UTMC

Unethical yet green.

http://adland.tv/n1rv4n4g8/2008/marchjp ... -Ads-2.jpg

http://adland.tv/n1rv4n4g8/2008/marchjp ... -Ads-3.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/200 ... 2_468.jpeg

That middle one there...is that Dick Cheney?

god i hate those cars.

Thanks BDB...

I thought the first picture was funny before I even noticed what the people were doing.

Choice of vehicle is just one part of the carbon footprint we have, so I think it is funny when people get holier than thou about SUVs, then live in great big houses that required a large amount of energy to build, and a large amount of energy to heat/light. I know a co-worker who lives in a massive house with just a spouse, and they drive a Prius. How green is that?

I'm not putting people with big houses down, I just think the irony is amusing.

Sisyphus wrote:That middle one there...is that Dick Cheney?

Nope. Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, maybe. Dick Cheney's too big of a dick-sucking PUSSY to do his own dirty work. Besides, he'd NEVER drive a Prius. It wouldn't serve his own interests.

Prius = hype.

Photo wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:That middle one there...is that Dick Cheney?

Nope. Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, maybe. Dick Cheney's too big of a ----- PUSSY to do his own dirty work.

?Really? How many people have you shot in the face....and made them apologize for your inconvenience.

D.C. is one closet bad ass. IMOP

But no, a Prius does not serve his own interests. Maybe a HMMWV (the real ones, not the GM "Hummer").

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.

amazing.

Photo wrote:

Sisyphus wrote:That middle one there...is that Dick Cheney?

Nope. Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, maybe. Dick Cheney's too big of a dick-sucking PUSSY to do his own dirty work. Besides, he'd NEVER drive a Prius. It wouldn't serve his own interests.

All I know about Cheney is that he answers Rumsfeld's door.
Seriously. When Rumsfeld bought his Vespa from us, and when it was delivered.(By the most conservative of the guys here, because he didn't trust anyone else to go ) Guess who answered the door, yep Cheney, when he was still VP.
For some reason this amuses me.

tumbler wrote:

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.

amazing.

Yeah... I am not a fan of the hybrid. They can do better. They have done better...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nsJAlrYjGz8&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nsJAlrYjGz8&hl ... 2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh... and fuck hummer drivers.

erosvamp wrote:
Oh... and fuck hummer drivers.

i'm with you there. I'm sure they are using the hummer because it is so huge and awful, and clearly a gas hog, but that said, i would rather have a hummer than a prius. every time, no question.

the only smart way (in my opinion) to go is hydrogen. Electricity is not an answer. Unless the electricity is coming from somewhere other than a huge power plant, burning coal, or whatever.

Stan Meyers was on to something with his water powered dune buggy. Big oil companies offered to buy his idea out for around 8 billion dollars (in 1997). After he denied, he mysteriously died in 1998 from a case of food poisoning. sounds.... fishy..

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a74uarqap2E&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a74uarqap2E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mass media hates the water powered car. Even the mythbusters tried to tell everyone it wasnt possible. which is clearly a lie.

In my opinion (i know i have lots of those), if you have water powered cars, you can't really control movement. and you sure cant keep the huge players afloat with no oil..

anyway.. thats a whole different subject.


water powered cars rock.. water powered bikes rock.. and i wanna see more. we still get to keep our engines, and go 'green'. i see no issues.

tumbler wrote:the only smart way (in my opinion) to go is hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a great fuel, but (from what I understand) it takes a hell of a lot of electricity to separate the hydrogen out of water, and the current technology for solar power just won't provide enough power to make it viable in a green sense.

I think.

Rev wrote:

tumbler wrote:which is clearly a lie.

Perhaps not so clear. If a water powered car is possible, please, build one.

Here's how:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/hydrogen/index.html

The debate of sustainable versus non-sustainable will continue until it's too late. Just because things are alright now doesn't mean we have the luxury of believing they always will be, because they won't. The root of all evil really is money. That is how we got into this position, and that is what will define our collective end.

Rev wrote:

tumbler wrote:which is clearly a lie.

Perhaps not so clear. If a water powered car is possible, please, build one.

They will kill you if you do it.

Sisyphus wrote:The debate of sustainable versus non-sustainable will continue until it's too late. Just because things are alright now doesn't mean we have the luxury of believing they always will be, because they won't. The root of all evil really is money. That is how we got into this position, and that is what will define our collective end.

+1

All things considered, there is reallly no thing as a perpetual motion machine. Stan Meyers was definitely a quack or something but he was on to something that would work in the absence of petroleum.

Hydrogen cars are simple. Making hydrogen, storing it, transporting it, all that efficiently and eco-friendly, that is the problem.

Straight-up electric cars would be more efficient than that were someone to invent a better battery. But problem with batteries is energy density when compared to hydrocarbons.

Petrol and Diesel and their bio-equivalents and LNG and even Alcohol when burned release a ridiculous amount of energy per unit of mass when compared to the energy you can store in a battery.
And we get that energy basically for free, out of the ground.

I think the future of transport energy will, most likely, be biomass fuels. Huge energy density, internal combustion engines are a tried, tested and well established technology and while production is an issue yet to be solved, for the most part, the distribution infrastructure (it's liquid, it's combustible) is already in place as are the vehicles to consume it, no need to completely replace all the motor vehicles in the world, just comparatively minor retrofits to the fuel system required.

tumbler wrote:

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.

amazing.

You know that "study" is total bullshit, right?

Rev wrote:

tumbler wrote:which is clearly a lie.

Perhaps not so clear. If a water powered car is possible, please, build one.

Using water as a standalone fuel is not possible because water has very stable molecular bonds. An example -water is hydrogen and oxygen, yet we put out fires with water. It takes far more energy to break those bonds to make hydrogen and oxygen than the resulting hydrogen contains.

Anyone who claims the opposite is claiming to have sucessfully broken the laws of physics.

Add in that the average engine is no more than about 28% efficient, and the whole "water powered car" thing is clearly revealed to be a joke, just like the "200 mpg carb", magnetic fuel line gadgets, and other things perpetrated onto a gullible public by hucksters preying on those looking for a quick and painless miracle fix.

The best use of hydrogen in cars looks to be fuel cell units powered by solar-energy supported hydrogen production. Don't hold your breath for a widespread affordable application of that technology, though: reliable fuel cells powerful enough to run a car are still breathtakingly expensive and the required massive and expensive infrastructure simply isn't there.

Bigshankhank wrote:Prius = hype.

Why do you say that?

Having read this entire thread at once I will continue with this threadjack and try to reply to multiple posts with out [quoting]

Fuel cell technology is already in use, Honda has few cars in California leased to private owners, Jay Leno was pretty hyped up about it. It's called Clarity FCX

I personally do not like Prius, but certain hybrids aren't bad, a friend has RX400h in NYC and it gets twice the mileage he used to get from RX350 he traded in for it.

As for electric car, they are coming! Tesla is the best known of them and this Model Sgives me wood!

and here are few stats:
- 300 mile range
- 45 minute QuickCharge
- 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds
- Seats 7 people
- More cargo space than sedans
- 2X as efficient as hybrids
- 17 inch infotainment touchscreen

Matpoc - the Honda FCX is a remarkable achievement and a decent enough car, but not a meaningful solution in the real world - Honda is losing heaps of money on each one made, they are only making a few hundred total, they are leasing them and not selling them (just like GM did with the EV-1), and to top it all off neither the selling, servicing or fuelling network exists outside of a small part of southern California.

Tesla has a very disappointing record so far for delivering on promises, reliability and actually building and delivering cars.

I'll believe the claims on this new model when they actually deliver them to customers at the price promised, performing to the standards in their glossy brochures and fancy press releases. Until then, it's vaporware AFAIK - unlike the Prius, which isn't nearly as sexy but has been dead reliable and widely available at an affordable price to anyone in the country that wanted to buy one.