 |

|
|
free radical

Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 02/07/2008

View Profile

Offline
|
Huntindog wrote: shelbyfv wrote: Tvov wrote: pianotuna wrote:
....
Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can.
Why? ![awink [emoticon]](http://www.rv.net/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif) I know it's a joke but apparently somewhere between 7% and 14% of US adults are still climate change deniers. Scary isn't it? Weather forcasts are not accurate more than about a week out....Yet we are supposed to believe forcasts decades out?
Its plus 7°C in Canada today,I remember minus 30 around this time long time back.
Mind you I aint complaining. LOL
|
free radical

Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 02/07/2008

View Profile

Offline
|
thomas201 wrote: So much wheel spinning on EVs, what if they are not the right path forward? The biggest problem with renewable power and EVs is storage, the second is storage, and the third is storage. Another path is carbon capture from the atmosphere (using amine scrubbing like nuclear subs and carbon dioxide from natural gas) then splitting hydrogen from water, followed by building whatever hydrocarbon you need.
The US Navy is hard at work on this project, since it avoids storage of large amounts of jet fuel, and the difficult job of resupply of jet fuel at sea to the carriers. After all fire kills ships. The Fords were built with a very large excess electric generation capacity for this reason and many others.
Porsche now has a pilot project running in South America, Porsche syn fuel
This will work wherever you have cheap electricity and water. The products are put right into refinery feeds. No need to rebuild the approximately 1.5 Billion cars in the world. Solves storage, no worry about hydrogen embrittlement, recycles carbon dioxide, we use the existing liquid fuel distribution system. Transparent to the car/truck owner.
Ill let you in or well known secret.
Tesla energy storage systems will get big maybe even bigger business then their vehicles,acording to Musk.
|
valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile


Good Sam RV Club Member
|
JRscooby wrote:
valhalla360 wrote:
The best return on the dollar spent by a long shot is in increased efficiency but better windows and lights don't get snazzy marketing campaigns.
Is it deliberate that you don't mention the fuel efficiency mandates made cars go much farther on gallon of fuel? And some of that tech is transferred to EV.
Quote: An important item people forget about is fuel is only a portion of what we use crude oil for. If we were to cut fuel consumption in half, all the other products that use oil as a feed stock would skyrocket in cost. Take asphalt concrete as an example. It's relatively cheap but we use a lot of it for building and refurbishing roads. If we cut the supply in half, road construction costs would probably quadruple. It would also cause more damage to cars/trucks as road maintenance is put off.
Skyrocketing cost? Yes much of the crude is used for non-fuel products, much is plastic. Now, with much of the cost of getting oil to market paid for by motorist, it is cheaper to make new plastic packaging, instead of out of recycled, or even better reusing the containers. (You remember taking pop bottles back to store? IIRC, much of what we bought then was in glass jars. Glass containers can be cleaned/reused) If the cost of getting rid of the container/harm done to environment, was included in price of bottle pancake syrup, would it be cheaper to clean glass bottle?
And for decades the percentage of asphalt recycled has increased. As the price of the oil has gone up, technology to recycle has improved. Now I know some city/state contracts require a percentage of "virgin" material, but that can change. And if it is recycled, it is not in a fill.
Actually, mandates haven't had a lot of impact. Most of the big jumps in efficiency happened when fuel prices spiked and the customers chose to buy higher MPG vehicles. Mandates without a fuel price spike have typically resulted in circumvention of the rules...Example: the proliferation of the mighty SUV "truck" that is for all practical purposes just a station wagon rebranded.
Yes, it does play into the cost of plastics. I was simply pointing out the collateral impact. Far to many think the only thing that comes out of a barrel of crude oil is gasoline and diesel.
Working in the industry, recycled asphalt is very limited on roadway projects and that's where the vast majority is used. The problem is as the asphalt ages, it "dries out" and becomes less effective as a binder in the asphalt concrete. When it's used, it's typically more for political reasons as opposed to engineering and capped at 5-10%, so as not to impact the quality of the pavement too much. Reducing the amount of virgin asphalt used by 50% but having to repave twice as often, doesn't provide much benefit. Ground up it does make a nice gravel for driveways.
Tammy & Mike
Ford F250 V10
2021 Gray Wolf
Gemini Catamaran 34'
Full Time spliting time between boat and RV
|
valhalla360

No paticular place.

Senior Member

Joined: 08/19/2009

View Profile


Good Sam RV Club Member
|
mkirsch wrote: blt2ski wrote: One thing I've noticed. It takes many versions, ea getting things better to realize true progress.
Saw a comparison to Wright brothers plane, to walking in the moon. Took 66 years.
We have a few more years/decades for EV or hydrogen power to be truly usable etc like ICE rigs. I'm positive things will get there. When, not if.
The Wright Brothers had pencils and rulers. We have much more advanced technology that can do the design, analysis and calculations much more quickly.
Had the Wrights had current computer technology at their disposal, they could have made their first flight from Kitty Hawk to LaGuardia in a Boeing 707 in a week, instead of taking years to figure out how to make their contraption fly 120 feet.
In other words it should not take us nearly 66 years to perfect an alternative. We can make advancements much more quickly now.
Moving from the Wright Bros to a 707 involved several huge technological leaps:
- ICE turning a prop to Jet Engines
- Wood & fabric wings to advance aluminum alloys.
- Visual flight rules to Instrument flight rules.
- Etc...
The last big advance for EVs was moving from Lead Acid to Lithium batteries. That was 30-40 yrs ago. Range has mostly been increased by simply using more and more batteries. The small remaining gains are mostly minor refinements.
The EV1 was back in the 90s and got 100mile range out of 19kwh with lead acid batteries.
The Telsa M3 needs 24kwh to go the same distance.
|
Turtle n Peeps

California

Senior Member

Joined: 06/23/2008

View Profile

Online
|
ronharmless wrote: shelbyfv wrote: Tvov wrote: pianotuna wrote:
....
Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can.
Why? ![awink [emoticon]](http://www.rv.net/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif) I know it's a joke but apparently somewhere between 7% and 14% of US adults are still climate change deniers. Scary isn't it? Would that be the same 7% to 14% who didn’t believe that Covid would kill 10 times more people than the flu? Well guess what?
You do know the death rate went DOWN during the woo flu don't you?
Imagine that Link And this during when the baby boomers are starting to kick off from old age.
~ Too many freaks & not enough circuses ~
"Life is not tried ~ it is merely survived ~ if you're standing
outside the fire"
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile

|
“Reading is fundamental” ![rolleyes [emoticon]](http://www.rv.net/sharedcontent/cfb/images/rolleyes.gif)
This is in a red box at the top of the linked webpage on death rates:
Quote: NOTE: All 2020 and later data are UN projections and DO NOT include any impacts of the COVID-19 virus.
Just imagine, had the pandemic NOT occurred the death rates were projected to have gone down. Instead we have many assessments of “excess mortality” (death rate greater than the projected) during the pandemic.
Link
Most curious is that this website has been posted on RV.net in the past in support of the claim there have been no excess deaths due to Covid-19 and I pointed out that time about the note in the red box.
* This post was
last
edited 01/04/23 04:11am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
JRscooby

Indepmo

Senior Member

Joined: 06/10/2019

View Profile

Offline
|
valhalla360 wrote:
Actually, mandates haven't had a lot of impact. Most of the big jumps in efficiency happened when fuel prices spiked and the customers chose to buy higher MPG vehicles. Mandates without a fuel price spike have typically resulted in circumvention of the rules...Example: the proliferation of the mighty SUV "truck" that is for all practical purposes just a station wagon rebranded.
Mandates don't make a difference? Then why do auto companies fight so hard against them?
Now mandates don't always work as planed. When smog started to get bad, Cali started, other states then Feds followed with mandates to clean things up. (Remember the "road draft tube"? When I saw a explanation of PCV, I put that system on my '54 GMC I6 running in my '58 Chevy Engine bay much easier to keep clean) But when mandate said must clean what came out tailpipe, the technology was either not available or too expensive, so MPG went way down. (Personal example; My wife, in 327 small block powered '67 Nova would get about 16-17 MPG driving to/from work. Replaced with new '73 350 small block, 8 MPG. At same time my '72 half ton, 350 small block ran 16.) And like you say manufactures/buyers changed vehicles offered. Before the station wagon/SUV thing, pickups changed into sedans without deck lids on the trunk. But when high gas price/competition from foreign and more efficient cars caused advances in engine efficiency on smaller models the "fleet average" mandate forced that tech to spread up the line.
Quote: Working in the industry, recycled asphalt is very limited on roadway projects and that's where the vast majority is used. The problem is as the asphalt ages, it "dries out" and becomes less effective as a binder in the asphalt concrete. When it's used, it's typically more for political reasons as opposed to engineering and capped at 5-10%, so as not to impact the quality of the pavement too much. Reducing the amount of virgin asphalt used by 50% but having to repave twice as often, doesn't provide much benefit. Ground up it does make a nice gravel for driveways.
Fact is asphalt has never been a great road surface. If dumped in a fill, tests have shown the oil will leach out, contaminate water. And even if the road is unused the surface will break down, allow water into subgrade.
Over the last couple of decades, in this area, recycling concrete has increased. In the past, a early step in repairing a interstate highway bridge was asphalt crossovers to get traffic off bridge. Now they are using concrete.
About that "nice gravel for driveways". 1 summer I worked my truck and trailer for months, loading millings where suburbs where repaving, hauling into small towns, stopping at the grain elevator to weigh, then tailgating out on the oiled dirt/chipped roads. Little work with skid-steer, blade, and roller, call the streets "improved"
|
propchef

NORCAL

Senior Member

Joined: 10/02/2020

View Profile

Offline
|
Turtle n Peeps wrote: ronharmless wrote: shelbyfv wrote: Tvov wrote: pianotuna wrote:
....
Bottom line we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can.
Why? ![awink [emoticon]](http://www.rv.net/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif) I know it's a joke but apparently somewhere between 7% and 14% of US adults are still climate change deniers. Scary isn't it? Would that be the same 7% to 14% who didn’t believe that Covid would kill 10 times more people than the flu? Well guess what?
You do know the death rate went DOWN during the woo flu don't you?
Imagine that Link![doh [emoticon]](http://www.rv.net/sharedcontent/cfb/images/doh.gif) And this during when the baby boomers are starting to kick off from old age.
Thanks for the link that shows a consistent RISE in the death rates. In 2013 it was 8.195 per 1000 people, last year it was 9.172.
#themoreyouknow
|
shelbyfv

TN

Senior Member

Joined: 02/18/2006

View Profile

|
Apparently climate isn't the only issue confusing that unfortunate 7%....
|
ronharmless

The far side

Senior Member

Joined: 12/15/2008

View Profile

Offline
|
Yes that is unfortunate as it seems to allude to a lack of reading comprehension in the unfortunate 93% who missed the words “10 times more”.
Maybe that’s why they believe purchasing carbon credits eliminates co2.
|
|
|
|
|
|