End of the Internal Combustion Engine

Aviatorruss

Private
Minuteman
Jun 28, 2020
14
4
Colorado
I’m stating the obvious, I think, but until there is a REVOLUTIONARY breakthrough vs an EVOLUTIONARY update in battery technology, electric whatevers cannot replace the energy dense fossil fuel. Can not. When does that happen…I dunno…but as an amateur market guru I’m continually searching for that revolutionary business that I can invest in. Haven’t found it, yet.
 

Waorani

Crusty Caballero
Full Member
Minuteman
Supporter+
Feb 14, 2017
2,926
4,351
Greenbow, AL
Do NiMH or lead-acid batteries have the same fire risk as Li-Ion? What about other batteries made out of different electro-chemistries that neither you or I know nothing about?

I don't think you know WTF you're talking about, really. I don't either but at least I don't pretend I do.

What? Baby Theis knows everything.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 308pirate

SilentStalkr

Wonna Be Badass
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Oct 8, 2012
    7,540
    8,473
    42
    Somewhere in the US
    Just curious, but does anyone have any idea how much energy it takes to power the Large Hadron Collider? Word is they gonna keep that sucker running for 4 years straight to attempt to discover new particles.
     

    Terry Cross

    Dingleberry
    Supporter
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Mar 15, 2003
    1,953
    5,006
    Alexandria, LA 71303
    www.kmwlrs.com
    Taken from a Motorcycle website....

    The Bear
    6/30/2022
    Ban On ICE, EU Kills Internal Combustion Engines

    Mark it on your calendar. The 29th of June 2022 marks the beginning of the end for the internal combustion engine.

    Looks like we’ll have to get used to electric adventures.
    Why is this not front page in publications everywhere?
    Several firms including some in Europe are working on mass hydrogen production and distribution logistics planning.

    No bad emissions.
    Very good efficiency.
    None of the downsides of battery, magnet and copper intensive manufacturing.
    None of the downsides of hazardous waste issues with spent battery cells.
    Plenty of power even for commercial and agricultural applications.


    I would think tons of investors would be all over this.
    What am I missing besides the impassable wall of Green New Deal piss ants?

    ./
     

    SilentStalkr

    Wonna Be Badass
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 8, 2012
    7,540
    8,473
    42
    Somewhere in the US
    Why is this not front page in publications everywhere?
    Several firms including some in Europe are working on mass hydrogen production and distribution logistics planning.

    No bad emissions.
    Very good efficiency.
    None of the downsides of battery, magnet and copper intensive manufacturing.
    None of the downsides of hazardous waste issues with spent battery cells.
    Plenty of power even for commercial and agricultural applications.


    I would think tons of investors would be all over this.
    What am I missing besides the impassable wall of Green New Deal piss ants?

    ./
    Exactly. There is even some companies in the USA that’s working on making its transport safer and more economical. This seems to be the way to me.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Terry Cross

    Vodoun daVinci

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 17, 2017
    2,445
    3,454
    Producing Green Hydrogen is an extremely energy intensive process from what I have learned....basically they use electricity ti break water into int's components, hydrogen and oxygen. When they burn the hydrogen it recombines with oxygen and forms water. The problem is that by the time they produce enough energy to break down the water it is cheaper/more resourceful to charge a battery. The Bug in The Ointment is storing and transporting the energy cell to use. The next generation(s) of batteries weigh less, hold more charge (2 or 3X the charge) and recharge in minutes. We have all seen what happens when hydrogen is mishandled. Watch the Hindenburg movies.

    I have a BIL that is an Engineer for Collins Aerospace and teaches this stuff. The next 5 years will yield batteries that solve many of the problems of short range and long recharge times.

    VooDoo
     

    308pirate

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 25, 2017
    21,856
    33,621
    Why is this not front page in publications everywhere?
    Several firms including some in Europe are working on mass hydrogen production and distribution logistics planning.

    No bad emissions. True
    Very good efficiency. While hydrogen is much more energy dense than gasoline and diesel fuel, the only thing more inefficient than a piston ICE is a steam engine. Meantime copper induction motors and Neodynium permanent magnet motors approach 90 - 92% efficiency and the drivetrain is much simpler (less parasitic losses)
    None of the downsides of battery, magnet and copper intensive manufacturing. Hydrogen production requires a shit ton of electricity (571 kilojoules of energy for 36 grams of H2O) and none of it is recoverable. Copper smelters also use tremendous amounts of energy but approx 60% of it comes from regeneration on site once the process starts.
    None of the downsides of hazardous waste issues with spent battery cells. True
    Plenty of power even for commercial and agricultural applications. Same can be said about stored electricity. It all has to do with the stored energy density. I think H2 wins that one now but it's inevitable that battery energy density will continue to go up. Meantime, I don't know how storing pressurized hydrogen will improve more than marginally.

    Not necessarily disagree, but trying to add some balance
     
    • Like
    Reactions: RUTGERS95

    Srgt. Hulka

    Lighten Up Francis
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 8, 2014
    3,483
    10,318
    Shreveport, Louisiana
    I liked Europe before there was a Union, when all European countries hated each other.



    292192489_3232805956976599_1667365482481901424_n.jpg
     

    BLEE

    NOBODY
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Jan 29, 2020
    3,198
    3,430
    NW Louisiana
    I think the bottom line is that, for the foreseeable future, the grid (production and distribution) cannot handle the load of mass, rapid phase out of ICEs and adoption of EV. Also, soup to nuts, from mining minerals, to mass generation, electricity is much more environmentally harmful than harvesting oil from the deep. Forcing us to EVs has nothing to do with climate, or environment. Haggle about it, all you want, but it as all to do with controlling you and me.
     
    Last edited:

    Terry Cross

    Dingleberry
    Supporter
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Mar 15, 2003
    1,953
    5,006
    Alexandria, LA 71303
    www.kmwlrs.com
    Not necessarily disagree, but trying to add some balance
    Good points and most that I was/am ignorant of.

    It would seem that efficiency differentials would be partially offset by the immediate cessation of emission control equipment and additives currently mandated on ICEs. Hydrogen engine tech would likely have some evolutionary growth left to exploit since there has not been a need to truly push in that direction.

    A hydrogen based ICE market would have an almost unquenchable thirst for that fuel.
    Seemingly any current infrastructure to produce/distribute hydrogen is more of an infant than renewables and EV were a few years ago.

    I would guess that large scale Hydrogen production has not had the dangling carrot of a new worldwide long term market to drive innovation in producing and distributing such. Would it be reasonable to assume from a capitalistic standpoint the potential new global market would be the catalyst to drive new and emerging technologies that could more efficiently produce H2.

    We have learned how to improve battery storage and improve electric motor efficiencies using ideas and tech that didn't exist a couple of decades ago. I would have my fingers crossed that hurdles in Hydrogen production and use would be breached when new $ is dangled in front of smart MF'ers.

    ./
     

    Terry Cross

    Dingleberry
    Supporter
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Mar 15, 2003
    1,953
    5,006
    Alexandria, LA 71303
    www.kmwlrs.com
    Producing Green Hydrogen is an extremely energy intensive process from what I have learned....basically they use electricity ti break water into int's components, hydrogen and oxygen. When they burn the hydrogen it recombines with oxygen and forms water. The problem is that by the time they produce enough energy to break down the water it is cheaper/more resourceful to charge a battery. The Bug in The Ointment is storing and transporting the energy cell to use. The next generation(s) of batteries weigh less, hold more charge (2 or 3X the charge) and recharge in minutes. We have all seen what happens when hydrogen is mishandled. Watch the Hindenburg movies.

    I have a BIL that is an Engineer for Collins Aerospace and teaches this stuff. The next 5 years will yield batteries that solve many of the problems of short range and long recharge times.

    VooDoo
    Totally tracking.

    The rebellious part of me wants to believe that if the amount of government subsidies and pure push that have been thrown at EV tech were at least shared with alternatives like Hydrogen, we would be sitting on technological leaps and breakthroughs there as well.


    Sort of like "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop". . . . The world will never know.
    download (4).jpg

    IYKYK
    .
     

    Vodoun daVinci

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 17, 2017
    2,445
    3,454
    The thing that kills me is that if WE had decided back in the 1970's that this fossil fuel thing was only benefitting the Oligarchy ('cause they pull free dead plants out the ground and get $100 a barrel for it!) and had exploited Electric Cars and Battery Technology and all of this stuff that's considered to be "Alternative Energy" for the last 45 years we'd already have electric cars with 750 mile range that can charge in 20 minutes that are charged with 66% renewable energy/Wind/Solar/Nuclear...right now. Today. The technology and expenditure of R&D $ has been deliberately, time and again, redirected by people with More Money than God to keep raking in that triple digit profit generated by dragging dead plants from miles beneath the Earth and burning it instead of collecting billions of gigawatts of Solar Energy that passes the Earth every 24 hours supplied by Fusion - The Sun - without dumping tons of carbon back in the atmosphere and without radiation.

    We had this down as an Electronics Engineering/Process Control Technician in 1976 and we are *still* fucking around trying to implement it. Because, can you say it Boyz and Girlz, The Global Oligarchy (who already has more money than God) wants another 50 trillion and the attached Power and Glory by dragging dead plants out the ground and burning them (to their profit and our Death) rather than to allow exploitation of something that does not generate trillions in profit for Billionaires. Electric cars and trains and aircraft, powered by Solar, Wind, Nuclear Fission and Fusion, is our only Hope going forward. The Oligarchy is betting we go back to 1956 and *Drill, Drill, Drill* to solve our energy needs 'cause they'll be dead when the chickens come home to roost.

    And imminently , fabulously, without a doubt, so fucking rich they can buy anything while the rest of US choke on the fumes and kill each other for food and air conditioning. While sitting in line for $20 a gallon refined dead plants that sequestered trillions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere (and left Life giving oxygen in return!) and took it to the Earth with them for billions of years. And now we spew all that carbon back into the atmosphere because, ya know, this electric thing is just coal fueling electric cars. Ya know?

    VooDoo
     
    Last edited:

    SilentStalkr

    Wonna Be Badass
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 8, 2012
    7,540
    8,473
    42
    Somewhere in the US
    Totally tracking.

    The rebellious part of me wants to believe that if the amount of government subsidies and pure push that have been thrown at EV tech were at least shared with alternatives like Hydrogen, we would be sitting on technological leaps and breakthroughs there as well.


    Sort of like "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop". . . . The world will never know.
    View attachment 7906668
    IYKYK
    .
    Agreed!
     

    BuildingConceptsllc

    Don't Start None, won't be none.
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Nov 13, 2020
    4,522
    3,648
    Alabama
    "green energy" is for the folks who weren't around to make all the easy money that was available to be made in the oil boom. Would be interesting to see all the financial interests these "leaders" have in "green technologies". I guarantee they did it to profit from it, not because they give a damn about the environment. Sure, it may work out for Europe since they have a much higher population density, and other factors like less urban sprawl, and a fact that it's what, 1200 miles wide and about the same tall? Average range of many EV's is at least 400 miles or so now right? With a 400 mile range, if you live in Paris, you can drive to 90% of all of France. 50% of Germany, and 1/2 of the UK, plus more. Plus, with Europe's amazing public mass transit systems that exist now, you can get away with not having a car at all. It could very well work for them without causing serious issues for individuals. We're not going to talk about the electricity supply and distribution hurdles though, that's going to be it's own engineering hurdle they'll have to overcome.

    Bringing that to the UNited states becomes the problem. 2800'ish miles wide, depending on where you're going, lots of sprawl in the middle, and no significant public mass transit outside of the biggest cities. We have seaports on the east and west coasts, and some in Texas. How do they plan on those products from the seaports getting to the middle? Electric Trucks? We have a shortage of Truck drivers now, rail can't pickup the slack, and now they expect all these truckers to buy new electric trucks which are going to have a fraction of the range of the current diesel models? A truck weighing 80K pounds, with a full load of fuel can drive about halfway across the country before needing to fuel up again. I bet you'll have a hard time finding a electric truck that will be able to drive across a single state on a charge. They gonna run that shit like the pony express and have yards every couple hundred miles where you pull in the dead truck, drop the trailer, grab a fresh one, hookup, and drive the next couple hundred miles? These folks haven't thought this through at all, and for whatever reason they haven't figured out that truckers and their cargo are the blood cells of the nation. They carry everything that we use every single day. And if they don't deliver the goods, how are they going to get to the stores. Europe could easily develop rail methods for transporting cargo with minimal investment. We will have to spend Trillions to go all EV, and that's why i'm certain it's a financial thing, and definately not because they give a damn about the environment.

    Branden
    Not to mention we absolutely DO NOT have the power grid for it. (Let's forget for a moment that the about 80% of the power is coming from fossil fuels anyway, even if every single American suddenly had only electric vehicles and Semi Trucks were ALL Electric, it's still 80% fossil fuel for the power, just like it is right now).

    We do not have the power grid to support even a significant increase in electric vehicles, much less half the country or more. Think about what is required to change the auto/truck power from fossil fuels, to electric power, in order to charge the batteries, (not to mention making the batteries themselves and disposal of them, which is a whole other significant problem for us).

    The goal is a 40-ish year glide path, not a few years. This whole thing is another damn scam.

    I'm all for electric and for other power generation, but I don't want to cut our collective heads off to do it. I won't argue with the "this should have been started 50 years ago" and why it wasn't ect.... just that we don't have to hurt 99% of Americans to do this. We can do it over time and we should.
     
    Last edited:

    BullGear

    Huckleberry Dillinger
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 29, 2017
    9,594
    18,759
    Hazzard County
    I do believe they are still a decade or more away from a sustainable, reliant battery for most automobiles.

     

    rtB

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 29, 2019
    1,712
    4,552
    Payson, AZ
    In the normal world, something is invented - something new, a paradigm changing type thing. Like an internal combustion engine. Did you know that the original patents for an internal combustion engine were in the late 1700s? It took around 100 years of technology enhancements, design improvements etc for it to really become a commercial product.

    At no point along that timeline did some bureaucrat decree "In ten years, horses will be outlawed and you will only be able to buy a tractor". No. People moved to this new technology on their own, because it offered a real improvement in productivity and/or cost. In other words, if you could do MORE work for the SAME cost or do the SAME work for LESS cost.

    If electric vehicles truly offered this same improvement in productivity or cost, there would be no reason whatsoever to mandate their use or outlaw old technology. The only reason these idiots can push this BS is "Climate Change", while ignoring the global impact of producing trillions (quadrillions?) of batteries, what to do with them in 5 or so years, and how in the hell we're going to charge them all.
     

    Llatikcuf

    Jaded Curmudgeon
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 15, 2013
    158
    289
    Northern Idaho
    Having lived over forty years in Alaska I just have to wonder how much an EV's range will be shortened when you're running the heater at 40 below.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lariat

    candyx

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 6, 2014
    7,470
    14,802
    In the normal world, something is invented - something new, a paradigm changing type thing. Like an internal combustion engine. Did you know that the original patents for an internal combustion engine were in the late 1700s? It took around 100 years of technology enhancements, design improvements etc for it to really become a commercial product.

    At no point along that timeline did some bureaucrat decree "In ten years, horses will be outlawed and you will only be able to buy a tractor". No. People moved to this new technology on their own, because it offered a real improvement in productivity and/or cost. In other words, if you could do MORE work for the SAME cost or do the SAME work for LESS cost.

    If electric vehicles truly offered this same improvement in productivity or cost, there would be no reason whatsoever to mandate their use or outlaw old technology. The only reason these idiots can push this BS is "Climate Change", while ignoring the global impact of producing trillions (quadrillions?) of batteries, what to do with them in 5 or so years, and how in the hell we're going to charge them all.
    Batteries will be a dead technology once the raw materials run out which is predicted to be 2050. You charge your car between the rolling blackouts as long as fossil fuels last which is 30 years. Have they started to build nuclear reactors yet they typically take 5 years to build.
     

    Vodoun daVinci

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 17, 2017
    2,445
    3,454
    40 more years of this sustained burning of fossil fuels? We are done right now - irreversible damage has already been done and it won't be identified for another decade of two. If we managed to attain all the emissions limitations we plan to have by 2030 today we cannot stop what's coming. It's already a done deal - we need to develop new energy alternatives and bust ass to find a Way off this planet in the next 100 years or deal with the fact that the sea levels will put frightening amounts of habitable land under water and the mean temperature at the areas about the equator will mean only the best animals can possibly survive. They will not be humans.

    It's already wrecked beyond repair . We can't beat the curve now until we realize this planet is done or unless we find a Way to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power and learn to control/manipulate the environment/weather. I'll be dead but yer kids and grandkids are gonna die of exposure and heat exhaustion/lack of oxygen/inability to grow food if we don't get medieval about energy and weather/climate control.

    It's too late now to be Conservative. About 50 years too late. We done toasted it unless we get out heads out our asses and we won't. This thread proves it....drill, drill. drill and harvest more coal to make electricity. Dumb fucks. We are already done - come on Alien Nation or Big Ass Comet. Or a nuclear holocaust. We have already wrecked it beyond repair and yet we still want to persist in fucking it shitless. Humans are amazing dumb asses.

    VooDoo
     
    Last edited:

    rtB

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 29, 2019
    1,712
    4,552
    Payson, AZ
    40 more years of this sustained burning of fossil fuels? We are done right now - irreversible damage has already been done and it won't be identified for another decade of two. If we managed to attain all the emissions limitations we plan to have by 2030 today we cannot stop what's coming. It's already a done deal - we need to develop new energy alternatives and bust ass to find a Way off this planet in the next 100 years or deal with the fact that the sea levels will put frightening amounts of habitable land under water and the mean temperature at the areas about the equator will mean only the best animals can possibly survive. They will not be humans.

    It's already wrecked beyond repair . We can't beat the curve now until we realize this planet is done unless we find a Way to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power and learn to control/manipulate the environment/weather. I'll be dead but yer kids and grandkids are gonna die of exposure and heat exhaustion/lack of oxygen/inability to grow food if we don't get medieval about energy and weather/climate control.

    It's too late now to be Conservative. About 50 years too late. We done toasted it unless we get out heads out our asses and we won't. Tis thread proves it....drill, drill. drill and harvest more coal to make electricity. Dumb fucks.

    VooDoo
    Lighten up Francis.

    We were going to be underwater 20 years ago. 40 years ago we were entering the next Ice Age. 20 years from now they'll have come up with some other ridiculous excuse to tax the shit out of us. I think the world can handle us humans for at least 40 more years.
     

    Terry Cross

    Dingleberry
    Supporter
    Commercial Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Mar 15, 2003
    1,953
    5,006
    Alexandria, LA 71303
    www.kmwlrs.com
    Having lived over forty years in Alaska I just have to wonder how much an EV's range will be shortened when you're running the heater at 40 below.
    Indeed.
    Likewise, I was wondering how bad running AC full blast when stuck in LA traffic would suck down the range. Any onboard AC has to suck the life out of any storage device.
    .
     

    Vodoun daVinci

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Dec 17, 2017
    2,445
    3,454
    Lighten up Francis.

    We were going to be underwater 20 years ago. 40 years ago we were entering the next Ice Age. 20 years from now they'll have come up with some other ridiculous excuse to tax the shit out of us. I think the world can handle us humans for at least 40 more years.
    Yup yer right. Just blow it off.

    VooDoo
     

    BuildingConceptsllc

    Don't Start None, won't be none.
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Nov 13, 2020
    4,522
    3,648
    Alabama
    Indeed.
    Likewise, I was wondering how bad running AC full blast when stuck in LA traffic would suck down the range. Any onboard AC has to suck the life out of any storage device.
    .
    We just aren't there yet, but we are getting there and making big progress. We have a lot of fossil fuels. If we didn't have such massive corruption , we'd be so much farther along. All sides are paying politicians to help their side and there lies the problem. The 2009 green energy scam with Obama is just one example of the corruption but its far from limited to democrats, they are just the most blatant and over the top with it because they have media cover. Anyone remember solyndra???? There was many many others and here we go again.

    We need to fix our damn bloated and corrupt ass government, then these other issues are ones we can solve and in such a way that makes sense, not so the 99% pays for the 1% to get richer in this green new scam
     

    BLEE

    NOBODY
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
    Jan 29, 2020
    3,198
    3,430
    NW Louisiana
    40 more years of this sustained burning of fossil fuels? We are done right now - irreversible damage has already been done and it won't be identified for another decade of two. If we managed to attain all the emissions limitations we plan to have by 2030 today we cannot stop what's coming. It's already a done deal - we need to develop new energy alternatives and bust ass to find a Way off this planet in the next 100 years or deal with the fact that the sea levels will put frightening amounts of habitable land under water and the mean temperature at the areas about the equator will mean only the best animals can possibly survive. They will not be humans.

    It's already wrecked beyond repair . We can't beat the curve now until we realize this planet is done or unless we find a Way to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power and learn to control/manipulate the environment/weather. I'll be dead but yer kids and grandkids are gonna die of exposure and heat exhaustion/lack of oxygen/inability to grow food if we don't get medieval about energy and weather/climate control.

    It's too late now to be Conservative. About 50 years too late. We done toasted it unless we get out heads out our asses and we won't. This thread proves it....drill, drill. drill and harvest more coal to make electricity. Dumb fucks. We are already done - come on Alien Nation or Big Ass Comet. Or a nuclear holocaust. We have already wrecked it beyond repair and yet we still want to persist in fucking it shitless. Humans are amazing dumb asses.

    VooDoo
    You have zero evidence of what you wrote. You're a scared person, who believes the drivel of the left, that wishes to keep you afraid and drain you of your wealth by forcing you to use "green" alternatives, which are fraudulent. The earth will never turn into Waterworld, we're not going to run out of O2, or not be able to grow food. Your claims are asinine.
     

    Rthur

    Philomath
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 16, 2010
    13,816
    21,949
    54
    Not Chicago, Illinios
    The optimist in me thinks that this is just typical government stupidity at work.

    The realist in me is thinking that the quote is more like reality
    I work amongst the folks that deliver power to everyone in the center part of my state.
    A quote from today "The average grid in our area would be lucky to sustain a five percent EV ownership load".

    R
     

    DocRDS

    No One
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 21, 2012
    2,115
    3,598
    Here
    Ya know getting rid of the ICE and yet depending on your view of things, Jet Turbines are ICE. Ain't NOBODY got a replacement for the Jet Engine. (and if you're allowed to have a turbine engine, a la M1 tank--sign me up! --just stay away from that exhaust!)

    With all the tech we've invested in the combustion engine its pure folly to "legislate it out of existance" (NVM the problems of freight trains running on diesel/electric).

    I'd be all for Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars, but its gotta be as good or close to my current mode of transport. Electric Car? Pffft I've done 2k miles this last week alone...

    Thank the Lord for the Gas Engine.

    BTW we were told we'd run out of oil and coal in 2020 in grade school. Ooops, guess we forgot about that.

    Now lets start building breeder reactors and really soup up this electrical grid so I can take a bullet train at 300 mph cross country. Right now its cheaper to fly.
     

    BullGear

    Huckleberry Dillinger
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 29, 2017
    9,594
    18,759
    Hazzard County
    I work amongst the folks that deliver power to everyone in the center part of my state.
    A quote from today "The average grid in our area would be lucky to sustain a five percent EV ownership load".

    R

    Probably true across the board.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: BLEE

    JMGlasgow

    Old Salt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 13, 2012
    3,769
    4,935
    Cheyenne, WY
    40 more years of this sustained burning of fossil fuels? We are done right now - irreversible damage has already been done and it won't be identified for another decade of two. If we managed to attain all the emissions limitations we plan to have by 2030 today we cannot stop what's coming. It's already a done deal - we need to develop new energy alternatives and bust ass to find a Way off this planet in the next 100 years or deal with the fact that the sea levels will put frightening amounts of habitable land under water and the mean temperature at the areas about the equator will mean only the best animals can possibly survive. They will not be humans.

    It's already wrecked beyond repair . We can't beat the curve now until we realize this planet is done or unless we find a Way to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power and learn to control/manipulate the environment/weather. I'll be dead but yer kids and grandkids are gonna die of exposure and heat exhaustion/lack of oxygen/inability to grow food if we don't get medieval about energy and weather/climate control.

    It's too late now to be Conservative. About 50 years too late. We done toasted it unless we get out heads out our asses and we won't. This thread proves it....drill, drill. drill and harvest more coal to make electricity. Dumb fucks. We are already done - come on Alien Nation or Big Ass Comet. Or a nuclear holocaust. We have already wrecked it beyond repair and yet we still want to persist in fucking it shitless. Humans are amazing dumb asses.

    VooDoo
    You keep spouting off about how the sky is falling and we will all be dead and drowned and it's too late. Seriously, take a fucking breath. Wind and solar are flawed, they are detrimental to the environment. Ever seen the death toll on wildlife done by wind and solar? Or a windmill that has failed and is now leaking or on fire? Or do you think killing wildlife is somehow OK because as long as it prevents climate change it's totally fine. What about the mining needed to get the raw material and precious metals to make your idiotic electric cars. What do you think that equipment is ultimately powered by? The tires that wear out much faster due to the weight of those cars is made partially from oil.

    Even Michael Shellenberger, a semi radical environmentalist who pushed solar and wind, said it won't work. He's now for Nuclear power.

    You are a complete fucking idiot, and if you think we can just magically stop using oil you're also delusional. It's used in literally every aspect of our life.
     

    armorpl8chikn

    Colonel Angus
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 17, 2010
    8,370
    22,323
    54
    Face Slapping Distance
    Why is this not front page in publications everywhere?
    Several firms including some in Europe are working on mass hydrogen production and distribution logistics planning.

    No bad emissions.
    Very good efficiency.
    None of the downsides of battery, magnet and copper intensive manufacturing.
    None of the downsides of hazardous waste issues with spent battery cells.
    Plenty of power even for commercial and agricultural applications.


    I would think tons of investors would be all over this.
    What am I missing besides the impassable wall of Green New Deal piss ants?

    ./

    "They" don't want clean energy. "They" want energy that is purposely inefficient and undependable.
     

    acudaowner

    Two Star General
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 26, 2018
    8,182
    6,581
    that would only happen in this country while old joe is selling out national reserve of oil to china and india whom are already getting cheap gas from the middle east and russia yea how corrupt politicians get away with shit .
     

    BuildingConceptsllc

    Don't Start None, won't be none.
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Nov 13, 2020
    4,522
    3,648
    Alabama
    I work amongst the folks that deliver power to everyone in the center part of my state.
    A quote from today "The average grid in our area would be lucky to sustain a five percent EV ownership load".

    R
    Correct. This is the case for pretty much the entire country, and in some cases, they don't have adequate grid to just maintain what they have now.
     

    KZP

    P.L.O.
    Supporter
    Banned !
    Minuteman
    Mar 11, 2017
    4,254
    9,999
    NC
    Help me understand in priority what the weaknesses are. Power plants? Substations? Line capacity (wires can't handle more juice)? etc.
     

    hlee

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jul 14, 2012
    8,827
    11,947
    44
    TX
    Why is this not front page in publications everywhere?
    Several firms including some in Europe are working on mass hydrogen production and distribution logistics planning.

    No bad emissions.
    Very good efficiency.
    None of the downsides of battery, magnet and copper intensive manufacturing.
    None of the downsides of hazardous waste issues with spent battery cells.
    Plenty of power even for commercial and agricultural applications.


    I would think tons of investors would be all over this.
    What am I missing besides the impassable wall of Green New Deal piss ants?

    ./
    Production of H2
    2(H2O) + Energy ==> 2(H2) + O2

    Use of H2
    2(H2) + O2 ==> 2(H2O) + Energy

    In a world without entropy, this would be-at best- an energy neutral exchange. Unfortunately it is not, and it takes more energy to make H2 than you get from using it.
     

    BuildingConceptsllc

    Don't Start None, won't be none.
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Nov 13, 2020
    4,522
    3,648
    Alabama
    Help me understand in priority what the weaknesses are. Power plants? Substations? Line capacity (wires can't handle more juice)? etc.
    All of the above. We can transition off of fossil fuels but it we must FIRST, have the electrical infrastructure to do it. In a country the size of ours (which is many many times the size of europe) its a huge undertaking to simply transfer energy to all parts. To replace all of the energy we use and make with fossil fuels, we will have to increase the lines to do so and get it from point A to B. Some of this can be met by making more "mid way points" but the bulk has to be much more power line.

    We also need a massive amount of energy to feed these lines AFTER, the lines are in place. This absolutely will not come from solar and wind. (Wind is really just not viable at all, solar has some potential but more and better tech is needed, and it takes a TON of area to do it.) Nuclear is the only serious option , but this idea that we have to stop fossil fuels immediately is just hogwash. We have plenty and we get better and better at burning it every single month. NG is and clean coal are also very viable. There's plenty of ways to make a glide path off of fossil fuels and to fund the transition. What has kept it from truly happening is the corruption and lobbyists, ect that like to go round in circles because they all get paid doing it. One major way to immediately get actual improvements is to use our economic and political power to make other countries clean up their act. It's so dumb to think that if the big bad usa does it, well it's horribly wrong, but China, India, Russia, the middle east, can all do it and be 100x more dirty and it's ok.... the air doesn't stay hanging over their country nor ours. This could also very easily be done, but again, corruption stops it because most of our politicians are paid off by China and ME and others. This is very much the REAL issue. We can do quite a bit, but this circle jerk we've done for decades now is why we haven't. There was a guy making headway on this very issue and it caused both parties to violently apposed him, so the mean tweets just were too much.....
     

    Rthur

    Philomath
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Apr 16, 2010
    13,816
    21,949
    54
    Not Chicago, Illinios
    All of the above. We can transition off of fossil fuels but it we must FIRST, have the electrical infrastructure to do it. In a country the size of ours (which is many many times the size of europe) its a huge undertaking to simply transfer energy to all parts. To replace all of the energy we use and make with fossil fuels, we will have to increase the lines to do so and get it from point A to B. Some of this can be met by making more "mid way points" but the bulk has to be much more power line.

    We also need a massive amount of energy to feed these lines AFTER, the lines are in place. This absolutely will not come from solar and wind. (Wind is really just not viable at all, solar has some potential but more and better tech is needed, and it takes a TON of area to do it.) Nuclear is the only serious option , but this idea that we have to stop fossil fuels immediately is just hogwash. We have plenty and we get better and better at burning it every single month. NG is and clean coal are also very viable. There's plenty of ways to make a glide path off of fossil fuels and to fund the transition. What has kept it from truly happening is the corruption and lobbyists, ect that like to go round in circles because they all get paid doing it. One major way to immediately get actual improvements is to use our economic and political power to make other countries clean up their act. It's so dumb to think that if the big bad usa does it, well it's horribly wrong, but China, India, Russia, the middle east, can all do it and be 100x more dirty and it's ok.... the air doesn't stay hanging over their country nor ours. This could also very easily be done, but again, corruption stops it because most of our politicians are paid off by China and ME and others. This is very much the REAL issue. We can do quite a bit, but this circle jerk we've done for decades now is why we haven't. There was a guy making headway on this very issue and it caused both parties to violently apposed him, so the mean tweets just were too much.....
    The cat is out of the bag.
    Oil isn't a rare resource.
    The US could stop importing oil this second and go 200 hundred years at current useage.
    Thus they have to invent a "reason" to leave behind the evil energy.
    We have X amount of electrical supply and they'd like to create X plus 150% demand.
    Scarcity is a tenet of economics.
    Wonder who controls the power supply?...

    R
     

    chevy_man

    Old Salt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 25, 2019
    2,651
    2,587
    My Bolt got the best range when ambient was about 100. When it was around freezing, the batteries used a bit of their power for conditioning (warming) themselves. Range was about 380 miles at 100F ambient and about 220 miles at 32F ambient. I rarely ran the heat or AC. The range and economy displayed was like crack to me. I just bundled up and ran the heated seats and wheel in the winter. Windows down in the summer.

    You are a strange man.

    I crank the heat or AC. I want to be comfortable. If I wanted to dress for the weather I'd be riding a horse....


    I get a solid +3mpg running 70 instead of 80. I still go 80 on the interstate because it's the speed limit and it's as fast as I can go without dealing with LE.

    I do put on 1000 miles in an average week in a 12000lb truck, just getting to and from job sites. So I may be more used to "time is money" instead of "fuel economy is money".
     

    chevy_man

    Old Salt
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 25, 2019
    2,651
    2,587
    The thing that kills me is that if WE had decided back in the 1970's that this fossil fuel thing was only benefitting the Oligarchy ('cause they pull free dead plants out the ground and get $100 a barrel for it!) and had exploited Electric Cars and Battery Technology and all of this stuff that's considered to be "Alternative Energy" for the last 45 years we'd already have electric cars with 750 mile range that can charge in 20 minutes that are charged with 66% renewable energy/Wind/Solar/Nuclear...right now. Today. The technology and expenditure of R&D $ has been deliberately, time and again, redirected by people with More Money than God to keep raking in that triple digit profit generated by dragging dead plants from miles beneath the Earth and burning it instead of collecting billions of gigawatts of Solar Energy that passes the Earth every 24 hours supplied by Fusion - The Sun - without dumping tons of carbon back in the atmosphere and without radiation.

    We had this down as an Electronics Engineering/Process Control Technician in 1976 and we are *still* fucking around trying to implement it. Because, can you say it Boyz and Girlz, The Global Oligarchy (who already has more money than God) wants another 50 trillion and the attached Power and Glory by dragging dead plants out the ground and burning them (to their profit and our Death) rather than to allow exploitation of something that does not generate trillions in profit for Billionaires. Electric cars and trains and aircraft, powered by Solar, Wind, Nuclear Fission and Fusion, is our only Hope going forward. The Oligarchy is betting we go back to 1956 and *Drill, Drill, Drill* to solve our energy needs 'cause they'll be dead when the chickens come home to roost.

    And imminently , fabulously, without a doubt, so fucking rich they can buy anything while the rest of US choke on the fumes and kill each other for food and air conditioning. While sitting in line for $20 a gallon refined dead plants that sequestered trillions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere (and left Life giving oxygen in return!) and took it to the Earth with them for billions of years. And now we spew all that carbon back into the atmosphere because, ya know, this electric thing is just coal fueling electric cars. Ya know?

    VooDoo


    You realize it costs money to pay people to come to work right?

    Big payroll and investment into tools and equipment to pull all that "free" fuel out of the ground.

    I'm sure lithium that's just found in the dirt is also free to make batteries?

    Until we accept nuclear power, there is no other solution.

    The problem with our government is they don't recognize that we're a very small percentage of carbon emissions. Asia is by far the most polluting. Yet we're told we're all bad, while they have factories churning out black smoke constantly with no pollution controls in place.


    And until solar gets to 100% efficiency, it's useless. Our local utility did a field of panels to keep the green idiots happy. They will not pay for themselves, nor will they output enough to offset the carbon created to manufacture, ship, and install them.
    Same utility has a bunch of hydro, which is actually profitable.
    I find it hilarious that I pay $0.10 kw/h while they sell their green energy to California utilities, and they get to pay $0.30+ kw/h.
     

    Llatikcuf

    Jaded Curmudgeon
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 15, 2013
    158
    289
    Northern Idaho
    40 more years of this sustained burning of fossil fuels? We are done right now - irreversible damage has already been done and it won't be identified for another decade of two. If we managed to attain all the emissions limitations we plan to have by 2030 today we cannot stop what's coming. It's already a done deal - we need to develop new energy alternatives and bust ass to find a Way off this planet in the next 100 years or deal with the fact that the sea levels will put frightening amounts of habitable land under water and the mean temperature at the areas about the equator will mean only the best animals can possibly survive. They will not be humans.

    It's already wrecked beyond repair . We can't beat the curve now until we realize this planet is done or unless we find a Way to produce virtually unlimited amounts of power and learn to control/manipulate the environment/weather. I'll be dead but yer kids and grandkids are gonna die of exposure and heat exhaustion/lack of oxygen/inability to grow food if we don't get medieval about energy and weather/climate control.

    It's too late now to be Conservative. About 50 years too late. We done toasted it unless we get out heads out our asses and we won't. This thread proves it....drill, drill. drill and harvest more coal to make electricity. Dumb fucks. We are already done - come on Alien Nation or Big Ass Comet. Or a nuclear holocaust. We have already wrecked it beyond repair and yet we still want to persist in fucking it shitless. Humans are amazing dumb asses.

    VooDoo
    About 12,000 years ago there was a sudden and dramatic increase in global temperatures that led to the extinction of many species and a 400 foot rise in sea levels. Try as they might they could find no evidence of Republicans, oil companies or cow farts.
     

    W54/XM-388

    Online Training Member
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Supporter+
  • Oct 1, 2005
    12,558
    25,882
    Dallas, TX
    About 12,000 years ago there was a sudden and dramatic increase in global temperatures that led to the extinction of many species and a 400 foot rise in sea levels. Try as they might they could find no evidence of Republicans, oil companies or cow farts.

    Something pretty significant on a planetary scale happened about 12,000 years ago ish.
    Something that near completely reset human existence.
    Lots of theories about exactly what that was.