcycles, I can think of many reasons. You're exposed to the environment, they're more dangerous than cars, they have extremely limited storage capacity. Sure, we can redesign many motorcycles to be enclosed, easier to handle (like the "motor tricycles"), and to have more storage space... but I don't think that would be popular. I got my motorcycle license for the fuel efficiency factor, but I have never met any motorcycle rider who stated that as their reason. It's an interesting idea, but we're having a hard enough time of moving people away from huge vehicles over to tiny cars; why would they make the jump to an even tinier vehicle that may lack the "coolness" factor of a traditional motorcycle?
In parts of Europe and Latin America that I've visited where fuel prices are quite a bit higher than in the states, motorcycles seem much more prevalent. I don't have any statistics on it, but from observation I can safely say it seems that higher fuel prices do eventually seem to motivate people to make the switch. My problem with them is the safety factor... I'd be terrified of the consequences of a collision while riding one.

I drive a small pickup myself, but I need the storage space for my work, so that couldn't be helped. It's actually pretty comparable in terms of fuel efficiency to the cheapo car I drove as a high school student - a 98 Volvo S70.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 20:09   Link #358
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
Not surprising considering that New Jersey has never been a gun friendly state.
Yet I like the guy, he has moxy, and did a hell of a job after Sandy hit them!
Politics aside I rather like the guy and wouldn't be surprised if he threw his hat in the ring in 2016!
Did you also see where the media tried to down play his possibilities just because of his weight?
At the moment he is in danger of being thrown out of his own party. Unless Karl Rove miraculously put down the Tea Party insurgency soon, Christie is in danger of being disowned entirely.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 20:17   Link #359
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Republican's lost

and Democrats gain even if he has I next to his name on the ballot instead of a D.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-26, 20:19   Link #360
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
In parts of Europe and Latin America that I've visited where fuel prices are quite a bit higher than in the states, motorcycles seem much more prevalent. I don't have any statistics on it, but from observation I can safely say it seems that higher fuel prices do eventually seem to motivate people to make the switch. My problem with them is the safety factor... I'd be terrified of the consequences of a collision while riding one.

I drive a small pickup myself, but I need the storage space for my work, so that couldn't be helped. It's actually pretty comparable in terms of fuel efficiency to the cheapo car I drove as a high school student - a 98 Volvo S70.
As someone who's been on a bike or two, I can tell you that's in the forefront of your mind when you ride! In some states the law states you must wear a helmet, and some of the clothing is reinforced with kevlar or at least heavy leather.
The flip side being freedom of movement, maneuverability, and of course gas mileage!
As for storage space, you'd be surprised how much you can put in saddle bags, and if neccesary get a side car, they were making a comeback a few years ago, or even a small trailer.
__________________

Ride, Boldly Ride!
Lost Cause is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.