Chasing in the Future

[Stephen Barabas]

Roads? Where we're going we don't need. . . roads.

 

[Karen St John]

Roads? Where we're going we don't need. . . roads.

All it takes is a nice EF1, and you'll be chasing 4th Dimensionally!

 

[Jason Foster]

Roads? Where we're going we don't need. . . roads.

LOL...yeah...but it would suck...because every time you got struck by lightning, you'd be thrown back into 1785...where there are NO ROADS in the plains....arrrggg!

 

[Jason Foster]

I know realistically, vehicle type and gas is far from the factors what would change chasing. Overall economy, job, health, family, etc. would be major factors as we are currently seeing now. I even wonder if 'challenge' factor not being what it was years ago may have diminished the thrill for some. It seems that a few posts have sort of been getting at that, especially with talk surrounding technology.

 

[Jacob Ferden]

I even wonder if 'challenge' factor not being what it was years ago may have diminished the thrill for some. It seems that a few posts have sort of been getting at that, especially with talk surrounding technology.

I see what you are saying, but consider this: nobody forces a chaser to use laptops, weather radios, GPS systems, GRLevel3, HAM Radios, lightbars, and all this other stuff. There's nothing stopping us from just leaving all that stuff at home some time and trying a round of good old fashioned visual chasing. It's fun. It also is a great learning tool to improve reading storm structure, anticipating storm movement, etc., IMO.

Aside: I'm not trying to hijack this thread, I'm just trying to express an opinion.

 

[jcooper]

Personally...I plan on building the first TIV/Dominator hovercraft to fly directly into the tornado.It will run off chicken poop and cow patties that are abundant in the Plains,so who wants to sign up to put the fuel in the tank?LOL!

 

[Chad Berryhill]

Yes, Nuclear is a good way to go since there are no air emissions except water vapor. Burying the waste is a whole lot better than emitting it in the air. When you burn fuel oil you get 5 main pollutants - SO2 (sulfur dioxide), NOx (nitrogen oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), CO (carbon monoxide) and CO2 (carbon dioxide). Interesting how only the latter is in the press these days. VOCs react with NOx at low levels in the atomsphere to produce O3 (ozone) which is a respiratory irritant. Way up there O3 is good but not down at the ground level. In 1992, 850,000 tons of SO2 were emitted from just power plants and sugar mills in the State of Florida alone. So there's a whole lot of other stuff going into the air we breath and plenty of it. Wonder what all that other stuff does to our air.

The problem is we don't have the means to store electricty on a large scale. You have to be producing it to use it. The sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind comes and goes. So those technologies have to be backed up with fossil burning plants or nuclear. Well, I did see on TV a place in Europe that was burning wood chips for electricity the other day but now you're whacking down the forest that takes in CO2 and produces O2. In my opinion, nuclear is definitely the lessor of the two evils and I think folks are finally starting to realize it in Washington. I know one thing though, when a hurricane turns off the power for 2 weeks along the Gulf Coast people are screaming! Nuclear power is safe already and the plants are built solid. The Turkey Point facility south of Miami withstood a Cagegory 5 hurricane in 1992.

I'm going to disagree with you both on that. First, burying the waste. We have no way to permanently seal containers (that I currently know of). At some point it's going to leak and future generations are going to deal with our mess. We already have to fix the issues (Fluorocarbons) brought on by our grandfathers with the ozone. Have you heard of Super Fund sites ? That stuff is less harmful than toxic waste, and it's buried in the ground. The problem is, we end building a school or residential area on top of buried sites, over time that crap will leach into the water tables, etc...most of time our children will suffer from the effects. I'm sure someone is going to ask me what to do with toxic waste. I don't know. I do know that we shouldn't bury it.

Second, we have seen in the past that all you need is one wrong mechanical failure, and next thing you know we have a reactor melting. Enough said there, you all know what that could do.

Once we figure out better ways to handle those two issues, then I'm all for it.

An important thing to remember here is not that gasoline will run out in 20-50 years, but more so, the date and time when the world finally realizes gasoline's demise as a motor vehicle fuel is upon us.

This could occur at any moment, given geopolitical facts; for example, India and China are consuming fossil fuels at an alarming rate (without any adherence to environmental issues). And, when Israel attacks Iran. You also have to factor in the greed element as commercial fuel interests raise prices. (As they have done before).

What this means is that prices will soar long before the actual shortages occur. I'm guessing the days of $2.79 per gallon are limited, and the $4-$6 range is not far away, on a permanent basis.

I think public transportation, car pooling, conservative driving and electric/hydrogen cells will eventually fill in the gaps. I really don't see an issue except for us foreigners who live in Arizona and have to drive 12 hours to get some action!

W.

I agree with you there. The concern for me, who will get the last drop of oil.

Let me high light some other issues. This one regarding the oil companies. Of course this will sound like a conspiracy theory, but I know for a fact it happens. In recent years technology has made leaps and bounds, we hear about an up an coming piece that will change everything. Then boom, we don't hear about it anymore. Why do you think this happens ? Let me tell you. The oil companies are notorious for buying patents and destroying them or shoving it in their back pocket. Let's face it, as of right now they have a monopoly on us. They want to keep it that way. It doesn't help that we have certain lobbyist (paid by the oil companies) who pad the pockets of politicians. They say it doesn't happen, but it does.

I know a very smart guy, who invented a system that made ethanol out of molasses. Let me tell you, there are oceans of molasses ! We don't use molasses as a food crop like we do with corn. It's mainly used to feed out live stock. I know for a fact that two oil companies approached said smart guy, offered him VERY large sums of money for his patent. Smart guy says no, and for some reason he looses his funds. Now smart guy can not finish up with said great invention.

Just a little info on ethanol. You noticed it got a bad rep, because it reduces gas mileage ? First and foremost ethanol can be cheap to make (excluding corn produced ethanol) so it would balance out the lose of MPG and it would still be cheaper than gasoline. You would also need to run straight ethanol. There are conversion kits out there to change over. To be honest, the biggest concern would be your rubber hoses. Anything over 25% ethanol would eat them up. Second, I mentioned molasses. For those of you that don't know, molasses is made from a plant called Sweet Sorghum. Sweet sorghum is a very hardy drought resistant plant. The system that I mentioned before could of brought the small farmer back.

I've seen that we are now extracting sugars from certain algae. I really hope this works out. Using a food crop such as corn is a horrible thing. Extracting the sugars from corn is a long, slow, expensive process. The only way corn ethanol/plants are making money is from the tax breaks. The other problem obviously, it's a food crop. Corn prices already went up because of this, lets say we do start using more ethanol. What's going to happen to the price then ? Another concern is disease. We almost lost our corn crop over night because of a rust disease. Luckily agronomist figured out a way to beat it, very quickly.

With all that said, another problem we face. It takes energy to make energy. I got into a major discussion with an MIT graduate about this. It was interesting to say the least. As of right now, we are in this vicious circle. If we can break away from all the red tape (Politicians and Oil companies) and let our scientist and inventors do what they do. I don't see why we couldn't change things in a hurry. I mean why can't we have a vehicle that runs on multiple fuel types ?

Now I really hate getting into discussions like this, because someone will disagree or it can turn into a heated argument. I'm just throwing some of my knowledge out there. I think we can adapt, we just need to have the ability to do so. For what it's worth, I am not trying to hijack the thread or upset anyone. This is an interesting thread, so if you want to rip me about it, just send me a pm. I don't want to see this thread closed.

 

[PeteMcConnell]

Copenhagen

Are we really getting the whole story on what goes on at these treaty discussions? I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings to see what actually is discussed.