# News Government milking us like cows; Oil

1. Oct 24, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

Why are we introducing hybrid cars? So some of them reduce emissions by 50%, 75%... but by the time everyone has one, the number of drivers on the road is going to have doubled, tripled, possible quadrupled, and the same amount of emissions will still be being put out because of this! Let's stop being sheep, and speak out, i'm not going to buy a hybrid, it's a wast of money, and a bad idea, if you want to introduce something environmentally friendly, then go for the finish line, don't stop half way.

2. Oct 24, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

What is the alternative? Unfortunatly, if you haven't even invented the finish line yet, you can't just go straight there.

3. Oct 24, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

well that's kind of my point... we already have alternative energy sources that could run cars, using no oil at all... this is a bunch of B.S.

4. Oct 24, 2005

### Tarheel

Like what? Are these Alternative sources cheaper than gasoline?

I'm looking into building a nuclear power plant for my Dadoge Dakota.
It's only going to cost me 14 million dollars.

5. Oct 24, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

good luck with that... i'd consider solar and electric though... nuclear kinda scares me. I'd never wanna live in a world full of nuclear power.

6. Oct 24, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

What's more important, the cost of gasoline, or the survival of humanity?

7. Oct 24, 2005

### Tarheel

Well I don't think I can afford to pay 60 dollars to drive to work everyday so I'll take the price of gasoline.

I don't really like very many humans anyway... :yuck:

8. Oct 24, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

I don't think there are any alternatives that are viable. That's why I asked: What is the alternative? It wasn't a rhetorical question, I am really asking you what you think the alternatives are.

You mentioned "solar and electric" - well solar is electric, but if you mean direct solar power and battery power, do you understand that neither is currently capable of coming anywhere close to the performance of gas/diesel powered cars? And at the same time as they give you much, much less performance, they also cost much, much more.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "government milking us" - are you talking about gas taxes?

Last edited: Oct 24, 2005
9. Oct 24, 2005

### Mental Gridlock

Guess the news, you do!

10. Oct 24, 2005

### Mental Gridlock

How many people on the road now drive hybrids? 1/1000? 1/500. Hell I never see 'em. Baaah Baaah sheep!! I can't wait to jump on the Prius bandwagon!

11. Oct 24, 2005

### Pengwuino

I do! I even try to run them off the road!

Not sure why though... surpressed anger?

Anyhow... dgoodpasture2005, you need to give us an alternative before you continue to rant. You're argument is about as credible as me going "why are we using electricity when we can use ectoplasmic slime wire plasma, the government is fooling you, you are a sheep".

What's with these people? They just come on and say these insane things and I'm at a loss of words to even try to explain what mental processes were occuring (or not occuring) that made them write what they write. Is this the effects of drugs that i've heard so much about?

And wait wait... the government is milking us? That government with the multi-100$billion debt? The government that doesn't own oil companies? The government without any stock in GMC or any other major motor company? Last edited: Oct 24, 2005 12. Oct 24, 2005 ### Mental Gridlock Exactly! If there's 4 times as many drivers but making 1/4 the pollution, there would be the same ammount of pollution, rather than 4 times as much polution. You totally mentioned the problem right there. Overpopulation. Those extra drivers are gonna be there, as might as well have them tax the environment less. But there will be more and more drivers as years go by, and THAT is the problem we need to nip in the butt. In the meantime, overpopulation creates many problems including running out of recources in the future, so as might as well find ways to ease the symptoms (such as high gas prices). The more people drive a hybrid instead, the less you have to pay to fill up your Monte Carlo. And since fossil fuels are non renewable recources, as might as well TAKE STEPS to work towards decreasing our dependencey on it. Granted the hybrids aren't as practical now, they are still good. Nobody just snaps their fingers overnight and has instant technology fix. Moving away from petroleum as energy is quite a daunting project, but an essential one. 13. Oct 24, 2005 ### Smurf Even if we'll still have 4 times the population by the time everyone gets a hybrid and producing the same pollution, that'll still be better than no one getting a hybrid and producing four times the pollution. 14. Oct 25, 2005 ### Kakarot why doesnt the government just set up its own hydrogen production factories all over. then we pay for it through taxes and such for maintenance and they sell it to consumers at non profit prices. 15. Oct 25, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Because, at the moment, we don't have anything with which to power them. Manufacturing hydrogen requires energy. Lots of energy. When has the government ever been able to do anything efficiently enough to beat a private company in price? This is the same government that buys$300 toilet seats.

16. Oct 25, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

Wow i hardly considered this a rant! I think it is 100% truth... why the high gas prices? easy... the government needs money, they're greedy, and they're scandalous. So what do they do? Raise prices... hm why?! well i can think of a number of reasons, but i'll just name two. There is a war going on right now, that is not only costing lot of money, but the vehicles of the United States military are not exactly gasoline proficient. Two, well as mentioned above.. what's a way to slow petrolium useage without losing money? Raise the prices extremely high. We seem to be having a lot of trouble with the atmosphere today, the ozone hole is the third largest it's ever been, global warming is all over the headlines... now regardless of if you believe it's the sun or not, the fact remain today, we just don't know. So why not be on the safe side? We're going to drive ourselves into extinction because we still have animal instincts, we can't just let go of something for the better. I.E. Nuclear pwer etc. And the government very well could easily create an alternative energy society run on American Taxes... but for some reason it's not in their best interests. Now i'm not one of those anti-government guys, and i'm not a conspiracy worm. But i can see a problem when it exists... so what's the point of getting a hybrid, you say, "oh good there will be 4 times less polution then there would have been!" But who really cares? It's just justifying a world wide problem through numerical nonsense. A big play on words. There's going to be the same amount that's already ruining the Earth today. No problem will be taken care of, it's an illusion. And yes... the government with the multi-billion dollar debt would have a perfectly good and sane reason to milk the american people anywhere they can for money, and where better then gas? We have solar, we have electric, we have hydrogen, we have vegetable, heck we could even look into some type of wind powered vehicle, minerature windmills on the top of a car, hundreds of them. There's endles possibilites, but we're addicted to gas and money. They don't really care about survival, they care about power and greed. I really think nothing will get done by the government as far as energy goes, it's going to be up to private businesses and the american people/other countries. I guess i am ranting a little now, as far as a long post goes. but oh well. peace, much love you guys. And always sleep with one eye open or you might never wake up in this world.

David

Last edited: Oct 25, 2005
17. Oct 25, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

You do understand that the government does not sell gas, right? You do understand that most gas taxes (including the federal one) are fixed sums (not percentages) per gallon, right? You do know that after Katrina, many states suspended their gas taxes, right? You do know that today, gas prices are lower than they were before Katrina, right?
HOW?
You are pushing the envelope.

No, no, no, no, no, and no. None of those can compete with gas. Hydrogen is the only one with even a chance, and it isn't ready yet.
Yes, you are. It would be a lot more helpful if you would actually engage in conversation. You might find that this idea of yours doesn't really hold water.

18. Oct 25, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

i never said anything about katrina, if anything that proves the point even more... wouldn't you expect gas prices to rise if oil barges were stalled, and rigs were damaged?! why did they lower? what's really going on? My point really does hold water, a hydrogen economy would be great, literally. All of those power sources i mentioned... they are able to produce enough electricity to run a car if money was raised to make way for further research. Not only could you run a car on solar power alone, but even at night you could create an artificial light/laser to power it. plus electricity. Unless you think yuo have to do 70 on the highway. Life's full of sacrifices, let's start making some so our children can be here without the same problems we face today.

19. Oct 25, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

Uh, prices did go up after Katrina, but now that the refineries are coming back online and people are conserving, they are going back down. That's economics 101.
It would be great if it were possible, but it isn't (yet).
PROVE IT: what is the theoretical maximum capacity of a solar cell (assume it is 100% efficient, and operating with the sun directly overhead) with a footprint the size of a car? How does that capacity compare to the energy usage of today's most efficient cars?

Have you heard of the http://www.sunrace.com.au/"? How could you start with cars like those and end up with anything that even remotely compares with current cars?

You are saying thing that sound good in your head, but you don't know what you are talking about. What you are saying is quite simply not true. Not even the fantasy about pouring money into a problem to generate scientific advances. Those advances cannot violate the laws of physics.
Ok, be more specific: What sacrifices do you think are reasonable? Lets start with heating and air conditioning in your car: you can't have either. Power steering, brakes, air bags, your radio, headlights (we'll need to eliminate night driving), your trunk...

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
20. Oct 25, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

Here are some numbers for you to use in answering that question I asked in the previous post:

Maximum solar flux: 1.4kW/m^2
Typical car footprint: 2.5x4.5m
kW in a horsepower: 0.75kW/hp

With those numbers, you can answer this: How many horsepower could a 100% efficient solar cell the size of a car, coupled with a 100% efficient electric motor provide with the sun directly overhead?