Jump to content

What if there is no such thing?

Rate this topic


basenjib123

Recommended Posts

What if there really is no giant oil company conspiracy and the vehicles that we have now are the most practical for our needs. It seems that many people assume that in the next decade or so we will magically have these TOW VEHICLES that will do the same if not better then what we have now?

 

I mean, I think we can safely say that the 500 MPG carb or whatever you want to fill in the blank with does not exist right or in the near future.

*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostWhat if there really is no giant oil company conspiracy and the vehicles that we have now are the most practical for our needs. It seems that many people assume that in the next decade or so we will magically have these TOW VEHICLES that will do the same if not better then what we have now?

 

I mean, I think we can safely say that the 500 MPG carb or whatever you want to fill in the blank with does not exist right or in the near future.

 

 

You are wrong. GM already had a car that ran on hydrogen. They had this technology in the 60's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostYou are wrong. GM already had a car that ran on hydrogen. They had this technology in the 60's...

 

But see thats what I mean, ANYONE can claim that but when it comes to providing the said technology...its no where to be see. Now, before people say its a conspiracy to silence those inventors etc There is no way in this day and age it is possible to do that...it just aint.

*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostThere is a conspiracy. It's called OPEC and it's quite real.

 

That's not so much a conspiracy as a monopoly. Conspiracies don't work too well when everyone knows what you're up to and we've pretty much got OPEC pegged. I think the point was that the secret petroleum conspiracy has kept any other form of alternative fuel from being developed, which is a pretty absurd theory.

 

Oil is king because nothing else will ever be more plentiful, effective, safe, portable and inexpensive. At least nothing else that we can't just pump out of the ground, pour in containers and use as is. If someone knows of a science that can produce energy more efficiently and cost effectively then they know something about science that no one else knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Postgas and tire companies did a lot to destroy mass transit systems back in the 40s and 50s.

 

 

But that was what "the people" wanted. That't the most important thing isn't it?kooky.gif

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostThere is a conspiracy. It's called OPEC and it's quite real.

 

But its not a conspiracy. It can't be, there is a little more common sense in the world than you give credit.

 

To believe there is some big conspiracy, you have to believe:

 

So everybody has a car that burns gas to get around. Most people have cars that burn a lot of gas, and people know full well how much they spend on gas.

So if some guy were to come up with a car that ran on water, and offered it for sale at the same price as a "regular" car, and they could go down the road and pay nothing more than a guy to pump water in a tank, they would buy it in droves.

You actually have to believe that nobody would buy that car, and you also have to believe that with all the giant brained people out there, there are guys that CAN build these cars but do not in order to further the agenda of some cat that owns an oil company. Thats a giant humungo stretch.

 

Face it, gas ain't that bad. One gallon of perfectly natural gasoline (comes right out of mother earth, all we do is boil it a little bit to ged rid of the sludgy stuff) will give me the ability to move a 6000 pound truck, pulling a 4000 pound trailer almost 20 miles at a velocity of 50 or 60 miles per hour.

Thats freekin remarkable if you ask me.

Sure I can buy a truck that runs on water just like the Space Shuttle, but I would have to sell my home buy the vehicle. What the hell is the point in that?

“My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.”

 

Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Post

Face it, gas ain't that bad. One gallon of perfectly natural gasoline (comes right out of mother earth, all we do is boil it a little bit to ged rid of the sludgy stuff) will give me the ability to move a 6000 pound truck, pulling a 4000 pound trailer almost 20 miles at a velocity of 50 or 60 miles per hour.

Thats freekin remarkable if you ask me.

 

Yep, you can move 10,000 pounds 20 miles with a single gallon of gasoline that costs $2.50. How much would you pay to get that 10,000 pound load moved 20 miles without it?

 

It's not that there aren't alternative energy sources. It's just that none of the rest are as practical and inexpensive - not by a longshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostYep, you can move 10,000 pounds 20 miles with a single gallon of gasoline that costs $2.50. How much would you pay to get that 10,000 pound load moved 20 miles without it?

 

It's not that there aren't alternative energy sources. It's just that none of the rest are as practical and inexpensive - not by a longshot.

 

That actually raises another point... if it takes 500 pounds of [alternative fuel X] to move a load as far as it will go on 5 pounds of gasoline, at a certain point the tradeoff becomes silly.

Quote:Originally Posted by Mark LevinLiberals tell you the government sucks, and they want more of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostI don't think it's very well understood at all or we wouldn't be counting on much less efficient and cost effective fuel to be a huge improvement on oil.

 

Well, on the other hand, the thing that both sides know but ignore "part" of is that we're looking for a new fuel as an "energy storage" medium, moreso than an 'energy creation' medium.

 

The eco-nazis ignore the fact that energy needs to be created elsewhere to be put into the energy storage medium, and therefore with poor efficiency, it's no better than gasoline combustion except for being able to point and shout 'PROGRESS lol'.

 

The right seems to ignore the fact that if we can find an efficient 'energy storage medium' that is easy enough (but not too easy, that'd be a terrorist's wet dream) to release the energy from, we could use nuclear power or clean coal or other such 'useful' means to generate the energy to produce the fuel.

 

I don't think the government should force progress for the sake of 'change', but neither do I think that we should do anything to toll the death knells of any potential alternative that comes along.

Quote:Originally Posted by Mark LevinLiberals tell you the government sucks, and they want more of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly right, GM. As far as I can tell, Nuclear power is the only energy source we have that didn't directl or indirectly come from solar energy - and not surprisingly, it generates energy in the same way the sun does.

 

Plants take the energy from the sun and that's what we burn for fuel. Hydroelectric energy is a conversion of kinetic energy from water, which, through solar power, is evaporated and dropped at high altitudes to flow downhill.

 

And there's a lot of solar energy. The problem is in efficiently converting it to a storage medium that can be readily used and portable and efficient. Oil has been, by far, the easiest and least expensive because virtually all the work required to convert the energy into a portable and highly efficient form was done for us naturally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...