Author Topic: England Is Grinding To A Halt. (Read 42,741 times)

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:54 AM »

Perhaps even this

Which will, of course...inevitably lead to this

rgdot · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2011, 03:14 AM »

I can add two things to this subject

1) Technology to use things as simple as tap water for fuel have existed for years but often dismissed for various reason like limited mileage and other - in my estimation - 'fixable' reasons.

2) As far as the developed world goes North America is surely the worst for public transportation. Examples:
- High speed trains in America are only now in the pre-planning stage.
- Here in Canada I live in a Toronto (Canada's biggest city in case you are not familiar) suburb which is around 10 km to the official city limits and only in the last decade have I been able to go inside the city limits straight, without changing buses! (yes it's true, and not in the woods either, just a typical suburb)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2011, 04:13 AM »

Quote from: rgdot on March 11, 2011, 03:14 AM

1) Technology to use things as simple as tap water for fuel have existed for years but often dismissed for various reason like limited mileage and other - in my estimation - 'fixable' reasons.

On the water front I'm a big fan of hydrogen. It can be used in existing reciprocal combustion engines, and electric cars with hydrogen fuel cells. Not to mention it's virtually impossible to run out of.

zridling · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2011, 04:14 AM »

We have Korean TV in my area here in the US and I see the priorities of public spending in South Korea that Renegade refers to. Much different than here in the US, where public spending is anathema to the conservative party. We had a viable electric car in the 80s for a brief moment until Detroit smothered it, bought it, and killed it.

I live in a small town (<16k residents) where everyone must drive to work. Gasoline was about $1/liter ($3.89/gallon) here today. That's more than half a minimum hourly wage, which makes low-paying jobs not worth working! That is, you can't afford to work at them! And except for a few of the largest cities, there are no trains or subways here. Hey, but we can afford endless, purposeless war! I really, really feel for you guys in England and throughout Europe. People would love alternative, clean fuels, but governments and corporations have always hated them -- how can they rob us blind all the way to the grave unless we're dependent on fossil fuels. We knew this full well in the early 70s, but despite electing the guy time after time who says, "We're going to get off oil this time!" (they all say it), none ever follow through.

I say we impose a "plutocracy tax" on the rich and let their wealth bring down/pay for higher crude! (In the US, they just buy the candidates who will vote exactly how they want -- if not this election, surely the next.) It's depressing to be at the mercy of idiots. Greedy idiots.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2011, 04:28 AM »

Quote from: zridling on March 11, 2011, 04:14 AM

I say we impose a "plutocracy tax" on the rich and let their wealth bring down/pay for higher crude! (In the US, they just buy the candidates who will vote exactly how they want -- if not this election, surely the next.) It's depressing to be at the mercy of idiots.

+1

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:40 AM »

Quote from: Stephen66515 on March 11, 2011, 01:54 AM

(see attachment in previous post)

Isn't that David Cameron?

On a serious note it always make me laugh when you hear people in London complaining about public transport!

London is one of the few places in the UK that actually have a public transport system. Whenever I visit London I use the public transport system (I may drive to somewhere within reach and then take the Tube into the city). Having driven in London in the past no one in their right mind would choose to do so now.

Personally I have always found the Tube pretty efficient and my experiences haven't been any more smelly or dirty than public transport anywhere else.

I know that Londoner's generally don't believe there is anyone or anything outside the M25 but they should try getting a bus outside the city.

To my mind the only place that ever got public transport right was Sheffield in the 80s. One fixed, and very low (IIRC it was 10p), price for all journeys and frequent buses/trams everywhere. It took Margaret Thatcher's style of fanaticism (not to mention fascism) to kill off Sheffield's public transport system.

johnk · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2011, 12:18 PM »

Quote from: zridling on March 11, 2011, 04:14 AM

I say we impose a "plutocracy tax" on the rich and let their wealth bring down/pay for higher crude! (In the US, they just buy the candidates who will vote exactly how they want -- if not this election, surely the next.) It's depressing to be at the mercy of idiots. Greedy idiots.

Always an easy target, but the rich are so small in number that they're not really relevant. If you took every taxpayer in the UK who earns more than £1 million (just 14,000 people), and took every penny they earned (i.e. taxed them at 100 per cent), it would net another £20 billion a year or so (source) -- enough to pay less than half of the annual interest on the country's debt. And that's before you work out how many jobs you would have killed off by taking all the money from the rich.

rgdot · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2011, 04:05 PM »

Quote from: johnk on March 11, 2011, 12:18 PM

Always an easy target, but the rich are so small in number that they're not really relevant. If you took every taxpayer in the UK who earns more than £1 million (just 14,000 people), and took every penny they earned (i.e. taxed them at 100 per cent), it would net another £20 billion a year or so (source) -- enough to pay less than half of the annual interest on the country's debt. And that's before you work out how many jobs you would have killed off by taking all the money from the rich.

If rich are easy targets then the not rich (middle class, poor, etc.) are super duper mega easy targets.
The rich don't create job, the consumers create jobs. If I have a decent job I will buy the stuff the corporations make. Yes I made that money working for the job the corporation gave me but if I don't make enough and/or I put in the bank I influence the economy not the other way round.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2011, 05:38 PM »

Quote from: rgdot on March 11, 2011, 04:05 PM

If rich are easy targets then the not rich (middle class, poor, etc.) are super duper mega easy targets.

Exactly, thread started with England being crippled by insane gas prices. The US has the same problem - number at the pump keeps trying to double. Why? GREED! Pure simple flat-out idiotic (screw-thy-fellow-man) greed!

There is no valid reason why gas should be more than $2 a gallon. Fair profits could still be made. But some clown came up with this "Fuel Shortage" nonsense back in the 70s, and that quickly paved the way for the rest of us to be bent over ever since. In the name of the ecology... Bullshit! The "shortage" was a nothing more than a political stunt to bleed more money out of people...And it is still going on.

The only reason we don't have fast, efficient, electric cars now is they are not done bleeding us dry for the old (dead dinosaur) technology.

Oh but how ever will those poor, poor oil barons manage to feed their families..? *Shrug* I don't know, maybe they can use some of the trillions of dollars they spent on sand to make islands shaped like freaking palm trees?

JavaJones · « **Reply #34 on:** March 11, 2011, 06:23 PM »

Quote from: Stoic Joker on March 11, 2011, 04:13 AM

Quote from: rgdot on March 11, 2011, 03:14 AM
1) Technology to use things as simple as tap water for fuel have existed for years but often dismissed for various reason like limited mileage and other - in my estimation - 'fixable' reasons.

On the water front I'm a big fan of hydrogen. It can be used in existing reciprocal combustion engines, and electric cars with hydrogen fuel cells. Not to mention it's virtually impossible to run out of.

So use electricity that you've probably generated with coal to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using an energy-negative process, and use *that* to fuel your vehicle, being less efficient than gasoline? Yeah, I used to be way into hydrogen powered vehicles too, then I wondered "Where does all that hydrogen come from?". Yes, hydrogen is very abundant, but *not* in its free, usable state...

- Oshyan

40hz · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2011, 06:25 PM »

I sometimes almost wish they'd abandon fuel efficiency and conservation measures.

Because the way things usually work, we won't begin to seriously and collectively start identifying viable energy alternatives until we completely run out of fossil fuels.

"Necessity furthers. It is advantageous to have some goal in view." as the I Ching so nicely reminds us.

rgdot · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2011, 06:56 PM »

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 06:23 PM

So use electricity that you've probably generated with coal to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using an energy-negative process, and use *that* to fuel your vehicle, being less efficient than gasoline? Yeah, I used to be way into hydrogen powered vehicles too, then I wondered "Where does all that hydrogen come from?". Yes, hydrogen is very abundant, but *not* in its free, usable state...

- Oshyan

There is no magic bullet, the point of any conservation is to rely less and less on things that kill off the planet. Tomorrow less coal, after tomorrow less oil, and on and on.
Alternatives (solar, wind, wave, etc.) exist and anybody dismissing them is succumbing to propaganda in my opinion.

rgdot · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:02 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on March 11, 2011, 06:25 PM

Because the way things usually work, we won't begin to seriously and collectively start identifying viable energy alternatives until we completely run out of fossil fuels.

I like to call it capitalism by convenience or capitalism via lobbying. If you invest in it seriously it can be done quicker and better. Even now there is more money poured into oil extraction methods (see Canada's oil sands as one example) than developing more efficient solar panels/cells for example.

Oil is not even close to running out, at all. It might be in places more expensive to extract but frankly more expensive oil (extraction) is not "my" problem. I have faith in alternatives but there must be a will to develop them.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:11 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on March 11, 2011, 06:25 PM

I sometimes almost wish they'd abandon fuel efficiency and conservation measures.

Because the way things usually work, we won't begin to seriously and collectively start identifying viable energy alternatives until we completely run out of fossil fuels.

"Necessity furthers. It is advantageous to have some goal in view." as the I Ching so nicely reminds us.

Man I'll sign that one in a heartbeat ... If I get stuck behind another jackass trying to peddal their Prius up a hill I'm gonna freaking loose it. For the love of DOYC there's 50 people trying to make it through the light in 8 seconds...Go!!! Erp-A-Derp....

superboyac · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:12 PM »

40hz is right. I once saw a graph that showed that ONLY AFTER legislation forced US manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles did the efficiency improve pretty quickly. And then it just stagnated again. Ever wondered why the efficiency of vehicles has not changed much for a looooooong time? Because nobody NEEDS to do it yet. Sure, we have the Prius, but it's mostly a gimmick. They put that out there for the people who make an extra effort to save the environment. When fuel runs out, we'll see more alternatives, or when legislation demands it again.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #40 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:18 PM »

Quote from: superboyac on March 11, 2011, 07:12 PM

Sure, we have the Prius, but it's mostly a gimmick. They put that out there for the people who make an extra effort to save the environment.

Don't you mean it's for people that want to make a show of pretending to save the environment?

JavaJones · « **Reply #41 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM »

I think you're getting my comments about hydrogen wrong. I'm all for alternative energy sources, especially *truly renewable* and *primary* sources of energy. When I say "primary sources" what I mean are sources where you are directly converting an environmental resource (wind, sun, even coal) into energy that is then *directly* used. The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel source" is it is *not* readily available in a directly extractable form which can then be used directly as energy. As it stands now it is an *intermediary* or "secondary" energy source, in other words you have to produce energy in the first place *to* produce hydrogen which you then use to fuel something. That introduces inefficiencies in the process, inefficiencies that are potentially unnecessary. Instead of having a hydrogen powered car (burning hydrogen) or even a hydrogen fuel cell car, instead use a pure electric car with modern battery technology. The Nissan Leaf is one example and it does fine for mileage and speed (for example it would handle my daily ~2hr, 90 miles total commute).

On the subject of "more difficult oil extraction is not my problem", you have to keep in mind that more difficult extraction generally also means more damaging to the environment, e.g. the reason the "Deep Water Horizon" spill was so bad and went on so long is it was drilled in *deep water*, which meant enormous pressures at the depth of the water where the entry was made, and hence much more difficult to repair, and also higher oil outflow rate. Another example is what is necessary to extract oil from "oil sands": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Environmental_issues

So I really don't think you can just say "it's not my problem that fuel extraction gets more difficult", because you can't trust corporations to appropriately balance the issues in play. They generally have one consideration and that's profit. Environmental impact will be considered only in so far as it impacts their bottom line and their legislative burden. Yet environmental impacts do effect *you* and *me*. So leaving it to corporations to figure out is in my opinion not smart.

- Oshyan

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #42 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:06 PM »

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM

I think you're getting my comments about hydrogen wrong. I'm all for alternative energy sources, especially *truly renewable* and *primary* sources of energy. When I say "primary sources" what I mean are sources where you are directly converting an environmental resource (wind, sun, even coal) into energy that is then *directly* used.

All of which suck in the readily accessible department. Wind isn't exactly a constant, sun is only there for half the day, and coal is just too heavy to lug around. But all of these are good for making more portable fuels. Oh, and you missed water (hydro-electric damns anyone)

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel source" is it is *not* readily available in a directly extractable form which can then be used directly as energy. As it stands now it is an *intermediary* or "secondary" energy source, in other words you have to produce energy in the first place *to* produce hydrogen which you then use to fuel something.

You see, I'm okay with that. If it's done properly, it creates jobs and utilizes materials that can't be run out of (hydroged<->water).

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM

That introduces inefficiencies in the process, inefficiencies that are potentially unnecessary. Instead of having a hydrogen powered car (burning hydrogen) or even a hydrogen fuel cell car, instead use a pure electric car with modern battery technology. The Nissan Leaf is one example and it does fine for mileage and speed (for example it would handle my daily ~2hr, 90 miles total commute).

Okay, and the electricity to recharge the grossly underpowered vehicle comes from?

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM

On the subject of "more difficult oil extraction is not my problem", you have to keep in mind that more difficult extraction generally also means more damaging to the environment, e.g. the reason the "Deep Water Horizon" spill was so bad and went on so long is it was drilled in *deep water*, which meant enormous pressures at the depth of the water where the entry was made, and hence much more difficult to repair, and also higher oil outflow rate. Another example is what is necessary to extract oil from "oil sands": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Environmental_issues

Um... no. The reason the oil is more difficult to extract, is because of the environmental safety constraints. (Note: I live in Florida...)

That whole fiasco was caused by (once-again-from-the-top-of-the-thread) greed.
- Oshyan
[/quote]

tomos · « **Reply #43 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:25 PM »

Quote from: Stoic Joker on March 11, 2011, 07:18 PM

Quote from: superboyac on March 11, 2011, 07:12 PM
Sure, we have the Prius, but it's mostly a gimmick. They put that out there for the people who make an extra effort to save the environment.

Don't you mean it's for people that want to make a show of pretending to save the environment?

I've never even heard of them before, but at 70+ miles per gallon according to wikipedia, and petrol being about 6 euro per gallon here, I'd be willing to make some sacrafices (are they really that slow to take off though lol)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:30 PM »

Quote from: tomos on March 11, 2011, 08:25 PM

Quote from: Stoic Joker on March 11, 2011, 07:18 PM
Quote from: superboyac on March 11, 2011, 07:12 PM
Sure, we have the Prius, but it's mostly a gimmick. They put that out there for the people who make an extra effort to save the environment.

Don't you mean it's for people that want to make a show of pretending to save the environment?

I've never even heard of them before, but at 70+ miles per gallon according to wikipedia, and petrol being about 6 euro per gallon here, I'd be willing to make some sacrafices (are they really that slow to take off though lol)

Well... In a drag race between a Toyota Prius, and a 90 year old woman on a tricycle ... My money is on Granny all day long.

Oh and 70+ mpg... Ha! not on this side of a laboratory. Try to get through town in a hurry and that thing will hit the 20s in a flash.

TopGear did a brisk driving gas milage test between a Prius and a 500HP BMW M5. The Prius Lost by 3 miles per gallon.

40hz · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:42 PM »

I think it's greed combined with a healthy dollop of inertia.

Gerald Weinberg once said: Things are the way they are because they got to be that way.

This was his way of pointing out that we create much of our world. But the problems start to feel insurmountable when we forget that better than half of what we live with is a human invention. After a while, people have a tendency to grant human inventions the same status (i.e. unchangeable, eternal, unavoidable, unstoppable) that we do natural phenomena.

People have to stop thinking about technology and government the same way they do about the weather - something to "deal with" and "get through" - as opposed to something we can exercise direct control over. But only if we're up to the task.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of "learned helplessness" out there. It's taught in our schools, preached from our pulpits, joked about but subtly encouraged in our entertainment, and drafted into our laws.

And from what I've seen, only a crisis provides enough offyerass to break the spell.

Let's hope when this energy situation finally cracks open, it does so gently.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:04 PM »

^^He's got a point there.^^

40Hz and I are frequently on the same page ... But he insists on being adult about it.

JavaJones · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:14 PM »

Stoic, I wasn't trying to be comprehensive in listing alternative energy sources, I missed a lot more than hydro. And coal? Coal has been the backbone of our entire power production infrastructure for decades. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Did you think I was suggesting it as a fuel for cars? Erm, no. Coal creates electricity which *directly powers electric vehicles*. As opposed to: Coal creates electricity which is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which is *then* used to fuel vehicles.

The electrolysis process is essentially less than 70% efficiency in most cases (i.e. 30% energy lost in the conversion process), and when considered in sum with the whole chain of systems needed to produce, distribute, and fuel vehicles with hydrogen, the efficiency is far less, not to mention that we don't even have efficient mass hydrogen distribution systems yet, whereas hey we've already got powerlines going everywhere. Did I mention that hydrogen is difficult to contain due to its volatility? I'm sorry but the "hydrogen economy" is a myth being sold by interested parties, just like the benefits of corn-based ethanol are promoted by the corn industry.

Your perspective on energy production is really confusing to me. You say you're ok with inefficient production as long as it creates jobs and uses renewable resources? Great. Problem is just because a second level energy source comes from abundant and renewable natural resources doesn't mean that the energy that powers its production does. Again most of the energy you will need to electrolyze water would come from coal-fired plants. So you're not removing that pollutant from the system, instead you're *increasing* your energy needs because of lost energy in the inefficient conversion process. Whereas if you just use the electricity produced by coal directly, well, you're losing less. Makes a lot more sense to me. *shrug*

As for jobs, renewable energy production system manufacture and installation is going to create jobs whether it's hydrogen or solar or wind or anything else. I'm not questioning investment in alternative energy, I'm questioning the focus on hydrogen as a useful option, and I do so from the perspective of someone who used to be a huge believer in it. But I've done a lot of research since then and as far as I can see it just doesn't make that much sense. It's not efficient, it's hard to transport and store, and the distributions systems don't yet exist.

I don't really understand your comment on oil extraction issues. Some oil is easier to extract and refine than others, that's a simple fact, and as difficulty goes up, generally environmental impact does also. Restrictions are in place to *avoid* excessive environmental damage in trying to utilize less efficiently extracted oil resources like oil sands. This is the whole consideration of *total cost* of an activity, not just immediate cost (men, materials), but environmental impact is a "cost", long-term human health impact is a "cost", etc.

For the record, the Prius vs. BMW was an *M3* with *4 cylinders* and 177HP (0-60 time about 8 seconds vs. the Prius at 11). It's also a *diesel*, far more efficient than most gas engines. I'm personally more in favor of wider diesel adoption than hybrid technology as they have similar efficiencies and hybrids have the added issue of battery lifetime, replacement, and disposal. Unfortunately for some reason the US is really against even modern, low emission diesels, even though they're far more efficient than most gas engines, while maintaining healthy amounts of power, acceleration, etc. Beats me why that is...

- Oshyan

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:38 PM »

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 09:14 PM

For the record, the Prius vs. BMW was an *M3* with *4 cylinders* and 177HP (0-60 time about 8 seconds vs. the Prius at 11). It's also a *diesel*, far more efficient than most gas engines.

Did you even watch the video? The BMW is a 4L 414HP V8 (I was rounding from memory at 500 - but still alot closer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk @ 1:20

rjbull · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:46 PM »

Quote from: JavaJones on March 11, 2011, 09:14 PM

I'm questioning the focus on hydrogen as a useful option, and I do so from the perspective of someone who used to be a huge believer in it. But I've done a lot of research since then and as far as I can see it just doesn't make that much sense. It's not efficient, it's hard to transport and store, and the distributions systems don't yet exist.

I don't disagree, but one of the great features of fossil fuels is their convenience for those points, combined with their energy density. I rather assumed that the fuss about hydrogen was largely because it looked the nearest thing to a replacement for them, so the world could go on with, more or less, business as usual. The thought of having to abandon easy distribution of everything is truly scary.

But, given the problems of hydrogen, maybe the sensible move is to start breeding horses and oxen, dig canals, and invest in sailing barges...