If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Whenever we hear a call for XX miles per gallon by 2025, we repeat the mantra 'let the process work!'" The process would have left you bankrupt, toots   (politico.com) divider line 359
    More: Stupid, AP Photo Close, House Speaker John Boehner, mantras, emission standard, Energy and Commerce Committee, punching power, model year, fuel economy  
•       •       •

15295 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2011 at 12:34 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-04 12:48:57 AM
JesseL: Kraftwerk Orange: JesseL: We'd blow less money on needless crap if we had to haul it on our bicycle.

You'd be surprised at some of the needless crap I've carted home on my bike. I take inspiration from these guys:



It's all about balance.

Not me you want to be quoting there.


My apologies. Should have been The First Four Black Sabbath Albums:, strange quote clipping.
 
2011-06-04 12:55:03 AM
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: JesseL:
I'm curious what is the ratio of people you sway toward your viewpoint vs. punch you in the gut for being a douchebag, when you start preaching like that.

I'll give in to your troll. How is being realistic being a douchebag? Do you seriously think it is better for us to continue to pollute the world than to farking do something about it? Or are you too much of a pussy to make a difference? You have two choices: pollute, consume, and fark over your grandchildren OR take responsibility for yourself. It's your choice. You can respond with some cocky shiat to save face (I'm probably not going to come back to this thread to read it), but I want you to seriously think about it.


I'm not saying anything about your message. I was referring to how you present it. You're not very persuasive when you talk to people like a preachy, arrogant, dickhead.

If you actually care about saving the world, try being a little less preachy and don't froth at the mouth so much.
 
2011-06-04 03:37:36 AM
Ima4nic8or: As a grumpy old man this crap pisses me off. I remember when there were no fuel economy standards, and quite bluntly, we were better off. The cars were better

No, they weren't. The cars were garbage. Getting to 100,000 miles before the front fell off was considered an impressive feat.

and the air was not noticeably different.

Yes, it was.

/grumpier, and probably older, than you
 
2011-06-04 01:51:40 PM
Zamboro: snocone: "Plugins burn 45% COAL!"

Fixed that for you. A vehicle which runs only partially on fossil fuels is necessarily greener than one that runs entirely on fossil fuels, even before you take into account the drastic difference in efficiency between electric motors and gasoline engines.

"Yes, but coal is finite!!"

Try to think into the future a little bit. We won't always use coal to generate power. But we'll keep producing electricity. How do you think we'll do that?


When you grow batteries on trees, you will figure it out.
 
2011-06-04 01:59:44 PM
serial_crusher: snocone: I believe the farker is pointing out that if you exercise, you EAT.
Transporting food to you is very expensive and not fuel efficient.
Consume more food to support your exercise and you feed the system.

Yeah, but that's kind of ridiculous. Trucks gonna be transporting food anyhow. Even while riding, people don't eat 10 times their body weight in food every day, so um... driving a week's worth of food over a given distance in a truck is still going to consume less fuel than driving your SUV over that distance every day.

/If its a "sport" utility vehicle, you must still be burning calories in all those sports you're taking the car to, right? I factor my bike commute into my workout schedule and run less on those days.


This is Fark.
ridiculous? rediculous!
 
2011-06-04 02:02:55 PM
snocone: Zamboro: snocone: "Plugins burn 45% COAL!"

Fixed that for you. A vehicle which runs only partially on fossil fuels is necessarily greener than one that runs entirely on fossil fuels, even before you take into account the drastic difference in efficiency between electric motors and gasoline engines.

"Yes, but coal is finite!!"

Try to think into the future a little bit. We won't always use coal to generate power. But we'll keep producing electricity. How do you think we'll do that?

When you grow batteries on trees, you will figure it out.


We'll keep coal, we'll just use it differently:

Coal gas powered Fuel Cells to make electricity, then use the excess CO2 (too valuable and dangerous to release into the atmosphere) to make liquid fuels.
 
2011-06-04 09:10:38 PM
Ella_Minnowpee: serial_crusher: Infinity miles per gallon. You really think the government should enforce "efficiency" standards that don't include things like "hey fatass, stop carrying 4 tons of needless machinery to work with you every day"?

Hear! Hear!

/bicyclist
//fitter
///thriftier
////un-repentant


Okay. Go live in Nevada. You can buy a house in Dayton (since the others are at insane prices) and have to commute to Reno.

Reno is 35 miles away. Half of those miles are straight up (by which I mean a slope you literally would not believe) until you hit Virginia City atop Mount Davis. (Nope. Not joking.) Then you go down Geiger Grade, a two-lane road which carries most of the traffic from Dayton to Reno and has no bike lanes.

While I applaud your efforts, sometimes biking just doesn't work.

/Somehow, I think turning up disgustingly sweaty and dirty to work doesn't make your boss want to keep you employed
//And getting hit with a car makes the point moot
 
2011-06-04 09:33:34 PM
Problem part 1: CAFE standards make exceptions for certain types of vehicles (trucks) in order to make it possible for farmers & other workers to still have trucks.

Problem part 2: Auto makers, seeing a loophole around having to comply with CAFE standards, while also promoting their most profitable product lines, begin pushing SUV's like mad.

Problem part 3: People will buy anything the teevee tells them to buy. When the airwaves become cluttered with ads for SUV's the highways become cluttered with drivers of SUV's.

Solution: Require a CDL for any vehicle which is exempt from CAFE standards.

Solution part 2: Soccer moms have to either give up their big SUV, or undergo CDL training (which will teach them how to handle their big SUV + take in some $$$ for DOT).... also farmers & other workers can still have their trucks... provided they can get a CDL.
 
2011-06-06 01:53:27 PM
Kraftwerk Orange: snocone: Zamboro: snocone: "Plugins burn 45% COAL!"

Fixed that for you. A vehicle which runs only partially on fossil fuels is necessarily greener than one that runs entirely on fossil fuels, even before you take into account the drastic difference in efficiency between electric motors and gasoline engines.

"Yes, but coal is finite!!"

Try to think into the future a little bit. We won't always use coal to generate power. But we'll keep producing electricity. How do you think we'll do that?

When you grow batteries on trees, you will figure it out.

We'll keep coal, we'll just use it differently:

Coal gas powered Fuel Cells to make electricity, then use the excess CO2 (too valuable and dangerous to release into the atmosphere) to make liquid fuels.


You are serious?
My, my, my

You will use it in the most PROFITABLE way possible.
No other.

Now let me rephrase:
Plugins burn coal and oil.
Good for a short run, not sustainable on large scale, makes it look like someone stealing exorbitant PROFITS cares about you.

I say plugins are bullchit!
 
Displayed 9 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report