Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 As far as i know, frying oil reserves arent decreasing, so your job is safe for quite some time. Other than the fact you're an inconsiderate moron, what made you decide to try to absorb JSP's perfectly good plug-in car thread into your vendetta against me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 As I said, I will not spend the next 50 pages debating the peak level of oil production with you. Do you, or do you not, have something useful to contribute to the discussion of how long global oil reserves are going to last? I think the more important question is: do you? You're already posted nonsense based on completely incorrect facts. When do YOU start contributing something useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think the more important question is: do you? You're already posted nonsense based on completely incorrect facts. When do YOU start contributing something useful? I'll take this as a no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'll take this as a no. I'll take that as a "I don't know anything myself, so I'm going to continue quoting wikipedia as a source." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I'll take that as a "I don't know anything myself, so I'm going to continue quoting wikipedia as a source." You can't let this go, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You can't let this go, can you? You're basing your contribution on a single Wikipedia article THAT'S INCORRECT. The only contribution you're making to the discussion is the same contribution you always make: proving you're a moron! Shut up, go back to the kids' table, and let the adults talk for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You're basing your contribution on a single Wikipedia article THAT'S INCORRECT. The only contribution you're making to the discussion is the same contribution you always make: proving you're a moron! Shut up, go back to the kids' table, and let the adults talk for once. You know what? This is the last time I'll reply to you in this thread. You obviously don't care about electric cars, or future fossil fuel availability, or anything other than your own petty crusade against me. And that crusade is ruining what ought to have been a perfectly good thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 @ JSP: I apologize for giving Tom more attention than he deserved. I'll make up for my mistake by trying to turn this discussion back into a debate about electric cars, instead of just another feces-slinging contest between Tom and I. Having seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I've learned that electric cars have very few moving parts. This means they don't need oil changes, or have most of the heat/dirt-related problems gasoline cars do. Hey, electric cars don't even have transmissions or engines! There's a lot less stuff to go wrong with an electric car. That said, the main problem is the battery. Lithium ion batteries have a memory effect. On the other hand, they're working to make new, better batteries. Not only for electric cars, but for their smaller cousins electric golf carts. And for laptops. I'm hopeful that with all the money being put into new battery research, something useful will emerge within the next ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Could someone pin a thread for HA, Tom and Ramius? !@#$ing please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So that they can continue to beat each other to death, for !@#$ing Christ sakes. Darin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 @ JSP: I apologize for giving Tom more attention than he deserved. I'll make up for my mistake by trying to turn this discussion back into a debate about electric cars, instead of just another feces-slinging contest between Tom and I. Having seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I've learned that electric cars have very few moving parts. This means they don't need oil changes, or have most of the heat/dirt-related problems gasoline cars do. Hey, electric cars don't even have transmissions or engines! There's a lot less stuff to go wrong with an electric car. That said, the main problem is the battery. Lithium ion batteries have a memory effect. On the other hand, they're working to make new, better batteries. Not only for electric cars, but for their smaller cousins electric golf carts. And for laptops. I'm hopeful that with all the money being put into new battery research, something useful will emerge within the next ten years. I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy here. Far from it. I just think that the people who are building these cars are trying to find a way to do it more profitably. That being said, imagine if you set up a diesel generator at home to charge this vehicle with, and used old cooking oil to power the generator? I bet you'd spend less than $250 a year on gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 @ JSP: I apologize for giving Tom more attention than he deserved. I'll make up for my mistake by trying to turn this discussion back into a debate about electric cars, instead of just another feces-slinging contest between Tom and I. Having seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I've learned that electric cars have very few moving parts. This means they don't need oil changes, or have most of the heat/dirt-related problems gasoline cars do. Hey, electric cars don't even have transmissions or engines! There's a lot less stuff to go wrong with an electric car. That said, the main problem is the battery. Lithium ion batteries have a memory effect. On the other hand, they're working to make new, better batteries. Not only for electric cars, but for their smaller cousins electric golf carts. And for laptops. I'm hopeful that with all the money being put into new battery research, something useful will emerge within the next ten years. I thought Li-ion DON'T have a memory effect... I thought just Ni-Cad did... ??? Like I said... Our electric carts suck maint. wise and sart-up cost... Finicky too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 That being said, imagine if you set up a diesel generator at home to charge this vehicle with, and used old cooking oil to power the generator? I bet you'd spend less than $250 a year on gas. .. and probably won't care that you'll be spending an additional $250 a year for corn-based foods. (haven't taken physics in a while, how does that saying go, every action has an equally opposite reaction?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I thought Li-ion DON'T have a memory effect... I thought just Ni-Cad did... ??? Like I said... Our electric carts suck maint. wise and sart-up cost... Finicky too! Any rechargable has a "memory". Some just less than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 As far as i know, frying oil reserves arent decreasing, so your job is safe for quite some time. If everyone converts to biodiesel there will be a shortage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 .. and probably won't care that you'll be spending an additional $250 a year for corn-based foods. (haven't taken physics in a while, how does that saying go, every action has an equally opposite reaction?) What's your estimate on the existing stocks of food oil in the nation? It has to be billions of gallons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 What's your estimate on the existing stocks of food oil in the nation? It has to be billions of gallons. Something I don't have a good handle on is how the logistics of such a system will work. Not all bio-diesel generation methods are same and not all bio-diesel is the same (unlike gasoline which has small variation in its properties and performance). There are processes based on making this from cooking oil, bio waste, cellulosic material (pulp) etc. My question is how does a manufacturing facility for bio-diesel maintain a steady, predictable supply of raw material that is both similar in quality and has a cost-effective transportation system ??? Right now, liquid & gaseous products are shipped primarily by pipeline which is very efficient in the long run. How will it work for the above raw materials ?? I can understand small facilities or proof-of-concept type factories but large, dependable producers ? I think not. Atleast not enough to make a significant dent in the supply of overall diesel product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) What's your estimate on the existing stocks of food oil in the nation? It has to be billions of gallons. In addition to what FiC said, the issue is not the existing stock of food oil, but the incremental amount you will need to produce for fuel. Ethanol is still a tiny portion of fuel additive, yet it's already roiled the corn market in the Americas. Imagine what will happen to price of the commodities when farmers need to produce it as food & fuel. And to add to the issue of transporting the new fuels, good thing that the railroads are accident proof. Edited March 12, 2007 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy here. Far from it. I just think that the people who are building these cars are trying to find a way to do it more profitably. That being said, imagine if you set up a diesel generator at home to charge this vehicle with, and used old cooking oil to power the generator? I bet you'd spend less than $250 a year on gas. I'm not sure about any conspiracies myself, but I do think companies act in their own economic self-interest. The fact that an oil company bought up the rights to that new battery technology doesn't exactly please me. The biodiesel generator you mentioned is a good idea on a small scale. It's better to have old cooking oil put to use than it is to throw it away. But ultimately, there's only so much old cooking oil to go around; and our energy needs far exceed what cooking oil can give us. There are four main sources of energy: the sun, nuclear power, tidal energy, and geothermal energy. Wind power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the wind to blow. Likewise, all non-tidal hydroelectric power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the water cycle. Fossil fuels are really solar, because you're just harvesting solar energy from millions of years ago. What I'm getting at here is that most energy sources are simply a way to convert the sun's energy into something we can use. Biodiesel is no different: corn plants soak up sunlight in order to grow. You turn those plants into cooking oil, and use that oil to power your generator. That's fine, but it's not necessarily the only means we should be employing to turn solar energy into electricity or kinetic energy. What about the corn stalks? Why not burn them to generate more electricity? Why not burn yard waste or other bio-debris? I admit this isn't the cleanest energy source one could hope for, but at least it's renewable. And it doesn't contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, because you're just releasing back into the atmosphere whatever carbon those plants absorbed during their lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'm not sure about any conspiracies myself, but I do think companies act in their own economic self-interest. The fact that an oil company bought up the rights to that new battery technology doesn't exactly please me. The biodiesel generator you mentioned is a good idea on a small scale. It's better to have old cooking oil put to use than it is to throw it away. But ultimately, there's only so much old cooking oil to go around; and our energy needs far exceed what cooking oil can give us. There are four main sources of energy: the sun, nuclear power, tidal energy, and geothermal energy. Wind power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the wind to blow. Likewise, all non-tidal hydroelectric power is really solar, because the sun provides the energy for the water cycle. Fossil fuels are really solar, because you're just harvesting solar energy from millions of years ago. What I'm getting at here is that most energy sources are simply a way to convert the sun's energy into something we can use. Biodiesel is no different: corn plants soak up sunlight in order to grow. You turn those plants into cooking oil, and use that oil to power your generator. That's fine, but it's not necessarily the only means we should be employing to turn solar energy into electricity or kinetic energy. What about the corn stalks? Why not burn them to generate more electricity? Why not burn yard waste or other bio-debris? I admit this isn't the cleanest energy source one could hope for, but at least it's renewable. And it doesn't contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, because you're just releasing back into the atmosphere whatever carbon those plants absorbed during their lifetimes. HA, That is one post with so many wrongs that I don't know where to start. At the beginning perhaps. 1. I don't know which oil company bought which battery company. But if you are referring to fuel cells, then it is hardly classified as a battery. I do know that several oil companies are investing in research for future fuel sources because they know that oil will end someday. This is a political and long term business decision. I am sure if an oil company did NOT invest in such technologies, they would be bashed for attempting to let those technologies die due to lack of funding 2. Agree on the cooking oil concept - we just do not consume enough cooking oil in an average household to make any significant amount of energy 3. Classifying everything as based on solar energy is very weird. We exist due to the sun - that does not mean we are solar life forms. Typically, the issue is time related - how much time does it take to convert said source into usable energy. If the runs rays hit a photovoltaic cell and make current, that is solar energy. Waiting for a tree to die, decompose in the sun and then get converted to oil does not classify as solar energy. So your entire classification of 'main sources of energy' is outright wrong. 4. Burning debris and saying that it is CO2/CO neutral is also a weird argument. The goal is for all incremental sources of energy to produce less emissions than the one they are replacing. Whether you agree with global warming or not, it is irrefutable that any means that increase the amount of CO2 is not acceptable. The worls is slowly going out of balance with respect to greenhouse gases. You have to look at the global picture and not a microcosm such as a biome with corn stalks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 That is one post with so many wrongs that I don't know where to start. At the beginning perhaps. What a !@#$ing shocker. Welcome to our nightmare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts