To hell with hybrids!

mikenostic said:
Get back to me when a manufacturer actually mass produces and starts selling one...and gets better than 58 mpg. Because IMO, if a hybrid vehicle gets the same mpg as a 100% fossil fuel powered vehicle, the hybrid is still a moot point.
Click to expand...

Get America swtich from gasoline to diesel would be harder.

[/QUOTE]For me, a hybrid better totally shame a fossil fueled vehicle when it comes to fuel mileage or there's no reason to have one, so your little diesel hybrid better get at least 65-70 mpg (and have comparable power) before I would consider one over a Jetta TDI.
And you can't use emissions as an argument either because we've gotten internal combustion engine harmful emissions down to damn near zero.[/QUOTE]

A hybrid drive train will increase the millage of any ICE by ~25%, so if your getting 57 mpg on diesel you would get 71 if it was a hybrid diesel.

Again Hybirds are not a "game changer", they are really a wage to getting battery production up for plug in hybrids and then full electrics.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Doctors in Japan are diagnosing patients remotely from lab work done by subordinates on site.
Click to expand...
From what I understand that's a very common practice in the USA as well. But you still need someone to actually do the work in the lab. I imagine a large amount of routine lab work would be amenable to automation, but most of the stuff I do could not be automated in the foreseeable future.

Edit: Actually if you can just send the data over the internet (or whatever) to a doctor and have him examine it and give a diagnosis, I would have to question whether or not the doctor is even necessary. I suspect that in most situations a properly-programmed computer could do just as good a job.
 
Last edited:
Nasor said:
You mean the Metro that had a manual transmission and no air conditioner???
Click to expand...
That's the one. I think fully loaded it would have been less than ten grand, I'm not really sure. But I was still in college and was surprised they even gave me the loan for the 6 grand. Plus, I'd never had air at that point, so I didn't miss it.

Nowadays I feel like I'm roughing it if I drive a car without the remote for the door lock.
 
Mike,

People who live in an urban area might be better off with a hybrid or even electric. But until electric (and you could even say hybrid) cars become affordable for EVERYONE, and can run for more than 50 or 60 miles on a charge, internal combustion cars aren't going anywhere; and won't be for anytime within the next 20 years
Click to expand...

I agree but I think it's going to happen a lot faster maybe 10 years max. The reason is the battery tech is there and the mass production of these batteries will bring the cost down. However as far as replacing the ICE cars, yes that will take a long time, for many reasons.

I think that in 20 years nobody will be buying new pure ICE cars.

I dont' disagree but until electric cars become affordable, I will not support it.
Example, the Tesla roadster should cost no more than about $30K. IMO if a company can't do enough research to make it that affordable, they shouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...

Yes, well that is what Tesla's plan was to sell expensive cars to rich people so they could afford to build a commuter car that most could afford. The roadster is an insane speed demon car, many will pay way more than 100k to afford an ICE of equal 0-60 times. They are also using over the counter batteries that have already been far exceeded by newer batteries.

The real question which relates to your complaint is why didn't the big boys make them, they could readily mass produce all electrics at far lower pricing than Tesla could ever hope to. But they probably would make them look ugly as shit.
 
Rapid conversion from fossil fuels would energize and transform the US economy (not to mention foreign policy) beginning right now- if we had the vision. If we would only turn our greatest challenges to our advantage, our public investments in major manufacturing corporations would enforcibly stipulate complete and immediate transformation of our industries into world leadership here at the outset of the post-petroleum era. The USA could thus stand up economically, and do it with similar commanding leverage, as we did through our WWII mobilization. We would be fully capable of meeting the challenge, if we had the vision.
 
hypewaders said:
Rapid conversion from fossil fuels would energize and transform the US economy (not to mention foreign policy) beginning right now- if we had the vision. If we would only turn our greatest challenges to our advantage, our public investments in major manufacturing corporations would enforcibly stipulate complete and immediate transformation of our industries into world leadership here at the outset of the post-petroleum era. The USA could thus stand up economically, and do it with similar commanding leverage, as we did through our WWII mobilization. We would be fully capable of meeting the challenge, if we had the vision.
Click to expand...

Where's the energy?
 
It's in our open-access Fusion Reactor (Sol) and we know how to get all the energy we need (and not only from direct PV). The major remaining holdup is overgrown and dysfunctional corporations who can't accept a resource that can't be centrally controlled or monopolized.
 
Fantasizing about the sustainability of fossil-based energy (also Solar in origin BTW) is far more unrealistic than looking to the ready alternatives. The cost per energy unit of solar vs. petroleum are about to cross over (likely in a decade) and there's no going back. Considering environmental costs, we're long past parity.
 
I don't disagree about the need to move past fossil fuels, I only disagree that the scale of energy alternatives can equal our demand anytime in the near (30-50 years) future. Thus we are faced with a drastic and potentially catastrophic reduction in available energy which will cause all sorts of reverberations in every sector of the economy, if it hasn't already.
 
spidergoat said:
I don't disagree about the need to move past fossil fuels, I only disagree that the scale of energy alternatives can equal our demand anytime in the near (30-50 years) future. Thus we are faced with a drastic and potentially catastrophic reduction in available energy which will cause all sorts of reverberations in every sector of the economy, if it hasn't already.
Click to expand...

I disagree Spider. Once the crap is about to hit the fan, they will dust off the 500 mpg carberator from the dungeon shelf and reveal anti-gravity technology :rolleyes:

Seriously though. We can produce all the electricity we need at a cost of investment and land sacrifice. That will have to be done. But as long as we shift most of our transportation needs away from fossil fuels we should be ok.

We can produce an almost endless amount of synthetic fuels with coal but again it would take a major investment in infrastructure, better to spend that on cleaner burning electricity generation. Also, since electricity is basically everywhere at least in the U.S., creating or adding charging stations would be a piece of cake.

So either way unless we make the investment we will be in trouble.

I just think every time gas spikes higher and higher people will figure it out. We might be dumb but were not stupid. Oh wait, nevermind.
 
jpappl said:
I disagree Spider. Once the crap is about to hit the fan, they will dust off the 500 mpg carberator from the dungeon shelf and reveal anti-gravity technology :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Carburetors suck ass. Fuel injection is exponentially better and more efficient.


We can produce an almost endless amount of synthetic fuels with coal but again it would take a major investment in infrastructure, better to spend that on cleaner burning electricity generation. Also, since electricity is basically everywhere at least in the U.S., creating or adding charging stations would be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...
How are we going to mine the coal? Have you seen what strip mining does to land...and even mountains?
 
The cost is the issue- especially at a time when we don't have a whole lot of money to invest. We are already borrowing close to the limits of practicality, and not much of that is even devoted to rebuilding our passenger train system, much less create a whole new energy infrastructure.
 
Mike,

Carburetors suck ass. Fuel injection is exponentially better and more efficient.
Click to expand...

Of course. My comment was a joke, didn't you ever here about the 100 mpg capable carburetor in the 70's that the car companies were keeping from us ?

How are we going to mine the coal? Have you seen what strip mining does to land...and even mountains?
Click to expand...

Which was my point to build for electricity generation instead. I was just making points to our ability to create power sources one way or the other. We can in fact produce all the fuel we need, and I agree that mining coal is the 2nd worst option. Either way it will take a major infrastructure investment to accomplish long term needs.

Either way it will take energy to get energy.

Guess what will happen if we don't shift away from the ICE powered car ?
 
jpappl said:
Mike,



Of course. My comment was a joke, didn't you ever here about the 100 mpg capable carburetor in the 70's that the car companies were keeping from us ?
Click to expand...
Oh I know it was. I just have a strong disdain for them.
Although a 100 mpg carb doesn't seem impossible; unlike fuel injection, carbed engines will run on fumes.



Which was my point to build for electricity generation instead. I was just making points to our ability to create power sources one way or the other. We can in fact produce all the fuel we need, and I agree that mining coal is the 2nd worst option. Either way it will take a major infrastructure investment to accomplish long term needs.

Either way it will take energy to get energy.

Guess what will happen if we don't shift away from the ICE powered car ?
Click to expand...
It will, but we are going to have to make the sacrifice sometime. But I'd rather do it now in a 'preventative maintenance' situation than wait until it's too late and have to be forced to implement it in a 'repair' situation.
 
Mike,

It will, but we are going to have to make the sacrifice sometime. But I'd rather do it now in a 'preventative maintenance' situation than wait until it's too late and have to be forced to implement it in a 'repair' situation.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Spider,

The cost is the issue- especially at a time when we don't have a whole lot of money to invest. We are already borrowing close to the limits of practicality, and not much of that is even devoted to rebuilding our passenger train system, much less create a whole new energy infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Which why I am so pissed off by all the money we have wasted on short term solutions that have put us in this situation.

There is no alternative, we either keep going forward or we give up. Going forward will be filled with more waste and mistakes and successes, giving up is unacceptable and not in our nature.

The question is will we be wise enough (cough) to figure it out in time to make the adjustments needed or not ?
 
mikenostic said:
We either do that now voluntarily or we leave it to our children to do it out of necessity (and possibly despair).
Click to expand...

Guess what we are the child who have to do it out of necessity, oil peak in 2008:

ccst20090515.png


Its only cheap now because the world is in a depression and it will only stay cheap as long as we stay in a depression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top