positivetennis Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I remember when leaded petrol was deleted and people with classic cars were concerned about what was going to happen. As we all know, lead additve became part of filling up. However these new environmental bills that were past last year may have more far reaching consequences for people with older cars. With hybred, plug-in electric cars, starting to hit the market in greater numbers in the next few years (i.e: Volt, Leaf) (Even talk of the next zed being hybred) I was wondering whether anyone had any thoughts about this. I know in other countries governmentd have been increasingly making it more difficult to register their cars, as well as offering incentives to trade in their old car if they bought a new fuel efficient one. There is talk in Australia of "Smart Meters in homes " , as well as "Home audits for enviro efficiency", which sounds a bit full on. Any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 For homes, I think its a good thing, they use a lot more energy than a single car. For cars, the recognition is already there for older cars, eg. classic car and vintage car categories, plus club and rally registrations etc. I'm not overly concerned about it until oil is no longer in use... I doubt BP, Shell and Mobil will have a bar of that any time soon and by the time it happens, our Datsuns will have fallen to bits with rust... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dat2kman Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 And the EPA will tell us that harmful additives, like zinc, in our oil is banned, as it is in the air and the oceans. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter mc Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dat2kman Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Yeah, energy sucker cars! 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agno Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 My car which is 35 years old and does 16L/100 will always be more carbon neutral than a brand spanker electric car whose batteries have a life expectancy of 10 years and are loaded with chemicals. Seems I was born in the wrong era... Ah well nobody said modern Engineers need to be greenies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whittie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators gav240z Posted January 15, 2012 Administrators Share Posted January 15, 2012 The lithium in batteries is recyclable, I think electric cars are good. But I don't really go in for this Hybrid shit. I came across this Croatian guy who build a really quick BMW which he converted to electric when the old ICE blew up. http://www.rimac-automobili.com/evaluation-vehicles/e-m3-video-gallery-vp12 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 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/92314-nissan-leaf-can-power-your-house-for-a-day-or-two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivetennis Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators gav240z Posted January 16, 2012 Administrators Share Posted January 16, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Global Warming doesn't exist. Carbon Tax can suck my balls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB30X Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Global Warming doesn't exist. Carbon Tax can suck my balls. +1 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nizm0zed Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 sure its not Department of Environmental Resource Protection. Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 sure its not Department of Environmental Resource Protection. Because DERP seems a lot more appropriate to the rulings they actually come up with.... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Well, polar ice caps are melting and animals are becoming more scarce, I attribute the ice melting to a natural warming of the planet that is due to occur prior to an ice age. As for the animals, well lets face it, there way too many humans on this planet than we can sustain, hence mass starvation in Africa etc. Sure, there probably is enough food in the world to feed the starving and as harsh as this sounds, we can't sustain the resources to maintain that growth of population. Its a really sad state and we have no idea just how we lucky we are to even own a Datsun, let alone have food on a plate. But I'm going to continue to enjoy the luxuries I have, I'm here for a good time, not a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbscobraZ Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I can't believe there are people out there that are soo blissfully ignorant and unaware of the damage being done to the in environment as we speak. Go look at the top of a coal fired power station or the tailings that mines put back into the waterways. Would you like to breathe what's coming out the top of the power station or drink from the water that is contaminated? Skeptics can go bury their heads in the sand just as long as they promise to keep them there. Climate change is not "ah we have had 2 degrees hotter on average for march", climate change is the GRADUAL changing of weather patterns and our climate due to many factors both natural and anthropogenic. Climate change is a natural phenomena however it is being accelerated by some human activities. In saying this my personal opinion is that the carbon tax is completely wrong. I have studied economics and what they are trying to do is very simple and in theory it works well, but in practice, in this economy now it is a complete nightmare. They are trying to promote structural adjustment to cleaner energy and more environmentally friendly ways of doing things. However in practice they money will not be spent on renewable energy or environmentally friendly ways of doing things rather it will just inflate prices for consumers and drive up the cost of living. If the government was serious about climate change they would reduce our reliance on mining, coal fired power stations, water recycling plants that are powered by clean energy ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 So we should all bury our heads in the sand because we have a different opinion? As you stated, the above is your opinion, not fact, so we should all bury our heads in the sand... Fuckin Troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbscobraZ Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 My personal opinion is on the Carbon Tax. Anthropogenic climate change is fact. I'm not a troll I've been apart of this forum for multiple years. Do some research. “...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.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-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 http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/anthropogenic-climate-change-expert-credibility.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Making personal attacks on people with different opinions is trolling champ, regardless of your previous number of posts... I can't be bothered finding a link to some research to prove my point because your not worth the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieZed Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 True enough, personal attacks are uncool. 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). My 10c. R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 That was my point, I'm not going to bother quoting a website. My problem with the Carbon Tax is that the goal is not good enough. 5% is nothing over 20 years. Why not aim higher and make it worth while? I don't claim to be an expert and no I haven't done much research, ignorance is bliss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perrin_07 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 there would be a climate change happening anyhow, humans are just increasing the rate at which it will happen. Even if we got to the goal we all want, its still going to happen as the Earth goes through many cycles. Its had alot of these patches through its birth and it wont stop now. Im all for cutting carbon emmisions, recycling etc, but climate change is going to happen regardless. You don't get to have an 'opinion' on whether the Earth is flat or round - it is round, it's a simple fact. obviously u have never heard of the flat earth society . They.....they are dead set serious the Earth is flat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260Coupe Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Firstly - I am true believer in climate change as it has been occuring for the last 4.5 billion years........so I am not a denier or a sceptic - I only deny that man kind is causing "catostrophic global warming that will see temps rise by 8 degrees in the next 50 years"- as one "expert" told us all. Ok so let us for a moment accept that Anthropogenic climate change is proven (which it is not - only those who have a vested interest in making us believe it is so will keep peddling this mantra) Please answer this - When the Carbon Dioxide tax comes into play - How much will the earths average temperature decrease by and how much much will it cost.? - funny that not one of our lefty politians or a single "climate" scientist will answer that !!!! The best estimates are .004 of 1 degree and this may take a thousand years to take effect (confirmed by that fool Tim Flannery who said "it may never rain again" - hence why we have desal plants costing billions which will be never used ) The drought of the last ten years was caused by the El nino (the cyclic warming of the Pacific Ocean) - we will now have 10+ years of wet which is caused by La Nina - the now cooling of the Pacific Ocean BTW - the last volcanic eruption in Indonesia spewed out more CO2 into the atmosphere than what man has put out in the last 100 years.- fact stated in Scientific American journal Also - notice the subtle change form the "Global Warming" hesteria to the new term "Climate Change" - this is very convenient way to blame every weather event of man made CO2 emissions ....(and please stop calling it carbon polution as CO2 is not a polutant) .....are you kidding me The only "inconvenient truth"is that this CO2 tax is all about the political need to balance the budget, rake in more revenue and distribute it to the labour/green voters to buy more votes. The climate change debate is perpetuated by those who have a vested interest in "green technology" - Al Gore has major shares in wind farms and other major US/UN funded green energy projects - fact. "Climate Scientists"are funded by the current government - Scientists who wish to prove the negative and there are many thousands of them, get no funding and are ridiculed as herotics ! Now that half the country is under water does any body notice the conspicuous absence of Tim Flannery, Ros Gaunet (spelling) and all the rest of the doomsday profits telling us we will be drinking our own urine in 10 years , not to build dams as they will never fill and to spend billions on desal plants (that consumed massive amounts of electricity thereby pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere !!!!) Some facts It is now raining - and lots of it. Sea levels have stabilised and are now falling Arctic ice may be less than previous years but Antartcic Ice has increased significantly The Great barrier reef is not dead Average temps on earth have not increased in the last 10 years The next thing you'll hear is Bob Brown blaming these floods on the coal industry again - what an imbecile In closing - it is impossible to have a logical deabte on this subject as anyone who disagrees (with the alarmists) and has evidence to prove it is shouted down and ridiculed . Al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sco_aus Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Well said Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Great reply Alan. I could not agree more, Spot On...Well Said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.