#### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
amp said:
I can't say how factual it is but a movie Steven Segal stared in 'On Deadly Ground' came out a few years ago and addressed the suppression of energy effiency in cars, power plants, ect. It also comdemed the polluters, oil companies and revealed the greed and anti-enviornment attitude of these polluters.
Woah, the speech he gives (at the end of the movie) in some Town Hall/Capitol Bldg. had me in splits. :rofl:

I think he actually produced that movie himself...and another film, where he plays an EPA agent, giving hell to an evil, coal mining outfit.

Seems like Steven's serious about the environment !

#### amp

Yeah, unfortunately too much in his speach is true. :surprise:

#### russ_watters

Mentor
wasteofo2 said:
Are you saying that the people at environmental rallies don't call for higher fuel efficiency in cars, gas/electric hybrids, using wind/solar/tidal/geo-thermal energy instead of gasoline, tightening restrictions on factory emissions etc.?
They do call for those things, wasteof2, and thats the entire problem. All of those things are short-sighted, feel-good, counterproductive diversions.

Higher fuel efficiency in cars: how precisely can that be achieved? We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency. The government is going to try to force car companies to sell hybrids (a decent product), but that doesn't mean people will buy them - especially when car companies stop selling them at a loss.

Wind/solar/tidal/geothermal energy instead of gasoline: Two issues there. First, instead of gasoline? You mean instead of coal. Coal is where we get half of our electric power from, not oil. Oil is largely a political smokescreen. Environmentalists rarely ever talk about coal.

Second, wind/solar/tidal/geothermal energy - how much of our power comes from those sources? Wind is far and away the largest of those: currently we get about 30 gigawatts from it (generous since it doesn't take into account variability of wind). Our total capacity is roughly 38,000 gigawatts. That's roughly a 10th of a percent for wind.

Right now, the majority of our new power comes from oil. Coal and nuclear plants are pretty much maxed out. And demand continues to increase. Our situation is getting worse, not better.

There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. Until the environmentalists (and politicians) start getting realistic, our energy situation is only going to continue to get worse.

#### amp

"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source? "We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?

#### russ_watters

Mentor
More:
wasteofo2 said:
...I remember from an old New York Times article that if the Long Island sound was filled with windmills, that 30,000 homes could be powered indefinately, but I could be remembering the stat wrong...
No, that sounds about right. The problem is that environmentalists throw around those stats like they are a good thing, and I guess you trust them that it is. But it isn't. Setting aside the technical feasibility of building such an array, how many homes is 30,000? How much of our total energy usage is that? How much of an impact will that really have?

The average middle-class home uses about 3-4kW on a hot august afternoon. So that 30,000 homes is 120 megawatts at most. The typical nuclear reactor (not plant, just one reactor) produces about 1,000 megawatts. So roughly 10% of one reactor. Why not build one reactor instead?

And I don't mean to pick on you, wasteofo2, because clearly you care, but the rest of your post was about problems. We know there are problems. Environmentalists raise money by talking about problems. But where are the solutions? Talking about problems does not equal fixing them. Fixing them requires real solutions and environmentalists rarely talk about real solutions.

#### russ_watters

Mentor
amp said:
"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source?
It should be obvious enough. I'm sure someone else will realize what it is, but I'm not going to say it to prove a point: people aren't even thinking about it.
"We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?
Amp, do you have any idea about the context of that statement? Look into it and you'll find that its not what you are implying it is. It got a lot of press, but it isn't relevant to this conversation.

#### amp

Ok, there were incentives but the reason I think people bought SUVs is because they presumed them to be safer in an accident.

#### phatmonky

amp said:
"There is a real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source that is actively being blocked because it gives environmentalists the heebie jeebies. " What source? "We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency." Why was there a tax incentive (designed to get people) to buy SUVs?
From the mouth of my Toyota Salesman:

"Bush went to change the laws for what is considered a gas guzzler, and toyota went crazy. They had inventory fulll of SUV parts and their buyers were about to be pushed away via financial incentive. So Bush leaves the up to 100,000 dollar vehicle right off for anything over 4000lbs (can't remember what number he showed me) for one year to let the car companies clear out their inventory. After this year, the game is over."

Well, that's one explanation.

#### russ_watters

Mentor
amp said:
Ok, there were incentives but the reason I think people bought SUVs is because they presumed them to be safer in an accident.
Safety is one reason, but again, it seems like you are implying that that incentive is a common thing. It isn't.

#### Dissident Dan

russ_watters said:
Higher fuel efficiency in cars: how precisely can that be achieved? We live in a free country and people have chosen to drive gas-guzzling SUV's despite the fuel inefficiency. The government is going to try to force car companies to sell hybrids (a decent product), but that doesn't mean people will buy them - especially when car companies stop selling them at a loss.
They can raise fuel efficiency across the board--that includes SUVs, using better fuel injections with computer controlled timing and amount control, hybrid technology, and a host of other technologies that I can't remember. There was an article in, I think, Popular Science, or possibly Scientific American that was about combining several technologies to drasticallly improve fuel efficiency.

Environmentalists rarely ever talk about coal.
Having frequent contact with people from many environmental groups, I can tell you that you are wrong. For example, the LCV has been talking about coal-burning power plants as they relate to Mercury pollution lately.

#### kat

I agree with Dan, Coal has not only been being talked about but actively attacked (and rightfully so) in many cases. Greenpeace had a show down with the Coal plant in Salem Ma, One of the north east's big ugly's.

#### russ_watters

Mentor
Dissident Dan said:
They can raise fuel efficiency across the board--that includes SUVs, using better fuel injections with computer controlled timing and amount control, hybrid technology, and a host of other technologies that I can't remember. There was an article in, I think, Popular Science, or possibly Scientific American that was about combining several technologies to drasticallly improve fuel efficiency.
For the first one, computer controlled timing/combustion process, that would both increase efficiency and decrease emissions (and I have the sneaking suspicion that the $100 they charge for California emissions on a new car is simply turning that feature on via the computer). However, the improvement in efficiency is small - a couple of percent. The improvement in emissions is somewhat larger. Hybrid technologies, sure, they work - but are you saying the government needs to start forcing people to buy them? Also, though they work, they don't work anywhere near as well as advertised. 85 mpg was dreamed, 50 mpg was advertised, and few people are getting much more than 40 mpg. Considering that half of Honda's line gets 30+ mpg, thats a pretty meager improvement. Also, though I enjoy the magazine, there is a world of difference between Popular Science and Scientific American - Popular Science is as much science fiction as science. Having frequent contact with people from many environmental groups, I can tell you that you are wrong. For example, the LCV has been talking about coal-burning power plants as they relate to Mercury pollution lately. Fair enough - what is their solution? For those who didn't see it, btw, the "real, proven, safe, clean, high capacity, inexpensive source" I was talking about is, of course, nucelar power. Until environmentalists start using their heads and stop opposing it (better yet, start actively supporting it, since it does fit with their stated goals), we will continue the energy and environmental death-spiral we are in. Last edited: #### wasteofo2 Russ, I wouldn't suggest forcing people to buy different cars, I would suggest the govt. start forcing the automotive industry to make higher fuel efficiency cars. Plus, some legislation to make hybrid cars look like they weren't designed by a 4 year old would help too. In NY you get a$2,000 government rebate when you buy a gas/electric hybrid, a national program like that could help encourage people to buy them as well. And honestly, if those hybrids started looking like normal cars, or companies started selling cars that you could buy as hybrids or normal, like a Honda Accord or something, that looked exactly the same, I think people would also be more inclined to buy them. I mean, it seems that if you have the choice between 32mpg and 45 mpg, you'd go with 45mpg, even if it cost more, since you'd get \$2,000 or whatever back from the govt.

And the thing about the Long Island sound, I didn't post it to say that specifically filling the long island sound with windmills would solve a huge % of our problems, but just to show what could be achieved with filling a relatively small amount of space with windmills. Imagine all the windmills you could fit on empty plains in the mid-west, out at sea, on all the bays etc. in America.

Of course very little of our energy currently comes from sources besides coal/oil etc., but I want there to be efforts to increase this number, make more and more windmills, add solar panels to more and more buildings (I'm sure many factories wouldn't mind having solar panels on their roofs to cut down on their electricity bills), harness geo-thermal and tidal energy etc. We currently have very small amounts of this being put to use, I want more of it to be made useful.

And Russ, you said that coal and nuclear power plants were pretty much maxed out, then say that nuclear plants could help us a great deal and provide tons of energy, I'm lost... Are you saying that because of current environmentalist activism nuclear energy has gone as far as it's allowed to, but could go further?

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving