ShrikeHawk

The problem is waiting until oil is too expensive. By the time we reach that point, we'll be in a serious bind. Alternative energies are going to need some time to develop; time to "mature" as a technology. This isn't Hollywood where you can outrun an explosion or dodge into a building before the deadly cold kills you. In reality, by the time the problem comes to a head it's already too late. Waiting until the oil situation gets really really bad is the worst thing we can do. Politicians will insist that scientists produce a solution overnight, and they simply will be unable to do it. The best solution is to get going...NOW. Don't worry that EVs don't have absolutely zero emmission this very moment. Keep working at it. Provide even these "imperfect" cars to the general public. Let them get used to the idea. The cars will get better and people will like them better as time marches on. We should continue building wind farms and solar farms. That's a little easier to sell because people won't work with them directly. They only care that the lights go on when they hit the switch. The old power plants need to be replaced anyway. And imagine all the jobs that building alternative energy plants would create. People are constantly complaining about the unemployment rates. Well, we should start a New New Deal and get working on public works projects for alternative energy. It will create new jobs, more money flow, and thus revitalize the economy! Developing alternative energy would... - Limit foreign spending on oil - The savings could be used to cut back on the deficit. - Stop supplying money to hostile nations - They wouldn't be able to supply terrorists so much. - Environmental improvements - Our air would get cleaner - Total cases of Asthma and pulmonary diseases should drop - No more oil spills - a an environmental disaster every time - Climate change may be slowed or even reversed - Avoidance of future conflicts - We'll have no more need to muck about in the volatile Middle-east - We'll have no need to compete with China for oil - Future conflicts over oil resources can be dodged completely The number of Win-Win scenarios constantly grow. Pick your favorite cause whether it be Environment, Geo-Politic, Economic, or Personal Stock Portfolio, there's a way for almost everyone to get something they want. So my question is...what they heck are we waiting for?

Totally Agree. Spot on. Nobody seems to know for certain, but even so we should still take action and stop stalling. I still think about it like this: It's a bad idea to defecate in your own bed. Medical science will tell you that you "might get sick" and you "could ultimately die" from it. But neither of those statements are certainties. What Anti-Alternative Energy pundits are suggesting is that since it's "not certain" that petroleum use is triggering climate change, then without overwhelming proof it's okay to continue petroleum use as normal. It's like them saying it's okay to defecate in your bed and sleep in it because you "might not die."

Sounds like something Yogi Berra would say. Perhaps Ben Franklin?

Happy B'Day!

This IS a bit political, and if one of the admins wants to move it to the Arena (I don't know how to do that), that's totally cool with me. Originally, I placed it here to counter-balance an opposing thread that has since been removed. I'm missing my opponent, but it's probably best for all in the end. For now, I'll lay off blaming political factions and stick strictly to energy concerns. First of all, Nuclear/Solar/Wind absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt DO WORK. There are plants for all of these items up and running and providing power. They have been doing this for many years now. Tidal energy production (using the power of tidal currents to drive turbines) is fairly new. I'm not sure if that's producing power for the public yet or not. But there's no reason to think it won't. Solar-power satellites beaming power down to power stations via microwave is an old idea. Everyone is scared of the idea of a runaway satellite so I don't know if that'll ever be implemented. I think it's workable. As far as being cost-competitive, of course it is! And, the more it is used, the more competitive it becomes. Right here in Odessa, where practically everyone works in the oil fields nearby, you can switch to an energy provider that uses only renewable energy sources. Their cost per KW is much lower. This is an oil boom-town. There are plans to build 300 more wells (this doesn't bother me because it's Domestic production). At the same time, they are also building over 500 windmills! There's no shortage at all of wind out here so these babies are going to see a lot of work. It's development like this that will insure that wind-power becomes even more cost competitive. The reason...Supply and Demand. Remember this one. It drives the price of EVERYTHING from jumbo jets to drinking straws to fresh oranges. Right now there is very little Demand because...those guys...have been convincing the American public that public that petroleum use is just fine and that Alternative Energies "don't work." "Whoever it is" has a vested interest (their stock portfolio) in petroleum and they will spend a lot of money trying to cause doubt about Alternative Energy. So far it's worked and there is very little Demand. With so little Demand there are very few manufacturers who are willing to build the materials needed to build alternative energy plants. So Supply is very low. All this forces the price..UP. This leads to the mistaken belief that Alternative Energy is expensive and not cost effective. BUT, if Demand increases (e.g., "an enlightened public insists on getting it"), then that changes things. Initially, it will cause the price to climb still higher, because Demand is high but Supply is low. But once manufacturers realize there's money to be made, they'll start tooling up and provide more Supply, driving the price back down again. Once a large infrastructure is in place, bulk rates will begin to apply and the price will drop even further. You see this all the time with new technologies. When the iPhone first came out just a few years ago, you had pay ($600? $800?) bucks for it. Supply was low, and the Demand was low. The cost stayed high as Demand skyrocketed but few manufacturing facilities made it, so Supply was low, forcing the price UP. Now, most people who want an iPhone have one so Demand has dropped. The many facilities that made it are still in place so Supply is high. Thus iPhones are getting more affordable all the time because of the simple process of Supply and Demand. We could see the same effect with Alternative Energy power plants and Electric Vehicles. If only the Demand was there, it would happen. If only the infamous "they" would stop opposing it - just change your stock portfolio, boys - and get on the bandwagon. If only the American public would educate itself a little bit (give up Housewives of LA for just one night), it could all happen. I'm not suggesting this because of Global Warming. I'm not convinced that petroleum use is causing it. It could very well be just another natural stage of the Earth and it's only Human arrogance that suggests we could cause or even the fix the problem. I can't decide who's right. The numbers and rhetoric on BOTH sides of the argument are deceptive for their own reasons. I won't try to figure it out anymore. My motivations are Economic and Geo-Political. Economically, I'm sick and tired of the US...PAYING another country for something so vital as energy production. Without energy our whole nation comes to a screeching halt! I hate the idea of depending on somebody else for something so critical. It's Un-American. As an Emphatic Capitalist, it chills me to the bone to know we're doing something so stupid. It gets worse. On the Geo-Political side the people we are paying...HATE us. They would love to see our country, and many others, burned to the ground. The governments we pay do not suggest this overtly, but they are happily supplying cash and arms to the people who would destroy our nation. Why do the Taliban and Al-Qiada seem to have unlimited resources? Because they're getting the money from the USA! Want to shut down terrorist organizations? STOP paying for oil. How do we that? Make our own energy. We can't do it all with oil, so we need Alternative Energy. Solve this issue, and many many other issues are solved as well.

Congrats!

I think Thorium nuclear plants is a brilliant idea. I hope we get started building them right away. I imagine though that the petroleum industry will try very hard to nix it. They don't want competition. It's bad for their profit margin. So they will continue to fund studies that allegedly "prove" alternative energy solutions are not "effective." Thorium plants are just one of many steps to reducing the USA's (and many other country's) dependence on foreign oil. Electric cars are another step. The petroleum industry will tell you Electric Vehicles (EVs) are not viable because they aren't "perfect right this instant." They're hoping the American public is dumb enough to ignore the massive hole in their argument - petroleum cars have had decades and billions of dollars dedicated to their development. EVs have not. EVs need the money and the development time. They need the infrastructure that petroleum cars already benefit from. Consider this: EVs have a much smaller carbon footprint when used in areas where power is generated more by nuclear, wind, and solar. Their footprint is much larger - almost equivalent to conventional cars - when used in areas that use coal and petroleum to generate power. So if we as a nation decide to start building Thorium nuclear plants we solve only one part of the energy problem. If we also start building/using/developing EVs..NOW, we'll have two parts of the energy problem solved once Thorium reactors go online! Delaying work on EVs because they aren't absolutely perfect right now, is childish and shortsighted. I want to eliminate our dependence on hostile foreign nations as soon as possible. Building EVs is a much smaller/quicker/easier step than ripping out all of our coal and petroleum burning plants. Replacing them is going to take a looooong time. While we're doing that, it only makes sense to begin work...NOW on EVs so that the two can work together once both are available and solve many problems (e.g., Geo-political, Energy, Environment) at once.

Looks really cool. Looking forward to it!

Happy 4th everybody!

The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP) which produced a study, touted by conservative pundits as proof that electric cars are not a solution, is saying they are being misrepresented. The LowCVP did not say conventional cars are more green the electric cars. Here's a quote from Prof. Neville Jackson, Chairman, Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership: Here's a link to the actual response to the press (.pdf form); a letter from the LowCVP itself: http://lowcvp-islein...O2%20Report.pdf Once again, we find out later that science is being misused by those with a political agenda. The conservative press are taking a tiny snippet from the LowCVP study and taking out the only the bits they want to, not report and illuminate, but deceive the public to further their own agenda. You can't believe everything you read from the press, whether conservative or liberal. While the study does not say Electric Vehicles (EV) are the end-all-be-all of altrnative energy solutions ( I would prefer hydrogen fuel-cells ), it NEVER says EVs are less green than convention cars. In fact, the opposite is true. Here's a quote from the LowCVP site (bold by me): The same page goes on to say this (bold by me): Here's the URL where I got the quotes: http://www.lowcvp.or.../searchresults/ I find it disturbing that conservatives are so vehemently against alternative energy solutions. It's as though they want to destroy it simply because the idea itself is championed by liberals. As though without really understanding the idea, they still hate it only because it's supported by their enemies. I don't understand why alternative energies is considered a "liberal" concept. It's actually geo-politically and economically VERY conservative. I consider giving Billions of dollars per year to nations who support Muslim extremists pure insanity. In my view, anyone who supports continued petroleum use (beyond the need to develop plastics) is someone who supports - though indirectly - Muslim extremism.

I remember. Happy Birthday to us!

Then again, if the sheik went to London to preach goodwill and harmony among all peoples, he'd be an "Islamic Peacemaker." That's a nice label to have isn't it? I doubt the alleged "Jewish Lobby" would have him ousted for that. So, sure the label, "Islamic Troublemaker" doesn't help anything, but is that as bad as the Sheik suggesting militarism to his congregation? People promoting hostility and anger have to be dealt with swiftly. We've had enough of people killing in the name of religion. Sh*tdisturbers like the sheik (and our own Christian ones over here) need be muzzled and made to "take a timeout."

Every country has its weirdos. Israel is not immune, nor is the USA. Remember the the guy that wanted to burn Qurans? Sheesh! What an embarrassment. It's a poor practice to judge a country by it's weirdos...or it's politicians.

Awesome! That worked great. Thanks very much, Heck!

Sheesh! Right on all points. So I guess I'm just screwed on this one, yes?

Gosh I hope not. This is an A-Team model. It looked just fine in SF1. But when placed in SF2 it suddenly has this visual effect.

Anybody know what causes this?

Great to hear, man.

Most cool! Malta is one of my favorite places for simming. Any chance you could make a blue/tan Maltese skin for the Mk V?

Isn't Cocas working on some low-poly bombers for the BoB theater? Perhaps that will help, if not solve the problem.

It's unzipping just fine for me, Stary. I have 7zip 4.65. Spectacular work!

Awesome! Love it.

Cool! Looking forward to it.