Jump to content

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Enjoy your internal combustion engine car while you can -- it's very much sunset technology

It is. Petrol powered cars are slowly but surely fading out of the market so they're not a problem in the long run. This is true for ships and even planes too although the progress is likely to go a bit slower there.

There will always be a few enthusiasts who insist on keeping fossil fuel powered vehicles of course but that's a good thing. Somebody has to preserve our hsitory and there won't be so many of them they'll make a significant difference to the world's pollution level.

One thing nearly everybody get wrong about batteries is their efficiency for storing energy. Lithium based batteries actually have a far higher potential power-to-weight ratio than fossil fuel. The problem is that it's too high; if you don't "water it down" you get a bomb, not a battery. It's all the stuff they have to add to the batteries to keep them from exploding that add to the weight and reduce the efficiency. There have been a constant development and at least one major breakthrough in battery technology the last few decades and it seems safe to assume it's only the start.

 

Edited by ChinRey
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

worrying about natural climate patters that have gone on for 4+ billion years and thinking we can effect global climate by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere is well, lame. There are REAL issues countries need to focus on rather that chasing some Carbon fairy. Like, real pollution, industrial waste, millions of plastic bottles dumped everywhere, pollution in our streams and rivers..... the earth's climate will go cycling on all by it self like it has for the last 4 billion years, but we cant keep polluting and then think we can 'save the planet' by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

worrying about natural climate patters that have gone on for 4+ billion years and thinking we can effect global climate by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere is well, lame. There are REAL issues countries need to focus on rather that chasing some Carbon fairy. Like, real pollution, industrial waste, millions of plastic bottles dumped everywhere, pollution in our streams and rivers..... the earth's climate will go cycling on all by it self like it has for the last 4 billion years, but we cant keep polluting and then think we can 'save the planet' by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere

Don't think anyone was claiming oil was the only problem but ignoring it simply because there are other issues is simply well, lame. The methods of tapping oil reserves also affects another finite resource, fresh water. So it's more than just the air people are concerned with or should be concerned with. Yes the Earth has had its climate ebbs and flows but there's no doubt it has been induced by human activity since the industrial age. Also, it's not just "trace gas" we are putting into the atmosphere. It's carbons we are releasing that have been stored for billions of years and would have remained that way if not for human intervention.

Edited by Finite
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

worrying about natural climate patters that have gone on for 4+ billion years and thinking we can effect global climate by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere is well, lame.

The relationship between human activity and the climate changes that have happened the last century or two is well documented and there is no other even remotely credible explanation for the recent global temperature increase.

But with that being said, mother nature is safe; there is nothing us puny humans can throw at her that can cause permanent damage. We trigger a new mass extinction? No problem: back to the drawing board and design some new cool and interesting life forms! As Peter Wessel Zappfe once said, an earth without humans isn't necessarily a disaster.

Only...

It may be just me but I kind'a like humanity despite all its obvious flaws. Maybe I'm just a sentimental fool but I still do. There's no guarantee the human species will make it through the next mass extinction.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackson Redstar said:

worrying about natural climate patters that have gone on for 4+ billion years and thinking we can effect global climate by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere is well, lame. There are REAL issues countries need to focus on rather that chasing some Carbon fairy. Like, real pollution, industrial waste, millions of plastic bottles dumped everywhere, pollution in our streams and rivers..... the earth's climate will go cycling on all by it self like it has for the last 4 billion years, but we cant keep polluting and then think we can 'save the planet' by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere

It's curious that you ignore CO2 as a "trace gas" but worry about "real pollution" that generally happens at levels far below that of atmospheric C02. Is CO2 not an industrial waste? There's a pretty nifty correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and... the industrial revolution.

While it is likely the Earth's climate will continue cycling, it's also increasingly likely that those cycles will exit our zone of habitability sooner because of us. What's particularly worrying to me is that climate physics contains a few positive feedback mechanisms that switch the climate between modes. Albedo and permafrost thawing are two such mechanisms. If those mechanisms tip over, I'm not sure humanity will have the ability to tip them back. Ice core analysis from Greenland shows that extinction level climate swings can happen well within one human lifespan.

It's pretty clear that the human population can't grow forever, so we will eventually have to learn to live with a static or declining population. The more time we have to figure this out, the less painful it will be.

I'm all for giving ourselves more time to figure this out. I know what a crap job I do when I'm in a hurry.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChinRey said:

There will always be a few enthusiasts who insist on keeping fossil fuel powered vehicles of course but that's a good thing. Somebody has to preserve our hsitory and there won't be so many of them they'll make a significant difference to the world's pollution level.

   During the war and post-war period when fuel shortages were reigning, a lot of combustion engines were modified to run on wood gas. When petrol became reliably available again, people stopped .. Most people. There still are enthusiasts who use wood gas vehicles, mainly as a hobby, but some use those cars in their daily lives too. Apparently it's mostly Scandinavians, but I've seen people in Russia and the US doing the same.

 

   Much like a steam engine, it has a bit of warmup time though (usually 5-10 minutes), but once it's running it's pretty stable. Even works for lawn mower ..

 

   .. I kind of want it. Not that I have any lawn to mow or anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Petrol powered cars are slowly but surely fading out of the market so they're not a problem in the long run.

I think their position is similar to that of the horse and buggy in the US and elsewhere about 100 years ago, or much more recently in many places  -- still the predominant mode of transport but not for long.  

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I think their position is similar to that of the horse and buggy in the US and elsewhere about 100 years ago, or much more recently in many places  -- still the predominant mode of transport but not for long.  

I'm all for going back to the real horse power.. hehehe

I'll be right at home there.. :D

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jackson Redstar said:

worrying about natural climate patters that have gone on for 4+ billion years and thinking we can effect global climate by focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere is well, lame.

Do you know why the climate changes? You might want to look into that. Do you think it's possible that the scientists who study climate professionally might know something about atmospheric trace gasses effect on climate that you don't? I know that sounds crazy, but it's something to think about.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The single most damaging thing mankind does to the environment is industrial agriculture. When have you ever heard a polititian saying we need to change the way we produce our food? Government will never solve the problems we are facing, because the problem makers are getting rich doing what they are doing and paying off the politicians. Our only hope is that there will be enough people who figure out that they need to change thier habits and start to support sustainable solutions.

Edited by BiliEyelash
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

 

Take away meat subsidies.

Make beef cost what beef actually costs.

Problem solved.

In the meantime, supermarkets can do a lot to promote sustainable food lines.    This particular story is about Tesco, but the other big chains have been similarly expanding and developing their vegetarian and vegan lines.    

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/29/tesco-sets-300-per-cent-sales-target-for-plant-based-alternatives-to-meat

I'm certainly buying far less meat than I did a couple of years ago, and not through any particularly conscious decision, so I suppose I must be responding to whatever subtle cues are nudging me towards changing my shopping and eating habits.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I think their position is similar to that of the horse and buggy in the US and elsewhere about 100 years ago, or much more recently in many places  -- still the predominant mode of transport but not for long.  

Define "not for long"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Define "not for long"

The UK is banning the sale of new petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles (though not hybrids) from 2030 onwards, so presumably at some point during the 2030s over here (and much of Europe, too), and it remains to be seen what proportion of the domestic vehicle market petrol and diesel occupy by the end of this decade.

I expect to see very rapid changes from around 2025 onwards.

This BBC piece is worth reading: Why electric cars will take over sooner than you think

Quote

 

I know, you probably haven't even driven one yet, let alone seriously contemplated buying one, so the prediction may sound a bit bold, but bear with me.

We are in the middle of the biggest revolution in motoring since Henry Ford's first production line started turning back in 1913.

And it is likely to happen much more quickly than you imagine.

Many industry observers believe we have already passed the tipping point where sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will very rapidly overwhelm petrol and diesel cars.

It is certainly what the world's big car makers think

 

 

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with that.  Going electric disadvantages the people who can least afford.  The liberal mind set of  "helping the little people"?  Well, they won't be by going electric. Again, as per usual, everything they want to do hurts the people who can least afford it. 

 

I won't say it's not an admirable thought, but we are no way close to going 100% electric in the next 4 years.  Cars are too high and the infrastructure to sustain total electric is not feasible. Additionally, how do you create said electricity to power all these electric cars?  You don't want coal fired, you don't want nukes, wind and solar can't create that much power. 

Lastly.  No matter what we do as a nation, or even a group of nations (the EU), China alone is building coal fired power plants at a enormous rate. They alone, will overcome everything we do. Sadly, there's not a thing we can do about it. China does what they want, because they are allowed to. They've already unleash a pandemic on the world with no ramifications beside complaining, which they could care less about. 

 

Just my input.      

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Good luck with that.  Going electric disadvantages the people who can least afford.  The liberal mind set of  "helping the little people"?  Well, they won't be by going electric. Again, as per usual, everything they want to do hurts the people who can least afford it. 

 

I won't say it's not an admirable thought, but we are no way close to going 100% electric in the next 4 years.  Cars are too high and the infrastructure to sustain total electric is not feasible. Additionally, how do you create said electricity to power all these electric cars?  You don't want coal fired, you don't want nukes, wind and solar can't create that much power. 

Lastly.  No matter what we do as a nation, or even a group of nations (the EU), China alone is building coal fired power plants at a enormous rate. They alone, will overcome everything we do. Sadly, there's not a thing we can do about it. China does what they want, because they are allowed to. They've already unleash a pandemic on the world with no ramifications beside complaining, which they could care less about. 

 

Just my input.      

You can find electric and hybrid cars for as cheap as any gas car and both hybrid and electric are far cheaper to maintain as they have lesser average yearly costs than gas vehicles. So I am not sure what disadvantage you are referring to. Gas and hybrid buses are also cheaper to run and maintain which means lesser transportation fares as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

I won't say it's not an admirable thought, but we are no way close to going 100% electric in the next 4 years. 

No, of course we aren't.  "Presumably at some point during the 2030s" is what I said.    Technology changes very rapidly indeed nowadays, and I expect the pace of change in the switch-over from petrol and diesel to hybrid and all-electric to start to take off sometime around 2025, with the process completing some time 10 or 15 years later (my Member of Parliament has a particular interest in the motor industry, and I follow his newsletters about the latest government and industry plans, forecasts and investment).

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Finite said:

You can find electric and hybrid cars for as cheap as any gas car and both hybrid and electric are far cheaper to maintain as they have lesser average yearly costs than gas vehicles. So I am not sure what disadvantage you are referring to. Gas and hybrid buses are also cheaper to run and maintain which means lesser transportation fares as well.

Maybe.  But we're still in a quandary about the infrastructure to run electric cars.  The more E-Cars there are the greater need for electric power to charge them.  The more stations the more power to be created.  The more power created means more power plants.  Which would you prefer? Coal? Nuke?    It's already clear wind and solar can't do it. 

And you still overlook the underprivileged who can't afford a new car.  So what do we do? Just pass a $8 TRILLION  bill to give everyone an E-Car?  Add to this the number or immigrants that are pouring into the nation. It's not like they are going to get jobs that pay in the middle class income range.  Or will we just pas ANOTHER 8$ trillion bill to subsidize them too.  Ignoring people already here who are under the poverty range.  

Overlooked by everyone is that as bad as our emissions are, they have gotten better over the last 20 years. We can do everything we can but  WE CANNOT DICTATE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. 

What looks good on paper often does not look good in reality. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are discussing ending the emission testing here in my state.  It's only in a few counties anyway so not sure what the whole point was when they began the e-checks years ago.  They've come to realize also that the only people effected by a failed e-check are the ones least able to afford to fix their cars.  Someone who drives a 10 year old car that fails an e-check must spend at least $300 in order to get a waiver.  Even if it doesn't fix the problem, that waiver gives them a pass.  So what exactly was the point anyway?  That poor guy is now out $300 for no reason.  He sure as hell can't afford an electric car.  Once again, the only people getting dumped on are those least able to afford it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Maybe.  But we're still in a quandary about the infrastructure to run electric cars.  The more E-Cars there are the greater need for electric power to charge them.  The more stations the more power to be created.  The more power created means more power plants.  Which would you prefer? Coal? Nuke?    It's already clear wind and solar can't do it. 

And you still overlook the underprivileged who can't afford a new car.  So what do we do? Just pass a $8 TRILLION  bill to give everyone an E-Car?  Add to this the number or immigrants that are pouring into the nation. It's not like they are going to get jobs that pay in the middle class income range.  Or will we just pas ANOTHER 8$ trillion bill to subsidize them too.  Ignoring people already here who are under the poverty range.  

Overlooked by everyone is that as bad as our emissions are, they have gotten better over the last 20 years. We can do everything we can but  WE CANNOT DICTATE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. 

What looks good on paper often does not look good in reality. 

 

I am pretty sure electric companies wouldn't mind putting in places for people to come buy electric from them. I don't recall ever hearing about the gas industry having this issue when cars became prevalent rather rapidly. More rapidly than electric or hybrids are which are coming along at a relatively slower pace. And the installation in your home isn't much harder than changing an outlet in your garage (Which is what my brother did when he had one). I'm really not seeing how this is a political thing at all or how it relates to immigration. My brother is at the polar opposite of the political spectrum as I am. And he had a hybrid and I don't. I also have friends in Florida who likely voted for Trump and have solar panels on their roofs. They do it because it saves them money. Me as a liberal would probably say that I am doing it for the environment but what I really mean is it saves me money. Poor people would be better off as well as it would save them money too. 

I am not sure what needs subsidizing here. Electric companies could easily make deals with anyone with a parking lot to have outlets for cars to plug into. They could even be at each parking space. It would be similar to how zipcar makes deals with the places people can park and pickup their cars. Was some huge infrastructure deal or subsidy required for them to start up their business?

Edited by Finite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...