Prof.Wizard

The Real Difference Between Us & Eu!

Recommended Posts

not to rain on your parade, but trains are not neccessarily less polluting than aircraft.

I believe electric trains are less polluting... :rolleyes:

OK, now you can argue how this electricity is being produced but I don't really believe the aircraft has the same energetic efficiency as the train...

If you are talking about Mag-Lev trains, there is no pollution. Isn't it the case that

anything with an engine is no more efficient than a Carnot Engine = 40%. According,

to Madsci ^_^, Mag-lev trains are 33% more efficient than airplanes, this is taken

from 1998 reply.

reference from (Madsci):

(Jet Efficiency) http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/oct...99970.Eg.q.html

(Train Efficiency) http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/may...72615.Eg.r.html

Do you really think the "EuroStar" is polluting? :o

It's an electric train for god's shake. And most main lines in Europe DO use electric pantographs nowdays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not directly, and certainly not the same equivalent as the amount of planes needed to transport the same amount of people/goods, as in a train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've got a point here.  What if the government were to use those taxes to fund a decent public transportation system?

what if they used existing taxes to do it, or even indicated giving a crap?

Where's the incentive for them to do so?

well, that's my point. i don't think anybody sets out to make vehicles with horrible fuel economy. whoever makes a fuel-efficient fast/large/whatever vehicle that costs about the same price will get a TON of sales. it's not as if they lack the motivation to develop such technology. they (even high-perf contractors like rausch) are trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not directly, and certainly not the same equivalent as the amount of planes needed to transport the same amount of people/goods, as in a train.

i give you the "not directly", but certainly not the rest....

Or do you want everybody to take the train when travelling from Europe to Australia (don't mention a boat please, only for those having lots of time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or do you want everybody to take the train when travelling from Europe to Australia (don't mention a boat please, only for those having lots of time).

That was plain stupid. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what if they used existing taxes to do it, or even indicated giving a crap?

They can do it at the same time. As everywhere else. ie, London will use its congestion measures incomes to further boost the transportation infrastructure.

well, that's my point.  i don't think anybody sets out to make vehicles with horrible fuel economy.  whoever makes a fuel-efficient fast/large/whatever vehicle that costs about the same price will get a TON of sales.  it's not as if they lack the motivation to develop such technology.  they (even high-perf contractors like rausch) are trying.

Making a powerful fuel efficient engine is a difficult thing, honold. Afterall, you seem to have an abnormally (in respect to the rest of world) big market for trucks (like F-150) and SUVs, cars which by definition (drag coefficient, mass, etc.) are not consumption-friendly.

I really have a hard time seeing in Europe a car with more than 3l engine on the road. It's just not necessary. In cities the engines are usually even smaller, 2l. If I get to my window and start counting, I know I'll find this analogy 10-15:1 for less than 2l engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And electricity does not equal  pollution???????

:blink:

using electricity does not create pollution, generating it as we do today using coal

and radioactive materials do. However, there are some alternatives which

ar eco-friendly such as: hydro,wind,and solar powered generators. Electricity

does not pollute or contaminate the environment. In fact, in cleaning Si wafers,

the water is tested for impurities, by testing it's conductivity, i.e. running current

through a sample and measuring it's conductivity. The lower the conductivity, or reciprocally the higher the resistivity, the more pure the water. It's called then

called de-ionized water, and running current through it would show us how pure the water is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Making a powerful fuel efficient engine is a difficult thing, honold. Afterall, you seem to have an abnormally (in respect to the rest of world) big market for trucks (like F-150) and SUVs, cars which by definition (drag coefficient, mass, etc.) are not consumption-friendly.

Good point. As long as they run on fossil fuel, it is impossible to make an economical SUV. You can make a hybrid one that is better than what we have today, at least in city driving, but on the highway the fuel economy will still be abysmal thanks to the large frontal area and very poor drag coefficient. If/when fusion becomes viable, and we can make car-sized fusion generators, then I have no objection to stupidly large, boxy vehicles like SUVs. Until then, I really think small, highly aerodynamic vehicles using either small engines ala hybrid technology, straight electric, or fuel cell power are what most consumers should be using. SUVs are a niche vehicle. If you really need off-road or heavy towing capability, fine. For most users of these vehicles, however, the only time they go "off-road" is when they drive on the sidewalk to go around traffic (a more and more common occurence in NYC), and the only things they "tow" are the hapless pedestrians or cyclists they hit who get stuck on their bumpers.

BTW, we've tried putting the onus on manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles for, what, 30 years (i.e. the CAFE requirements). Guess what? It doesn't work. While a few people do care about economy, for the vast majority there is no economic incentive because of cheap gas prices. This is why the gas tax is a good solution, although not necessarily the only solution (you can simply forbid vehicles with fuel economy under, say, 60 mpg from being sold unless the buyer proves special need, for example). If nothing else, a gas tax which increases at the rate of $0.25 every three months might sway some new car buyers even now. A person might look at a Ford Explorer or a Hummer, think that gas will be $2/gallon higher in 2 years just due to the increasing tax, and ask themselves if they really need this. They might conclude they don't, and buy something more sensible.

A high gas tax doesn't necessarily mean spending more on fuel, either. Consider if no new public transportation ever gets built and 10 years after the tax takes effect most people still drive. Right now average fuel economy is 22 mpg. At $1.50/gallon (about $0.50 of this is already taxes) this means fuel costs 6.8 cents/mile. Now consider 10 years from now when the fuel tax is fully phased in. Fuel taxes will be about $10.50 per gallon (the original $0.50 plus the new $10 tax) but since usage will be less raw fuel costs might be $0.50/gallon, so you'll pay $11/gallon at the pump. Average fuel economy will be at about 150 mpg because there will have been incentive and demand for fuel efficient cars, and 150 mpg is about close to the limits for a comfortable, driveable vehicle. Fuel cost per mile will be 7.3 cents, which is even less than today adjusted for inflation. The only people paying significantly more might be someone driving a large SUV (10 mpg) 2000 miles per month. They will be paying $1900 more in fuel than they do now. However, a large, inefficient vehicle like that is a luxury and should be taxed as such. Now the driver of such a vehicle gets off scott-free from all the damage the pollution causes, and I personally don't see that as fair.

Anyway, all this talk is academic. Even though I plan to write my Congressperson with this suggestion we all know it'll likely go nowhere. However, the fact is that fuel prices within twenty or thirty years will get this high as supplies dwindle, so we'll have to develop alternatives anyhow. Might as well start now while the planet is still relatively liveable, rather than wait and end up going to war to control diminishing fuel supplies (it will happen if we don't use alternatives, trust me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would non-consumers be punished?  If you don't drive, you don't use gas so you don't pay taxes on it.

You must be joking. How do you think the food on your supermarket shelves gets there? Your computer parts? It's all moved by freight. Which uses fossil fuels. When you increase the price of fossil fuels the price of all those commodities will go up. Affecting everyone.

Prof: You'll be happy to know that my evil, land raping 350 V8 blew up yesterday, so I'll prob be downgrading to a 2.4L Mistubishi 4 cylinder :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or do you want everybody to take the train when travelling from Europe to Australia (don't mention a boat please, only for those having lots of time).

That was plain stupid. :)

True, but it was a reply on a stupid post.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I go away for a wee bit and look what happens.

Taxes are to pay for the legitimate duties of government, nothing more, nothing less. In the US, those legitimate duties are spelled out in the Constitution, and they number 18 - that's right, 18, and 18 only legitimate, legal functions of government (Article 1, Section 8).

Taxing things because some hippy commie Beltway jackoff thinks he knows better than John Q. Public about how he should spend his hard earned-pay is as un-American as big bad Osama.

My day to day driving vehicle. With one of these, in matching factory paint. Often pulling one of these - 26' and about 10,000lbs or one of these.

When trailering I get maybe 6mpg, close to 11 running empty - my overall average at about 65K miles is 9.3. Premium, boys and girls.

That's nothing, though - with dual 200s the Contender gets less than 3mpg - gotta love that 150gallon tank!

I could jaw all night about family size, and this and that, but the bottom line is I drive it because I work my *ss off, I can afford it, and that's really all that matters - if you give a hoot about freedom. If you don't, well that's why though it has been over 20 years since I did the island I still go three days a week with a personal trainer (that's benching 315 kiddies - a pale shadow of my former self, but age is a be-atch) and I regularly push tacks at 1200 meters with one of these - .338 Lapua and why can the Brits build 'em so well but they're not allowed to shoot 'em?

And just in case you ungrateful commie filth think my getting older is gonna get you anywhere, I have a son, and at 8 he can already take his mother...who by the way, though not getting any younger either and after a couple of kids, I am happy to say still looks a lot more like the one on the left.

You are excused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to bounce back to the original post; I showed a rather georgeous american female friend the image...she said she'll see what she can manage as an "alternative view of american women in thongs" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but it was a reply on a stupid post.... :)

It wasn't a stupid post, silly, you just extrapolated a stupidity out of its truth. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prof: You'll be happy to know that my evil, land raping 350 V8 blew up yesterday, so I'll prob be downgrading to a 2.4L Mistubishi 4 cylinder :(

I'm not happy with your misfortune. :(

But I do believe it's far better to drive a smaller-volume-engine car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now