CorgiShinobi Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) So long as the cars of the future have parallel parking assist, I think I'm fine with it. Some cars have that now! (Unless that was your point ) I couldn't find the commercials, but here's a demonstration from Ford. Edited January 19, 2011 by Atomsk88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 You know what I'd like? A car with decent milage. My Elantra gets 30mpg. Hell, the Ford Fiesta UK Diesel models gets 65! Why can't we Yankees get in on that party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindo Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I do just fine with my 92 Camry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I just want a car with an audio jack so I can play my MP3 player. Nope, I got a model of car where that wasn't commonplace yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sindo Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Mine's so old it only has a cassette player. I just use some random cassette to 3.5mm accessory I had lying around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staySICK Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I just want a car with an audio jack so I can play my MP3 player. Nope, I got a model of car where that wasn't commonplace yet. I got one installed when I got subs put in my car, didn't cost too much, looks clean and works great with my zune. also on the topic of things with mounted cameras, I really wish they'd bring android support to the parrot ar drone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 You know what I'd like? A car with decent milage. My Elantra gets 30mpg. Hell, the Ford Fiesta UK Diesel models gets 65! Why can't we Yankees get in on that party? There's a long and complicated answer to that question. But the simple version is that, for a variety of reasons, the US auto industry and govt decided (for a variety of good and bad reasons) to favor gasoline over diesel, resulting in a higher tax on diesel fuel than on gasoline. Now the infrastructure is entrenched and it will cost mucho bucks if folks re-adopt diesel suddenly en masse. But there has been a growing interest in diesel fuel amongst US consumers. I personally support a significantly lower tax on diesel fuels as a way to help speed the adoption of diesel vehicles in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 You know what I'd like? A car with decent milage. My Elantra gets 30mpg. Hell, the Ford Fiesta UK Diesel models gets 65! Why can't we Yankees get in on that party? There's a long and complicated answer to that question. But the simple version is that, for a variety of reasons, the US auto industry and govt decided (for a variety of good and bad reasons) to favor gasoline over diesel, resulting in a higher tax on diesel fuel than on gasoline. Now the infrastructure is entrenched and it will cost mucho bucks if folks re-adopt diesel suddenly en masse. But there has been a growing interest in diesel fuel amongst US consumers. I personally support a significantly lower tax on diesel fuels as a way to help speed the adoption of diesel vehicles in America. Oh I understand the reasons but even with the higher taxes on Diesel a 65mpg car burning $3.59 a gallon diesel is much better than a 30mpg car burning $3.27 a gallon gasoline. Plus when you factor in that algae based biodiesel is a very possible future alternative to fuel (or at the very least a supplement to standard diesel) it makes even more sense for the future. Electric cars I think are a boondoggle. Who wants a coal burning car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Electricity is cheaper than either gasoline or diesel. Plus if you get an electric car, it runs on whatever the power grid runs on, which isn't coal everywhere (around here there's actually quite a bit of wind power) and even where it is coal, it can/will be replaced with other sources in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I'd drive an electric if it was in any way practical. The battery tech just isn't there. Maybe in 10 years or 20 or 50 or whatever, but when you live in rural areas like I do, 35 miles on a charge just won't cut it. I understand it has a gas engine as well but now the costs are way up and it's just not practical. Better battery tech is something I anticipate! I can't wait for a laptop that can run for a whole day without charging or car that can make a 100 mile round trip without the backup gas engine starting up. That day will be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Oh yeah, I agree electric cars aren't quite there yet, I was speaking more in general terms than about specific currently-available cars. Unrelated to that: Metallic Glass Tougher than Steel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Batteries or wireless power transfer. If we can get wireless power transfer perfected we can just cover the whole freaking planet in the stuff and not have to worry about charging things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirandello Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) I just wondered, is anti-gravity (hover) technology even remotely possible without using magnets of any sort? Edited January 20, 2011 by Pirandello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just wondered, is anti-gravity (hover) technology even remotely possible without using magnets of any sort? Magnets aren't technically anti-grav. It's currently possible to make hovering things with the use of jets and air cushions and the like. It's also possible that someday we will be able to control gravity and make hover technology that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slatz_grobnik Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just wondered, is anti-gravity (hover) technology even remotely possible without using magnets of any sort? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation Some lab in the Netherlands did it to a frog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just wondered, is anti-gravity (hover) technology even remotely possible without using magnets of any sort? Magnets aren't technically anti-grav. Duh! They're propane miracles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'd drive an electric if it was in any way practical. The battery tech just isn't there. Maybe in 10 years or 20 or 50 or whatever, but when you live in rural areas like I do, 35 miles on a charge just won't cut it. I understand it has a gas engine as well but now the costs are way up and it's just not practical. Better battery tech is something I anticipate! I can't wait for a laptop that can run for a whole day without charging or car that can make a 100 mile round trip without the backup gas engine starting up. That day will be awesome. That car sounds like a hybrid. If I can get a hybrid that can go 35 miles, DECENTLY, on just EV mode, I would love it. Now, a pure electric car just uses electric. A lot of the cars now says they can go 100 miles on one charge but in reality, it is more like 50 miles per charge. The charge time on those cars is around 6-9 hours. Yeah, nowhere near practical for the regular consumer. For example, I work as a courier and my possible daily travel can easily breaks 100 miles. Even everyday folks can break the 100 miles mark. Gov't folks on the other hand might be able to use it for their local, business travels. FYI, I mainly driver a Prius. Not a bad car at all. Expensive car? Yeah but my family and I worked out a way to pay for it and besides, the mileage helps out in being a courier so its a fine purchase. Just one thing, the actual engine by itself is one inefficient piece of work, MPG wise. That is the feeling I get after having it for two months and putting in 10k miles on it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 The VOLT is more or less a Hybrid except the engine IIRC doesn't touch the drivetrain. The car looked awesome in concept but it will turn out to be one big lemon thanks to the fact that GM (even with tons of free taxpayer money) can't make a car worth shit. GM should've gone bankrupt and fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/ Well this is certainly interesting. I'm unsure if it's anywhere near the kind of production we need though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Sounds awesome. And the fact that it pulls the carbon used to make the fossil fuel out of the air means the whole cycle is carbon-neutral, which is even more awesome. By burning gas made with this stuff you're not adding any carbon to the air, cause the carbon in the gas came out of the air in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enervation Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Sounds awesome. And the fact that it pulls the carbon used to make the fossil fuel out of the air means the whole cycle is carbon-neutral, which is even more awesome. By burning gas made with this stuff you're not adding any carbon to the air, cause the carbon in the gas came out of the air in the first place. Wow, whoever gets this thing running successfully first will probably become the world's next billionaire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Sounds awesome. And the fact that it pulls the carbon used to make the fossil fuel out of the air means the whole cycle is carbon-neutral, which is even more awesome. By burning gas made with this stuff you're not adding any carbon to the air, cause the carbon in the gas came out of the air in the first place. Wow, whoever gets this thing running successfully first will probably become the world's next billionaire. Indeed! Capitalism, Ho! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 So, I just did the math, and assuming their 800 barrels per acre per year thing is accurate, we would need to grow this stuff on about 46,000 square miles to supply the world oil demand, which is about the size of Pennsylvania or just a little less than the size of England (not the whole UK, just England itself). So this stuff really does have the potential to solve world energy problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I can't think Pennsylvania will be too happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enervation Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 So, I just did the math, and assuming their 800 barrels per acre per year thing is accurate, we would need to grow this stuff on about 46,000 square miles to supply the world oil demand, which is about the size of Pennsylvania or just a little less than the size of England (not the whole UK, just England itself). So this stuff really does have the potential to solve world energy problems. Did they state the conditions the land must be in? If it can be produced artificially we could just place it in the deserts and produce them there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.