Trump Pushing Carbon Bubble That Is Bound To Burst

[dgiharris]

{pedant}

Cars, telephones and electric lights existed in 1897.

{/pedant}

You nitty Mcnitty nit nit ....

guess I should've add another 25 years to what I said, but you understand my sentiment.

 

[Vylo]

What is difficult to understand? Would you rather have cheap power or expensive? Remember that we're choosing for everyone, including the poor.

By the time this 'carbon bubble' bursts, your great-great-grandkids will be long gone.

His major reason, climate change, is a hoax. No reason at all.

No matter how cheap the power is, I would rather have the one that doesn't murder me. And I am typing this a few feet from a gas turbine.

 

[pat34lee]

Lot's of problems with hydrogen. Production, distribution, and storage are big hurdles; never mind the sheer cost of hydrogen vehicles.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/20/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-will-costly/

Have you ever heard of Brown's gas? It is what you get splitting water molecules into 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. There are people already using such technology to supplement their gas engines, to boost power and economy. There are probably also some frauds out to make money by selling worthless plans that don't work.

The point is, if you don't have to store hydrogen, just create it on demand and purge what little is left after running, then there is no huge cost and no fear of explosions. No larger than a normal car fire anyway, because there is never a large amount of pure hydrogen or oxygen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Have you ever heard of Brown's gas? It is what you get splitting water molecules into 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. There are people already using such technology to supplement their gas engines, to boost power and economy. There are probably also some frauds out to make money by selling worthless plans that don't work.

The point is, if you don't have to store hydrogen, just create it on demand and purge what little is left after running, then there is no huge cost and no fear of explosions. No larger than a normal car fire anyway, because there is never a large amount of pure hydrogen or oxygen.

Interesting.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Have you ever heard of Brown's gas? It is what you get splitting water molecules into 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. There are people already using such technology to supplement their gas engines, to boost power and economy. There are probably also some frauds out to make money by selling worthless plans that don't work.

The point is, if you don't have to store hydrogen, just create it on demand and purge what little is left after running, then there is no huge cost and no fear of explosions. No larger than a normal car fire anyway, because there is never a large amount of pure hydrogen or oxygen.

HHO has it's uses but not in vehicles it seems. It is certainly an impressive welding/cutting gas.

Why Water Won't Improve Your MPG: A PM and Dateline NBC Investigation

 

[Greyy]

Have you ever heard of Brown's gas? It is what you get splitting water molecules into 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. There are people already using such technology to supplement their gas engines, to boost power and economy. There are probably also some frauds out to make money by selling worthless plans that don't work.

They are all frauds because that isn't how combustion engines work.

The point is, if you don't have to store hydrogen, just create it on demand and purge what little is left after running, then there is no huge cost and no fear of explosions. No larger than a normal car fire anyway, because there is never a large amount of pure hydrogen or oxygen.

Hydrogen fuels work by creating water molecules from oxygen and hydrogen. You can't create hydrogen "on demand" in a car in any way that makes logical sense.

You would need to first spend a greater sum of energy to free hydrogen and oxygen, then you would be using hydrogen and oxygen to create water, which then produces electricity or force, at a lower rate than the initial energy you spent splitting them in the first place, just to combine them again. You might as well just power your car with whatever you were splitting the water molecules with.

 

[Greyy]

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use. They use electricity generated by fossil fuels. They simply allow those that pay an exorbitant amount for a product to deceive themselves into thinking they are "making a difference " for the environment.

Non electric cars are individually powered by GASOLINE. Does anything in your home run on gasoline? A mower and anything else that needs to be mobile and self powered. People don't power their homes with gas generators 24/7 because it is extremely inefficient. They use power plants. Cars running on electricity, even if it derives from a coal plant, is using electricity far more efficiently than a car using its own gas motor to generate its power.

If anyone thinks a coal plant generating electricity to be used by 100,000 cars, is just as efficient as 100,000 individually cars all individually burning gasoline, they need to have their head examined.

 

[Gene2memE]

Eletric Vehicles do not significantly reduce fossil fuel use.

Not even close.

There was a paper published for the California Air Resources Board using the California 2012 energy market as a model and a base case where energy production comes from 79% coal, 10% from hydro-power, 6% solar, 2% oil, 2% natural gas, 2% heavy oil.

Based on this energy production model a standard 4 door family sedan would consume:

Petrol power: 858,145 MJ over 15 years/180,000 miles;
Battery electric vehicle: 506,988 MJ over 15 years/180,000 miles;
Battery and petrol hybrid: 564,251 MJ of energy over 15 years/180,000 miles

This is a life cycle assessment, that includes production and end of life energy costs, including recycling/disposal (and even a second battery for the electric vehicle at 8 to 10 years)

So a full battery powered vehicle is going to be about 40% more energy efficient (and thus reduce fossil fuel use) compared to a conventional petrol powered vehicle, based on California emissions rules and power production.

It will actually have a GREATER reduction in emissions compared to a petrol powered car as ~16% of its energy comes from non-fossil fuel sources. So, based on this, a battery electric vehicle will be 47.5% more fossil fuel emissions efficient over its life cycle.

Furthermore, a typical petrol car is going to have C02 emissions of ~71 tonnes over its lifetime. A typical battery powered electric car is going to have C02 emissions of ~24.5 tonnes over its lifetime.

Base case an electric vehicle:
Uses 40-50% less energy use over full lifetime
Emits about 34% as much C02 as a petrol powered car.

Full paper is located at

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...CF6qPWUdpoeRlyD2w&sig2=3tpaI_n-KAnRpX2QNr8rMg

 

[FredVB]

Christians generally need to become aware that responsible living for the sake of the the world's environments of Yahweh God's creation should be understood and acted on, and not dismissed. But at this time it is well beyond where we can do something substantial for such issues with token actions. We can act for lessening the worsening conditions, if all did so there would be no worsening to the world's environments still, but there are drastic changes needed, and called for, even with godliness.

Vehicles of any kind for personal use won't work for this. The drastic change means if you really have to travel such distance use shared transportation, and basically use public transportation and such communal means. Use what is local over anything else as much as possible. Grow what you need, for food and such, as much as you can, avoid what has animal products and what comes from use of animals as completely as you can too.

There are scriptures for showing such great changes are called for with regard to issues.

Anything less than such action for our world facing critical changes as it is will be just token differences.