There were a lot of cars in the 1980s that had much better gas mileage... mostly because they were a great deal lighter. Safety standards have complicated that approach. But perhaps if they put as much effort into making cars light they might actually get a superior effect.
yeah but why not just have a smart car or similar? The collapsed size doesn't appear much any smaller then the ultra compact cars I've seen previously.
Imagine owning one of those things for several years. What happens if the damned thing gets stuck? Or a motor burns out that controls the expansion. Or a gear gets stripped...
And honestly, how small do you need to make a car? The difference between the expanded and contracted versions was not that great. I'd keep it expanded all the time. Why not. Are you ever going to have that little space? Unlikely.
Scientists didn't get their respect in society through blind faith.
That's how priests and religions work.
You don't give someone trillions because you "believe"... that isn't science.
If you want the money. If you want to shut down global industry. If you want to completely change the way our society works at a basic level possibly causing HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to die.Then you need something more substance.
And yes. A massive disruption in global industry on the scale you desire will kill a percentage of the human population.
Mostly poor people in poor countries that depend on aid or are very vulnerable to changing economic conditions.
Furthermore, the weaker our economy gets the less able we'll be to supply you with more resources.
Some governments will refuse to cooperate. And the only way to stop them will be to go to war. Some of those countries are nuclear powers. So have fun with that.
At this point, he's got such a huge back log of other things and such a huge investment in other things that reforming higher education is really not something anyone is going to cooperate on. As in anything, there are entrenched interests.
The president should spend what time he has left finishing the things he's started. Very little new he attempts at his point will be accepted or catch on.
The first term is where you push these things. And the second term is where you cement them. Well.... finish what you've started and stop creating new programs and ideas for entirely unrelated issues that in most cases are no great matter.
unlikely that Canadians have to pay it because the taxes are mostly implemented through stupid requirements on fuel standards.
For example, the US federal government requires that US gas have a certain amount of ethanol in it or the refinery pays a fine but the auto companies have said that if gas is put into their cars that is one HAIR over that amount it voids the warranty. As a result, gas companies sell gas with less then that federal requirement of ethanol and pay a fine. That fine currently exceeds the total cost of labor and several other costs the refineries pay. All told, the fine accounts for about 1 dollar to the cost of gasoline in the US. And all that money is collected as a "fine" by the federal government. Effectively its a tax.
If I tell you that you pay a fine if you don't stand on your head at all times and no one can possibly do that then we all start paying and it becomes a lot of money flowing into federal coffers.
That said, canadian gas prices probably are a bit higher due to this sort of thing.
Various US states also have different fuel standards which means that refineries have to make different blends of fuel to comply with rules in different states. And making different blends increases the cost. Some of the blends are even seasonal. There are summer blends and winter blends. And you can't sell the wrong blend at the wrong time of year. All of that increases costs and the refineries pass all of that on to the consumer.
You could very easily drop the price of oil in the US by about 1 dollar simply by reforming these stupid laws and making them rational. Obviously we need some regulation but it needs to be reasonable.
We need one fuel standard that is acceptable at all times and that fuel standard must be reasonable.
Furthermore, ethanol requirements simply need to be retired. Corn is a terrible fuel crop. If you want to have some kind of bio fuel that is fine. But have a reasonable one. Algae or one of the weedy oil plants. No alchohol based fuel should be considered since the energy density is lower and the only real application of it is fuel. Where as an oil based bio fuel can be used in plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, etc.
You can't quantify your costs so you can't bill them.
Quantify them. Prove them. Its all conjecture from you people at this point.
And also grasp that you have to calculate the benefits as well.
Assuming for the sake of argument that all this stuff happens there will also be places that will be improved. Are you willing to credit carbon producers will that or merely continue your witch hunt and try to burn them?
Its not rational. You can't quantify any of this stuff.
Actually, the first prediction I know of was in 1919 by the US director of mines... a geologist... who claimed the US would peak its oill production in about two to five years... after which there would be a decline.
Didn't happen. And neither did about the next 20 such predictions.
Is current production down? Yes and no. Much of our production is down now because the federal government isn't issuing new drilling licenses either off shore or on shore.
Despite that, fracking is increasing in production geometrically. But only on private land.
We do what we can. But you can't legally forbid something and then claim that we can't physically do it because we're not doing it.
Give oil companies the licenses to drill AND THEN make your claims.
Forbidding them to drill and then saying "SEE SEE WE"RE RUNNING OUT OF OIL" is either deceitful or idiotic. Pick one.
I'm afraid it isn't. My position is logistical, economic, and scientific.
Logistically, coal and nuclear make more sense. They're more economical. And the environmental issues associated with them are manageable.
There is furthermore no other source of power that can give us the amount of power we need on an ongoing basis. We have hundreds and hundreds of years of coal left. Possibly thousands. And at least as much if not more nuclear fuel. At the same time, the solar technology we have now is GARBAGE. It is expensive, inefficient, and fragile. The maintenance costs alone make solar prohibitive. Were we to magically get all the solar panels we need and installed for free my magical elves and fairies the costs would still exceed coal etc because the damn panels don't last that long and have to be replaced.
So sorry. The technology isn't ready. Stop pushing it on us until it is ready.
For a side example, consider cars in the 1870s. They existed. I think most of them were steam driven. Would you recommend that everyone get rid of horses at that time and go for expensive, unreliable, feature poor steam driven cars?
No. Because that's a recommendation a halfwit would make. And you're not a half wit... are you?
when that happens we'll have a lot of time to adapt. The supply won't just disapear in a year or so. It will be over many years if not decades which is more then enough time.
Furthermore, this doom and gloom talk has not been backed up by reality. The peak oil crowd said we'd be out of oil about 30 years ago. Well. We're weren't and are not now. So maybe you want to take a wait and see approach since your predictions aren't coming out the way you thought.
Or arrogantly presume to predict the future despite failing to accurately do so at any previous point.
Most energy monopolies are government owned because they MAKE money not because they cost it.
Look at the Norwegians. Look at the Saudis. Look at the Venezuelans. Look at the Russians.
These are not state institutions because they cost money but because they generate huge sums of money. In fact, in the above cases, those properties form the bedrock of those economies. You presume not only take all that money away. Because remember, now you're not making money... you're spending. But actually to start draining the national treasuries to fund your pet projects?
Tell you what, sport. We're in the middle of a global economic recession. Where is the money for your idea going to come from?
I assume you'll be selling unicorn turds? Blue chip industries are struggling to make ends meet. National governments are defaulting on debts. And you think the best idea is to raise taxes, increase energy costs, and go green for gaia?
You can't quantify those costs and your position is almost entirely ideological.
There is no point in getting into a debate with you about your beliefs. They're not empirical or factual. They're opinions. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions such as your favorite color and what songs you like to hum along to... but that's all you've got on that point, chum.
The costs of petroilum are VASTLY outstripped by the benefits. It is a product used throughout our society in many industries. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, fuels, pesticides, etc.
Remove this from our supply chain and indifferent to gasoline and fuel it would bring our industry to its knees and BILLIONS would suffer.
You don't care or think about that though. It doesn't matter to you. You have your precious little beliefs and reality is someone else's problem. Fine.
Hold what beliefs you like. But while you're entitled to have them you're not entitled to anyone else's respect for holding on to irresponsible, irrational, and ignorant positions.
Want to ACTUALLY disagree with that? Present some facts that deal with the meat of my argument. Short of that... continue to rhetorically masturbate.
I don't know how much the subsides are put in place to off set other taxes, fees, and administrative costs.
Your antipathy towards nuclear power makes nuclear power more expensive. I'd need a cost break down to see where the costs are happening.
Furthermore, there is an issue of large government projects being used a piggy banks. So someone wants to build a plant... to get the permit they have to agree to use certain labor or different work contracts which ultimately make someone else rich. The company can't afford that but not to worry says the politician because I'll give you a subsidy that can pay for it so its not your money.
Clear out the corruption and how me a transparent system and I'll have more confidence in your estimates. Furthermore, you need to provide some reasonable place to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. We had a place and a means of dealing with it that was responsible but the anti nuclear lobby has complicated that. So most spent fuel is being stored onsite which is not optimal.
As you wish, Comrade. We'll just run everything as a government program under the aegis of our glorious fearless leader.
Seriously? You don't know why it has to be self sustaining? If things aren't self sustaining then they have to draw energy and money from other things to sustain. Especially in matters of FOOD and POWER you need things to be self sustaining because you cannot have disruptions in food or power.
But you know what... I don't care. We'll see what happens. In california, what has happened every time is that the subsidies eventually ran out. And when they did... when they couldn't operate 50 percent on government welfare they shut down. Another ruin.
So we'll see what the germans do here. If the big power companies say "f' it" and walk will the green power be able to pick up the slack? Remember, it has to be subsidized which means everyone's power bill will go up MASSIVELY. And don't forget germany has big industry with big power needs. Germany's industry is already getting lots of tax breaks and subsidies. They'll need their power costs subsidized. Which will mean all those costs will slam down on the German citizen. Not the corporations.
How much do you want to pay?
Green energy is great. I'm all for it. IF it can compete. If it can't... then it can't. I'm not crying over that. I'm moving on.
They're smaller then the fees and extra taxes they have to pay.
look into the facts.
Its getting pretty silly in the US. The taxes on refineries especially account for nearly 1 dollar on the cost of gasoline in the US. Think about that the next time you go to the gas station and buy gas. A dollar per gallon of what you're paying is going entirely to pay EXTRA taxes and fees that only the refineries have to pay. That is on top of other state and federal taxes.
So with all due respect, claiming it is an even playing field is ignorant. You do not know what you are talking about.
They told you the real story here. The solar and wind guys are getting huge government subsidies and tax breaks. Where as the coal and nuclear providers have to pay all sorts of fees, extra taxes, and of course regular taxes.
So guess who is being more profitable?
You can crush any business by doing that. Anything. You could make growing rice in Antarctica viable doing that. Just offer a big enough subsidy for every ton of rice grown there. Boom. Profit.
The question is can the german government sustain these subsidies indefinitely. As in forever. And if/when they stop providing them what will happen to their renewable programs?
I live in California. We've gone through many renewable programs going back to the 1970s. This has been our experience.
First, we give the renewable company a lot of money.
Second, they build their plant.
Third, we give them big tax breaks for subsidies which last for five to ten years.
Fourth, they operate for five to ten years.
Fifth, the subsidies stop.
Sixth, the renewable power company dies almost instantly.
Seventh, the power station is left abandoned in the desert to rot. There isn't even enough money left after to tear it down. Our deserts are littered with these power plants. Dozens of them. Every time one closes we tend to start up another one. And another ruin is in the making.
I want renewable energy. But I want it to be self supporting.
The drive in question appears to be a hoax. The tech was apparently "Developed" in 2006 and has not been submitted for international scientific scrutiny. It has also not been used. Every paper not submitted in chinese has been torn apart for errors.
Don't get me wrong. I want it to be real. But this doesn't appear to be real.
Slashdot Mirror
There were a lot of cars in the 1980s that had much better gas mileage... mostly because they were a great deal lighter. Safety standards have complicated that approach. But perhaps if they put as much effort into making cars light they might actually get a superior effect.
And of course there are many non-hybrid cars that get better mileage then many hybrids.
And yet they get no benefit despite being much more environmentally friendly.
Its all politics, fashion, and fads. Logic or justice has nothing to do with it.
yeah but why not just have a smart car or similar? The collapsed size doesn't appear much any smaller then the ultra compact cars I've seen previously.
Imagine owning one of those things for several years. What happens if the damned thing gets stuck? Or a motor burns out that controls the expansion. Or a gear gets stripped...
And honestly, how small do you need to make a car? The difference between the expanded and contracted versions was not that great. I'd keep it expanded all the time. Why not. Are you ever going to have that little space? Unlikely.
Scientists didn't get their respect in society through blind faith.
That's how priests and religions work.
You don't give someone trillions because you "believe"... that isn't science.
If you want the money. If you want to shut down global industry. If you want to completely change the way our society works at a basic level possibly causing HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to die.Then you need something more substance.
And yes. A massive disruption in global industry on the scale you desire will kill a percentage of the human population.
Mostly poor people in poor countries that depend on aid or are very vulnerable to changing economic conditions.
Furthermore, the weaker our economy gets the less able we'll be to supply you with more resources.
Some governments will refuse to cooperate. And the only way to stop them will be to go to war. Some of those countries are nuclear powers. So have fun with that.
All in all... its a completely silly proposition.
At this point, he's got such a huge back log of other things and such a huge investment in other things that reforming higher education is really not something anyone is going to cooperate on. As in anything, there are entrenched interests.
The president should spend what time he has left finishing the things he's started. Very little new he attempts at his point will be accepted or catch on.
The first term is where you push these things. And the second term is where you cement them. Well.... finish what you've started and stop creating new programs and ideas for entirely unrelated issues that in most cases are no great matter.
I'm not buying a ten trillion dollar pig in a poke.
Either lower the costs of your environmental program so that I can feel safe speculating on it. Or you must quantify it.
When you propose programs that will cost us hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars you need to quantify everything.
If you won't or can't do that then you can't have the money.
unlikely that Canadians have to pay it because the taxes are mostly implemented through stupid requirements on fuel standards.
For example, the US federal government requires that US gas have a certain amount of ethanol in it or the refinery pays a fine but the auto companies have said that if gas is put into their cars that is one HAIR over that amount it voids the warranty. As a result, gas companies sell gas with less then that federal requirement of ethanol and pay a fine. That fine currently exceeds the total cost of labor and several other costs the refineries pay. All told, the fine accounts for about 1 dollar to the cost of gasoline in the US. And all that money is collected as a "fine" by the federal government. Effectively its a tax.
If I tell you that you pay a fine if you don't stand on your head at all times and no one can possibly do that then we all start paying and it becomes a lot of money flowing into federal coffers.
That said, canadian gas prices probably are a bit higher due to this sort of thing.
Various US states also have different fuel standards which means that refineries have to make different blends of fuel to comply with rules in different states. And making different blends increases the cost. Some of the blends are even seasonal. There are summer blends and winter blends. And you can't sell the wrong blend at the wrong time of year. All of that increases costs and the refineries pass all of that on to the consumer.
You could very easily drop the price of oil in the US by about 1 dollar simply by reforming these stupid laws and making them rational. Obviously we need some regulation but it needs to be reasonable.
We need one fuel standard that is acceptable at all times and that fuel standard must be reasonable.
Furthermore, ethanol requirements simply need to be retired. Corn is a terrible fuel crop. If you want to have some kind of bio fuel that is fine. But have a reasonable one. Algae or one of the weedy oil plants. No alchohol based fuel should be considered since the energy density is lower and the only real application of it is fuel. Where as an oil based bio fuel can be used in plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, etc.
You can't quantify your costs so you can't bill them.
Quantify them. Prove them. Its all conjecture from you people at this point.
And also grasp that you have to calculate the benefits as well.
Assuming for the sake of argument that all this stuff happens there will also be places that will be improved. Are you willing to credit carbon producers will that or merely continue your witch hunt and try to burn them?
Its not rational. You can't quantify any of this stuff.
Friend, this isn't going to stop. Even if you stop it in germany that is as nothing to the expansion of coal plants in china.
Give up. Your crusade against carbon is a lost cause. Accept it and come up with something else to be annoying about.
Actually, the first prediction I know of was in 1919 by the US director of mines... a geologist... who claimed the US would peak its oill production in about two to five years... after which there would be a decline.
Didn't happen. And neither did about the next 20 such predictions.
Is current production down? Yes and no. Much of our production is down now because the federal government isn't issuing new drilling licenses either off shore or on shore.
Despite that, fracking is increasing in production geometrically. But only on private land.
We do what we can. But you can't legally forbid something and then claim that we can't physically do it because we're not doing it.
Give oil companies the licenses to drill AND THEN make your claims.
Forbidding them to drill and then saying "SEE SEE WE"RE RUNNING OUT OF OIL" is either deceitful or idiotic. Pick one.
You don't need to use arm on phones. And again... people have gotten windows XP to run on android phones.
So... you apparently don't know as much as you think you know about the subject.
There are ways to build an OS that will work on the phone and can run all the desktop windows programs natively.
These pennyanny half measures are costing MS its place on the mobile market. They can either provide that product and win or refuse and lose.
As I said, not the same OS. And programs wouldn't natively run on both platforms.
That is a required feature. MS does that and they instantly win.
How could android compete? How could iOS? But MS won't do it because they've got their heads wedged up their asses.
I'm afraid it isn't. My position is logistical, economic, and scientific.
Logistically, coal and nuclear make more sense. They're more economical. And the environmental issues associated with them are manageable.
There is furthermore no other source of power that can give us the amount of power we need on an ongoing basis. We have hundreds and hundreds of years of coal left. Possibly thousands. And at least as much if not more nuclear fuel. At the same time, the solar technology we have now is GARBAGE. It is expensive, inefficient, and fragile. The maintenance costs alone make solar prohibitive. Were we to magically get all the solar panels we need and installed for free my magical elves and fairies the costs would still exceed coal etc because the damn panels don't last that long and have to be replaced.
So sorry. The technology isn't ready. Stop pushing it on us until it is ready.
For a side example, consider cars in the 1870s. They existed. I think most of them were steam driven. Would you recommend that everyone get rid of horses at that time and go for expensive, unreliable, feature poor steam driven cars?
No. Because that's a recommendation a halfwit would make. And you're not a half wit... are you?
Good day, sir.
when that happens we'll have a lot of time to adapt. The supply won't just disapear in a year or so. It will be over many years if not decades which is more then enough time.
Furthermore, this doom and gloom talk has not been backed up by reality. The peak oil crowd said we'd be out of oil about 30 years ago. Well. We're weren't and are not now. So maybe you want to take a wait and see approach since your predictions aren't coming out the way you thought.
Or arrogantly presume to predict the future despite failing to accurately do so at any previous point.
You choose.
Most energy monopolies are government owned because they MAKE money not because they cost it.
Look at the Norwegians. Look at the Saudis. Look at the Venezuelans. Look at the Russians.
These are not state institutions because they cost money but because they generate huge sums of money. In fact, in the above cases, those properties form the bedrock of those economies. You presume not only take all that money away. Because remember, now you're not making money... you're spending. But actually to start draining the national treasuries to fund your pet projects?
Tell you what, sport. We're in the middle of a global economic recession. Where is the money for your idea going to come from?
I assume you'll be selling unicorn turds? Blue chip industries are struggling to make ends meet. National governments are defaulting on debts. And you think the best idea is to raise taxes, increase energy costs, and go green for gaia?
Compost yourself. Do it for the planet.
You can't quantify those costs and your position is almost entirely ideological.
There is no point in getting into a debate with you about your beliefs. They're not empirical or factual. They're opinions. And that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions such as your favorite color and what songs you like to hum along to... but that's all you've got on that point, chum.
The costs of petroilum are VASTLY outstripped by the benefits. It is a product used throughout our society in many industries. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, fuels, pesticides, etc.
Remove this from our supply chain and indifferent to gasoline and fuel it would bring our industry to its knees and BILLIONS would suffer.
You don't care or think about that though. It doesn't matter to you. You have your precious little beliefs and reality is someone else's problem. Fine.
Hold what beliefs you like. But while you're entitled to have them you're not entitled to anyone else's respect for holding on to irresponsible, irrational, and ignorant positions.
Want to ACTUALLY disagree with that? Present some facts that deal with the meat of my argument. Short of that... continue to rhetorically masturbate.
I don't know how much the subsides are put in place to off set other taxes, fees, and administrative costs.
Your antipathy towards nuclear power makes nuclear power more expensive. I'd need a cost break down to see where the costs are happening.
Furthermore, there is an issue of large government projects being used a piggy banks. So someone wants to build a plant... to get the permit they have to agree to use certain labor or different work contracts which ultimately make someone else rich. The company can't afford that but not to worry says the politician because I'll give you a subsidy that can pay for it so its not your money.
Clear out the corruption and how me a transparent system and I'll have more confidence in your estimates. Furthermore, you need to provide some reasonable place to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. We had a place and a means of dealing with it that was responsible but the anti nuclear lobby has complicated that. So most spent fuel is being stored onsite which is not optimal.
As you wish, Comrade. We'll just run everything as a government program under the aegis of our glorious fearless leader.
Seriously? You don't know why it has to be self sustaining? If things aren't self sustaining then they have to draw energy and money from other things to sustain. Especially in matters of FOOD and POWER you need things to be self sustaining because you cannot have disruptions in food or power.
But you know what... I don't care. We'll see what happens. In california, what has happened every time is that the subsidies eventually ran out. And when they did... when they couldn't operate 50 percent on government welfare they shut down. Another ruin.
So we'll see what the germans do here. If the big power companies say "f' it" and walk will the green power be able to pick up the slack? Remember, it has to be subsidized which means everyone's power bill will go up MASSIVELY. And don't forget germany has big industry with big power needs. Germany's industry is already getting lots of tax breaks and subsidies. They'll need their power costs subsidized. Which will mean all those costs will slam down on the German citizen. Not the corporations.
How much do you want to pay?
Green energy is great. I'm all for it. IF it can compete. If it can't... then it can't. I'm not crying over that. I'm moving on.
In the real world you have to pay your bills.
They're smaller then the fees and extra taxes they have to pay.
look into the facts.
Its getting pretty silly in the US. The taxes on refineries especially account for nearly 1 dollar on the cost of gasoline in the US. Think about that the next time you go to the gas station and buy gas. A dollar per gallon of what you're paying is going entirely to pay EXTRA taxes and fees that only the refineries have to pay. That is on top of other state and federal taxes.
So with all due respect, claiming it is an even playing field is ignorant. You do not know what you are talking about.
They told you the real story here. The solar and wind guys are getting huge government subsidies and tax breaks. Where as the coal and nuclear providers have to pay all sorts of fees, extra taxes, and of course regular taxes.
So guess who is being more profitable?
You can crush any business by doing that. Anything. You could make growing rice in Antarctica viable doing that. Just offer a big enough subsidy for every ton of rice grown there. Boom. Profit.
The question is can the german government sustain these subsidies indefinitely. As in forever. And if/when they stop providing them what will happen to their renewable programs?
I live in California. We've gone through many renewable programs going back to the 1970s. This has been our experience.
First, we give the renewable company a lot of money.
Second, they build their plant.
Third, we give them big tax breaks for subsidies which last for five to ten years.
Fourth, they operate for five to ten years.
Fifth, the subsidies stop.
Sixth, the renewable power company dies almost instantly.
Seventh, the power station is left abandoned in the desert to rot. There isn't even enough money left after to tear it down. Our deserts are littered with these power plants. Dozens of them. Every time one closes we tend to start up another one. And another ruin is in the making.
I want renewable energy. But I want it to be self supporting.
This a job a dog would do better and cheaper. Just saying.
I used that OS. It would not run windows software. it would only run windows mobile software.
I'm tired of the pennyanny OS's on these devices. Put a desktop OS on the phone formfactor. It is well within our capabilities.
The drive in question appears to be a hoax. The tech was apparently "Developed" in 2006 and has not been submitted for international scientific scrutiny. It has also not been used. Every paper not submitted in chinese has been torn apart for errors.
Don't get me wrong. I want it to be real. But this doesn't appear to be real.