Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
djj55 wrote:
You really got to work those coal powered electric plants to supply power to the cars.
POP QUIZ Question 1: Say we suddenly figure out a new power source that doesn't pollute NEARLY as much as coal... Such as... Oh, I don't know... Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Wind... You know, those things in science fiction novels that would obviously never work in real life... Which would be easier? A) Miniaturize that technology, and go out and replace every single vehicle with its own high-tech power generator. Then do that again every time we find a more efficient way to generate power. OR B) Replace all vehicles ONCE, such that they use some kind of generic power source, like... electricity. Then, just gradually replace coal power plants with less-polluting types. Question 2: Even if we do generate some of our power with fossil fuels (Coal/gas), which is less polluting? A) Millions of inefficient gas generators (Also known as "Internal Combustion Engines"), each designed to minimize weight and noise, and only checked once a year when the owner brings their vehicle in for an inspection. OR B) A few hundred massive power plants, each designed for maximum efficiency and output, constantly maintained by a dedicated staff of engineers, and monitored by government agencies to minimize environmental damage. Please keep your eyes on your own quiz, and pass them up to the front of the classroom when done.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
A few hundred massive power plants, each designed for maximum efficiency and output
Are you suggesting in your scenario that those "Millions of inefficient gas generators" would be replaced by efficient electric engines?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
which is less polluting?
Which is less polluting, each cow expelling waste gases (breathing, digestion, etc) into the atmosphere or each cow encased in a gas tight suit capable of collecting all such gases and saving them for later disposal is a suitable way?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
POP QUIZ
Pop Quiz: Which is more likely to happen of the following scenarios. 1. Humans will change their basic nature and rework their entire economic system. 2. Aliens from some far distant star with every solution possible will show up. 3. Wizards will appear and start granting wishes right and left.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A few hundred massive power plants, each designed for maximum efficiency and output
Are you suggesting in your scenario that those "Millions of inefficient gas generators" would be replaced by efficient electric engines?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
which is less polluting?
Which is less polluting, each cow expelling waste gases (breathing, digestion, etc) into the atmosphere or each cow encased in a gas tight suit capable of collecting all such gases and saving them for later disposal is a suitable way?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
POP QUIZ
Pop Quiz: Which is more likely to happen of the following scenarios. 1. Humans will change their basic nature and rework their entire economic system. 2. Aliens from some far distant star with every solution possible will show up. 3. Wizards will appear and start granting wishes right and left.
jschell wrote:
Are you suggesting in your scenario that those "Millions of inefficient gas generators" would be replaced by efficient electric engines?
Electric engines ARE more efficient than internal combustion engines... No more pistons, no more transmission, no more spark plugs, no more exhaust fumes, etc.
jschell wrote:
Which is less polluting, each cow expelling waste gases (breathing, digestion, etc) into the atmosphere or each cow encased in a gas tight suit capable of collecting all such gases and saving them for later disposal is a suitable way?
What does that have to do with anything?
jschell wrote:
Which is more likely to happen of the following scenarios.
1. Humans will change their basic nature and rework their entire economic system.Again, what does that have to do with anything? Since when does using more efficient energy require us to change our basic nature and rework our economic system? We're talking about clean energy, not Star Trek.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
jschell wrote:
Are you suggesting in your scenario that those "Millions of inefficient gas generators" would be replaced by efficient electric engines?
Electric engines ARE more efficient than internal combustion engines... No more pistons, no more transmission, no more spark plugs, no more exhaust fumes, etc.
jschell wrote:
Which is less polluting, each cow expelling waste gases (breathing, digestion, etc) into the atmosphere or each cow encased in a gas tight suit capable of collecting all such gases and saving them for later disposal is a suitable way?
What does that have to do with anything?
jschell wrote:
Which is more likely to happen of the following scenarios.
1. Humans will change their basic nature and rework their entire economic system.Again, what does that have to do with anything? Since when does using more efficient energy require us to change our basic nature and rework our economic system? We're talking about clean energy, not Star Trek.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Electric engines ARE more efficient than internal combustion engine
My net worth is 'more' than when I was 20 but that doesn't make me rich.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?
Just as relevant as your question since it completely ignores the vast issues surrounding it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, what does that have to do with anything?
Because it is just as relevant as your post.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Since when does using more efficient energy require us to change our basic nature and rework our economic system?
I see. So you think millions of automobiles are going to be magically converted into efficient electric vehicles. Thus bypassing reality entirely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We're talking about clean energy, not Star Trek.
Apt analogy. Both are fantasy.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Electric engines ARE more efficient than internal combustion engine
My net worth is 'more' than when I was 20 but that doesn't make me rich.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?
Just as relevant as your question since it completely ignores the vast issues surrounding it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, what does that have to do with anything?
Because it is just as relevant as your post.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Since when does using more efficient energy require us to change our basic nature and rework our economic system?
I see. So you think millions of automobiles are going to be magically converted into efficient electric vehicles. Thus bypassing reality entirely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We're talking about clean energy, not Star Trek.
Apt analogy. Both are fantasy.
jschell wrote:
I see. So you think millions of automobiles are going to be magically converted into efficient electric vehicles. Thus bypassing reality entirely.
Funny, I was under the impression that electric cars already existed... And somehow our economy hasn't changed... Think MAYBE that means we can move to electric cars without corrupting the space-time continuum?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
djj55 wrote:
You really got to work those coal powered electric plants to supply power to the cars.
POP QUIZ Question 1: Say we suddenly figure out a new power source that doesn't pollute NEARLY as much as coal... Such as... Oh, I don't know... Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Wind... You know, those things in science fiction novels that would obviously never work in real life... Which would be easier? A) Miniaturize that technology, and go out and replace every single vehicle with its own high-tech power generator. Then do that again every time we find a more efficient way to generate power. OR B) Replace all vehicles ONCE, such that they use some kind of generic power source, like... electricity. Then, just gradually replace coal power plants with less-polluting types. Question 2: Even if we do generate some of our power with fossil fuels (Coal/gas), which is less polluting? A) Millions of inefficient gas generators (Also known as "Internal Combustion Engines"), each designed to minimize weight and noise, and only checked once a year when the owner brings their vehicle in for an inspection. OR B) A few hundred massive power plants, each designed for maximum efficiency and output, constantly maintained by a dedicated staff of engineers, and monitored by government agencies to minimize environmental damage. Please keep your eyes on your own quiz, and pass them up to the front of the classroom when done.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
A) Millions of inefficient gas generators (Also known as "Internal Combustion Engines"), each designed to minimize weight and noise, and only checked once a year when the owner brings their vehicle in for an inspection.
You know less about cars than GW. The car is checked for road worthyness ever year, in some coutries two, but its engine is checked at every service as specified by the manufaturer, you know them, they are those dedicated engineers who actually design them for maximum efficiency and output as well as weight and noise (noise which is controled by the government by the way). The car worthyness check is government controled, the equpment to carry out the test is government regulated, and the individual doing the test government licensed. So sorry, what was that you were sayinog about the benefits of power stations as opposed to car engines? :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
-
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.
The study is by Berkeley Earth Project[^], an 'independent' group who were set up and funded by climate change sceptics. Who'd have thunk it.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
djj55 wrote:
The president can do this as a stimulas package. I sure cannot afford a new car.
But at some point, your current car will break down, or become too expensive to fuel... So eventually, you'll buy a new one...
djj55 wrote:
Who is going to build these? So in ten plus years we have the plants. Note that Ohio coal is known to be very poluting.
Umm, that's what we already have... And yeah, coal sucks... The point is that one big power plant is much more efficient and less polluting than the equivalent number of vehicle-sized power plants (engines).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point is that one big power plant is much more efficient and less polluting than the equivalent number of vehicle-sized power plants (engines).
Are you sure about that? According to Wikipedia [^] is the efficiency of coal or oil powered plants typically 33%. But according to Energiefakten[^] it's actually as low as 31%. Efficiency in modern diesel truck engines are around 45%. Which is of course a number a normal petrol driven car will not achieve. Maximum efficiency for a modern petrol engine is around 35% at close to full throttle, which of course is not how you normally drive. So 20% is a more useful figure So what's the efficiency of the electric car then: Well, the battery chargers are usually between 85-90%. The efficiency of NiCd batteries are between 70% and 90% depending on how they're used. And the efficiency of the electric motor/inverter is 80%. Let's use the higher numbers and you will get a total figure of 65%. The efficiency of the powerplant was 33%, so the total efficiency for the electric car would be around 21%. This is just efficiency so far, add the fact that an electric car with the same performance and range as the petrol driven car would weigh more than twice as much and therefore need twice as much power. Add another fact that electric cars are putting an extra stress on the environment from the heavy metals used in the batteries. In short, electric cars doesn't solve anything except in the small scale, removing pollution from the city centers. A better solution is to run diesel cars on renewable resources from farming byproducts using known processes such as Fischer Tropsch_process[^]
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The point is that one big power plant is much more efficient and less polluting than the equivalent number of vehicle-sized power plants (engines).
Are you sure about that? According to Wikipedia [^] is the efficiency of coal or oil powered plants typically 33%. But according to Energiefakten[^] it's actually as low as 31%. Efficiency in modern diesel truck engines are around 45%. Which is of course a number a normal petrol driven car will not achieve. Maximum efficiency for a modern petrol engine is around 35% at close to full throttle, which of course is not how you normally drive. So 20% is a more useful figure So what's the efficiency of the electric car then: Well, the battery chargers are usually between 85-90%. The efficiency of NiCd batteries are between 70% and 90% depending on how they're used. And the efficiency of the electric motor/inverter is 80%. Let's use the higher numbers and you will get a total figure of 65%. The efficiency of the powerplant was 33%, so the total efficiency for the electric car would be around 21%. This is just efficiency so far, add the fact that an electric car with the same performance and range as the petrol driven car would weigh more than twice as much and therefore need twice as much power. Add another fact that electric cars are putting an extra stress on the environment from the heavy metals used in the batteries. In short, electric cars doesn't solve anything except in the small scale, removing pollution from the city centers. A better solution is to run diesel cars on renewable resources from farming byproducts using known processes such as Fischer Tropsch_process[^]
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
So what you're saying is that given the same original fuel source (Gas/oil), electric cars are just as efficient (Yes, with some considerations regarding rare metals), while moving the pollution to the power plant itself. Which leads right into my other argument... It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again). An electric car can receive its charge from any kind of power plant, but a gas/diesel car can only take fuel from one source.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
So what you're saying is that given the same original fuel source (Gas/oil), electric cars are just as efficient (Yes, with some considerations regarding rare metals), while moving the pollution to the power plant itself. Which leads right into my other argument... It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again). An electric car can receive its charge from any kind of power plant, but a gas/diesel car can only take fuel from one source.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)You're forgetting the cost of necessary upgrades[^] of the electric grid. And the usability of the electric cars are lacking a lot, considering added weight, range and recharge time. I still claim it's mostly for the city. Here's[^] an interesting link.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
jschell wrote:
I see. So you think millions of automobiles are going to be magically converted into efficient electric vehicles. Thus bypassing reality entirely.
Funny, I was under the impression that electric cars already existed... And somehow our economy hasn't changed... Think MAYBE that means we can move to electric cars without corrupting the space-time continuum?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Funny, I was under the impression that electric cars already existed..
Solar panels exist as well. As do ocean thermal generators. But there is a HUGE difference between existence and replacement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And somehow our economy hasn't changed..
Specious. It has nothing to do with existence. It has to do with replacement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Think MAYBE that means we can move to electric cars without corrupting the space-time continuum?
There is a HUGE difference between existence and even acceptance much less replacement. If you can produce an electric car (and scooter) that is 1/10 the cost and which costs 1/10 as much to operate and has at least as much power and range as the existing gasoline vehicles then I say you have a shot. Much better if it was 1/100 and with more power/range. There would still be an infrastructure build out period though. Of course currently it isn't even close to that. It costs more and has less power/range.
-
So what you're saying is that given the same original fuel source (Gas/oil), electric cars are just as efficient (Yes, with some considerations regarding rare metals), while moving the pollution to the power plant itself. Which leads right into my other argument... It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again). An electric car can receive its charge from any kind of power plant, but a gas/diesel car can only take fuel from one source.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again)
Sounds good in theory. Completely ignores economics though. You have to build the power plants. You have to build the distribution networks. You have to build the distribution points (you didn't think you were going to plug into some strangers outlet for free did you?) You need to build the auto production plants. You need to produce the materials for the cars. etc.... That all costs money. That would all need to occur given that there is no NET difference between a gas and electric to the average consumer. Or worse it costs more to the average consumer for many years to come. The average consumer is not going to pay more for many years without incentive. If you want everyone to use an electric car then you better come up with one that costs substantially less that a gas powered one and which is as easy to use and has all of the features (like power) that the gas ones do. That would drive the market. That would drive the need.
-
You're forgetting the cost of necessary upgrades[^] of the electric grid. And the usability of the electric cars are lacking a lot, considering added weight, range and recharge time. I still claim it's mostly for the city. Here's[^] an interesting link.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Funny, I was under the impression that electric cars already existed..
Solar panels exist as well. As do ocean thermal generators. But there is a HUGE difference between existence and replacement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And somehow our economy hasn't changed..
Specious. It has nothing to do with existence. It has to do with replacement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Think MAYBE that means we can move to electric cars without corrupting the space-time continuum?
There is a HUGE difference between existence and even acceptance much less replacement. If you can produce an electric car (and scooter) that is 1/10 the cost and which costs 1/10 as much to operate and has at least as much power and range as the existing gasoline vehicles then I say you have a shot. Much better if it was 1/100 and with more power/range. There would still be an infrastructure build out period though. Of course currently it isn't even close to that. It costs more and has less power/range.
No one ever said anything about changing them overnight... People replace their cars anyway, when they break down, or when it becomes too expensive to maintain or operate them. As gas prices go up, non-electric cars become more expensive.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Upgrades are necessary, recharging only at night is a dealbreaker for most people. The majority of the people want to be able to recharge/refuel in just a couple of minutes, and more importantly, they want to be able to visit their relatives in that other town across the country without stopping over the night for recharging three times. So electric cars will be nothing but a hyped niche until performance and range get closer to what they get in a diesel car.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
You're forgetting the cost of necessary upgrades[^] of the electric grid. And the usability of the electric cars are lacking a lot, considering added weight, range and recharge time. I still claim it's mostly for the city. Here's[^] an interesting link.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Just to say thanks for the lowtech link. :thumbsup:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
There's plenty of sensible info on that page. The authors are obviously green to the core but they don't discard reality like so many others do. There's a sistersite that's called notechmagazine/[^] which is having a slightly different approach, which you can read directly underneith the title.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.
The study is by Berkeley Earth Project[^], an 'independent' group who were set up and funded by climate change sceptics. Who'd have thunk it.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer
But it has yet to be proven the cause.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Upgrades are necessary, recharging only at night is a dealbreaker for most people. The majority of the people want to be able to recharge/refuel in just a couple of minutes, and more importantly, they want to be able to visit their relatives in that other town across the country without stopping over the night for recharging three times. So electric cars will be nothing but a hyped niche until performance and range get closer to what they get in a diesel car.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
Ok so upgrade. Upgrades to the grid would be necessary soon enough anyway even without electric cars (here at least). Battery swap (as in Fluence Z.E.) would almost solve the problem though; they could be charged at night, and give low "refueling" time. But it only has a range of 100 miles. And the Tesla Model S has a range of 300 miles (not quite diesel car range, but at least not pathetic like other electric cars) and has better performance and handling than many diesel cars, but of course it's expensive and not even available yet.
-
Science meticulously verifies, people on the internet bluster. So it goes. I wonder why this Berkeley group didn't recruit some of the people on this board with their obviously scary talent for climate science.
- F
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer
But it has yet to be proven the cause.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
But it has yet to be proven the cause.
Absoloutely. The GW advocates would hve us believe that all natural forces stopped 100 years ago, and since then CP2 has been the principle driver of climate. Of course CO2 has some effect, the problem is knowing how much. And since there are historical temperatures rises as great and as rapid as the recent rise, in the absence of increased CO2, then the AGW argument is weak. Even if it werent, and see my response to Nagy, there is no need for alarm, since the most we will see even IF CO2 is the principle driver is 1 degree C. A rise that will cause no problems at all, and in fact will benefit the planet.
============================== Nothing to say.
