While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 2:23*pm, Derek > wrote:
rolled initiative
> don't we all bro
>
>>> You've sidestepped my point. I'm actually with you. My hope is for gas
>>> free *($0/gallon) vehicles to be mass marketted. Driving the cost of
>>> gas up is the means for this goal. And it is already working. More
>>> people drive hybrids today. Car companies are finally getting around
>>> to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars.
>>
>> And, in the process, they pollute more - just not around here.
>
> B.S. propaganda. Electricity produces zero emmissions and nothing else
> harmful to our environment. Should we ban electricity altogether??
> Yike!

Yes. We should all go back to wooden cards with stone wheels pulled by
oxen. Once we get rid of the cars, the methane emissions from the oxen
won't appreciably add to our pollution footprints.

>> Electric vehicle production creates more waste, and more toxic waste,
>> than production of typical cars. The toxic production just tends to
>> happen "over there" rather than in our back yards.
>
> Propaganda. You can't be this stupid?

I have not been drinking the Flavor-Aid, thank you very much.

It was Guiness.

>> I recognize that you've said "gas free," but I'm guessing you also
>> mean "zero emission vehicles" which rules out diesel as well.
>
> That's a lofty goal. Reduction is also helpful.
>
> And yes even diesels will peter out eventually, time allowed for
> technology to adance. Get out of the fifties bro. Do you believe in
> technological advances?

No. I refuse to believe in technical advances. They are an abomination
that should be erased from the face of the planet.

>> However,
>> electric cars won't take off unless supercapacitors replace batteries
>> so that the vehicle can be charged in the same amount of time it takes
>> to top off a tank.
>
> I didn't say gas-free today did I. We need to generate serious
> motivation today. Higher gas prices forcing people into hybrids is
> one.

Only the rich. The poor won't be able to afford them, and so they'll
sell their young into servitude to pay the winter heating bills.

>> (I'd like to have a nice little diesel that runs on switch grass bio
>> fuel, gets 70 miles to the gallon and is a lot of fun to drive,
>> myself. VW's going that direction.)
>>
>>>> And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
>>>> schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
>>>> cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.
>>
>>> Cars. Not ships. One step at a time. Cars pollute our surroundings
>>> about a zillion times more than ships.
>>
>> Depends on where you live.
>

You call this living?

>> Cargo ship in the LA/Long Beach area
>> produce about as much pollution each day as an oil refinery.
>
> Nope. Nice try. I've lived in LA for decades and you're wrong. Now in
> the LB harbor
> itself during busy hours you are right. There's plenty of air
> pollution in non coastal cities and cities along the coast upwind from
> the ocean. Many inland cities in China are grossly polluted .. not too
> many land ships.
>
> Auto emmisions are the main source of all air pollution simply due to
> their numbers. Even factories pale in comparison. Ships are a joke in
> comparison.

I don't disagree. But ships also pollute our oceans poisoning our
fisheries. But, then, when we can't afford to ship them into the
middle of the continent, that won't affect me much.

>> But you're missing the point. If gasoline is $1000 a gallon, it will
>> be because oil is similarly expensive. Now, if you want to mandate
>> nuclear powered cargo ships...
>
> No. I made the first point that the goal is to be gas free. You
> continue to duck the issue.

I'm not ducking it. I'm goosing it.

>>>>> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
>>>>> least that's my current personal view.
>>
>>>> That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
>>>> 78% of our atmosphere, come from?
>>
>>> Soil. Lava. God. Obviously one or more of these sources. Where else?
>>> Where did anything come from?
>>
>> Speaking of side-stepping... (heh.)
>
> No, that was just a response to a question you asked. What's your IQ?

High enough to recognize that ad hominem attacks are a loser's gambit.

>> Beyond the ultimate source for matter in the universe, boiling H2O
>> will not produce nitrogen. Neither will it produce free standing
>> hydrogen or oxygen. Water hitting lava boils, it does not undergo
>> electrolysis.
>
> Jeeze, what happens to water when it is heated? It turns into air. So
> what do you think when water hits lava, it freezes? Low IQ points
> again.

Oh, please forgive me. How could I ever have confused STEAM for AIR?

--
Derek

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it
today." -- Abraham Lincoln