McCain has a good idea

[Zacht3hking]

So yeah,John McCain is paying anyone 300 Million for a better automobile battery.

Get crackin car junkies. McCain got Tree Hundredolla waitin fo jah.

[Elfer]

It's a decent idea, but:

A) Seems to disregard fuel cells, unless they're considered "batteries"
B) The actual requirements aren't technically clear. My fear is that a program with this kind of reward kicking around would end up with rules and requirements so complex that it would just frustrate the engineers and theorists into doing other work.

If it's going to work he'd have to create a set of specific, unambiguous guidelines that aren't relative and are fairly simple and non-contradictory.

[killerwhale321]

its a good idea but there are alot of holes in it.

[uhnoesanoob]

At 6/23/08 09:49 PM, killerwhale321 wrote: its a good idea but there are alot of holes in it.

Such as? Don't make general statements, they don't add to the conversation.

I think that he needs to define "better" more clearly. Also, I doubt he'd pay up in the middle of the election.

[Memorize]

At 6/23/08 11:27 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

Such as? Don't make general statements, they don't add to the conversation.

I think that he needs to define "better" more clearly. Also, I doubt he'd pay up in the middle of the election.

He doesn't have to use Campaign money. And his wife is extrmely wealthy, much more than he is. Though I think it did mention that he would be able to pay it by simply cutting a couple pork barrel projects.

[maddog-326]

Q.were is the money going to come from?
A.Print more money that will work.

[cellardoor6]

Sweet, I'll get right on it...

[alchemylord]

A big hole could be the fact the development of it may take more than 300 million dollars.

[bobomajo]

Its a good idea but if I were American I wouldn't base my vote on a single issue. But I guess I am a hypocrite because I would not vote for McCain because of his stance on the war, he would have to have excellent policy on everything else for me to want to vote for him. The problem with politics is opposing parties are usually obligated to disagree completely with the opposing party, but the opposing party may have policy that is better then the alternative. It would be great if you could take the best policy from all parties rather then haveing to take shit ones with good ones. Also a post said it could cost more then the incentive to develop the technology. Thats not a hole, if you received a reward greater then the cost of development whats stopping the government from funding the development of the technology?

In a world of rising fuel costs, whoever can develop the most economical cars will have a huge advantage in the market, sure not everyone is after an economical car, but lots of people are. The tax credit further sweetens the deal of developing fuel efficient cars. Does the tax incentive persuade car makers to start developing economical cars now, probably not most car makers would have already realized what the market wants. It probably would decrease the duration time of the development of this technology though, as budgeting for this development may become less of an issue if it means paying less tax.

[SmilezRoyale]

300 million is small compared to the wealth that a person will acquire if they actually did develop a genuinely more effective battery; although currently, it's not an effective battery that matters, it's a cheep one.

The reason hybrid cars are still as expensive as regular auto-mobiles is because the battery costs a fortune and needs to be replaced rather frequently; offsetting the extra cost of gasoline. Inventing a cheaper or more long-term battery will give the hybrid car the ultimate market advantage.

[SymbolCymbal]

ive never voted republican in my life but im voting for Mcain this time around...i really hope obama doesnt win..lots of people in the south are voting for him just cause hes black ...thats a dumb reason to select a president..and screw europe that wants obama to win

[ShwiggtyShwo]

seems like a pretty good idea but it is very incomplete... there are alot of holes

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/25/08 05:00 PM, SymbolCymbal wrote: ive never voted republican in my life but im voting for Mcain this time around

I voted mcain during the primaries

[marchohare]

It's a silly idea and here's why: no vehicle based on batteries of any sort is truly "zero emission." The emissions are simply displaced to another location. Unless the power comes from hydroelectric or solar plants, there are emissions. Coal is nasty as hell. The waste from nuclear fission has an unacceptable half-life, and always has (we're just more prone to forget that as we plunge into a Depression). Natural gas fired plants are cleaner, but use expensive, finite resources. Might as well convert cars to burning natural gas directly: it's cleaner, although you wouldn't see any appreciable savings from it.

Even hydrogen fuel cells are "dirty"--not the cells themselves, but the process of breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen. That takes electricity, and lots of it. There is very little free hydrogen on Earth. Because of its extreme lightness, it leached into the upper atmosphere and out into space before humans even showed up on the planet.

A much better idea would be to go through patents owned by the Big Energy companies to see if they bought up and are squatting on any technologies that might help. Pass legislation making patent-squatting a crime against Humanity. Hell, make it treasonous. I'll bet the oil companies would go "Uh..." and turn up some cool new technologies in a hurry.

Personally, I've never been comfortable with the way that whole "Cold Fusion" thing went down. Those scientists found something, never mind what it was. Their work was discredited, their careers reduced to ruins, then one of them turned up conveniently and rather mysteriously dead. They might have been wrong about the process they discovered being fusion, but serious research should have been continued on a massive scale. It wasn't.

However, it was continued quietly, on a very limited scale. Recently, blurbs appeared in the news that a similar process HAD been re-discovered, and the results had been duplicated by other researchers. If you blinked, you missed it. The story appeared and disappeared within a matter of hours.

I firmly believe that technologies which threaten Global Corporate Hegemony are being suppressed. I am by no means a "conspiracy theorist." Knowledge of them needn't extend beyond a few people. Those who know needn't even be organized.

That's not "conspiracy." It's just business as usual.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/25/08 05:00 PM, SymbolCymbal wrote: ive never voted republican in my life but im voting for Mcain this time around

I voted mcain during the primaries

[gunner-564]

it true but he wants to stay in the middle east till we find bin ladin iam not get drafted so he can get
more money!!!!!!!!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 6/25/08 09:22 PM, gunner-564 wrote: it true but he wants to stay in the middle east till we find bin ladin iam not get drafted so he can get
more money!!!!!!!!

Troll...

Anyway, The Hybrid car battery works by recycling the energy [please note that perpetual energy is impossible, recycling energy is different] By taking the excess energy from the motion of the engine back from mechanical energy to electrical energy, so that it can be used later AGAIN for mechanical energy.

[TheNewGuitarist]

Sweet. It'll just make the battery last longer... so cars don't run out so fast. (not like fast fast like 10 or some years fast... i guess.) So that means if a car lasts longer, that means many people will save some money, and they will not have to stop making cars just less. I GUESS...

[Elfer]

At 6/25/08 08:39 PM, marchohare wrote: Even hydrogen fuel cells are "dirty"--not the cells themselves, but the process of breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen.

Fuel cells are more environmentally friendly not because they magically use fuel from nowhere, but because they're more efficient than internal combustion engines, and are a lighter, smaller way to store energy than batteries.

Basically, we need to stop trying to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy and start using electrical energy instead. It's a lot more efficient, and there's the potential for electrical generation to be very clean, whereas fossil fuels are pretty much a dead-end technology at this stage.

[physicsman09]

At 6/25/08 08:39 PM, marchohare wrote: It's a silly idea and here's why: no vehicle based on batteries of any sort is truly "zero emission."

Batteries produce electricty by having two metals and two solutions with those respective metals (in ion form) undergo oxidation, there's no combustion so you aren't producing any CO2 or any other gas from it.

If you had a car that ran on only electricty in a battery, it would not produce "emissions." Besides, we have them now moron, they don't produce anything.

The emissions are simply displaced to another location.

What the hell are you talking about?

:The waste from nuclear fission has an unacceptable half-life, and always has (we're just more prone to forget that as we plunge into a Depression).

No you're a moron, only 5% of that "Nuclear Waste" is actually waste, the other 95% of that can undergo fission again and make more power, but the stupid fat cats (who only want to get re-elected) think that because the re-used material creates more plutonium when it undergoes fission again. Their thinking is that other countries will (somehow) get this plutonium and make weapons, the problem is most countries already have this capability, and it's just stupid to think that this is going to help, if a country wants to make a nuke there's already plenty of the needed material to make it, let us get more power from the waste at least.

Besides, they already do this in France, why not here?

:Natural gas fired plants are cleaner, but use expensive, finite resources. Might as well convert cars to burning natural gas directly: it's cleaner, although you wouldn't see any appreciable savings from it.

Didn't you take Chemistry in High School? If you burn a hydrocarbon you're still going to make CO2 so it's a moot point, you still polute.

Electric cars are the only viable option that is readily availble. We need more nuclear power plants to produce more power and more powerful batteries to drive the cars.

[Zacht3hking]

Just to throw it out there, I was being [i]sarcastic[/i

Thanks guys for not making me have to explain it why McCain [i]should have[/i] [b]thought this one through before addresses his idea to the public[/b]

[Zacht3hking]

oops forgot aboot bbc code stuff. my bad

[BAWLS]

At 6/24/08 12:28 AM, Memorize wrote: Though I think it did mention that he would be able to pay it by simply cutting a couple pork barrel projects.

And cutting taxes.

Wait.

[airsoftar]

Not sure if this was mentioned before but is the award limited to just batteries, or can it be any technology that achieves a certain MPG?

[JackPhantasm]

So the government will have more control over our FUTURE energy sources?

no thank you.

[Zacht3hking]

At 6/26/08 02:35 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So the government will have more control over our FUTURE energy sources?

no thank you.

Nice post and sig combination. It tells me you love McCain very much

[JackPhantasm]

McCain has lots of good ideas though. I like mccain more than most republicans.

Parties are stupid in general and I see that he's TRYING to do that. Maybe. Iunno he seems more republicanny than a few years ago.

[marchohare]

I have to laugh when a punk that's too stupid to understand what I'm talking about starts slinging around the word "moron," when he obviously is one. To wit:

physicsman09: "If you had a car that ran on only electricty in a battery, it would not produce "emissions." Besides, we have them now moron, they don't produce anything."

You are a fool. Of course emissions are still produced. Batteries have to be charged, and that electricity has to come from somewhere. Where do you think it comes from? Perpetual motion?

If you had the sense God gave a grasshopper's ass, you would have understood what I was talking about. Read my post again. Let's see if you're capable of comprehending something, boy.

physicsman09: "What the hell are you talking about?

Did I stutter, or do you simply have problems reading and comprehending? I said, "The emissions are simply displaced to another location." That location would be the power plant, you arrogant prick. As I said, do you think electricity comes from perpetual motion? Do you believe batteries charge themselves?

physicsman09: "...you're a moron, only 5% of that "Nuclear Waste" is actually waste, the other 95% of that can undergo fission again..."

Who shoved a corncob up your ass? Show me where I mentioned percentages. I mean it: show me.

You can't, because I didn't mention them. I know it's actually even a little better than you say (4% is unusable). None of that changes what I wrote, which is right up there for everyone to read, nor does it change my main point. FACT: Here in the U.S., we don't run our reactors on an open cycle, and FACT: you're forgetting the waste from mining, enrichment, and the contaminated parts of the reactor itself, physics-boy. Do you want to build a house on top of a tailing pile and live in it until your nuts finally drop down? It's called "low level waste" (along with all its high-level daughter products), so I'm sure you wouldn't mind conceiving your kids on a big pile of it and raising them there (assuming any woman will ever let you close enough to have any).

I stand behind what I said: the waste has an unacceptable half-life. You're the physics-boy. You tell us what isotopes are involved, what daughter products they produce, and what the half-lives are.

This ought to be good.

physicsman09: "...Didn't you take Chemistry in High School? If you burn a hydrocarbon you're still going to make CO2 so it's a moot point, you still polute."

Of course I did, sonny. Read again and comprehend... if you're capable of it. I said natural gas was cleaner, not that it was pristine.

In point of fact, it was I that pointed out in the Global Warming thread that ethane is C2H6, after you said it was C2H8. Here's a newsflash, jerk:THERE IS NO C2H8! You described an impossible molecule, so get off your high horse and pull the cob out of your ass.

I was polite with your mistake in that thread, but since you started slinging around the word "moron" here, when my IQ is probably 20 points higher than yours, I suddenly stopped feeling polite.

Get stuffed, sonny. Go back to your videogames, because you just fucked with the wrong guy.

That's all I have to say to you. You may now throw an impotent little tantrum. Rest assured I won't be responding to it, because I won't be reading it.

[Earfetish]

Here's a good idea Mccain had. Getting rid of the Secret Service to save taxpayer money.