War on terrorism? or war for oil?

You will find nothing i said was incorrect.

You telling me metal isn't finite? Metal is 100% reusable, but ehh we have a limited amount. If we need to fill how many hundreds of millions of cars and trucks with metal then we will notice how finite. And it is still in development, it is a concept. I think they will struggle to get a metal fueled engine to do 200k miles as well as a diesel car can.

How do you farm your bio fuels? You fill your combine up with air? Do you remember what happened with over farming in America during the dust bowl time? You have seen the price of wheat recently? What do you think would happen if we needed to use Maize for fuel? Good for environment, roffles.

Electric cars are here, but ultimately, they run on oil, gas or coal. As electricity is produced using those methods. Has anyone even studied about how much we would need to do with renewable electricity if we moved all our electricity AND car/truck needs onto it?
Also electric cars are so small and flimsy atm. We have no solution for HGV's. I know TNT use some electric box vans for deliveries, but it isn't suitable to haul 40ft trailers.

Hydrogen is not safe to store or easy. A 6 car pile up with pressurized containers of hydrogen on the M1 would pose interesting results.
If it is so easy to create using nuclear (which is another bad thing for the environment) how come nearly all hydrogen is created by the burning of fossil fuel?
 
[TW]Fox;11620947 said:
Whats the problem? Mankind has fought over vital resources for thousands of years.



Whats the problem.. how about an illegal foreign invasion, soldiers come into your street killing your family your friends and relatives all for greed and corruption...go back to motors!
 
You telling me metal isn't finite? Metal is 100% reusable, but ehh we have a limited amount. If we need to fill how many hundreds of millions of cars and trucks with metal then we will notice how finite. And it is still in development, it is a concept. I think they will struggle to get a metal fueled engine to do 200k miles as well as a diesel car can.
there#s more than enough metal for this
How do you farm your bio fuels? You fill your combine up with air? Do you remember what happened with over farming in America during the dust bowl time? You have seen the price of wheat recently? What do you think would happen if we needed to use Maize for fuel? Good for environment, roffles.
the fuel can be farmed on land that we are paying farmers to do nothing with. It just needs to be controlled. That's the problem at the moment it is not controlled.
Electric cars are here, but ultimately, they run on oil, gas or coal. As electricity is produced using those methods. Has anyone even studied about how much we would need to do with renewable electricity if we moved all our electricity AND car/truck needs onto it?
Also electric cars are so small and flimsy atm. We have no solution for HGV's. I know TNT use some electric box vans for deliveries, but it isn't suitable to haul 40ft trailers.
Well seeing as you use methanol to use in power cells. It overcomes all those non problems. Because there's always nuclear and renewable energy for the source.
Electric is very good for HGV. When your talking about fuel cells. as you get all the torque straight away.

Hydrogen is not safe to store or easy. A 6 car pile up with pressurized containers of hydrogen on the M1 would pose interesting results.
If it is so easy to create using nuclear (which is another bad thing for the environment) how come nearly all hydrogen is created by the burning of fossil fuel?

yes it is safe, there's already hydrogen cars, there's lpg. It just needs crash tested storage cylinders.
Nuclear is not bad for the environment.
I wonder why it's created by burning fossil fuels. Perhaps because thats *** current infrastructure. you really are being silly and just arguing for the sake of it rather than using anything intellectual.
 
I don't have much to say, but nuclear is bad for the environment in the long term because we don't know how to get rid of it when we're finished with it. Short term it has massive benefits, but it's nigh on impossible to get rid of the radioactive remains, save for sending it to space - and imagine if the ship blew up in the atmosphere due to error.

There's also the issue of uranium mining, which damages the environment and leaves massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air. Nuclear is definitely clean, but it's not a spotless method and does leave an impact on the environment in many ways.

Small link; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7371645.stm
 
I don't have much to say, but nuclear is bad for the environment in the long term because we don't know how to get rid of it when we're finished with it. Short term it has massive benefits, but it's nigh on impossible to get rid of the radioactive remains, save for sending it to space - and imagine if the ship blew up in the atmosphere due to error.

But modern reactors need a fraction of the fuel and produce a fraction of the waste. Again we know what should be done with the waste but no one wants to pay for it.
 
He's already improving the situation(albeit very very little) by at least acknowledging the problem which as a citizen is about the only power you have. The vast majority in the country are however not. Remember, everyone's responsible for their actions, actions come from thoughts.

No he isn't. Just because he isn't living in blissful ignorance doesn't make things any better. Just the usual hypocritical bs. Enjoying the fruits of the situation while decrying how bad it is. Our carbon footprints probably differ very little in real terms so we are all having the same impact. Sanctamonious rubbish is normally easier to bear if the person is really doing something about it rather than just moaning on an internet forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom