|
| Thread: EU to ban cars from cities by 2050 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 30, 2011 01:57 AM |
|
|
But you can get our forests! Lots of forest!
Denmark would torture pigs and export meat, Sweden give some wood and Norway oil!
All Swedes would be forced to learn Norway and Norwegians and Denmarkians swedish because according to my Swedish teacher, norwegian and danish is the basically the same language which is weird since swedes can understand norwegian and not danish at all.
Plus, there are already LOTS of swedes working in Norway! We peel bananas etc for you
Atleast join the Nordic Union? All Nordic countries would be in, just like Finland. SWEDEN WOULD LEAVE THE EU WITH ITS RIDICULOUS UNDEMOCRATIC LAWS AND A NEW ORDER WOULD RISE!
it would be sooooooooooooooooo awesome if all nordic countries were united! we would be number 1 in: Oil, furniture, music and meatballs
also I dont understand why finland wanted to become an independant country
finland was a part of sweden called österland - eastland - and in balticum apparently when that was part of sweden they said it was the "good old swedish times" so i dont get why all countries had to leave
lol I read on wikipedia that some baltic countries want to be considered nordic countries? im sorry, but we have like nothing in common unlike the nordic countries which have a lot in common and I believe swedish danish and norwegian has the exact same grammar
finally, why dont finland release Österbotten and Åland? dont they want to be part of sweden? why not let them`?
also I dont get why people are forced to study swedish in finland
that just sounds ridiculous to me though I love the accent (which wikipedia says is not an accent? i don't get it)
I would be super pissed off if I lived in Russia and was being forced to learn ukrainan or something like that
ok but my wishlist (its soon my birthday)
1. Top priority. All Nordic countries who are in the EU leave it and form their own union. I can already travel freely to any nordic country I want too, without visiting any border guard guys or anything.
2. Less priority. Sweden + Denmark + Norway become a single country with three capital cities. City of Oil, Politics and Commerce. I have read about nationalism in school, and according to it, these three countries really meet the requirements in order to become a single nation. A new national anthem would be written. We would be able to watch Norwegian and Danish tv shows on our TVs because when I visit vg.no which I do all the time because I am very interested in how things are going in the other nordic countries etc, I see lists of swedish TV shows and I was like "wtf? why?"
ok this post is to long
now i need to sleep
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 03:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We would be number 1 in: Oil, furniture, music and meatballs
It's true that Swedish spaghetti >> Italian spaghetti. Very underrated. What's that light brown sauce that you put in it?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 05:29 AM |
|
|
Too many people treat the future as though it were so tame and predictable.
There is no guarantee that grand breakthroughs in cars will come in due time. We might still not have fusion in 40 years. We might not have electric or hydro cars that are better than fossil fuel cars. We might not have a substantially better means of storing photovoltaic energy. And if we do make some good improvements, they might be counterbalanced (and then some) by the larger population living in developed areas.
We comfortably assume that such grand breakthroughs will come, since grand breakthroughs occurred in the past, right? In a few areas, yes. In many areas, no. It was often predicted in the 1960s that commercial flying cars would be common by now, and not just by naive hippies, but by highly intelligent, admirable, and attractive people, such as me. It hasn't happened, and using individual flying vehicles is still far from being commercially practical.
What might occur in the next 40 years instead is a shift in culture, where going out for shopping becomes abnormal, and delivery via box trucks becomes the norm. Where working from home becomes the norm and communicating with colleagues via hologram (which does commercially exist now) becomes the norm. In order to meet our desire for daily social interaction, public social halls and convention centers might make a big comeback from the earlier centuries. Or online and virtual interaction will enormously expand its role. These are things that would enormously reduce our demands, and if these wonderful breakthroughs turn out to be much less than what we're hoping for, and if the cost of transit and power becomes ever steeper, it might be what 2050 or 2070 will be like.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 08:33 AM |
|
|
Blizzard, maybe you have missed the recent E-car developments - Nissan is already selling one with an 80 kw engine. Peugeot/Citroen have one as well. Renault comes with 4, all on the market within a year.
In 5 years every car manufacturer will offer E-cars (and I bet it won't even take that long).
And 40 years is plenty. given the speed things change with nowadays.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 10:47 AM |
|
|
The current issues with electric cars are the range it can be driven on one load and price. If the price was lower they'd be a viable option in the cities already. In 50 years there's no doubt that in 50 years they'll get to prices affordable for normal people.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 11:04 AM |
|
|
Also the time needed to charge the "battery".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 07:29 PM |
|
|
Some downsides to electric cars:
1) Price of car
2) Price of batteries
3) Limited mileage
4) Long recharge times--->No spur of the moment trips. No flexible plans.
5) They lack power. Little "pep."
6) Also, electric cars do pollute. When you plug them in and they recharge, they are drawing power that has to be produced, that causes pollution on the "other end."
7) Hazardous wastes. A typical electric car has hundreds of pounds of lithium, cadmium, lead and acid, and a dozen other nasty substances. That's more toxins than were ever spilled in a demolition derby.
____________
Revelation
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.
"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."
Ah, leftism at its finest. "You will do what we say or you will pay." Then it becomes "You will do what we say or you will die and you children will die and you spouse will die and your dog will die and we'll kill everyone you ever knew."
oh Elodin, look, you just gave the exact definition of the manipulative/threatening politics of religion. Well done.
Quote:
also I dont understand why finland wanted to become an independant country
Because they are totally unrelated to the rest of Scandinavians and have a totally different language and heritage.
This is a bit like saying "why did Lithuania want to be an independant country from Russia".
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 07:57 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:59, 30 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
FAIL: Chevy Volt won’t start!
Wednesday, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM EDT
Electric cars are the wave of the future! In fact, you should probably go buy a Chevy Volt right now. The only problem? The cars don’t work.
During a recent car show, the Chevy Volt wouldn’t start during the demonstration.
“Well, here’s the latest, General Motors lobbied for $7,500 tax refund for all Bayers for their Chevy Volt, under the premise that it was producing the first all‑electric mass production vehicle,” Glenn read from Forbes magazine.
“Sitting in a Volt that would not start at the Detroit auto show, Forbes said a GM engineer swore to me that the internal combustion engine in the machine only served as a generator kicking in when overnight charged Lithium ion battery began to run down,” he continued.
“GM revised downward its estimate how far [the Volt] would go before the gas engine would fire up and now it could be 10 to 25 miles,” he finished.
“It’s electric unless you’re driving in it,” Pat pointed out.
“That might be one way to describe it. In its most negative way, that might be one way to describe it,” Glenn said.
“While it’s idling, it’s virtually totally almost completely almost electric,” Pat joked. “Unless you rev the engine.”
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2011 08:15 PM |
|
|
|
So what? American cars suck anyway, electical or otherwise - no offense.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 31, 2011 03:20 AM |
|
|
@Elodin:
The rare earth elements used to produce electric cars and various other newer products is an interesting issue; they very well might become the next gold after petroleum.
The pollution issue with cars is about a substantial decrease, not the lack of it. Of course you still need a lot of power to charge the car, but the source from which that electricity is generated can be much better than it being burned from gasoline; you could draw that electricity from a tidal power generator as long as it's hooked up on the grid.
As for the toxic materials of an electric car; simple, don't throw them in the river. They can be disposed and buried on a contained, specified landfill for such substances, just like is done with any other battery or toxin.
If there's anything promising about improvements in cars (or technology in general) it's having a greater raw amount of brains being thrown at the problem now that there are emerging markets coming from China, India, Brazil, and other places, instead of them basically being a field of untapped potential used as workhorses for manufacturing. Just in 2007, already 4 years old, we can see the burden of R&D slowly beginning to equalize:
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 06:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin:
The pollution issue with cars is about a substantial decrease, not the lack of it. Of course you still need a lot of power to charge the car, but the source from which that electricity is generated can be much better than it being burned from gasoline; you could draw that electricity from a tidal power generator as long as it's hooked up on the grid.
There is not currently (and will not be in the forseeable future) enough power from alternative sources to provide the power needs for homes, businesses, construction, street lights, ect, much less for powering automobiles. The pollution is just being shifted from being generate4d by automobiles to the plants generating the batteries, ect.
Quote:
As for the toxic materials of an electric car; simple, don't throw them in the river. They can be disposed and buried on a contained, specified landfill for such substances, just like is done with any other battery or toxin.
Eh, that is going to be massive amounts of toxins.
Certainly the more who research alternative energy the more likely it is that a breakthrough will come assuming a breakthrough in a particular field is even possible. Until those breakthroughs come it will be necessary to continue with what we do have. Shutting down the automobile before the breakthroughs come is folly.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 07:46 AM |
|
|
That is not correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_F-Cell
This car produces water (as steam) as exhaust and will be virtually waste-free.
Mercedes-Benz has stated, that the F-Cell technology will be produced in series "a couple of years" from now - probably for 2015.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 09:01 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:01, 01 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
That is not correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_F-Cell
This car produces water (as steam) as exhaust and will be virtually waste-free.
Mercedes-Benz has stated, that the F-Cell technology will be produced in series "a couple of years" from now - probably for 2015.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars will out of the price range for all but the wealthy for the foreseeable future.
Clicky
Quote:
Critics of hydrogen fuel cells tend to focus on three things. The first is that they are mighty expensive, even for prototypes. Indeed, GM's Sequel costs about $1 million each. Honda's FCXs that are in the hands of a few chosen leasers also cost about a million.
One of the reasons fuel cells are so pricey is because splitting hydrogen to make electricity requires a catalyst, and the best-known catalyst is platinum. While there have been some intriguing advances in alternatives, for now, platinum is it.
The second major claim against automotive fuel cells is that they are, simply put, a waste of energy. While it is true that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it prefers not to make itself readily available, and electrolysis is needed to free it up for use.
Electrolysis requires electricity and therefore hydrogen essentially serves as a carrier for that energy until the moment you tap the pedal. Energy is lost at each stage of the process and some estimates put that energy loss as high as 75% or more. For this reason, many argue that the fuel-cell middleman ought to be cut out, and the power used in electrolysis be sent straight to the vehicle. Furthermore, since the energy to make the hydrogen usually comes from natural gas, some say the hydrogen highway looks a lot like the fossil fuel freeway with a new on-ramp.
The third criticism is that more efficient and more attainable technologies are already here. If automakers and governments are serious about cleaning up emissions and protecting the climate, they would make these a priority. Electric cars and advanced hybrids aren't yet on the market either, but by most accounts they are quite close. Two well-funded independent startups, Tesla Motors and Zap!, appear to be close to selling electrics that charge quickly and offer respectable mileage between charges.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 09:50 AM |
|
|
You have to be careful with those propaganda bull. There is no such things as "foreseeable future" when it comes to these developments.
In any case, when MB says that F-Cell cars will be serial produced in a couple of years, this does definitely not mean that they will build 100 cars that cost a million each. Another thing to keep in mind is the 2015 EU regulation law that will dictate an average car fleet co>2 emission of at most 140 g. While other manufacturers can do it with simply "merging" with another manufactorer (like Porsche), this option is not available for MB (and BMW neither).
The technology is based on a Lithium battery. There IS already a standard that is calculating the "waste cost" for the new technology, called NEFZ (which means New European Drive Cycle) which places the new B-class F-Cell car at 3.3 litres diesel per 100 kilometers which is pretty good.
The technology is so advanced that it is ready for big series, the only problem is that there are not too many Hydrogen gas-stations at the moment. In any case, this engine has a sufficiently high range and very small "reloading" time (like a conventional car). Considering that we have now 2011, I'd say we don't need to worrs, we just need the regulations; if there ARE regulations, strangely enough the industry delivers.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 10:39 AM |
|
|
@Blizz:
Rare earths are already the most valued resource on earth. The reason being that high tech weaponry is currently biggest use for them. And quess what? China has practically a monopoly on them.
Energy taken from the electrical network will always be cleaner than burning petrol, unless you're using a diesel generators to make it or something. 
Current cars are full of toxic materials and those are already collected and recycled(in the modern countries). It's even worth it money wise due to their cost.
Your brains chart lacks india completely.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have to be careful with those propaganda bull. There is no such things as "foreseeable future" when it comes to these developments.
The guy that wrote the article writes for TreeHugger.com so that places him solidly as an environmentalist and proponent of alternative fuel sources. He just does not want to lie about reality. It would be nice if solar, wind, geothermal, and farts could provide all our power needs but that is not now the case.
No amount of government demands can change reality. It is folly to shut down the transportation we have before alternative fuel is ready. Private industry has motivation for making alternative fuels cost effective. It is called profit.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 03:25 PM |
|
|
That's not correct.
The last decades show, if you make halfway realistic regulations, the industry develops the necessary technology. An obvious example is the cat for cars or to reduce the amount of harmful stuff in the exhaust - the US are doing it all the time (wasn't California the state with the strictest regulations not so lomg ago?).
2050 is long in coming. The aim to forbid conventionally driven cars up to that point doesn't seem to be a problem. If it was 2020, ok. 2050 should be doable with ease.
Of course, reducing EFFECTIVE waste and pollution (that is, secondary pollution included) to zilch will take a concentrated and dedicated long-time effort - and some amount of money.
However, if you look at the health expenses...
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 01, 2011 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Clicky
Lets see:
The theoretical best LED circuit for light today have a best effectivity of 80%, which means the "realistic" number is around 50-60%. That means the hydrogen cars are 15-25% more effective.
Which means it is not so bad.
All we need is for there to be mass production, and the price problem will be solved.
I recommend to take a look at the Wiimote of the Xbox Kinetic, both techs where better and several times cheaper than their "normal" commercial counterparts due severe mass production.
The same will happen with hydrogen cars, if someone will invest properly in the marked.
____________
|
| |
|
|
