legacycentral bbs

Greenies like me think nuclear power is the way to go, when its done the Canadian or European way, at least.

The problem is, the Earth DOES have natural temperature cycles, it goes up and down all the time. There is indisputable proof of this. We are dumping unnatural amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (enough to compete with a cataclysmic volcanic eruption on a yearly basis) and it was affect SOMETHING. We may just make a natural cycle a whole lot worse.

Nuclear generated electricity electrical power is a must, but keep in mind that it was the first gen greenies that stopped such expansion 20 years ago.

If man-made greenhouse gases are driving the temps up, what was doing it in the 13th century and after that what brought on the "Little Ice Age"?
In 1685 it got so cold in England tha it was possible to drive a coach with 4 horses acroos the ice on the Thames above London Bridge.

To get ice that thick it would take weeks of 35 below F. The frost split hard wood trees such that there was a shortage of wood for furniture makers.

Heres what my friends dad told me. He was a petroleum engineer for like 25 yrs so listen up.

1) Alternative fuels in cars. (h2o, h, co2 ect ect) IS NEVER GUNNA HAPPEN. If we could do it we'd be doing it. End of story. Anything else you hear is bs.

2) Gas prices are never, and i do mean never gunna dip below 2.00$ per gallon.

3) George bush is a fuckin moron and a druggie, and a thief and a crook. <~my .02$

4) It takes like a couple tons of coal, to create 1 gallon of unleaded gasoline.

5) We most definetly are gunna run out of fossil fuels before our lifetime is over. This is all mostly what he told me. I through some of my opinions in there as well but you get the gist of it.

Subtle wrote:Nuclear generated electricity electrical power is a must, but keep in mind that it was the first gen greenies that stopped such expansion 20 years ago.

If man-made greenhouse gases are driving the temps up, what was doing it in the 13th century and after that what brought on the "Little Ice Age"?
In 1685 it got so cold in England tha it was possible to drive a coach with 4 horses acroos the ice on the Thames above London Bridge.

To get ice that thick it would take weeks of 35 below F. The frost split hard wood trees such that there was a shortage of wood for furniture makers.

I'm not saying that the previous climatic cycles were caused by human intervention. I don't even think I could say that this current cycle is being *caused* by human actions. It's simply being intensified/accelerated.

BTW, I want to say for the record that I think the people saying Bush caused the hurricanes by not signing the Kyoto protocol are completely out of their minds. It's crazies like that who make global warming sound like a farce.

well its snowing here now, which effectively kills a lot of my plans.

92whitelegacy wrote:
1) Alternative fuels in cars. (h2o, h, co2 ect ect) IS NEVER GUNNA HAPPEN. If we could do it we'd be doing it. End of story. Anything else you hear is bs.

thats BS. there are already lots of people running biodiesel, and to a lesser extent WVO.

Subtle wrote:If man-made greenhouse gases are driving the temps up, what was doing it in the 13th century and after that what brought on the "Little Ice Age"?

If you read my post you'd know

There are nature climate fluctuations. Greenhouse emissions may be magnifying them.

Some think that Bush could have created the hurricanes and destroyed New Orleans even if he was a private citizen and not the president.

Probably without even having to leave the ranch. The man's power is amazing

Subtle wrote:Some think that Bush could have created the hurricanes and destroyed New Orleans even if he was a private citizen and not the president.

Probably without even having to leave the ranch. The man's power is amazing

What does that have to do with anything?

An earlier post blamed the problems on Bush not signing the Kyoto
thing.

I just threw in a "reductio ad absurdem" arguement to place the politics in perspective.

The kyoto protocol is ridiculous.

Politcally, Bush should have signed it to show the US's good faith, but not even Canada is coming close to actually doing what it says.

Richard, glad to see you around here again!

As someone who no longer claims to be a Christian, I do have to say that the human race is going to experience a cataclysmic disaster in the next hundred or so years, maybe even before then. There's absolutely no denying it. Our numbers keep growing exponentially, and the earth and its resources are not growing alongside us. Something has to give. Whether we just have a few hundred million get wiped out in war or hunger, or whether something so gigantic happens that our entire race is nearly exterminated, I don't know. But something is going to happen.

And while I don't talk about politics much because I don't claim to be very educated on them, here's a summed-up version of them based on nothing more than common sense: Liberals are in complete and total denial of the facts in my previous paragraph.

Sure, the conservative types aren't exactly preaching this over C-Span all day long either, but they get some credit for at least getting the idea right.

I've got stuff to do today, so I might come back later and get more in depth.

Splinter wrote:Greenies like me think nuclear power is the way to go, when its done the Canadian or European way, at least.

The problem is, the Earth DOES have natural temperature cycles, it goes up and down all the time. There is indisputable proof of this. We are dumping unnatural amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (enough to compete with a cataclysmic volcanic eruption on a yearly basis) and it was affect SOMETHING. We may just make a natural cycle a whole lot worse.

Nuclear power is the way to go. Unfortunately, people saw TMI and thought "ohhh noes we's gonna nukes ourselves with ours powerplants" so we haven't built one in the US in the past 30 some years.

The thing is though, the Europeans have Nuclear Powerplants that produce no waste, yet we as Americans continue to use powerplants that do produce that nasty stuff they wanna put in Yucca Mountain. And since the majority of the American public believes that having a nuclear powerplant automatically means TMI all over again, we'll never have plants that are new and produce no waste. No one wants to fund it.

Manarius wrote:The thing is though, the Europeans have Nuclear Powerplants that produce no waste, yet we as Americans continue to use powerplants that do produce that nasty stuff they wanna put in Yucca Mountain. And since the majority of the American public believes that having a nuclear powerplant automatically means TMI all over again, we'll never have plants that are new and produce no waste. No one wants to fund it.

Well, and the fact that American style Nuclear plants are too expensive to run because they have to dispose of all that waste.

But that could easily be fixed if we did it european style.

France generates some 75% of its electricity through nuclear power.

The bureaucracy paid no attention to the terminally anxious protest movement. In North America the terminally anxious and their superstitions about nuclear power prevailed, thereby making us overly dependent upon coal and natural gas electrical generators.

Only about 25% of our electricity comes from nuclear, but much of the US Navy uses nuclear.

All nuclear electrical power plants have a residual radioactive waste that can be handled safely.

^^^yes, I know that it can be handled safely, I was just commenting that for it to be handled safely, it would cost too much money (the way "we do it") and Nuclear power isn't feasible unless we make some changes to make the process more efficient.

If you are getting your power from a well designed plant with proper recycling methods, the amount of nuclear waste a single person would be responsible for, in their entire lifetime, is about the size of a baseball

Its still not sustainable, but its a damn sight better than anything else weve got going.

Wow, I'm happy to see so much discussion about energy. I wish there was a way to get all Americans into this debate.

I hope nobody took my Kyoto comment seriously. I just like to spout off some looney lefty talking points to get a reaction.

And no, I have no hate for Lefties. While I think most of their talking points are wrong and facetious, we wouldn't get anywhere in a debate if there was only one side represented. That is one of the reasons I spit a little doubt at topics that we've been told to believe while the other side of the talking points are nonexistant or misrepresented in our normal course of learning.

Wait a second - WTF?
The Gooooogle banner right now displays these three topics:

Chevron Energy Debate
Discuss energy issues in relation to the environment and natural gas.

GHG Publication - Free
Gov. & Industry policies, programs regarding greenhouse gases, tech.

Global Warming
Concerned About its Effects? Find News, Commentary & Analysis.

WTF? Is someone here in charge of what those banner ads say or is this a coincidence?

Anyways, there is no doubt that pollution has an effect on us humans. Has anyone seen the movie "Erin Brockovich"? We as humans should be responsible as far as cleaning up our messes and preventing others from occuring. That's why the EPA is there.

But as far as creating hysteria and fear about something that people are sensitive to is downright manipulative when all your evidence is speculation or out of context at best. Imagine if it was galvanized pipes that Erin was trying to say caused the cancer. Or Kentucky Bluegrass. Imagine if the defense lawyers were blocked from the courtroom. Sure, the climate may be changing, but using the fact that its happening to support an agenda of "stop big oil from making so much money, stop gas guzzling SUV's, and if you don't, you hate mother nature" is not cool. And if you spout off "facts" and "theories" and then block debate, you're being downright naughty. That's why I despise Michael Moore and his undebatable "truth". He makes a "documentary" about something (Bush, guns, etc.) and then he's absent to the debate. Won't even show up. Sure, you'll see Katie Couric or whoever throw softballs his way on TV, but him and a hardcore debate? No way. He wouldn't even hold up for 5 minutes.

But here's the problem to alternative energy production:

Not in my back yard (NIMBY) groups. Sierra Club. Lefty financed ploitical/environmentalist groups. They all have something bad to say about everything. And 99 out of 100 times, they get their way.

Nuclear: I don't want a bomb near me.
Hydroelectric: It hurts salmon and other aspects of the environment. Upriver flooding.
Solar: Those things look horrible. How many will it take to power our city? That's too much for me.
Wind: Birds will fly into them and be killed.
Garbage Incineration: It pollutes the air.
Oil exploration: What about a spill? What about the caribou?
Ethanol: It costs more than regular gas. Increased pollution. What did it just do to my engine? Why do I get crappy mileage?

So what do we do? We could take a huge bite out of our foreign energy needs by using a whole bunch of the alternatives mentioned, but the opposition to them is quite impenetrable. Some of the same groups that block power plants are the same ones bitching about the need for different energy sources. Ted Kennedy is a big advocate for wind power as long as it doesn't end up in his backyard. Or his favorite sailing spot.

The key to the future, I believe, is healthy debate, with both sides being fairly represented, given equal time to discuss, and the ability to give all these facts to the public in a balanced process. Saying that, we have mountains to move as far as the progress needed to be done. Institutions of learning need some oversight and balance thrown into the mix. Media institutions need to go back to the days of fair and balanced reporting. Regulations are needed to block special interest money from lining the pockets of politicians. The fair market needs to be able to do its thing. Until these and other things are accomplished, we're in for more of the same old shit.

the google banner is targeted advertising. It takes keywords and applies them to google stuff (like google vendors)

ie: any time anyone talks about supercharging, or turbocharging, I see the turbinator ad up there

Anyways, yeah, I agree with you on the fear stuff. Both extremes will use fear to have their way with the general moderate public because they can't appeal their ideas in a way that will convince moderates that they're right, unless they inspire fear in them first.

I see it all the time in commercial advertising. If you have grey hair, the womenzzz are gonna hate you! But if you use "Just for men"....

One of the major problems is that the people complaining about the way things are done now dont have any alternatives proposed. They think that just because they can be happy living in a soy-based shack without running water and electricity, eating the funguses that grow on their unwashed bodies, that anyone should be able to.

The simple fact is that human beings are by nature consumers. Most animals are. We are resource gathers. When a resource is availible to us, it is a natural urge to try and acquire it. As human beings, we should be able to overcome this to some extent. That doesnt mean we have to give up our cars and walk everywhere, it simple means we have to excercise a bit of constraint, and maybe make a bit of sacrifice. I know a lot of you (including myself), do things that damage the environment with the rationalization that you're only one person and it cant be that bad, but that doesnt work when everyone thinks that way. If you make an effort to change a few aspects of your life in a green-friendly way, it's enough to make a difference to everyone.

We, as automotive tuners, can do a lot to help out, without too much sacrifice. Sure, a high-flow cat costs more than straight pipe, but put it in anyway. It barely affects performance.

Dont throw fluids into the drain at the bottom of your driveway, pour them into pop bottles and drop them off somewhere that can dispose of them properly. Around here, it's free.

Try to buy products that have as little packaging as possible. Ive seen boxes of cookies that have like 4 layers of packaging! Not only does that result in a higher cost to you, its 4 times as much to throw away.

Turn off lights when you're not in the room, or switch to flourescent. Not only will it save you money, it means they have to build few power plants.

Probably the biggest thing you could do, is get out to a national park. Go on a hike, and remind yourself what it is us left-wing hippies are trying to protect.

Splinter wrote:One of the major problems is that the people complaining about the way things are done now dont have any alternatives proposed.

Or the alternatives they propose aren't viable. One of my pet peeves is people who think hydrogen is a viable energy source -- it's not. It's not even a viable energy storage medium, because it takes more energy to produce it than it produces when it combines with oxygen to form water. People should move on to things that will actually work, such as consuming less through more efficient powertrains, hybrids, and simply using cars less.

yep, cold fusion is still a fallacy.

Hybrids are a joke.


Hydrogen IS a viable powersource, through fusion, but that is still a long way off, is ever.

Undereducated people get confused between hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen fusion.

Also, hydrogen can be used as a direct combustible, LH2, using hydride tanks. You'd generate the hydrogen at home, either using wall power, a small windmill or solar panels.

Splinter wrote:Hybrids are a joke.

How so? I don't think they're the end-all-be-all of automotive technology like some of the greenies do, but they are useful, especially on heavy-duty vehicles like buses and trucks.

thefultonhow wrote:

Splinter wrote:Hybrids are a joke.

How so? I don't think they're the end-all-be-all of automotive technology like some of the greenies do, but they are useful, especially on heavy-duty vehicles like buses and trucks.

they're not cost effective, is what I think he's referring to. by the time you make up the extra cost of the vehicle in fuel savings, you will probably have to buy a new battery, as they have short lives...most of the time out of warranty, and they're EXPENSIVE.

Not viable for anyone who can't afford a battery replacement!