Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Does anyone have any ideas on alternative fuel vehicles?

Thursday, July 17th, 2008

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Not “what to do”, but rather “how to do it”?

There’s millions of dollars to be made for a patent for someone who figures out HOW to make a working alternative fuel vehicle.

Yes, but unless you are in the mainstream of already beaten paths, it’s difficult to get acceptance or any financial development help.

As of now our least expensive alternative fuel is natural gas. It costs about 70 cents per 100, 000 BTU wile gasoline costs about 4 dollars for 120,000 BTU.

However the automobile needs to be designed specifically to run most efficiently on this fuel.

Catch 22!! Fueling stations are not pllentiful because there isn’t much demand due to such few cars that run on it.

Few people buy cars that run on natural gas because there such few places to get fuel.

Which of these vehicle upgrades will save the most fuel for a family (please read this scenario)?

Monday, July 7th, 2008

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Say your family has two vehicles and you drive each 12K miles per year.

One is a huge SUV that averages 10 mpg and the other is a midsized sedan that averages 20 mpg.

You want to trade one of them to help save on family fuel costs.

Is it better to trade the SUV for another sedan that gets 20 mpg or to trade the sedan for a hybrid that gets 45 mpg?

If you consider only the fuel it is better to trade in the SUV. At present you use 1200 gal per yr in the SUV(12000 mi/10 mpg) and 600 in the sedan. Two sedans will use 1200 gal per yr. If you trade the sedan you will still use 1200 gal for the SUV and about 265 for the Hybrid. Don’t forget operating cost including insurance and repairs as well. Two sedans should always win out.

Adam has a valid point about trading the SUV for the Hybrid.

——–

The problem in getting rid of the SUV is that no one wants them now, so you won’t get squat for it. My solution was to get natural gas powered vehicles. They get the same mileage, but natural gas here (Utah) is 64 cents per gallon, plus they run way cleaner than gasoline cars. I can fill up for $8. If you are in an enlightened state that has natural gas filling stations in your area, go for a nat. gas car and you’ll save a bundle. Check out my source below:

www.cngchat.com

Why do leading republicans believe AGW is a real problem, when the conservative voter base seems . . .?

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

adamantly opposed to reason, logic, and anything scientific in nature (this includes AGW)?

Is it because they know AGW is real, and they realize if they don’t at least admit it’s real they will go down in history as the people who either did, or nearly killed our planet?

I mean, it’s obvious denying AGW would, if anything, only gain them votes.

You’re right Jello, the conservatives have politicized the issue (and not even the conservative politicians; the Joe Schmo conservatives, the average American conservatives)

Jello, as I’ve repeated to you again and again: anyone can predict the future, the crux of the issue is predicting it accurately. If you don’t think climatic shifts can be predicted accurately, tell it to Svante Arrhenius, who hypothesized the warming trend almost a full year before it began???

It’s really just the most right-wing fanatics who refuse to accept the reality of the situation. The Republican presidential candidates knew that not only is denying AGW a scientifically ignorant position, but it’s not even one that would help them with the majority of their voting base.

Don’t let the loudmouths on YA fool you - they’re in the minority even among their own political party members.

………..

ll three candidates now running for office support global warming issues, but as you said, “maybe its just to get the votes”, you may be right about that.

The other side of the coin is that many people are becoming rich over global warming, and I don’t think that they all believe in it. In fact I would go as far to say that many people who are heavily invested in global warming, think its junk science.

Conservatives do trash global warming because its obvious that the science in it has as many holes it as a slice of Swiss Cheese. Many who don’t believe in global warming are not running for office nor are they getting rich over this hoax

………

ust proves AGW is a political, not scientific argument.

Vox populi, vox Dei, right?

[Edit] Yet no one still can predict the future - No one knows if it will be warmer or colder in the future. Only soothsayers, psychics, and mystics have that ability. Is this what passes for “science” these days?

So sad the state of education. The gvmt schools have done a good job with indoctrination. They’re graduating tools now.

[Edit] Fine he predicted the climate once. A coin could do that half the time.

Ask him what’s the climate outlook for 6 months, 12 months, 5 years, and 10 years from now, and lets see the calculation he used to come to that conclusion.

……….

AGW? please explain the acronym

AGW Access Gateway
AGW Accident Generated Water
AGW Actual Gold Weight
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW All Going Well
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
AGW Audio Gateway

………

Because they decided, incorrectly I think, that letting one side frame the entire debate while you sit on the sidelines saying there is no problem is bad policy. But the IPCC can’t model past temperature, let alone future climate. None of their dire predictions has yet to come true. Their theory can’t explain cooling post-WWII or the current cooling, or why CO2 levels trail temp in all temp records and has been 20 times higher than at present with temp only 7C warmer. They really should refuse to play ball with the IPCC and their hired guns.

Will you still be yelling about AGW after the ice age returns? What would it take for you to consider the possibility that your pet theory is incorrect and fatally flawed and always has been? Why is every storm blamed on AGW, or as it’s now called, climate change? What’s next? Volcanoes due to AGW? Earthquakes? Meteor strikes?

A few years hence when the hysteria dies down it will be too late if we’ve surrendered our sovereignty to the Greens of the world, to the UN and to power-grabbing politicians. Then again, since all climate change, including cooling, is now due to AGW, they need never admit they were wrong.