LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2005, 02:53 PM   #61
phil.d.g
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,272

Rep: Reputation: 153Reputation: 153

Quote:
Originally posted by Donboy
I own an SUV myself, but it's only a 4.3 liter engine, so I consider it to be more of a "conservative" SUV and not a gas-guzzling monster like the Ford Expedition. I looked at that when I was shopping for my Blazer. It gets something like 10-13 miles to the gallon. That's pretty damn pathetic.
I know this has already been commented upon but jesus you consider a 4.3l a small engine! I'd love to see how you get on with driving that thing here in the UK. I drive a small hatch with a 1.5 litre diesel engine. My dad's 3.5 tonne van still has only a 2.5 litre turbo diesel in it, do you even have engines this small?

As for the economy 13mpg I do about 200 miles a week mostly motorway drving and get 60 miles to the gallon. I am wanting to get a new car, but seeing as the make/model I'm looking at only does 40mpg I was wondering if I could afford it.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 04:35 PM   #62
floppywhopper
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Western Australia
Distribution: Mageia , Centos
Posts: 640
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 134Reputation: 134
link to wikipedia article about OPEC

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

just as a matter of interest, of the 11 members only 6 are in the middle east.

here's the OPEC home page

http://www.opec.org/home/

floppy
 
Old 03-15-2005, 07:39 PM   #63
KimVette
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Lee, NH
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS, RHEL
Posts: 1,794

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by gulo
Harishankar, I agree & I think there needs to be some pretty strong government mandates to get things really rolling. The technology appears to exist today, it just needs to be implemented.

A good start might be to mandate something like the following:

* All new construction (both commercial and home) must utilize PV or wind power and remain on the grid.
Great. You just drove up the price of the average home between $20K and $50K, when housing is already priced ridiculously high.

Quote:
* Offer large tax breaks and directly subsidize the PV and Wind Power industries.
Subsdize NOTHING. Taxes need to be CUT. Where the hell do you think subsidies come from? That's right - taxes.

Typical liberal thinking. "Gee, let's subsidize the world. Yay socialism!!" *PUKE*

Quote:
*Mandate that all cars and trucks sold in the US must be capable of running on bio-fuels for a period of 5 years (say 2007 thru 2012 model years). This would be very easy for the auto manufacturers as they already have much of their fleets running on E85. Diesel trucks and cars are already capable of running on Bio-D as-is. After the 2012 model year, all non diesel cars and trucks must be ethanol dedicated & optimized.
This is almost reasonable; exemptions must be made to grandfather in existing vehicles.

Quote:
* Mandate that all new gas stations must offer E-85 and any new Diesel pumps must serve a bio-D blend.

* Mandate that all large chains must offer E-85 within two year's time. Small independent stations within 5 years.
Nope. Don't require businesses to offer products they don't want to. Let the market decide, and let the folks who are willing to take the risk and enter the market early reap the reward.

Quote:
* Subsidize the building of modern cellulose ethanol production facilities.
SUBSIDIZE NOTHING!!! In order to subsidize a business, you have to get the money from somewhere - it will either result in tax increases or in borrowing from social security. NO! Incentives such as tax breaks are a better option since the only loss is a small delay in tax revenue from the infant business.

Quote:
(snip more liberal tripe)
 
Old 03-15-2005, 10:32 PM   #64
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
The questions I would like to pose to those who support oil-drilling are:
  1. Do any of you seriously believe that fossil fuels will be around for ever?
  2. Is it not prudence to conserve the fossil fuels and concentrate more on technology that will allow the world to shed the dependence on oil?
  3. Are short term economic benefits more important than long-term freedom from energy crises?
  4. Are you willing to pay the price today for the sake of improving your quality of life and the quality of life of future generations by investing in clean, renewable energy sources that won't pollute the environment?
Sadly, most people tend to answer (in order):
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Yes
  4. No
to these questions.

Last edited by vharishankar; 03-15-2005 at 10:33 PM.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 10:57 PM   #65
BajaNick
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Distribution: Slack 11
Posts: 1,737

Rep: Reputation: 46
I have to drive a gas guzzling van for work. There are many occupations in the US that require the use of large vehicles.

No, fossil fuels will not last forever but by the time they start to die out technology will have evolved to the point that we will have started to switch over to a more environmentally friedly fuel or totally different way of transportation, maybe something like the Jetsons or maybe even star trek but that wont come for a while, at least a couple decades.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 11:09 PM   #66
KimVette
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Lee, NH
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS, RHEL
Posts: 1,794

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Harishankar
The questions I would like to pose to those who support oil-drilling are:
  1. Do any of you seriously believe that fossil fuels will be around for ever?
  2. Is it not prudence to conserve the fossil fuels and concentrate more on technology that will allow the world to shed the dependence on oil?
  3. Are short term economic benefits more important than long-term freedom from energy crises?
  4. Are you willing to pay the price today for the sake of improving your quality of life and the quality of life of future generations by investing in clean, renewable energy sources that won't pollute the environment?
1. Do you believe the world will be around forever? Heck, the Sun has barely four billion years left (God and such aside)
2. The alternatives need to be practical and attainable before people can use them
3. Yes
4. See #2. It is a conditional yes. Can an ethanol-powered car net 400hp in my Corvette? It would, until it corrodes the fuel system components. See, there has to be a reasonable alternative fuel, and one that eats fuel system components is not an option.

(before you liberal weenies bash me for driving such a car - let me point out that my ZR-1 gets better fuel mileage under normal driving conditions than many cars that you folks probably drive - like Camry, Maxima, accord, etc. My car only sucks gas when I have the opportunity to drive like a nut when I travel out west where I can see from horizon to horizon - or when I only drive a short trip where the car never warms up enough to get out of open-loop mode)
 
Old 03-16-2005, 12:26 AM   #67
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
You have dodged all my questions and instead resort to name calling (liberal weenies?), KimVette.

If the alternatives are not practical today, then more effort should be put in that direction rather than digging for more oil and risking running out of it sooner than we can handle the crisis when it comes.

Bring in millions of years (lifespan of the sun) and comparing it to a scale of half a century (50 years) is ridiculous. Oil will run out *much* sooner than the sun will burn out.

You know what? One day (and this will happen in our generation, unless you happen to be 90 years old), all you people will have no choice but to embrace alternative technology or travel around in bullock carts and horse carriages in true medieval fashion. The energy crisis and environmental issues are much more serious issue facing humanity than what the small-minded, short-sighted politicians at Washington DC can even contemplate. I guess it's either all too much for you people to fathom or you are deliberately turning a blind eye to it.

Stop scoring cheap points by resorting to name calling and dubbing every concerned citizen as a "liberal weenie".

Last edited by vharishankar; 03-16-2005 at 12:32 AM.
 
Old 03-16-2005, 08:07 AM   #68
darkRoom
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Valencia, espaņa
Distribution: Slack, Gentoo, Custom
Posts: 162

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quick think of something stupid to tell the dumb tw**ts

Quote:
Urgent: Call 1-888-WILDAK (1-888-894-5325) to speak or have a fax sent to your local Senators to voice support for oil exploration in Alaska and off the East Coast. It's as easy and only takes a minute of your time to end dependence on foreign oil, reduce our trade deficit, improve our own ecomomy, and to crush the Middle Eastern terrorist-supporting economy by supporting production of domestic oil.
Because investing in home grown alternative technogies isn't going to end dependance on foreign oil (forever), clean up the enviroment, create jobs etc. And never mind that the middle eastern 'terrorist supporters' are generally the countries the US govt. has armed or supported before.

Why is it that some people in the US can't seem to evaluate a political proposal for what it exactly is. Kimvette you seem blinded by an irrational prejudice to anything perceived as liberal regardless if it makes sense or not.

Last edited by darkRoom; 03-16-2005 at 07:37 PM.
 
Old 03-16-2005, 08:31 AM   #69
KimVette
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Lee, NH
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS, RHEL
Posts: 1,794

Rep: Reputation: 46
You need to re-read my posts.

True conservatives are FOR conservation but recognize that alternatives need to be practical before the cutover from fossil fuels can be achieved. True conservatives WANT to cut over because it's in their best economic interests to do so. However, liberal weenies don't recognize that the silly thing called "reality" gets in the way and because they live in fantasy land they think that subsidies (which they think grows on trees or something) will magically cause alternatives to be developed overnight and enable us to fully cut over to alternative power sources tomorrow.
 
Old 03-16-2005, 08:37 AM   #70
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
The rational approach to the issue should be to look at the long-term especially when the long-term is not a million years but the near future (less than a hundred years).

Short-term economic goals are important, but when it's something that concerns the planet and the prospect of facing a major energy crisis in the near future (next 100 years and not a million years as KimVette implies), then the short term economic goals should be sacrified.

Sadly nobody will listen to sense. The majority of people are more concerned about whether their petrol cost 0.5 cents extra or whether it'll be cheaper by 2 cents next month rather than worrying about whether petrol will be available at all in the forseeable future and in your very own lifetime.

To all those who support this oil drilling, I just say wake up -- learn the facts. Fossil fuels are depleting at an alarming rate and will *not* be replenished for all practical purposes. Anybody who studied Geography at elementary school should know this. If you think otherwise, I can only shake my head sadly at your colossal ignorance. If the current rate of consumption keeps up, then the end might be nearer than you can imagine.

Accept that you might not always have petrol to fuel your cars. Here in India, LPG is already being used by cabs and public transport in some cities. The change is slow to come and for sure, the technology is still at its infancy, but the progress is being made. In future I think ethanol based fuels should gain more currency.

Again, it's easy to turn a blind eye to all these issue and pursue short-term satisfaction. It's hard to accept change, but hasn't change always been mankind's constant factor in the history of the world? The technology is there. The political will to promote it is lacking. It is people who blindly resist change who refuse to believe that there can be an alternative to fossil fuels.

I have pretty much said all I want to and I strongly believe that the future lies not in seeking more oil to burn and in the process pollute the environment, but in seeking clean, renewable and practical sources of energy.
 
Old 03-16-2005, 09:07 AM   #71
KimVette
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Lee, NH
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS, RHEL
Posts: 1,794

Rep: Reputation: 46
Where did I say the pending crisis is a million years away? Hint: I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, thankyouverymuch.

Typical liberal. All one needs to do is read through the thread to realize I never stated anything nor implied anything of the sort. In fact, I even recognized the need to cut over to alternatives as soon as it is practical to. Furthermore when I have a house built I fully plan to have it solar heated using a design I've had in mind for years (my dad was a plumber so I grew up around the technology and have an appreciation for it). That won't be a replacement for LNG or heating oil though, because sometimes solar heating just won't produce enough to maintain comfortable temperatures around the clock, even with phase-changing heat storage systems. Trust me; I've grown up around alternative technologies and know firsthand what the limitations are but I still intend to use them to the extent that it is practical. One thing I won't bother with is photovoltaics but I plan to buy property in Halifax, MA, which tends to get a fair amount of wind so I'll be investigating the practicality of a windmill or two.

Now that is the truth. I am not against conservation but I am against the liberal agenda of stopping ALL production (it's akin to a miser sitting on millions all his life and die having never spent a dime - what the hell is money good for if you never use it?). The reality is that alternatives are being developed. Practical alternatives are blocked at every turn (e.g., the commie Senator Kennedy--who claims to be an environmentalist blocking the windfarm off of Nantucket Sound because it'd "be unsightly" as he cruises in his yacht, liberal weenies blocking clean, cheap, responsible nuclear power, etc.)

Ditto for the liberals who consistently block clean incinerators which would solve BOTH power production AND trash disposal problems - cleanly, thanks to stack scrubbers -- and claim to be environmentalists. WTF? Hullo? Free fuel, cheap power, and reduction of the use of landfills which pollute watersheds? Knock knock, mcfly, is anyone home?

Last edited by KimVette; 03-16-2005 at 09:15 AM.
 
Old 03-16-2005, 04:53 PM   #72
floppywhopper
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Western Australia
Distribution: Mageia , Centos
Posts: 640
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 134Reputation: 134
Actually alternatives to Petrol such as methanol have been around for a long time, its just more profitable for now to sell petrol and deisel.

For example, late model German fighters in WW II like the Messerschmitt 109-G and Focke Wulf 190-D & 152-H used methanol and water injection to boost performance. Think .... that was sixty years ago and in most places methanol is still an experimental proposal.

True : methanol by itself tends to burn out valves thats why they inject water as well, to keep the temp down and as water turning into steam expands to about 2000 times the volume, the steam aids power production and also serves to minimise harmful emisions.

If engines manufacturers put as much effort into cylinder heads as McDonnell Douglas and Boeing put into the rear end of Jet engines then Methanol wouldnt burn out piston engines. And I've yet to see in production the ceramic engine that the Japanese developed only a few years ago.

Same old story, like you see in the computer world, a ruling paradigm fighting all challengers with FUD campaigns, illegal trade practices, buy-outs etc etc

I don't have a problem with your big fast car Kimvette, after all I'd love an Jaguar XJ-S myself, I just have an issue with an industry that keeps us all dependant on crude oil in the same way Microsoft wants to keep the world dependant on Windows.

live long and prosper everybody
floppy
 
Old 03-16-2005, 09:15 PM   #73
microsoft/linux
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Sebec, ME, USA
Distribution: Debian Etch, Windows XP Home, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,445
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 48
In case people didn't know, unfortunately the part about oil-drilling will not be removed from next years budget. However, the vote was 51-49.
Call your representatives tell them that you ask that they either fillibuster the budget or vote against it. The drilling cannot start until the budget gets passed.

Call your representatives/senators

Please note:In maine we have two republican senators, neither of them voted for the bill. They both voted to get this removed!
 
Old 03-16-2005, 09:53 PM   #74
trey85stang
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,091

Rep: Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally posted by trickykid
Am I crazy, I don't think so. I just believe that we should vote to protect the environment on something that would have such a small impact on our economy and so-called oil supply than ruin land in a long lasting effect that should be protected in its original condition.
where does this we stuff come from? This is your opinion. If you want to preach it.. preach it... If you think all people should vote for it.. do more about it. You can run for office, you can protest in alaska before the drilling is to start.

I on the other hand could care less... I see eath only have a 20-30 years lefft anyways.. why wait and protect a small amount of land?
 
Old 03-16-2005, 10:11 PM   #75
speel
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 354

Rep: Reputation: 30
man .. this is just another G W Bush vs kerry debate no one is right or wrong lol no use in fighting over it
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black Sea oil J_K9 General 14 10-28-2005 07:03 PM
The Iraq War: was it for oil? primo General 51 09-07-2005 01:42 PM
SUSE 9.2 ftp - no software proposal alanbarnard SUSE / openSUSE 3 03-19-2005 01:57 PM
A Modest Proposal shane25119 General 4 09-30-2004 06:24 PM
Alaska Penguin captgoodnight Linux - General 16 09-07-2002 04:01 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration