Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2011, 09:39 PM   #11 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,761

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,584
Thanked 3,546 Times in 2,215 Posts
No matter where you go, there you are.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-30-2011, 12:03 AM   #12 (permalink)
Polymorphic Modder
 
SoobieOut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 307

2006 DaCivic Hybrid - '06 Honda Civic Hybrid
90 day: 45.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 188
Thanked 39 Times in 24 Posts
Grappling hooks fired from compressed airguns mounted in the front bumper. Sounds more like a Bond film than a Ecomodding tool.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 06:08 AM   #13 (permalink)
Lead-footed Econewbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 52

Ceffy - '97 Nissan Cefiro 25 excimo
90 day: 25.21 mpg (US)

Demio - '07 Mazda Demio Sport
90 day: 30.99 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
True. Plus the fact that for a lot of us, it's not really our personal fuel consumption that's the fundamental issue, it's the effects of burning petroleum. Thus if I reduce my consumption X amount by causing someone else to increase their consumption by the same amount, I've achieved nothing.

PS: Though drafting a semi should also produce a small aerodynamic benefit for the semi...
Yes I've always thought that by reducing personal consumption, one is just getting out of the way of someone who cares less. By reducing the demand, we make it easier on those who are cost-constrained in their consumption.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 07:15 AM   #14 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by womprat View Post
Yes I've always thought that by reducing personal consumption, one is just getting out of the way of someone who cares less.
I'm not sure you meant it this way, but it comes across as "there is no point to reducing personal consumption".

By reducing personal consumption you ARE reducing demand, proportional to your percentage of the population under consideration.

I believe what james was referring to was borrowing someone elses fuel (a-la grappling hook or?).
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 07:49 AM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,667

GasDwarf - '13 Volkswagen up! EcoFuel CNG
Thanks: 176
Thanked 643 Times in 510 Posts
double post

Last edited by euromodder; 12-30-2011 at 08:08 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 08:07 AM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,667

GasDwarf - '13 Volkswagen up! EcoFuel CNG
Thanks: 176
Thanked 643 Times in 510 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
I've always thought it would be quite efficient to send satellites to space using an evacuated tube and rail gun. I just don't know what kind of heat shield would be needed for when the craft exits the tube, or if the sudden impact of hitting 1atm at ~20,000mi/hr would pulverize everything. Build this gun on top of a tall mountain near the equator and you can cut it down to 0.5atm and reduce the required velocity.
How do you get the tube to remain vacuum while the much-needed opening at the end is at 1 atm, or say 0,8 atop a mountain ?
The moment the tube is opened, the air will violently rush in while your spaceship is doing 9km/s going the other way.


Space shuttles were going relatively slow until they gained altitude, air became less dense, and much of the launch weight was already burned off. It's doing some 3000mph when 25 miles up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 01:56 PM   #17 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,972

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 28.24 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 27.45 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,129
Thanked 3,442 Times in 2,565 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb View Post
I'm not sure you meant it this way, but it comes across as "there is no point to reducing personal consumption".

By reducing personal consumption you ARE reducing demand, proportional to your percentage of the population under consideration.
I don't believe that demand is proportionally reduced by personal reduction over time.

If the US cut consumption of fossil fuels by half, this would have the short term effect of reducing demand, which in turn would drive prices downward, which in turn makes demand for fuel in poorer corners of the world increase.

Any resource I don't use will surely be consumed by someone else eventually.

The worldwide reduction of fossil fuel consumption will not occur due to a growing environmental awareness, but instead due to cheaper alternatives.

In other words, economics will guarantee consumption of fossil fuel, and economics will eventually move us away to alternatives.

Money- The universal religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
How do you get the tube to remain vacuum while the much-needed opening at the end is at 1 atm, or say 0,8 atop a mountain ?
The moment the tube is opened, the air will violently rush in while your spaceship is doing 9km/s going the other way.


Space shuttles were going relatively slow until they gained altitude, air became less dense, and much of the launch weight was already burned off. It's doing some 3000mph when 25 miles up.
The vacuum may be economically or physically unviable, but my idea is a seal at the end of this tube that is pyrotechnically breached at the last moment before the payload exits. I have no idea what G forces would be experienced by the payload as it smashes suddenly into a wall of air, but I suspect it would be too extreme.

FYI- At 14,000ft pressure is ~0.6atm.

Carrying fuel is so wasteful though. Something like 90% of the fuel requirements of any given orbital launch is consumed just accelerating fuel. With a rail gun setup, zero energy is spent accelerating fuel. This cuts energy requirements down to 10% of a conventional launch.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 02:23 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by womprat View Post
Yes I've always thought that by reducing personal consumption, one is just getting out of the way of someone who cares less. By reducing the demand, we make it easier on those who are cost-constrained in their consumption.
Just so you are warned: I've been known to bull's eye womprats in my T-16 back home...
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 09:29 PM   #19 (permalink)
GRU
Master EcoModder
 
GRU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Windsor ON Canada
Posts: 373

silver bullet - '00 Honda Civic
90 day: 34.41 mpg (US)
Thanks: 21
Thanked 36 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
If the US cut consumption of fossil fuels by half, this would have the short term effect of reducing demand, which in turn would drive prices downward, which in turn makes demand for fuel in poorer corners of the world increase.
I don't believe that

The prices wouldn't go down so far that the poorer people that arn't buying much fuel now would end up buying too much fuel if the prices dropped.

In my line of work, if we lose half our business, we wouldn't cut our prices in half, we would keep the prices about the same and downsize and lay off workers.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 10:18 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 588

Ladogaboy - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
Team Emperor
90 day: 27.64 mpg (US)

E85 EVO - '11 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO GSR
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 59
Thanked 59 Times in 47 Posts
Yeah, you can't underestimate the cost of scarcity, too. The more limited/exclusive a product becomes, the higher the price. Especially on products that get cheaper by volume to create.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com