My problem with the meat industry is the industrial and atmospheric waste. It's not like eating a deer from hunting - it's actually a pretty disgusting process. A guy I'm working for is fighting an industrial cow farm for pollution near him and it's really a horror show. I'm thinking of doing a spin-off book to my series with one of the hitwomen taking a contract to take the CEO of a similar place out. If more environmental nuts found out about what went on there they'd laugh at that Erin Brocovich PG&E battle. I wonder where the hell PETA is when they have a real fight? Oh never mind, someone's wearing fake fur somewhere or filming a monkey doing something funny on a commercial.
Anyway, they are working on lab meat grown in sheets and layered with the nutrients and fat content controlled. The big hurdle (besides getting people to eat it eventually) is getting the consistency right. Meat from live animals is stretched and strengthened by natural muscle movement while pan-meat is a single, probably very weird, consistency.
I don't really feel all that guilty about eating meat as I'm a born carnivore - I've tried vegetarian and it doesn't work for me. I get no energy, always feel hungry no matter how much I've eaten, don't like the taste of most of the few meals you can eat without meat, it's a PITA when trying to go out to eat anywhere, and I shit way too much. I just wish the processing was nicer.
Are we killing ourselves? Or just our Children?
Moderator: Moderators
-
evolutionmovement
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 9809
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA
^^^ This may be a shot in the dark, but does anyone remember the Dilbert Cartoons, not the strips but the actual animated 30 min. cartoons? One episode Dilbert created such a product, it was cubic so it packaged well and was even black and white colored like a cow. But IIRC it turned out to be highly explosive and unstable - though otherwise it was the perfect solution to world hunger. About took out all of Elbonia...
Sorry, I digress, back to real conversation.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with you at all Steve, just somehow seemed worth mentioning.
Sorry, I digress, back to real conversation.
Note, I'm not disagreeing with you at all Steve, just somehow seemed worth mentioning.
Lee
93' SS, 5mt swapped, 182k, not stock...
96' N/A OBW 5sp, 212k, Couple mods... RIP
99' N/A OBW, 4eat, mostly stock.
93' SS, 5mt swapped, 182k, not stock...
96' N/A OBW 5sp, 212k, Couple mods... RIP
99' N/A OBW, 4eat, mostly stock.
Chernobyl was poorly designed and not just run by government, but by a totalitarian one, which says it all.
In France, some 75 % of their electricity is generated by nuclear power.
The U S Navy has been using nuclear powered generators to propel their ships for decades with no disasters.
France and the Navy have ignored protests by the terminally superstitious.
In France, some 75 % of their electricity is generated by nuclear power.
The U S Navy has been using nuclear powered generators to propel their ships for decades with no disasters.
France and the Navy have ignored protests by the terminally superstitious.
Subtle (normally aspirated engines suck):
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
Illinois has become "Nuclear America":
Illinois has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the nation. Commonwealth Edison owns 13 nuclear reactors, 10 of which are in operation; one was down 20 years prematurely because of excess radioactive contamination. Illinois Power Company owns one reactor. One-hundred-eight reactors operate nationwide.
In a 1996 study done by Public Citizen covering 11 safety- and performance-related categories, Illinois' reactors placed in the bottom third in the country in 44% of the rankings. In January, 1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put ComEd's Dresden-2 & 3, Zion-1 & 2, and LaSalle-2 & 3 reactors -- 6 of the 12 it operates -- on its "close watch list" for poor safety and performance.
Each year Illinois' 13 nuclear power plants produce on the average tens of thousands of cubic feet of "low-level" (NOT low-hazard) radioactive waste (LLRW), representing about 90% of the total volume and 99+% of the radioac- tivity of all LLRW produced in Illinois from all sources. Each reactor also produces about 30 to 50 tons of "high-level" radioactive wastes (HLRW) each year.
Nuclear Power is a Health, Safety, and Environmental Threat:
In testimony before Congress on April 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified that the crude probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45% (nearly 50-50)!
In February, 1997, a reactor operator error at ComEd's Zion nuclear reactor prompted the Regional head of the NRC to state, "It doesn't get any worse than this." In March, in a test that NRC said "requires thinking," 25 of 31 reactor operators at ComEd's La Salle reactors flunked a test of their ability to handle "abnormal" reactor problems.
As of April, 1997, Commonwealth Edison has been fined $6.2 million for 85 safety-related incidents at its nuclear power plants. Illinois Power has been fined $502,000 for seven major violations at its single nuclear reactor.
According to a 1982 study done by Sandia National Laboratories, a severe (but not necessarily "worst-case") nuclear power accident in Illinois would result in deaths in the tens-of-thousands, casualties and latent cancers in the hundreds-of-thousands, and property loss in the tens-to hundreds-of-billions of dollars.
Using calculations from 3 Western European governments, the Worldwatch Institute has calculated that the world may experience three more Chernobyl-sized nuclear power accidents before the year 2000.
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical:
Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.
Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!
Nuclear Power is not Necessary:
Nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity; yet studies have shown that in the U.S. we waste or inefficiently use between 25% - 44% of all electricity generated! Three separate studies done by government and private firms since 1982 have shown that the U.S. has the potential to conserve the electrical equivalent of between 145 to 210 nuclear power plants! Only 108 are currently in operation. The nuclear industry claims that nuclear-generated electricity costs 11õ/kilowatt-hour (kwh); electricity from the newest nuclear plants costs 15-25õ/kwh. It takes from 7 to 12 years to build a nuclear power plant. Yet, conservation and efficiency programs cost between 0.5-4.0õ/kwh, and can be implemented in between 6 months to 2 years. A healthier, more common-sense attitude of using less energy, combined with state-of-the-art electrically efficient products (appliances, light-bulbs, motors) could make nuclear power totally irrelevant in our energy future. A 1990 report done by the internationally respected Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), indicated that, "Use of energy-saving technologies would result in a saving [by the year 2000]...of 24 to 44% of electric consumption." Using less energy does not mean "hardship;" it represents "wisdom." The Japanese, Germans, and Swedes enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the United States -- yet use 40% to 60% less energy than we use!
Nuclear Power Cannot Reduce Imports of Foreign Oil:
Improving the fleet mileage of U.S. cars from the present 26 miles per gallon will have a far greater and immediate effect on oil imports than can nuclear power.
Ads promoting nuclear power claim that it will help reduce our dependency on foreign oil imports. This is not true. Only 8% of our electricity comes from oil -- both domestic and foreign. Of this, half is used in "peak-load" (quick start-up) oil fired plants used on the hottest days of the year and in emergencies. Nuclear plants take too long to start up, and cannot be used as "peak-load" plants.
Ironically, the first year these pro-nuclear ads ran, over 40% of the uranium fuel used in U.S. reactors had come from foreign sources! So much for reducing our energy dependence on foreign imports.
Nuclear Power Cannot Appreciably Help Reduce Global Warming:
Our planet seems to be warming up as a result of gases in our atmosphere which trap heat. This "Greenhouse Effect" may come from humankind's increased burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, wood), which release a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2), and from other industrial sources which produce other "greenhouse" gases. C02 represents half of the amount of gases that produce the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming could have devastating effects: changes in climate and growing seasons; shifts in growing regions; spread of deserts; raising of ocean levels. These effects are the environmental equivalent of nuclear world war!
Unlike coal and oil plants, nuclear power plants do not produce CO2. However, nuclear power plants cannot appreciably help in the fight against Global Warming for a number of reasons:
Prohibitive Cost: Each nuclear power plant costs between $3 to $5 billion just to construct! The U.S. would need over 400 additional nuclear reactors to replace its coal plants. This construction alone would cost roughly $1.2 to $2.0 trillion dollars! Worldwide, 8,000 nuclear plants would be needed to replace coal plants to meet energy needs for the next 30 years (there are only 430+ plants in operation worldwide now). These plants would cost the world approximately $24 trillion just to construct! However, one would have to add the following costs to these calculations to get a truer picture of the situation: increased costs for nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning; increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.
Too Slow to Make an Effect: Most experts agree that major action must take place in the next 5 - 10 years to be able to lessen the predicted Global Warming effects. Yet, to build this many plants -- even if we had the resources -- would take decades. Calculations have shown that even if the world built the 8,000 plants mentioned above, world CO2 levels would still increase 65% over the next 30 years.
Coal Energy Only One Contributor: Only 7% of world C02 comes from U.S. coal, oil, and gas plants; and worldwide, CO2 represents only half of the problem. Nuclear power plants, therefore do little to reduce world C02 levels, and only at a tremendous cost; nuclear power does nothing to reduce the other greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, halons, etc. Nuclear power only serves to drain needed money and resources away from the solutions for the other, non-CO2 half of the problem.
Better, Quicker Means Exist: Compared to nuclear power, for every dollar spent on conservation and efficiency techniques, seven times the amount of CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. These techniques are more quickly implemented, and at lower costs (see above). Other important steps that must be taken include building far more fuel efficient cars; greater use of public transportation and bicycles; decreased energy consumption; planting of trees; halting rainforest destruction and ocean pollution (both of which help absorb CO2); halting the spread of deserts through land reform and management in the Third World; and population control.
There you go, Subtle. I'm sure you'll find a way to disprove anything that anyone puts forth since you talk like you are 'terminally brainwashed' or at least it seems that way since it seems like you accept propaganda if it comes from one side and not from the other. Do you honestly think the government is your friend?
Illinois has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the nation. Commonwealth Edison owns 13 nuclear reactors, 10 of which are in operation; one was down 20 years prematurely because of excess radioactive contamination. Illinois Power Company owns one reactor. One-hundred-eight reactors operate nationwide.
In a 1996 study done by Public Citizen covering 11 safety- and performance-related categories, Illinois' reactors placed in the bottom third in the country in 44% of the rankings. In January, 1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put ComEd's Dresden-2 & 3, Zion-1 & 2, and LaSalle-2 & 3 reactors -- 6 of the 12 it operates -- on its "close watch list" for poor safety and performance.
Each year Illinois' 13 nuclear power plants produce on the average tens of thousands of cubic feet of "low-level" (NOT low-hazard) radioactive waste (LLRW), representing about 90% of the total volume and 99+% of the radioac- tivity of all LLRW produced in Illinois from all sources. Each reactor also produces about 30 to 50 tons of "high-level" radioactive wastes (HLRW) each year.
Nuclear Power is a Health, Safety, and Environmental Threat:
In testimony before Congress on April 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified that the crude probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45% (nearly 50-50)!
In February, 1997, a reactor operator error at ComEd's Zion nuclear reactor prompted the Regional head of the NRC to state, "It doesn't get any worse than this." In March, in a test that NRC said "requires thinking," 25 of 31 reactor operators at ComEd's La Salle reactors flunked a test of their ability to handle "abnormal" reactor problems.
As of April, 1997, Commonwealth Edison has been fined $6.2 million for 85 safety-related incidents at its nuclear power plants. Illinois Power has been fined $502,000 for seven major violations at its single nuclear reactor.
According to a 1982 study done by Sandia National Laboratories, a severe (but not necessarily "worst-case") nuclear power accident in Illinois would result in deaths in the tens-of-thousands, casualties and latent cancers in the hundreds-of-thousands, and property loss in the tens-to hundreds-of-billions of dollars.
Using calculations from 3 Western European governments, the Worldwatch Institute has calculated that the world may experience three more Chernobyl-sized nuclear power accidents before the year 2000.
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical:
Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.
Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!
Nuclear Power is not Necessary:
Nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity; yet studies have shown that in the U.S. we waste or inefficiently use between 25% - 44% of all electricity generated! Three separate studies done by government and private firms since 1982 have shown that the U.S. has the potential to conserve the electrical equivalent of between 145 to 210 nuclear power plants! Only 108 are currently in operation. The nuclear industry claims that nuclear-generated electricity costs 11õ/kilowatt-hour (kwh); electricity from the newest nuclear plants costs 15-25õ/kwh. It takes from 7 to 12 years to build a nuclear power plant. Yet, conservation and efficiency programs cost between 0.5-4.0õ/kwh, and can be implemented in between 6 months to 2 years. A healthier, more common-sense attitude of using less energy, combined with state-of-the-art electrically efficient products (appliances, light-bulbs, motors) could make nuclear power totally irrelevant in our energy future. A 1990 report done by the internationally respected Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), indicated that, "Use of energy-saving technologies would result in a saving [by the year 2000]...of 24 to 44% of electric consumption." Using less energy does not mean "hardship;" it represents "wisdom." The Japanese, Germans, and Swedes enjoy the same standard of living as we do in the United States -- yet use 40% to 60% less energy than we use!
Nuclear Power Cannot Reduce Imports of Foreign Oil:
Improving the fleet mileage of U.S. cars from the present 26 miles per gallon will have a far greater and immediate effect on oil imports than can nuclear power.
Ads promoting nuclear power claim that it will help reduce our dependency on foreign oil imports. This is not true. Only 8% of our electricity comes from oil -- both domestic and foreign. Of this, half is used in "peak-load" (quick start-up) oil fired plants used on the hottest days of the year and in emergencies. Nuclear plants take too long to start up, and cannot be used as "peak-load" plants.
Ironically, the first year these pro-nuclear ads ran, over 40% of the uranium fuel used in U.S. reactors had come from foreign sources! So much for reducing our energy dependence on foreign imports.
Nuclear Power Cannot Appreciably Help Reduce Global Warming:
Our planet seems to be warming up as a result of gases in our atmosphere which trap heat. This "Greenhouse Effect" may come from humankind's increased burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, wood), which release a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2), and from other industrial sources which produce other "greenhouse" gases. C02 represents half of the amount of gases that produce the Greenhouse Effect. Global warming could have devastating effects: changes in climate and growing seasons; shifts in growing regions; spread of deserts; raising of ocean levels. These effects are the environmental equivalent of nuclear world war!
Unlike coal and oil plants, nuclear power plants do not produce CO2. However, nuclear power plants cannot appreciably help in the fight against Global Warming for a number of reasons:
Prohibitive Cost: Each nuclear power plant costs between $3 to $5 billion just to construct! The U.S. would need over 400 additional nuclear reactors to replace its coal plants. This construction alone would cost roughly $1.2 to $2.0 trillion dollars! Worldwide, 8,000 nuclear plants would be needed to replace coal plants to meet energy needs for the next 30 years (there are only 430+ plants in operation worldwide now). These plants would cost the world approximately $24 trillion just to construct! However, one would have to add the following costs to these calculations to get a truer picture of the situation: increased costs for nuclear waste disposal and plant decommissioning; increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.
Too Slow to Make an Effect: Most experts agree that major action must take place in the next 5 - 10 years to be able to lessen the predicted Global Warming effects. Yet, to build this many plants -- even if we had the resources -- would take decades. Calculations have shown that even if the world built the 8,000 plants mentioned above, world CO2 levels would still increase 65% over the next 30 years.
Coal Energy Only One Contributor: Only 7% of world C02 comes from U.S. coal, oil, and gas plants; and worldwide, CO2 represents only half of the problem. Nuclear power plants, therefore do little to reduce world C02 levels, and only at a tremendous cost; nuclear power does nothing to reduce the other greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, halons, etc. Nuclear power only serves to drain needed money and resources away from the solutions for the other, non-CO2 half of the problem.
Better, Quicker Means Exist: Compared to nuclear power, for every dollar spent on conservation and efficiency techniques, seven times the amount of CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. These techniques are more quickly implemented, and at lower costs (see above). Other important steps that must be taken include building far more fuel efficient cars; greater use of public transportation and bicycles; decreased energy consumption; planting of trees; halting rainforest destruction and ocean pollution (both of which help absorb CO2); halting the spread of deserts through land reform and management in the Third World; and population control.
There you go, Subtle. I'm sure you'll find a way to disprove anything that anyone puts forth since you talk like you are 'terminally brainwashed' or at least it seems that way since it seems like you accept propaganda if it comes from one side and not from the other. Do you honestly think the government is your friend?
--Scott--
1991 - Rio Red SS
1991 - Rio Red SS
-
isotopeman
- Second Gear
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:54 am
- Location: Fayetteville AR
- Contact:
There is a nuclear power plant about 100 miles from here. None of our power comes from it.
Every form of energy production has drawbacks. It seems the matter deals with the initial point of this thread: whether or not to even try to do something when we know we can.
I don't have to live in the dark to lower my electric bill. All I have to do is use a programmable thermostat, more efficicent light bulbs (LED Christmas lights this year!), turn off the PC at the power strip when I'm not using it, etc. All this costs me is a few trivial thought processes and a few moments of sitting on my hands relishing my laziness.
This doesn't make me an environmental nut, and I don't have to eat tofu to do these things. Vegetarian or not, anyone of us can think and get off our ass to do something. It's what sets us apart from the other primates.
The New Belgium Brewing Co. is a great example of what we could be doing (besides making better beer).
Every form of energy production has drawbacks. It seems the matter deals with the initial point of this thread: whether or not to even try to do something when we know we can.
I don't have to live in the dark to lower my electric bill. All I have to do is use a programmable thermostat, more efficicent light bulbs (LED Christmas lights this year!), turn off the PC at the power strip when I'm not using it, etc. All this costs me is a few trivial thought processes and a few moments of sitting on my hands relishing my laziness.
This doesn't make me an environmental nut, and I don't have to eat tofu to do these things. Vegetarian or not, anyone of us can think and get off our ass to do something. It's what sets us apart from the other primates.
The New Belgium Brewing Co. is a great example of what we could be doing (besides making better beer).
δ13/12C = -17.7 ‰
δ15/14N = 9.4 ‰
δ15/14N = 9.4 ‰
-
scottzg
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
- Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA
personally, i'm ok with all modified engines being kept off the road. Want a faster car? Put a more powerful factory engine in. If you don't have the knowhow or equipment, you probably don't have the knowhow or equipment to properly modify the original engine.
There's so many incredibly powerful yet efficient engines languishing in junk yards while 15 year old ones get go-fast bits stuck on them.
Not to mention i'd be much more willing to buy a car with a swapped factory motor than a modified one.
for my contribution to the environment, i bought a miata.
There's so many incredibly powerful yet efficient engines languishing in junk yards while 15 year old ones get go-fast bits stuck on them.
Not to mention i'd be much more willing to buy a car with a swapped factory motor than a modified one.
for my contribution to the environment, i bought a miata.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
-
thefultonhow
- Second Gear
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Scott -- what if you have a car that does not have a more powerful engine as a drop-in alternative? Or what if you already have the most powerful engine in a lineup but want more power?
There is nothing wrong with modifying engines as long as it does not appreciably contribute to deteriorating air quality. I am pretty sure my Infiniti with a basically stock engine but leaky injectors hurts the air quality more than a similar Infiniti with a CAI and a header, or even an aftermarket turbo kit with appropriate emissions safeguards. Furthermore, there is likely no difference whatsoever between a turboed SR20DE (the engine used in the G20, originally NA) and a G20 with a (factory-turbocharged) SR20DET swap.
Why a properly-maintained modified engine is any worse than a poorly-maintained stock one, or even a properly-maintained stock one or an engine swap, is beyond me.
There is nothing wrong with modifying engines as long as it does not appreciably contribute to deteriorating air quality. I am pretty sure my Infiniti with a basically stock engine but leaky injectors hurts the air quality more than a similar Infiniti with a CAI and a header, or even an aftermarket turbo kit with appropriate emissions safeguards. Furthermore, there is likely no difference whatsoever between a turboed SR20DE (the engine used in the G20, originally NA) and a G20 with a (factory-turbocharged) SR20DET swap.
Why a properly-maintained modified engine is any worse than a poorly-maintained stock one, or even a properly-maintained stock one or an engine swap, is beyond me.
-- David
1990 Subaru Legacy L+ 4WD Wagon 5MT, white with 66k miles -- SOLD
[url=http://www.g20.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66214]1992 Infiniti G20 5MT[/url], White Sandstone with 175k miles
1990 Subaru Legacy L+ 4WD Wagon 5MT, white with 66k miles -- SOLD
[url=http://www.g20.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66214]1992 Infiniti G20 5MT[/url], White Sandstone with 175k miles
-
evolutionmovement
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 9809
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA
Your hotrods and exotics are hardly driven, but as long as people aren't ripping out cats and just dumping in fuel because they're incompetent I don't have too much a problem with it. I personally find gas consumption and cleanliness important in my own cars when possible. Like I wouldn't want a CVCC due to cleanliness, though the gas mileage is excellent (but unfortunately why those kinds of combustion chamber designs went away - high NOx)
I would wonder what would theoretically be better - a well-tuned turboed high CR engine or a factory one with a (traditionally, though direct injection is changing this) lower CR. I'd think that maybe the well-tuned hotrod since the higher CR may increase NOx (but that's what cats are for), but would have less potential for HC and CO2. Theoretically. It's probably more a half dozen of one 6 of another and too dependent on many variables. [shrug] I wish I could shut my brain off sometimes.
I would wonder what would theoretically be better - a well-tuned turboed high CR engine or a factory one with a (traditionally, though direct injection is changing this) lower CR. I'd think that maybe the well-tuned hotrod since the higher CR may increase NOx (but that's what cats are for), but would have less potential for HC and CO2. Theoretically. It's probably more a half dozen of one 6 of another and too dependent on many variables. [shrug] I wish I could shut my brain off sometimes.
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
a tuned properly car has low nox no matter cats or none. high cr' low cr whaterver.
it just needs to be tuned right.
im sorry if im gonna sound ignorant in saying this but nothing will change my opinion on this matter. ive seen with my own eyes the results of just sitting and tuning idle speeds (where the cars had issues with nox. at the other test load point the nox were extremely low) with an emmissions sniffer in the tail pipe for mutilple cars, mid cr turbo hondas low cr turbo hondas and subies, high cr hondas and high cr vw's....few among many. all without cats, all never going into the red of imissions standards for their respective models
it just needs to be tuned right.
im sorry if im gonna sound ignorant in saying this but nothing will change my opinion on this matter. ive seen with my own eyes the results of just sitting and tuning idle speeds (where the cars had issues with nox. at the other test load point the nox were extremely low) with an emmissions sniffer in the tail pipe for mutilple cars, mid cr turbo hondas low cr turbo hondas and subies, high cr hondas and high cr vw's....few among many. all without cats, all never going into the red of imissions standards for their respective models
-jason
[quote="Scoobyniteowl"] Chasin' @$$ is a great form of exercise and if you do get any, then that is more exercise[/quote]
[quote="Scoobyniteowl"] Chasin' @$$ is a great form of exercise and if you do get any, then that is more exercise[/quote]
-
evolutionmovement
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 9809
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA
While a car can pass emissions with a sniffer, the real world driving contains lots of variables and most cars go a long time with little to no maintenence so the cat is probably as much long-term emission compliance assurance as it is a necessity if not more. When they were introduced in 1975 I'd venture to guess they definitely were necessary. Though with today's modern combustion chamber designs, fuel, and computer controls I wouldn't doubt they're capable of meeting ppm targets for the various chemicals without a cat when tested at a station. I wouldn't doubt that it is actually a fairly easy target (easier than the auto lobbies would have people believe at least) considering how many ULEV and LEV cars are out there now that get their classification (I believe) from how much over their emissions targets they get, though there may be a mpg requirement also, which would make sense as a car that uses less gas than another would put out less emissions for the same ppm number. Run on sentence stopped.
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
Good reading. And props to all for keeping civil. Many other forums couldn't do that.
My own personal outlook is a bit more philisophical. The world, all of it including us, always has and always will take care of itself. No species will ever last forever. No species will ever impact the earth for more than just a cosmic moment.
We are not the first species to cause it's own extinction (I'm sure that's exactly what will happen). We use our natural tools, such as curiosity, opposable thumbs and reasoning, to carve out our place in the world. Every other animal (plants too, I suppose) does the same. For example, many of the big cats have evolved into such exemplary hunters that they have basically hunted themselves to the brink of extinction. Humans are pretty much headed on the same path. I totally consider this natural.
So, what should we do with our borrowed Earth? Basically anything we want, Mother Nature will heal for the next round.
That being said, I am a conservationist. I don't litter, I pick up thrash. I keep cats on my cars. I turn off the lights. And I teach my kids to do the same. Might as well make it a nice place to stay for the time we are here.
Laws, rules, constitutions, guidelines and policies while all seeming for the common good, always seem to come down to money in some way or another. Sad and frustrating, but apparently true. Very few things (exept on a personal level) seen to be truely done because "it's the right thing"
My own personal outlook is a bit more philisophical. The world, all of it including us, always has and always will take care of itself. No species will ever last forever. No species will ever impact the earth for more than just a cosmic moment.
We are not the first species to cause it's own extinction (I'm sure that's exactly what will happen). We use our natural tools, such as curiosity, opposable thumbs and reasoning, to carve out our place in the world. Every other animal (plants too, I suppose) does the same. For example, many of the big cats have evolved into such exemplary hunters that they have basically hunted themselves to the brink of extinction. Humans are pretty much headed on the same path. I totally consider this natural.
So, what should we do with our borrowed Earth? Basically anything we want, Mother Nature will heal for the next round.
That being said, I am a conservationist. I don't litter, I pick up thrash. I keep cats on my cars. I turn off the lights. And I teach my kids to do the same. Might as well make it a nice place to stay for the time we are here.
Laws, rules, constitutions, guidelines and policies while all seeming for the common good, always seem to come down to money in some way or another. Sad and frustrating, but apparently true. Very few things (exept on a personal level) seen to be truely done because "it's the right thing"
'93 Winestone SS Auto, '91 Pearl White SS.
'93 Pure White SS EJ20G slanty intercooled, SIDESWIPED! In stasis.
'94 FWD and '95 AWD Laguna Blue SVXs.
2017 Pure Red BRZ Limited w/Performance pack
'93 Pure White SS EJ20G slanty intercooled, SIDESWIPED! In stasis.
'94 FWD and '95 AWD Laguna Blue SVXs.
2017 Pure Red BRZ Limited w/Performance pack
-
scottzg
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
- Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA
thefultonhow wrote:Scott -- what if you have a car that does not have a more powerful engine as a drop-in alternative? Or what if you already have the most powerful engine in a lineup but want more power?
Then put in something that doesn't drop in. If you're mechanically inclined enough to stick a sbc in your crx, you're probably mechanically inclined enough to figure out what else is going to be a concern.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
-
thefultonhow
- Second Gear
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:09 am
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Oh, if only it were that simple. Not everyone has the time, money, and knowhow to fab up engine mounts, exhaust, axles (unfortunately you'd probably have to swap transmissions too), etc. And that's to say nothing of engine management.
It is theoretically possible to take a VQ35DE from an Altima or Maxima and swap it into a G20. Nobody has done it, though, because even though it would get tremendous bragging rights, it's expensive and technically challenging. Easier to turbo the SR20DE up to 300-350whp (since the stock internals and compression ratio will take that much boost) or to put in an SR20DET and get up to 500 whp.
It is theoretically possible to take a VQ35DE from an Altima or Maxima and swap it into a G20. Nobody has done it, though, because even though it would get tremendous bragging rights, it's expensive and technically challenging. Easier to turbo the SR20DE up to 300-350whp (since the stock internals and compression ratio will take that much boost) or to put in an SR20DET and get up to 500 whp.
-- David
1990 Subaru Legacy L+ 4WD Wagon 5MT, white with 66k miles -- SOLD
[url=http://www.g20.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66214]1992 Infiniti G20 5MT[/url], White Sandstone with 175k miles
1990 Subaru Legacy L+ 4WD Wagon 5MT, white with 66k miles -- SOLD
[url=http://www.g20.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66214]1992 Infiniti G20 5MT[/url], White Sandstone with 175k miles
I wouldn't write us off just yet.PhyrraM wrote:Good reading. And props to all for keeping civil. Many other forums couldn't do that.
My own personal outlook is a bit more philisophical. The world, all of it including us, always has and always will take care of itself. No species will ever last forever. No species will ever impact the earth for more than just a cosmic moment.
We are not the first species to cause it's own extinction (I'm sure that's exactly what will happen). We use our natural tools, such as curiosity, opposable thumbs and reasoning, to carve out our place in the world. Every other animal (plants too, I suppose) does the same. For example, many of the big cats have evolved into such exemplary hunters that they have basically hunted themselves to the brink of extinction. Humans are pretty much headed on the same path. I totally consider this natural.
So, what should we do with our borrowed Earth? Basically anything we want, Mother Nature will heal for the next round.
That being said, I am a conservationist. I don't litter, I pick up thrash. I keep cats on my cars. I turn off the lights. And I teach my kids to do the same. Might as well make it a nice place to stay for the time we are here.
Laws, rules, constitutions, guidelines and policies while all seeming for the common good, always seem to come down to money in some way or another. Sad and frustrating, but apparently true. Very few things (exept on a personal level) seen to be truely done because "it's the right thing"
--Scott--
1991 - Rio Red SS
1991 - Rio Red SS
One of the signers of the Declaration Of Independence, James Madison, said, as I roughly recall: the state will use any emergency to expand its power.
Even the hoked- up one about anthropogenic global warming, it seems.
Some individuals on this thread who are devout about it assume the trappings of authoritarian government and are telling everyone else that they must change their behaviour---and get this --for their own good.
How many times in history has this occured? Although the hysteria has had different focuses, the intent is always the same--everyone's behaviour must change, for their own good and "I have the revealed prescriptions"
Those interested may google "Parson Malthus", who in the late 1700s had special knowledge that the population was growing at a geometrical progression, but food production was growing at only an arithmetical rate. Everyone was going to starve to death.
A long period of rising prices seems to drive intellectuals to incredible fantasies. In 1865 a leading economist in England, Stanley Jevons, had a personal conviction that civilization was going to run out of coal, which was the key source of energy, and would become, well, uncivilized. Jevons claimed that one had to have a superior intellect to grasp the enormity of the situation, and that it was almost a religious experience.
In the early 1970s, an agitated crowd, similar to todays was going on about global cooling--well, you had to be there.
Then, around 1980 an number of "think tanks" had a vision that the world was about to run out of food and base metals such as copper or molybenum--this was by the mid 1990s. Problem is--the 1980s and most of the 1990s suffered a long price decline due to relentless surpluses.
For this clanger look up "The Club of Rome".
This wave of social hysteria, while very urgent now, is not unique. The key question is: How long will it last before the mania exhausts itself?
How much authority will the state need to respond to the "emergency"?
Even the hoked- up one about anthropogenic global warming, it seems.
Some individuals on this thread who are devout about it assume the trappings of authoritarian government and are telling everyone else that they must change their behaviour---and get this --for their own good.
How many times in history has this occured? Although the hysteria has had different focuses, the intent is always the same--everyone's behaviour must change, for their own good and "I have the revealed prescriptions"
Those interested may google "Parson Malthus", who in the late 1700s had special knowledge that the population was growing at a geometrical progression, but food production was growing at only an arithmetical rate. Everyone was going to starve to death.
A long period of rising prices seems to drive intellectuals to incredible fantasies. In 1865 a leading economist in England, Stanley Jevons, had a personal conviction that civilization was going to run out of coal, which was the key source of energy, and would become, well, uncivilized. Jevons claimed that one had to have a superior intellect to grasp the enormity of the situation, and that it was almost a religious experience.
In the early 1970s, an agitated crowd, similar to todays was going on about global cooling--well, you had to be there.
Then, around 1980 an number of "think tanks" had a vision that the world was about to run out of food and base metals such as copper or molybenum--this was by the mid 1990s. Problem is--the 1980s and most of the 1990s suffered a long price decline due to relentless surpluses.
For this clanger look up "The Club of Rome".
This wave of social hysteria, while very urgent now, is not unique. The key question is: How long will it last before the mania exhausts itself?
How much authority will the state need to respond to the "emergency"?
Subtle (normally aspirated engines suck):
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
In this case, however, the government has been resisting attempts to initiate any changes so I don't see how it's relevant to an authoritarian power grab. Besides, who are you kidding, the US government doesn't need to 'seize' power through an artificial emergency. The US government is ruled by corporate interests (see fascism) and they don't want people to institute change to protect their environment if it means it will cost them their disproportionate slice of the pie. So, they put doubt in the stream in the guise of wannabe pundits who cast doubt on scientific consensus in order to stall or prevent change. They've been doing that since the days of the iron horse and marijuana prohibition and they continue to do it. Being a mouthpiece for their cause is doing exactly what you claim the fed is trying strenuously to do.
That said, we could be wrong but hoping for the best and planning for the worst strikes me as more conservative than just throwing the dice with a cavalier attitude that speaks of an distorted faith in science when it suits your own predilection and a doubt about it if it does not. ANY scientific idea, being theory, is contestable and if you're biased then you get the garbage in - garbage out phenomenon. Me, I'd rather err on the side of conservatism than take the chance personally.
The concept that it will ruin our economy is what is known as a red herring. Every change that has come down the pipes has been resisted by the right wing on the guise that it will ruin us but when it comes to building missiles and waging unjust wars that run into the trillions , well I guess that's OK because it involves inflicting suffering on others a world away to support the huge profits and wealth inequity that continues to grow. It's funny really and the oldest game in the book.
The hemp plant could almost single handedly straighten the situation out but why isn't anyone bringing that up. I'll tell you why....misinformation, propaganda and redirection to peripheral ideas like how it could be wrong and man is too tiny to impact the ecosystem, blah blah blah blah and so on. They said the same thing when people pushed for smokestack scrubbers, reduced whaling, reforestation and other important issues that have had a positive impact. There's always apologists who would bend over and invite mega corps that KNOWINGLY skew the discussion to suit their needs.
Where I live there used to be a lot of trees and indiscriminate logging has changed that forever. If we don't learn to be conservative and give back we will screw ourselves time and time again. But who gains? The little guy? No.
But by all means, speak up for those who would screw you.
But, I will acknowledge that bit about the global cooling fad and won't deny that people have been wrong. Here's the thing, it's about a perception that some people have about puppet masters and strings being pulled. People may jump on the wrong bandwagon but they're ultimately right about their perception that we need to be as conscientious as possible about what we leave behind for the next in line. It's true that people can be tools for movements and power struggles but remember that it works both ways.
That said, we could be wrong but hoping for the best and planning for the worst strikes me as more conservative than just throwing the dice with a cavalier attitude that speaks of an distorted faith in science when it suits your own predilection and a doubt about it if it does not. ANY scientific idea, being theory, is contestable and if you're biased then you get the garbage in - garbage out phenomenon. Me, I'd rather err on the side of conservatism than take the chance personally.
The concept that it will ruin our economy is what is known as a red herring. Every change that has come down the pipes has been resisted by the right wing on the guise that it will ruin us but when it comes to building missiles and waging unjust wars that run into the trillions , well I guess that's OK because it involves inflicting suffering on others a world away to support the huge profits and wealth inequity that continues to grow. It's funny really and the oldest game in the book.
The hemp plant could almost single handedly straighten the situation out but why isn't anyone bringing that up. I'll tell you why....misinformation, propaganda and redirection to peripheral ideas like how it could be wrong and man is too tiny to impact the ecosystem, blah blah blah blah and so on. They said the same thing when people pushed for smokestack scrubbers, reduced whaling, reforestation and other important issues that have had a positive impact. There's always apologists who would bend over and invite mega corps that KNOWINGLY skew the discussion to suit their needs.
Where I live there used to be a lot of trees and indiscriminate logging has changed that forever. If we don't learn to be conservative and give back we will screw ourselves time and time again. But who gains? The little guy? No.
But by all means, speak up for those who would screw you.
But, I will acknowledge that bit about the global cooling fad and won't deny that people have been wrong. Here's the thing, it's about a perception that some people have about puppet masters and strings being pulled. People may jump on the wrong bandwagon but they're ultimately right about their perception that we need to be as conscientious as possible about what we leave behind for the next in line. It's true that people can be tools for movements and power struggles but remember that it works both ways.
--Scott--
1991 - Rio Red SS
1991 - Rio Red SS
-
evolutionmovement
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 9809
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA
These environmental laws and new technologies usually result in not only an increase in job number, but new better paying jobs. Yeah, the over-paid union guy who was too dumb to see a change that was twenty years coming and take a class or educate himself on a new career in the meantime may have a rough deal of it, but evolution is often harsh. I've changed general careers four times already and I'm only 30.
And it was Franklin that spoke against waste and for conservation. It's just common sense not to waste resources and dump waste. The Black Plague killed a third of Europe because people dumped human waste into the streets and alleys and were just unbearably filthy. Industrial waste and pollution today is just the modern equivalent.
And it was Franklin that spoke against waste and for conservation. It's just common sense not to waste resources and dump waste. The Black Plague killed a third of Europe because people dumped human waste into the streets and alleys and were just unbearably filthy. Industrial waste and pollution today is just the modern equivalent.
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.
-
93forestpearl
- Fifth Gear
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
^ Its like I saw alot when I was living up in Duluth. The steel mining industry up there is really hurting, and they are trying to find new way to be profitable in this global economy. Granted, people are gonna be out of jobs, but thats part of the game. We cannot get to comfortable with our situtation. When you do, something changes and you are screwed, like many of the iron workers will be in northern minnesota. Now companies are trying to put in small iron ore plants, or "reduced iron" I think its called. They'll actually refine it to a more raw form right on site instead of shipping so much tacontie. Its a lot more efficient, but requires less people.
→Dan
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m
piddster34 at h0tma1l d0t c0m
-
scottzg
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:19 am
- Location: Saint Joe, CA - Redlands, CA
parson malthus isn't wrong yet, only technology (large scale farming, the use of pesticides, and fossil fuels) has kept us ahead of his catastrophe so far. Nonetheless, our rate of food production has levelled off 20 years ago, while the population continues to swell. Never mind that we have 1/4 the original topsoil we had in the bread basket 150 years ago and blah blah blah....Subtle wrote:Those interested may google "Parson Malthus", who in the late 1700s had special knowledge that the population was growing at a geometrical progression, but food production was growing at only an arithmetical rate. Everyone was going to starve to death.
Don't worry about the Administration using global warming to expand its power, they don't believe in global warming either.
[url=http://www.thawa.net/gallery/albums/album108/DSCF0330.jpg]90 legacy of awesomeness[/url]
Why we remain removed from the frequently forecast Malthusian catastrophes is called ingenuity, rather than big and, therefore evil, farms.
In the last 30 years India has gone from being unable to grow enogh food to sustain itself, which was called the "green" revolution before the term green became just another movement of big government.
Now it has some 150 million middle class people supporting themselves inspite of legions of busy-body interventionists.
In the last 30 years India has gone from being unable to grow enogh food to sustain itself, which was called the "green" revolution before the term green became just another movement of big government.
Now it has some 150 million middle class people supporting themselves inspite of legions of busy-body interventionists.
Subtle (normally aspirated engines suck):
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
It's definitely good that India has helped themselves out of poverty. I would like to see more of the world developed for a few reasons. The biggest being that developed countries are less likely to be exploited by mega corporations. If only Africa could unify enough to join the crowd. What on Earth would all the seekers of diamonds and exploitable cheap labor do then? Africa still has slavery, should everyone just sit by and let that happen? I think the only reason they do is because of the reason it was allowed to exist in America and that was because the wealthy and powerful profited from it. It's easier to dehumanize a people if you also see an economic advantage to doing so. I'm not saying that a foreign army would change that but an international consensus would and I don't see many pushing for that. That tells me that it has less to do with big government and more to do with the wealthy and powerful buying government, an old game.
About the green movement; Is it really the offspring of big government? I didn't think so myself. I just got done watching a show about green building, using reconstitued wood pulp and more efficent heating, insulation etc. to build homes. That's more of a grass roots movement than something being rammed down people's throats by government, at least in the USA. Sure, the government is getting the word out and subsidizing investment by offering tax breaks and grants for doing things along these lines but I think that's a good thing...actually, it's probably one of the only good things that government has it's fingers in, except PELL grants and low income housing subsidies.
About the green movement; Is it really the offspring of big government? I didn't think so myself. I just got done watching a show about green building, using reconstitued wood pulp and more efficent heating, insulation etc. to build homes. That's more of a grass roots movement than something being rammed down people's throats by government, at least in the USA. Sure, the government is getting the word out and subsidizing investment by offering tax breaks and grants for doing things along these lines but I think that's a good thing...actually, it's probably one of the only good things that government has it's fingers in, except PELL grants and low income housing subsidies.
--Scott--
1991 - Rio Red SS
1991 - Rio Red SS
-
evolutionmovement
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 9809
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:20 pm
- Location: Beverly, MA
Except the low income housing system is partly retarded for the way it perpetuates peoples' need for being there. If you try to save money, they take it. If you get a better paying job, they charge more and even being in poverty won't get you a place since their maximum income goals are impossibly low, encouraging people not to work. It's great there's a place for people, but I think the system (all welfare systems, really) need to encourage saving and working. I'd rather more tax money go to support people for a few years rather than saving a little money each year, but supporting these people for their lives (and likely their children too). Which is another thing, they should discourage children and encourage education while under public assistance. I'd do it, but I'm too damn busy already to run the whole world.
Midnight in a Perfect World on Amazon or order anywhere. The first book in a quartet chronicling the rise of a man from angry criminal to philanthropist. Midnight... is a distopic noirish novel featuring 'Duchess', a modified 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon.