I want a SUMO.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3838721808955166856&vt=lf&hl=en
It can go 95 miles per hour but only gets 120 miles on one charge. :|
In small states where stuff is close together that might not be an issue, but where am I going to go on the freeway that's less than an hour away?
It's a commuter bike. Did you expect pure electrics to replace chemical burners anytime soon?
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2008, 10:15:32 AM
It can go 95 miles per hour but only gets 120 miles on one charge. :|
In small states where stuff is close together that might not be an issue, but where am I going to go on the freeway that's less than an hour away?
Six hours for a charge seems rather inconvenient too. Electric vehicles are not going to take off until they can get battery storage into a reasonable range.
Or we could have 220 volt outlets in our carports.
Most of the time, when I drive, it's to the store or to work. Either way, it's less than 20 minutes. A small electric car would be perfect for that.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2008, 10:15:32 AM
In small states where stuff is close together that might not be an issue, but where am I going to go on the freeway that's less than an hour away?
why won't you people get it through your heads?
You live in New York, Los Angeles, or your needs are of no commercial value.
:fursecution:
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2008, 03:56:47 PM
Most of the time, when I drive, it's to the store or to work. Either way, it's less than 20 minutes. A small electric car would be perfect for that.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2008, 10:15:32 AM
In small states where stuff is close together that might not be an issue, but where am I going to go on the freeway that's less than an hour away?
why won't you people get it through your heads?
You live in New York, Los Angeles, or your needs are of no commercial value.
:fursecution:
My point was that unless most people are going on a long trip, they will have no need to go 80-95 mph. It seems like they traded off efficiency for speed, when most scooter users would benefit a lot more from efficiency.
Most combustion scooters sold only get up to about 40 mph, and they sell shit-tons of them around here for commuting and general getting-around-town. I'm surprised that the makers of this scooter didn't take that approach.
You think my scooter gets 120 miles per tank? It's efficient and all, I only spend 3 dollars on fuel a week or so, but it only holds 5 litres or so.
Quote from: Felix on September 29, 2008, 10:39:50 PM
You think my scooter gets 120 miles per tank? It's efficient and all, I only spend 3 dollars on fuel a week or so, but it only holds 5 litres or so.
...
What is your point?
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2008, 01:59:45 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 29, 2008, 10:39:50 PM
You think my scooter gets 120 miles per tank? It's efficient and all, I only spend 3 dollars on fuel a week or so, but it only holds 5 litres or so.
...
What is your point?
That, regardless of how you decide to power them, scooters are not long range vehicles.
And yeah, not being able to plug in is a handicap.
There ought to be some sort of social network where people willing to let you plug your all-electric for a small amount of money arrange to help each other out.
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
I wonder if coating the thing in SolarPly would give it enough juice.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 30, 2008, 05:02:48 AM
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
Or Wind. Or Solar. Or Hydroelectric. Or Nuclear. Or Geothermal. Or Wave Power.
Granted, we aren't doing that stuff as much as we should be. We need to just fucking stop with the fossil fuels already. Just pretend like they are going to completely disappear in 20 years.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2008, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 30, 2008, 05:02:48 AM
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
Or Wind. Or Solar. Or Hydroelectric. Or Nuclear. Or Geothermal. Or Wave Power.
Granted, we aren't doing that stuff as much as we should be. We need to just fucking stop with the fossil fuels already. Just pretend like they are going to completely disappear in 20 years.
Also, it is a more efficient way to get the energy from fossil fuels
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 30, 2008, 05:02:48 AM
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
I was actually going to post this when I first saw this thread, but I thought everyone was gonna come down on me about the wonders of nuclear, or hydro, or wind, all of which have flaws.
Its coal, btw. Oil only gets used for electricity on very small scale generators. Most large scale electrical powerplants are coal burning. Oil is so expensive as a resource and uses almost completely for transport. And yeah, electricity from coal, not exactly environmentally friendly.
The only thing thats gonna make any difference is people changing their lifestyles and we don't even need to talk about that seriously because its not going to happen.
Quote from: Kai on September 30, 2008, 06:40:41 PM
The only thing thats gonna make any difference is people changing their lifestyles and we don't even need to talk about that seriously because its not going to happen.
Yeah, it's the only thing that'll make a difference. Not that having congress pass initiatives on clean energy requirements for industry or funding research and green collar startups would help. And retrofitting airplanes with algal biofuel would be just plain pointless.
you need to get a little more science in you before you keep advancing that argument as anything other than an extremely-far-in-the-future idea.
there's a reason we use petroleum products for fuel. We have yet to find anything else that even comes CLOSE to providing the same mix of stability and energy-to-mass ratio. And until we do, taxing the fuck out of industry when there's no reasonable alternative for them to manufacture their products cost-effectively is only going to hit us in our own pockets. Realism is needed here, not sci-fi idealism.
Your argument is valid for a fairly recent reference date. However:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613
Nobody's figured out a way to in practice grow algae fuel more cheaply than gas. Bioreactors are freaking expensive; open pond systems get overrun by less productive strains of algae. The strains that grow the fastest have a terrible oil content, and vice versa. Heck, nobody's figured the optimum amount of stirring yet. Or even a really good way to extract the oil on a large scale.
Algae farming and hydroculture in general has a lot of catching up to do before we understand it as well as agriculture. Not that we won't; but I'm guessing 10-15 years or so before we start seeing algal oil production with any real degree of success. It will probably take some creative breeding or gene splicing to get algae that has high oil content, grows quickly, and beats the pants off of competing strains in the battle for system resources.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/27/15-algae-startups-bringing-pond-scum-to-fuel-tanks/
Do try to keep up.
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 04:46:51 AM
http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/27/15-algae-startups-bringing-pond-scum-to-fuel-tanks/
Do try to keep up.
Solazyme seems to be the only one with any actual production. I'll admit, I haven't heard of the no-sunlight route to grow plants.
All the others are either "planning to" or have "agreed to" make algae oil. It's the trendy thing to invest in, but the technology just isn't quite there yet. The investments in those companies might produce the knowledge and expertise necessary to actually do it later - but not know.
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/deployments.html
They've gotten their technology out there too.
And green energy isn't "trendy"; it's inevitable and forward thinking investors know it. The technology exists, in fact, they've even developed an algal ethanol that can power jets.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004442245_berlinairshow28.html
So please to not be telling me these things would be nice if they existed, and please do not be dissing my lack of solid science education because I'm an undergrad. These technologies exist, work, and are profitable.
I've known about the algae oil since phycology in sophmore year of undergrad.
My money is on switchgrass.
is that the grass that generates power via the sun?
I saw a guy talk about that on Colbert - said if once their project is done, if they covered the roof of every walmart in the USA with their grass contraption, they would already be producing more power than all the nuke plants in the US.
facts possibly misquoted due to drunkenness, human error
Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2008, 06:55:07 PM
is that the grass that generates power via the sun?
I saw a guy talk about that on Colbert - said if once their project is done, if they covered the roof of every walmart in the USA with their grass contraption, they would already be producing more power than all the nuke plants in the US.
facts possibly misquoted due to drunkenness, human error
Its cellulosic ethanol production from a highly tolerant genus of grasses (
Panicum) that can be grown nearly anywhere. Highway centerstrips, mall roofs, farming land that is not viable for things like corn and wheat. Doesn't require anything but seeding the ground and harvesting when the plants are ready, no irrigation, no pesticides, no fertilizer.
Also, all grasses generate "power" via the sun. Its kinda what plants do. :D
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 02:08:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2008, 01:59:45 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 29, 2008, 10:39:50 PM
You think my scooter gets 120 miles per tank? It's efficient and all, I only spend 3 dollars on fuel a week or so, but it only holds 5 litres or so.
...
What is your point?
That, regardless of how you decide to power them, scooters are not long range vehicles.
And yeah, not being able to plug in is a handicap.
There ought to be some sort of social network where people willing to let you plug your all-electric for a small amount of money arrange to help each other out.
Does it take you six hours to fill your scooter's gas tank when you stop at the gas station?
My point was that it seems like they made a big tradeoff in battery life for speed, when the speed is much, much less relevant for most scooter users than battery life.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 30, 2008, 05:02:48 AM
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
Actually I'm well aware of that already, ECH.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 30, 2008, 02:40:02 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2008, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 30, 2008, 05:02:48 AM
you guys are missing the obvious point about electric vehicles.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY COMING FROM?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT. PROBABLY OIL OR COAL. BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL GET TO HAVE A FALSE SENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AN OVERWHELMING AND UNJUSTIFIED SMUGNESS.
Or Wind. Or Solar. Or Hydroelectric. Or Nuclear. Or Geothermal. Or Wave Power.
Granted, we aren't doing that stuff as much as we should be. We need to just fucking stop with the fossil fuels already. Just pretend like they are going to completely disappear in 20 years.
Also, it is a more efficient way to get the energy from fossil fuels
It COULD be, that is.
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2008, 05:18:00 AM
Does it take you six hours to fill your scooter's gas tank when you stop at the gas station?
My point was that it seems like they made a big tradeoff in battery life for speed, when the speed is much, much less relevant for most scooter users than battery life.
The SUMO isn't a scooter. The scooter they're selling is at the end of the video. 90MPH is low-end average for a motorbike these days.
I'll admit that it's not going to end gasoline use. Far from it. But if people are using something like this for in-city short hops (which get you lower MPG), then it's a legitimate way to curb fuel consumption.
Like I said before, an electric vehicle can't solve the problem entirely, but the problem
can't be solved without non-fossil burning options.
There is just no way one technology can stop fossil fuel reliance, much less reverse any of the damage.
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 05:38:16 AM
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/deployments.html
They've gotten their technology out there too.
And green energy isn't "trendy"; it's inevitable and forward thinking investors know it. The technology exists, in fact, they've even developed an algal ethanol that can power jets.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004442245_berlinairshow28.html
So please to not be telling me these things would be nice if they existed, and please do not be dissing my lack of solid science education because I'm an undergrad. These technologies exist, work, and are profitable.
OK then....where are they?
Oh, wait, Cram, did you mean direct electrical power from photosynthesis?
I've never heard of that working and/or being worked on. Always thought it was science fiction.
Quote from: Kai on October 02, 2008, 11:46:46 PM
Oh, wait, Cram, did you mean direct electrical power from photosynthesis?
I've never heard of that working and/or being worked on. Always thought it was science fiction.
Doing a bit of digging I did find a group that is (was?) working on it. But the most recent thing I can find is from 2005. As such, I'm not very optimistic about it (but would love to be proven wrong).
http://www.fotomol.uu.se/Forskning/Biomimetics/fotosyntes/index.shtm (http://www.fotomol.uu.se/Forskning/Biomimetics/fotosyntes/index.shtm)
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-40757.html (http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-40757.html)
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/317 (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/317)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 05:38:16 AM
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/deployments.html
They've gotten their technology out there too.
And green energy isn't "trendy"; it's inevitable and forward thinking investors know it. The technology exists, in fact, they've even developed an algal ethanol that can power jets.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004442245_berlinairshow28.html
So please to not be telling me these things would be nice if they existed, and please do not be dissing my lack of solid science education because I'm an undergrad. These technologies exist, work, and are profitable.
OK then....where are they?
Name something I've mentioned.
Quote from: Felix on October 02, 2008, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2008, 05:18:00 AM
Does it take you six hours to fill your scooter's gas tank when you stop at the gas station?
My point was that it seems like they made a big tradeoff in battery life for speed, when the speed is much, much less relevant for most scooter users than battery life.
The SUMO isn't a scooter. The scooter they're selling is at the end of the video. 90MPH is low-end average for a motorbike these days.
I'll admit that it's not going to end gasoline use. Far from it. But if people are using something like this for in-city short hops (which get you lower MPG), then it's a legitimate way to curb fuel consumption.
Like I said before, an electric vehicle can't solve the problem entirely, but the problem can't be solved without non-fossil burning options.
There is just no way one technology can stop fossil fuel reliance, much less reverse any of the damage.
Legally, anything over 50 CCs or the equivalent is a motorcycle, but I'm not here to argue irrelevant semantics. I'll call it a fucking scooter if I want to, because it looks like a goddamn scooter and if I can't drive it to Port Townsend in one day it's a fucking scooter as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just pointing out that there's really just no reason a vehicle that can't go beyond a 75-mile range from home (60 if you're playing it safe... wouldn't it suck to be stranded?) needs to be able to go 95 mph for, as you say, in-city short hops, and that if I were purchasing a vehicle I would rather have one that went slower but further on one charge. I have a particular peeve about the trend that's so popular lately, of needlessly overpowered, inefficient, wasteful vehicles.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 01:00:02 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 02, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 05:38:16 AM
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/deployments.html
They've gotten their technology out there too.
And green energy isn't "trendy"; it's inevitable and forward thinking investors know it. The technology exists, in fact, they've even developed an algal ethanol that can power jets.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004442245_berlinairshow28.html
So please to not be telling me these things would be nice if they existed, and please do not be dissing my lack of solid science education because I'm an undergrad. These technologies exist, work, and are profitable.
OK then....where are they?
Name something I've mentioned.
Uh, it doesn't work that way.
I frankly think the only reason it goes 95mph is for selling it to monkeys who'll go "ZOMG COOL A MOTORCYCLE!" when it's just a scooter and will be used as a damn scooter.
I thought I'd go for our posts just to make myself as irritating as possible...
... actually I just thought I'd post this from the EIA website:
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1_t.jpg)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
I'm kind of wondering why it makes sense to anyone to base an argument on "Well but probably someday in the future things will be different!"
I mean, in the future we might have teleportation and efficient batteries and homemade hydrogen generators.
Basing arguments on current reality makes a lot more sense to me.
STOP IT.
YOU ARE RUINING FELIX'S TECHNO-UTOPIAN DREAMS.
Ah, forgive me for reposting this same link from the last page, but
YOU MATTRESSFUCKERS DIDN'T BOTHER READING IT.
LINK.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613
Don't feel like reading a lot?
Coal costs more than solar now.
Bitches.
So let's stop talking about things not existing, and start wondering why they're not being USED.
Oh, there's a massive coal lobby isn't there? Funny that.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 04:15:22 PM
I frankly think the only reason it goes 95mph is for selling it to monkeys who'll go "ZOMG COOL A MOTORCYCLE!" when it's just a scooter and will be used as a damn scooter.
Because you totally don't need to go fast. That would almost be FUN, and everyone knows electrics are boring to drive. :roll:
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 04:07:11 PM
Legally, anything over 50 CCs or the equivalent is a motorcycle, but I'm not here to argue irrelevant semantics. I'll call it a fucking scooter if I want to, because it looks like a goddamn scooter and if I can't drive it to Port Townsend in one day it's a fucking scooter as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just pointing out that there's really just no reason a vehicle that can't go beyond a 75-mile range from home (60 if you're playing it safe... wouldn't it suck to be stranded?) needs to be able to go 95 mph for, as you say, in-city short hops, and that if I were purchasing a vehicle I would rather have one that went slower but further on one charge. I have a particular peeve about the trend that's so popular lately, of needlessly overpowered, inefficient, wasteful vehicles.
Quote from: Motorized Scooters: Manufacturer Disclosure. The CA Dept. of Licensing site:
407.5. (a) A "motorized scooter" is any two-wheeled device that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is designed to be stood upon when riding, and is powered by an electric motor. This device may also have a driver seat that does not interfere with the ability of the rider to stand and ride and may also be designed to be powered by human propulsion. For purposes of this section, an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined in Section 313, a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, a motor-driven cycle, as defined in Section 405, or a motorized bicycle or moped, as defined in Section 406, is not a motorized scooter.
If you're going to argue the fucking point about what to call a thing, try not to use Some To All arguments.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 09:26:06 PM
Ah, forgive me for reposting this same link from the last page, but
YOU MATTRESSFUCKERS DIDN'T BOTHER READING IT.
LINK.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613
Don't feel like reading a lot?
Coal costs more than solar now.
Bitches.
But is the infrastructure in place? That is a sizable investment to change from one power source to another. (Not saying it shouldn't be done, just curious)
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 09:35:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 04:07:11 PM
Legally, anything over 50 CCs or the equivalent is a motorcycle, but I'm not here to argue irrelevant semantics. I'll call it a fucking scooter if I want to, because it looks like a goddamn scooter and if I can't drive it to Port Townsend in one day it's a fucking scooter as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just pointing out that there's really just no reason a vehicle that can't go beyond a 75-mile range from home (60 if you're playing it safe... wouldn't it suck to be stranded?) needs to be able to go 95 mph for, as you say, in-city short hops, and that if I were purchasing a vehicle I would rather have one that went slower but further on one charge. I have a particular peeve about the trend that's so popular lately, of needlessly overpowered, inefficient, wasteful vehicles.
Quote from: Motorized Scooters: Manufacturer Disclosure. The CA Dept. of Licensing site:
407.5. (a) A "motorized scooter" is any two-wheeled device that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is designed to be stood upon when riding, and is powered by an electric motor. This device may also have a driver seat that does not interfere with the ability of the rider to stand and ride and may also be designed to be powered by human propulsion. For purposes of this section, an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined in Section 313, a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, a motor-driven cycle, as defined in Section 405, or a motorized bicycle or moped, as defined in Section 406, is not a motorized scooter.
If you're going to argue the fucking point about what to call a thing, try not to use Some To All arguments.
You are the one who started arguing with me for calling it a "scooter", dippy mcdippington. If it's SO FUCKING IMPORTANT to you that it's NOT A SCOOTER, maybe it means YOU HAVE A TINY PENIS.
Also, by your retarded stepkid definition, pretty much none of the vehicles sold as "scooters" are scooters, because they're not designed to be ridden standing. :lulz:
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:40:52 PM
You are the one who started arguing with me for calling it a "scooter", dippy mcdippington. If it's SO FUCKING IMPORTANT to you that it's NOT A SCOOTER, maybe it means YOU HAVE A TINY PENIS.
Oh shit, green energy disproven. :lol:
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:01 PM
Also, by your retarded stepkid definition, pretty much none of the vehicles sold as "scooters" are scooters, because they're not designed to be ridden standing. :lulz:
You can't stand on a scooter floorboard?
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
It is really really real. Did you read it? It's a real product, on sale, in production, that works. What else would you like?
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
It is really really real. Did you read it? It's a real product, on sale, in production, that works. What else would you like?
Unicorns that shit rainbows.
Also, how come I'm the only one able to cite references?
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:11:24 PM
Also, how come I'm the only one able to cite references?
What do you think I did? And I cited one that has more weight than the California Bureau of Furniture and Bedding, or whatever completely irrelevant toy-licensing site you found.
LEARN 2 RESEARCH
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
It is really really real. Did you read it? It's a real product, on sale, in production, that works. What else would you like?
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE US IS GENERATED THAT WAY RIGHT NOW?
Dumbfuck.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:20:34 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:11:24 PM
Also, how come I'm the only one able to cite references?
What do you think I did? And I cited one that has more weight than the California Bureau of Furniture and Bedding, or whatever completely irrelevant toy-licensing site you found.
LEARN 2 RESEARCH
You aren't very good at debating. Calling names and saying essentially "no u" is not good debating.
Remember last time we disagreed? You haven't improved.
I'm not arguing green energy to blow off steam like you are, Nigel. It actually matters to me.
tl;dr, fuck off.
I love people who insist that because the technology exists, it's in extensive use. Hello, reality gap.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:23:32 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
It is really really real. Did you read it? It's a real product, on sale, in production, that works. What else would you like?
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE US IS GENERATED THAT WAY RIGHT NOW?
Dumbfuck.
And I'm not arguing that we have solar energy right now. I'm arguing that there's a clear path to clean energy, and coal and oil lobbies are blocking that path.
Read my posts.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:24:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:20:34 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:11:24 PM
Also, how come I'm the only one able to cite references?
What do you think I did? And I cited one that has more weight than the California Bureau of Furniture and Bedding, or whatever completely irrelevant toy-licensing site you found.
LEARN 2 RESEARCH
You aren't very good at debating. Calling names and saying essentially "no u" is not good debating.
Remember last time we disagreed? You haven't improved.
I'm not arguing green energy to blow off steam like you are, Nigel. It actually matters to me.
tl;dr, fuck off.
LOL IT MATTERS
K but you're still not being very realistic. Sorry I don't like ur scooter.
No, I don't remember the last time we disagreed. Should I?
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:24:21 PM
I love people who insist that because the technology exists, it's in extensive use. Hello, reality gap.
See above, I never said exactly that. I said it exists and is viable. What thread are you reading?
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:25:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:23:32 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 10:42:52 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I'm talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY REALITY RIGHT NOW, though. Not what might happen in the future. You know? CURRENT REALITY. It seems like you need lessons in it.
It is really really real. Did you read it? It's a real product, on sale, in production, that works. What else would you like?
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE US IS GENERATED THAT WAY RIGHT NOW?
Dumbfuck.
And I'm not arguing that we have solar energy right now. I'm arguing that there's a clear path to clean energy, and coal and oil lobbies are blocking that path.
Read my posts.
All I did was point out that it's true that most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, and you keep arguing with that as if you have a point.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:24:21 PM
I love people who insist that because the technology exists, it's in extensive use. Hello, reality gap.
See above, I never said exactly that. I said it exists and is viable. What thread are you reading?
the thread where some dude thinks an electric scooter is cool because it goes real fast.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:27:31 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:26:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:24:21 PM
I love people who insist that because the technology exists, it's in extensive use. Hello, reality gap.
See above, I never said exactly that. I said it exists and is viable. What thread are you reading?
the thread where some dude thinks an electric scooter is cool because it goes real fast.
That is cool. I love speeding. But it's also not my point. Why are you attacking my irrelevant fluff?
Actually, the uselessness of a commuter vehicle that goes 90 mph was MY point in my initial post, which you then argued with using irrelevancies like "But it's not a scooter!"
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:35:46 PM
Actually, the uselessness of a commuter vehicle that goes 90 mph was MY point in my initial post, which you then argued with using irrelevancies like "But it's not a scooter!"
Okay, I can actually work with that.
A) It goes as far as I need it to. My school is about ten minutes away.
B) It looks fun.
C) The usual justifications for electric vehicles all over the internet.
I had an idea to coat the thing in the solar film I mentioned ITT, which, given the efficiency of the stuff, could charge the bike about 1/4 to 1/2 as fast as a 110-volt wall plugin, but for free. Dig?
(Disclaimer: I said half as fast. It would probably take longer than a plugin, but not by much more than a factor of 4 at my miserliest guesses)
My only dip into the fossil fuel argument was to confirm that it is indeed true that the vast majority of electricity in the US is generated from it, making electric vehicles not actually much of a solution to the fossil fuel problem at this time. Also that arguing that technology exists to change this fact is not very meaningful given that there is no guarantee that it will be implemented anytime soon. It is very likely that IF those technologies are heavily implemented in the US, it will not happen until after the useful lifespan of one of these scooters, assuming you bought one immediately.
I know reality isn't as fun as daydreaming, but back to my original point: if there was a way for them to give it a longer battery life in trade off for a lower maximum speed at the same price point, I would consider it a more practical vehicle. I do not see the point, especially in my region where people often commute a hundred miles each way, of a commuter vehicle that only gets 150 miles to the charge and requires 6 hours to recharge.
Are you still arguing with me? Did you notice all of the subjective verbiage in my original post? Or did you not like it when I pointed out that you can refill your gas tank in less than 6 hours?
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:40:53 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:35:46 PM
Actually, the uselessness of a commuter vehicle that goes 90 mph was MY point in my initial post, which you then argued with using irrelevancies like "But it's not a scooter!"
Okay, I can actually work with that.
A) It goes as far as I need it to. My school is about ten minutes away.
B) It looks fun.
C) The usual justifications for electric vehicles all over the internet.
I had an idea to coat the thing in the solar film I mentioned ITT, which, given the efficiency of the stuff, could charge the bike about 1/4 to 1/2 as fast as a 110-volt wall plugin, but for free. Dig?
(Disclaimer: I said half as fast. It would probably take longer than a plugin, but not by much more than a factor of 4 at my miserliest guesses)
For you, it would probably be perfect. For me, ridiculous.
I would be curious to know how much coal it takes to generate the electricity for one full charge.
Our winter days are not 12 hours long, and they are often terribly overcast. Actually, for that matter, rain and ice make scooters a poor choice of transportation about half the year.
How much would the solar film cost?
Would you always park it on the street to allow it to charge?
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:42:44 PM
Are you still arguing with me? Did you notice all of the subjective verbiage in my original post? Or did you not like it when I pointed out that you can refill your gas tank in less than 6 hours?
I cede that electrics aren't as convenient.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:42:44 PM
My only dip into the fossil fuel argument was to confirm that it is indeed true that the vast majority of electricity in the US is generated from it, making electric vehicles not actually much of a solution to the fossil fuel problem at this time.
As I'd said, electrics aren't the only technology that needs to be used. There are plenty of viable ways to generate energy that, if not quite as convenient or as technologically established as coal/crude oil, will cost less in the long run both monetarily and environmentally. I know that green energy isn't big energy yet, but I see it as a fairly strong trend that will explode over the next decade.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:42:44 PMIt is very likely that IF those technologies are heavily implemented in the US, it will not happen until after the useful lifespan of one of these scooters, assuming you bought one immediately.
I'm not rich enough to buy things right now. But regardless, there are ways a person can generate their own DIY green energy at home without waiting for energy companies to pipe it into their house. Citations upon request.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:42:44 PM
I know reality isn't as fun as daydreaming, but back to my original point: if there was a way for them to give it a longer battery life in trade off for a lower maximum speed at the same price point, I would consider it a more practical vehicle. I do not see the point, especially in my region where people often commute a hundred miles each way, of a commuter vehicle that only gets 150 miles to the charge and requires 6 hours to recharge.
It's not for everyone, I admit. But yes, you could reconfigure such a vehicle to conserve power over top speed if you're handy with electrical engineering. Additionally, I'd personally feel free to load the thing up with spare batteries, and exchange some power required to haul them around for longer life.
Ultimately, I'd be happy with a 60-70MPH bike that could recharge in the sun.
Quote from: Nigel on October 03, 2008, 11:47:03 PM
For you, it would probably be perfect. For me, ridiculous.
I would be curious to know how much coal it takes to generate the electricity for one full charge.
Our winter days are not 12 hours long, and they are often terribly overcast. Actually, for that matter, rain and ice make scooters a poor choice of transportation about half the year.
How much would the solar film cost?
Would you always park it on the street to allow it to charge?
1) Solar is pretty much only practical on sunny days, to my dismay. Many solutions at once will be the green energy of the future, I'm afraid.
2) Nanosolar hasn't released very many details about what they're charging manufacturers, I get the impression they're working some kind of angle there. They're only releasing full details about product costs under "Non-Disclosure Agreement with qualified volume customers". It seems like they've been getting so many offers from various investors that they can be picky as they like.
ETA:
Quote"With a $1-per-watt panel," [CEO Martin Roscheisen] said, "it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."
According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.
That's the most I know.
ETA: That, and a solar panel from them is supposed to be able to pay for itself in < 1 month, compared to older PV cells that take up to 3 years to pay themselves back.
3) Personally, I'd only park it on the street at destinations, and keep it plugged in at home inside the garage.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 11:52:51 PM
I'm not rich enough to buy things right now. But regardless, there are ways a person can generate their own DIY green energy at home without waiting for energy companies to pipe it into their house. Citations upon request.
I'm aware of many of the commercially available ways, and they are out of my budget range. That's going to be a significant consideration for most people.
Quote
It's not for everyone, I admit. But yes, you could reconfigure such a vehicle to conserve power over top speed if you're handy with electrical engineering. Additionally, I'd personally feel free to load the thing up with spare batteries, and exchange some power required to haul them around for longer life.
Handy with electrical engineering? Well, who isn't!
Quote
Ultimately, I'd be happy with a 60-70MPH bike that could recharge in the sun.
I'd be happy with a 40-45mph scooter that could recharge in the sun. Oh look, here's one!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/the_worlds_firs.php
Curious how it existed in 2006 and was going into production, but there's not a peep about it after that.
I have become terribly jaded about the likelihood of new green technologies taking the world by storm.
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 12:39:21 AM
I'd be happy with a 40-45mph scooter that could recharge in the sun. Oh look, here's one!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/the_worlds_firs.php
Curious how it existed in 2006 and was going into production, but there's not a peep about it after that.
I have become terribly jaded about the likelihood of new green technologies taking the world by storm.
Vaporware. That's not even a real picture. It probably never took off because they released specs and prices before they figured out how to make one.
Not everyone's like that, just companies that make unrealistic claims before they've done anything.
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 12:39:21 AM
Quote
It's not for everyone, I admit. But yes, you could reconfigure such a vehicle to conserve power over top speed if you're handy with electrical engineering. Additionally, I'd personally feel free to load the thing up with spare batteries, and exchange some power required to haul them around for longer life.
Handy with electrical engineering? Well, who isn't!
Yeah, I know. But a lot of the time people who happen to be will post modification instructions online.
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 02:02:16 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 12:39:21 AM
Quote
It's not for everyone, I admit. But yes, you could reconfigure such a vehicle to conserve power over top speed if you're handy with electrical engineering. Additionally, I'd personally feel free to load the thing up with spare batteries, and exchange some power required to haul them around for longer life.
Handy with electrical engineering? Well, who isn't!
Yeah, I know. But a lot of the time people who happen to be will post modification instructions online.
Well, lord knows everyone has plenty of time to build their own gadgets from internet instructions.
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 02:00:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 12:39:21 AM
I'd be happy with a 40-45mph scooter that could recharge in the sun. Oh look, here's one!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/the_worlds_firs.php
Curious how it existed in 2006 and was going into production, but there's not a peep about it after that.
I have become terribly jaded about the likelihood of new green technologies taking the world by storm.
Vaporware. That's not even a real picture. It probably never took off because they released specs and prices before they figured out how to make one.
Not everyone's like that, just companies that make unrealistic claims before they've done anything.
Which, in my adult experience, is most of them.
Quote from: Felix on October 03, 2008, 10:24:24 PM
Look into nanosolar. They can literally print off solar panels cheaply. Solar panels that are much more powerful than the old ones.
www.nanosolar.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLKVs9oSxE
Look into it.
I am still under the impression that the biggest problem with solar is an effective means of
storing the energy, not the cost-effectiveness of producing it in the first place.
is that no longer true?
for the record, I think tidal power is the most promising potential carbon-free source of energy, but it is hard to see how to adapt it to be useful in the context of personal transport.
unless you live in an estuary and kayak to work.
Energy can be stored in all kind of creative ways.
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
Another way is to have spare energy power hydrogen synthesis machines that turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, and store the hydrogen. Hydrogen storage is imperfect, because hydrogen atoms are the smallest atoms it tends to leak out of things, albeit somewhat slowly.
There are lots of ways to store hydrogen though. There's a wiki on it. But the point remains, you'd only need to store enough to last you the night anyway, and any that leaks out will just go back into the atmosphere.
will you guys just sodomize each other with a crowbar and get it over with? Plus, ECH has it right; creation of energy isn't the problem. Put yr money in battery tech.
http://www.designfax.net/news/archive/04-24-2007/stories/feature-5.asp
QuoteNanophosphate cells also have the unique ability to charge to high capacity in 5 min or less. A significant improvement over conventional Li-ion (the average recharge typically requires 90 min or more), the fast-charge capability lends a new level of convenience for users of cordless products and practical electric drive/propulsion vehicles. M1 nanophosphate cells can also aid applications in laser designation systems, transmission power sources for micro sensors, non-lethal electric weapons, aerospace/ground engine start systems, distributed jamming systems, and a many more.
These babies rock. I should have mentioned them earlier because they're the sort of battery you might use to get crazy mileage on an Electric Vehicle.
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 05:27:58 AM
Energy can be stored in all kind of creative ways.
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
Another way is to have spare energy power hydrogen synthesis machines that turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, and store the hydrogen. Hydrogen storage is imperfect, because hydrogen atoms are the smallest atoms it tends to leak out of things, albeit somewhat slowly.
There are lots of ways to store hydrogen though. There's a wiki on it. But the point remains, you'd only need to store enough to last you the night anyway, and any that leaks out will just go back into the atmosphere.
should I assume you have stopped taking this conversation seriously, or should I ask you for some of whatever you're smoking?
Hey, I said it was an odd idea, but it works. Can't really argue with that.
Jesus, I feel like I'm the only one who's taken this discussion seriously so far. Nigel was mostly just interested in saying my penis was small and now I'm told I'm on drugs for mentioning an effective but nonstandard method of energy storage.
Quote from: LMNO on October 04, 2008, 05:29:35 AM
will you guys just sodomize each other with a crowbar and get it over with? Plus, ECH has it right; creation of energy isn't the problem. Put yr money in battery tech.
Well, yes. There's a reason that a "perfect battery" is sort of an energy Holy Grail.
Felix, I just think you're way off in la-la land right now. You're looking at all of the putative technologies with so much theoretical potential and imagining that it will all be realized within a few years and the energy landscape will be vastly different. I'm looking at all of the putative technologies and realizing that, as has been the case with each and every exciting new putative technology for decades, each of them in practice will bring us only a single small increment closer to the goal of truly efficient energy.
So instead of arguing with your sweet freshman optimism, I cast frivolous insults.
I am pleased that you remembered the small penis barb, though, because I was pretty happy with slipping that stereotype in and I'm glad that it made an impression.
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 06:34:42 AM
Felix, I just think you're way off in la-la land right now. You're looking at all of the putative technologies with so much theoretical potential and imagining that it will all be realized within a few years and the energy landscape will be vastly different.
Sigh, forget I said anything. I've tried to point you to existing, proven technologies half a dozen times and every time you say it doesn't exist or isn't real. I give up on you.
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 06:39:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 06:34:42 AM
Felix, I just think you're way off in la-la land right now. You're looking at all of the putative technologies with so much theoretical potential and imagining that it will all be realized within a few years and the energy landscape will be vastly different.
Sigh, forget I said anything. I've tried to point you to existing, proven technologies half a dozen times and every time you say it doesn't exist or isn't real. I give up on you.
Wut
I didn't say it didn't exist or wasn't real, I said that it isn't being widely or affordably implemented and I'm too practical and realistic to assume that it WILL be, or even that it CAN be based on the limited real-world application so far.
But you can give up on me if you wish, because honestly I don't think you're trainable.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 04, 2008, 05:50:38 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 05:27:58 AM
Energy can be stored in all kind of creative ways.
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
Another way is to have spare energy power hydrogen synthesis machines that turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, and store the hydrogen. Hydrogen storage is imperfect, because hydrogen atoms are the smallest atoms it tends to leak out of things, albeit somewhat slowly.
There are lots of ways to store hydrogen though. There's a wiki on it. But the point remains, you'd only need to store enough to last you the night anyway, and any that leaks out will just go back into the atmosphere.
should I assume you have stopped taking this conversation seriously, or should I ask you for some of whatever you're smoking?
Are you going to leave it at that? I'd like to hear why you don't think it'd work.
I also think you're a tender thing.
Do you know what the word "putative" means? Do you even have a firm grasp on the topic? What is your major, again, and what year are you in? Maybe you should go find a bookstore and look for some 10-year-old issues of New Scientist.
Quote from: Nigel on October 04, 2008, 07:01:47 AM
I also think you're a tender thing.
I operate on respect. Call it a principle. Don't expect me to reply to your posts if all you're going to do is talk down to me for no reason.
:lulz:
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 06:49:01 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 04, 2008, 05:50:38 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 05:27:58 AM
Energy can be stored in all kind of creative ways.
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
Another way is to have spare energy power hydrogen synthesis machines that turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, and store the hydrogen. Hydrogen storage is imperfect, because hydrogen atoms are the smallest atoms it tends to leak out of things, albeit somewhat slowly.
There are lots of ways to store hydrogen though. There's a wiki on it. But the point remains, you'd only need to store enough to last you the night anyway, and any that leaks out will just go back into the atmosphere.
should I assume you have stopped taking this conversation seriously, or should I ask you for some of whatever you're smoking?
Are you going to leave it at that? I'd like to hear why you don't think it'd work.
you really need me to explain why storing energy in the form of hanging weights isn't something that would work on a national or global scale?
where can I go buy one of these hydrogen synthesis machines?
and your assertion that solar power would solve most of our problems if we could just figure out how to store the energy overnight is great for people who live in the sun belt. those poor fuckers in the PNW (or anywhere else that isn't sunny
every single day) will just have to deal with it, right?
don't get me wrong, I agree with you about the imminent and burning need to find alternative carbon-free sources for energy, but solar energy is too unreliable to be more than a supplementary source for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 07:09:18 AM
I operate on respect.
Hello, and welcome to the internet.
Solar doesn't work in all areas because a) you need the input energy to be consistent enough for large scale operations, ie the southwest and b) we don't have a good way to store the electricity or any electricity for that matter at this point. There are also environmental costs associated with it, as there will be with any large scale energy operation. Wind follows suit for the same reasons, and so does tidal power. Hydroelectric is environmentally unfriendly, it alters the flow regimes in rivers which can cause massive ecosystem problems both upstream (in the resevoir) and down stream. Its like a beaver dam except long term and on a massive scale. Its also unviable over the long term since the resevoir will eventually end up filled with silt. Coal is the old fasioned way to generate electricity, but its not exactly clean. Nuclear is clean but then you have the waste issue. Fusion is of yet a science fiction story. Biofuels for electricity and transport have some of the same environmental and efficiency issues as coal. Hydrogen fuels for transport are very costly and as of now are still utilizing hydrocarbons (ie oil) to derive hydrogen. Oil is not going to be around at transport viable levels forever, and has environmental problems associated with all aspects of its production.
In Wisconsin, you can't really use solar power, there aren't enough days of sun. Its okay for wind power but the people keep shooting down wind initiatives (not in MY backyard, they say). Hydroelectric dams are actually being dismantled on Wisconsin rivers rather than built, because people are becoming more ecologically concious. No one wants a new nuclear power plant or coal fire powerplant in their backyard either. Biofuels and hydrogen fuels are still not available, and oil is going down the tubes here. At the same time, the population of Wisconsin and its energy needs is growing. No one wants new power plants to handle the extra load, yet the load is there.
Which is why I say that the only real solution to our energy problems is lifestyle change. Since that won't happen, I'm convinced that things are going to continue to get worse until people are forced into it.
And we aren't even started talking about WATER, hah. Water is the new oil.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 04, 2008, 04:34:42 AM
I am still under the impression that the biggest problem with solar is an effective means of storing the energy, not the cost-effectiveness of producing it in the first place.
is that no longer true?
for the record, I think tidal power is the most promising potential carbon-free source of energy, but it is hard to see how to adapt it to be useful in the context of personal transport.
unless you live in an estuary and kayak to work.
wishing i lived in a place where i could kayak to work. sigh
I agree with Kai.
change in consumption/use patterns will have a much larger and more immediate impact than any of the emerging technologies at their current points of development.
So far, I've said or at least tried to say that every clean energy source is at least right now only part of the solution. Our energy is going to have to come from many sources. Noone wants to live in a nation that runs entirely on air power, for example. Many solutions at once is the key.
And yeah, lifestyle too. Not having people leave their computers on all night would help, for instance. Still, I'd argue that the economy and the environment would benefit from solar roofing in some areas. At very least it would reduce reliance on power companies.
Do you know how much solar roofing costs? In real life, I mean, not theoretically?
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 06:21:27 PM
So far, I've said or at least tried to say that every clean energy source is at least right now only part of the solution. Our energy is going to have to come from many sources. Noone wants to live in a nation that runs entirely on air power, for example. Many solutions at once is the key.
And yeah, lifestyle too. Not having people leave their computers on all night would help, for instance. Still, I'd argue that the economy and the environment would benefit from solar roofing in some areas. At very least it would reduce reliance on power companies.
Unfortunately we are economically and socially used to centralized power. Multi-source power is an idea you have to convince the public is good, and then furthermore convince them to have it going on in their neighborhood. Right now most people think of power plants as being something that is /over there somewhere/, and point in a general direction or say "well, everyone knows that the power comes from a power plant..." People don't know where their power comes from, they don't know where their water comes from and where their sewage goes. Most people don't care, as long as the prices stay low, the power keeps coming, and they don't have to feel the perceived direct environmental and aesthetic affects. When people start caring in large numbers and become mindful of such things then change will happen because with that will be lifestyle changes. Right now I don't see the slightest inclination toward such a movement. In fact, I see a movement towards corporatization of water and sewage, municipalities selling off their systems to the highest bidder, and then realizing years later the results that have come from the poor job that these corporations do (ie Atlanta).
I think you would find that its not "no one would want a nation run on wind" but rather more "not many care about our nation running on coal, as long as they don't have to see it out their window".
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 07:09:18 AM
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
I've done the math on this before, let me see if I can do it again.
According to Google Calculator: 1 foot pound = 0.000376616097 watt hours
so, 1 foot pound = 0.000000376616097 kilowatt hours
1 foot ton = 0.000753232194 kilowatt hours
100 foot tons = 0.0753232194 kilowatt hours
100,000 foot tons = 75.3232194 kilowatt hours
How many kilowatt hours do you use in an average day? Last month I used 14.7 kWh a day, and I have a 300 square foot apartment. That's enough energy to lift 1 ton 19522 feet, or 195.22 tons 100 feet. (at an impossible 100% efficiency)
Every time I work this problem I swear I must have done something wrong, but it consistently comes out to something ridiculous like that.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on October 05, 2008, 03:49:13 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 07:09:18 AM
One somewhat odd idea is to have spare energy lift a heavy weight. The weight remains suspended until energy is needed, then released on a flywheel to generate electricity.
I've done the math on this before, let me see if I can do it again.
According to Google Calculator: 1 foot pound = 0.000376616097 watt hours
so, 1 foot pound = 0.000000376616097 kilowatt hours
1 foot ton = 0.000753232194 kilowatt hours
100 foot tons = 0.0753232194 kilowatt hours
100,000 foot tons = 75.3232194 kilowatt hours
How many kilowatt hours do you use in an average day? Last month I used 14.7 kWh a day, and I have a 300 square foot apartment. That's enough energy to lift 1 ton 19522 feet, or 195.22 tons 100 feet. (at an impossible 100% efficiency)
Every time I work this problem I swear I must have done something wrong, but it consistently comes out to something ridiculous like that.
Variations on this that store energy in the difference in water levels between two connected reservoirs are in use, I believe.
yeah, it's called "hydroelectric power".
Back in the day people had little coal-burning generators in their houses. It was very, very efficient compared to burning coal off in the country and then trying to figure out how to transport and store the generated electricity, neither of which things we currently have the technology to do without tremendous loss.
The problem was that it made cities ungodly filthy and unhealthy places to live in, and the logical solution was to centralize electrical generation and move it out of the city.
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 05, 2008, 02:11:10 PM
yeah, it's called "hydroelectric power".
:lulz:
Incidentally, I had an idea. I'm obviously no engineer, but what's stopping us from getting hydroelectric from certain city sewer systems?
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 05, 2008, 02:11:10 PM
yeah, it's called "hydroelectric power".
:lulz:
Incidentally, I had an idea. I'm obviously no engineer, but what's stopping us from getting hydroelectric from certain city sewer systems?
Mostly that sewage treatment already uses massive amounts of electricity for water pumping but even more so for aeration tanks, settling pools, and other aspects. Its an energy intensive process, and any down slope movement is slowed by settling pools, aeration tanks, mechanical (both passive and active) particulate removal, etc.
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
I don't know if that's actually feasible, but it's certainly a clever idea.
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
It could work. Would be event driven however. Only useful in the wettest climates.
Oh, this is interesting.
http://earthanet.com/2008/01/28/plasma-arc-gasification-turning-garbage-into-gas/
Garbage into energy.
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 05, 2008, 02:11:10 PM
yeah, it's called "hydroelectric power".
:lulz:
Incidentally, I had an idea. I'm obviously no engineer, but what's stopping us from getting hydroelectric from certain city sewer systems?
:lulz:
You are trolling, aren't you?
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
It could work. Would be event driven however. Only useful in the wettest climates.
In such wet climates, what with there being a river right there and all, and it would take such a quantity of stormwater routed together in a completely revamped drainage system, it might make more sense to just build hydroelectric plants right at the riv... oh, wait.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2008, 11:25:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
It could work. Would be event driven however. Only useful in the wettest climates.
In such wet climates, what with there being a river right there and all, and it would take such a quantity of stormwater routed together in a completely revamped drainage system, it might make more sense to just build hydroelectric plants right at the riv... oh, wait.
Right. I was just considering whether it could work, not whether it made sense.
Quote from: Kai on October 06, 2008, 12:42:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2008, 11:25:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
It could work. Would be event driven however. Only useful in the wettest climates.
In such wet climates, what with there being a river right there and all, and it would take such a quantity of stormwater routed together in a completely revamped drainage system, it might make more sense to just build hydroelectric plants right at the riv... oh, wait.
Right. I was just considering whether it could work, not whether it made sense.
Yes, of course. :) I'm sorry you were caught in the wake of my mockery, I know you would not be so silly.
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:17:04 PM
Oh, this is interesting.
http://earthanet.com/2008/01/28/plasma-arc-gasification-turning-garbage-into-gas/
Garbage into energy.
they turn trash into energy at a plant near where I live.
the people downwind of it have the most justifiable case of NIMBY ever.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 06, 2008, 03:16:45 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:17:04 PM
Oh, this is interesting.
http://earthanet.com/2008/01/28/plasma-arc-gasification-turning-garbage-into-gas/
Garbage into energy.
they turn trash into energy at a plant near where I live.
the people downwind of it have the most justifiable case of NIMBY ever.
Yeah, just think of all those VOC's and toxic/heavy metal particulates raining down on the countryside or the oceans.
Quote from: Kai on October 06, 2008, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 06, 2008, 03:16:45 AM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:17:04 PM
Oh, this is interesting.
http://earthanet.com/2008/01/28/plasma-arc-gasification-turning-garbage-into-gas/
Garbage into energy.
they turn trash into energy at a plant near where I live.
the people downwind of it have the most justifiable case of NIMBY ever.
Yeah, just think of all those VOC's and toxic/heavy metal particulates raining down on the countryside or the oceans.
I'd be interested to know if they're using plasma arc gasification. Only a couple places have started using it so far.
Just burning garbage isn't what I'm talking about.
It uses plasma.
http://www.rexresearch.com/circeo/circeo.htm
I do honestly, at least in my river-rich region, think we need a lot more modern, dam-free hydropower plants.
Felix, plasma incineration seems promising... did you read the whole article?
Here is a related article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181083/
I honestly think garbage-to-ethanol systems are a better bet, but who knows... the next 15-20 years should reveal a lot.
Quote from: Felix on October 06, 2008, 04:20:47 AM
Just burning garbage isn't what I'm talking about.
It uses plasma.
http://www.rexresearch.com/circeo/circeo.htm
Which reduces emissions by burning it a lot more cleanly because of the high temperature, but is still burning garbage.
Hmm, there seem to not be enough impartial studies to really say for sure, but betting money says it's imperfect.
Cool idea though. If there were a way to improve emissions, it'd seem fairly ideal.
HEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls? :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PM
HEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls? :lulz:
I think they're worried you'll add them to your collection.
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PMHEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls? :lulz:
yeah or maybe you could lighten up a littlebit, cause i was not "all over your shit", like you suddenly exclaimed 15 seconds before quitting the channel, leaving me no chance to reply :(
as for your question why, i did not and still don't want to jack this thread and didnt and don't really want to make a big deal out of it.
so, if you really think i'm being a shit to you on IRC, you can tell me so on IRC (cause according to the rules you're trying to lay on me, that would be the grown-up thing to do?), and we could talk it out.
while you do so (cause i really don't intend on jacking this thread any further), you might also want to explain the exact conditions under which, according to you i am allowed to comment on posts made on this forum.
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PM
HEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls?
Spoken like a true "grown up", I might add.
Quote from: Vene on October 10, 2008, 11:12:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PM
HEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls? :lulz:
I think they're worried you'll add them to your collection.
That reminds me, I should go buy some more jars.
Quote from: triple zero on October 10, 2008, 11:47:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PMHEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls? :lulz:
yeah or maybe you could lighten up a littlebit, cause i was not "all over your shit", like you suddenly exclaimed 15 seconds before quitting the channel, leaving me no chance to reply :(
as for your question why, i did not and still don't want to jack this thread and didnt and don't really want to make a big deal out of it.
so, if you really think i'm being a shit to you on IRC, you can tell me so on IRC (cause according to the rules you're trying to lay on me, that would be the grown-up thing to do?), and we could talk it out.
while you do so (cause i really don't intend on jacking this thread any further), you might also want to explain the exact conditions under which, according to you i am allowed to comment on posts made on this forum.
I had work to do and I wasn't interested in hanging around there with you and MS tag-teaming me about how mean I was being to poor helpless Felix.
Quote from: Felix on October 11, 2008, 01:25:58 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 10, 2008, 10:27:41 PM
HEY 000 and MS, since you're all over my shit in IRC for me being a big meanie to Felix in this thread, why don't you grow a pair and post about it here, like grown-ups with actual balls?
Spoken like a true "grown up", I might add.
Oh shut the fuck up, you humorless peanut.
000, if you have some kind of a problem with something I've posted, why don't you take the time to comment on it on the board where I can reply to it in my free time, instead of creeping off to IRC to gossip about me in the middle of my workday, days after the fact? Were you hoping that what happened would happen... that people would agree with you, so that if I happened to actually show up you could gang up on me? Fuck off.
FYI, Felix, 000 thought I was mean to you, and MS thought I was doing it because I was "waiting for my chance" because of some run-in we've allegedly had before, which unfortunately I don't remember. Also 000 thought that me referencing your age (???) and penis size was a low blow. Of course, I have no idea of your age OR your penis size... but if you took either of those things personally and your feelings were hurt... well, good luck with that. :lulz:
If the PD isn't the kind of board I can take the piss on without a bunch of prats crying about it, maybe I should seek bloodier pastures.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2008, 11:25:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 10:14:40 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 10:11:42 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2008, 09:38:37 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 05, 2008, 08:11:57 PM
Huh. Okay, and I assume that includes storm drains too?
Output of storm drains is untreated, it is simply piped to the nearest stream or lake.
Right, so those storm pipes could possibly be used to generate power?
Especially if you designed a storm drain system that was meant to generate the most possible power.
It could work. Would be event driven however. Only useful in the wettest climates.
In such wet climates, what with there being a river right there and all, and it would take such a quantity of stormwater routed together in a completely revamped drainage system, it might make more sense to just build hydroelectric plants right at the riv... oh, wait.
I mean, come on, in what way is this not comedy gold?
Shit, I was going to rebut this, but I just don't see the point. Find someone else to start pointless arguments with. It was more fun when other people didn't get involved and make you Bawww.
Quote from: Felix on October 13, 2008, 08:15:56 AM
Shit, I was going to rebut this, but I just don't see the point. Find someone else to start pointless arguments with. It was more fun when other people didn't get involved and make you Bawww.
Oh, did I bawwww? My apologies, I was only trying to start shit.
you guys are cute.
Nigel is right as fuck about IRC though.
I don't even know if I should post this, but what the hell.
People tar IRC with the gossip/backstabbing/plotting brush all the time.
I feel like I'm personally included in that, because I'm in IRC quite a lot more than the people who say these things. Maybe I'm not, I dunno. It just feels I'm being tarred with the same brush.
All I really want to say is while it DOES happen in IRC (from a certain point of view), it is not endemic, constant or even particularly serious. Certainly no worse than people using PMs or instant messengers for the same purpose.
Whatever. I happened into IRC in the middle of an "argument"
There were links posted, so I did some reading to get informed of the situation. And Triple Zero made some valid points, that I agreed with, and I stated my agreement.
I don't think I should have to run off to the board every time I have an opinion. Since you were right there, I stated my opinion to you in real-time. You proceeded to throw a tantrum and log out.
So, I will repeat here, what I was in the middle of saying when you ran off.
You come to IRC, and start fights with people, and if I try to intervene, because with the exception of the few of you that seem addicted to drama, nobody ELSE wants to put up with that shit, I'm accused of all sorts of crimes from "Censorship" to "Telling you what to do" But when someone actually tries to bring a legitimate criticism to you, you bitch at them for attacking you, and, I quote you here "Injecting bullshit into [your] day."
If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you don't want me to intervene when you're being a dick to someone. Don't think I'm going to do it when someone's being a dick to you.
And in this case. Nobody was being a dick to you. There were valid criticisms, which you chose to interpret as a personal attack, and the way you reacted to them was childish.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 13, 2008, 01:25:53 PM
you guys are cute.
Nigel is right as fuck about IRC though.
I don't really see how. She's just trying to "start shit", after all.
I don't see you in IRC much.
actually, I've never seen you in IRC.
how are you qualified to have an opinion about whether or not IRC is too often used for back-channel shit-talking?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 13, 2008, 06:47:09 PM
I don't see you in IRC much.
actually, I've never seen you in IRC.
how are you qualified to have an opinion about whether or not IRC is too often used for back-channel shit-talking?
I've been on IRC about a dozen times since I've been back, and often before then.
> Were you hoping that what happened would happen... that people would agree with you, so that if I happened to actually show up you could gang up
> on me? Fuck off.
this was of course not my intention, and frankly, i'm a littlebit surprised that you even consider it.
nigel all i did was ask the channel if i was the only one that thought your tone was being overly harsh. not to "protect" felix (he defended himself well enough before i even read the thread), just because i noticed it and it was distracting me from the actual topic of the thread. i wondered about it. i did consider replying to the thread but i figured it would just jack it off-topic and create exactly the shit-pile you feel you were a victim of, it wasn't (and still isn't) important enough to bother the entire forum with.
yet i felt the need to comment, so i asked an *IMO* rather innocent question on IRC. and not behind your back or anything, because you were right there in the channel as well, and even if you were idling, i knew fully well you'd have a notification set for when your name is said, which i did. had i wanted to plot against you and gang up on you, i'd have said "n i g e l" or "n1gel" or just used PMs, wouldn't you think? (btw if i would actually notice someone trying that i would immediately jump to your defense, Nigel).
but this little question turned out to be a huge frickin golden apple and i am sorry this whole thing happened and that you feel shat upon.
however that doesn't take away the core of the problem, which i feel needs to be addressed or history is bound to repeat itself, as this isn't the first case that emotions ran high after someone commented on a thread on PD. and i feel this is a sad state of things, because #discord is attached to the PD community so it would be kind of difficult if
we weren't allowed to discuss happenings on PD anymore, at all.
or only unambiguously positive things.
or only when not naming any names.
or if we had to submit a duplicate to the relevant thread of every comment made on IRC about this thread, on PD (i could write a bot to do this and you can perhaps imagine that would get real annoying, real fast).
i don't know the answers either, but then again, i'm not most people and i couldn't give a flying fuck if someone in IRC would comment to me on something I posted on PD. but apparently others do, and what i do give about is when people i care about get all upset.
if people would really want to be plotting against me, they'd use a more private messaging and i'd be none the wiser. and if people want to gossip about me, they do it regardless of whether i'm around. better to let it out than bottle it all up in fear of me exploding in rage (hah can you imagine).
When I start on someone in IRC, it's someone I've already said the same shit to on the board, so they don't feel ambushed. You think Daruko didn't have fair warning regarding my opinion of him? Then you haven't been reading. That's the ONLY person I've started shit with on IRC. For the most part, I get on IRC for some fluff and to pass the time. I really didn't appreciate being ambushed in the middle of my workday by someone who was too goddamned weak to post criticisms here in the thread where it was relevant, but instead took it to a different venue where I had no reason to expect it.
My feeling is, if you have an issue with something someone posted on the board, be brave enough to post about it on the board, where you have to own your words later on. If you want to fight it out in IRC after that, that's cool, but saving it up for IRC is flat-out bullshit IMO.
I'm not a non-confrontational person, and if someone is being an idiot AND being snippy about it with me, I'm going to either call bullshit or mock them for my own amusement until they shut up. I don't know why Felix, in particular, is supposed to be exempt from this, when I've seen, received, and dished out plenty of similar treatment and no one said a peep.
Or maybe this is turning into the kinder, gentler PD, in which case, what the fuck.
I promise you one thing.
this will NOT turn into a kinder, gentler PD on my watch.
Quote from: Nigel on October 13, 2008, 11:52:39 PM
I'm not a non-confrontational person, and if someone is being an idiot AND being snippy about it with me, I'm going to either call bullshit or mock them for my own amusement until they shut up.
Quote from: Nigel on September 28, 2008, 02:01:03 AM
I am a confrontational cunt. Just giving you a heads-up.
:lulz: Sure Nigel. We believe yuo.
hey Felix, aren't "not non-confrontational" and "confrontational" the same thing?
:lulz:
Oh whoops, I wasn't expecting a double negative. My bad, I'll be on the lookout for bad grammar.
000 you might want to consider that some things are better-received posted on the board where one has time to digest and respond to a message, instead of having the ability/necessity to instantly respond with the immediate emotional reaction. It's how IRC turns into stupid drama shitfests, and in this case you started it. Just think about it the next time you feel the need to pick at something.
Also, 000. I was there, and it was basically completely unwarranted and stupid. Don't do that, god damn it.
I think what happened is this, someone correct me if not;
I was in a pissy mood the other day, after trig class. It happens often. On IRC, 000 said something in response to a random comment I made with words to the effect of "Maybe if you had any knowledge at all about psychology" and I responded with bile. He didn't mean it that way, and I forgave him as graciously as I could, having misinterpreted.
So I think 000 was assuming I was being thin with criticism because of this thread, and spoke with Nigel on my behalf.
I rather wish he didn't, but appreciate that he meant well.
If I'm reading the situation correctly.
This thread is real cute, guys. :lol:
Quote from: Payne on October 13, 2008, 04:04:43 PM
I don't even know if I should post this, but what the hell.
People tar IRC with the gossip/backstabbing/plotting brush all the time.
I feel like I'm personally included in that, because I'm in IRC quite a lot more than the people who say these things. Maybe I'm not, I dunno. It just feels I'm being tarred with the same brush.
All I really want to say is while it DOES happen in IRC (from a certain point of view), it is not endemic, constant or even particularly serious. Certainly no worse than people using PMs or instant messengers for the same purpose.
TITCM. I feel like I'm being labelled with the drama pot just for being in IRC fairly consistantly. There's drama there, sure, but if you think it's more than what's raging through this board, plz to look around more.
Anyway.. my unqualified views of the OT leave me stuck on this one part: if all these other sources of energy/fuel/power were so accessible, as I think Felix has been saying, wouldn't they be in use?
GUISE, I HAS TEH DUMB.
\
:mullet:
I think what happened is this. someone correct me if I'm wrong:
you guys need to pull your balls out of your vaginas and stop whining like bitches about something that happened on the internet.
that goes for everyone involved in this trivially stupid argument.
Even you, Nigel. In spite of the fact that my instinctive emotional reaction is to agree with you and defend your position, it's still trivial and needs to be gotten over.
I thought PD.com was about hanging onto everything forever. :? :eek:
/snark
ECH: right as usual.
Well, sure.
Basically, I was thinking about why 000's comment pissed me off, and it boils down to this: He didn't address me with it. If he'd said "Hey Nigel, I think you were being really condescending toward Felix in that thread, what's up with that?" I wouldn't have been pissed. But he said "What's up with Nigel being really condescending in this thread? <link>" and it had that schoolgirl-gossip quality about it and it fucking cheesed me. And then when I said "what did I do this time?" he and MS proceeded to pick apart my responses in this thread. Fuckers.
The end.
Quote from: Felix on October 14, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 13, 2008, 11:52:39 PM
I'm not a non-confrontational person, and if someone is being an idiot AND being snippy about it with me, I'm going to either call bullshit or mock them for my own amusement until they shut up.
Quote from: Nigel on September 28, 2008, 02:01:03 AM
I am a confrontational cunt. Just giving you a heads-up.
:lulz: Sure Nigel. We believe yuo.
:lulz: Good job understanding, Corky.
Oh also if I get bored later I might be in IRC looking to start something, 'cause I'm a badass that way. :argh!:
Also, thanks ECH and Badgies.
This is why my post count is so high! I demand respect. :kingmeh:
PM me for PROTIPs on how to troll #discord.
:lulz:
I have my IRC opening line for all eternity, now.
Quote from: Felix on September 22, 2008, 08:50:04 AM
I want a SUMO.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3838721808955166856&vt=lf&hl=en
Whatever happened to Felix? :sad:
Last I heard he had tried working with some of the Dr. steel forumites, with mixed success.
Quote from: Richter on August 26, 2009, 09:42:28 PM
Last I heard he had tried working with some of the Dr. steel forumites, with mixed success.
Having poked at that hive of nonsense, I wish him luck. Dr. Steel seems to have some creative thought and a pretty good set of music... his little wannabe followers, OMGZ they're scary sad and pathetic.
So many ways to stir shit with this thread...
I think the last time Felix came back he expressed disillusionment with the Dr. Steel forums. Dunno what he's up to now.
I forget exactly what he said his approach or the responses were, so I'll defer to his account if I get it wrong. Soemthing about seeding some of the writings and ideas he'd run across here. Responses were a geenral "Yeah, that's cool." and little further interest or disection.
I think i've seen him on the Facebook thingy.