FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

Cheech and chong in full flight.

I hope you boys know I'm just having a little fun at your expense. Nothing malicious intended. I can dish it as well as I can take it. Question is, can you

[CookinFlat6]

Cheech and chong in full flight.

I hope you boys know I'm just having a little fun at your expense. Nothing malicious intended. I can dish it as well as I can take it. Question is, can you

haha dont flatter yourself, you dish? dish what exactly? lies and factual inaccuracies. And you take it? lets leave aside your romantic arrangements for now, the only taking you do is after a series of embarrassing pms calling off the argument

lets try again - for the last time as its pointless - i will dish it, lets see you take it - I hope you know I'm just having a little fun at your expense. Nothing malicious intended

Heres what I think
Anyone who is capable of digging out a discredited quote without the gumption to read and understand it before offering it as proof, and is willing to advise others that all it takes is to read about the price/earnings ratio of a stock - is a very useful member of any society

AKA the reverse indicator - anything he agrees with or finds good is by definition the lowest level of reasoning, i.e the first thing sheep do - blindly follow whats put out there for sheep to blindly follow - 'biofuels sound good - so there cannot be any downside, or negative side to the equation - the only reason they havent replaced oil is because he is the only one clever enough to notice this - and so he will not consider any negatives or listen to anything - because that would be taking away from his moment of genius - and its more important to feel right than to be right - even if he loses his shirt putting money on it - at least he would have felt like a non loser for a short while in his own head'

""Hybrids are a scam, they have NOTHING to do with saving the environment - Battery production is as bad as burning oil - petro-deisel is a bio fuel cos it sounds like bio-diesel, and so Honda already sell cars running on bio fuels - just like he thought without looking too deeply for fear of destroying his genius concept""

Now just imagine you could have invested money against each of the above claims - we would be thanking him for our shiny new McLaren P1s even if they arrived a little splattered with blood.

Or imagine you run Ferrari with that attitude, while the others are making hybrids you are claiming hybrids are a scam and ICE are still alright for the future, and even if they are not then algae is a perfect replacement

[spankyham]

Phew! All that pent up stuff, its like Cheech and Chongs bongs all blew up in unison.

You stick with those massively successful southward heading electric car sales - even with all the govt subsidies people don't want to buy them. At the same time, the biofuel blend pumps just keep popping up everywhere and sales keep going up.

Allow me to enjoy the last 33 months of the internal combustion engine as we know as I watch F1 fade to dust and those massively popular E plodding race cars become the premier motor sport

[Hammer278]

Hahaha you said that already in the Merc thread. Typical wolf and sour grape story of a disappointed fan hoping and praying for the whole sport to die just because his team can't find their footing in a new era.

Right down pathetic. You watch as the sport soldiers on easily after Ferrari turns to sh!t and leaves with their smelly tails between their legs.

[CookinFlat6]

At the same time, the biofuel blend pumps just keep popping up everywhere and sales keep going up.

Biodiesel appeals to us because it can be made from plants grown locally and burns far cleaner then ordinary diesel fuel. It results in 67 percent less unburned hydrocarbons (helping to reduce smog and ozone), 48 percent less carbon monoxide and 47 percent less particulate matter, according to an analysis of heavy-duty engines by the Environmental Protection Agency. Only nitrogen oxides, or NOX, slightly increase. It can also be blended with regular diesel in any percentage from B2 (98 percent diesel, 2 percent biodiesel) to B100, which is pure biodiesel.

Still left with 52% CO2 - so hows bio diesel any long term replacement that works for the environment compared to electric?

lets look closer at the 'carbon neutral' nonsense

The great promise of biofuel is its potential to be 'carbon-neutral' with all the carbon dioxide emitted during use of the fuel being balanced by the absorption from the atmosphere during the fuel crop's growth. However, in practice the process of growing the crop requires the input of fossil fuels for fertilisers, harvesting, processing and fuel distribution.
Taking into account carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions (associated with agriculture) for oil seed **** sourced biodiesel and sugar cane bioethanol, studies show that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by around 60% and 90% respectively. This means a 5% biofuel blend would result in a carbon reduction of around 2.5% (biodiesel) and 4% (bioethanol). Much greater emission reductions are possible for biodiesels if waste oils are used, as the sources material would otherwise be thrown away.
Regarding regulated emissions, tests show that biodiesel particulate emissions are lower than from mineral diesel. Its low sulphur content also increases efficiency of exhaust control systems, reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. For high percentage bioethanol fuels, tailpipe carbon monoxide, particulates and hydrocarbons are generally reduced – however, some unregulated emissions such as aldehydes are actually increased.

and the plain dumb claim that they are gaining any traction over electric beyond the simple fact that your existing ICE can be converted?

One of the problems with the fuel itself is the increase in NOx in biodiesel emissions. Often, in diesel fuel manufacturing, when you decrease the amount of particulate matter in the emissions, there is a corresponding increase in nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog formation. Though some of this can be addressed by adjusting the engine itself, that's not always feasible. There are technologies being researched to reduce NOx amounts in biodiesel emissions.

Another problem is biodiesel's behavior as a solvent. Though this property is helpful, it's kind of a double-edged sword. Some older diesel vehicles (such as cars made before 1992) may experience clogging with higher concentrations of biodiesel. Because of its ability to loosen deposits built up in the engine (which may be there from old diesel fuel), biodiesel can cause the fuel filter to become jammed with the newly freed deposits. Biodiesel manufacturers suggest changing the fuel pump shortly after switching to high-concentration biodiesel blends. Components within these older fuel systems may also become degraded. In addition to deposits within the fuel system, biodiesel also breaks down rubber components. Some parts in the older systems, such as fuel lines and fuel pump seals, may become broken down due to their rubber or rubber-like composition. This is usually remedied by replacing such components. Though many manufacturers have included biodiesel in their warranties, potential for problems could still exist. For more information on biodiesel and vehicle warranties, check out The Biodiesel Standard.

Also, in some engines, there can be slight decrease in fuel economy and power. On average, there is about a 10 percent reduction in power. In other words, it takes about 1.1 gallons of biodiesel to equal 1 gallon of standard diesel.

The major drawbacks to biodiesel are connected to the bigger picture, namely the market and associated logistics. Of these, the most important is cost. According to the EPA, pure biodiesel (B100) can cost anywhere from $1.95 to $3.00 per gallon, while B20 blends average about 30 to 40 cents more per gallon than standard diesel. This all depends on variables such as the feedstock used and market conditions.

So the public are rushing out to buy biodiesel, which costs 30% more and emits 60% less, and no one wants electric cars which cost 0.25 % less and have 0 emissions? And never mind the facts - Electric vehicles should not be promoted and pushed by the government because Bio fuels which would mean food prices shooting up if widely adopted - are more poupular with the public - and you dont have any figures for that ofcourse

This is purest comedy of the old school of buffonery.

[CookinFlat6]

And before the usual melons turn up to b!tch and complain that a debate is supported by lots of quotes and facts or that its dragging on, or that the person who is right should stop and ignore the ignorant or that is bickering

if you have nothing to add to the electric biofuel debate, either dont read it to get worked up with self righteous indignation, or actually say your piece and help raise the quality of an admittedly one sided but neccessary grinding down of idiocy in a democratic fashion
and if you feel like b!tching and moaning to try give the ignorant an easy way out then why dont you join the debate on his side instead??
contribute, ignore or resepectfully sugested go do one please

[spankyham]

You get 10 out of 10 for cut and paste skills

Pity all those words can't hide the fact that the Duracell cars sales are heading south while ice is heading the other way.

Still, it will all be reversed in 33 months

[CookinFlat6]

wow, just wow, that is really the limit of your reasoning?

[Hammer278]

Maybe its better for all of us if he goes back to his old habit of just keeping his mouth shut after all.

[CookinFlat6]

yeah, or 'winning' arguments via pm or in the Culparea lounge

then we dont have to witness this public and humiliating breakdown

[What's Burning?]

I think I've shared this before... but there really is no argument other than big oil wanting things to remain status quo.

The area in the red box is about 25,000 square miles, slightly larger than the state of West Virginia. The small red square shows the space required to meet German demand for energy.

[CookinFlat6]

Funnily enough that has been the main energy source that is also unlimited, has no adverse side effects and ha been the main source for all mans energy and heating requirement for about 99% of the period of human existence.

We can safely say it will be again at some point in the future, already the efficiency of the surface to harvest ratio and the transmission latency is improving.

The oil companies are very powerful and are resisting the illumination of what is common sense to the less independent minded public. Instead relying on its useful idiots to maintain the status quo in the face of electric - a useful stop gap they dont want and disinformation about biofuel mixes which they do as it will allow them to continue in business ( as no one is gonna turn over the whole land mass to growing crops for energy therefore the best for the biofuels will always be a mix of bio and existing smelly fossil fuels)

it always amazes me that topics such as these. that are central to the existence of everyone and their offspring going forward 100 yrs etc does not compel people to think about it themselves and learn more and have an opinion and maybe even stand up for it if the facts support it as the best way forward. So they leave it to the oil companies and their useful idiots, (and in at least one case - useless idiot) to provide the fairy tales.

And the same ones will be the first to turn up and b!tch and complain that they are been forced to put up with bickering from anyone who believes and stands up for something, despite not even reading the stuff. And then ofcourse the famous 'theres nothing wrong with xxx, dont question it, its uncomfortable, it disturbs my comfort zone'
we need people with things to inform, say and things to ask or discuss, not the ones who turn up to complain things are not being done with their comfort zone in mind - pathetic

edit: did I imagine it or did someone really actually suggest that long posts should be banned and a short maximum length introduced? whats next? only 1 liners? no 2 way arguments or discussion beyond 1 reply? maybe become like twitter, or become a bulletin board where people are allowed one comment on each article created by someone like spanky?

[spankyham]

I think I've shared this before... but there really is no argument other than big oil wanting things to remain status quo.

The area in the red box is about 25,000 square miles, slightly larger than the state of West Virginia. The small red square shows the space required to meet German demand for energy.

Based on what what bio matter?

Mind you, even based on the wrong bio matter its tiny compared to the area effected by electricity generated from the super safe nuclear power from one accident at one plant Mind you, its only been a "few years" and the radiation is still rising and being found in tuna in the pacific. You could visit that haven of safe/clean energy, which stands as a testament to how clean it really is - just don't stay longer than 20 odd minutes or you'll die.

[What's Burning?]

No the chart shows what area of solar panel to generate electricity needed for the entire planet's 2030 electrical consumption. here's a better chart. Like I said, it's hard to argue the point and things will only improve as the efficiency improves.

Constantly improving Efficiency
Exponentially lower environmental impact
Infinite supply
Free (other than the cost of maintenance)
Anyone can generate it

Why would any oil company be against it? The largest corporation in the history of mankind, Exxon/Mobil made 400 BILLION dollars in profit in 2012. 400 BILLION in profit. That's a lot of money to buy politicians and gullible Fox news viewers.

[spankyham]

Nothing irks me more than that Fox news slogan, fair and balanced.