Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 30, 2003, 03:16:01 PM
-
You remember that dummy? During his campaign couple of years ago he was proposing the ridiculous country-wide switch to alternative-fueled cars. A project requiring a huge expence, a lot of new opressive regulation, relying on non-existent complicated technology and most importantly, violating the basic physical law of conservation of energy.... :rolleyes:
Good thing presidential candidate G.W. Bush explained in time what kind of stupidity that was.
Ridiculous. I don't know why I suddenly remembered that crap. Here I was, sitting on my couch and listening to the State of the Union Address by our leader and all kind of ridiculous things surface in my memory. Why is that? :D
miko
-
Your best post in a year miko.
:D
-
Wasn't that about the same time that Bush said he was against nation building?
-
Miko, I'll bet you drive either a Camaro or a pickup truck, don't you?
-
Zil
-
Loadsa people been running their diesels on cooking oil in this country - until the govt got a whiff of it (car exhaust smells like fry-up) and started demanding that people pay fuel duty on it.
Yes, you can run an unconverted diesel car on cheap vegetable oil! Not recommended for cold countries!
-
dude im not driving a care full of cooking oil. better to have a nice safe super pressurised vessel of hydrogen. :)
god bless bush, i thought a second term was gonna happen till this month :)
-
wat yew sayn ? bush gona doubble cross all his oil baron war mongering buddies?? ahh don beleave it
-
From Whitehouse homepage:
“President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Freedom Fuel initiative to reverse America’s growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells – a way to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses that produces no pollution and no greenhouse gases. The Freedom Fuel initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen fuel for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation.”
What Al Gore proposed…
“I support new laws to [e]mandate[/i] improvements in automobile fleet mileage, but much more is needed. Within the context of the SEI [Strategic Environment Initiative], it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.” Emphasis added
There is a difference between an initiative to promote growth of a technology (a well established technology that continues to improve) and laws mandating it. A little further background information (note the release date)...
From:
Feds Accelerate Fuel-Cell Cars
Associated Press
07:32 AM Jan. 09, 2002 PT
“Begun in 1993 and championed by the Clinton administration, especially Vice President Al Gore, the joint venture between the federal government and the Big Three domestic automakers was seen as a way to put family-size sedans that get 80 miles per gallon into showrooms by 2004.
Using advanced aerodynamics, new engine technologies and lighter composite materials, the automakers in the program developed prototypes of vehicles capable of getting more than 70 mpg, three times better fuel economy than most cars now on the road. But commercial development of large numbers of these cars in the next few years, as once envisioned, was not expected.
Although Abraham supported the program as a senator from Michigan, shortly after he became energy secretary he said the highly touted program had outlived its usefulness because the auto industry was going in a different direction.
The administration proposed slashing funding for the program as part of its first budget a year ago. Nevertheless, Congress continued to keep it alive, even as some environmental groups and the watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense called the program an unnecessary subsidy for the car industry.
Instead, the administration intends to focus on speeding up development of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles, a technology that has attracted intense interest in recent years.
This new government-industry partnership "will further the president's national energy policy, which calls for increased research in hydrogen technology to diversify and enhance America's energy security," the Energy Department said.
It is hoped that the new federal push for development of fuel cells will spur industry efforts to develop motor vehicle engine and power systems that eventually will replace the internal combustion engine.
Although several automakers, including DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, have said they expect to have fuel-cell vehicles in showrooms within the next four or five years, wide availability of such cars is probably a decade or more away.
A fuel cell produces energy from a chemical reaction when hydrogen is combined with oxygen. The only byproduct is water. In recent years, the cost of fuel cells has dropped sharply. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas aboard vehicles or pure hydrogen can be used, requiring development of a new supply infrastructure.”
-
:rolleyes:
Memories of Bush rollin' through Michigan outright lampoonin' Gore for this...
Let's see.... Gore wrote the book in '92, and predicted 25 years. Bush co-opts it on Tuesday and predicts about 15 years or so... (which is pretty safe now, as the auto industry is beatin' him to the punch... no doubt draggin' Bush et al kicking and screamin').
Hmm...
Now the dittoheads are fallin' all over themselves tryin' to felate the chimp for his bold vision.
Yeah, what a speech.
Suprised nobody here has picked up on the utter hypocrisy of Bush's African AIDS initiative...
-
LOL, I remember Cheney's speech where he said that conservation was not the key, but the increased drilling for oil was. :rolleyes:
-
hawk220: Miko, I'll bet you drive either a Camaro or a pickup truck, don't you?
I have a 4-cylinder Subaru Outback Wagon which gives me 27 mpg in my everyday mixed city/highway driving and a 95' Honda Civic that still gives me better than 30 mpg.
I never ever push my car beyong 3200 rpm and my brakepads last me over four times the normal lifetime - in New York CIty, no less. Smart driving contributes a whole lot to fuel efficiency.
Sabre - the Bush's wording over the ridiculous proposal sounds less intrusive than Gore's. That does not mean the eventual regulations will not be as intrusive.
miko
-
Anyone remember that old movie with Spenser Tracy as Thomas Edison? How Edison persevered against the then entrenched gas light providers and won the right to supply electric lighting.
It wasn't the government that insisted we all try electric lights since they were safer and better. It was free enterprise that offered a better product to a public that quickly recognized it's worth.
What if the government had decided to endorse and enforce implementaion of Edison's idea before he made it workable? Would we all be using gas powered computers today? ;)
-
What if the government had decided to endorse and enforce implementaion of Edison's idea before he made it workable? Would we all be using gas powered computers today? ;)
No. We would still be using electricity - albeit direct current with finger-thick wires, 80% transmission losses and much higher cost. We would already long have had electric cars instead of gasoline-powered ones. Of course 19 out of 20 american families would not be able to afforde them and still use horses for transportation.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
hawk220: Miko, I'll bet you drive either a Camaro or a pickup truck, don't you?
I have a 4-cylinder Subaru Outback Wagon which gives me 27 mpg in my everyday mixed city/highway driving --snip
miko
I get better gas milege overall with 225 hp. :p
-
I never ever push my car beyong 3200 rpm and my brakepads last me over four times the normal lifetime - in New York CIty, no less. Smart driving contributes a whole lot to fuel efficiency.
Hmm I regularly push my car over 5000rpm and still get over 30mpg consumption :)
Never ever pushing the revs up there will clog up the engine and heavily degrade the performance. I regularly take my car on the highway and push the pedal to the medal for a few kilometers. You can feel how the engine revs better after that, runs smoother and generally thanks you for the excercise :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Suprised nobody here has picked up on the utter hypocrisy of Bush's African AIDS initiative...
Where's the hypocrisy in proposing $500 million in aid to Africa to fight AIDS? How much did Al Gore send when he was VP?
-
Suprised nobody here has picked up on the utter hypocrisy of Bush's African AIDS initiative... -Nash
Care to elaborate?
-
I think Nash is referring to the fact that some tribes can't eat Pygmies if they're taking an AIDS cocktail without themselves getting sick.
-
so Rip..what wine do you serve with Pygmies?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You remember that dummy? During his campaign couple of years ago he was proposing the ridiculous country-wide switch to alternative-fueled cars. A project requiring a huge expence, a lot of new opressive regulation, relying on non-existent complicated technology and most importantly, violating the basic physical law of conservation of energy.... :rolleyes:
Good thing presidential candidate G.W. Bush explained in time what kind of stupidity that was.
Ridiculous. I don't know why I suddenly remembered that crap. Here I was, sitting on my couch and listening to the State of the Union Address by our leader and all kind of ridiculous things surface in my memory. Why is that? :D
miko
Nice spin.....he was never criticized by Bush for offering ideas for new car technology, but rather his whacko enviromental stance as espoused in his not so best selling book.
You guys on the left might try the truth sometimes....I hear it's liberating:)
-
Ripsnort: I get better gas milege overall with 225 hp. :p
mrsid2: Hmm I regularly push my car over 5000rpm and still get over 30mpg consumption :)
Good for you!
Since neither of you mentioned the kind of car you drive (and I could not be bothered to search the forum for that info), is that a full-size 4-wheel drive family wagon?
I am not a conservation freak but it is one of the considerations. As a libertrian and free-market proponent I would certainly not presume to judge anyone on his habits. You buy your own fuel and let supply and demand dictate the price. If there is any shortage, the price will increase and people who pay for fuel will conserve more.
Of course I believe that today's price at the pump does not reflect the free-market price becasue it is heavily subcidised. The people who buy cheap gas have no insentive to conserve and those who pay - taxpayers - have no way to effect conservation other than by intrusive government regulations.
The full costs of gas should be reflected in its retail price - including risks to supply, cost of military and international aid needed to secure the supplies, etc.
Since fuel is vital to the survival of the country, the 10 year-reserve supply must be ensured - giving us time to adjust to any change in conditions. The creation and mainenance of such reserve by State or (preferably) private companies must be mandated as a matter of defence and reflected in the price of fuel, as well as any military expences that can be identified as related to securing oil - carrier groups, bases, etc. must.
If some poor people cannot afford heating their houses - offer them honest and open subcidy rather that sneak the welfare through military buget.
Nash: Suprised nobody here has picked up on the utter hypocrisy of Bush's African AIDS initiative...
I am not sure the hypocricy is involved. I certainly believe that any non-military international aid must be directed through private channels, not be done by the State.
I would certainly not waste my tax money on treating AIDS in Africa - it's a worthy cause but money can be used much more efficiently to improve living conditions there. Since everyone may have his own idea, private is the way to go.
miko
-
The researchers here at USC have been working on Bush funded hydrogen car research for a year now. They were working on it soon after he was elected. The researchers here say teh media hasn't mentioned anything about it because what would the environmentalists think?
-
Rude: You guys on the left might try the truth sometimes....I hear it's liberating :)
I am on the left? :D :D :D :D :D :D
Some of us on the right believe in moral principles rather than pursuit of immediate goal by any means. I would have rather had republicans lose elections on issues than see the senate majority leader endorce the racist quote system and the president toss free-market ideals and jump on environazi's bandwagon. Let alone his other transgressions against conservative values.
Bush is to the left of me - that's my problem. When I voted for him he had republican agenda, not a democratic one.
If you like what he is proposing so much and believe that we should all kowtow to our leader no matter what our opinion in favor of party "unity" - maybe you should consider voting liberal next time.
The researchers here at USC have been working on Bush funded hydrogen car research for a year now. They were working on it soon after he was elected. The researchers here say the media hasn't mentioned anything about it because what would the environmentalists think?
Who cares about the stupid car? If we had hydrogen available, we could burn it in existing internal-combustion engines with minor modifications. The exhaust would be the same water.
Busses in NYC and other places already run on natural gas.
Even if they solve the problem of fuel cell being expencive and easily contaminated, the source of the hydrogen is the problem, its transportarion and storage.
Anyone solved the problem of hydrogen making steel tanks/pipes brittle? Leaking through barriers impervious to other gasses? All the equipment/technology/knowlege used to store/pump/conduct natural and any other gasses is going to be of no use with hydrogen.
What they will do is make us load our cars with huge bulky heavy, slow to recharge and dangerous to operate high pressure tanks of natural gas which will be converted into hydrogen by heavy, bulky and expencive catalyst devices that are contaminated easily and irretrievably.
And that is before it even gets to the "fuel cell". Of course the mileage of a car will take a major hit because of the additional weight and space requirements - which will be compensated by making them out of plastic, the heck with safety.
All that expence and discovery on catalysts could probably be used better to clean up whatever exhaust is produced by today's cars. Of course they still produce "evil" CO2 - but so will the "hydrogen cars" since natural gas is mostly carbon anyway. The fuel cell will not emit CO2 but the the natural gas to hydrogen converter certainly will.
And of course our natural gas infrastructure, production and storage capacity are not nearly sufficient to take over transportation.
It's not like environazis will allow us to build nuclear stations - the only way to produce cheap plentifll hydrgen.
I bet Bush could get additional funding for his miracle car from Al-Qaeda. It's hard for them to hunt down every tanker ship and tanker truck/train delivering fuel now but once we depend on an expencive network of gas/hydrogen pipelines, the terrorists will have a field day.
Oh, yea - if you thought blowing up a gasoline tanker truck or gas station in the middle of the city was bad, wait till it's full of high-pressure hydrogen or liquefied natural gas. The closest thing to nuclear weapon you will ever get.
miko (http://www.mauricesbbq.com/images/confederate_navaljack_md_clr.gif)