Global Warming Act

OttoNP · Addict Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 848 City: MI

I try to address some of your things in the order you mention them. Also, I'm only taking about the automotive industry, I don't know anything about the manufacturing pollutants.

It would delay Hydrogen Vehicles because the automakers would have to invest money and time into meeting the new requirements and not into developing hydrogen vehicles. GM is hoping to produce large volume fuel cell powered cars in 2010. Fedex is using a fuel cell vehicle developed by GM in some parts of the world.

Automakers fight the standards because of customer demands, the automotive industry is highly competative and customers want power and size and that requires energy. We pull our boat with a 4.3L V-6 Blazer and it pulls it just fine. Frequently someone will post asking if a vehicle similar to this will pull their boat and most people say no way, you need at least a V-8. I think people feel that they shouldn't be able to even feel the boat behind them and still go 90. We can feel the boat is there but it isn't hard on the Blazer, we've towed it over 600 miles non-stop. I have a Silverado and yeah it tows it better but a Blazer is more than capable. Also, you don't need a V-8 to pull a wakeboarder at 20 MPH. You need a V-8 to get on plane and pull someone up in 3 seconds, if you used a V-6 or even a V-4 you could still wakeboard, it would just take awhile to plane out and you might have to decrease your prop pitch a lot. Here's the basics of current regulations. Cafe requires that an automaker meet a sales weighted average fuel for new cars and light trucks. It is currently 27.5 for cars and 20.7 for light trucks. To get more miles per gallon you can make the engine more efficient, less powerful, or make the vehicle lighter. It is a trade off between these things and is customer driven. The market clearly shows that many customers will sacrifice fuel economy for performance and safety. Also, a lot of times people just drive more miles if they have good fuel economy and that doesn't help. People really want all three things and the automakers are working on it with engines that can turn cylinders on and off, but that makes the vehicle more expensive, another no-no.

I say it is to the point where you wouldn't want it stricter because of the tradeoffs between efficiency, performance, safety, etc... A good modern combustion engine may be 20% efficient. Meaning that of the possible energy in a gallon of gas, 20% of it gets used. The best you can get is limited by the temperature difference between your exhaust and the air temp, the larger the difference the less efficient. This is because instead of using the energy in the gas to move your car, your using it to heat the air. At the same time, the hotter the air the cleaner the exhaust. So, you could get more miles per gallon if you made the exhaust colder, but this would make the exhaust less clean. Also, modern cars working properly moniter the exhaust and intake and constantly adjust for clean burning, a major improvement over cars of the past. Fuel cells are near 80% efficient, much better!
________
New Mexico Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

BillJ · Posted: May 07, 2003 11:08 am Post subject:

If you want to do your own research, Intellicast has a library of reports both pro and con.

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/ClimateWatch/GW/

An interesting stat: this winter was the coldest on record for much of the northeast US. The snowpack was the most extensive on record (records only cover 30 years).

OttoNP · Addict Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 848 City: MI

Here's a good page about what different automakers are doing for fuel cell vehicles:

http://www.fuelcells.org/fct/carchart.pdf

And a general page about fuel cells
http://www.fuelcells.org/
________
MARIJUANA CARD

Leggester · Posted: May 07, 2003 11:09 am Post subject:

OK, I'll get out of your post Pat, but that site is a complete farce. Sorry.

Once I start seeing the anti-Bush drivel there, I can go no further.

I've seen some of the actual cuts and I agree with a few. National Parks flat? OK, there one of the biggest condoners of pollution. Look up Yellowstone and the snowmobilers.

If Bush took a crap, they'd say he was polluting the environment.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 07, 2003 1:52 pm Post subject:

Good links and discussions.

Otto, that's one of the reasons I'm actually for the government promoting increasing the mpg standards. Just because consumers want something, doesn't mean it's the best thing for the health of the planet.

How is LCV a farce? Because they don't like Bush? LCV.org is obviously anti-Bush, because of his environmental record. They aren't lying about the actions his administration has taken. Whether you support Bush or not is irrelevant to how his administration has acted on the environment. LCV doesn't have a political agenda beyond how politicians deal with the environment. The site is very helpful at showing how politicians vote on environmental measures. Check out your own state's senators and reps, it can be pretty interesting.

Get past whether you like Bush or not, and look at the environmental record of his administration. I don't think Bush is a terribly bad president, I just don't like his environmental actions. The actions of his administration are vastly different then his words, and his "hydrogen economy" support is fairly thinly veiled. Even if he does really want a hydrogen economy, which I hope he does, that doesn't mean the administration hasn't done what they've done in other areas.

Here are some problems with his hydrogen plan, dubbed "FreedomFuel".

The plan calls for $1.2 billion in spending over five years to develop hydrogen and fuel cells.

None of the funding should be used toward nuclear power or coal generated power, even if it is to create hydrogen fuel.

These energy sources are dirty and dangerous and should not be used to generate hydrogen. The current FY 2003 Department of Energy budget calls for $4 million for nuclear generated hydrogen research and $130 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. This money needs to be re-allocated to fund renewable hydrogen programs instead of just giving more money to the dirtier industries that support Bush.

No timeline has yet been set for auto manufacturers to deliver hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to the market.

If an aggressive timeline is not developed for delivery of vehicles, this will result in another subsidy from the Bush Administration to big business. Taxpayers need to receive cost-competitive hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles for the money invested. Basically, we're giving big industries money for research, and if we don't get viable fuel-cell vehicles in return in a short timeline, the money is just being given to big industries.

The President's hydrogen program can not be a substitute for action now to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

The Bush Administration can not use this program to delay action on issues life the CAFÉ standards, which would increase the gas mileage of today's cars. Increasing the average fleet efficiency to 40 miles per gallon, which is entirely possible without significant cost, would save more oil than is available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the coast of California and that we currently import from the Middle-East, COMBINED. Fuel cells are a technology that we must embrace now, to save us in the future, but it is not a substitute for things that can be done right now to help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, energy independence notwithstanding.

And Leggester, you complain about the pollution of the National Parks, but Bush just allowed more snowmobiles in Yellowstone actually...

I think I'm seeing eye to eye with you guys, and we all want the same thing. I guess I'm just not willing to wait for consumers to demand fuel cells or more efficient vehicles, and I'm not willing to wait and watch Bush rollback positive environmental changes to help out big businesses while he talks in grandiose terms about Hydrogen and could end up just giving money to big industries without any guarantee we'll see fuel-cell vehicles soon.

criminally_minded · Posted: May 07, 2003 5:56 pm Post subject:

Wes,

That's a great theory! If you do a search on DuPont you will find all kinds of conspiracy theory's. I think between them and Ford they make up 3/4 of all conspiracy nuts fantasies!

I picked up a hitchhiker a few years ago who proceeded to tell me how the banning of Marijuana in most western nations is directly linked to DuPont. You see, DuPont were a major materials manufacturer (rope, cloth, sheets etc) with STRONG political ties with the government of the time, and they could see that the new research into hemp growth and fibres would cause them some major headaches, so they had their friends in Washington ban the growth of the plant, and threaten other countries with trade sanctions if they didn't also follow suit..

ohsix · Posted: May 07, 2003 7:50 pm Post subject:

thanks crim but it wasnt my theory. it was one of my teachers and i dont give it much credibility.

ohsix · Posted: May 07, 2003 7:59 pm Post subject:

criminally_minded · Posted: May 07, 2003 7:59 pm Post subject:

Wes, I knew it wasn't your theory bro Wink

There are strong possibilitys both those stories are true, I can't prove them otherwise, but DuPont rumours are everywhere.

ohsix · Posted: May 07, 2003 8:12 pm Post subject:

just making sure.

what the hell does DuPont make? how are they such a big company but i dont think anyone can associate them with one major item. maybe they make a lot of lesser know items?

criminally_minded · Posted: May 07, 2003 8:42 pm Post subject:

Everything.

They are the evil Umbrella Corporation (from Resident Evil?) Wink

Seriously though, they make everything, from synthetics to pharmacuticals. Here are some brand names: DuPont™ Teflon® resins, DuPont™ Lycra® brand spandex fiber, DuPont™ Stainmaster® stain-resistant carpet, DuPont™ Antron® carpet fiber, DuPont™ Dacron® polyester fiber, DuPont™ Kevlar® brand fiber, DuPont™ Nomex® fire-retardant material, DuPont™ Corian® solid surface material, DuPont™ Tyvek® brand protective material, and DuPont™ Coolmax® and DuPont™ Cordura® textile fibers.

And an overview:

MadDog · Soul Rider Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 465 City: Upstate NY

I ran across an interesting news article that kinda relates to this subject. Check out http://www.msnbc.com/news/910115.asp?0dm=C18ON
Interesting concept for clean renewable energy resources. And with enough electrical power generation this could also have a potential for clean hydrogen production. It's good to know that alternatives like this are being persued.

BillJ · Posted: May 08, 2003 1:50 pm Post subject:

People have been trying to harvest tidal and wave energy for 40 years - with some success. This approach is different from others that I've seen though in that the turbine is powered by suction instead of the actual sea water. That should help keep maintenance costs reasonable and have less of an impact on marine life. It'll be interesting to see if they get it built and if it works as expected.

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

What about ethanol (sp?) or corn alcohol as a gasoline replacement? I heard this can be done without major changes to the vehicles on the road.

Liprider · Posted: May 08, 2003 2:12 pm Post subject:

my personal favorite is the veggie van Very Happy

http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/greenlife/veggievan/veggievan.htm

Craiggy · Criminal Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 65 City: Canada

I don't know the details of this bill, but i believe that we can't wait until there is absolute evidence that it is green house gases that are warming up the earth, to do something about it. By that time we will have ruined all the ecosystems and have caused unnessisary cancer.

BillJ · Posted: May 08, 2003 7:08 pm Post subject:

I still haven't seen anything that shows what the problem would be if global warming is a fact - higher sea levels? Is that it?

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 08, 2003 7:25 pm Post subject:

Actually, the higher sea levels is highly debateable...some argue that global warming would make the ice caps melt, others say that it wouldn't be the case. Some feel that it would actually cause more evaporation and since the ice caps are below freezing a slight temperature raise wouldn't make them melt.

Temperature change could cause migration of animals, could cause plants to have various problems, cause certain species to die out, and it can cause draughts and drastic weather conditions which could be harmful for humans/animals/plants in various different ways.

Basically, we really don't know for sure how global warming would really affect everything, but the biosphere is so complicated with so many things depending on others, throwing out of it's unnatural balance is probably not a great idea.

Liprider · Posted: May 08, 2003 7:32 pm Post subject:

there are portions of the ice caps that are just at freezing and go through cycles throughout summer and winter, just a few degrees warmer and thats allota water....i wouldnt mind that part though. as for the evaporation, it would just mean more water in the water cycle in general. more water evaporating means more rain, leading to more flooding......kind of like here right now! just a thought Smile

SCBrips · Guest

Anybody who is unconvinced about the effects of global warming needs to go rent the "documentary" Waterworld. That movie explains it all, man!

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 08, 2003 8:44 pm Post subject:

HAHAH! That is hilarious Jacob....however, under no circumstance should anyone recommend that anyone else intentionally rent and watch "Waterworld". That may be a crime punishable by law.

Liprider · Posted: May 08, 2003 8:54 pm Post subject:

ahh yes, waterworld........ 3 hours of sitting on a wooden catamaran drooling over "precious dirt" when all those people in the movie could have just scratched behind their ears and gotten a handful of it. THEY WERE ALL DIRTY! If they had all pitched in and collected the dirt lodged behind their ears they could have made their own little island out of it.

SCBrips · Guest

I agree, Pat! Strangely, though, that's my Uncle's favorite movie! To each his own....

Josh R · Posted: May 08, 2003 11:46 pm Post subject:

How much did that thing cost to film?

Scrap metal prices must of been high that year...

OttoNP · Addict Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 848 City: MI

Actually your right on in theory Wes, if the efficiency of the engine is the same and you used the same amount of energy, you should use the same gas. In practice though bigger engines usually use more gas. They add weight, their is more air going through them, the air is where a lot of energy loss occurs and since more air goes through them you are heating more air, and people will usually use all the power that's there.

Nick
________
Cold case forums

Da MOOSE · Posted: May 10, 2003 9:06 am Post subject:

The onlt reason the water is rising ,is there's more surfers & boats in the water.& the hole in the o-zone is over the south pole .To let the poleution out into space

JHrod · Wakeboarder.com Freak Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 3144

and of course as you make your rip sticks you release as much toxins into the atmosphere as you can because you encourage that release into space right?????