Hybrids

[1999 Tahoe 4x4]

According to numbers of the EPA 1/4 of the greenhouse gases are produced by ALL TRAFFIC (all traffic: cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, trains...)

 

So let me ask a mathematical question here. If we eliminate 1/2 of the greenhouse gases that traffic produces (which I doubt we can), we still end up with 7/8 of the output of greengouse gases today? Right?

 

So what kinf of difference do you think hybrids are actually going to make in terms of greenhouse gas emmissions?

 

[Wingnut]

They're not a panacea for all our greenhouse gas woes, nor are they intended to be...Plus they've only scratched the surface of what's going to be possible...Give it time, and they'll have trucks with electric motors that will haul better than an oil burner. It may be 40 years from now, but I bet it happens.

 

Then there's the fact that the automotive industry isn't the only one getting choked by the EPA and it's cohorts, so are all the other polluters.

 

Cumulatively, it should have a much more than 1/8th reduction over time.

 

 

 

And monkeys just might fly out of my butt too.

[thecraft]

Give it time, and they'll have trucks with electric motors that will haul better than an oil burner.

I can just imagine a 3/4 ton going down a road: Whhhhhiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr..........

[Wingnut]

Give it time, and they'll have trucks with electric motors that will haul better than an oil burner.

I can just imagine a 3/4 ton going down a road: Whhhhhiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr..........

 

 

Can you imagine instant and virtually limitless torque without a transmission to break? That would rule.

[z85violator]

its the way of the future nothing we can do to stop it.

[mmmikkke]

We can't afford to wait 10 years, much less 40 years, to solve this problem incrementally. Climate change isn't going to be pretty.

 

Retirement planning is taking on a whole new light.

[1999 Tahoe 4x4]

We can't afford to wait 10 years, much less 40 years, to solve this problem incrementally. Climate change isn't going to be pretty.

 

Retirement planning is taking on a whole new light.

That is exactly my point. And that is why I have raised the issue. While solving the issue of climate change is being transferred to the average consumer, traffic is ONLY responsible for 1/4 of greenhouse emissions. The main polluter is power generation.

 

Seems to me that if the issue of power generation WITHOUT greenhouse gases is solved that would solve most problems. With clean power we could produce hydrogen and feed that into our tricked out V8s.

 

But the focus today seems to be somwhere completely else. The focus seems to be to fool the average consumer to invest into hybrid technology and so increase car sales by making existing cars obsolete. Then after 10 years or so we will find out that cleaning up traffic did not do anything for the environment. Meanwhile special interest power producers got a free ride. Nice plan!

[Wingnut]

We can't afford to wait 10 years, much less 40 years, to solve this problem incrementally. Climate change isn't going to be pretty.

 

Retirement planning is taking on a whole new light.

That is exactly my point. And that is why I have raised the issue. While solving the issue of climate change is being transferred to the average consumer, traffic is ONLY responsible for 1/4 of greenhouse emissions. The main polluter is power generation.

 

Seems to me that if the issue of power generation WITHOUT greenhouse gases is solved that would solve most problems. With clean power we could produce hydrogen and feed that into our tricked out V8s.

 

But the focus today seems to be somwhere completely else. The focus seems to be to fool the average consumer to invest into hybrid technology and so increase car sales by making existing cars obsolete. Then after 10 years or so we will find out that cleaning up traffic did not do anything for the environment. Meanwhile special interest power producers got a free ride. Nice plan!

 

 

You know what I wonder about that?

 

Let's say that for some reason, everybody in the world wakes up tomorrow and they have an electric car.

 

Power grids would be dropping left and right. We're going to need a crapload more power generation to support electric cars...And electric power plants don't get their power from sunshine and roses. Most of them make it by burning fossil fuels.

 

What really kills me is the tree huggers that stop hydro-electric power plants from being built because they're concerned about some rare form of mushroom that MIGHT be growing under a rock in the middle of nowhere. That and the NIMBY's stopping solar and wind power plants from being built. That kind of crap tweaks my beak.

[mmmikkke]

...But the focus today seems to be somwhere completely else. The focus seems to be to fool the average consumer to invest into hybrid technology and so increase car sales by making existing cars obsolete. Then after 10 years or so we will find out that cleaning up traffic did not do anything for the environment. Meanwhile special interest power producers got a free ride. Nice plan!

Big business has recently woken up to the fact that they're doomed if they don't take the lead in this. Do the math.

[1999 Tahoe 4x4]

RE: Big business has recently woken up to the fact that they're doomed if they don't take the lead in this. Do the math.

 

 

I would hope you are right mike, but at the moment I just can't see that.

[mmmikkke]

Actually I wish I were wrong on this. It scares me to see big business co-opting this issue. We'll have window dressing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whatever lets them still run a profit... Do they care whether the earth self destructs in 10 years? Nope, that's beyond their planning horizon, can deal with that yet. Got to protect the shareholders investments...

 

That piece of the puzzle just doesn't fit and I think to actually solve the problem we're going to have to get out the jigsaw and make a new piece that does.

 

Imagine leaving 30% of the population basking in the sun, ignoring the problem, going on cruises, driving their Mercedes, and eating steaks... while you scrimp by on 20% of what you used to consume trying to save the planet.

 

That's just not gonna work. Think about it. This is some heady stuff!

[PELICAN]

Well I hate to say it but until "Saving the Planet" becomes profitable the problems will continue to be sugar coated. Eventually there will be a renewable fuel source that will be both beneficial to the planet and will power a GMC truck. Hopefully people will wake up smell the coffee and start heading in that direction.

[carneyman]

Give it time, and they'll have trucks with electric motors that will haul better than an oil burner.

I can just imagine a 3/4 ton going down a road: Whhhhhiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr..........

 

 

Can you imagine instant and virtually limitless torque without a transmission to break? That would rule.

 

 

Cant you imagine taking that thing in 3 inches of water and having the whole thing short out on you?

[Wingnut]

Give it time, and they'll have trucks with electric motors that will haul better than an oil burner.

I can just imagine a 3/4 ton going down a road: Whhhhhiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrr..........

 

 

Can you imagine instant and virtually limitless torque without a transmission to break? That would rule.

 

 

Cant you imagine taking that thing in 3 inches of water and having the whole thing short out on you?

 

 

Sealing electronics is hardly new.

 

But yeah...That might turn really unpleasant in a rush.

 

"Hey look! A puddBBBBBZZZZZZZT."

[Rampage_Rick]

Hydrogen is where it's at. You can burn it conventionally (think Hindenburg) or you can transform it directly to electricity via a fuel cell. The technology is there, it can only get better. The problem is getting it. There are currently two viable sources for the hydrogen:

• Electrolysis of water - Using electricity, it is easy to split water molecules to create pure hydrogen and oxygen. One big advantage of this process is that you can do it anywhere. For example, you could have a box in your garage producing hydrogen from tap water, and you could fuel your car with that hydrogen.
   
  
• Reforming fossil fuels - Oil and natural gas contain hydrocarbons -- molecules consisting of hydrogen and carbon. Using a device called a fuel processor or a reformer, you can split the hydrogen off the carbon in a hydrocarbon relatively easily and then use the hydrogen. You discard the leftover carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
  

The sad part is... 70% of the current hydrogen supply is processed from fossil fuels directly. So that leaves 30% 'green' right? Well, in the US, 70% of the electricity comes from fossil fuels. That means that roughly 91% of the hydrogen is derived (in)directly from fossil fuels.

 

I've been reading up on the so-called water-powered car. Apparently a few enterprising people have come up with a much more efficient way to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water (ever seen Chain Reaction?) I have my doubts. While there's very little scientific evidence for it, some of the scientific counter-arguments as to why it can't work are even more far-fetched. (Psuedo-science as a counter argument) The biggest hangup appears to be on the amount of electricity needed for electrolysis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are other ways to split the hydrogen and oxygen. The most promising method appears to be using a catalyst. A catalyst plus sunlight looks really really promising. I mean, if it's good enough for mother nature... Yup, time to invest in developers of photosynthetic catalysts. Then there's the fact that Automotive and Petroleum are the two biggest industries on earth. You can be damned sure that if some new technology threatened them, they'd take action.

 

Now before you dismiss me as a tinfoil hat wearing treehugger... I grew up around the logging industry. I've seen both sides; Commercial logging and the Forest Service. If you actually think about it, they're all on the same side. The so-called "environmentalists" deserve a corked boot up the ass. All they've done is whine about their own petty interests, and in doing so they've created a white noise that masks the true issues. The public at large has been hearing bickering over one thing or another for decades. Such as: A forest can't be cut because although it's been proven there'a not a single spotted owl living within 500km, it's a spotted owl habitat. Too much wing-nut conspiracy and misinformed politics. Anyone on the outside has become adept at tuning the noise out, and those in the know have to sort the good intelligence from the torrent of useless flap-trap.

 

I drive a big V8 pickup to work. I am a model consumer. What scares me is that if 10% of what they say is accurate, It will have a significant effect on my daughter's future.

 

What really chaps my ass is the hypocrisy. I would wager that a significant number of the logging protesters live in wood-frame houses. How many of them wipe with toilet paper? Unless you live in a mud house and wipe with a corncob, you have absolutely zero right to protest. Same goes for the NIMBYs. One in the local paper last week, protesting a cell tower in the middle of a freaking industrial park. Are you kidding me? If you're that concerned about it, maybe you should chain yourself to the existing PCS monopole in the middle of town. Think of how many people are being irradiated in the nearby malls! Come on, money says half the people protesting OWN a cellphone. Supply and demand. The tower is going in because they need the capacity, due to people using the service. Another example: High-voltage transmission lines. Oh, you don't want lines running nearby? Well unless you light your home by candlelight, STFU. The utility isn't allowed to add capacity to meet demand, but you merrily pay your bill every month? But wait, if they put it underground then you're ok with it? Are you sure you're concerned with EMF, and not the view? Go back to your pizza pop. I hope the microwave sautees your brain.

 

I believe the obstacles to solar, wind, and hydro were already mentioned. *sigh* Look at Mica Dam in BC. Generating capacity of more than 1.8 gigawatts. (they only needed 1.21 GW in Back to the Future ) I've actually walked inside the dam, and all I can say is... incredible. The next dam downstream is at Revelstoke. It has a current capacity of 1.98 GW. If they uncapped the 5th and 6th penstocks they could add an additional 1.0 GW of generating capacity. No new dam, just a couple additional turbines. Actually, Mica is a similar situation. Only 4 turbines were originally installed, with a capacity of 6. I worked on a much smaller dam project further downstream. It was on the Discovery Channel. Probably because there has been so little Canadian hydroelectric development in the last two decades it was there first chance at producing a show about dam construction.

 

That's not to say the blame should lay entirely on the public with an agenda... The government deserves part of the blame. Look at the Columbia River Treaty. One of the conditions is that Canada is entitled to half of the additional power generated downstream in the US as a result of the treaty. This works out to an average of 490 MW at a cost of $1.50 CDN per kilowatt per YEAR (roughly $170 GW/h) Of course, electricity is a commodity, so it can be bought or sold. And sell it they do. Well, since BC has been a net importer more recently, we can actually wind up buying our own electricity back from the US at a huge markup. Also, under the terms of the Treaty we built several dams that did nothing more than hold back water, for the sole reason of providing flood protection to the US. We did add power generating capability to one of them beginning in 2002. (this was the project I worked on)

 

Hrm... Forgive me for the rant. It's not typical for me, although I admit I tend to filibuster when confronted by a topic of personal 'interest'. Probably should get a good night sleep. Ciao