Installed some rear-window louvers for my Mustang

[General Geoff]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Not until some alternative fuel is developed that does not pollute the environment so much. Which isn't going to happen, so they're banned.

Ever heard of methanol? Clean-burning, completely biodegradeable, and manufacturable. Only reason the world doesn't run on methanol is because at the moment, drilling for mass quantities of fossil fuel is cheaper. But rest assured, if push came to shove, I have no doubt the world's cars would start running on methanol.

[Wolfgang]

where's the energy going to come from to produce it? sugar cane? And burning methanol still produces carbon dioxide and water. But you are right, it's probably the most viable thing. One of my lecturers designs fuel cells based on methanol and he reckons the same thing.

[General Geoff]

Carbon dioxide and water are not pollutants. Humans produce carbon dioxide too, and so do most other animal species. The atmosphere is naturally made up of part carbon dioxide. That said, finding a clean energy source to actually produce the stuff is a different obstacle. You have several options to choose from, including hydroelectric, solar, wind, fusion (not quite viable yet), or antimatter (not nearly viable yet, haha).

[MidnightViper88]

My car has 2 feetpower...

[Wolfgang]

yeah, CO2 and water aren't pollutants, but they're considered greenhouse gases. Sounds stupid saying that since they're a natural part of life on this planet, but it's just the huge volume of them produced that causes the damage. Water from cars probably isn't as bad a problem as water from industry. Apparently it rises higher into the atmosphere than vapour formed by the sun because it's hotter. I'm not sure whether I believe this, but CO2 in the atmosphere does naturally keep this planet from being covered in ice. The greenhouse effect is a natural thing, but I do believe the large volume of carbon dioxide humans increases its effect. In any case, I'd welcome methanol-powered fuel cells over petroleum any day, it's a good step forward. But I'd still recommend this as the best mode of transport:

[General Geoff]

Considering that Mt Saint Helen's released FAR more "greenhouse gases" and ash and soot than any civilization has generated to date (in a single eruption, mind you), I'd say that most of what is supposedly polluting our atmosphere is little more than a drop in the bucket compared to natural phenomena.

[MidnightViper88]

Declare war with this "Helen" person and drop a nuke on her then, dammit!

[Cognition]

Tax the volcanos!

[MidnightViper88]

Does the Kyoto Protocol cover those?

[Wolfgang]

yeah yeah yeah, you have a point. But if I say, "OK, but Mount Saint Helen's is a natural phenomenon, whereas polluting the atmosphere with our vehicles, power plants and industry is not and is something we can do something about" will you say "but hey, we're part of nature too, so it's natural"? Just because a volcano does it every few hundred years doesn't give us an excuse or the right to do the same thing constantly.

[General Geoff]

I don't think it matters whether it's right or not; No matter how much we pollute the earth, it's not going to do a damn thing to this planet in the long run. We will run out of things to burn before we destroy our atmosphere.

As far as the every few hundred years vs constant pollution by us, that's like saying we have no right to stick a garden hose into a lake and try to fill it while once every few hundred years, the flood gates to the dam open and dump millions of gallons into the lake, effectively making our use (or non-use) of the garden hose inconsequential.

[Wolfgang]

I'm not sure Mt St Helens vs. us it as extreme as that, I do believe we cause significant change. I'm aware that this is not proven and that you could well be right in saying that we affect the environment negligibly, even though I believe the effect is considerable.

But this is just air pollution. Damage to the environment is much more obvious and probably comparatively worse in other areas. The worst I think are water pollution and loss of biodiversity, mainly deforestation and coral reef destruction. There's no doubt about these things occurring because you can see the damage done and watch its progressive decline. A lot of people might say "so what? They're of no use to us." They might not be as "useful" as oilfields or iron ore deposits, but I believe natural beauty is just as important, if not more so.

[General Geoff]

Water pollution is an even less plausible problem. Water is the most abundant natural resource on earth, save for perhaps iron (most of the planet is made of iron). While we may be polluting water at the current moment, I have no doubt that we will, once again, run out of fossil fuels and related processes that pollute water before it becomes a huge concern. I like to think of it as a naturally correcting problem. Once we run out of oil, we'll be forced to abruptly find other, more renewable sources of energy, whether we like it or not.

[Wolfgang]

I'm assuming you're talking about the Earth's crust rather than the whole thing. Anyway, how can it be a naturally correcting problem? So many of these pollutants biologically magnify or are non-biodegradable. The accumulation of them is something nature cannot do anything about. Even those that are biodegradable cause damage long before they are broken down into less harmful susbstances.

Yes, water, there's loads of it, but most of it is useless as it's a salt solution. Even if we find more renewable sources of energy, this won't stop non-biodegradable surfactants, mercury and fertilisers from getting into rivers. Once a country has finished dirtying its water, it's possible they'll attack another with cleaner water, dirty it and continue until it's all filthy. Maybe my outlook is too grim, but simply by travelling round my country in my relatively short lifetime I've noticed a sharp increase in riverine and coastal pollution, and everyone knows it. I'm pretty certain this trend is not confined to Peru.

The only way nature could possibly reverse water pollution is if we stopped it altogether, and this will only occur if the human race is extinguished or somehow decimated.

[General Geoff]

Just remember that everything we pollute water with, already existed on earth before we came along. All we did was redistribute the concentrations of mercury, we didn't invent the freaking stuff. Of course, then there's nuclear fallout, which we did, in fact, invent...

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
But this is just air pollution. Damage to the environment is much more obvious and probably comparatively worse in other areas. The worst I think are water pollution and loss of biodiversity, mainly deforestation and coral reef destruction. There's no doubt about these things occurring because you can see the damage done and watch its progressive decline. A lot of people might say "so what? They're of no use to us." They might not be as "useful" as oilfields or iron ore deposits, but I believe natural beauty is just as important, if not more so.

So how does this relate to a set of Mustang louvers?

[morgado]

Well, my mothers car runs on Gasoline and *Álcool (Dunno how to say this in english. It comes from sugar cane). Here in Brasil we have government projects and cars that uses this have less tax to pay and so. It's too much cheaper and polutes less

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
So how does this relate to a set of Mustang louvers?

Umm...

Air pollution = Most commonly black smoke

My louvers are also black...

Jeez! Get with the program...

[PulseDriver]

Originally posted by MidnightViper88
You can't compare cars and computers unless you're talking RAM and horsepower...

*COUGH* CPU vs. Horsepower would be a more logical comparison. Ram just stores "stuff" like the tank on your car, it's the CPU that actually do the calculations

[MidnightViper88]

Excuse me! I'm auto geek, but I'm not computer geek, so give me a buffer zone...

[ElChevelle]

Yawn.





another car thread.

[Wolfgang]

Yeah, cars suck.

Geoff, redistributing "pollutants" does not mean that everything is the same. Mercury is found underground in rocks, not rivers. This is why rivers contain fish. Which is why when gold miners release it into the rivers when they wash the gold dust, the fish die, and when the fish get eaten, the larger animals die.

You could talk about man-made pollutants simply being a redistribution of the atoms on the planet. Sodium lauryl sulphate, for instance, isn't particularly terrible, but what it does to aquatic life is unknown. It's in almost all toilet detergents. It's not made by nature at all, it's a man-made compound.
The same goes for hundreds of thousands of other man made substances which aren't found in nature. So no, they weren't found in nature before we came along. Nature can absorb and break down many of these substances, but often the sheer amount of them is too much to handle. Many other substances, which are often pretty toxic, can't be processed by nature and will stick around indefinitely.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
Yawn.





another car thread.

Fine...I'll buy a mid-80's Camaro and put louvers on that...Maybe then you'll perk up...

[protegechris]

or maybe chev has an import car fetish


oh yeah look at that sexy window, and yum that 2 dollar tweeter

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by protegechris
or maybe chev has an import car fetish

Yeah...And I bet he's gay too...

[protegechris]

Ya never know

[ElChevelle]

I know! Closest I come to being gay is that lesbian tongue that resides in my mouth.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
You know when I was in the US the other week I didn't see one decent looking car that wasn't European. American cars on the whole are fugly as hell.

Hey! My car's not fugly!

Oh, wait.....



(Nice mod, MV. I grew up in the 70s...so I'm diggin' it. )

[MidnightViper88]

Headbands and bell-bottoms 70s?

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by MidnightViper88
Headbands and bell-bottoms 70s?

I was thinking muscle cars and progressive rock 70s.

[taylormemer]

I don't see the big deal...

[MidnightViper88]

No one's supposed to "get" everything...If that were true, I don't know why I'm not interested with the rest of the guys in anal sex...

OK, maybe that's a bad example...