The straw that broke the camels back.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by PRC, Jun 14, 2010.

  1. PRC

    PRC Stop Quoting Me!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,601
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Michigan
    I've been trying to keep up with every mis-step that BP makes with this friggin' oil spill, and how the government just keeps dragging their feet while people all over the region are suffering financially, and soon enough physically from the toxic oil that has completely permeated the areas they live in...

    Anyway, it occurred to me about a month ago that this would be and still is the perfect opportunity for a company/organization/cartel whatever to step in and do a giant PR campaign to change the minds of the American people once and for all, and rid us of our massive oil addiction.

    So I waited, and waited, and waited. I got nothing. Periodically, I saw a commercial with an ex-soldier telling us to get off of oil, some company called POET, and that's it. I don't even know what those commercials are for. Where is the outrage?!?! They talked more about us getting off of oil during the Presidential Debates than they are right now...God Bless Barack Obama, I voted for him, I even worked on the Campaign, but WTF! Do you need it laid out on your pillow before you go to sleep at night!! I've got a great idea...Call the boys at GM, and tell them they have til the end of the year to get a whole lot of cars that are 100% electric on the road. I'm sure they'd listen to you since you gave them a shit-load of money.

    Remember back when JFK said that he wanted to go to the moon, and 10 years later we actually landed on the moon? Where in the hell is that type of imagination and innovation? I cannot believe with 1 cell in my body that we don't have the technology to make a car go 400 miles on electricity, water, air, or anything besides oil...

    I just saw on CNN that a space capsule that has traveled 4,000,000,000 miles (That's billion with a B) just came back to earth. And Wolf Blitzer is telling me that I can't drive around all day unless I stop at a gas station that is owned by people who are trying to kill me and my family? I don't believe it!!

    I'm tired of hearing about American Soldiers getting killed because of some 3rd world backward ass country just happens to be sitting on top of the majority of the worlds oil. Bottom line, the people in the middle east are never going to stop throwing rocks at tanks, and they're never going to stop believing in Allah, so we might as well pack our gear and let some 18 yr old kids make it out of that cesspool.

    So I've come to the conclusion that we're doomed. We're always going to use oil for our cars. The sad reality of it is that our economy is based on oil, and the powers that be have concluded that it's more cost effective to let planes fly into our buildings, soldiers get killed in foreign countries, and oil to spill into our oceans than it is to re-vamp our economy.

    So I decided to go with a natural gas conversion kit. It would be a little inconvenient for me, but I'd be able to sleep at night, and I'd be willing to invest the 2k to have my engine changed to natural gas....

    Turns out they don't make a conversion kit for my vehicle which happens to be driven by a Chevy 4.3 V6. The most popular engine GM has ever made...I'm back to WTF!
     
    PRC, Jun 14, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PRC

    Bluespace

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    75
    Location:
    Gilbert, AZ
    The sad reality is we can't live without oil. It goes way beyond the cars we drive.

    I'm with you PRC WTF!
     
    Bluespace, Jun 14, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PRC

    Smitty

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,609
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Location:
    Chicago/Oaklawn IL
    Yeah, you're right...this whole ordeal is frustrating.
     
    Smitty, Jun 14, 2010
    #3
  4. PRC

    Bifferwine I am a girl

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46,915
    Likes Received:
    5,888
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA and missing Tucson, AZ
    I agree with your sentiments...but you do realize that natural gas is still just another fossil fuel that presents environmental problems of its own? Natural gas wells and associated piping present many of the same problems to the environment that traditional oil does. It's really not that different besides being a slightly cleaner burning fossil fuel than oil or coal. It is still very damaging to the environment and human health. The natural gas industry in the US has a very good PR team. They've managed to convince a lot of people that natural gas is somehow "clean" and "sustainable" -- it's not. It's another dirty, polluting fossil fuel that has to be drilled for. A plus is that most of it is domestic, but you're still not helping the environment any by using natural gas.

    Natural Gas Health and Environmental Hazards
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
    Bifferwine, Jun 15, 2010
    #4
  5. PRC

    Nemo10 www.facebook.com/mupulo

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Janesville, Wi
    you know whats funny... is you go to europe and you dont see a lot of cars (in holldand) people BIKE.. lets kill two birds with one stone.. Our overweight society and our dependance on fuel... Thats what i think...
     
    Nemo10, Jun 15, 2010
    #5
  6. PRC

    cthegame

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    8,704
    Likes Received:
    641
    Location:
    California
    good concept, im all for it...but Holland is flat, it wouldnt work in widespread cities like L.A.:sfish:
     
    cthegame, Jun 15, 2010
    #6
  7. PRC

    dcantucson

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    20,917
    Likes Received:
    1,898
    Absolutely correct. It will happen one day, but it's a long, long time away. You will most likely be long gone before that happens as will I.
     
    dcantucson, Jun 15, 2010
    #7
  8. PRC

    Beta173

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Placerville, CA
    The good news is Afganastan has the some of largest lithium and other precious mineral veins in the world that we are going to need for our batteries, so I guess we can continue to fight in the middle east even after we no longer are dependant on oil.

    Oil is the most efficient means of energy besides nuclear that there is, and there is plenty of it we would be incredibly stupid to not use our fossil fuels. with that said I agree that we need to be more responsible with our handling, and uses of our fossil fuels and we always need to look forward to advance our technologies, even if it just means slowly making cumbustion engines more efficient and cleaner running. There is no sense in abandoning a good thing like fossil fuels.
     
    Beta173, Jun 15, 2010
    #8
  9. PRC

    Bifferwine I am a girl

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46,915
    Likes Received:
    5,888
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA and missing Tucson, AZ
    We currently have no way of mitigating fossil fuels' drastic effects on the atmosphere. Not to mention all the human health problems that result from breathing in that polluted air. That is a good enough reason to me, and 99.9% of the other scientists in the world.

    And back to the natural gas, do you think by switching your vehicle over to natural gas you are somehow sticking it to BP and the other oil companies? Do you know that they also produce and control natural gas? You are still paying the same people. Just for a different product.
     
    Bifferwine, Jun 15, 2010
    #9
  10. PRC

    Nemo10 www.facebook.com/mupulo

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Janesville, Wi
    what about that movie back the the future part 2 when the professor modified the dalorian to run on trash lol NOW THATS AN IDEA....
     
    Nemo10, Jun 15, 2010
    #10
  11. PRC

    Beta173

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Placerville, CA

    The air we breath is no worse for our health than the anti depressants that you take daily. Plus what about all the chemicals that get into the atmosphere from the toxic chemicals in batteries and solar panels. Maybe we should stop cooking our meals and ban wind from kicking up dust, the trees from producing pollen, that is unhealthy for humans.
     
    Beta173, Jun 15, 2010
    #11
  12. PRC

    tankedchemist

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,498
    Likes Received:
    206
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    uhm.... solar panels are made of silicon. You have something against sand being in the 'air'? :) As for batteries, if people recycled them like they ought to, that wouldn't be a problem either.

    Biff's right, natural gas is not a solution. We need hydrogen storage solutions, which is a huge area of research right now. Hydrogen is the only thing abundant enough and cheap enough to be feasible in the long term-- and the only byproducts are water.
     
    tankedchemist, Jun 15, 2010
    #12
  13. PRC

    Bifferwine I am a girl

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46,915
    Likes Received:
    5,888
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA and missing Tucson, AZ
    That I take daily? I'm not on any antidepressants. I would argue that the air people breathe is worse than antidepressants. Especially if you look at how many people that are on the antidepressants would be dead without them.

    Besides, people have a choice to take antidepressants or not. The millions of kids with asthma because they live in cities with high levels of air pollution didn't have a choice and will suffer with respiratory problems for the rest of their lives because of your "harmless" fossil fuels.

    Just because we are exposed to things that are bad for our health doesn't make it okay to let loose a barrage of other things that are also bad for our health. We should improve where we can regardless of what batteries and antidepressants are doing to our health (and both of those are laughable causes of human health problems when compared to air pollution). If we have the opportunity and the know how to improve human health, the environment and quality of life by reducing or eliminating fossil fuels, why on earth would the fact that people use batteries or take antidepressants be a good reason for us not to make those improvements? They are totally unrelated to one another.

    We can't control the wind. We can't control the trees. Those (and dust) are natural. Spewing tons of toxic chemicals into the air that we then breathe in is NOT natural. If we can reduce human-caused air pollution, why does it matter if the wind blows or flowers bloom? That's not our to control. Your logic makes no sense.

    My point is, there are things that we CAN control, and there are things that we CAN'T control. Why is it wrong to try to improve the thing we can control? Just because we can't control the wind or the pollen doesn't mean we should give up ever trying to make human sources of air pollution better. That's stupid.

    And batteries are not a significant source of air pollution. They have the potential to be a small source of water and soil pollution. But even that's rare and relatively insignificant.

    Air pollution spurs allergies, asthma - Allergies and asthma- msnbc.com

    In cities across America allergies and asthma seem to be worsening. It’s not that more plants are pollinating, experts say. Rather, it’s the high levels of diesel fumes and ozone polluting the air.

    So by your logic, we should just stop trying to reduce air pollution that affects millions of people's health because plants pollinate and that's bad for us too. That's like saying because when I go swimming there's the risk I might drown, I therefore shouldn't wear a helmet when I do stunts on my motorcycle. Why not reduce risks where you can and wear the damn helmet?
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
    Bifferwine, Jun 15, 2010
    #13
  14. PRC

    bjohanson1234 .........

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    10,998
    Likes Received:
    1,102
    Location:
    Palos Heights, IL
    After reading this thread, I am speachless....

    I understand PRC's rant. You would think that people would be on an alternative energy band wagon right now. I did see a comercial for promoting ethonol the other day. But unfortunatly, ethanol is not a viable solution IMO. Taking land that produces food to produce fuel is bad business. It also takes around 7 barrels of diesel to make 8 barrels of ethanol. So even the math isnt working out there.

    Also, until the electric grid moves away from majority coal to something such as solar, wind or nuclear, you can give away as many electric vehicles as you want to who ever wants one and it isnt going to help the environment at all. This is because the coal is being burnt to create the power.

    Like tanked said, hydrogen fuel cells will most likely be the cheapest and best thing. Especially if the stations install solar panels to power the hydrogen making process. Which is pretty much pass an electric current through water.
     
    bjohanson1234, Jun 15, 2010
    #14
  15. PRC

    Beta173

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Placerville, CA
    Beta173, Jun 15, 2010
    #15
  16. PRC

    Bifferwine I am a girl

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    46,915
    Likes Received:
    5,888
    Location:
    Lynnwood, WA and missing Tucson, AZ
    According to your link, those are trends derived from data points located all over the country. Nationwide, air quality has gone up. So while the overall trend (all data points combined) show a reduction in air pollutants (except carbon dioxide, which according to your link has gone UP by 32%), if you look at specific areas of the country (i.e. major cities in the US), many places have gotten worse. But that data combined with data from all the other rural and non-metropolitan areas of the country show the overall trend of improvement.

    Air Pollution Maps of the United States

    A medical study done in Pennsylvania in 2006 showed, "air pollution ranks as the third highest risk factor for premature death, behind smoking and poor diet/physical inactivity."

    If you measured the air quality of large cities on their own, instead of combining them with areas of the country that are not exposed to a lot of air pollution, you would see regional trends that are not healthy.

    Plus, you must remember that a lot of pollutants take a long time to break down in the environment. Air pollution is cumulative. We may be emitting less each year, but all of that is built up on previous years' emissions that are still in the atmosphere. Some pollutants even take centuries to break down. If you looked at graphs showing the cumulative amount of emissions, it increases every year. Our kids are still breathing in the pollutants that were released into the air in the 1950s and 1960s, even though emissions are believed to be lower today. That stuff is still hanging around.

    So it depends on how you look at things. If you look at nationwide trends that combine all areas of the country, then yes, annual emissions have gone down. But if you look at the cumulative amount of air pollution put into our atmosphere, that has gone up a lot.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2010
    Bifferwine, Jun 16, 2010
    #16
  17. PRC

    sen5241b

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,029
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    I think you are wrong. Burning oil and coal releases a gazillion times more carbon than natural gas.
     
    sen5241b, Jun 16, 2010
    #17
  18. PRC

    Beta173

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Placerville, CA
    OK Biff,

    You Win, I loose, your right, I am wrong. I can't compete.

    Now give up your car and electricity so I can breath easier. :D
     
    Beta173, Jun 16, 2010
    #18
  19. PRC

    sen5241b

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    5,029
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    According to this

    Natural gas: the answer to reducing carbon emissions? | Environment | guardian.co.uk

    Nat Gas has half the emissions of coal and considering the difficulties of finding low carbon emission energy sources, Nat gas is a good source.

    But these days wind, solar and Nukes are the best bet. The problem with nukes is not the waste. Al Gore said it is "a solvable problem' and he is right. He also said there has not been a nuke built in the USA in a very long time that did not have massive cost over runs that resulted in huge rate hikes of like 300%.
     
    sen5241b, Jun 16, 2010
    #19
  20. PRC

    PRC Stop Quoting Me!

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,601
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't care what alternative energy we use...The only reason why nobody will make a car that runs on air is because they can't charge us for it... I don't care what form we use solar, hydrogen, wind, Let's use all of them...Let's just make sure it's environmentally clean, we can produce it, and it can happen quickly!

    On the bright side, I did see a tractor trailer pulling 2 mammoth wind turbine fans down the highway today, and that's not the first time I've seen them..something like the 3rd time...It's something anyway..I don't know where they're going, I've never actually seen an operational wind turbine except for on TV. But at least I see the parts moving.
     
    PRC, Jun 16, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.