  Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 132 Registered: 06-2007 |
I've been dreading watching it ever since it was kicking around at the indie theatres. It is one of those things you know you should do, but don't want to because its just going to piss you off. Needless to say, i'm a little p.o.'d today. http://tx.usgs.gov/coring/pubs /urban.PAH.pdf i think i'll boycott the autoshow this year. Anyone up for a protest demonstration? | ||
Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 423 Registered: 11-2005 |
I saw it about 4 months ago really opens your eyes to how shady the auto industry as a whole is. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2413 Registered: 06-2004 |
there was a fair amount of false info regarding the auto industry in that doc - it's the oil companies that are going to be hurt by electric cars, not the auto industry | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 136 Registered: 02-2007 |
Electric propulsion is merely a transfer of energy. Electric power generally created from fossil fuels. The concept came about on the premise the technology would follow, hasn't happened. Still no cheap electricity. Solar, Windmills etc. Little return for the investment. Still no suitable storage devices. It was dead before it got started. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 134 Registered: 06-2007 |
They didn't really give any info, actually. It wasn't like a Moore film where everyone goes fact checking to disprove him. They just interviewed people. But i agree, it's the oil industry that has a choke hold on us and our gov. In my opinion our government hates us and wants us to die of lung cancer or wants us dead fighting over oil in the middle east. I don't hold the auto industry blameless though. They let themselves be either strong-armed or coerced into squashing our hopes of an electric car. 60% of the stock of the battery that would give Electric cars the competive edge over combustion engines is now owned by Texaco. It's funny how the auto execs are pre-programmed for disinformation. I play soccer with alot of Ford guys, either engineers or finance guys, and i was talking about how the big three are doomed if they can't adapt to growing consumer demand...my normal schtick...and i was telling them about Tesla Motors new electric car and how cool it was. His response was that electric cars had no future without a reliable battery. I said that USO already had a battery, why not use that one (this was before i saw the doc.). He just smiled and looked down at the ground. Conversation over. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 135 Registered: 06-2007 |
Sstashmoo, do you ever wonder why renewable energy isn't profitable. It's because our government hates us and won't give even 1/10th of the subsidy it gives to oil. If renewables had a fraction of the federal assistance that the oil co.'s get we'd be living in a different world my friend. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2414 Registered: 06-2004 |
Jb3 - Tesla uses lithium ion batteries - the same that caused flaming laptops - there's no way a major auto company will knowingly risk flaming cars | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 137 Registered: 06-2007 |
That's because they can't get their hands on USO's revolutionary batteries. Texaco won't let them sell them. Nickel Halide i think. Thanks for info though. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3360 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote:So again, somebody on DY claims to have the answers-NOT. More hot air in a heat wave. But let's test the poster of the above statement in order to see just how intelligent and knowledgeable he is: (1) quote:Cite some hard facts to bolster this... (2) quote:To the nearest $ billion (or even $ tens of billions), how much in subsidies does our government shell out annually to the oil industry--the vast majority of which are foreign companies? Yeah! Answer this one... (3) Just how much in subsidies are needed for his renewables? Just supply real, hard facts. Or do you suggest the Feds sign and issue a blank check for dubious, undefined projects--or to continue to fund research grants for worthless profs? | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1003 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: What did you glean from that article you linked to - which is about a correlation between "urban sprawl" and lake sediment deposits of PAH (which are by-products of the incomplete combustion of petroleum, oil, coal, and wood)? Apparently nothing more than "internal combustion engine = bad". Then, with the firing of a few errant brain synapses, you seemingly conclude that electric cars must be good since internal combustion engines (ICE) are bad. Even the highly inefficient hydrocarbon-fueled ICE driven vehicles are inherently more energy-efficient than fossil-fueled electric vehicles. Also, light duty new vehicle ICE emissions have been reduced to about 1% of what they produced 40 years ago.  Unless you are willing to support the construction of new nuclear-powered electrical generating plants, the power to run those inefficient electric vehicles will come mostly from fossil-fueled power plants, which also emit PAHs. Electric vehicles can also contribute pollutants that contaminate the watershed, such as lubricants, brake linings, battery chemicals, etc. So I fail to see why you introduced the PAH issue in support of electric vehicles. The bottom line is that some watershed contamination will still occur and it is more dependent on the number of vehicle miles driven in the watershed than the types of vehicles driven - which brings us back to the "urban sprawl is evil" issue. The linked article describes urban sprawl by stating that "Growth in the use of land for residential and commercial purposes in the United States now far outstrips growth in population, a phenomenon termed urban sprawl." In my view, this issue of a distorted growth relationship should be very far down the list of things the United States needs to be worried about (but not necessarily so in specific environmentally sensitive locations). More worrisome should be the underlying demographic trends and constraints that are causing that difference in growth rates. Household size continues to decline, meaning that even with a constant population growth rate, the growth rate in the number of households will be greater. We are not making any more new cities with dense, urban cores and those that exist tend to rely on immigrants to keep up their population density. Unfortunately, many immigrant groups are tending to settle in rural areas or in newer cities that never had dense urban cores. The result is that most US population and household growth ends up being accommodated in areas where the development patterns have been low density for a long time. So looking at this in the aggregate, it is only natural to expect that as long as the US has a positive population growth rate, the rate of growth in the expansion of residential land use will out-strip it - unless laws are passed that either limit where one can choose to live or further limit the rights of property owners to use their land as they see fit. Staging boycotts, buying into conspiracy theories, pushing electric vehicles that are not ready for prime time or putting millions more acres of land into corn for ethanol will not get us to where we need to be with respect to a national energy and environmental policy that is in mesh with vehicle safety requirements. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 748 Registered: 08-2005 |
quote: Big Oil gets $14 BILLION each year in federal tax breaks and subsidies. http://environment.about.com/o d/environmentallawpolicy/a/end _oil_subsidy.htm Not bad for an industry that is making more profit than any other business in the history of human civilization. They're really in need of a government handout, what with their record-shattering profits and all. Why, without those tax breaks, they might not be able to give their retiring CEOs half a BILLION dollar retirement packages. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 137 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "If renewables had a fraction of the federal assistance that the oil co.'s get we'd be living in a different world my friend." Thats possible. So globally, every research scientist is held back so to speak by some oil consortium goon squad? If the science was there to make it possible, we'd have it. It's not there. It's like saying there is no practical means of perpetual motion because someone doesn't want it. History doesn't play that way. I agree that large corporations intimidate and pull strings when they can. But the 100 mpg carburetor and the feasible electric car are just fantasies. Blaming lack of development on some worldwide corporate monopoly is material to sell books. | ||
Zephyrprocess Member Username: Zephyrprocess Post Number: 432 Registered: 08-2006 |
So what were the dates of filing and issuance for whatever patent covers the USO battery technology? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5440 Registered: 11-2003 |
The person who says everyobdy uses fossil fuels for electricity wins the Name the Ostrich contest. Millions of Americans use electricity produced from wind, solar, hydro, burned garbage, and nuclear, etc. Better batteries being developed are also a big reason electrics can be used for short hauls. Look how the hybrides took off. Reward consumers for making good choices like free parking, riding express lanes, tax credits, free tolls, etc. Hybrides are a real hit in California, a huge auto market, and these owners are rewarded. jjaba. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1004 Registered: 12-2005 |
Sorry to have to disagree with you jjaba, but we should end the subsidies for all, including subsidies and tax credits for the producers of petroleum, ethanol, electricity, vehicles, etc. as well as those kinds of targeted tax credits and rules designed to influence consumers. Let the collective decisions of millions of intelligent folks take us in the general right direction instead of where the elite few think we ought to go through the use of tax policies which distort rational decision-making in the marketplace. I think that without government intervention, we would end up with an even greater variety of energy and vehicle choices. As energy prices continue to climb, different alternatives will become more economically attractive. We need more alternatives from which to choose, not just a few, and the "winning" alternatives may logically differ depending upon the circumstances in different regions. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3362 Registered: 10-2004 |
Waiting around for subsidies could be counterproductive. Just like delaying making a computer purchase and keep waiting for the inevitable price decreases--and thus never buy one... Waiting for governmental assistance--handouts--that might never or only rarely come could work the same way. Thus, progress would be delayed or denied. So, like Mikeg, I prefer that subsidies of all kinds just wither away. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 141 Registered: 06-2007 |
quote: "So again, somebody on DY claims to have the answers-NOT" did i claim to have all the answers? we are nowhere without collaboration from experts in their respected fields. quote: " our government hates us. Cite some hard facts to bolster this... " if you paid more attention you'd catch on that i wrote 'in my opinion'. You want hard facts as to my opinions? does that constitute a grey matter sampling? quote: "To the nearest $ billion (or even $ tens of billions), how much in subsidies does our government shell out annually to the oil industry--the vast majority of which are foreign companies? Yeah! Answer this one... " i don't have to answer any of your questions, it's all public domain. But since google is lost on you and you'd rather argue nonsensical...here ya go. and this is just a comparison with wind power. http://www.ifnotwind.org/pdf/S ubsidy_updated_Jan_07.pdf quote: "(3) Just how much in subsidies are needed for his renewables? Just supply real, hard facts. Or do you suggest the Feds sign and issue a blank check for dubious, undefined projects--or to continue to fund research grants for worthless profs?" I'd rather not think in black & white. We live in a diverse world with many interdependent systems in place. Ideally i like to see subsidies related directly to growth. Put the onus on the developers to provide energy independent projects. The only thing holding back the 'green' movement is the cost to go green. So my suggestion (feel free to debate this, like i said i don't have all the answers) is to have all new development apply for energy subsidy based on their need. It would help reduce sprawl, by not financing illigitemate projects. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 142 Registered: 06-2007 |
quote: "Unless you are willing to support the construction of new nuclear-powered electrical generating plants, the power to run those inefficient electric vehicles will come mostly from fossil-fueled power plants, which also emit PAHs." No, i'm not in favor of Nuclear, nor will it meet our future power needs. My opinion is that i would rather fight the devil i can see, than the devil i can't. Hypothetically, if all cars were electric, than we could focus on the energy production. Right now were fighting a 2 billion headed hydra, lets get that head down to about 100 and it's a little more manageable. quote: "Electric vehicles can also contribute pollutants that contaminate the watershed, such as lubricants, brake linings, battery chemicals, etc. So I fail to see why you introduced the PAH issue in support of electric vehicles." because those items you mentioned are not PAH's now are they? What's keeping us from building easily replaceable parts that don't leak, pollute or otherwise produce contaminants that can't be localized and recovered? Other than this little thing we call 'planned obsolesence'? quote: "unless laws are passed that either limit where one can choose to live or further limit the rights of property owners to use their land as they see fit." see my last post and then we'll talk. quote: "Staging boycotts, buying into conspiracy theories, pushing electric vehicles that are not ready for prime time or putting millions more acres of land into corn for ethanol will not get us to where we need to be with respect to a national energy and environmental policy that is in mesh with vehicle safety requirements." Except for the parts about staging boycotts and electric vehicles not ready for prime time, i agree! | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 143 Registered: 06-2007 |
quote: "So what were the dates of filing and issuance for whatever patent covers the USO battery technology?" if you can make sense out this please illuminate. To me it looks like the 2005 was a cutoff for the sale back to USO, but with continued funding from Texaco. In other words, just a transfer of the stocks to different comapanies, while Texaco would maintain control if the batteries distribution. http://www.ovonicinformation.c om/ne_ecd_ovonics_press_releas es_more.cfm?pressrelease_id=56 Still working on the patent aspect, but don't know much about patents. anyone? | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 144 Registered: 06-2007 |
quote: "I think that without government intervention, we would end up with an even greater variety of energy and vehicle choices." scary thought. with all of the money that oil industry has at it's disposal??? we'd be living in a very barren world pretty damn quick. The idea is intriguing, but monopolization needs to be thought through. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 148 Registered: 06-2007 |
quote: "So what were the dates of filing and issuance for whatever patent covers the USO battery technology?" I have a friend that is an engineer at USO. they tell me all of their work is in china right now. Maybe this has something to do with it. http://www.ovonicinformation.c om/ne_ecd_ovonics_press_releas es_more.cfm?pressrelease_id=46 2 to go along with my 'conspiracy theories', i imagine that there is no demand for electric cars, thus no need to produce the battery. Hmmm.... i love this one... http://www.ovonicinformation.c om/PDFs/PressReleases/cobasys_ expansion-capabilities.pdf as long as the vehicle continues to use gasoline and has an ICE, it's okay to put the batteries in from Cobasys (Chevron/texaco). |
