New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by kb, Jun 23, 2006.

  1. kb

    Matt Whiting Guest

    True, as is energy from oil and gas. However, the definition of solar
    energy (or any other for that matter) tends to be related to the
    somewhat "real time" availability of that energy. Oil is solar energy
    with a VERY long time constant. Corn is less of delay, but still not
    what most would consider solar energy. However, I'm certainly not
    opposed at all to research in this area, but I really think that the
    world's need for food will make crop based sources of energy a very
    short-lived solution at best. I think we're much better served looking
    for ways to directly use solar, wind and water (wave) energy and to use
    all energy more efficiently and wisely (conservation).


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Jun 25, 2006
    #81
  2. kb

    ray Guest

    Well yes, that was part of it. Before these places started closing up,
    they were running at 60% capacity.
     
    ray, Jun 25, 2006
    #82
  3. kb

    mrdancer Guest

    Taxpayers, of course. Just like most of the other gov't. subsidies.
    Eliminate the subsidies and that money can be used for something else, like
    emergency management...
     
    mrdancer, Jun 25, 2006
    #83
  4. kb

    Bill Putney Guest

    Mr. Keating posted a figure of 1% as the "biomass solar efficiency" of
    ethanol and biodiesel. I asked for a definition of "biomass solar
    efficiency", and you posted in reply that it (biomass solar efficiency)
    was more like .05%. Though my original challenge was to Mr. Keating, to
    define it, since you responded with another figure for this nebulous
    "biomass solar efficiency" term, I asked you to define it. You quoted a
    number for biomass solar efficiency, and you don't like me to ask you to
    define it? You are quantifying a term (the .05% that you posted) and
    I'm not allowed to ask you to explain what the term (and therefore your
    number) mean?

    Umm - no - things are touchy-feely when numbers are given for terms that
    the person giving the numbers refuses to define - THAT's touchy-feely.

    Do you have a definition of "biomass solar efficiency" or not? When I
    asked, you said the usage of the term "solar" in there appeared to be
    *my* requirement (see your quote above), yet you are quantifying it
    (.05%) - apparently without knowing what the term means.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Jun 25, 2006
    #84
  5. Well, you snipped gross yield numbers and now claim I don't know what
    you are asking. Once again, the number is meaningless in isolation. It
    says nothing about your net yield.

    But if you must, call gross hydrocarbons 1000gallons/acre equivalent
    ethanol x nutrients supplied by the farmer.

    1000 * 77kbtu * 2.9E-4 (kwh/btu) / 4047= 5.5kwh/year/meter^2. Call
    incident radiation 5.5kwh/day, so .2% for switchgrass. .05% was a number
    from the past, probably corn, I don't recall now.

    So, what does this tell us now that I've backed your precious number
    with numbers? You must have something in mind to be so anal about it. As
    you are incapable of using a calculator and doing your own homework, I
    don't expect much.

    --
    "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
    George W. Bush.

    "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
    sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
    Vice President Dick Cheney
     
    Dan Bloomquist, Jun 25, 2006
    #85
  6. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Ray is one of those ppl who are going to have a bumpy ride when reality sinks
    in.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #86
  7. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Since 'clean' fuels exist in other countries too, it's pretty damn obvious that no
    US political party is the reason.

    How can you possibly be so parochial ?

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #87
  8. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Yes, it's called efficiency like using CFL lighting and *NOT* driving SUVs and
    trucks frivolously.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #88
  9. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Uh ? What's that supposed to mean ?

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #89
  10. kb

    ray Guest

    I don't live in other countries, I live in the US where it IS political.
     
    ray, Jun 25, 2006
    #90
  11. kb

    ray Guest

    Yes, that's part of it.
     
    ray, Jun 25, 2006
    #91
  12. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Simple mathematics really.

    Seems to be a scarily popular idea in the USA.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #92
  13. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    With that attitude, you are indeed classicly parochial. Try getting out a bit.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #93
  14. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Part of 'living within one's means'.

    No matter whether current reserves of oil are x% or y% exhausted they won't be there
    for ever. We need to have a net energy balance that's *sustainable*.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 25, 2006
    #94
  15. kb

    Bill Putney Guest

    I'm not sure, but the right answer of course is. . . tah-dah . . .
    petroluem.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Jun 26, 2006
    #95
  16. kb

    Eeyore Guest

    Which is why mineral wool ( for example ) makes so much more sense as an
    insulator.

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Jun 26, 2006
    #96
  17. kb

    flobert Guest

    I got a family of 5. even McD is only $20, chili's is $35 tops.

    Back when we used to baudget closely (don't ask why) $250 would do us
    for a month.
     
    flobert, Jun 26, 2006
    #97
  18. kb

    Eric Gisin Guest

     
    Eric Gisin, Jun 26, 2006
    #98
  19. kb

    flobert Guest

    and you just pointed out the BIG flaw with all this. The US economy
    becomes extremely dependant on corn. Right now corn is the core of the
    Us food industry (and I prefer grazing cattle meat to grained cattle
    meat) - adding the country's fuel economy onto it is just asking for
    trouble.

    Seems no-one in the US studied recent history that wasn't centered on
    the US, else they wouldn't forget about the last country that put
    their reliance on a single crop, Ireland and the spud.Right now, the
    Us is as corn-centric as the irish were on their king Eddies, and you
    want to ADD to it for fuel.

    If I were a terrorist, I wouldn't bother attacking people - biowar can
    be just as good against infrastructure, and a corn-crop vector is one
    thats not been discussed. Regardless, the bigger the dependance on
    corn, the more its grown, the more its grown the sooner a mutation
    man-made or natural, that affects corn will happen, and then there
    will be a corn blight. Not only then is the ford system finished, but
    the fuel that corn would ahve provided is gone too.

    Wake up and THINK people. Its not exactly advanced bioscience. Crop
    blights can happen and do happen. disease vectors come and go quickly,
    and in the wild can ruin crop production for a year or two. What
    would a year or two without corn do for the high-fructose corn syrup,
    cattle, and now fuel industries.
     
    flobert, Jun 26, 2006
    #99
  20. kb

    Bill Putney Guest

    OK - thank you.
    Let me put it this way: I get sick and tired of hearing pseudo
    statistics thrown into discussions that can affect public opinion and
    legislation when it's clear that the person throwing the numbers into
    the discussion haven't a clue as to their meaning. Apparently this is
    not the case with you, but since the OP never did post back to answer my
    question, I assume that it is the case with him (most likely he was
    quoting a parameter he heard or read without him really understanding it
    himself). You hear this kind of thing in newscasts all the time, and
    most of the public don't know enough to even question it, so it gets
    into the public opinion arena, and our lives get affected by
    pseudo-science-driven legislation.

    A perfect example of this was in this thread earlier today: "The
    environmental subsidy for Oil is in the ~590$ per barrel range" - all
    based on false assumptions that make up today's pseudo-science.

    So - yes - when it comes to discussions about things that have an effect
    on our lives and future, we need to get anal about the numbers and their
    implications.
    Yes - amazing how I got an engineering degree and P.E. license without
    being able to use a calculator (actually the transition from slide rule
    to calculator started when I was in school). But I know you said those
    things because I pissed you off, so I don't take them personally. :)

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Jun 26, 2006
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.