Home

[HossHuge]

I have sat here for about 20 mins wondering what I should write to get you to watch this because I think that everyone should. It made me sad to think about my sons future.

http://www.home-2009.com/us/index.html

let me know what you think.

[farlex]

That is some gorgeous footage. Rivals Planet Earth and I'd say often surpasses it in visual and aural beauty. Juddery as hell which is disappointing, but beautiful none the less. The narration is, well, I'll just enjoy the footage for now. I seem to recall seeing a preview for this when it came out now. I guess it's probably in blu-ray?

[FordGT90Concept]

To sum it up: it is Earth's history from about 4 billion years ago to date.

So far, it hasn't presented anything I didn't already know. And as I figured, it turned into an environmentalist film (boo oil).


If the world (specifically the USA) wants to help clean up, start with replacing 90% of the coal plants with nuclear power.

[El Fiendo]

You forget the environmentalists are against nuclear power.


I'll stick with Planet Earth.

[FordGT90Concept]

You forget the environmentalists are against nuclear power.
Exactly. They don't support the only technology that is feasible and available now. Instead, they want counter productive solar panels, wind farms, and other "green energy." In terms of efficiency (fuel in, electricity out) and total damage to the environment (from fabricating all the materials to make the power generator through to its decommissioning), no current technology can compare (at least until fusion is sorted). We can't forget cost-effectiveness either where nuclear power isn't much more expensive than coal and far cheaper than wind in terms of megawatt/hour. And hey, one nuclear power plant every 300 miles is better than 300 wind turbines spread over 300 miles (god those things are ugly and noisy).

They don't support nuclear because of the risk of an accident when no major accidents have occured in over two decades. Ever seen a wind turbine that prematurely lost a blade? Bessie (the cow), whom was standing under it at the time, is sadly no longer alive. How do environmentalists feel about that?

Nuclear is the safer than coal (in terms of fatalities) and 50% of the nation is currently powered by coal.


My conclusion: Environmentalists are hypocrits.

[HossHuge]

My conclusion: Environmentalists are hypocrits.


I guess I should expect that kind of answer from someone named "FordGT90Concept" What I got from the film is that yes we should invest more into future energy but also consume a lot less.

I laugh when I see people running prime95 for 24 hours to test their overclock. It's stupid.

[FordGT90Concept]

I guess I should expect that kind of answer from someone named "FordGT90Concept"
What do you mean by that?


What I got from the film is that yes we should invest more into future energy but also consume a lot less.
The future is fusion. It doesn't matter what kind of fusion (cold/hot) but it will involve fusion. That's a discussion unto itself.

Did it even mention fusion? I didn't finish it. :x

[HossHuge]

What do you mean by that?

I'm assuming of course that you are a fan of cars and therefore don't feel as passionate about the topic as I do. (Assuming is a bad human trait just like consuming and destruction. I'm trying to change all three)


The future is fusion. It doesn't matter what kind of fusion (cold/hot) but it will involve fusion. That's a discussion unto itself.

Did it even mention fusion? I didn't finish it. :x

No, It didn't. It says in the film we have about ten years to change our ways before they think it will become irreversible. Fusion won't happen in that time.

[btarunr]

Global warning is the most convenient excuse for future governments to tax you on pretty much everything. A "breathing tax" wouldn't surprise me.

[HossHuge]

That is some gorgeous footage. Rivals Planet Earth and I'd say often surpasses it in visual and aural beauty. Juddery as hell which is disappointing, but beautiful none the less. The narration is, well, I'll just enjoy the footage for now. I seem to recall seeing a preview for this when it came out now. I guess it's probably in blu-ray?

It you liked the imagery you should check out Baraka. It's as good as this if not better without the narration just music. Really good.

[blkhogan]

Very interesting and well made film. Couldn't figure out who sponsered the production while watching it. Was it PETA, Greenpeace or some other wacked out enviromental group. Some of the facts were somewhat "lopsided" to say the least, but presented a very viable argument for its views and opinions. We are the one big weak point in the chain of life but we are trying very hard to fix that. The damage we have done in the past can not be altered, we can only change what we do today and in the future. I personaly think nuclear energy should be looked at as a "friendlier and more stable" source of energy. We all have to do our part so the world we know today, is there for our future generations to enjoy. I personaly think that wind power is not the way to go. We have hundreds of 250' wind generators being installed around our county right now, how is that good for the enviroment? Destroying hillsides and natural beauty for wind towers everywhere.
Now, I'm in no way, shape or form an enviromentalist but things need to change somehow very soon.

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm assuming of course that you are a fan of cars and therefore don't feel as passionate about the topic as I do. (Assuming is a bad human trait just like consuming and destruction. I'm trying to change all three)
I'm not really a fan of cars in general. Yes, they are necessary to modern society in moving people and freight around the world but besides that core function, I really don't care for them. The GT90, on the other hand, I admire as a work of art. If I had one, I'd rarely drive it.


No, It didn't. It says in the film we have about ten years to change our ways before they think it will become irreversible. Fusion won't happen in that time.
It could. You never know when a breakthrough will happen.

[HossHuge]

Now, I'm in no way, shape or form an enviromentalist but things need to change somehow very soon.

Here are some things that need to change.
A friend of mine lives on the 12th floor of an apartment building. In the winter, it takes his shower 30 mins to get hot before he can shower.
Single only drivers.
Where my sister lives in Canada, it is illegal to dry your clothes on a clothesline. (are you kidding me!!)

It could. You never know when a breakthrough will happen.

But even if a breakthrough did happen. The building process would take around I'd say 10 years. And that's just for the 1st one.

[FordGT90Concept]

But even if a breakthrough did happen. The building process would take around I'd say 10 years. And that's just for the 1st one.
I'm not one to make predictions but, when it does happen, it will without a doubt trigger a "Fusion Age" or "Hydrogen Age"--much like nuclear weapons/energy triggered the "Nuclear Age." It will power the world for at least the next hundred years if not more and it would be about as green as green gets.


We have hundreds of 250' wind generators being installed around our county right now, how is that good for the enviroment? Destroying hillsides and natural beauty for wind towers everywhere.
Now, I'm in no way, shape or form an enviromentalist but things need to change somehow very soon.
I agree with both of these sentiments. A land dotted with white toothpicks is fulgy.

[farlex]

Here are some things that need to change.
A friend of mine lives on the 12th floor of an apartment building. In the winter, it takes his shower 30 mins to get hot before he can shower.
Single only drivers.
Where my sister lives in Canada, it is illegal to dry your clothes on a clothesline. (are you kidding me!!)



But even if a breakthrough did happen. The building process would take around I'd say 10 years. And that's just for the 1st one.

See what exactly do they say? B/c just saying it's irreversible in 10 years doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What we've already done to the Earth is irreversible, perhaps they mean we will head into a era where the environment cannot support the population? Well, really that's already happened too. As fast as our technology has moved, it hasn't moved fast enough to keep up with the demands of an exponentially growing population. And I'll tell you why......money. Sure it would be nice if we all did the little things like hanging our clothes up or driving electric cars or what not, but that isn't going to happen on a wide enough scale to make a difference. To truly change energy consumption, the entire market would have to be skewed.

For instance many technologies are severely limited by money. Even if we know what to do, it isn't always practical to do it b/c of monetary purposes. For instance anti-matter propulsion, a possible way to travel much much faster and much much more efficiently into space (w/o such drastic amounts of fuel) but there's one problem: it costs too much. Why is oil still so big? It's big business. It's all about what can sell, and as long as that thing remains inefficient methods of power (and it will b/c it's established and deeply rooted) it will continue down that road, with a few "charities" (as are allowed in capitalistic frameworks) to in futility attempt to offset the damage of greed. Economic problems must be vanquished if we are to truly become technologically sound w/ the environment. Unfortunately, that's probably the least likely thing that will happen with civilization w/o a reset. But hey, who knows......

[FordGT90Concept]

To truly change energy consumption, the entire market would have to be skewed.
"Right you are, Ken." I'll tell you what will "skew" the market: the day energy (in the form of cheap oil) is no longer cheap and plentiful. Look at when oil was $142 dollars a barrel. A GE CEO (I believe it was) said that major changes would have to be made in order for the corporation to still be viable. He said that if the price remained at that amount for a month longer, huge changes would have to be and they wouldn't be forgotten even when the oil price does come down again. That price didn't last long enough for the business world to take it seriously. I wish I could find where he said that but I don't remember where I saw it. :confused:

In any case, in the next five, ten, or fifteen years, watch the price of oil. Huge, and I mean HUGE changes will cascade from it the higher it climbs. For instance, at $200/barrel, "Made in China" will most likely be near extinct--it costs too much to ship the product across the Pacific Ocean to justify the lower cost labor. At $250/barrel, food may become scarce because petroleum-based fertilizers will cost more than the crop is worth. At $300/barrel, there may be no sense in maintaining a public highway system anymore--electric trains are the standard for hauling freight long distances and very little crosses oceans. Hell, people might have to move to water because it costs too much to pump it up from aquifers.

It isn't a question of if this will happen, it is when. This will damage power production too because it will cost a crapload more to haul coal from mines in Wyoming to Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and wherever else it is needed.


Oil is big business because it is a liquid fossil fuel and was (to some extent, still is) readily available. It is easy and relatively safe to transport and it is very rich in carbon allowing it to be cracked into all sorts of good stuff for cheap.

[farlex]

"Right you are, Ken." I'll tell you what will "skew" the market: the day energy (in the form of cheap oil) is no longer cheap and plentiful. Look at when oil was $142 dollars a barrel. A GE CEO (I believe it was) said that major changes would have to be made in order for the corporation to still be viable. He said that if the price remained at that amount for a month longer, huge changes would have to be and they wouldn't be forgotten even when the oil price does come down again. That price didn't last long enough for the business world to take it seriously. I wish I could find where he said that but I don't remember where I saw it. :confused:

In any case, in the next five, ten, or fifteen years, watch the price of oil. Huge, and I mean HUGE changes will cascade from it the higher it climbs. For instance, at $200/barrel, "Made in China" will most likely be near extinct--it costs too much to ship the product across the Pacific Ocean to justify the lower cost labor. At $250/barrel, food may become scarce because petroleum-based fertilizers will cost more than the crop is worth. At $300/barrel, there may be no sense in maintaining a public highway system anymore--electric trains are the standard for hauling freight long distances and very little crosses oceans. Hell, people might have to move to water because it costs too much to pump it up from aquifers.

It isn't a question of if this will happen, it is when. This will damage power production too because it will cost a crapload more to haul coal from mines in Wyoming to Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and wherever else it is needed.


Oil is big business because it is a liquid fossil fuel and was (to some extent, still is) readily available. It is easy and relatively safe to transport and it is very rich in carbon allowing it to be cracked into all sorts of good stuff for cheap.

True, that when question could be a big one though, as a smooth transition depends on other factors that aren't in place yet. There may not be a way to do it smoothly though.

[FordGT90Concept]

If it is smooth or not depends on how fast oil prices climb. If it climbs slow, it could be relatively smooth. If it is fast, it will be brutal.

Problem is, "slow" is like bringing a toad to a slow boil--it won't jump out--it will willingly die in comfort. Even if the price climbs slow it could bleed the global economy leading to death all the same.

A realization: The only way to prevent a major disaster is to start a minor disaster. That is, inflate the price of oil to $200 a barrel (globally) for year. This will send everyone into panic mode forcing them to cope with life without much oil. After a year, let the markets take over again which will bring the price of oil back down (it won't be as low as it was before because some refineries would permanently close). The lower oil prices should allow everyone the resources they need to make the final preparations for expensive oil (stockpiling some if need be).

Nevermind though because it would be impossible to implement (all oil supplies around the world would have to agree and most importantly, keep it secret) and if the price of oil doesn't naturally climb to $200/barrel+ within two years after stopping the artificial inflation, the lessons learned during that example run could be forgotten/erased before the emergency ensues defeating the purpose.

People just aren't getting a sense of how dependant on oil we are and how crappy current life will be without it.

[T3hPwn3r3r]

There is one VERY easy way to use less oil AND pollute less, something America just doesn't get -

Drive diesel.

Modern diesel technology is cleaner and more efficient in 99% of cases than gas energy.

The VW Jetta TDI, Mercedes Benz 300TD(not cleaner, but gets damn good fuel economy), the BMW and Mercedes diesels put on the market now... Too few options! We need to see more diesels on the market. Ask any European from a major city and they will likely tell you they drive a diesel, as gas already hovers around 4$/gallon there, and the 60+mpg makes that SOOOO much more bearable.

On that note - I'm also in favor of nuclear energy. It's fascinating how efficient it is compared to coal.

Also, coal is the reason southeastern Kentucky, W. VA, eastern TN and other Appalachian regions are a giant mess at the moment with drug problems rivaling that of some central American countries.

[FordGT90Concept]

1 barrel of oil, you get the following products:
60% gasoline
30% diesel
10% byproducts (asprin, petroleum jelly, coke used for high temp furnaces, fertilizers, etc.)

If everyone started burning diesel, the price of diesel will skyrocket and gasoline will become dirt cheap.

Oh, wait, there is already an enormous consumer of diesel: the freight industry. Freight trains run on diesel and so do tractors that havest your food and tractors that pull it around in the form of 18 wheeler trucks.

Cars use gas because it burns faster which means higher RPMs and more throttle response--what people have come to expect from cars. Not only is diesel already running the backbone of the country, it also suffers from "turbo lag" that push most personal vehicle customers away.

Diesel is only more efficient because it is a slower, more aggressive burn so more energy can be extracted from it.



Nuclear isn't necessarily more efficient than coal because they both rely on steam systems for power. Nuclear just has a different kind of exhaust than coal. Instead of carbon emissions, it is various forms of radiation.

[WhiteLotus]

In the UK, diesel is almost always more expensive than Petrol, and you are getting roughly the same amount of mileage.

[btarunr]

It's the other way round here. Petrol (91 oc) is US $0.90 /litre, and diesel $0.68 /litre.

Diesel goes into almost 40% of the cars (light vehicles), all the trucks/buses (heavy vechicles), all construction machines/earth-movers, almost all backup power generators (kerosene being the other generator fuel), and of course diesel-electric locomotives.

[WhiteLotus]

hmm yea i should also add that this is in the public sector, of course all the farm equipment, boats etc use red diesel.

[FordGT90Concept]

It's the other way round here. Petrol (91 oc) is US $0.90 /litre, and diesel $0.68 /litre.

Diesel goes into almost 40% of the cars (light vehicles), all the trucks/buses (heavy vechicles), all construction machines/earth-movers, almost all backup power generators (kerosene being the other generator fuel), and of course diesel-electric locomotives.
How many large refineries are in Europe?

I know diesel is taxed more than gasoline here. I'm fairly certain the reverse is true in Europe. The only time gasoline is more expensive than diesel is when something inflates the price of gasoline.

[WhiteLotus]

How many large refineries are in Europe?


Not sure if this is what you mean ford but i found this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries

[FordGT90Concept]

United Kingdom has 9. India has 20.

Texas alone has 28, nevermind the 32 other states with at least one refinery.

What I am getting at is the economics of oil/diesel/gasoline are different here (USA) then most of the world. Instead of imports/exports of already finished products, we are concerned only with the barrel of oil. Additionally, we try to use that entire barrel so there is literally no waste from the refining processes.

[btarunr]

United Kingdom has 9. India has 20.

Texas alone has 28, nevermind the 32 other states with at least one refinery.

And China has 27 according to the same list. I think the number of refineries doesn't matter, its output and oil consumption of the people do.

Two refineries from India feature in the list of top ten refineries in the world, in terms of barrels per day. Both of which are ranked higher than the American ones in the list, but the number of American refineries and the total output of them is astounding.

[FordGT90Concept]

USA consumes 25% of the world's oil, more than the six countries (http://www.energy.eu/stats/energy-oil-consumption.html) (China, Japan, India, Russia, Germany, South Korea) that follow it, combined.

There's more, smaller refineries dotted throughout the country for five reasons:

1) War, refineries are the Achilles heel of modern war machines. It would be nearly impossible to attack all the refineries in the USA without alerting the rest of them to an incoming attack.

2) Distribution, it costs more to transfer oil on land than it does by sea so the closer you refine it to where it is needed in terms of sea faring, the more economical it is.

3) Environmental concerns, the smaller the refineries, the smaller the footprint on the environment.

4) Emergency situations, smaller refineries mean smaller fires to contain when a fire or explosion occurs.

5) Economics, when something goes wrong, smaller refineries have a limited impact on the larger economy/national price of fuel.


Also, note how many of those are owned/operated by USA corporations that originated from the Standard Oil anti-trust breakup (e.g. ConocoPhillips, Cheveron, ExxonMobile, and Shell).


I think it was Baytown refinery (largest in the USA) that recently had an explosion taking the refinery offline for several days. Oil spectators got concerned but the result was a very minimal bump in price (3% of the nation's supply). If that was Venezula's refinery, for example, Venezula's oil production would be cut in half (49.5% of the nation's supply). In my opinion, it is a good thing not to have the largest. ;)

[Callista Arden]

This happened to me too, but all I had to do was restart my PS3, go back into HOME and try to reconnect. It did take a time or two to get in, so keep trying. After I got in the first time, I didn't have anymore trouble, though.

[FordGT90Concept]

Uh, this thread has nothing to do with PS3...

[Papahyooie]

this happened to me too, but all i had to do was restart my ps3, go back into home and try to reconnect. It did take a time or two to get in, so keep trying. After i got in the first time, i didn't have anymore trouble, though.

50