Global Warming

[Winston001]

Among climate scientists I would agree, but in the general public I believe the proponents would be more numerous.

Spot on. There was a study about a year ago of the media treatment of climate studies. There was, from memory, an 80% bias in favour of pro-global warming stories. In other words, if a piece of scientific opinion or research was published, the mainstream media ignored anti-warming information.

[Wolf]

Spot on. There was a study about a year ago of the media treatment of climate studies. There was, from memory, an 80% bias in favour of pro-global warming stories. In other words, if a piece of scientific opinion or research was published, the mainstream media ignored anti-warming information.

Yeah but we're not going to get warming, remember, we're all going to be snap-frozen like Watties peas by the global superstorm.

And if we do get warming it'll be countered to a degree by the mini ice age - they'll cancel each other out and we'll all be fine.

Meh!

We do need to cut out our pollution and waste, move to low-emission and zero-emission vehicles - because of the toxins released into the very air we breathe. We need to stop producing so much disposable shit which promotes wastage and promote stuff that lasts.

We do seriously need to clean our act up and take care of the ecosystem but not because of Global Warming and we don't need to run around checking how many times the cows fart or trying to tax the farmers for bovine emissions. And we don't need an acceptable emissions level agreement drafted by a bunch of people intent on slaughtering all the whales on the planet.

[The_Dover]

How much CO2 do burning hippies give off?

[Jamezo]

Burning hippies is carbon-neutral. Cause they have a tree planted to remember them by.

[Ixion]

I don't understand why everyone is getting so worked up about global warming. Even if it is true(and the evidence and logic both seem at best debateable), so what?

If the Earth gets a good bit warmer, so much the better.

Argueably the Earth is much too cold at present. There are very few areas that we can't utilise because they are too hot (too dry is another matter, but global warming may well promote more rainfall, not less). Many areas that are useless because they are too cold. Think how many people could live in Siberia, Northern Canada or Alaska if they were a bit warmer.

And if the sea levels rise a few metres, so what . A few areas will be unundated, big deal. Go ask the burghers of Dunwich how they coped. We rebuild on higher ground, and the kindly sea cleans up a lot of old slums.

Look where people are wanting to ove to to live. Everybody heads for the warm tropical areas. No-one heads for the cold bleak areas. If the Earth gets more lush and tropical so much the better. Roll it on I say.

Different is not the same thing as bad, adjust and thrive.

[Big Dave]

Yeah .

Yep - pretty much what I've been trying to say too.
I ain't no hippy - but I do have a Grandkid.

[Big Dave]

Different is not the same thing as bad, adjust and thrive.

WHAT IF pumping all that shit into the air IS a formula for utter cataclysm.
Just don't need to tempt that sort of fate.

The generation of 'hybrid' vehicles is dawning. I prefer to think with a bit of luck we'll work around the problem anyway.

[James Deuce]

Don't you start with hybrid's, you big yin. Don't you dare. Either burn dinosaurs, or give us flying cars like they promised. Don't make us tootle about in or on big fucking mobility scooters. Don't you dare.

[Big Dave]

Don't you start with hybrid's, you big yin. Don't you dare. Either burn dinosaurs, or give us flying cars like they promised. Don't make us tootle about in or on big fucking mobility scooters. Don't you dare.

If they have torque like a really big magnet and can wheelstand on it - I'm in.

That vespa I took for a burn the other day was a hoot. Not 600s slingshots - but for the urban environment - I was carving up on it. no reason why something like that is not viable. And after the hybrids will come hydrogen.

Imagine how they will pop!

[marty]

At least it gives them an excuse to move to South Auckland.

since when have they needed an excuse?

[James Deuce]

And after the hybrids will come hydrogen.

Hydrogen will never be a viable vehicle fuel without portable cold fusion reactors. Hydrogen requires at least as much energy to extract it from the molecule to which it is bound as you will get from using it. Economically unviable.

Battery powered electric vehicles are crap. Hybrid vehicles are heavy crap that won't wheelstand, and will have a shitload of unsprung weight added to an already marginally unsatisfactory design (the motorcycle) for such things as regenerative braking, and ancillary power supply.

[Big Dave]

Hydrogen will never be a viable vehicle fuel without portable cold fusion reactors. Hydrogen requires at least as much energy to extract it from the molecule to which it is bound as you will get from using it. Economically unviable.

Battery powered electric vehicles are crap. Hybrid vehicles are heavy crap that won't wheelstand, and will have a shitload of unsprung weight added to an already marginally unsatisfactory design (the motorcycle) for such things as regenerative braking, and ancillary power supply.

Blah blah blah And they'll never get 150 horsepower out of a motorcycle engine.

Not with todays technology - but in 30 years? - nobody knows. Beyond lithium. Cheap hydrolosis - you'll see. I'll be doing tricks on one of those new super magneto jobs for sure!

[James Deuce]

Cheap Hydrogen extraction isn't going to happen without a much more fundamental change in our understanding of physics than the changes in metallurgy that enabled the development of modern combustion engines. It isn't anywhere as simple as developing alloys that minimise expansion rate differences in a combustion engine with modern miniscule tolerances.

Cheap Hydrogen extraction isn't a technology development, it would have to be a new technology altogether, and I can only think of one new technology developed in the last 100 years - conductive polymers. Everything else is based on centuries of lore and gradual accretion of knowledge, and different applications of well understood principals.

Do you want Hydrogen power or electric? You're getting them all mixed up.

[Wolf]

Do you want Hydrogen power or electric? You're getting them all mixed up.

I think he's talking in terms of hydrogen fuel cells providing the electricity for the motor - a lot of good work has been done in this area.

Google Chrysler-Benz's "Natrium" vehicle for a great idea for safe storage of hydrogen - basically hydrogenated Borax ("washing soda") in a tank which is passed on demand through a catalyst to liberate the hydrogen to fuel the cell, the slurry is captured in another tank for removal and rehydrogenation - fully recyclable and safe.

Worst you'd get if the tank ruptured is a clean road.

Fuel cells are old tech (around 160 years old, now) that has only recently been seriously developed.

As to getting your hydrogen and how "inefficient" it is, if you're going to factor in the production cost into the equation, do the same for petroleum products. The cost of finding the crude, drilling, refining etc - then factor in the inefficiency of an Infernal Combustion Engine on top of that.

Hydrogen does take a shit-load of power to produce, so does petrol. OTOH, hydrogen fuel cells are around 90-95% efficient and an electric motor is around 95% efficient. Expect a small loss for some of the incidental electrics (like your voltage converter that pulls 12 or 24 volts DC from your 48-300VDC output from the fuel cell so you can power lights and horn etc) but on the whole an EV is more efficient than an ICE-powered vehicle.

I think you would find, after factoring in the production costs and the efficiencies of both, the equation should work out either the same or in hydrogen-powered-electric's favour.

Add to this: hydrogen can be produced locally anywhere in the world so you can forget import duties, import costs etc. If they take the "Natrium" route they can set up recycling plants all over the place to cut down on transportation costs.

[James Deuce]

Hydrogen is more expensive to produce than petrol because it actually requires more energy to extract than petroleum products do. The Hydrogen fuel cells aren't capable of giving a vehicle the same range, at the same speed, and the smae load carrying capacity as a petrol vehicle. Fuel cells are not as simple as the hydrogen lobby would have you believe, nor will they even ever be as cheap as a multi-cylinder petrol or diesel engine to produce. Petrol engines are heading into the 20% range for thermal efficiency and Lotus have a single cylinder direct injection electric valve engine running at 60%. Petrol is nowhere near dead, and none of the electric options put forward yet are beyond the first Daimler-Benz of 1886 level of usefulness or development yet.

A range of 60kms at 60km/hr does not excite and nor do expensive hybrids that create more pollution to produce than most petrol cars produce over their useful life.