How about overweight/obese people have to give up their cars(until they’re no longer overweight/obese)?
Two birds, one stone anybody?
Increasing life spans and decreasing birth rates mean the young have to produce more to support the old. That’s a problem. Technology helps.
Water is a pretty serious issue. Desalination currently takes a lot of energy, technology is going to have to improve.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
Overpopulation? It’s underproduction![/quote]
Bingo.[/quote]
I agree , over population is a relative term. We can only produce so much food, fuel , energy, or pollution before we throw something out of whack, If man went more towards a grain or green diet , our earth would support much more human life, same with the automobile , if every one turned theirs is for a bicycle . We know this will never happen unless we are forced by either necessity or force .[/quote]
if everyone turned their car in for a bike you would not solve anything. we would go backwards. instead of having access to everything you do now, you would be self limiting yourself in the name of a made up problem.
need energy? - build nuclear reactors oh wait, a green hippy doesnt want that in their backyard… oh well, we can build wind turbines - nope, what about the birds !!! hydroeletric - what about the fish! coal (very available in the us) - NO the di hydrogen oxide will kill us !!!
people need to get over the myths and embrace technology…
Also, anyone who thinks a hybrid is going to solve the worlds problems is an idiot… where do you think the lithium and other rare earth metals used to make the battery come from? and under what conditions were they mined? when you can answer that one, the conversation can continue…
[/quote]
But they run on electricity, which comes from the little magic holes in the wall. How can that be bad…?
[/quote]
the advantage of using the energy that comes through those little holes in the wall are, you are not pigeoned holed into using one enrgy source as with oil
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self 
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
if you really want a revolutionary car this is what we need. fuel cells running on hydrogen. At my last college we had a demonstration RC car that used solar cells to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. The fuel cell then used that hydrogen and oxygen to make energy powering the car and converting the gasses into water. it was a closed loop system. 2 hours in the sun = 20 minutes or so of driving at full out… if we worked on efficiencies there that is revolutionary…
Also, I know for a fact the department of energy was doing a lot of work on reducing the costs using cheaper materials… why these are not getting more coverage i still dont know.
I think there’s been more improvement in harnessing solar energy than any other green alternatives in recent decades. I’m not sure why that is.
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
if you really want a revolutionary car this is what we need. fuel cells running on hydrogen. At my last college we had a demonstration RC car that used solar cells to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. The fuel cell then used that hydrogen and oxygen to make energy powering the car and converting the gasses into water. it was a closed loop system. 2 hours in the sun = 20 minutes or so of driving at full out… if we worked on efficiencies there that is revolutionary…
Also, I know for a fact the department of energy was doing a lot of work on reducing the costs using cheaper materials… why these are not getting more coverage i still dont know.[/quote]
That’s actually really cool. I remember talk about those types of vehicles a few years ago. The biggest problem I heard was the lack of infrastructure. It would take a forward thinking group of people to make that a reality. My only concern is, how does the car prevent explosions in the event of a crash? A fuel cell full of hydrogen sound very dangerous in the event of a crash.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think there’s been more improvement in harnessing solar energy than any other green alternatives in recent decades. I’m not sure why that is.
[/quote]
My guess would be because there’s really not a lot of opposition to solar as there is to other forms of energy as someone stated earlier. Also, the efficiency with which we capture energy is very low in solar. It is also an expensive source of power to produce at the moment. Bringing the cost down could lead to more widespread use.
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]
New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]
New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]
Northern Virginia’s public transportation system is so fucked
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.
It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]
no it’s not. You don’t even have the imagination with your mighty self-delusion skills to make up a semi-credible reason to how the environmentalist can control us with this .
If anything the people at the top running corporation wants the earth to become MORE populated in order to be able to collect more material of the bottom of the pyramid.
You don’t have a clue of what is happening out there and so do I. But I have data to show that the ressource of the world are becoming more scarce by the day and that the more the population will go up the shittier it will be.
But I will tell you why you are your kind will deny this until you die until stomped by other people. It all goes back to our animal past. Avidity, or the desire to collect every ressource available, was a trait that helped the animal that had it to survive. The desire to exploit every ressource possible is now deep into us.
Now everyone whose rationnal prime over their animal part can agree that we would be better off with a population decrease. Environmentalist are part of those people. I mean, they want to limit themselves and reduce the nomber of specimen with future in their mind? What the fuck is this animal.
But hey that’s just mass propaganda fear controlling green subsidies whatever. insert super demogagic video with dramatic music
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]
New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]
Northern Virginia’s public transportation system is so fucked[/quote]
My Brother used to commute via train from WVA to DC, he loved it , I have heard that you can commute from DC to NYC via train , high speed rail would improve that
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think there’s been more improvement in harnessing solar energy than any other green alternatives in recent decades. I’m not sure why that is.
[/quote]
My guess would be because there’s really not a lot of opposition to solar as there is to other forms of energy as someone stated earlier. Also, the efficiency with which we capture energy is very low in solar. It is also an expensive source of power to produce at the moment. Bringing the cost down could lead to more widespread use.
[/quote]
If you look at the cost of solar energy (without government subsidies) you would never be able to pay for the solar panel before it got damaged / stoped working. The silicon solar cells are extremely expensive (similiar single crystal production to a computer microchip)… as such, they take more money / energy to make then they themselves will produce…
Geothermal is making headway for homes now and that is something that, as an engineer makes good sense and is worth the money…
Fuel cells are actually pretty safe when it comes to car accidents… hydrogen turns to a gas and evaporates very quickly if you where in a crash. thats not to say you couldnt have an explosion, but its not a lot more dangerous then gasoline… which evaporates slower and poses a lot more of a threat…
The interesting thing about building a hydrogen infrastructure is we are basically already there… all a gas station would have to do is bury another tank (hydrogen tanks are a bit more complex since hydrogen can escape almost any container eventually and weakens steel so it has to be a fiberglass / carbonfiber tank)… add in a high pressure lockable pump (new pump) and your set… We actually get hydrogen and CO2 tanks filled from AirGas and we just pull up with the tanks in a truck and fill them a lot like you would an extra gas can…
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.
It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]
no it’s not. You don’t even have the imagination with your mighty self-delusion skills to make up a semi-credible reason to how the environmentalist can control us with this .
If anything the people at the top running corporation wants the earth to become MORE populated in order to be able to collect more material of the bottom of the pyramid.
You don’t have a clue of what is happening out there and so do I. But I have data to show that the ressource of the world are becoming more scarce by the day and that the more the population will go up the shittier it will be.
But I will tell you why you are your kind will deny this until you die until stomped by other people. It all goes back to our animal past. Avidity, or the desire to collect every ressource available, was a trait that helped the animal that had it to survive. The desire to exploit every ressource possible is now deep into us.
Now everyone whose rationnal prime over their animal part can agree that we would be better off with a population decrease. Environmentalist are part of those people. I mean, they want to limit themselves and reduce the nomber of specimen with future in their mind? What the fuck is this animal.
But hey that’s just mass propaganda fear controlling green subsidies whatever. insert super demogagic video with dramatic music[/quote]
environmentalists are the new comunist party… you have to create a lack of something so that then a special group of elite thinks / people can tell me, what i can have / not have…
As an engineer i deal with environmentalists all the time… most of their opinions (and thats what they are) are not based in science at all… they pray on fear and work your emotions… Just like you did above… you want to demonize people who disagree with you (feelings) and not use 1 ounce of scientific data… Yes, we use more resources as a people, but thats also why we recycle… if the material is recycled it can be used over and over again…
Also, as a material amount decreases, more expensive means of extracting that material open up new opertunities that did not exist when a material was plentiful / cheap… As an example, the OIL SANDS IN CANADA… when oil is cheap, its not worth sqeezing oil out of sand, when its expensive, it becomes profitable…
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Now everyone whose rationnal prime over their animal part can agree that we would be better off with a population decrease. Environmentalist are part of those people. I mean, they want to limit themselves and reduce the nomber of specimen with future in their mind? What the fuck is this animal.
[/quote]
why do liberals always refer to people not being smart enough to disagree with them?
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.
It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]
no it’s not. You don’t even have the imagination with your mighty self-delusion skills to make up a semi-credible reason to how the environmentalist can control us with this .
If anything the people at the top running corporation wants the earth to become MORE populated in order to be able to collect more material of the bottom of the pyramid.
You don’t have a clue of what is happening out there and so do I. But I have data to show that the ressource of the world are becoming more scarce by the day and that the more the population will go up the shittier it will be.
But I will tell you why you are your kind will deny this until you die until stomped by other people. It all goes back to our animal past. Avidity, or the desire to collect every ressource available, was a trait that helped the animal that had it to survive. The desire to exploit every ressource possible is now deep into us.
Now everyone whose rationnal prime over their animal part can agree that we would be better off with a population decrease. Environmentalist are part of those people. I mean, they want to limit themselves and reduce the nomber of specimen with future in their mind? What the fuck is this animal.
But hey that’s just mass propaganda fear controlling green subsidies whatever. insert super demogagic video with dramatic music[/quote]
environmentalists are the new comunist party… you have to create a lack of something so that then a special group of elite thinks / people can tell me, what i can have / not have…
As an engineer i deal with environmentalists all the time… most of their opinions (and thats what they are) are not based in science at all… they pray on fear and work your emotions… Just like you did above… you want to demonize people who disagree with you (feelings) and not use 1 ounce of scientific data… Yes, we use more resources as a people, but thats also why we recycle… if the material is recycled it can be used over and over again…
Also, as a material amount decreases, more expensive means of extracting that material open up new opertunities that did not exist when a material was plentiful / cheap… As an example, the OIL SANDS IN CANADA… when oil is cheap, its not worth sqeezing oil out of sand, when its expensive, it becomes profitable…[/quote]
I think we live in a world of disinformation, If a certain point of view benefits your perspective , then the standard operating procedure is to let untruths go unchallenged .
I agree , geo thermal has been arounf a long time
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think there’s been more improvement in harnessing solar energy than any other green alternatives in recent decades. I’m not sure why that is.
[/quote]
Until alternatives become cheaper than hydrocarbon, we will remain a hydrocarbon based world.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]
New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]
One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
But I will tell you why you are your kind will deny this until you die until stomped by other people. It all goes back to our animal past. Avidity, or the desire to collect every ressource available, was a trait that helped the animal that had it to survive. The desire to exploit every ressource possible is now deep into us. [/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .
I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .
You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self
One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]
That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]
New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]
One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[/quote]
I have been there , it is cheap to ride they would have no problem doubling or tripling the fare . It is truly worthy of a Government subsidy