Help the earth, win me a dishwasher!

[Tuomas]

What IS a fact though, is that China recently passed the US and took the first place in carbon dioxidde emission. However the relative amount of emission is still highly on America's side when we compare the number of Chinese and American population. That and global warming is an undeniable fact. Sure, the temperature is getting warmer, but this it does ever 300 years, goes up and down, it's the small eras, some of which are within a bigger difference range, think ice age, when the temperature change was similar, but the 1000 year average was a lot lower. In fact at the moment we should be on a lowering trend, that the temperature went down the same speed it's going up. However it's going up, which is making the dry warm season on earth longer and longer, and this is alarming.

The UN makes plans for centuries ahead, that global warming should be stopped and poverty removed or at least cut to half. Realise that 1,3 billion people live with under 2 euros per day, as in, are poor. And the fact that we're warming up here doesn't really help them, in fact it's worse for those who have less. You see, most of these people are located at the equator area where it's already dry and hot. Most of their livelihood is based on agriculture, 3 yields per year, as in here up north we get only one. However, warming average temperature means killing these people's source of food and also source of drinkable water that they're aready lacking so much. I don't like this idea, especially when it's us who are to blame. And I'm sick an tired of hearing people say that they ca't help by doing something because other people somewhere else won't do anything. I tell you, one action makes more difference than 7 people not acting.

No, I won't sign for your dishwasher because of the junkmail issue, I'm going to sign it because I want you to have the washingmachine!

[Darth Mandarb]

I have sort of a defeatist's attitude toward GLOBAL WARMING (insert dramatic music here).

The world isn't going to stop it's "forward" progress no matter how much scientific evidence is brought forth suggesting we should.  It's human nature, or so it would seem, to destroy things.

Are we going to kill the planet?  No.  It's foolish to think we'll "kill" the planet.  The Earth is gonna keep on floating in the void, as it has for billions of years, no matter how much we pollute the air.

Are we going to make the planet un-inhabbitable (sp?) for human life?  Yeah, probably.  However, I don't think we're causing it.  Geologic records show that the planet follows certain "rhythms" and that it's gone through this before in it's life-cycle.  It'll go through it again no matter how "clean" we humans live.

Having said that, I certainly believe that our "dirty" living isn't helping the issue and is, in all likely-hood, speeding it along faster than it would go on it's own.

Understand, I'm not a scientist ... I am not out in the field researching geologic evidence, blah blah blah.  The research that I have done/seen shows me that the earth goes through heat-up (global warming) and cool-down (ice-age) cycles on it's own.  The last ice-age ended about 10,000 years ago ... I may be wrong here, but I don't think there were soccer moms driving their SUVs back then?  Or dishwashers.

I do my part ... using the special enviro-friendly lightbulbs, never leaving lights/electricity on when I don't have to, recycling everything I can, etc.  I do drive a gas guzzling car ... I would love an alternative but refuse to get a "hybrid" for 2 reasons:

1) the shortest waiting list was 6 months ... I wanted/needed the car, which is why I was car shopping.  Rediculous.
2) hybrids are a huge waste of time/money and are a step in the wrong direction

We put men on the moon 40 YEARS ago ... and we can't make a car that doesn't burn a fossil fuel?  It's so ... stupid.  We have the technology to create vehicles that, through their motion and use, can generate the very power they need to continue functioning.  But ... but ... then we won't have billionaire oil tycoons!!!

It's circular ... human nature to destroy things.

edit

Oh an PS ... everybody stop wingin' about spam and sign up for the damn dishwasher!

[InCreator]

We have the technology to create vehicles that, through their motion and use, can generate the very power they need to continue functioning.

And what technology would that be?

[LimpingFish]

Feet.

[vict0r]

Not really. Feet won't work without fuel..

[InCreator]

I'd still like to know what did Darth mean by this sentence.

Anything human uses to keep motion going, still takes some power from "outside". Like heat from sun to grow food etc.
So it ain't feet.

[Brad Newsom]

I'd still like to know what did Darth mean by this sentence.

Anything human uses to keep motion going, still takes some power from "outside". Like heat from sun to grow food etc.
So it ain't feet.

True, but currently anything other than fossil fuels is a good alternative. Though I wouldn't mind a hybrid, Darth is right. Its a step in the wrong direction. There are many other fuels that are yet to be harnessed and produce a more environmentally friendly disposal.

[shbaz]

2) hybrids are a huge waste of time/money and are a step in the wrong direction

We put men on the moon 40 YEARS ago ... and we can't make a car that doesn't burn a fossil fuel?  It's so ... stupid.  We have the technology to create vehicles that, through their motion and use, can generate the very power they need to continue functioning.  But ... but ... then we won't have billionaire oil tycoons!!!

Because I've made it one of my primary objectives over the past four years to learn as much as possible about alternative energies and efficient automotives, I wonder if you could justify #2.  Not that I don't think it's possible to continue without hybrids, but every bit of evidence I can scrape up indicates that its the way to go, if nothing else for brake regeneration.

[Darth Mandarb]

And what technology would that be?

It's this new fangled creation called ... Electricity!!!

There is an inventor (and his company) who have created an all new form of automobile (I'm trying to find a link ... I saw this on a show on TV).  The car has no engine ... it runs on a "sled" type chassis.  This makes the car about 10 times lighter.  They are using all composite materials (thus reducing the weight even further).  The car has it's own batteries that are charged not only by the sun, but uses some kind of generator to create electricity that is generated by the very motion of the vehicle's wheels.  The car, essentially, doesn't require fuel.  They claim that the energy consumption/creation is so good that you can plug the car in when you get home and give electricity BACK to the grid ... the power company would pay you to drive your car.

Because I've made it one of my primary objectives over the past four years to learn as much as possible about alternative energies and efficient automotives, I wonder if you could justify #2.  Not that I don't think it's possible to continue without hybrids, but every bit of evidence I can scrape up indicates that its the way to go, if nothing else for brake regeneration.

Any vehicle that requires the burning of gasoline is a step in the wrong direction.

We live in an age where I can get on the computer and, in real-time, talk with video/audio to a person on the other side of the planet ... yet we can't make a vehicle that doesn't burn gas?  That's so completely, unacceptably, disgusting that it actually takes my appetite away.

As much as I would like to not drive a gas-burning car ... I don't have the means to affect that change.  So if those that do [have the means to affect change] want to continue ignoring the need to change and keep on sittin' in the pockets of big oil that's on them.  There's nothing we, normal people, can do about it.  As much as we bitch, moan, present facts, etc ... they're gonna keep on doing what they want 'cause they, essentially, run the planet.  As long as their pockets are fat with money it matters nothing to them what the consequences might be.

The only saving grace I can think of is that the oil supply is running out.  It's, according to some "experts" only about 20 years max until it dries up.  We're heading towards disaster when that happens as it's likely to come to pass that we'll be caught with our pants down when it does.  (since we can't seem to grasp the concept of "be pro-active, not reactive") If you need "proof" of this look what's going on in Dubai.  Those people over there know full well their "Bread and Butter" is running out ... so they're turning an area into a luxury vacation destination so that when the oil dries up, they can maintain their rich life-styles they've become accustomed to.

Meh ... I could rant about this all night.  I'm out.

[vict0r]

I like to bring up this in these types of discussions.

"C'moon! What's the worst thing that could happend..?"

[Domino]

What's going on with the Dishwasher. That's a Bosch Dishwasher!!

Aren't they the same company that makes spark plugs?

Anyways, we'll all be dead before planet Earth dies. 

[radiowaves]

the funny thing is that I'm a Gaiaist, so I really do care for the earth. Global Warming is natural. You think we have it bad? Mars is heating up too...and I bet your going to say its our fault mars is heating up. lol

Uhm... Yeah, there is a chance its natural, but that doesn't actually give you any reason to support fossil fuels (Well, maybe You don't but this post isn't meant for You only, Newsom...)and be against global warming campaign. Its just stupid. Besides, ever heard the saying "Better be scared than regret later"?
Gah, people and their principles... I also doubt that anyone actually gives a shit wether you are gaian (whatever that means) or not..

And oh yeah, I've heard of the car that charges itself. But I don't recall if it was actually made by a company, maybe it was just an idea. Maybe its from the show "Future cars", I don't know but I am watching it again now. I think that Darth Mandrab actually means GMs Hy-Wire which runs on hydrogen (earlier version used pure water) and can also power your house.
Anyway I know some firemen use engines running on nothing to heat their quarters and pump water. There are also cars that run on electicity, pure hydrogen, compressed air and even seawater(that would be unusable in cold countries though), why exactly do we need hybrids? Most of the car cultures have the power to create hydrogen culture. They have those vending machine sized stations in all over norway..
Also, did you know that we actually have the technology to make black oil from recycles, so why we are still pumping? Also, if you run on diesel, and somehow run out of money, you can use oil from your frying pan! It actually works, just one teaspoon of some kind of other liquid needed to be added to keep the engine clean.

EDIT:// Ah, I found the itself recharging car, its called Chevy Volt, can be charged as cell phone and electricity is also produced on the road. They plan it on the road in about 2010 if the battery is ready.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Okay Logan, I gave them my isp email address since it's so overrun with spam I couldn't care less if there was one more.  Odd how my isp does such a horrid job of spam control (sometimes 50 every two weeks) and with gmail I'm surprised if I get (1) spam mail a month. 

[Ozzie]

I signed too, but I think your partner is already leading.
That and I wasted 20 seconds.

[shbaz]

And what technology would that be?

It's this new fangled creation called ... Electricity!!!

There is an inventor (and his company) who have created an all new form of automobile (I'm trying to find a link ... I saw this on a show on TV).  The car has no engine ... it runs on a "sled" type chassis.  This makes the car about 10 times lighter.  They are using all composite materials (thus reducing the weight even further).  The car has it's own batteries that are charged not only by the sun, but uses some kind of generator to create electricity that is generated by the very motion of the vehicle's wheels.  The car, essentially, doesn't require fuel.  They claim that the energy consumption/creation is so good that you can plug the car in when you get home and give electricity BACK to the grid ... the power company would pay you to drive your car.

Whoa, no.  You can make any car on a composite light frame and get super good gas mileage, VW has done it and proved 235 mpg in a street model.  A guy named Jory from Camden, Maine built a 100+ mpg one seater from an old scooter, but he can't travel faster than 45 mph I think.

Cellulosic ethanol production (not corn ethanol) can replace gasoline and probably will.  Ethanol from weeds, no pesticides/herbicides/fungicides necessary.

Here are some engineering facts to quickly discourage you from believing green propaganda.  A square yard (roughly 1 m^2) on a sunny American day gets about 1-1.5 kW of heat from sunlight.  The most efficient solar cell on a purely theoretical level is 50% efficient, the highest practical and manufactured model I can remember was 18% and designed for NASA.  Let's just assume 500 watts per square yard, which on a small lightweight car might max out at less than 5 hP (700 W = 1 hP).  This is on a sunny perfect day, assuming an efficiency that we're not even close to in the real world yet.  It takes about 7 hp or so for my car to combat road friction and fluid drag on a flat level road going 55 mph, that can drop to as low as 4 hP if the body were very aerodynamic and there was a smaller frontal surface area.  Remember, weight is not an issue unless you're accelerating or going uphill.

Suppose you can drop the weight of a car to 1000 lbs including the driver, passenger and cargo, which is possible but very very difficult even with composites.  There is a huge safety/crash hazard involved in this.  To have a maximum output of 5 hP while fighting road friction and constantly increasing fluid drag means you'll start out with about 3.5 available hP for acceleration which drops until you hit 50 mph or so twenty minutes later.  This is a rough guess, but it's consistent with what I've seen from other lightweight low-power vehicles.  There will be very little excess energy, if any, if you travel at 20 mph or slower.

Now, the "energy from the wheels" that you're talking about is called regenerative braking, the electric motor starts acting as a generator and brings the car to a stop.  Every modern hybrid on the road does this right now, and I'm sorry to say it does not provide an energy surplus and cannot provide that.  There is an inefficiency involved with this also because the motor gets hot during the process that should be between 60-80% efficient.  The energy used fighting wind and friction is gone forever, the energy used to accelerate the mass of the vehicle to the speed it was at before braking is at least 20% gone every time you need to stop.

Otherwise we're looking at hybrids, because electric range is not sufficient.  This is a fact, the best electric vehicle I know of on the market today got 250 miles before they had to make safety modifications, which then dropped the range to 200 miles.  The Prius is (rightly so) switching from an electric assist gas platform to a gas assist electric platform, meaning the new hybrid will use gas only as a last resort, finally.  I am absolutely aware that very few people travel more than 150 miles in any given day, but everyone I know occasionally needs to go further than 250 miles.  I did it this weekend, wouldn't have had a chance to recharge batteries anywhere.

I could talk about it all day too, but I'll stop here with this:  every week for the past four years I've seen a new story about battery technology that can charge faster, last longer, and explode less.  There still aren't any research models, nevermind real world proven models, that work as described in the clean energy hyped stories.  Don't believe everything you read, we all want a clean future so bad that a lot of people (read: reporters and people who've read their already stretched stories) are willing to stretch the truth way beyond reality just for the purpose of saying oil companies are evil and we're all being screwed.  I'm trying very hard to personally develop a very efficient vehicle, I've read hundreds of patents, hundreds of websites, thousands of forum posts in engineering and alt fuels boards, and NASA papers along with dozens of books from my University library on the subject matter.  The verdict is that what's holding us back is cost and practicality, not oil companies.  If I drive 55 mph instead of the US standard of 65 mph highway my gas mileage increases from 32 mpg to 38 mpg.  Why aren't we doing that?  Because people aren't willing to give up their space, power or size, nevermind their ability to get ten miles further in an hour for an efficiency loss.  What's that say for a hopelessly slow 5 hP micro-car that will be pancaked in any accident even with a Honda Civic?

[Darth Mandarb]

Shbaz - I tip my hat to you and the research you've done on the subject.

As I said before, I am just repeating what I heard on that television program. 

However, they really seemed to think they were right and I'll tell you what ... even if they are "stretching" the truth of what they've achieved and all it accomplishes is getting some venture capital behind the idea and that allows them the money/time to do the research they need to actually achieve what they've claimed then that is not one small step, but one giant leap, in the right direction.

Saying the technology isn't there yet is just not acceptable to me.

When president Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade..." the technology didn't exist (wasn't even close) that would take us there.  Yet, less than 10 years later, we were on the moon.  The world has known for decades (yes plural) that an alternative to gasoline needs to be found ... yet nothing has changed except now we can buy "hybrid" cars that use a little less fuel.  So ... I'm not going to actually quit smoking, I'll just smoke a few less each day.  I'm still killing myself, only now I'm just doing it slower.

It's a terrible, and destructive, mind-set that is nothing more then a path to disaster.

There are alternatives to oil/gasoline.  All it requires to achieve it is to put the man-power behind it.

[InCreator]

At some point, I agree with Darth. How much money is going into pointless (when we prioritize progress of humankind) things? Like weapons research and manufacture, military training and expenses, and of course, different forms of wellfare and culture? I mean, like why do such sums move in sports and entertainment, why do actors, NBA players, etc own and earn money enough to lose all hunger and diseases from the whole world?

Problem maybe isn't laziness or conspiracies, but unfair division of resources. Imagine if all the effort went into manufacturing and researching weapons to kill human beings, from 1900 till today - were spent on something else?
Imagine when all overpaid actors and sportsmen sell their villas and luxury cars and put all this money together to - let's say - fund cure for cancer? Would moon be the limit for us then? Would we see skinny african kids on tv? Would AIDS roam freely and lower the number of world population? Would Anarcho spam(j/k)  ?

Answer is simple, but not possible - global socialism.

Only then would every AGSer have their own dishwasher.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

There are alternatives to oil/gasoline.  All it requires to achieve it is to put the man-power behind it.

And it needs to be regularly profitable for the industry.  You see, part of the problem here really is greed.  I've read about it in some detail, I'm sure others have.  The oil industry is based around a consistent profit model; that is, you regularly go to the local 7-11 or Quiktrip or whatever to get gasoline.  It's a producer-consumer model that they are quite tickled with and quite thoroughly reluctant to give up.  Enter: battery powered cars, hydrogen-oxygen hybrids, etc.  If you research enough you'll know they've been working literally for years just to make the battery recharger proprietary so you can't just go home and toss together your own generator/hook it up to an outlet and charge your vehicle more cheaply.  Granted, this has already been defeated (there are articles floating around about a guy who built his own converter to charge his car at home if you care to look) but the bottom line here is they want control of the fuel source, whatever source that may be, in order to continue their current business model.  This is one of the things causing friction (and delays) with producing truly independent (non-reliant on fossil fuel source) vehicles.  I may have the dates slightly off but I know pretty much for a fact that a non-fossil fuel combustion engine using hydrogen tanks (and oxygen I believe) was developed, and a prototype was built in the early 90s that functioned at a maximum speed of 55 mph.  The side-effect of the combustion was pure H2O, and there was even a special on the Discovery Channel (I believe it was an episode of Future Cars for the curious) about the prototype in question.  The host drove the car for about 40 miles and got out, checked the storage tank and drank about two cups of pure water from it.  What's the problem with the technology?  Well there are two problems, really, though they may be restricted to American behavior:

1.  The car doesn't go fast enough to suit most people, even though it goes the speed limit and manufacturers are regularly selling cars that can illegally go much faster than the speed limit (which is stupid, but that's another discussion).

2.  It's currently not cost-effective fuel wise, meaning they haven't come up with a specialized enough delivery system for charging them so as to prevent people from purchasing tanks and charging it themselves.  You would still need a fair level of knowledge in order to do it but based on what I've read you could keep the prototype going extremely cheaply on your own.  This just doesn't wash, sadly.  Big business might care about the environment (I won't dispute that) but they care far more about their wallets and a constant cash flow. 

The oil barons will gladly make a move to a purely alternative source when it becomes profitable to do so.  Until then you can complain all you want about all the technology out there that isn't being effectively and efficiently used, the alternative fuels (alternative to ethanol and petrol) and such and it won't really make a lot of difference.  I mean I'm on your side, really, and I'd love to have a fully independent and non-pollutive vehicle -- it might actually make me want to drive a car -- but I just don't see it happening in a capitalist world. 

It all comes down to the money, ultimately, and how many times in history have we seen money worth more to people than human lives?

[Darth Mandarb]

ProgZ - believe me, I'm aware of your points!  They are points I regularly make when discussing this topic in conversation (and in this thread, to some extent) It is all about money ... always has been.  The human need for greed will be our undoing.

I recently read an article about an experiment where they took two Americans and put 100 dollars on the table.  They told person A that he could divide the money up between the two participants in anyway he chooses, and the second person gets to decide if it's fair or if they both get nothing.  So person A divies it up 80/20 (he gets 80 dollars, and person B gets 20).  Person B, rather than accept a FREE 20 dollars said neither of them get it.  He would rather get nothing than see somebody else (somebody he didn't even know) make more than him.  Then ... they took that same 100 dollars to a third world nation (didn't specify which) and did the same experiment.  Still, person A picked 80/20 split.  Person B would get a FREE 20 dollars, which, in that part of the world was about a week's salary ... a FULL week's salary for FREE and he, just like the American, turned it down.  Greed.  Ain't it grand.

My point?  I'm aware of what you're saying ... it's kind of what I was getting at earlier about my "defeatist" attitude ... the big business will continue to do their thing no matter what we do.

[shbaz]

Sorry for another long post but it's not easy to refute these arguments in a short concise manner.  I know you won't believe me unless I'm thorough.

It's about greed in the sense that I am not willing to buy a car for the price of a house.  I'm sure you've heard that it's proven the fuel savings from a Prius are not worth the extra cost, so the US government subsidized the purchase of one and it still doesn't break even.  The Prius is cheap compared to what we're talking about (Solar and now hydrogen).

It's just not true that these things aren't being developed, I posted two links to two cars which are WAY more efficient than anything on the road today, the first was the VW car (235 mpg) and the second was a link to a thread I posted at the auto X-prize forums about a Stirling engine car NASA developed (60 mpg, but an everyday mid-sized car with no special materials and without hybrid regenerative braking which could pump that up to 100 mpg).  The Stirling engine is externally heated like a steam engine, so you can burn anything in it with almost no special apparatus required.  The downside is that it has about 1/3 more parts than a standard Otto cycle engine and many of them are rare metals, so it's expensive.  In my opinion it should be manufactured right now, but it's just out of the reach of the consumer.  Check out the most efficient EV on the market today, the Tesla Roadster.  It gets 135 mpg(equivalent) and costs only $80,000.  On the front page their range is extended again, I suspect their model in the US only had to be modified for safety which reduced it to 200.

Hydrogen is a media pet and nothing more.  This is universally recognized by all engineers and scientists I've come into contact with that weren't seeking funding for the research.  It can be converted to electricity in a fuel cell at ~80% efficiency or burned at ~20% efficiency in an Otto cycle engine.  It can be extracted from natural gas but it's way way more efficient to just burn the natural gas (this is where almost all of the worlds hydrogen production comes from).  It can be created by electrolysis from water but you lose half of the energy in heat while you're creating it, a battery charges at ~80% efficiency (depending on charge time and heat) so what good does the expensive hydrogen fuel cell system which will need an electric motor and battery backup do?  Well, it does make for a good story.  Just look through Google New results and find a story that doesn't vaguely mention "In ten years" or "This would be perfect if only there was the support infrastructure."  It's just plain rubbish but people love the cozy things-are-going-to-get-better-cheaply feeling.  The EV used to be all over the news but people got tired of it and wised up - the battery technology has only just arrived and it's still only barely affordable.  The EV is a far better wheel-to-well candidate than the hydrogen car.  I calculated it once and if I remember right the overall energy use for a hydrogen car ends up being about three times higher than an EV.

The reality is that we're not going to run out of fuel, we're going to run out of cheap fuel.  Synthetic fuels have been developed from coal and methane gas since WWII.  Methane gas is produced all over the world by hundreds of different types of bacteria and coal (or rather, charcoal) can be manufactured from wood or all sorts of other things while producing combustible gasses.  Previously un-harvestable Shale oil from the Rocky Mountains is economical right now, but Shell Oil is afraid to exploit it too early because a surplus in supply means a drop in price which might make it suddenly un-economical (many other cases are similar).  Look at this, your t-shirt can be cultured into ethanol by a genetically altered yeast.  This means pastures of weeds growing unmonitored and uncontrolled, harvested five or more times a year on poor soil, can provide fuel.  There are other weeds with high oil content (I'm looking at you, industrial hemp) that grow wild with no oversight.  Most organic matter, including the aforementioned weeds, food waste and your own poo can be turned to oil using thermal depolymerization.

So look, if we can come up with just half of what we use now by other methods, and it's renewable, and we can use it three times more efficiently than we're using it now in a hybrid car that gives similar performance to what we have now, what's wrong with that?  To me it means an easy transition, the eco-friendly people won't be subsidizing the SUV people by using less gas and making the supply more abundant, and the gas cheaper.  Instead the SUV will get 80 mpg the mid sized car will get 120 mpg and the super-eco-car will get 200 mpg.  Watch the auto X-prize close over the next couple of years.  Electric cars and Electric hybrids are the way of the future.