What will cars be like in 20 years time?

[gingerjedi]

They'll have giant spoilers, huge flared wheel arches, and ridiculously large exhaust pipes......

.....kind of like this.

Nah... more like this.

[hyperD]

Do you think oil will become cheaper and taxed less if AGW went away?

Yes, compared to what they want to do. The AGW guilt propaganda is imposed on us to make us pay more tax on fuel and on the way to do business in the UK within a global market. That's why governments immediately backed the whole AGW charade. Remember that gurning SeeYouNextTuesday tard Bliar and his incompetent cohort Broon jumping on the bandwagon before anyone had any idea what green was with his big announcement?

That alone should have got your spider senses tingling.

I think we'll have donkeys pulling Volvo's no mater what, provided we don't eat all the donkeys.

China have at least 200 years of coal reserves. We have coal. Most countries have fossil fuels or a market to trade. Technologies improve to extract more oil from the reservoirs that were considered not cost effective a few years ago.

Yes, to conserve fossil fuels because ultimately they are finite.

Yes to conservation and increasing efficiencies of power stations etc

Yes to investigating into alternatives, including the holy grail of fusion.

But NO to taxing all our businesses back into the stone age in a global market by dressing ourselves in sackcloth and beating ourselves with green taxes because of some misplaced guilt over bad science.

It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

[gingerjedi]

Yes, compared to what they want to do. The AGW guilt propaganda is imposed on us to make us pay more tax on fuel and on the way to do business in the UK within a global market. That's why governments immediately backed the whole AGW charade. Remember that gurning SeeYouNextTuesday tard Bliar and his incompetent cohort Broon jumping on the bandwagon before anyone had any idea what green was with his big announcement?

That alone should have got your spider senses tingling.



China have at least 200 years of coal reserves. We have coal. Most countries have fossil fuels or a market to trade. Technologies improve to extract more oil from the reservoirs that were considered not cost effective a few years ago.

Yes, to conserve fossil fuels because ultimately they are finite.

Yes to conservation and increasing efficiencies of power stations etc

Yes to investigating into alternatives, including the holy grail of fusion.

But NO to taxing all our businesses back into the stone age in a global market by dressing ourselves in sackcloth and beating ourselves with green taxes because of some misplaced guilt over bad science.

It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

I totally agree with everything you say, I said it was a smokescreen in a previous post. I still think oil will get much more expensive over time AGW or not.

Far east economies are expanding, the worlds population is expanding, they have a thirst for oil that will not be sustainable unless output rises to meet demand, in the 70's a 5% drop in production triggered a 400% price rise.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...729_550682.htm

[VectraMan]

Why do cars have to run off the internal combustion engine? It's 19th century technology.

What do you suggest? An electric motor is also 19th century technology.

[Spacecadet]

What do you suggest? An electric motor is also 19th century technology.

I thought the electic motor pre-dated the internal combustion engine.

[DaveB]

With any luck, one of these with a fuel cell power plant.

Saw it in the flesh, so to speak, at the MPH show last weekend.

[threaded]

My favourite example of this "Green Charade" is the catalytic converter. Only the loony Greenies would come up with a method of burning more fuel, and create several of the worlds most un-natural disasters in the strip mining of rare-earth metals. If you really wanted to be "Green" you'd just burn less fuel by having more efficient engines. More efficient engines produce less pollution, duh! Example, experimental ceramic engines are running so hot that with just a normal type exhaust (well nearly, but nothing fancy, it's all in the bends) it produces water and carbon dioxide.

[Spacecadet]

My favourite example of this "Green Charade" is the catalytic converter. Only the loony Greenies would come up with a method of burning more fuel, and create several of the worlds most un-natural disasters in the strip mining of rare-earth metals. If you really wanted to be "Green" you'd just burn less fuel by having more efficient engines. More efficient engines produce less pollution, duh! Example, experimental ceramic engines are running so hot that with just a normal type exhaust (well nearly, but nothing fancy, it's all in the bends) it produces water and carbon dioxide.

Soon to be repeated as the planet is raped for all the lithium required for the huge market in electric cars

[threaded]

Soon to be repeated as the planet is raped for all the lithium required for the huge market in electric cars

Quite. What exactly is wrong with the internal combustion engine? It is perfect for the task. If they're going to be producing an energy source, some synthetic diesel would be the logical choice. Batteries etc. have got an awful long way to meet the energy density of such fuels. And they will never be as transportable or safe.

[sasguru]

It's politically driven, it has no sound scientific basis, it's absolutely wrong. And if you believe in the faux religion of AGW, you are complicit in one of the greatest evils to fall upon mankind and progression and so be you condemned.

Yes I ought to believe some moronic statement made by some random IT geek on the web than these the vast majority of the world's scientists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change