SeaMonkey Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Ha! Talked to a mechanic that got the special certification to work on electric cars. You can't do it yourself, much to dangerous for electrical discharge. Can you imagine the lawyers getting a hold of this, another overly complicated device for a simple solution to get rich on. Just let the market solve it, it always does. Its all about "free" and "innovative" commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 SeaMonkey if you watch the movie you will see what im talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Do I really need to? The title tells me that I've already, as has the rest of us, watched too many movies....err... propaganda. I'll do an in depth examination back to the creation and allow my common sense to arrive at the conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 SC2 definitely has the right bang for the buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sy Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Ah, what's a liter? I only do gallons. Current price is $2.29/gallon, too high! -------------------------------- about 3x as much in the UK at $6.5 a US gallon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I got one for $1.839 the other day. In retrospect back in 1971 I got one for $.189. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 SeaMonkey you of all people(chemist)should realise that it is stupid to burn oil for fuel when there are so many better ways to do things.I see your from texas.Hm oil anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I will agree with one thing you allude to A234, there is rampant stupidity on this planet. Maybe I should burn coal or better, wood? Maybe my grass clippings and all the other stuff I chunk into my compost pile. All things starting off equal, possibly there was something more efficient, but with limited technology and insight, people usually take the road of less resistance. What's plentiful and easy to get, makes sense to use it. We build an infrastructure to acquire it and distribute it, add that to a new resource of energy. Its simple, when it becomes economically efficient, it will be incorporated, albeit slowly, because there is competition and competition is good, like SC gaming. Its commerce and commerce improves the human habitat or go back to your cave, naked in the cold. What are you going to burn there? Maybe you'd rather freeze.....or.. no....wait for global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Yea i get what your saying and it makes total sense but the science and tech.to do these things(non polluting power)has exisited for quite a while now.Only when the threat of a global catastrophy rears its ugly head do we act.Why not just prevent it from happening in the first place.But like you said the path of least resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Bio-ethanol will be eth way of hte future, probably from cellulose. It still pollutes of course, but the fuel cycle is neutral - every atom of pollution it puts into the biosphere has to be sucked out of the biosphere in the first place to grow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well SO, it might be a piece, but its not the conclusion. First problem is it will take much energy to produce, gather, process and distribute. Some of the infrastructure is compatible, but others will have to be expanded. Another problem is ethyl alcohol is hygroscopic and water and the internal combustion engine don't mix to well. Although some H2O is tolerable, it has a nasty habit of dissolving undesirable compounds into the fuel system. These undesirables have been used extensively in the processing and cleaning of hydrocarbons as a matter of chemistry and their ability to be separated down stream. ie, water and hydrocarbons don't mix. Now with the introduction of ethanol, a completely water soluble compound, there will be all sorts of contamination throughout the infrastructure that will have to be cleaned up. That cleaning and subsequent separation and disposable (hazardous waste) will cost a bundle. So you see its not so simple. Believe me, it used to be...simple...but now, with all the regulations, taxes, unfungible grades of fuel, the complications are half the increase in the cost, not the production of fuel. We've created new industries, mostly unnecessary, but with a purpose. What is that purpose? Well I'll sight the mult-million pages of tax codes the IRS can't even figure out, much less us common folk. Confusion? Distraction? Control? I don't have a crystal ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 It'll be a combination of new fuels and power sources, each used where it is best suited. Hopefully they get cheaper soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts