I think you're either joking, or changing the subject entirely, but I'll play along:
And how does exhaling carbon dioxide externalize "cost" onto the rest of society work for breathing? It doesn't, because there's no cost of any consequence. The CO2 you exhale is negligible in quantity. It's the result of metabolizing your food intake, and it's part of the natural carbon cycle.
You can blather about idealism (children do that until they grow up, and stupid people do it forever, I hope you're just a child) but REALITY moots your points. The reality is that what America's doing isn't working, nearly everyone can see that, and yet you're still defending the poor collective choices we've made. Those of us who recognize the problems are working on them...
[fuel taxation is] not about the economy, it's about deterring behaviors you find unpleasant. Well, having a poor economy and a worthless currency are behaviors I find unpleasant.
It's not the government's job to decide what's "right", even if you agree. Probably you've forgotten that the government *is* of the people, since America has somewhat squandered that fortunate situation. What will it take for you to look around and realize that what America is doing isn't sustainable, and isn't working?
If it were economical to harness energy from all those sources, don't you think the greedy capitalists would've been all over it? Pure capitalism doesn't work well, here, because it's so easy to externalize your costs on the rest of society. In other words, burning coal seems cheap and great because you're probably not accounting for the cost of global warming, acid rain, etc. Power companies (and, by proxy, their customers) "externalize" these costs onto the rest of the world.
Nuclear is the current best option yes, but you shouldn't dump all your eggs into one basket either. No one said anything about putting all the eggs in one basket. Electricity is the ultimate "flex fuel" precisely because it can be (and is and always will be) generated from many sources. Your quote above is the implied "if everyone did X" fallacy -- a fallacy because it's impractical/impossible for *all* power to be from nuclear generation, and in this case, no one was even suggesting that.
I wouldn't buy an electric or even a hybrid because i drive 50 miles to work every day and 50 miles back on a highway. No one cares if you personally will buy one because there are plenty of other people who will. There is an clear market for such vehicles, and supply is tiny and growing slowly. Electric cars will gradually replace fossil fuel cars, but for now they're only available in small numbers and they're expensive. Supply of electric cars won't catch up to demand for decades.
electric cars [...] would require new infrastructure to recharge on the go if you were to take a long trip or vacation somewhere. No, that's the sort of misunderstanding typical of people who haven't driven an electric vehicle. EVs aren't well suited to long trips. Period. Yes, you could do it if you're determined, but it's completely impractical. Fortunately:
Two or three standard deviations of car use in America is short range travel that is well suited to EVs,
There are plenty of gas cars around if you do need to take a long trip. (The hybridization doesn't have to be in the car; it can be in the fleet.)
You probably already have a second car for those long trips, but if you only have one car, then
You probably aren't in the demographic who can afford an EV any time soon anyway. Be patient; they'll get more affordable eventually.
And if everyone was to switch to electric vehicles wouldn't more fossil fuels be burned in power stations till your distributed grid solar power plants get built Any argument predicated on the condition "if everyone switched to electric vehicles" is ridiculous, because the transition to electric vehicles will be gradual. Hybrid vehicles took 10 years to achieve a 1% market penetration, and that was with a fairly successful product.
I want my tax money spent on what's good for everyone, instead of what huge corporations' lobbyists are promoting. [...]then do whatever you can to keep your money, and spend or invest it as you see fit[...] I do that already (don't we all?), but that strategy doesn't leave us with any way to transport ourselves around. Obviously you can't build a road or rail system by yourself. Our roads in the USA are probably more heavily subsidized than almost anything else in the country, so I assume you're against that, so what ARE you suggesting for transportation?
Well fuck you, too. C'mon, man, no need to go out of your way be rude.
Now that we have the formalities out of the way, I'll point out that your disdain for people choosing what they want to spend their money on instead of having it forcibly taken from them and handed out to the boondoggles who hire the best lobbyists is far more embarrassing to a country that's supposed to be free. So are you referring to the current system? Because it sounds like you are. I want my tax money spent on what's good for everyone, instead of what huge corporations' lobbyists are promoting. Surely you're not suggesting the "modern high-speed passenger rail" is a formidable lobby? I don't want my tax dollars spent on more interstate highways -- why is that any different?
Ah, thanks for that bit anti-American bigotry. No, it's not anti-american. It's just anti-selfish-american-attitude. I'm an american, and I agree with the GP 100%. Your "me first, me only" attitude is what embarrasses the rest of us americans.
You also go on to make the classic mistake of using bumbling american light rail implementations (in San Jose, no less, one of the worst) to support your claim that rail can never work. (And the tired "population density" arguments, which have been unassailably refuted countless times.) Are you also one of those typical americans who doesn't even have a passport, and has never been anywhere with a 21st century public transportation system?
There are a number of models which have been shown to be tamperable with no evidence of tampering available at the time of voting. Step 1 is to make sure you aren't using any of these machines. If you're going to make an allegation like that, why not support it with a list of the models in question? Or at least a reference, so as to make your claim credible.
Nah, I've gone back and watched the original episodes on DVD, and they were much funnier. I don't have any problem with the movie format, per se, but in BBS there was too much going on, they were trying too hard, and missing their mark too often. I'm optimistic that the subsequent releases will be better.
I never saw any of the other movie adaptations you referenced and have no interest in them.
Parent is right on the money. Bender's Big Score only had ghostly traces of what once made Futurama great. I'm hoping they hit their stride again with the subsequent TV movies...
What about roaming in other countries?
on
Comparing 3G Networks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I want to know if there are carriers that will provide data service and not completely rape me when I travel overseas. Usually when I ask a US carrier about international anything (rates, service, whatever) they have nothing but blank stares to offer.
Somehow I had roughly 120GB used in the month Somehow, eh? Do you really have no idea how that happened? I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know. Did you accidentally download approximately 1 DVD worth of data (or ten hours of compressed video) every single day for a month?
Or, as your math suggests, did you actually think your service speed rating entitled you to max it out 24 hours/day? If so, what led you to think that?
Well, something like this would mean they're not saying "unlimited" anymore. I couldn't find anything on comcast.com about the service being unlimited. Where (other than in the mind of whiney torrenters with a sense of entitlement) does it say that?
Like a previous poster said, though, if they promise unlimited, they have to deliver unlimited. Where does it say "unlimited"? I just spent 5 minutes searching comcast.com and couldn't find anything about their internet service being unlimited. Could it be that the "unlimited" offer exists only in the mind of whiney torrenters?
You're not going to escape the gas tax one way or another. The tax issue is exaggerated. New sales comprise ~6% of the auto fleet. Of that 6%, hybrid sales in California achieved 3% after ten years -- and that's with a relatively high level of market acceptance.
If an average driver uses 600 gallons of gasoline per year, and taxes are around 50 cents/gallon, an EV is costing the tax collectors $300/year. We could offset this negligible cost by raising gas taxes by $0.0003 per gallon (or ~1/2 cent per fillup) each year. (The Iraq war is costing between $20 and $40 per fillup, but is being financed by debt instead of taxes.)
The above is not really a fair accounting, because electricity is also taxed, although the revenue is applied to different budgets.
EVs may indeed someday offset a significant portion of the road tax -- but that would be a GOOD problem to have.
Subdivisions and planned communities are precisely the problem. Depends on the plan. You're right, of course; communities can be designed thoughtfully and in some places that's starting to happen. I should have been more clear: I was referring to "master planned communities" in the historical sense, where they put up square kilometers of identical houses, and it takes several minutes just to drive out of the subdivision.
That type of "community" is the scourge of the earth.
The Planned communities around here mean up to 5 miles with no commercial space. Subdivisions and planned communities are precisely the problem. The energy markets of the future will not be kind to people who chose that lifestyle. "Cheap gas" is not a sustainable energy policy.
You know, there's some light rail just south of me in San Jose. I've tried it and I wasn't impressed. You're making the classic mistake of basing your judgment on the poor rail implementations we have here in the states. If you want to make a fair evaluation of rail, visit a country where it's done well.
Considering that a "serial hybrid" is how diesel freight trains and M1-A1 tanks work, I'm less than convinced of your random dismissal of their potential. Especially with GM pushing exactly that concept as their next fuel design. It's not a random dismissal; I'm an electric vehicle engineer, and I'm less than convinced by your use of GM (or their vaporware product) as an example of success.
Neither locomotives nor the tanks you mention use any type of electrical storage. Rather, the only reason for the the hybrid electric system in those vehicles is to replace what would otherwise be a very complicated ultra-high-torque transmission.
A removable generator is hardly the engineering nightmare you make it out to be. Heck, the darn thing has to be removable ANYWAY, for service/replacement/etc. Throwing in the manual and letting a dedicated owner do it themselves is hardly an engineering problem. Like I said. Fantasy. Armchair engineers. Sure, the internal-combustion engine in your car is technically removeable. Along with the fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, etc. Making their removal easy and practical for the uninitiated in a consumer product is just crazy.
Quick: how many Americans will buy a car they cannot drive from one end of the country to the next? More than the number of people who have any desire to remove their engine. Economic reality will eventually cause cars in America to approach what they are elsewhere in the world: primarily for short-range travel. $4/gal gasoline has only caused whining. Real behavior change will happen as prices near $7 or $8.
I'm not sure what your point is; that's what gas cars are for. And driving across the country is, by and large, stupid, and it represents an astronomically small fraction of what we do with cars. But for those who want to do it, gas cars will be around for decades. (But no fair whining about fuel prices!)
Electric rail only makes sense if you don't have a more cost-efficient alternative. Even if all the fossil fuels go away and we are forced to produce all our own fuel, I wouldn't assume that hydrogen or artificial hydrocarbons won't be more efficient -- and both are every bit as long-term sustainable as pure electric. Hydrogen is way less efficient, and artificial hydrocarbons are a joke. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel -- you can make it from anything, and you can use it to power your rail directly with no further conversion or storage. (Round-trip conversion to hydrogen is about 25% efficient.)
Add a small removable hydrocarbon fuelled generator to an electric car with just enough battery capacity for your daily commute and you have a great system.
People who aren't automotive engineers always trivialize the implementation and think it's a great idea. Actual vehicle engineers realize that in many ways a series hybrid is the worst of both worlds: more complicated than an EV and a gas car combined, less efficient than an EV for short-range driving (because of the extra weight), and less efficient than a parallel hybrid (or even a normal gas car!) on long trips.
Yeah, I realize you said you wanted the generator to be removeable, but that's another fantasy of armchair engineers. Yes, it's possible to engineer your complicated system, but it will add unacceptable weight and cost. At least you didn't say you wanted a removeable (swappable) battery.
Look, we need electric vehicles for short range -- several standard deviations of our vehicular transit. Some applications and some drivers need longer range. The hybridization doesn't have to be in the vehicle -- it can be in the fleet. Gas cars will be around for decades, so you can borrow/rent/own a second car if/when you really need it.
I don't see how electric will work very well for long haul trucks though.
They're called railroads. Many countries use electrified rail for hauling freight. It's the only option that's long-term sustainable. The US is screwed in that respect -- a pathetic rail system and approximately none of it electrified.
Slashdot Mirror
Please mod the parent up. It's a far-better reply than my own.
- Two or three standard deviations of car use in America is short range travel that is well suited to EVs,
- There are plenty of gas cars around if you do need to take a long trip. (The hybridization doesn't have to be in the car; it can be in the fleet.)
- You probably already have a second car for those long trips, but if you only have one car, then
- You probably aren't in the demographic who can afford an EV any time soon anyway. Be patient; they'll get more affordable eventually.
And if everyone was to switch to electric vehicles wouldn't more fossil fuels be burned in power stations till your distributed grid solar power plants get built Any argument predicated on the condition "if everyone switched to electric vehicles" is ridiculous, because the transition to electric vehicles will be gradual. Hybrid vehicles took 10 years to achieve a 1% market penetration, and that was with a fairly successful product.You also go on to make the classic mistake of using bumbling american light rail implementations (in San Jose, no less, one of the worst) to support your claim that rail can never work. (And the tired "population density" arguments, which have been unassailably refuted countless times.) Are you also one of those typical americans who doesn't even have a passport, and has never been anywhere with a 21st century public transportation system?
Focusing on pie-in-the-sky maglev projects is asinine when there isn't even respectable passenger service on steel wheels.
...before we throw money away on maglev projects. Here's a video with some additional information:
California needs to lead the way by building something like this:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1QGNsRg74
Nah, I've gone back and watched the original episodes on DVD, and they were much funnier. I don't have any problem with the movie format, per se, but in BBS there was too much going on, they were trying too hard, and missing their mark too often. I'm optimistic that the subsequent releases will be better.
I never saw any of the other movie adaptations you referenced and have no interest in them.
Parent is right on the money. Bender's Big Score only had ghostly traces of what once made Futurama great. I'm hoping they hit their stride again with the subsequent TV movies...
I want to know if there are carriers that will provide data service and not completely rape me when I travel overseas. Usually when I ask a US carrier about international anything (rates, service, whatever) they have nothing but blank stares to offer.
How do you get data service overseas?
Or, as your math suggests, did you actually think your service speed rating entitled you to max it out 24 hours/day? If so, what led you to think that?
If an average driver uses 600 gallons of gasoline per year, and taxes are around 50 cents/gallon, an EV is costing the tax collectors $300/year. We could offset this negligible cost by raising gas taxes by $0.0003 per gallon (or ~1/2 cent per fillup) each year. (The Iraq war is costing between $20 and $40 per fillup, but is being financed by debt instead of taxes.)
The above is not really a fair accounting, because electricity is also taxed, although the revenue is applied to different budgets.
EVs may indeed someday offset a significant portion of the road tax -- but that would be a GOOD problem to have.
That type of "community" is the scourge of the earth.
Neither locomotives nor the tanks you mention use any type of electrical storage. Rather, the only reason for the the hybrid electric system in those vehicles is to replace what would otherwise be a very complicated ultra-high-torque transmission. A removable generator is hardly the engineering nightmare you make it out to be. Heck, the darn thing has to be removable ANYWAY, for service/replacement/etc. Throwing in the manual and letting a dedicated owner do it themselves is hardly an engineering problem. Like I said. Fantasy. Armchair engineers. Sure, the internal-combustion engine in your car is technically removeable. Along with the fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, etc. Making their removal easy and practical for the uninitiated in a consumer product is just crazy. Quick: how many Americans will buy a car they cannot drive from one end of the country to the next? More than the number of people who have any desire to remove their engine. Economic reality will eventually cause cars in America to approach what they are elsewhere in the world: primarily for short-range travel. $4/gal gasoline has only caused whining. Real behavior change will happen as prices near $7 or $8.
I'm not sure what your point is; that's what gas cars are for. And driving across the country is, by and large, stupid, and it represents an astronomically small fraction of what we do with cars. But for those who want to do it, gas cars will be around for decades. (But no fair whining about fuel prices!) Electric rail only makes sense if you don't have a more cost-efficient alternative. Even if all the fossil fuels go away and we are forced to produce all our own fuel, I wouldn't assume that hydrogen or artificial hydrocarbons won't be more efficient -- and both are every bit as long-term sustainable as pure electric. Hydrogen is way less efficient, and artificial hydrocarbons are a joke. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel -- you can make it from anything, and you can use it to power your rail directly with no further conversion or storage. (Round-trip conversion to hydrogen is about 25% efficient.)
Add a small removable hydrocarbon fuelled generator to an electric car with just enough battery capacity for your daily commute and you have a great system.
People who aren't automotive engineers always trivialize the implementation and think it's a great idea. Actual vehicle engineers realize that in many ways a series hybrid is the worst of both worlds: more complicated than an EV and a gas car combined, less efficient than an EV for short-range driving (because of the extra weight), and less efficient than a parallel hybrid (or even a normal gas car!) on long trips.
Yeah, I realize you said you wanted the generator to be removeable, but that's another fantasy of armchair engineers. Yes, it's possible to engineer your complicated system, but it will add unacceptable weight and cost. At least you didn't say you wanted a removeable (swappable) battery.
Look, we need electric vehicles for short range -- several standard deviations of our vehicular transit. Some applications and some drivers need longer range. The hybridization doesn't have to be in the vehicle -- it can be in the fleet. Gas cars will be around for decades, so you can borrow/rent/own a second car if/when you really need it.
I don't see how electric will work very well for long haul trucks though.
They're called railroads. Many countries use electrified rail for hauling freight. It's the only option that's long-term sustainable. The US is screwed in that respect -- a pathetic rail system and approximately none of it electrified.
All those parts, they are part of a pinball machine.
Those Libyan terrorists are gonna be pissed.