Cars

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Stryder, Dec 29, 2001.

  1. odin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Fact Of the Day!!!!

    Since their invention, Cars have killed or injured more people than all the major wars combined.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then they have done a lot for the environment!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,358
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    The government is pumping money into hydrogen fuel cell cars....Finally....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Re: Fact Of the Day!!!!

    Actually all those dead people being buried to be wrotted away produces Methane (CH<SUB>4</SUB>), so in away, those cars didn't stop polution being created they actually increased the polution in a shorter period of time.

    Especially since some of those people that got run over and killed in crashes could have probably designed a different engine, or have a better way of cleaning up our atmosphere.
     
  8. odin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Look!

    Its only people that pollute the Earth,anyone that says different is just anti something.
    The less people,the less cars,the less people the smaller the industries need to be,the less resources needed.
    If you make cars burn less fuel,the following year there will be twice as many cars needed for population increase.
    In fact anything the people use every year there will be more needed.
    So there is only one Green solution.Reduce the population!
    You don't hear Greenpeace say that.Why,Because there would be no money in it!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actually all those dead people being buried to be wrotted away produces Methane (CH4), so in away, those cars didn't stop pollution being created they actually increased the pollution in a shorter period of time.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    They would have died later on any way,so would still have put as much Methane in the air.
     
  9. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Reducing the population is not the answer. For many years Mankind has been doing it's best part to bump of the population base, either by going to war over religion or just because "They look funny!"... well that sort of mentality.

    In the long run people will blame population, but in truth it all comes down to politics and corporate monetary entanglement.

    Namely, you will say that some places have large farms that grow crops that use up the soils richness, and rape it of it's natural weight, so when wind or floods come the ground is strip'd and made a barren infertile wasteland.

    It's education and research that is necessary to deal with this sort or uncoordinated farming methodolgy, but again it comes down to money. Supermarkets require food sources cheaply (which you will point out is due to a population) so they utilise places that are cheap, and in turn this causes future troubles when they can't preduce anymore due to their mass farming.

    You can look at the basis of the oil industry being the same, Oil from the ground is not the only oil that man can create or utilise. We can get oils from Rape seed, tree bark and a number of other unmentioned crops.

    So any Price hikes on an oil market, are pretty much manufactured. Mentioning this about oil though doesn't mean that vechiles should run upon it, I mentioned Steam engines, and of course Odin mentioned coal and oil to make it Steam....

    Thats what they use to use "back in the day..!" but that's not what we need now, even I have a concept of how to utilise a specific method (which I shall not divulge due to patenting information).

    Perhaps if we could get our population across the planet to act with more unison, we would have a better methodlogy of surviving as a whole, Afterall Ants work well as a nest. (Of course they don't get on with other nest)

    A point why Greenpeace doesn't mention about population control, it's quite simple, some people think that population control is completely wrong as this incourages abortions which certain groups and religions frown upon.

    So Greenpeace doesn't raise the topic because it's not their agenda to enforce control in that sense. I should think. (but I wouldn't know, I'm not a greenpeace rempresentative.)
     
  10. odin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Greenpeace!

    they would be unpopular if they told the truth.
    So no chance of that!
    Just think if the population was small,the only excuse they could come up with for nuke power,would be to make bombs!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. orthogonal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    579
    Cars are on my short-list of the most vile creation ever made by man. Unfortunately I've little choice but to drive one, as there's absolutely no mass transportation where I live. I walk or ride a bicycle when possible, still, there is no getting around driving a car here. I sometimes daydream while driving that the best part of being dead will be not having to own and drive a car.

    I used to give a ride to an old woman from my town when I found her walking the seven miles to the next town, Northfield, for groceries. She was so stooped by osteoporosis that she could only look down at her feet. The road she walked on parallels a railroad track all the way to Northfield. But only freight trains and the nearly useless Amtrack use that track. I particularly remember picking her up one cold and snowy day. I had just heard the news that the space shuttle had lifted off that morning. I mused that my taxes had paid for these astronauts to ride in style to nowhere, while this old woman had to fight her way in a snow storm along a roadway carrying cars at 50mph to buy her food. What are we thinking?

    I love electric trains. I've taken the AVE in Spain, and the TGV in France, but my best memory was in Switzerland. The electric train I was riding on glided by a medium size hydroelectric turbine plant. What a logical system!

    There is one car that looks interesting to me however. It's called the "Smartcar", and it's only available in England and Europe. It stands to reason that the only car that I might actually want to own is not available in North America. I do remain hopeful though. One day I might be able to purchase a Smartcar powered by a fuel cell. Then maybe I'll lighten up a bit about cars and driving.

    Michael
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2002
  12. enviro-punk Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    cars, and polution...

    Not all cars as evil as you people seem to be painting them. I for example Drive a 1972 volkswagen beetle, I get decent gas economy, and in less than a year I will be able to afford the $1400 for a hydrogen powered engine with 0 emmisions, these engines are being made by a man in portland oregon, and Are a great step in the right direction.

    Another little known fact to the popularly known "tree hugger" is this. Two stroke engines(like on small motorcycles, and snowmobiles, and chainsaws) burn fuel more efficiently, and give off almost no toxins at all. In the summer months I drive a 1967 Yamaha 350 two stroke motorcycle, and I get 72 mpg, and I dont harm the atmosphere even 1/8 of what those "smart cars" do.

    Also available to the general publis is a bicycle with an electric engine that assists you when you get tired, they are capable of 20 m.p.h, and give off no emmisions at all, they are expensive right now, but they are for sale to the general poulous in america. So if you are a moped enthusiast, or even a bicycle enthusiast who would like to get around easier, or just not have to pedal up hills, thats something you should look into.
     
  13. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    It is interesting to read the various posts and opinions.

    Cars or personal transport are here to stay. Its just way to convenient.

    What we need to do is reduce the revhead mentality. Why governments allow the development of high powered, overweight fuel guzzlers, driven by mindless rednecks is beyond me.
    I own a 4 cylinders wagon. I have to change down a gear to get up a steep hill. I ride my bike as often as possible (not for environmental reasons but for health).

    Yet when the lights turn green there is always a few that will try to move there overweight V8 from zero to the speed limit (and more) as fast as possible. Massive energy wastage.

    There are many ways to reduce the energy used by cars but I think the easiest to implement would be education and a little social engineering.

    Create adds for TV that will make these rev heads feel embraced by there action. Publish studies that prove driving a big car means you have a small dick, lower IQ, overweight and less likely to get a girlfriend. I don’t care if it true or not we just need to change the public opinions on owning a big powerful car and driving to the limit every time you get into it.

    Some truths.
    1: Electric cars are not suppressed by oil companies. Electricity does not come from space it is created from the burning of fossil fuels, including oil.. To transmit this power to each house we lose 70% just to overcome the resistance in the wires. Electric engines are not 100% efficient ether. It is far more efficient to burn the fuel in the car then at the power station.

    2: Hydrogen fueled cars are not clean. It may be water that drips out of the tail pipe but once again. There is absolutely no natural hydrogen on this earth. Every gram of H is created by man. Usually in factories using conventional power sources.. namely fossil fuels. It is the most efficient, by is hardly clean. Hydrogen is simply a way of storing energy, it is not energy for nothing.

    3: Riding a bike is considered as clean.. But anyone that rides there bike on a regular basis know how much more food they need. Food is reasonably efficient at using the sun energy, but it too needs to be processed, transported, and processed again ( I like my food HOT). It may be the most efficient use of solar energy but it is far from clean.

    4: Solar panels use more power to produce the cells then is returned in power over the life time of the cells. They only have a limited life. Solar cells are very dirty..

    There is a promise of clean power in the future and that is fusion. The Holy Grail. We need to invest in the research. That’s where the fuel taxes should go. That’s the buzz word. (Fusion energy).

    Well I’ve had my whinge..
     
  14. rexagan Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    thermal

    Good points, Blindman.

    I must disagree with your summary of solar energy. Sure, the production of photovolaic cells use conventional energy sources and produce dirty chemicals. However, this technology has the potential of reaching and surpassing a critical point (w/ increased usage) where it will, overall, be a much cleaner method.

    More impotant, are some exciting thermal energy technologies that are paving the way for the future:

    Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology is proving to be almost 3 times more efficient than photovoltaic cells. In a nutshell it uses reflectors to concentrate solar energy to a collector. The collector uses glass evacuated tubes and water as its heat transfer medium that ultimately powers a steam-boiler vessel.

    The Ocean Thermal Energy Converter (OTEC) project in Hawaii has great potential as well. It simply uses the differencial between high and low temp ocean water to expand and contract water- or ammonia-filled vessels.

    Here's an idea... why not tap into thermal energy coming from the earth itself -- near volcano drilling.
     
  15. rayzinnz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73

Share This Page