By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If I Wanted America to Fail....

thranx on 26 April 2012
HappySqurriel said:
thranx said:


As far as i know 25-30% of energy is lost when burning fuels to convert to electricty (in power plants, closer to 40-50% for home generators) and than even more when transferring that energy to where it is used. How much energy is lost when burning gas for kinectic energy?


When you look at what companies are doing with modern engine and transmission designs, plug-in electric cars don't come close to the efficiency of a gasoline based automobile ... The combination of inefficiencies in distribution of electricity and charging of batteries eliminates all theoritical gains from centralized power generation; and the only reasons it is less expensive to power an electric car than a gasonline car is the electric car has less power, gasoline (tends to be) heavily taxed, and electricity is (often) subsidized.

thats what i thought. I just couldn't find any info on it. I have recently done a lot of research into home solar and wind power and basically all the numbers i ran showed it as far to expensive(especially since i was trying to lower my bill).



Around the Network
Porcupine_I on 26 April 2012
d21lewis said:
Not a fan of this video. It seems like any attempt to save the environment by imposing restrictions on huge corporations is killing America. It's trying to appeal to people that aren't doing well financially by saying, "If we could cut down more trees, mine for more coal, drill for more oil, and killing more animals, your life would be better."

There's a limited amount of resources, especially the non renewable type like oil and coal. There's an increase on demand as the population explodes. Regulations are a necessary thing. If I wanted THE WORLD to fail, I'd let these industries run unchecked.

I like the cheap attempt to play at our humanity by mentioning Steve Jobs, too. Cute.


And that is actually right! it would sustain a system that depends on a constantly growning economy for a bit longer.

the problem is it would only make it worse when it eventually breaks down as it has to at one point.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

HesAPooka on 26 April 2012

Not a fan of this video.



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

NinjaguyDan on 26 April 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
d21lewis said:
Not a fan of this video. It seems like any attempt to save the environment by imposing restrictions on huge corporations is killing America. It's trying to appeal to people that aren't doing well financially by saying, "If we could cut down more trees, mine for more coal, drill for more oil, and killing more animals, your life would be better."

There's a limited amount of resources, especially the non renewable type like oil and coal. There's an increase on demand as the population explodes. Regulations are a necessary thing. If I wanted THE WORLD to fail, I'd let these industries run unchecked.

I like the cheap attempt to play at our humanity by mentioning Steve Jobs, too. Cute.


The environment could be protected enough through property rights. Unfortunately, Government (started in Britain) threw out property rights for the "public good" during the Industrial Revolution - meaning that the damage done to your property by pollution was allowed because the factories were good for the economy. Now, they are going even further and taking away our property rights even more, to protect the environment. Go figure.

 

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

 



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

theprof00 on 26 April 2012
thranx said:
HappySqurriel said:
thranx said:


As far as i know 25-30% of energy is lost when burning fuels to convert to electricty (in power plants, closer to 40-50% for home generators) and than even more when transferring that energy to where it is used. How much energy is lost when burning gas for kinectic energy?


When you look at what companies are doing with modern engine and transmission designs, plug-in electric cars don't come close to the efficiency of a gasoline based automobile ... The combination of inefficiencies in distribution of electricity and charging of batteries eliminates all theoritical gains from centralized power generation; and the only reasons it is less expensive to power an electric car than a gasonline car is the electric car has less power, gasoline (tends to be) heavily taxed, and electricity is (often) subsidized.

thats what i thought. I just couldn't find any info on it. I have recently done a lot of research into home solar and wind power and basically all the numbers i ran showed it as far to expensive(especially since i was trying to lower my bill).

"Thermal efficiency, the amount of energy from combustion converted to mechanical work, is only about 26%.' (a) in a typical engine."
http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/energy-carbon-trade/energy-efficiency-of-fossil-fuel-and-electricity-powered-car.html

That's a REGULAR engine. Electric cars and hybrid cars are far more efficient in converting energy to distance.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's actually around 15%
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 26 April 2012
fordy said:
This video proves one thing. Check out one of the highly rated comments:

YouTube has purposely screwed up the "Closed Caption" text on this video. That way all those who are hearing impaired or don't speak English (around the world), won't understand this video at all! It's insidious what YouTube (owned by Google) is doing to America!

While it's hilarious that the original poster doesn't realise that ALL Closed Captions don't work properly, the fact that it's been thumbed up so many times gives everyone the impression that it's nothing but conspiracy theorists that take this video seriously.


No (sane) person believes it's the intent of Government to destroy the economy and our civil liberties. Rather, there is always unitended consequences from either well-meaning activist legislation (in regards to environmental, welfare, taxation), pork (subsidies, defense contracts), or just plain-old corruption. It's the aggregate of decades of unintended consequences that have got us in the situation that we are in today.



SamuelRSmith on 26 April 2012
theprof00 said:
Ahahaha show me a source for that last bit.
And do yourself a favor and look at the green companies that arent failing.

Both parties tend to be even-split on corporate donations

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/

If you look at the top donors to Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, it'd be hard to tell (outside of the University donations) who's who.

Corporations just donate to anybody who's for big, centralized Government (so both parties, but Dems, historically) because it's easier to get legislation passed through one, Federal Government, than through 50 State Governments. Cutting costs on corruption!



crissindahouse on 26 April 2012

if i wanted america to fail, or at least hollywood, i would forbid all movies with the american flag in it. that would mean hollywood would have exactly 0 movies after that.



silicon on 26 April 2012

So that's what happens when a troll makes a video.



theprof00 on 26 April 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
Ahahaha show me a source for that last bit.
And do yourself a favor and look at the green companies that arent failing.

Both parties tend to be even-split on corporate donations

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/

If you look at the top donors to Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, it'd be hard to tell (outside of the University donations) who's who.

 

Corporations just donate to anybody who's for big, centralized Government (so both parties, but Dems, historically) because it's easier to get legislation passed through one, Federal Government, than through 50 State Governments. Cutting costs on corruption!

You should research your own sources more. Never heard of superpacs?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

fyi, pacs and superpacs usually post negative ad campaigns against people they don't want to win, in this way, they are able to shield their "donations" to some specific candidate, because their contribution to the campaign is not technically a donation.