Davin News Server

On 2024-10-04 10:17, JTEM wrote:
>   Alan wrote:
> 
>>  JTEM wrote:
> 
>>> I've been saying it for years:  "Electric" is stupid for motor vehicles.
>>>
>>> Fossil fuels make an excellent fuel for our highway traffic. The
>>> distribution systems are already in place, no need to build anything.
>>> They're easy to transport, pack a great deal of energy into a
>>> comparatively small space, are proven safe to handle and our economy
>>> is just plain used to them. So why change?
>>
>> Because:
>>
>> 1. Fossil fuels are non-renewable.
> 
> Irrelevant. We don't need to STOP using them, we just need to be
> smarter. And one thing that is "Smarter" is not re-inventing the
> wheel on highway traffic when there's a great many other things
> that can curb use, and make a lot of sense to do so.

Very relevant. No amount of "smarter" will prevent a finite resource 
from eventually running out.

> 
> I mean, why haven't we banned snowmobiles generations ago? Google
> it. There was never an environmentalist -- a real environmentalist
> -- who wasn't bellyaching over the damage thing like snowmobiles
> inflict on our environment. And they're pure entertainment. So we're
> chucking monkey wrenches into our transportation system, causing
> inflation and hardship, meanwhile toys like snowmobiles and private
> jets are okay.

Because neither creates anywhere NEAR the size of problem as do ICEs in 
personal vehicles.

> 
>> 2. They create CO2 as a by-product
> 
> Irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. Two PLUS centuries of industrial
> revolution and we haven't managed to warm the planet back up to
> where it was prior to "The Little Ice Age."

You need to look at the graph of CO2 production from the beginning of 
the industrial revolution until now.

> 
> There is an EXCELLENT and in fact MORE COMPELLING argument to be
> made that fossil fuels have cooled the earth. Primarily due to
> the fact that the exhaust contains all the elements of other
> cooling mechanisms, such as volcanoes.
 > > Primarily sulfur.

1. Fix your LOUSY grammar. You "such as volcanoes" doesn't work in that 
form.

2. You need to consider the relative amounts of exhaust elements. Sulfur 
compounds in gasoline ICE exhaust make up less than 0.115%.

3. And sulfur in the exhaust is in the form of sulfur dioxide, which 
combines with water and is thus continuously removed from the atmosphere.

> 
> But even the particle pollution -- particulates -- cool the earth.
> They darken the sky. Barely perceptible to you but that's true of
> most everything...

And you think that people haven't been able to think of that before you 
mentioned it?

> 
>>> There's a lot of things that could go electric without disruption,
>>> saving what oil & natural gas for use as a motor fuel:  Tractors,
>>> landscaping equipment and anything not unduly burdened by limited
>>> range and lengthy charging times.
> 
>> And lots and lots of driving is "unduly burdened by limited range and 
>> lengthy charging times"
> 
> Speaking of EVs? Absolutely. Which is why they can't get the job done.

You can't even read.

> 
> NOTE:  Shipping is by far the most efficient means for transport and
> batteries have not taken over. They haven't replaced 1% of shipping
> and can't.

We're discussing EVs for personal transportation.

> 
>> Especially given that ranges are going up.
> 
> Lol!  You're such a retard...
> 
> Okay so "Ranges are going up" by what percentage, and at the same
> time power generation is going up by what percentage?
> 
> Hmm?
> 
> "It's okay, the magic fairy dust will generate the power for the
> EVs!"
> 
> India hit a new record for GROWTH in power generation, and the
> percentage of that power produced using coal has GROWN. Not only
> is coal the #2 producer of CO2 -- behind wood, which is declared
> "Green" -- but it's the dirtiest fossil fuel.
> 
>> There are literally dozens of EVs that now offer ranges of more than 
>> 500km.
> 
> More EVs require more power, longer rangers require more power.

Yes: more EVs will require more electrical power, but that is also 
changing as people install solar panels in parking lots to provide 
charging stations for EVs.

But no: longer ranges do not automatically require more energy (you 
meant energy, but you weren't bright enough to know it).

The number of miles/kilometers driven in a year determines how much 
energy an EV needs each year, not its range.

> 
> You're a child so you can't conceive of these issues.


The irony lives heavy on you.