Transport

fodda

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[





Oh I dont know...There are plenty of alternative fuels we could be using that havent been developed since the 1910s...From electric:rolleyes: to hydrogen,alcohol,bio fuel,wood chip,return to steam,and proably fusion power.
Any and either which way,we would be better off figuring,if you are worried about this..Some alt fuel that you or a community could produce locally,and be independant of oil.If that is possible..

Well

Steam totally uneconomical as it uses far too much energy for what it gives back.

Electric cars:D:D:D:D:D:D A politicions party piece for dummies to take in. Give an electric car a few west of ireland hills.....be alright to keep the chucks in i suppose.

Wood gas...possibilities for trucks but not cars and probably what most of the land around here is only suitable for.

eth0

There are some experimental steam engines that are supposed to be more efficient. At least there was talk of this a few years ago it might have gone quiet by now

Grizzly 45

Is steam that unecnomical??Maybe in technology from the previous century...Have a look at the Stanley steamer car,looked pretty good even in the 1970s,and doesnt look like asteam engine.Engines that have about four moving parts,self lubeing,and get better results with greater demand on their power.No gearboxes to worry about either.
As for the electric car,until somone produces a viable electric HGV with the pulling capacity or range of a diesel HGV,we arent going anywhere with it.

eth0

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Is steam that unecnomical??Maybe in technology from the previous century...Have a look at the Stanley steamer car,looked pretty good even in the 1970s,and doesnt look like asteam engine.Engines that have about four moving parts,self lubeing,and get better results with greater demand on their power.No gearboxes to worry about either.
As for the electric car,until somone produces a viable electric HGV with the pulling capacity or range of a diesel HGV,we arent going anywhere with it.

You could have a large rod that comes out from under your electric car to latch on to a Diesel HGV and ride the regenerative brakes to recharge the battery

fodda

Nope in practical terms steam is extremly powerful but requires lots of energy input.

Fossil fuels are good because to us the user the energy is free except for the amounts used to extract it.......then governments tax it:mad:

So leccy is ok if you can produce it efficiently enough but storing it and transporting it incur large losses, then the if you walk uphill you will use lots more energy than flat walking and the same applies to leccy, in fact it will flatten batteries like none other. If anyone reckons they have cracked it, tell em to take their leccy car to that long steep hill coming out of Letterkenny i think it is on the N13? ....that will sort em out:)

A fuel that is produced or harnessed cheaply is wood gas, and will easily power a petrol engine very cheaply converted, but the system and fuel store would only fit in a van or truck but may get more compact hopefully.......thats where i would put my money and it produces zero emissions aswell. Old technology but hard to tax:).....that could be why its not mainstream:)

Tonyandthewhale

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Gladly start with;
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/.

The rest Google is your friend!;)

Did you actually read that article? On page one it says that each year we humans release 8.8 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere and that roughly 5 billion tonnes are sequestered by the oceans and forests.

It also clearly states "Yet like a finger on a balance, our steady contributions are throwing the natural cycle out of whack." which is directly contrary to what you said. Directly contary in fact to the idea you envoked this article to invoke (that's a quote from page two). You may be happy to leave the global warming/peak oil debate lie but I can't ignore a fail on a scale this epic.

Anywho, the article also states that levels of carbon in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the late 18th century due to effects of the industrial revolution and the oil age.
For the most part the article discusses the limitations of natural absortion of carbon saying that although they may slow global warming for a few decades they won't stop it completely and we still have to make an effort to forestall the negative impact we're having on the planet's environment.

Google's your friend, but the idea of actually reading the articles you base your opinions on is also a concept you might like to get acquainted with.

I also like how you've completely ignored everything I've said about peak oil. Probably because all you've got are conspiracy theories and the lies of oil lobbyists.

As for you're refusal to accept the modifying role volcanoes can have on the environment and your vague argument relating to bog oaks and climate differences in the middle ages. You do know that it's been hypothesised that these climate changes were caused by volcanic ash in the atmosphere (admittedly in this example it was hypothesised that it was ash in the atmosphere causing global cooling rather than carbon causing global warming but I still think it's a pretty good example of the fragility of the atmosphere and global climate systems).

Tonyandthewhale

Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity). However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.
Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Personnally, in a SHTF situation as in every-day life my vehicle of choice is the bicycle (or rather a range of bicycles suited to different tasks).
In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

slowburner

Whatever way you look at it, there are major changes afoot in the way we transport ourselves.
It is unlikely that the development of alternatives is proceeding quickly enough to keep pace with the decline in oil stocks.

I think the future is pretty bleak as regards alternative sources of fuel.
For example, isn't it the case that there is simply not enough land to produce adequate biofuel for today's needs, while also producing sufficient food?

Even this article admits that to produce ethanol we would have to sacrifice amenity areas.

However, one major concern of wide scale biofuel production is the increased need of growing crops to meet the demand. This leads to some arguments, since it might require extensive land that may involve forests, wild habitats and agricultural lands.

Electric vehicles? Don't think they'll be viable either, at least not until the costs of producing electricity come down.

Wood gasification engines - we ain't got enough trees.

Bicycles, sails, feet and horseback - they're the future.
Tally all this glum stuff with the pan-national obesity epidemic and you've got to think that Mother Nature is trying to tell us something.

Grizzly 45

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Gladly start with;
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/.

The rest Google is your friend!;)

Serious snip of a totally irrevelant arguement as said before we could arguement this point till the methane producing cows come home..You belive what you want I'll belive in what I want .
i still say its a myth and i'm not going to be changed on this point.END OF.

Tonyandthewhale

I was just quoting from the article you linked to. You're the one who's provided a source stating that human emissions exceed nature's ability to absorb them. You're the one who cited the article outlining precisely how much atmospheric carbon dioxides have increased since the dawn of the industrial age. You're the one who's got no valid, independent, non-biased sources.
We could indeed argue all day but that doesn't mean you've got a valid arguement behind you. You'll excuse me if I take several decades worth of research and quantifial evidence behind both peak oil and global warming over your say-so whether or not it's a myth.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Tonyandthewhale;75591150]Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity).

So how are you going to produce it then ?? Windmills or nukes???
Nuke isnt going to happen in Ireland because of the stupidity and total scare mongering of the anti nuke brigade.Not to mind we proably would have a genuine Homer Simpson in charge of running it,and it would have been built by the cheapest cost cutting contractors available,and owned by a state body who wouldnt be too pushed on thingsgoing wrong.
So on that one I'll go with the anti nuke brigade and say no thanks
Windmills...Possible if the NIMBYists get over their problems and allow them to be put offshore,but they are still unreliable.
Tidal is the one that would work very well here,as the Shannon and Suir rivers have huge tidal drops on a 12 hour clockwork basis.

However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.

Not to mention an advancement of battery size and capacity,and also endurance and road handling,even looks,which might help the sales.
Electric is fine for pootering around a city or large town,but for distance travel.Not a hope.

Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Indeed ,and then it would be better to invest in electric rail or the like as your movement is of goods and people.BUT that still doesnt get rid of how do you transport your goods from the railway head to your shop without using a diesel truck or van??As until a viable electric HGV isnt around yet.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Public transport is not going to happen without massive financial investure or willingness to coerce our unemployed into actually building the canals or railway embankments.Maybe if we get a dictator here on a Stalinesque scale and decides on a few five year plans.

Looks like all the "smart" people who bought their electric and hybrids are going to get it in the next budget too.:P

Neither of whch is going to happen realisticlly.Also,how are you going to get people to move back to the cities when the current economic climate wont allow them to sell their houses in West Meath or wherever??
And even if they could their incomes or job security mightnt be safe either..Not going to happen in the near future I'm afraid.

Bikes...no thanks!Especially on our lousy roads,weather,distance and risk... Motor bikes even less so..Diesel quad bike,possible as it can carry more than a motorbike or pushbike,just there isnt a 99%reliable small diesel motor out there,and the only quad diesel is Polaris and its a biatch for problems.

In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

And in this situation why would you want to be travelling??That is going to be sucideail if society breaks down that far.Any diesel BTW[ pre common rail diesel] can be converted to run on waste veggie oil pretty easily,and even to homebrew bio diesel isnt a biggie either.

FWIW common ownership never really works out well,when you need it somone else has it on the other side of the state or there is gyp on the maintence costs ,insurance,tax etc.Then if it is just a total post SHTF wagon.and only to be used as such,you have it sitting there with a lot of money tied up in a machine thas doing nothing just waiting for the day.
Then when that happens everyone will want it there and then.

Hmm,might consider taking up horse riding again.:cool::)

eth0

Horse not a bad idea, there should be plenty of fields for grazing after the SHTF.


I seen a lad who had bought a 750W electric front wheel off ebay. Said he got 27+ miles with a few simple lead acid batteries on the back. Its the only thing you'd realisticly be able to charge using a pair of solar panels. These yokes can do 30+ mph easy enough. The roads aren't brilliant in Ireland but after the SHTF you won't have much cars to worry about

fodda

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity). However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.
Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Personnally, in a SHTF situation as in every-day life my vehicle of choice is the bicycle (or rather a range of bicycles suited to different tasks).
In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

No offence but you are living in a dream world and this relates back to my earlier post of peoples "age". I can only assume that you grew up into an era where every household or even every person had a car? Your are for sure under 35?:)

I can tell you that this is a very recent thing, go back 35 or 40 years and you wouldn't find one car in a street because some other daily living expenses took too much out of the weekly budget so people simply did without regards cars and either used public transport or walked.

4x4's....thats hilarious,........ 30 years ago the only 4x4 was the farmers old battered landrover with a canvas covered back belching black smoke down the road, then the "yuppies" made them fashionable.:)

Technology has never and can never solve the rule of physics which is you cant get more out than what you put in..........this means the only way to use leccy cars in hilly terrain where the energy is needed many times over flat terrain, then you simply need more energy input.

Norwayviking

One of these could be handy

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2007/11/gasoline-car-now-runs-on-solar-power/

Grizzly 45

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

fodda

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

30km on the flat:) I think with the hills around here it might just get me to the end of the road:D

Norwayviking

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

well if you are a good engineer\mechanic you might get away with half:D
But you will find cheaper alternatives,and solar power can be used for many things,not only transport.:rolleyes:

CamperMan

we have the bicycles ready....

kildare.17hmr

eh am i missing something??

Tonyandthewhale

fodda wrote: »

No offence but you are living in a dream world and this relates back to my earlier post of peoples "age". I can only assume that you grew up into an era where every household or even every person had a car? Your are for sure under 35?:)

I can tell you that this is a very recent thing, go back 35 or 40 years and you wouldn't find one car in a street because some other daily living expenses took too much out of the weekly budget so people simply did without regards cars and either used public transport or walked.

4x4's....thats hilarious,........ 30 years ago the only 4x4 was the farmers old battered landrover with a canvas covered back belching black smoke down the road, then the "yuppies" made them fashionable.:)

Technology has never and can never solve the rule of physics which is you cant get more out than what you put in..........this means the only way to use leccy cars in hilly terrain where the energy is needed many times over flat terrain, then you simply need more energy input.

What's all this about people living in a dream world? I never said anything about everyone or even every household owning a car. I said that less people would own cars in the future, more people would use bikes and public transport and that a larger proportion of the cars on the road in a few years time would be using alternative fuels.
As it stands now, I do not own a car, never have owned a car and don't plan on owning one if I can avoid it.

I did not say electric cars are the answer either. I said that they're a nice idea but the technology has not advanced to a level where they can be competitive with conventional cars and that there are severe obstacles to over-coming the problems of electric cars, arisining from the fact that there's not enough money in the electric car market to make them viable any time soon.

My comment about a 4x4 was just something I'd like to have in a real SHTF scenario, a total economic and social collapse scenario. Not very likely perhaps but this is the survivalism and self-sufficiency forumn. It'd just be a nice back-up to my bicycle for when I want to move big stuff or large groups of people and can't rent a van because the roads have been largely washed away and the van rental place has been engulfed by zombies or whatever. In other words, a self-sufficient commune in a post-apocalyptic world could do with some heavy duty transport.
A 4x4 is not my idea of something everyone should have or everyone needs, it'd just something that'd be useful in a very small and unlikely range of events, which is why I don't have one now.

Tonyandthewhale

CamperMan wrote: »

we have the bicycles ready....

Exactly, must build myself a cargo bike.

Grizzly 45

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

What's all this about people living in a dream world? I never said anything about everyone or even every household owning a car.

I said that less people would own cars in the future, more people would use bikes and public transport and that a larger proportion of the cars on the road in a few years time would be using alternative fuels.

Isnt that a contradiction in terms????Ergo if a cheaper alt method of powering cars will come out,why wouldnt people buy one???

As it stands now, I do not own a car, never have owned a car and don't plan on owning one if I can avoid it.

:)

My comment about a 4x4 was just something I'd like to have in a real SHTF scenario, a total economic and social collapse scenario.

.

Hate to say this..But after TSHTF you wont have one either..As long as it runs and can be fuelled,a 4X4 will be a very valuable resource,that you had better be prepared to fight to the death to keep.:eek:
No one is going to have one for sale,unless you have somthing of immense value to trade for it.And they sure as Hell wont be loaning it out to you either. It is an either/or situation.Either you have one or you dont.

It'd just be a nice back-up to my bicycle for when I want to move big stuff or large groups of people and can't rent a van because the roads have been largely washed away and the van rental place has been engulfed by zombies or whatever

Again,you wont be moving anything or one after a post SHTF situation that you describe,for the above outlined reasons.Either you get things in place before the event if you have time[like now if possible] or it wont happen.

Also I get the impression you are very anti car,so a question,and not trying to Diss you either.Can you drive???Because alot of people seemingly think owning a 4x4 is the equivlent of owning a super go anywhere weather imprevious vechicle...WRONG!! Off roading is a learned skill and you will pay in blood ,sweat and tears and garage bills to learn it properly.
It is not a question of sitting in it slinging it into 4x4 and off you go up a mountain,or thru a river.
They have limitations and they are severe in reality.Ask the woman and her three kids who tried to cross a torrent of what was a little stream outside their house a few years ago in Cork in a 4x4 puck up...Well you cant as they are all dead!!!:( They paid with their lives because of a stupid belif that a 4x4 would get them over a raging torrent.First rule of river crossing ..stop,get out and go test the depth and current..If you cant stand up in it,as it is so fast flowing or it goes over your hips,its too deep for your truck.


.

In other words, a self-sufficient commune in a post-apocalyptic world could do with some heavy duty transport.
A 4x4 is not my idea of something everyone should have or everyone needs, it'd just something that'd be useful in a very small and unlikely range of events, which is why I don't have one now.

Of course it would and will be,so long as fuel is available.Not to mind plenty of other better equipment lying around for pulling and moving..No one said everyone should have or need a 4x4.Especially soccer mums on the school run,who dont know the height,width or length of their SUV[which is a bastardisation of a true 4x4].
However it is unrealistic to expect to find one or be able to borrow one in apost TSHTF scenario.It will be either somthing you have or you dont pre the crunch time,and you will need time and experiance to know how to use it to its full potential.

fodda

All fuel would be robbed and hoarded within the first week. Even if you had fuel how would you travel about without being attacked? Those looking for anything of value would ambush road users. The roads would be the worst place to be after the shtf.......you should stop watching those hollywood films:rolleyes::)

Tonyandthewhale

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Isnt that a contradiction in terms????Ergo if a cheaper alt method of powering cars will come out,why wouldnt people buy one???

Well there are already electric cars, bio-diesel, ethanol, cars that run on old vegetable oil, apparently cars that run on wood oil. Some of these are as cheap or cheaper to run as conventional cars depending on your circumstances (ie if you own a chipper that goes through a lot of vegetable oil or if you only travel short distances that can be easily covered by current electric cars). However, all of these are currently niche technologies and all have various limitations (fuel supply, range, initial cost, etc). I think as the price of running conventional cars increase then these niches will expand but unless serious technological advances occur and these limitations are over-come then none of these niches will completely take over the market as diesel and petrol cars did. That's why I foresee more bikes, walking, public transport and rational decisions regarding where people choose to live.

As regards the 4x4 stuff. Largely I agree with you. They would be difficult to find/very expensive in a SHTF scenario and I concede that they're not the kind of tool a complete noob could use effectively (to answer your question, I can drive although I'm a little rusty and I certainly wouldn't want to be driving through rivers or anything without a little practice.
I still maintain that they'd be nice to have, just like a full metal working workshop would be nice to have, or a stash of ak 47's or a nuclear bunker. I just mentioned them as they they're in the venn diagram of stuff that's nice to have and stuff that's realistically attainable they're in the over-lap section. Although really, I regret bringing that up at all.

My main answer to the question "what do you do for transport in a post-SHTF" world is a road bike, two mountain bikes, hopefully a cargo bike, at least one touring bike and a fixie/singlespeed.

fodda

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

My main answer to the question "what do you do for transport in a post-SHTF" world is a road bike, two mountain bikes, hopefully a cargo bike, at least one touring bike and a fixie/singlespeed.

:D You walk!:)

If you were traveling along a road on a bike someone will take it off you together with whatever else you may have.

slowburner

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

As regards the 4x4 stuff. Largely I agree with you. They would be difficult to find/very expensive in a SHTF scenario and I concede that they're not the kind of tool a complete noob could use effectively (to answer your question, I can drive although I'm a little rusty and I certainly wouldn't want to be driving through rivers or anything without a little practice.

4 x 4s are not much more difficult to drive than cars, really.
There are some differences which you have to be aware of. You can't throw jeeps into a corner as hard as you would a car, because the centre of gravity is higher.
Because of the 4 wheel drive on both axles, your turning circle is way bigger. It can be a real pain when someone parks too close to you at the side of the street - jeeps need a much bigger area to turn out onto the road.
I often hear people say that they wouldn't like a jeep for a long journey. They are fine vehicles for long journeys, especially if they have a turbo - if you don't thrash them, .
Other than these niggles and the fact that they are thirsty, jeeps are easy to drive. In fact, once you get used to a jeep, you won't want to drive anything else.
I definitely wouldn't swap my rusty, banged up, Jap import for any other vehicle - we've been through far too much together - 280,000 km on the same cast iron engine and driving better than ever

Tonyandthewhale

fodda wrote: »

:D You walk!:)

If you were traveling along a road on a bike someone will take it off you together with whatever else you may have.

If I'm in an environment where it's pretty much guaranteed anything of value will be taken off me I would want to get out of there a lot faster than walking pace.

eth0

A bike wouldn't be so bad with a 12 gauge shotgun tied to the pannier and a remote trigger on the handle bar. If scum gets on your back you can shoot them and also use the recoil to propel yourself forward faster. You'd still need another weapon to deal with scum infront of you though

Grizzly 45

What happens when you fire the shotgun in the front?Will you be propelled backwards into the crowd attacking you from behind???LOL:D:D

Norwayviking

eth0 wrote: »

A bike wouldn't be so bad with a 12 gauge shotgun tied to the pannier and a remote trigger on the handle bar. If scum gets on your back you can shoot them and also use the recoil to propel yourself forward faster. You'd still need another weapon to deal with scum infront of you though

If you put this in front of the bar,it will clear the way:D;)