grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Jan 30, 2014 19:35:20 GMT -5
I would not want to go over the Houston ship channel bridge, and have the batteries die. Ahhhhhhh rolling down it backwards. Good thing gas engines never stall I don't go over it in a gas powered vehicle either. I used to drive over it but Houston has become a big mess of traffic accidents. If someone comes barreling over the top at 60 mph, they won't be able to stop. Someone could drown.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2014 19:45:08 GMT -5
I'm all for any car that people want to buy and drive. I don't want to subsidize the cost, I don't want to force people to buy and drive cars they don't want. I don't believe in "we". I think what's needed is for the government to take a step back, massively deregulate the auto industry, and see what shakes loose. the government (in the pocket of big auto) has blocked the export of small diesels for decades, now. i am sure you would like that to stop. Is it the government interfering with people getting a car they'd like to buy? Then, yes. I'd like it to stop.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 30, 2014 19:48:23 GMT -5
Currently, about 45% of carbon pollution is vehicles and 45% is power plants. 1. If we were to pull all fossil power plants off line and replace them with nuclear power, that fixes half of our problem. 2. And if we put together a Manhattan project and invent a 700 mile car battery, that takes care of another 45%. (The car batts are charged by the nukes). (700 miles allows you to drive all day on a trip and charge overnight at motels.) A few engineering issues. We have 440 nuclear power plants in the world, 103 in the US. They supply 20% of US power, almost 100% of French power, much of the Japanese power. Lots of negative public sentiment, very few reactors that are newer than 30 yrs. And every time there is a burp, the public reacts with passion, not science. The japanese incident showed that 40 reactors did what they were supposed to do in a world-class quake. And we also learned that you shouldn't site them on the beach where a tsunami can swamp your diesel engines - ie, put them on the hill a few miles away from beaches. The major current nuclear activity is in China, they are constructing 25 modern mega reactors and have plans for 10 more, each reactor is several times larger than our US units. But this concept does away with 90% of our pollution. The sky over our major cities should be cleaner than it was in the 1800's - before cars but during the coal-burning furnace era. While we're on the topic of passion, not science, "carbon" (CO2) is not pollution. And again, I am opposed to "we" in general.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 30, 2014 21:10:47 GMT -5
Anything is pollution if the quantity is high enough. You sound like our local RW radio nut- plants need CO2 to live so the more the better- heck we exhale CO2.
Water is good, isn't it? Body needs it- but drink too much and it kills you. Not a good argument.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:04:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 15:22:20 GMT -5
Anything is pollution if the quantity is high enough. You sound like our local RW radio nut- plants need CO2 to live so the more the better- heck we exhale CO2.
Water is good, isn't it? Body needs it- but drink too much and it kills you. Not a good argument. That's were the math comes in. Man's continuing contribution of carbon to the atmosphere accounts for .001% of it's total weight. That level isn't even close to being considered a carcinogen. Making transportation that runs on hydrocarbon fuels more efficient, is by far the easier task. Dj is correct, at our level of technology, all things considered, electric cars are stupid.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 31, 2014 15:31:13 GMT -5
There's the political concern as well. I'd rather drive a vehicle that didn't run on fuel extracted from middle eastern countries that hate us.
I have too many friends with their ass on the line to keep those countries stable.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Jan 31, 2014 16:16:28 GMT -5
The US now has oil reserves that could very well supply us with all the oil we need. If everyone drove an energy efficient vehicle, used public transportation where available, combined trips, and conserved as much as they could, we might not even need imported oil. Years back I read that if each vehicle driven in the US conserved one gallon of gas a month, we wouldn't need to import oil from Kuwait. I read a study done in 2011 that showed using public transportation conserved more than 4 times the oil we imported from Kuwait. If we had viable public transportation here, I would use it. I use the Metrorail in Houston. It is fast, generates no fumes, and stops by everything I want to use. A day pass costs $3. I can't even park for that at one of the garages.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 31, 2014 18:03:42 GMT -5
the government (in the pocket of big auto) has blocked the export of small diesels for decades, now. i am sure you would like that to stop. Is it the government interfering with people getting a car they'd like to buy? Then, yes. I'd like it to stop. of course. i have been wanting to buy small diesels from Europe for a long long time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:04:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2014 9:04:48 GMT -5
I'm all for any car that people want to buy and drive. I don't want to subsidize the cost, I don't want to force people to buy and drive cars they don't want. I don't believe in "we". I think what's needed is for the government to take a step back, massively deregulate the auto industry, and see what shakes loose. the government (in the pocket of big auto) has blocked the export of small diesels for decades, now. i am sure you would like that to stop. What's the point in that ? Wouldn't US automakers make money selling engines worldwide ? Or did you mean inport into the US ?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 10:04:04 GMT -5
the government (in the pocket of big auto) has blocked the export of small diesels for decades, now. i am sure you would like that to stop. What's the point in that ? Wouldn't US automakers make money selling engines worldwide ? Or did you mean inport into the US ? the latter, and i meant complete cars, if that was not clear.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2014 15:53:01 GMT -5
the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them. the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission. a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency. a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient. therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation. let me know if i got any of that wrong. and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen. So...only allow them in Quebec? We get all our electricity from kinetic energy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 16:02:06 GMT -5
the problem i see with electric vehicles is that they are ONLY non-polluting if you use a non-polluting source to charge them. the way we are currently powering them is to use the electric grid, which is only about 30% efficient including power transmission. a fuel efficient GAS engine is about 30% efficiency. a fuel efficient DIESEL is about 40% efficient. therefore, we are better off pushing for fuel efficient gas and diesel cars than electric UNLESS we can localize emissions free power generation. let me know if i got any of that wrong. and if you think that localizing electric power generation is realistic, please illustrate how this will happen. So...only allow them in Quebec? We get all our electricity from kinetic energy. link?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2014 16:12:29 GMT -5
So...only allow them in Quebec? We get all our electricity from kinetic energy. link? Link? We generate 98% of our electricity via water......Hydroelectric power. Hydro-Québec generates 98% of its electricity from water — a source of clean, renewable and reliable energy. www.hydroquebec.com/about-hydro-quebec/our-energy/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 16:25:03 GMT -5
thanks. i didn't know that.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 1, 2014 16:35:18 GMT -5
thanks. i didn't know that. We make so much of it, we sell it to you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 18:45:03 GMT -5
Yup, we use Quebec Hydro power throughout New England, and maybe beyond, I don't know.
Ironically, our Governor uses that as an argument against alternative energy resources, holding that they are not cost effective by comparison. no offense, but your governor is a tool, dem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 18:51:09 GMT -5
don't I know it? It's why I mention him. I real shining star of the Tea Party, that one.
We seem ready to split the vote and give him another term if we're not careful though. Nothing like Bozo the Governor.
One of those things you have to see to believe. is he still banning the entire executive branch from talking to the press?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 1, 2014 19:36:35 GMT -5
LOL, you are well informed about Governor Bozo. I think he let that one quietly die.....
Actually I will say, your Governor Brown is a guy who has sort of been a national caricature for many years, but he seems to actually be a pretty capable executive, at least in government affairs. After the Davis/ Schwartzenegger years he seems like a welcome relief. i will probably catch a lot of flack for this, but i really like jerry brown. he is a real eccentric. but fundamentally, he is an idea guy, not an idealogue. i am sure plenty of people hate him for that. i have been watching him for years. after being ousted as governor, he was a political pariah. then he was mayor of oakland (where he lived in this really weird warehousy part of town), then he was AG, and now governor. the thing that separates him from the real loons is that he has a nack for connecting with people: a natural empathy. i think that is the kind of political skill that can't be taught. if romney had it, he would have won by 5%.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 8:04:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2014 8:08:09 GMT -5
What's the point in that ? Wouldn't US automakers make money selling engines worldwide ? Or did you mean inport into the US ? the latter, and i meant complete cars, if that was not clear. Mercedes and Volkswagen have had diesel vehicles (cars) offered here for sale through the years, but cars always had more stringent emission requirements that were costly and troublesome to meet until the US changed to low sulfur fuel that happened just recently (2 years ago?). I expect more domestic manufacturers to offer diesel cars now that the trucks have to meet the standards also. The clean diesel technology cost is coming down with volume use and the standards are easier to meet with low sulfur fuel. I think Chevy has a diesel Cruze model for 2014 and is GM's first diesel car since the 1980's.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 2, 2014 9:52:27 GMT -5
Anything is pollution if the quantity is high enough. You sound like our local RW radio nut- plants need CO2 to live so the more the better- heck we exhale CO2.
Water is good, isn't it? Body needs it- but drink too much and it kills you. Not a good argument. While we're on the topic of water, since we do actually know that greenhouse gasses trap heat- shouldn't we worry at least somewhat about water? I mean, water vapor makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gases- in fact, 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapor by volume whereas CO2 is less than 4% of all greenhouse gases by volume. And yet, there's very little (if any?) research being done with respect to water vapor's influence on climate. This is very easy to explain: AGW is primarily a political, not a scientific endeavor. Radical environmentalism is the new home of leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, and otherwise anti-capitalist activism, and the reason the movement is fixated on CO2 is that it is a by-product of the capitalist economic engine. Shutting down CO2 emissions means shutting down capitalism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 2, 2014 10:16:51 GMT -5
the latter, and i meant complete cars, if that was not clear. Mercedes and Volkswagen have had diesel vehicles (cars) offered here for sale through the years, but cars always had more stringent emission requirements that were costly and troublesome to meet until the US changed to low sulfur fuel that happened just recently (2 years ago?). I expect more domestic manufacturers to offer diesel cars now that the trucks have to meet the standards also. The clean diesel technology cost is coming down with volume use and the standards are easier to meet with low sulfur fuel. I think Chevy has a diesel Cruze model for 2014 and is GM's first diesel car since the 1980's. vw and mb were the only ones available- but small diesels have been all over europe for decades. i remember looking into this about 2 decades ago, and it was import restrictions that were the issue. but now, apparently it is taxes: www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-european-diesel-cars/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 2, 2014 11:05:56 GMT -5
i am waiting for diesel hybrids. vw has several models in light production that exceed 100 mpg.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 2, 2014 11:51:09 GMT -5
i am waiting for diesel hybrids. vw has several models in light production that exceed 100 mpg. Now this is intriguing. In fact, I've always like the hybrid idea. It's good enough for the NAVY (diesel-electric submarines work this way), it should work for cars (and long-haul trucks, too).
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 3, 2014 9:59:48 GMT -5
Sigh.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 3, 2014 10:15:54 GMT -5
The US now has oil reserves that could very well supply us with all the oil we need. If everyone drove an energy efficient vehicle, used public transportation where available, combined trips, and conserved as much as they could, we might not even need imported oil. Years back I read that if each vehicle driven in the US conserved one gallon of gas a month, we wouldn't need to import oil from Kuwait. I read a study done in 2011 that showed using public transportation conserved more than 4 times the oil we imported from Kuwait. If we had viable public transportation here, I would use it. I use the Metrorail in Houston. It is fast, generates no fumes, and stops by everything I want to use. A day pass costs $3. I can't even park for that at one of the garages. You are correct. However, car manufacturers don't like public transportation, going back to the days when they bought up and shut down as many trolley lines as they could, in order to push people into buying cars. There is also a social stigma against public transportation. In Atlanta, back when they were trying to pass funds for their MARTA system (subway/train system to the suburbs) the public rejected a plan that would bring rail from downtown Atlanta to all the surrounding suburbs, possibly because they didn't like the idea of poor black people being able to take a train out to the expensive white suburbs. Instead they installed a very limited rail system. Now Atlanta is stuck with one of the worst traffic problems in the country, because they refused to invest in public transit. It's a shame. I lived in Europe as a kid/young adult, and was able to take advantage of their trains/subways/buses to travel with my friends very inexpensively, to where ever we wanted to go, and although it didn't occur to me at the time, it was much more environmentally friendly than driving. Wish we had the same committment to public transit in this country.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 3, 2014 16:25:45 GMT -5
So, if I put a couple of solar panels on the roof, it won't be enough to power my electric car? i have no idea. will it? next question: what if you live in an apartment, or some place where CC&R's won't allow panels? or, to put it differently: will that be a requirement for owning such a vehicle? Around here solar gardens are becoming popular. You can buy panels, but don't have to have them at your residence & you get credit on your electric bill for the energy they credit.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 3, 2014 16:33:56 GMT -5
www.energy-daily.com/reports/CGD_Ranks_CO2_Emissions_From_Power_Plants_Worldwide_999.htmlIt's kind of a long read but it sure seems like electricity will never be clean energy until we produce it without coal or learn how to burn coal much cleaner. I did notice the article said no other single country came close to producing as much carbon from electric as the US (2.8 billion ton) but in the next sentence said China produced 2.7 billion ton. The other issue with electric cars for the near future will be the production, control and disposal of the batteries. I almost have to chuckle when these knuckle heads think they are being "green" while driving in the slow lane with their plug in Toyota. Maybe someday, but not today. If we ever get serious about global warming or climate change than we will also have to consider the fact that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas in our enviroment by far and that we could probably do quite a few things to avoid producing excessive amounts. We could also increase the use of ethanol fuels that produces less carbon per gallon than our gasoline.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 3, 2014 19:09:45 GMT -5
www.energy-daily.com/reports/CGD_Ranks_CO2_Emissions_From_Power_Plants_Worldwide_999.htmlIt's kind of a long read but it sure seems like electricity will never be clean energy until we produce it without coal or learn how to burn coal much cleaner. I did notice the article said no other single country came close to producing as much carbon from electric as the US (2.8 billion ton) but in the next sentence said China produced 2.7 billion ton. The other issue with electric cars for the near future will be the production, control and disposal of the batteries. I almost have to chuckle when these knuckle heads think they are being "green" while driving in the slow lane with their plug in Toyota. Maybe someday, but not today. If we ever get serious about global warming or climate change than we will also have to consider the fact that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas in our enviroment by far and that we could probably do quite a few things to avoid producing excessive amounts. We could also increase the use of ethanol fuels that produces less carbon per gallon than our gasoline. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The amount of water on planet earth remains constant, whether it's in liquid form, solid form or vapour form. If the planet warms up even a little, say, from CO2, then more water will evaporate, resulting in more water vapour in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse "gas", causing more warming? What kinds of things do you propose we do to decrease the amount of vapour?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 4, 2014 15:48:18 GMT -5
I have not done much research on this subject but irrigation would certainly convert the liquid form to vapor. Anything like roadways, sidewalks, roofs that heat up and convert rain to vapor.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 4, 2014 17:15:50 GMT -5
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of how hot the atmosphere is. The hotter it gets, the more water vapor per cubic meter it can hold.
The water vapor amplifies the effect of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
So to decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, we could reduce the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, which would reduce the ambient temperatures, which would decrease the amount of water vapor each cubic meter of the atmosphere can hold.
Tricky problem, though, because water vapor tends to hang around in the atmosphere for around a week, while CO2 lingers for between 50 and 200 years. I haven't heard of a cheap and/or easy way to suck excess CO2 levels out of the atmosphere, but maybe there is something being developed out there.
|
|