O/T: Opinion AKA: LipStick On A Pig

Page 3 of 4  
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they are done. Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.
NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice heavy metal.
I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. There is no free lunch in science just as there is none in economics (or personal relationships or work or ...). This doesn't stop the chowderheaded environmentalist fanatics from finding magic solutions (to often ill formed or even bogus problems) on some regular basis...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will use a LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The battery pack has a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of $10,000. The car has a 40-50 mile range (under the typical work day commute) with a onboard gas powered generator for a overall 600 mile range.... The car is a interesting concept that if successful will likely turn the auto industry on its ear. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Tim really needs to get out from under his rock once in a while. Lithium ion has very high energy density, which is why they are being used in laptops and other applications where a lot of power is needed in a small space. Meanwhile, you can lease a fuel-cell Honda right now, today, and drive it home (assuming that they haven't already leased them all out).
As for "a problem with the remaining Li", I'd like to see a statement from a reputable source (read something other than Tim's bunghole) of the nature of that "problem".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The whole car gets tossed at some point. Lead/Nickel/Cadmium in the car may be the most critical disposal recycling issue.

The nickel; batteries in question appear to be Nickel-Zinc, not nicad. The nickel is still an issue, but not as bad as cadmium or lead.

You can recycle it into thermonuclear weapons.
Seriously:
Lead, cadmium, and nickel are toxic heavy metals that biomultiply in the food chain. Lithium is a 1-A metal, a nutrient, an essential trace mineral. Of course you could OD on it and chronic exposure to much higher than normal levels in your diet would cause long term health problems but it is huge improvement over the others. Low levels of lithium contamination in the environment are about as damaging as low level contamination with sodium, potassium or calcium. The anion would probably merit closer controls.

My point is that facts matter.
Expressing concern over something that is not happening, or concerns about disposal of a benign material used to replace a very toxic one is not condusive to a constructive discussion.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Let the industry shut down one of the refineries for maintenance and see what happens. Look at Texas right now. The industry down there is almost completely off line due to IKE. Prices are going through the roof. Supply almost exactly equals demand with little for storage.
DN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?
As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did she and she let Obama get too good a start.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I think Hillary would be the Dems nominee if georgeous John Edwards hadn't sucked up enough votes from her to let BO sneak through.
There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a government paid position of food taster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Disdain.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

You are one sick puppy.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

As far as I can see, it was the survival of one old white guy with old white guy ideas over a bunch of other old white guys with old white guy ideas.
SFWIW, I qualify as one of those old white guys, so save you're knee jerk responses to "old white guy"
The republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by a group of hard line radicals whose only modus operandi seems to be confortation.
If nothing else, the last 8 years have proven the fallacy of that approach.
It has also caused me to distance myself from them even though I've been a registered Republican most of my voting life.

As much as I am convinced that Hillary is truly dedicated to the issues she supports, especially the social issues, she failed to recognise the sense of unrest at the grass roots level that is taking place in the country.
The majority of the people have been screwed into the wall without vasoline or even a kiss and they are ticked.
And yes, I'm one of them.
She failed to translate out of the last centuries politics and it cost her.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They did.
It takes time to implement a plan.
http://www.pushhamburger.com/oil_history.htm
Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began rising in 2002.
Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies anticipated the rise in crude prices:
http://www.dallasfed.org/eyi/usecon/0508gas.html
They have started to go down now, with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.

Half of the continental shelf is currently open for exploration and extraction, and has been for years. I don't see why the Petroleum would be more inclined to explore an drill in the remaining half. I suppose that would open up the market for speculation, an 'industry' that neither produces nor contributes anything value.

Carter had one. But he never sold even his own party on it. That's because it was a long term plan, planning for the next generation. Which, BTW, IMHO is the only sort of plan that could work without major political/social. economic disruption.
Now that I mentioned his name, probably one or more persons will feel obliged to tell us they think he was a terrible President, but for completely different reasons, thus distracting the reader from considering where we might be had we followed his lead on energy issues.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.

Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before* Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you saying that the market was prescient? The prices didn't start rising until 2002.

The information in your link stops at 2006. This is the first year that prices have played with $4 per gallon levels. The fact that prices are coming down right now is due to a couple of factors 1) the summer driving season is ending and prices traditionally come down following that event, and 2) the market could not sustain the levels of price that were seen throughout the summer. Even so, gas prices are still at their highest levels ever following the post-summer season.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.

That's odd.
When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs that preceded it.
But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869 to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame today's prices on Carter.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4 per gallon before or after the 2006 election?

But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in crude prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising after 2001 due some rather significant world events.

... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title of master debater.
/I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What you people forget in your criticisms is that things i.e. gas prices didn't go down the pooper until the democrats took control of both houses of Congress. Why don't you liberals admit that??? Since they took control everything has stalled and went down the drain. The democratic controlled Congress now has less that a ten percent approval rating. Are you liberals proud of that record? The lowest approval rating in history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Left shoe or right?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Does that make him a heel?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized. I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation I suppose.

I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a civil manner.
That offer still stands.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Why do you not have a Nobel then Fred?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That offer still stands.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.