Fossil energy harming the enviroment

R

Rune

Mjölner
Everything from acid rain to mercury build up in otherwise healthy to eat fish can be laid at the feet of fossil fuel use, to say nothing of atmospheric carbon imbalance, trade deficit and national security concerns.

Mowing down mountains and filling rivers/valleys in pursuit of coal is awesome too right Yurtard? Fracking looks like some real safe shit too,
and blowout preventers are too expensive.

What a never ending hack you are.
 
The Dude said:
most advancement in the industrial age can be laid at fossil fuels feet too. thank me later
Click to expand...

Yet there were coices which could have been made. For example, deisel engines were designed to run on vegatble oil. The design needed to be changed to work with petroleum oil.

100 years ago, 1/3 of all motor vehicles were electric. Someone in Detroit decided to build gas cars instead of electric.

Meanwhile, now that we know there are alternatives, we should be working towards eliminating burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, rather than delaying the inevitable.

Oil companies need to take the lead in developing alternative fuels, if they wish to stay in the energy business. They certainly have the resources as well as the infrastructure to do so. If they stay with their present agenda, they will simply be passed by.

Oil (and coal) will alsways be needed for manufacturing, especialy with the population exploding. China is already experimenting with portable manufactured housing, of which plastic (oil) plays a large roll.
 
Rune said:
Thanks for the bump, which seems to be the only value your post has.
Click to expand...

thanks for blindly following the clueless idiots in your party on energy. I am not for increased supply and lower prices. Although that's the only thing you libtards use praying for.
 
Rune said:
Everything from acid rain to mercury build up in otherwise healthy to eat fish can be laid at the feet of fossil fuel use, to say nothing of atmospheric carbon imbalance, trade deficit and national security concerns.

Mowing down mountains and filling rivers/valleys in pursuit of coal is awesome too right Yurtard? Fracking looks like some real safe shit too,
and blowout preventers are too expensive.

What a never ending hack you are.
Click to expand...

I think you sig is all we need to determine your credibility. Thanks.
 
what a lame troll copycat thread.

did i say fossil fuels don't harm the environment? no. you're just a lying troll too doped up to think straight.
 
The Dude said:
thanks for blindly following the clueless idiots in your party on energy. I am not for increased supply and lower prices. Although that's the only thing you libtards use praying for.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific? There are so many clueless idiots in my party that I have no idea to whom you are refering.
 
Rana said:
Is this the political post you wish me to debate?

Do you see any kind of pattern here, Yurtle?
Click to expand...

yeah...i see you dishonestly pointing out a minority of my posts that are ad homs, while ignoring the majority of my posts which are about issues. you are so hypocritical. you ignore all of zappa's, dune's et al....ad homs and only single me out.

try honesty for once rana. try actually picking out a debate post and let's go from there. i could easily pick out only ad hom posts by darla and do the same thing you're doing. but i won't. why not pick out an actual debate post.
 
Yurt said:
link up to 1/3 of cars were electric
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

Acceptance of electric cars was initially hampered by a lack of power infrastructure, but by 1912, many homes were wired for electricity, enabling a surge in the popularity of the cars. At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. 33,842 electric cars were registered in the United States, and America became the country where electric cars had gained the most acceptance.[SUP][14][/SUP] While basic electric cars cost under $1,000 (in 1900 dollars, roughly $28,000 today), most early electric vehicles were massive, ornate carriages designed for the upper-class customers that made them popular. They featured luxurious interiors, replete with expensive materials, and averaged $3,000 by 1900 (roughly $84,000 today). Sales of electric cars peaked in 1912.
 
Rune said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle

Acceptance of electric cars was initially hampered by a lack of power infrastructure, but by 1912, many homes were wired for electricity, enabling a surge in the popularity of the cars. At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. 33,842 electric cars were registered in the United States, and America became the country where electric cars had gained the most acceptance.[SUP][14][/SUP] While basic electric cars cost under $1,000 (in 1900 dollars, roughly $28,000 today), most early electric vehicles were massive, ornate carriages designed for the upper-class customers that made them popular. They featured luxurious interiors, replete with expensive materials, and averaged $3,000 by 1900 (roughly $84,000 today). Sales of electric cars peaked in 1912.
Click to expand...

so essentially fossil fuel powered cars were far cheaper. makes sense from their viewpoint back then. there is an oil field between santa barbara and san luis obispo that was considered the largest oil field in america during that time period. it is now considered a small oil field, not because of oil taken, rather because of other oil fields. i don't think they considered oil as a non-renewable energy source. now that we know...we should do all we can to move away from oil dependence.
 
Yurt said:
so essentially fossil fuel powered cars were far cheaper. makes sense from their viewpoint back then. there is an oil field between santa barbara and san luis obispo that was considered the largest oil field in america during that time period. it is now considered a small oil field, not because of oil taken, rather because of other oil fields. i don't think they considered oil as a non-renewable energy source. now that we know...we should do all we can to move away from oil dependence.
Click to expand...

No to the first part of your post.
Due to technological limitations and the lack of transistor-based electric technology, the top speed of these early electric vehicles was limited to about 32 km/h (20 mph).[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Despite their relatively slow speed, electric vehicles had a number of advantages over their early-1900s competitors. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. Changing gears on gasoline cars was the most difficult part of driving, and electric vehicles did not require gear changes. While steam-powered cars also had no gear shifting, they suffered from long start-up times of up to 45 minutes on cold mornings. The steam cars had less range before needing water than an electric car's range on a single charge. Electric cars found popularity among well-heeled customers who used them as city cars, where their limited range proved to be even less of a disadvantage. The cars were also preferred because they did not require a manual effort to start, as did gasoline cars which featured a hand crank to start the engine. Electric cars were often marketed as suitable vehicles for women drivers due to this ease of operation; in fact, early electric cars were stigmatized by the perception that they were "women's cars", leading some companies to affix radiators to the front to disguise the car's propulsion system.

Yes to the second part of your post.
 
Rune said:
No to the first part of your post.
Due to technological limitations and the lack of transistor-based electric technology, the top speed of these early electric vehicles was limited to about 32 km/h (20 mph).[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Despite their relatively slow speed, electric vehicles had a number of advantages over their early-1900s competitors. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. Changing gears on gasoline cars was the most difficult part of driving, and electric vehicles did not require gear changes. While steam-powered cars also had no gear shifting, they suffered from long start-up times of up to 45 minutes on cold mornings. The steam cars had less range before needing water than an electric car's range on a single charge. Electric cars found popularity among well-heeled customers who used them as city cars, where their limited range proved to be even less of a disadvantage. The cars were also preferred because they did not require a manual effort to start, as did gasoline cars which featured a hand crank to start the engine. Electric cars were often marketed as suitable vehicles for women drivers due to this ease of operation; in fact, early electric cars were stigmatized by the perception that they were "women's cars", leading some companies to affix radiators to the front to disguise the car's propulsion system.

Yes to the second part of your post.
Click to expand...

nothing in your link disproved the first part of my post.
 
Yurt said:
nothing in your link disproved the first part of my post.
Click to expand...

At the time that edison's order for propulsion batteries was canceled in Detroit, electrics outnumbered gas almost 2-1.

By the way, the original edison batteries still work, if intact. Edition batteries never wear out, the liquid electrolite wears out instead.
Edison batteries are still manufactured, but not in this country. One could readily build (or have built) an electric vehicle which would never need replacement batteries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top