BF2S Forums Obama introducing MPG + Emissions limits.

Ottomania wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

people dont die because of small and efficient cars, they die because of reckless driving.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

I agree with your logic. However, I do like to try and protect myself against reckless driving by making sure whatever vehicle I purchase has decent survivability.

Bigger cars just "pretend" to be safer :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _98469838/

"The argument that lowering the weight of cars to achieve high fuel economy has resulted in excess deaths is unfounded," says Tom Wenzel of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, coauthor of the report with physicist Marc Ross of the University of Michigan. "Safety is a challenging concept. It includes the design of the car itself, driver demographics and behavior, the kinds of roads, the time of day--a whole host of factors." While highway safety is complex, one thing is clear: A safety-conscious driver need not purchase a vehicle by the pound.--R.M.

Great mantra, but the article's title is misleading. It should read: 'Bigger isn't always better.'

First of all, I am aware that there are smaller cars with better safety ratings than some SUV's, but it doesn't mean larger vehicle classes are death traps in comparison.

Second, check this out (from your link):

The study also found that most passenger cars are safer than the average sport-utility vehicle or pickup truck when the risk posed to other drivers is taken into account, a figure the researchers call "combined risk."

I've been driving for several years. I've been pulled over for a fritzed tail light and got a bill in the mail for driving three or four (I think) miles over the last posted speed limit I saw, thanks to a strategically-placed traffic cam in on a short road with about a half a dozen speed limit change-ups (on that note, I just keep to 25mph within city limits, since I'd rather not stock city coffers with outrageous payments for snidely-worded fees). I can count on my fingertips the amount of times somebody's honked at me for a perceived or actual error. So I've been doing pretty good for myself. What do I drive? A Ramcharger, a pickup truck, a cube van and a diesel flatbed. The first one holds my personal tools and gear, the second one can tote what the first can't and the last two are for work.

That being said, poor driving is often based on biased perception. Small car drivers often see larger vehicles as huge (by perspective, they are) cumbersome devices with little reaction time and whose drivers are oblivious to everyone else's safety. Drivers in larger vehicles see smaller car drivers as flighty airheads with no idea how hard it is for a truck to avoid hitting you if you cut in front of it and slam on your brakes. Drivers of really big trucks see everyone as annoying turds who love nothing better than to hang out in their blind spots and get all pissed off when said big truck starts to switch lanes after about a minute of blinkering.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that shared safety is the responsibility of everyone on the road, but since a lot of drivers (in my region, at least), aren't inclined to purge their horrible habits, I feel much better being in something with greater mass than what would likely hit me. I'd rather not be the hapless victim of combined risk, thank you very much. Does that mean I don't care about the other drivers on the road? Absolutely not.

Besides which, there's a practical reason for a bigger vehicle: space.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-21 16:41:37)

Spark wrote:

That's pretty badly wrong. Wastage in generation is less than 1%, and if 40% is wasted in transmission then you need to get yourself some new transformers (which have a similar wastage - about 1%) because they aren't working at all.

Lead batteries are subject to the most comprehensive recycling processes in the world. The second cell is the lithium button cell - what you have in your TV remote. Not precisely the most widespread thing in the world... if you're talking about hybrid batteries, then you want to be looking at nickel-manganese. Manganese is pretty well harmless, can't say the same for nickel.

Hydrogen-fuelled cells are fairly impractical right now. Where and how are you going to get the hydrogen? The only viable solution is wind-powered electrolysis, but then you have to get round the storage (you can't store a fuel as gas, and hydrogen doesn't liquefy 'til a few degrees about absolute zero) and transportation (ever seen a demonstration of a hydrogen gas bomb? Burning enough hydrogen to produce one drop of water will blow up anything in the closest proximity and produce a noise louder than a gunshot - put it this way. we had to stand 40m back so we didn't get by shrapnel from the container). Plus, if you had that much windpower, wouldn't it be more practical just to use it as power, not as a fuel source? The less energy transformations you have, the better.

The environmentalist movement won't stop until antimatter-powered iPods erase the galaxy.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Honestly Hydrogen-fuel celled vehicles would had been best, but Obama killed funding for that.

Hydrogen fuelled vehicles are about the stupidest idea imaginable.
Trying to use the least dense fuel available, with no usable storage mechanism, efficient production process or transportation method has to be a Detroit joke.

Electric cars work, the infrastructure is there, no new technology is required.
Maybe this is the problem.

Not really.

leccy cars are fine and all, but that just means a switch from burning oil in your car, to burning oil/coal at some plant.

the technology for hydrogen is half here, just needs more funding to be commercial. only emission water? mpg through the roof? range of more than 150mi (easy)?

Yes please.

FatherTed wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Honestly Hydrogen-fuel celled vehicles would had been best, but Obama killed funding for that.

Hydrogen fuelled vehicles are about the stupidest idea imaginable.
Trying to use the least dense fuel available, with no usable storage mechanism, efficient production process or transportation method has to be a Detroit joke.

Electric cars work, the infrastructure is there, no new technology is required.
Maybe this is the problem.

Not really.

leccy cars are fine and all, but that just means a switch from burning oil in your car, to burning oil/coal at some plant.

the technology for hydrogen is half here, just needs more funding to be commercial. only emission water? mpg through the roof? range of more than 150mi (easy)?

Yes please.

You need to use electricity to extract the hydrogen from (usually) water.

They are both electric cars, one just uses batteries which you need to charge and store in the car (extra weight, about 500Kg), the other uses fuel (hydrogen) to create the electricity needed in the car. From an environmental stand point they are pretty similar, one has a few extra conversions (ie small losses of energy), while the other has batteries which are potentially an environmental hazard.

The major benefit I see in Hydrogen cars is the fact you don't need to spend hours charging your car (something millions of people wont be able to do), but just like now (with petrol) just go to a local service station and fill up. There other small benefits like if there is a blackout, a hydrogen car could be used to power your house, while a battery one wont be able to be charged so you wont make it to work the following day so lose your job and then get depressed and commit suicide.

stryyker wrote:

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing

Diesel is made from oil.

m3thod wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

He has penis issues.

Wow great retorts. 

Yes I am seriously USA #1 and wtf part?  The only thing that bothers me is that we (my country) go to foreigners to get das crude.

Penis issues -not really other than wanting to smack you upside the face with mine.

We're the greatest. We're number one.  Suck it.  I like to consume.  I want to spend.  I am a badass.  My guns are bigger than yours.  I'm gay.  We own the world.  We're gratititious fucks.  Our cars own.  Hate me.  But you want me.  We angels in disguse.  We liberated Iraq.  We love penis.  Dont envy me.  I want to smoke if i want too.  You want to be like me.  You want my man boobs.  You want to live here.  I'm in a secret society. Yeah baby.  I want oil.  We eat the most food.  We drink the most beer.    We fuck like rabbits.  You're jealous.  U. G. L. Y. You ain't got no alibi. 

....

Ha. Just saw this.  I've been on vacation.  Funny coming from a guy who's country has no guns, helped us liberate Iraq, likes to drink, fuck, you're obviously gay with envy!

DBBrinson1 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Wow great retorts. 

Yes I am seriously USA #1 and wtf part?  The only thing that bothers me is that we (my country) go to foreigners to get das crude.

Penis issues -not really other than wanting to smack you upside the face with mine.

We're the greatest. We're number one.  Suck it.  I like to consume.  I want to spend.  I am a badass.  My guns are bigger than yours.  I'm gay.  We own the world.  We're gratititious fucks.  Our cars own.  Hate me.  But you want me.  We angels in disguse.  We liberated Iraq.  We love penis.  Dont envy me.  I want to smoke if i want too.  You want to be like me.  You want my man boobs.  You want to live here.  I'm in a secret society. Yeah baby.  I want oil.  We eat the most food.  We drink the most beer.    We fuck like rabbits.  You're jealous.  U. G. L. Y. You ain't got no alibi. 

....

Ha. Just saw this.  I've been on vacation.  Funny coming from a guy who's country has no guns, helped us liberate Iraq, likes to drink, fuck, you're obviously gay with envy!

I like the fact my country doesn't have guns it means our gun related crime is low.  Blair helped you muppets liberate Iraq, my country was largely against it.  I drink once a year if that (not good not musclar hypertrophy).  And who doesn't like fucking?!!

I did a copy cat post as the orginal was retarded.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Good stuff. That oil stuff we all love isn't infinite ya' know.

wow a whole .5 extra mpg than what was already proposed.  stop the presses.

We've got more than the ME in shale.  Dirty little secret.

Lots of problems with the extraction of shale oil.  Can't remember where i read it but i think you need 5 barrels of water to produce 1 barrel of shale oil.

Fusion power (ok, Fission/wind/hydro/solar/bio) to generate electricity for hydrogen production

Then it's just a matter of converting from a gasoline based economy into a hydrogen economy, of which in terms of the outward apperance are quite similar



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Electric cars can make use of overnight electriciticy production - when the grid is underutilised, also keeps power stations running at higher efficiency when they would otherwise just be ticking over.

Hydrogen is not simple to store, there are efficiency costs in compressing and cooling it.
Its definitely not as simple as electrolyse water, store hydrogen, run through fuel cell, use electricity to drive car. There are big efficiency losses and technological leaps still to be made.

Hydrogen from natural gas is not a long term option - its substantially less efficient than just burning the gas in a standard IC engine - although potentially the CO2 could be captured and stored, not that we have a viable storage technology on the horizon for that either.
It is being used currently as a stepping stone to kickstart the hydrogen economy, not as a solution by itself.

If hydrogen really is going to be the solution it still needs to be made by some means and transported to the consumer.
The energy density is relatively low so its unlikely it would be transported significantly. More likely it would be electrolysed locally, relying on electricity from conventional or nuclear plants.
I still don't see the reason to move away from electric, except for high duty vehicles. Most people manage to keep their cellphones charged, a bit of consumer retraining is required, thats all.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-05-23 06:34:03)

Dilbert_X wrote:

I still don't see the reason to move away from electric, except for high duty vehicles. Most people manage to keep their cellphones charged, a bit of consumer retraining is required, thats all.

I don't park my phone across the street.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Electric cars can make use of overnight electriciticy production - when the grid is underutilised, also keeps power stations running at higher efficiency when they would otherwise just be ticking over.

Hydrogen is not simple to store, there are efficiency costs in compressing and cooling it.
Its definitely not as simple as electrolyse water, store hydrogen, run through fuel cell, use electricity to drive car. There are big efficiency losses and technological leaps still to be made.

Hydrogen from natural gas is not a long term option - its substantially less efficient than just burning the gas in a standard IC engine - although potentially the CO2 could be captured and stored, not that we have a viable storage technology on the horizon for that either.
It is being used currently as a stepping stone to kickstart the hydrogen economy, not as a solution by itself.

If hydrogen really is going to be the solution it still needs to be made by some means and transported to the consumer.
The energy density is relatively low so its unlikely it would be transported significantly. More likely it would be electrolysed locally, relying on electricity from conventional or nuclear plants.
I still don't see the reason to move away from electric, except for high duty vehicles. Most people manage to keep their cellphones charged, a bit of consumer retraining is required, thats all.

resevring this for when im sober enough to answer

DrunkFace wrote:

Spark wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

That's your big excuse? It'll take a long time to develop so lets just not do it.
We have most of the technology already, we have hydrogen powered bikes, cars and submarines and hydrogen fuel stations in California and I think Sweden.

Again. Hydrogen is supremely expensive and supremely difficult to store/transport.

The amount of energy you need to GET hydrogen nullifies much of its benefits - never mind that a car crash turns into the Hindenburg Lite.

Be sensible. Solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal. Natural gas for cars or electric cars.

Electric (battery) cars wont work as I have pointed out in a million treads so far, no matter how much you or other people say it, I still park my car (as do millions apon millions of other people) on the street, across the road or some other place taking a power cord would inconvenience me, the neighbours and any pedestrians or motorists who happen to come by. So unless you propose to put a power outlet every 10 feet or so on both sides of every road in the world then that idea can go proverbially fuck it self.
Natural Gas is hardly any better then oil and it is still a finite resource which will run out sooner or later.

Natural gas is MUCH better than oil. Gives you a higher energy yield for less carbon (better H:C ratio) - I don't know the figures right now, but they're pretty easy to work out.