Clean energy future and Carbon Tax
Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:11 AM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:21 PM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:51 PM
Only thing is, now, all engines will wear out faster, thus causing more and more cars to go to wreckets much earlier in life, ie no more 500,000 kms on the odometer anymore, lucky to get 80,000 out of your poisipnous battery hybrid tractor beam drive!
Where do they end up?
In landfill, and the chemicale leach out into the,,,,,,
Air we breathe and water we drink!
Good on the greenies and the EPA
Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:03 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:10 AM
I chew nails, and spit rust, drink my avgas, fart methane in copious quantities.
Whats that song "You're an asshole"??
Yeah, thats me, right, yeah, greenie EPA Sea Sheperd dudley bloody do-rigjts!
Posted 16 January 2012 - 12:18 AM
Seems I was born in the wrong era... Ah well nobody said modern Engineers need to be greenies
Posted 16 January 2012 - 01:05 AM
just have a look at how much energy it take to make a Toyota bat car its so funny that its called a green car lol
It takes the average owner 120,000km to bring the prius to "carbon equivalent" to an economical petrol of the same size. It's a funny number because it's also the number that most users get to before the batteries need to be changed, making them INCREDIBLY environmentally UNFRIENDLY compared to a normal car.
But that's ok, they use less fuel to drive and are therefore good for the environment.
I'm not putting electric vehicles down, I think they are a fantastic idea and the work being done to improve electric/battery technology is fantastic, it's just that they aren't yet as environmentally friendly as everyone touts, the opposite in fact.
Posted 16 January 2012 - 05:18 AM
I came across this Croatian guy who build a really quick BMW which he converted to electric when the old ICE blew up.
He has now build the Concept One which is 1 of the nicest looking Super Cars I've seen in a while.
The running cost of an electric vehicle is significantly lower than an ICE powered car, but right now they are relatively expensive along with the battery technology which is still being improved and will only continue to improve. When I think of the engines we use now they just seem so primitive compared to electric and I personally would love to build an electric powered car myself.
In fact my rotary engine decided to flood itself this weekend and I've been trying to unflood it (without much success just yet) and part of me is just over it, part of me is thinking this wouldn't happen to an EV. Now I know EV's will have their own problems, but not needing to worry about radiators (mine is leaking), intercoolers, exhuast systems, intake manifolds, valves, pistons, cylinders, camshafts, crankshafts, bearings, oil pressure, oil leaks and all the other stuff that goes along with current engines seems like a welcome change for me .
Of course i'll always love my vintage cars and I think oil will always be available to them, but they will become more like special occassion vehicles.
When I think of all the possibilities of integration with your mobile phone, ipad, android tablet etc.. and your EV I see lots of possibilities. Like management of range, charge status (when you're at your desk and the car is on charge), maps, navigation, music libraries etc..
I also really like this concept
Posted 16 January 2012 - 11:45 PM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:44 AM
I guess I'm concerned that we might get punished for owning an old car by being made to pay more taxes, higher rego and green slips, restricted usage, making owningship less attractive. I know this sounds a little dramatic, but I do believe that things will get tougher. They are planning to do home audits to rate how efficient your home is. Maybe the 240z owner in 2020 will have a\ some sought of electric motor replacement so as to comply with new emission targets.
Vintage vehicles have always been protected because they have history which is important to preserve. I doubt they would impose that on 40+ year old vehicles.
As we know they make up a very small percentage of cars on the road and hence would make very little difference having them on the road.
What I would like to see however is stricter road worthy laws and testing in Australia. Here in Ireland the UK there is compulsory testing every 1-2 years ( depending on vehicle age) as part of the test there is an emissions test done. This would make many second hand vehicles in Australia drop in value as many would be unfit for general road use and people who have to maintain their vehicles to a higher standard.
Having cars in better tune would reduce emissions, whilst at the same time making newer cars such as electric more attractive. New electrics being lower maintenance etc.. and also attracting less road tax due to no emissions.
40 + year old vehicles could be exempt from this form of testing (as they are here) and will always appeal to nostalgic rev-heads like us. But let's face it most of us would drive a boring electric to work and do all the wear and tear on that rather than drive our 40+ year old classics into work everyday etc.. So they will remain a speciality use vehicle.
Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:59 AM
Posted 17 January 2012 - 09:10 AM
Global Warming doesn't exist. Carbon Tax can suck my balls.
They'll look back at us as the generation that came up with global warming (never existed), and how the government got rich for doing nothing and all the big companies left Australia just like they said they would, which caused massive unemployment.
Oh and the EPA is so two years ago.
It's DERM now. Department of environmental resorce management.
Posted 17 January 2012 - 11:33 AM
Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with....
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:13 PM
sure its not Department of Environmental Resource Protection.
Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with....
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:32 PM
But I'm going to continue to enjoy the luxuries I have, I'm here for a good time, not a long time.
Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:41 PM
Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:08 PM
Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM
“...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009) Taken from a skeptic site. http://www.skeptical...-consensus.htm.
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"-PNAS: William R. L. Anderegga, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera. Expert credibility in climate change
Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:32 AM
Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:30 AM
But this isn't just about an opinion. An opinion is whether a 240z looks better painted red or painted blue. This is about scientific facts. You don't get to have an 'opinion' on whether the Earth is flat or round - it is round, it's a simple fact.
Earlier opinions about anthropogenic climate change are at best uninformed, at worst, simply an act of denial. I am willing to guarantee that the people with those opinions haven't read the scientific literature. haven't spent any time reading broadly across the climate change debate and certainly aren't familiar with the underlying data. And don't point to a single web site that supports your views - anyone could do that for ANY point of view. I've spent the last 20 years training to understand that data - and the fact is climate change is happening and that the only logical conclusion for why it is happening at the rate it is, is that humans are causing it. Carbon dioxide causes climate change, humans cause carbon dioxide.
Yes everyone has a right to their opinion. In this case the opinions are simply wrong, there's no sugar coating it.
I like Al Gore's description of climate change as an 'inconvenient truth' - none of us want it to be true, it just is, and now we have to deal with it.
It's funny how people hate the carbon tax. For almost everyone it won't cost them any more money. All it tries to do is create an incentive to use less energy - install a solar system and you will be ahead of the game. The real crime is that the people who have financially benefited from creating the pollution (largely big energy generators and big industry - with millionaire CEOs and rich shareholders) are being given a heap of help to 'cope' with a carbon price. Basically they got rich making the mess and now the country has to try and pay to deal with it. Now that annoys me...
We need our cars to become more efficient (and cars like the Prius are important test beds for developing the technology to allow that to happen). That's the only way to stretch our oil reserves so that we can drive our Zeds in the future. There was a great Top Gear episode where they try to get Jay Leno to slag off the Prius - and he basically says that energy efficient cars are great, that's what will leave oil available for my classics to be driven.
I like that guy's style.
I drive my classics (and my SUV) - and carbon offset them. I try to keep them tuned and I try and drive as efficiently as I can (although we all fang it now and again - you've just gotta). I reckon most of us do the same and our Zeds are probably not big environmental villains. We just need to hope that we can manage oil reserves and carbon dioxide in a sensible way so that no government does do a knee-jerk reaction and ban old cars.
(steps down off his soapbox).
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users