It's totally ugly... and I want one!!

ironpants · Post by **ironpants** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:26 pm

But I suggested TDIs, the volumetric and thermal efficiencies of biodiesel are BETTER that gasoline and there's no emissions from refining (or mining). There's no winner here, only a correct solution that reduces emissions AND dependance on forign oil.

Post by **bio** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:51 pm

ironpants wrote: There's no winner here, only a correct solution that reduces emissions AND dependance on forign oil.

The air car is the ultimate solution with the technology we have at our disposal. It's engineered now, it works now, and they're going into production with it now.

Screw biodeiesel, hybrids, electrics, and all the other crap when it comes to metro commuting (which is what 90% of the population does on a day to day basis).

Embrace it... do it now!!!

jc · Post by jc » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:02 pm

ironpants wrote:But I suggested TDIs, the volumetric and thermal efficiencies of biodiesel are BETTER that gasoline and there's no emissions from refining (or mining). There's no winner here, only a correct solution that reduces emissions AND dependance on forign oil.

I chose to ignore your suggestion and complete the discussion that was already in progress. It seemed to me that we were arguing over which was more efficient, coal or gas. Perhaps it was I who erred in that assumption. If that is the case I will avoid discussion with you on anything real or consequential. That should keep everything on a nice sophomoric level and everyone calm and happy.

However when comparing two unequal values, one is always better than the other, hence the winner. That is of course until you enter the realm of neo-hippy educational psycho-babble jargon and then we're all winners so long as we try. Until all the competitive spirit and drive to excel is bored right out of us, making losers of us all.

ironpants · Post by **ironpants** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:38 pm

The numbers in this thread suggest that gas is more efficient than coal from combustion to delivery. There's still some question as to the efficiency of pumping oil vs mining coal. I'd have to admit I have no idea what the costs are on either side.

The reason I suggested there was no winner was not due to some liberal bs mindset. Gas efficiency vs coal efficiency is not a contest, it's a only an assertion. The assertion either evaluates to true or false not win or loose.

I'm hardly upset by your position referencing the assertion, however, you seem to be trying to attack me rather than the issue at hand. Cursing and suggesting future avoidance would seem to support idea.

Rocketdork · Post by **Rocketdork** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:54 pm

The one side of things ignored in this thread is that not all electricity is made from Coal...there are many other ways to generate the power...most of them more efficient, or more environmentally sound.

Encap · Post by **Encap** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:58 pm

My only regret is that there isn't an easily available coal burning car.

"The punks next to me want to drag... Man the shovel, woman!"

ironpants · Post by **ironpants** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:00 pm

Aw hell, looks like there might be. Imagine my tin head placed squarely up by iron buttocks. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02 ... .html#more

I really aughta look around before I start blowing off at the mouth. At approximately $40 per barrel and technologies available to knock the carbon out of the emissions, it seems like a pretty attractive option. Especially seeing that the US has among the world's largest coal reserves.

jc · Post by jc » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:51 am

Ironpants I didn't curse or attack you. The quote alteration was really more of a poor attempt at humor. I'd like to think we're all comfortable with each other to understand the average level of maturity and humor (which is juvenile to say the least). My psycho-babble rant wasn't really directed at you, it was more of a tangent. If you felt like it was an attack I apologize it was not meant to be.

I did my research on my argument before I talked about it so I felt like I had a good point to make. While capable of dressing up my speech in fancy language I do try to keep my thought on a normal level. The wife yells at me when I do that. So perhaps my quote paraphrase was a little poke at you, I felt like you were sounding superior. I am sure that wasn't intentional.

I've worked closely with the oil industry here in Alaska, I can tell you first hand that it is an expensive and polluting business.

Below is a related though off topic caveat.

A word about "cursing." In recent time the words cursing and swearing are interchanged regularly with terms like "foul" or "offensive" language. This saddens me as they are very different things. Generally the F word, C word, etc are considered foul and vulgar. However by themselves they're not cursing or swearing. To do that you've got to have a target and intent.

Sensitive Eyes, don't click here:
[spoil]For example. "Goddamn you, you arrogant sonofabitch." Is most certainly "cursing."
"I will kill you you fucking asshole if you touch me again." A fine example of "swearing."
"Awww shit." Plain old foul language.[/spoil]

Bad language can be fun and versatile not only do colorful words serve admirably to get one's point across they often serve as a window into current culture. What was foul yesterday is not so foul today. (Such as using the words "hell" and "bitch" on TV.) However it doesn't always have to be negatively directed at someone.

So please don't accuse someone of "cursing" when they're not cursing at all.