We won! - Page 5 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-16-2007, 01:17 PM   #41
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 155
Country: United States
It's a great analogy, and I agree completely that we need to change. However... I have no intention on changing my habits until something from our government is mandated. It's not because I don't want to help save the earth, but because a few individual efforts are completely pointless without widescale cooperation. I care, but I don't plan to be one of the ones picketing the white house for reform. You lead the way and I'll eventually follow.

Hopefully that makes some logical sense.
__________________

__________________

atomicradish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:22 PM   #42
Supporting Member
 
Hockey4mnhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicradish View Post
It's a great analogy, and I agree completely that we need to change. However... I have no intention on changing my habits until something from our government is mandated. It's not because I don't want to help save the earth, but because a few individual efforts are completely pointless without widescale cooperation. I care, but I don't plan to be one of the ones picketing the white house for reform. You lead the way and I'll eventually follow.

Hopefully that makes some logical sense.
you sound exactly like my dad 100%. we wants goverment mandates to fix mileage and everything else. but if we count on the goverment to change it will never happen fast enough.
__________________

__________________
Hockey4mnhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:39 PM   #43
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Mass change can't happen without an individual change. If everyone waits for the masses to change in order to go with the flow, change will never happen.
repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 04:08 PM   #44
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
atomicradish -

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicradish View Post
I appreciate you concern for the environment, but in all honesty, you're dramatizing something that isn't there. In case you were unaware, one of the primary objectives of the Tennessee Valley Authority was to prevent flooding which had previously been a huge problem. Alongside that, it provided needed jobs and helped to power a section of the country which was in the dark for the many years before its existence. It comes at a cost, as all things do, but the cost is minimal.

Solar and wind power are highly unfesible. Have you even taken geographics into account? How many places actually receive sufficient sunlight or wind to actually sustain a power grid? Not many. The fields required for such a power plant would be massive. Now certainly it has its promise, but it is simply promise. It is not a logical solution at the present time.
Here are some "bad" regions for solar :

Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association (OSEIA)
http://www.oregonseia.org/index.htm

Solar Washington
http://www.solarwashington.org/

Washington State "Solar Bills" are Signed Into Law!
http://www.solarwashington.org/actio...illsSigned.htm

Every South facing roof with an unobstructed view in the United States is a candidate for power generation. How about that asphalt parking lot near you that is basically a solar heat collector driving up your local microclimate temperatures? Why not put solar panels (that double as shading) there? If we "only" spent 100 billion per year on this (20% of the current defense budget), I think we could make a dent in our energy consumption. Don't you?

If you don't like taking money out of defense, how about transferring the current level of subsidies from oil to solar/wind?

Solar and wind systems don't have to work 24/7, they just have to reduce the load on our current infrastructure. Typical residential peak demand is driven by AC load, the time when solar works best.

Wind and Hydro are both location dependent. If the TVA took advantage of the hydro potential, why can't other regions like the Texas plains take advantage of their wind potential?

Quote:
It's all well and great that you're taking the initiative to cut your power bill. I would prefer not to suffer from heat stroke, so I intend to run the central air at a comfortable 73 degrees. People can chage their consumption habits, but why would they want to? We have been given so many things by technology and science that have made our lives easier. It would be foolish to ignore all of those advances and essentially "go back in time" so that we can conserve. Science has to account for its advances by also improving upon power and its collection. Until a better method of power distribution is found, it would be foolish to expect people to give up the modern comforts which have we have been afforded.
When you make the technology argument, I think Wind and Solar are technology solutions. Your argument is that there isn't enough energy in these solutions to satisfy our needs. If we continue to advance technologically and practice conservation simultaneously, shouldn't we be able to get by until we create more efficient solar cells or new technology "X"?

From my POV, technology has allowed us to live longer and given us lots of gadgets (I'm typing on one right now), but I don't think it has made our lives easier. It has given us the oppurtunity to use our minds to the fullest, but you have to do *alot* of work to realize that potential.

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 06-16-2007, 09:27 PM   #45
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 155
Country: United States
I realize the potential in solar power, and I'm more than willing to compromise to help promote it. I'm absolutely in favor of cutting on the defense budget. The only problem is that solar cells are only about 40% efficient in harnessing the sun's energy. Right now it is not a wide scale feasible option, and right now people aren't going to be interested in supporting a technology that will cost more yet provide less. Personally I wish the government would allocate more funds towards solar power research (we need research still. 40% is not good enough) than our straw man "enemies", but at least until 2008 we're stuck with what we've got.

http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html
__________________

atomicradish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2007, 02:06 AM   #46
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
40% efficient is still more than natural gas, coal and nuclear, and without any of the nasty emissions.
__________________

repete86 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 08:16 PM.


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