Fuel of the Future

[Matra et Alpine]

Aah, but it's an investment, think about the money made now and in the future. (Assuming the offspring shares their income with their parents.)

ha-ha-ha, I really TRIED to laugh that one off.

Kids NEVER seem to get the hint and actually PROVIDE income

[henk4]

Mate that would have to rate as one of THE best comebacks I have received in recent memory

Touche!

my pleasure

[henk4]

yeah but think of all that money you woudl have saved over those decades !!!

You could be sitting in a retirement villa in the med soaking up the sun and enjoying a nice cool wine

and having to visit Pebble Beach and other stuff on my own expenses?

[Matra et Alpine]

and having to visit Pebble Beach and other stuff on my own expenses?

but, when you add up what they cost us over the years you could afford to have the headlining car at Pebble Beach and fly first class !!!!!

[henk4]

but, when you add up what they cost us over the years you could afford to have the headlining car at Pebble Beach and fly first class !!!!!

I am now in his pay back period, and I thank everybody on this site for their assistance

[P4g4nite]

Well, this argument can be carried on to the extreme.

That's fine, I like taking things to the extreme.

Any burning of fossile fuels is harmful for the environment and if you cannot proof that the power for using your computer does not originate from fossile fuels than you might as well stop posting, because yours is a damaging act. Nuclear generated electricity is of course out of contention and I bet that power generated by windturbines or hydropower stations will be carried to your home through media that have in one way or other been created by using some fossile fuels (plastic cables, isolation etc).

OK, good points all, however.

1) Wind turbines, solar cells and the cables associated do not produce ongoing pollution whenever they are making power.

2) There is a difference between polluting (however limited) because of need versus polluting (however limited) because of a leisure activity.
The power that comes to my house today is most likely natural gas generated, it's too overcast for the solar panels to produce anything, this power runs the computer I'm doing research on as well as the the freezer but also the television which is mostly for entertainment and the water heater because I like hot showers.
However, all these appliances would run fine on solar/wind whatever, they only run on gas because that's all there is.
(We've looked at getting a big battery like one from a diesel Sub to store excess solar, but they are a bit expensive ATM...bugger)

Summarising, this will be an eternal bone of contention, and nobody has the answer to how much fossile energy each individual is entitled too.

Only while people are still not prepared to take any responsibilty or the state of things, the general attitude I see is "do whatever it takes to get me power just don't do it near me".
You hear far more complaints about wind turbines than you do about smog belching coal plants because turbines are close to homes and quite overt but coal plants are nicely tucked out of sight. But which is hurting people?

P4g4nite, I think you are exaggerating. As Henk said, we'd better stop living alltogether.

Ridiculous, Henk didn't say that.
You don't need to stop living so much as change the way you live. I honestly can't get over the way you said I was exaggerating. Do you have a word for hypocrisy in Belgium?

Aah, but it's an investment, think about the money made now and in the future. (Assuming the offspring shares their income with their parents.)

If you look just above Henk's avatar, you'll see which way the money still seems to be going

[henk4]

2) There is a difference between polluting (however limited) because of need versus polluting (however limited) because of a leisure activity.
If you look just above Henk's avatar, you'll see which way the money still seems to be going

Two points singled out:
1. The subtle difference between polluting because of need versus polluting because of a leisure activity. Who decides what is necessary? Will the necessity also depend on the degree of pollution? What are the standards for that? Many people also consider leisure activities necessary, in view of being able to "refuel" to carry out their non-leisure activities.

2. The car in my avatar is not mine

[Matra et Alpine]

1) Wind turbines, solar cells and the cables associated do not produce ongoing pollution whenever they are making power.

First and last cause visual pollution.
Second causes MAJOR pollution during manufacture. Don't know life of modern panels but only 5 years ago a panel didnt return the energy footprint consumed in its production in its lifetime !!! ( You'd expect this to improve with new technologies/manufacturing etc )
Cables DO introduce pollution and often in important areas as wind and large scale solar are put in out of way places to make the visual and aural pollution acceptable.
There are arguments being made in Scotland that the windmills have scared away natural migatory birds. Whether they suffer or jsut find somewhere else the protagonist coudlnt' answer BUT as a hillwalker I have to say one of the WORST things is the sound and at night those bloody red aircraft warnign lights Some of the best unspoilt views of Scottish wilderness have been ruined - and we dont have that many yet.

so in the land of pollution SOME are jsut more equal than others

[P4g4nite]

Who decides what is necessary?

I did earlier, needs are the basic requirements for life. Food, shelter, water that stuff.

Many people also consider leisure activities necessary, in view of being able to "refuel" to carry out their non-leisure activities.

I do consider leisure necessary for emotional wellbeing. But that doesn't justify doing whatever makes you happy, we have to act responsibly in a way that is sustainable to have a future.

The car in my avatar is not mine

Ah, what I meant be 'above' your avatar was the "supporting member" sign. Does that make more sense now?

snip

I see you agree with my "not in my backyard" theory people are happy to have power but they don't want it happening near them.

Then I guess we'll have to decide whether a life that involves compromise and sacrifice for sustainability is still worth living, or if we should keep going as we are until it ends up like 'Mad Max'.

Incidently, can you send me anything on pollution from solar cell production? I'd like to learn something from this thread, it's been all fun so far.

[Matra et Alpine]

I did earlier, needs are the basic requirements for life. Food, shelter, water that stuff.

I think you're missing that variability on what is acceptable.
Does "shelter" mean a 4 bedroom house with acre of land or is it a plastic cheet slung over a rope ??
Is handful of rice every day enough or does it need to be a super-sized big-mac ?
See there is a HUGE variation in what is "basic requirement" across the world.

I see you agree with my "not in my backyard" theory people are happy to have power but they don't want it happening near them.

No, I was pointing out that their is pollution from ALL generation and if you live in a city then the carbon monoxide bothers YOU, if you live in Scotland highlands then the noise and visual bothers you. So whose "backyard" is more inmportant ???

Incidently, can you send me anything on pollution from solar cell production? I'd like to learn something from this thread, it's been all fun so far.

It was old stuff as I'd said.
Did a quick google to see if anything was updated and no real succes EXCEPT that life of modern PVs is now stated as 30 years ( it used to be in the 4-5 years ) so clearly ALREADY we're getting back on teh positive side. The same google DID confirm that we're still using nasty chemicals which need manufactured and cleansed which is where a lot of the "cost of energy" came from. I'll see if I might still have an old article on file fomr back when we looked at them for use in our instruments.......

[henk4]

I did earlier, needs are the basic requirements for life. Food, shelter, water that stuff.

I do consider leisure necessary for emotional wellbeing. But that doesn't justify doing whatever makes you happy, we have to act responsibly in a way that is sustainable to have a future.

Ah, what I meant be 'above' your avatar was the "supporting member" sign. Does that make more sense now?

I see you agree with my "not in my backyard" theory people are happy to have power but they don't want it happening near them.

Then I guess we'll have to decide whether a life that involves compromise and sacrifice for sustainability is still worth living, or if we should keep going as we are until it ends up like 'Mad Max'.

Incidently, can you send me anything on pollution from solar cell production? I'd like to learn something from this thread, it's been all fun so far.

People had all what you describe as needed well before the arrival of fossile fuels, which could mean that we could go back to that level if required. At a certain moment in time somebody defined "mobility" as a human need. That is probably when it started to go wrong.

Re the supporting membership: Somebody has to pay for the costs that allows us to have this discussion. I am eagerly awaiting your contribution too

[Cedric]

P4g4nite, the word in Belgium for hypocrisy is hypocrisie, and I think you are a beautiful example: you keep harping on about responsibility, yet you're driving cars. So if you have the opportunity to stop driving, do so. What I detect in your point of view is a note of modern day hypocrisy, since you counter my argument, which -for the umpteenth time- says alternative energy sources are OK, but keep some fossile fuel available for the extremely limited number of car, racing boat and aircraft enthusiasts, by saying that even this massive reduction of pollution it woiuld entail is horrible. i can't see why you are against a reduction of pollution, which you are not of course, but what you can't stand is the fact that a small amount of people would keep on polluting (a really tiny bit that is) for their own pleasure. So what? It's no match for the bulk of the pollution in the world. You couldn't possibly do away with all the pollution, perhaps if you lived in medieval times, and even then som rivers were more contaminated than they are now.
What I notice here is the adverse effect progressive governments have on some people: although the environment is highly important, and lots of things are done about it, and very often succesfully, people are becoming more and more intolerant. the same happened with smoking (mind you I am a non-smoker): although smoking isn't allowed anywhere in Belgium, lots of people complain and nag when they happen to be walking in the draught of a smoker trotting in the street, whereas a decade or two ago, people were smoking everywhere (restaurants, trains, public buildings, ...). Those intolerant people should be very happy about the present situation, so I'm wondering why they are still complaining. To me they just seem to be a bunch of nitpicking drivellers. Cars may well be in the same boat sooner or later. I know one thing for sure, in Belgium it's murder to keep an old car on the road, and some politicians have a lot up their legislative sleeve in order to have them taken off the roads (I am not dreaming this up, it was intimated to me by the Belgian minister of transport).

[Helverson]

6speed i disagree 100% the future car will never run on air.

[sunk]

6speed i disagree 100% the future car will never run on air.

And why not?

[nota]

And why not?

Indeed sunk .. why not?

For those of open mind this novel engine makes for interesting reading. It's patented & already in production
http://www.engineair.com.au/

And this
http://www.theaircar.com/

Even more intriguing is the possibility of engines in the future being fueled by .. would you believe .. iron oxide
http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ar...vf=3&bg=5&pp=2