Gas price Idea

[marcus]

So the whole system generates enough excess power to recharge the battery, correct?

Wasn't that stated earlier as being impossible?

As for perpetual motion being impossible (defined here as something that has continuous motion once it is set in motion, providing its own energy to maintain motion), explain Newton's Cradle away.

Or better yet, disprove the law of inertia.

Perpetual motion machines are generally understood to mean a machine that generates more energy than is put in, but I understand what you are saying here. The definition you use here perhaps makes more sense, but I digress I think Cygnus mentioned this kind of stuff some, but friction will always rob you of efficiency no matter how good you are at lubing everything. Hell, if not for friction, your damn car wouldn't go anywhere :ROTF:

[marcus]

Ron's qouted survey was dated 2005.
48 cents a gallon, I believe, here in South Carolina.
Plus many other embedded taxes that are not quite as visible.
Cost of regulatory compliance is beyond calculation.

Maybe we should just let the oil companies do whatever the fuck they want. I'm sure they will take good care of us.

Simply the move to drill for oil domestically would get some of OPEC's
antics in check. I think in this world of speculators, it would make a big difference.

I doubt this very much. We simply don't have that much oil in this country to begin with, and it will take many years for any new fields to come on line. Opec's influence is diminishing anyway. Russia is playing a very big part in global oil prices these days.

Edit: messed up the quote tag

[Cygnus X1]

And, without quoting, again, the alternator is not just spinning on its own free will. That's why I went into the windmill aspect. The engine, which is using fuel, is spinning that alternator. So, if you use that battery, or set of batteries, to ultimately drive a giant motor for the drivetrain, then the energy loss becomes so enormous that the aforementioned alternator can't supply enough energy to recharge the batteries needed to drive the motor.
Tesla touched on this, he came close, but still couldn't solve it completely.
Suffice it to say, there are many ways to get around the use of fossil fuels.
Another generation of inventors will figure it out. I feel it is right in front of us, but we haven't gotten it, just yet. We need a good UFO crash, and figure out the anti-gravitic drive system, I guess.

[marcus]

Oh, great, a site dedicated to the idea of raising taxes to combat greenhouse gasses.

Go ahead and flame me if you want, but I think its a good idea to raise gas taxes for this, and other reasons. A lot of the economical problems we have when gas prices go up would be alleviated with a high gas tax. Economic studies have shown that we can take the affects of having higher prices on things like gas and come out OK. Fluctuations are more a problem than high prices and a higher tax would help reduce fluctuations in price and our economies sensitivity to it. Also, it is a non-renewable resource, we are going to run out of it sometime. If we don't have an alternative well before that happens, think of the economic chaos then. Other byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion besides greenhouse gases are a problem as well.

Not to mention that as Americans we could stand to get off our lazy asses and walk more

More legitimate scientists are coming out with the opinion that the global warming consensus types are doing it for political purposes, and for
favorable funding grants.

All scientists do this shit. Its a part of science to have to deal with the politics of grants and such. And for every one of your "BS on global warming" scientists, I will produce 20 that know its happening, and that we are causing it. In fact most of the BS crowd don't deny that it exists anymore, they cast doubt on how much of it we are causing. They have somewhat of a point here, but it is pretty clear that we are to blame for some of the warming the planet is seeing. Why don't we stop fucking waiting for more data and do something about it?

[marcus]

Sheesh, I've been writing posts to this thread for 45 minutes LOL

[Cygnus X1]

I've been looking at this global warming debate for a while, and have enough sense to figure out that I am not a qualified climatologist.
I'm just observing who is passionate about the debate, the potential outcomes, benefits for whom, and following the political side of the matter.
I was rather shocked to see, on CSPAN (one of my favorites, no filtering),
Newt Gingrich and John Kerry co-speaking on the subject a few months ago.
Instead of beating each other over the head with political nonsense, it was agreed that energy independence, to get away from fossil fuels, was a definite solution. The only thing to debate, after that was agreed upon, was how to achieve that goal.
That is where we might part ways. I say, lift the barriers, to allow entreprenuers (and some are already in the energy industry), to go forward, and pave the way for the next technology. Others say, tax it, and use the tax money to fund the research. This is where the problem lies, I think. Faulty research is rewarded with more money, to a point. And all that tax money is also absorbed by agencies and people that are unaccountable for the spending. So it comes back to, do you trust the government, who has no real stake in success, except to collect more taxes, or the corporations, who must profit to survive? At least the corporations are accountable to the consumers, and the stockholders. The government beaureucrats are accountable to no one.

[marcus]

I've been looking at this global warming debate for a while, and have enough sense to figure out that I am not a qualified climatologist.
I'm just observing who is passionate about the debate, the potential outcomes, benefits for whom, and following the political side of the matter.
I was rather shocked to see, on CSPAN (one of my favorites, no filtering),
Newt Gingrich and John Kerry co-speaking on the subject a few months ago.
Instead of beating each other over the head with political nonsense, it was agreed that energy independence, to get away from fossil fuels, was a definite solution. The only thing to debate, after that was agreed upon, was how to achieve that goal.
That is where we might part ways. I say, lift the barriers, to allow entreprenuers (and some are already in the energy industry), to go forward, and pave the way for the next technology. Others say, tax it, and use the tax money to fund the research. This is where the problem lies, I think. Faulty research is rewarded with more money, to a point. And all that tax money is also absorbed by agencies and people that are unaccountable for the spending. So it comes back to, do you trust the government, who has no real stake in success, except to collect more taxes, or the corporations, who must profit to survive? At least the corporations are accountable to the consumers, and the stockholders. The government beaureucrats are accountable to no one.

I like C-Span too, but I don't watch it as much as I should. The problem is that those windbags can go on forever. Paradoxically I find filibusters fascinating

As for the global warming/energy issues, I favor a mix of private and public sector solutions. Taxes can be used to fund alternative energy companies, for example. I know this already happens some, but the amount of money sent to alternative energy companies pales in comparison to tax breaks and outright gifts from the government to fossil fuel companies.

Corporations are good at making money, but this can be as much of a weakness as it is a strength. I don't trust corporations with my health, for example, as they have a basic conflict of interest in that they profit more when I don't get services I need then when I do. I could go on and on but I won't And don't knock being accountable to no one, it can have its advantages. It must be said, however, that most of the government is accountable to someone. To think otherwise, you would have to not be paying attention

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm not a climatologist either. Qualified or not LOL

[RacerX]

but it is pretty clear that we are to blame for some of the warming the planet is seeing. Why don't we stop fucking waiting for more data and do something about it?

Because the costs to reduce the warming by a very miniscule amount are ridiculously high.

[marcus]

Because the costs to reduce the warming by a very miniscule amount are ridiculously high.

Estimates are all over the place about this, but you may prove right. I think that there would be some benefits of investments in alternative energy, though. Much of the rest of the world is moving away from fossil fuels, and if we don't develop alternative energy technology, other countries will. These things will be very profitable, especially if global warming doesn't screw us up too badly

[Cygnus X1]

Estimates are all over the place about this, but you may prove right. I think that there would be some benefits of investments in alternative energy, though. Much of the rest of the world is moving away from fossil fuels, and if we don't develop alternative energy technology, other countries will. These things will be very profitable, especially if global warming doesn't screw us up too badly

Good. More oil for us, then
The law of diminishing returns, is coming full circle.

[marcus]

Good. More oil for us, then
The law of diminishing returns, is coming full circle.

Oil, black gold ... Texas tea ...

sweet, sweet, crude

[Newc]

From Wikipedia:

"The law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can never be created or destroyed."

This "law" is incredibly naive: energy had to have been created at least once in order to have anything to classify as energy. While energy cannot be destroyed directly (since it is intangible), it can be reduced to non-existance by sufficiently impeding the flow of that energy to its destination, or by eliminating the source. This is equal to destroying energy.

And the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

"a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the Second Law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact, the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of physics and instead becomes a theorem (read: theory) which is valid for large systems or long times."

[Newc]

As for how expensive alternative fuels are - that is always coming from the standpoint of "we, the Big Oil Companies, will see a 90% reduction in profit if everyone stops using oil from us".

This is NOT the same thing as "it will cost 30 trillion dollars to do it", nor is it the same thing as "we put 30 trillion dollars into it and made $1.34" or "it costs $5 billion to make one barrel which sells for $50".

The corporate loss is sustainable. If higher oil prices to the point of "buy gas or pay rent" are ok for us, lower profits and bankruptcy are ok for them.

[charvelguy]

money is my machine of perpetual motion, it offers enough inertia to keep having my ass go back to a job that I pretty much despise-its called the law of being perpetually broke.

[DrDoug]

And the alternator is powered by the engine, which uses gas/diesel. What you are saying Newc is that our problem is easily solved by putting an alternator on an electric motor. Now it will charge the batteries as they are in use, and it will run forever, right?

If this is the case, forget it. Motors generate heat, which is wasted power. Alternators do the same thing. Both consume energy in their operation (power losses). Even if you were to capture every energy loss, it still would not work. You can't produce more power than you consume.

That is a perpetual motion machine, and believe me that if it could be done they already would have done it by now.

If you have some other way for this to be done, I sure would love to hear it! So would a boatload of scientists and oil executives...lol!