More than one car?

RE: Unfortunatly I don't know much about the technology and science behind all this stuff.

I know about the technology and the science. H2 is not a fuel source, it's a vector for energy. Most people know you can electrolyze water to get H2 - and think "wow! Fill your car with water!" or something - but the electricity involved is too great to make that viable.

The politics are already sewn up. The H2 will come from oil.

 

So what is an example of a clean energy source that would be even potentially viable for transportation? Solar? God, I hope we have more than that...

 

Solar isn't viable - it costs more in energy from oil to build the panel than you ever get out of it.

You could always rig up sails.

Or use animal or human power.

We really ARE screwed when oil runs out. The only real viable alternatives are things like biodiesel, butanol and the like - problem is, and this is a big problem, that at rates of consumption (a function of number of human beings) it's lose-lose. You have to grow the crops, then turn a portion of that into energy.

The only hope we have is to grow as many plants as humanly possible - but we're using all arable land to try to keep ourselves fed.

Biodiesel and the like means honestly that we'll start paving the rainforest to grow soybeans.

 

I already use solar power and hydrogen...it's just been stored up for millions of years. But I do want alternatives to that. There're things like wood and corn oil, anyway.

 

The EPA is going after motorcyclists - banning most kinds of engine in an attempt to reduce emissions from bikes by 80%. This is for a class of vehicle responsible for less than 1% of the emissions on the planet.

In so doing, they're putting an end to motorcycling as we know it, and subjecting the rider to terrific risk. Are you aware of how HOT that catalytic converter next to your leg is gonna be? What happens if you break down between towns? Call a tow truck?

Like they will allow a wood-fired vehicle.

 

That is retarded. Go after the people driving Hummers - motorcycles are the most fuel efficient vehicles out there. If I wasn't terrified of some idiot rear-ending me I would get one. My dad loves his, he drives 60 miles to work every day, and spends next to nothing on gas.

 

RE: That is retarded. Go after the people driving Hummers - motorcycles are the most fuel efficient vehicles out there. If I wasn't terrified of some idiot rear-ending me I would get one.

It is indeed. But then again, in the USA you have Schwarzenegger insisting that 1960s vehicles conform to the latest emissions standards, while driving his Hummer, which will NEVER conform to them (an exemption cause he's cool apparently)

New laws say that I can only build one bike project in my lifetime. If it's stolen or lost, crashed whatever TOO BAD.

This is ridiculous and insane.

Oh yeah, and if I build one, and the frame snaps on the one I have now, I can't fix it.

 

http://www.mrf.org/pp-epa-for-the-layman.php

 

And this is a federal law? This is some of the craziest shit I have heard...Do they have similar laws for those building hotrods? (I bet they don't)

 

Of course not. Hot rods are built by rich white guys.

And yes, this is a federal law which most people don't even know about.

 

i don't know that it pays to get too smug about these things, like this is our immutable way of life and so on and we'll drive what we like, where we like and when we like. what i foresee happening is that petrol will cost something like $10 per gallon by next year (and this is an estimate that comes from an economic newsletter i received yesterday) in the usa, and more in places like australia and europe. it will continue to rise as demand exceeds supply. this is the sign of the times now and there'll be no going back. so, while there's still some time left wouldn't it make sense to start conserving as much petrol as possible and thinking about how you will live your life without a car? this is not a fairy tale, this is our short-term future i'm afraid, so better start getting used to the idea now. i'm afraid for many of us who are unwilling to be realistic, or unprepared for the change when it comes, and it will be sudden, it will be a terrible shock. many of us will look back to the time when petrol was still relatively plentiful and cheap and wonder what the hell we were thinking in not making plans NOW to conserve and make alternative arrangements.

 

When this happens there will be mass starvation.

Luckily we've just figured out how to get oil out of shale at $30 a barrel.

 

Why not? Wood'd be a fine and renewable energy source.

 

Sure they're necessary. People gotta get around. They're certainly not a bad thing.

 

Kids are socialized into our lifestyle. Here's a site with a nice big gas guzzling Cadillac SUV that kids can drive. It even comes with its own gas pump!

I saw a TV commercial for one of these, and the parents had big proud smiles on their faces knowing their kids were driving a great big SUV.

http://www.kidswheels.com/

 

All those kids need now are a couple of cell phones and some road rage.

,

 

so doesn't it make sense to do all we can to forestall that happening?

***

 

wrong. fuel efficient an m.p.g. are 2 different thing's, yes motorcycles do get good mileage but they are not efficient. actually less efficient than most car's.which is what the e.p.a. is going after, the catalytic convertor wouldnt get much hotter than the present exhaust system of most bike's, they only get extremely hot when they are fed a fuel rich, exhaust. look at the technology suzuki is using on it's new quad's, they come with O2 sensor's, map sensor, fuel injection,crank an cam sensor's, an electric fuel pump's, wouldnt take much more to put a catalytic convertor, and air pump. but being effecient isnt what they are going for ,performance is the goal. btw i believe the most fuel efficient "internal combustion engine" would be a turbo diesel.

 

The exhaust gases themselves are typically hotter when the mix is lean. Rich cools it down.

Unburned fuel in the exhaust can end up burning in the catalytic and make the temperature go far above where it should be.

There's talk about putting another catalytic converter on cars but closer to the engine. The converters on cars today are farther downstream and take a while to heat up.

.

 

catalytic convertor's get hotter when a fuel rich exhaust is present. yes a rich burn would give you lower exhaust temp , at the exhaust valve and in the combustion chamber. but when that same rich exhaust enter's the cat. temp's climb . same as unburned fuel does. the newer gm truck's have 2 catalytic convertor's with 4 o2 sensor's, 2 of those are preheated 02 sensor's, they heat the air around them to adjust for cold weather, so they're only unefficient temporary.