Climate Change Report

#376
#376
Mick said:
No but it pissed off the people that sell horses and carriages to no end.
Click to expand...

I honestly dont know if there was some specific incentives or not. I’d be shocked if there were.

And the success of the carriage and horse dealers is their own responsibility not the automobile mfgrs.
 
#377
#377
NorthDallas40 said:
I honestly dont know if there was some specific incentives or not. I’d be shocked if there were.

And the success of the carriage and horse dealers is their own responsibility not the automobile mfgrs.
Click to expand...
One of the selling points would be the owner of a car wouldn't have to smell the byproduct of a horse.
 
#379
#379
NorthDallas40 said:
When a fuel source is put forth having equivalent specific energy characteristics to fossil fuels along with the longevity and relatively ease of maintenance of the internal combustion engine THEN you will have a case for the death of the internal combustion engine.

Present battery types are dying from the moment they first deliver current to the electric motor. And their death rate is much quicker than an internal combustion engine.

For example the Prius recently switched from Nickle Metal Hydride to Lithium Ion batteries. I do not believe LiION will ever displace petroleum. There is a newer technology called Lithum Ferro Phosphate which has LiION performance without the hazards. But as usual it’s new a horribly expensive right now but it’s getting better.

If electric reaches the specific energy levels as petroleum and a means to deal with battery replacement and capacity decay (your gas tank doesn’t shrink over time) then it has a shot. I’ve read some that predict crossover around 2050ish. It won’t affect me much I am guessing.

If something beats electric to the punch and becomes more viable first then it will win.

To be clear I don’t think the internal combustion engine is the end of the line. It’s just still the best there is. To repeat I think electrics are a life style choice. If if fits somebody’s car abouts and they know what they’re buying great. I seriously doubt I will ever own one.

BTW I am an electrical engineer. And I deal with power systems and electric motors every day. My speciality is embedded controls systems.
Click to expand...

I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "prime time." I'm not advocating for the death of the internal combustion engine at all--I just think that an electric vehicle is a reasonable choice for many people. Hell, my work lets you charge them for free.
 
#380
#380
Wafflestomper said:
I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "prime time." I'm not advocating for the death of the internal combustion engine at all--I just think that an electric vehicle is a reasonable choice for many people. Hell, my work lets you charge them for free.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. There’s a place for electrics. But I don’t think they will be THE mainstream technology without forced intervention which should never happen.

Just like there’s a place for Ferrari’s and Lamborghinis in the current market, for different reasons of course.

Most of us are going to buy the most economical option for ease of use and maintenance. That’s going to be internal combustion for a loooooooooooong time more. And I think the Feds need to butt out. If a technology is viable it wins in its own merits. Period. Solyndra anybody? Or residential solar panels in general?
 
#383
#383
If we are actively making the planet uninhabitable then the government should do something about it. That's the argument that's the subject of this thread.
 
#384
#384
Weezy said:
If we are actively making the planet uninhabitable then the government should do something about it. That's the argument that's the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...
And I reject your argument when it comes to automotive technology. The government cannot force a technology to be viable. It can force involuntary compliance with arbitrary policies based on emotional arguments. The science of global warning is not nearly as accepted as many in this thread want to claim. Not even within the science community. And when it comes to cars you’re pushing a rope. If you’re moving the electric source to a coal fired or diesel turbine plant you’ve solved nothing. NOTHING! But we must do something?! 🙄

Viable technology will survive and flourish on its own. It doesn’t need help.

If you MUST do something... I have one word for you! PLASTICS! The hydrocarbons that go into their manufacture are astounding. Yet... give me a better material alternative? I wonder if Hoffman’s character bought...🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#385
#385
NorthDallas40 said:
And I reject your argument when it comes to automotive technology. The government cannot force a technology to be viable. It can force involuntary compliance with arbitrary policies based on emotional arguments. The science of global warning is not nearly as accepted as many in this thread want to claim. Not even within the science community. And when it comes to cars you’re pushing a rope. If you’re moving the electric source to a coal fired or diesel turbine plant you’ve solved nothing. NOTHING! But we must do something?! 🙄

Viable technology will survive and flourish on its own. It doesn’t need help.

If you MUST do something... I have one word for you! PLASTICS! The hydrocarbons that go into their manufacture are astounding. Yet... give me a better material alternative? I wonder if Hoffman’s character bought...🤔
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of the people ridiculing the California straw ban?
 
#386
#386
Mick said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of the people ridiculing the California straw ban?
Click to expand...
I am. It’s stupid.

And I’m not saying get rid of plastics. We CANT! We don’t have a better material! But they come from hydrocarbons and begin life in a cracking process just like diesel and gas!

But we have to do something right? RIGHT?!

I’m using plastics as an example of a larger hydrocarbon usage case that is completely ignored because we don’t have a better method.
 
#387
#387
Wafflestomper said:
I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "prime time." I'm not advocating for the death of the internal combustion engine at all--I just think that an electric vehicle is a reasonable choice for many people. Hell, my work lets you charge them for free.
Click to expand...

But are any of the parts of the electric car plastic? Are there moving parts in the car? If so, then we need fossil fuels. How about the manufacturing plants that produce the components of the vehicle? They all run because of fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and NorthDallas40
#388
#388
NorthDallas40 said:
I am. It’s stupid.

And I’m not saying get rid of plastics. We CANT! We don’t have a better material! But they come from hydrocarbons and begin life in a cracking process just like diesel and gas!

But we have to do something right? RIGHT?!

I’m using plastics as an example of a larger hydrocarbon usage case that is completely ignored because we don’t have a better method.
Click to expand...

Do Nothing right? RIGHT?
 
#390
#390
BigOrangeTrain said:
But are any of the parts of the electric car plastic? Are there moving parts in the car? If so, then we need fossil fuels. How about the manufacturing plants that produce the components of the vehicle? They all run because of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding!
 
#393
#393
BigOrangeTrain said:
But are any of the parts of the electric car plastic? Are there moving parts in the car? If so, then we need fossil fuels. How about the manufacturing plants that produce the components of the vehicle? They all run because of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Which part of my post is this a response to?
 
#394
#394
There’s a very clear message in these pictures. This represents all energy consumed by the world. And breaks down consumption by blocks (OECD for example) and specific countries (freaking CHINA!!! )4F6B7B2E-8E0D-4C24-9513-AF718E6994C1.gif
088C2A2D-D27D-44F3-A2A1-58648B7EB8CC.png
 
#396
#396
BigOrangeTrain said:
Peer reviewed science said that saturated fat caused heart disease and sugar wasnt bad for you. Point is science is fallible.
Click to expand...

I'd bet that good ole cane sugar wasn't nearly as bad for humans as corn syrup - just based on the girth of people before the mid 1970s vs now. That's one study I'd love to see - peer reviewed or not, but I don't think it stands a chance of seeing the light of day.

I'd also bet that the corn byproduct in our gas tanks isn't nearly as beneficial as claimed. Just less efficient fuel added to the rest of the vehicle it has to move around. A good honest analysis of how much oil it takes to produce a gallon of gasoline vs how much oil goes into producing a gallon of ethanol - the entire production process to include cultivation - wold be fun. Even better the analysis based not strictly on volume but by energy content - say one gallon of gasoline vs whatever amount of ethanol is necessary to provide the equivalent energy.
 
#397
#397
Weezy said:
If we are actively making the planet uninhabitable then the government should do something about it. That's the argument that's the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any doubt that the climate is changing. The human impact is still, at best, not understood.

There is data suggesting that the warming is cyclical in nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#398
#398
BigOrangeTrain said:
Peer reviewed science said that saturated fat caused heart disease and sugar wasnt bad for you. Point is science is fallible.
Click to expand...
Yea, you might have to prove that saturated fat doesn't increase your risk for heart disease and where they stated that sugar wasn't bad for you. Better yet disprove that there is manmade climate change. Listening to Trump on the matter is laughable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top