We won! - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-14-2007, 09:56 PM   #21
Supporting Member
 
Hockey4mnhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Country: United States
yeah they said 50 years before it will be a real thing that we can use. i was watching that same show.
__________________

__________________
Hockey4mnhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 10:06 PM   #22
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Find me some sources other than the Pentagon about exposure to radioactivity such as DU being safe if you're so certain that nukes are great.

Also, find me credible and conclusive evidence against climate change (ie, not an ExxonMobil funded special interest group) if you feel the need to scoff at it.

Also, the cost of wind power in the short and long term and long term is more financially feasible than coal will be in a few years, nuclear is, and natural gas will ever be, and last time I checked has not been responsible for deaths, nuclear meltdowns, and mountaintop removal.
__________________

repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 10:17 PM   #23
Supporting Member
 
Hockey4mnhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Country: United States
they will come around. my dad used to laugh at me when i would talk about global warming but now he finnaly gets it thank god!!

btw nice #'s they just keep getting better!!
__________________
Hockey4mnhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 11:23 PM   #24
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Thanks. The last tank was just great because it was so hot out and I got really lucky and got to draft a truck at about 55 for almost my entire return trip. I don't think that my next tank it going to be very good. I spent alot of time last night driving around in an industrial park because my friend gave me really terrible instructions to a storage unit where a bunch of people were jamming. Hopefully I can bring the numbers back up in the next week. I'm going to be doing alot of driving because I have a few jobs coming up.
repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2007, 11:30 PM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 155
Country: United States
Wind, Solar, and the like are all a big waste of money. They're not efficient enough and you're paying up the *** for something that doesn't yield results.

Luckily I live in the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) district and all of our power comes from hydroelectric dams. They're great electricity, but unfortunately only certain areas can use hydro.

Nuclear is a great option. America will have to get over that stigma, because nuclear is the most feasible option for all parties.
__________________

atomicradish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 12:03 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
I don't consider cost to be an issue when discussing the fate of the world. You use hydro in your area. The use of dams has directly led to the extinction of many species of animals, destroys river systems, displaces indigenous people, and alters the natural cycle of flooding that replenishes the topsoil in the surrounding ecosystems. Conservation is easier than ever. It doesn't even cost any more to conserve, and instead only takes a quick look at what you're buying and smart use of electricity. MY electricity bill is extremely low and I am definitely not living like Ted Kaczynski. If we put the rock that keeps us alive ahead of our own gluttony, maybe we'll get somewhere. At that point, it will be very easy to run off of solar and wind. There are alot of roofs in Amerikkka, and if there's a large enough market, the price of solar panels will drop substantially. We can very easily live off of solar and wind. If as a civilization, we collectively put just a little effort into it, I think that we can be running entirely on renewable resources within a few years. Instead people ***** about how they don't have enough power while watching TV for 6 hours per day in a massive air conditioned house with all of their lights on.
repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 08:22 AM   #27
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64
Country: United States
Quote:
I don't consider cost to be an issue when discussing the fate of the world. You use hydro in your area. The use of dams has directly led to the extinction of many species of animals, destroys river systems, displaces indigenous people, and alters the natural cycle of flooding that replenishes the topsoil in the surrounding ecosystems.
Then just face it, Nuclear is the only way to go. Stop being so damn picky




I don't get into the Global Warming debate on the internet anymore. I learned long ago the only thing is does is piss people off. And in the end we wont change our minds on what we believe, will we? Of course not
__________________
Bubba Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 01:26 PM   #28
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Bubba Bob -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Bob View Post
Then just face it, Nuclear is the only way to go. Stop being so damn picky

I don't get into the Global Warming debate on the internet anymore. I learned long ago the only thing is does is piss people off. And in the end we wont change our minds on what we believe, will we? Of course not
I know it won't change your mind, but here's the Rocky Mountain Institute position on Nuclear energy :

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php
Quote:
It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected ? and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.

Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.

Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide ? but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.

And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)
I'll say it once and I'll say it 1000 times. Solve the waste problem and I think Nuclear is workable. However, there is also the national security argument. A nuclear power plant is a great big fat target for terrorists, foreign or domestic. Your best way to solve that problem is to have a decentralized power grid. Solar power, aka solar roofs, are perfect for decentralized power generation. The "bad guys" would have to take out every roof of every house in a city in order to accomplish the same goal as taking out one (nuclear or non-nuclear) power plant.

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 02:51 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
However, there is also the national security argument. A nuclear power plant is a great big fat target for terrorists, foreign or domestic.
Nuclear plants tend to be very, very hard targets due to the measures put in place to minimize the damage from a meltdown. For instance, I doubt they could've successfully plowed an airliner into a plant because of the sheer magnitude of concrete on the outside. I've read some speculation about being about to destroy the plant's cooling capacity while simultaneously taking out the operations center/s so they couldn't avoid a meltdown, but that would require a very large level or coordination and infiltration.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 03:03 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64
Country: United States
No disrepsect to you or the Rocky Mountian Institute, but that link completly goes against the World Nuclear Association, and, well, virtually everything else Ive ever read. Ill give it the benefit of the doubt though, and do some research on it.
__________________

__________________
Bubba Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I want to compare my TDI to my Excursion chriswmos General Fuel Topics 11 08-15-2010 06:58 AM
Different Stations = Different MPG cee General Fuel Topics 2 01-04-2009 10:24 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.