I Had To Blink Twice To Believe this

[morricab]

If we would have planted a new tree for everyone we cut down, we wouldn’t run out of trees. They are a renewable resource.

Most of the trees cut down are old forest and relatively slow growth...if the real demand for wood was like that of oil, you would be through them so fast that even quick growing trees would be way too slow...

We should avoid low energy density fuels, such as wood, dung, solar, wind. Wood and dung pollute horribly and are one of the major causes of respiratory disease in the third world and wind and solar take up so much space for a given Mwh that they are damaging to the ecology. Wood also produces far more CO2/Kwh burned than coal, which is again much worse that gas.

BTW, the US has actually DECREASED its carbon output by switching in a big way to gas from coal. If you were to switch the third world to gas their CO2 outputs would also fall due to using the higher energy density fuel that produces far less CO2/kwh.

Wood has less than 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas (16MJ/kg vs. 55MJ/kg).

The fuel cell I think is almost viable I think but seems to be coming on slowly. Again, you are carrying the primary fuel (hydrogen in compressed gas or LiH form) with you and making the electricity in situ...far better way of doing it for vehicles. The difficulty in generating and storing hydrogen though cannot be underestimated...it is difficult too.

 

[wil]

Most of the trees cut down are old forest and relatively slow growth...if the real demand for wood was like that of oil, you would be through them so fast that even quick growing trees would be way too slow...

We should avoid low energy density fuels, such as wood, dung, solar, wind. Wood and dung pollute horribly and are one of the major causes of respiratory disease in the third world and wind and solar take up so much space for a given Mwh that they are damaging to the ecology. Wood also produces far more CO2/Kwh burned than coal, which is again much worse that gas.

BTW, the US has actually DECREASED its carbon output by switching in a big way to gas from coal. If you were to switch the third world to gas their CO2 outputs would also fall due to using the higher energy density fuel that produces far less CO2/kwh.

Wood has less than 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas (16MJ/kg vs. 55MJ/kg).

The fuel cell I think is almost viable I think but seems to be coming on slowly. Again, you are carrying the primary fuel (hydrogen in compressed gas or LiH form) with you and making the electricity in situ...far better way of doing it for vehicles. The difficulty in generating and storing hydrogen though cannot be underestimated...it is difficult too.

Morricab speaks truth. The only way out of this mess, as I see it, is a combination of Carbon Tax, Less power demand, Higher efficiency, Lower population, Lower consumption, Alternative energy sources of which Nuclear will have to a major component. Solar and Wind are a component but hardly the panacea they are made out to be. Solar has large environmental costs. And electric cars will not save the planet.

 

[K3RMIT]

Electric cars as we have now are a stepping stone in no way end game.
a typical 40 amp charger yes 40 amps can only charge most cars at a rate of 50 miles per hour charging. so if one uses the car to commute back and forth I’ll bet most only need two hours.
what kills me is the claim of green while there is very little truth to it.
mid one has solar panels it’s getting some green but who has panels that can run the home and charge a car ? Much lees 2 cars after all wife needs a car too. in areas where there is nuclear energy the green is far more. why we don’t have more of this energy system is again politics. wind stinks , solar is good but we need large setups and good ones use a coolant to transfer heat.
im involved in What is the next step
hydrogen power cells

 

[K3RMIT]

Most of the trees cut down are old forest and relatively slow growth...if the real demand for wood was like that of oil, you would be through them so fast that even quick growing trees would be way too slow...

We should avoid low energy density fuels, such as wood, dung, solar, wind. Wood and dung pollute horribly and are one of the major causes of respiratory disease in the third world and wind and solar take up so much space for a given Mwh that they are damaging to the ecology. Wood also produces far more CO2/Kwh burned than coal, which is again much worse that gas.

BTW, the US has actually DECREASED its carbon output by switching in a big way to gas from coal. If you were to switch the third world to gas their CO2 outputs would also fall due to using the higher energy density fuel that produces far less CO2/kwh.

Wood has less than 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas (16MJ/kg vs. 55MJ/kg).

The fuel cell I think is almost viable I think but seems to be coming on slowly. Again, you are carrying the primary fuel (hydrogen in compressed gas or LiH form) with you and making the electricity in situ...far better way of doing it for vehicles. The difficulty in generating and storing hydrogen though cannot be underestimated...it is difficult too.

A great post I wish the tools would post what the green seal is supposed to do lol.

 

[K3RMIT]

Morricab speaks truth. The only way out of this mess, as I see it, is a combination of Carbon Tax, Less power demand, Higher efficiency, Lower population, Lower consumption, Alternative energy sources of which Nuclear will have to a major component. Solar and Wind are a component but hardly the panacea they are made out to be. Solar has large environmental costs. And electric cars will not save the planet.

Keeping politics and the fleecing of the USA is an even better way
it seems every step is based on more money spending and little change

 

[jeff1225]

Its primarily BS...regardless of what you think about renewables. Since the basic premise of the article is false (California is nowhere near 95% renewable), why would I trust a single additional word from such a propaganda piece?

Will you plant the whole desert with solar panels? So much for desert wildlife... The relative lack of energy density in solar and wind means you need many times the area to get a similar power output. Again, not very ecologically friendly.

There will likely be a shortage of Li to make high density battery storage as well if they end up in all cars, trucks etc....talk about a lot of waste!...unless someone figures out how to make the fuel cell more practical (about the only renewable I can see working long term) you will create more problems than you will solve. I would also reconsider expanding nuclear again...France is very clean and they generate 75% of their electricity (and even export to "green" Germany) by nuclear...sensible people...

You might hit it by 2045 but at what price...the cure will likely be worse than the disease...these are not easy solutions like you seem to think they are. Oh and importing electricity from other states and/or countries to hit the target is not a true success...you have just pushed the problem elsewhere...

A bit of critical thinking reveals that it is not as simple as "more solar and wind". Never forget how heavily subsidized these are in most places. It is not a universal solution as energy storage is a huge issue when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

You might also be surprised to know that the earth has greened significantly. According to one research paper this is about 70% attributable to the increase in CO2...not so surprising if you know about the carbon cycle and the role plant life plays in it.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

A bit of critical thinking is exactly what your post lacks. Solar panels are improving efficiency every year. The majority of panels are at 24% efficient, patents have been filed for technology at 45% efficiency. These panels should be in production in 3-5 years.

so no the “desert won’t be covered with panels,” panels will be much more than efficient and no every roof.

 

[carl13]

Saw this on another forum discussing electric cars:

Imagine, if you will, Florida with a hurricane coming toward Miami.

The Governor orders an evacuation. All cars head north. They all need to be charged in Jacksonville.

How does that work? Has anyone thought about this?

If all cars were electric, and were caught up in a three-hour traffic
jam with dead batteries, then what? Not to mention that there is
virtually no heating or air conditioning in an electric vehicle
because of high battery consumption.

If you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating, no
windshield wipers, no radio, no GPS (all these drain the batteries), all you can do is try calling 911 to take women and children to safety. But they cannot come to help you because all roads are blocked, and they will probably require all police cars will be electric also. When the roads become unblocked no one can move! Their batteries are dead.

How do you charge the thousands of cars in the traffic jam?
Same problem during summer vacation departures with miles of traffic jams.

There would be virtually no air conditioning in an electric vehicle.
It would drain the batteries quickly. Where is this electricity going
to come from? Today's grid barely handles users' needs. Can't use
nuclear, natural gas is quickly running out. Oil fired is out of the
question, then where?

What will be done with billions of dead batteries, can’t bury them in the soil, can’t go to landfills.

No thought whatsoever to handle any of the problems that batteries can cause. The liberal press doesn't want to talk or report on any of this.

In France, thousands of taxis are now stored as inoperable because the batteries are dead and to replace them would cost more than the value of the vehicle itself!

 

[twitch]

Come to Switzerland if you want to see a competent rail system...

yes, that's what I said .......

 

[morricab]

A bit of critical thinking is exactly what your post lacks. Solar panels are improving efficiency every year. The majority of panels are at 24% efficient, patents have been filed for technology at 45% efficiency. These panels should be in production in 3-5 years.

so no the “desert won’t be covered with panels,” panels will be much more than efficient and no every roof.

We’ll see...speculation on your part...

 

[K3RMIT]

It’s all scam for now all
of it. if we care really care make stuff now not 5 years as we get fleeced along the way. solar panels are the only device to do anything on green amd they too stink on the carbon foot print
why are we not drink cars on compressed Natural gas the entire car can remain just some Mods. but no one makes money on That. and waisting money is what this is all about

 

[jeff1225]

We’ll see...speculation on your part...

Based on the increased efficiency of solar year after year, it's not much of speculation.

 

[jeff1225]

Keeping politics and the fleecing of the USA is an even better way
it seems every step is based on more money spending and little change

Great point. I've never understood why we are continuing to subsidize the oil companies, some of the richest companies in the world.

 

[K3RMIT]

i install car chargers and solar panels I’m not against it but it is just so much a waist. If big oil used money to make new energy ideas it’s ok. But it’s not in fact natural gas is a very good move towards green but it seems we mist just pay for ideals that have no way of ever being useful. Just look at wind What an entirely waist of money.
car makers are on the way to make electric cars why who knows most will need to go to parking lots to charge there cars.

 

[K3RMIT]

Based on the increased efficiency of solar year after year, it's not much of speculation.

When you say better efficiency please explain how this is ? Is it more wattage per square foot ? Longer life ? cheaper to be made ?
newer panels have the dc converter built into the panels a good idea except you can’t store Ac so how is this better ? solar panels while in some ways look green are not if one considers the total carbon foot print. no one wants to talk about this.

 

[Joe Whip]

Saw this on another forum discussing electric cars:

Imagine, if you will, Florida with a hurricane coming toward Miami.

The Governor orders an evacuation. All cars head north. They all need to be charged in Jacksonville.

How does that work? Has anyone thought about this?

If all cars were electric, and were caught up in a three-hour traffic
jam with dead batteries, then what? Not to mention that there is
virtually no heating or air conditioning in an electric vehicle
because of high battery consumption.

If you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating, no
windshield wipers, no radio, no GPS (all these drain the batteries), all you can do is try calling 911 to take women and children to safety. But they cannot come to help you because all roads are blocked, and they will probably require all police cars will be electric also. When the roads become unblocked no one can move! Their batteries are dead.

How do you charge the thousands of cars in the traffic jam?
Same problem during summer vacation departures with miles of traffic jams.

There would be virtually no air conditioning in an electric vehicle.
It would drain the batteries quickly. Where is this electricity going
to come from? Today's grid barely handles users' needs. Can't use
nuclear, natural gas is quickly running out. Oil fired is out of the
question, then where?

What will be done with billions of dead batteries, can’t bury them in the soil, can’t go to landfills.

No thought whatsoever to handle any of the problems that batteries can cause. The liberal press doesn't want to talk or report on any of this.

In France, thousands of taxis are now stored as inoperable because the batteries are dead and to replace them would cost more than the value of the vehicle itself!

Gee, I recall mass evacuations from a hurricane in either Florida or Texas a few years ago where it was gridlock and cars ran out of gas just sitting in traffic. Electric cars are the future.

 

[PeterA]

…Electric cars are the future.

Inevitably. Just like death and taxes.

 

[jeff1225]

When you say better efficiency please explain how this is ? Is it more wattage per square foot ? Longer life ? cheaper to be made ?
newer panels have the dc converter built into the panels a good idea except you can’t store Ac so how is this better ? solar panels while in some ways look green are not if one considers the total carbon foot print. no one wants to talk about this.

From Wikipedia:

Solar cell efficiency refers to the portion of energy in the form of sunlight that can be converted via photovoltaics into electricity by the solar cell.

The efficiency of the solar cells used in a photovoltaic system, in combination with latitude and climate, determines the annual energy output of the system. For example, a solar panel with 20% efficiency and an area of 1 m2 will produce 200 kWh/yr at Standard Test Conditions if exposed to the Standard Test Condition solar irradiance value of 1000 W/m2 for 2.74 hours a day.

 

[carl13]

Gee, I recall mass evacuations from a hurricane in either Florida or Texas a few years ago where it was gridlock and cars ran out of gas just sitting in traffic. Electric cars are the future.

 

[Joe Whip]

You do know that many, many people over the years have run out of gas while driving, right. Come on man.

 

[Joe Whip]

I drive my Model 3 up and down the east coast with no issues.