Electric Car Drivel

[ban-all-sheds]

So why are we pushing forward with fracking?

 

[JohnW2]

So why are we pushing forward with fracking?

Ask those who are doing the pushing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

We're going forward with fracking, so we don't have to import gas from aboard.

 

[securespark]

It'll frack the whole countryside up.

 

[motorbiking]

more importantly we don't trust those who have all the fossil fuels.

 

[SimonH2]

So why are we pushing forward with fracking?

How about ... we use a lot of gas, and much of that is imported from places we'd rather not be beholden to.
And as we get on with shutting down what's left of our nuclear power stations (what's left are near their end of life) then we'll need something else. Gas is cleaner (or less dirty depending on your PoV) to burn than coal.
They reckon that the USA has significantly cut CO2 emissions simply by having switched a lot of usage from coal to gas - thanks to fracking having provided large quantities of cheap gas.

Back to hybrid cars ...
Most have a smaller petrol engine which is actually capable of driving the car directly - typically via some form of variable ratio drive. It's used for recharging the battery as needed, and the battery is used for peak power demand (supplementing the engine power for peak acceleration). In the Prious, the variable drive is actually two electrical motor/generators and a small epicyclic gear train. Such vehicles can typically run in electric only mode for short distances, at low speed and low power (not much during a typical commute for people I know).
Much of the benefit in improved fuel efficiency comes from being able to run the engine at a more efficient operating point. There are companies developing purely mechanical systems to do that - thus getting most of the benefits without all the electrical gubbins.

But having the electric element means that the engine can be smaller, thus avoiding the inherent inefficiencies of running a large powerful engine at part load for most of the time. I rather think that is the biggest factor involved.

 

[scousespark]

As to if CO² levels follow globule warming or if globule warming is caused by CO² seems to be the big question? From all I read CO² follows globule warming and globule warming is caused by the sun, man has no control over globule warming it is just natural, by 2040 likely we will realise that, and all this CO² emissions rubbish will be history.

The big question is not what causes Global Warming, rather whether we have reached the point where the effects are irreversible.
Apart from a tiny of minority of climatologists, the evidence has been accepted that human activity has had a major impact on the climate. It would be interesting to determine who commissioned the reports you have seen.

 

[scousespark]

And Turkey continues to deny the reality of the 1915 - 1923 Armenian genocide, so your point is?

More to the point, the American scientific community still sees the need to reduce CO2. The US Administration has taken the counter position, as it is seen as counter-productive in an economic sense.

 

[Doggit]

The big question is not what causes Global Warming, rather whether we have reached the point where the effects are irreversible.
Apart from a tiny of minority of climatologists, the evidence has been accepted that human activity has had a major impact on the climate. It would be interesting to determine who commissioned the reports you have seen.

That's a damned good question Scouse, and one that can't be answered till a long time in the future. The problem with this whole debate, is that the scientists who do believe in Global Warming, have closed their minds to any other possibilities, and that's bad science. It's possible that it is from man made sources, but by closing down the debate, we stop the possibilty of finding out the reasl reason. The attitude of the climate scientists, is that we are causing it, so the politicians decide that cars have to be banned, but they do nothing about the tankers that make car output seem miniscule in comparison. Air travel isn't restricted, and they're looking to build another runway at Heathrow. Cars are allowed to sit with their engines running, and in the 10 years since Gorbon Brown started this crusade, nothings been done to enforce stop start technology, so, do we have completely and utterly incompetant governments, or do they know that it's easier to let the closed mind scientists use GW as a stick to beat us over the head with. I have no problem with a lot of the aims of the scientific communities, but I object to the lack of dissent being allowed, and it's being stiffled by those who have made up their mind, and then shut them.

Not every scientist in the world is involved in Global warming science, but many follow it, and know that it's not good science, and many of those that are in it don't agree the the majority, but are just shouted down.

 

[ericmark]

The big question is not what causes Global Warming, rather whether we have reached the point where the effects are irreversible.
Apart from a tiny of minority of climatologists, the evidence has been accepted that human activity has had a major impact on the climate. It would be interesting to determine who commissioned the reports you have seen.

Channel 4 investigation

 

[EFLImpudence]

Apart from a tiny of minority of climatologists, the evidence has been accepted that human activity has had a major impact on the climate.

I think you will find that the wording is "it is extremely likely" to be the result of human activity - because no one actually knows.

 

[Doggit]

It's a twist and turn game EFL. First it was definite, then all the lies in their research got found out, so it changed to climate change, then about last year, climate change change back to man made climate change, now the catious one use the the "it is extremely likely", whilst the more radical state categorically that it is man made.

But as you say, no one actually knows, and it's one of those scenarios that can never be proved. If the Earth settles down, then the GW scientists will state it was all down to their efforts, and if it doesn't, then they'll demand even more reductions. A friend of mine pointed out the faults in All Gores original film, in that the graphs that follow each other, should be years apart, not papralleling each other, as it takes time for CO2 production to be absorbed or released by the ocean. Then they found out that the polar bears they filmed jumping off the decreasing ice floes, were taken in the artic summer, not the winter.

I'll go along with the reduction attempts for ecological reasons, but I'll keep an open mind on the reasons for climate change for a bit longer.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have said before -

At the time all the 'experts' believed that cholera was airborne - until Mr.Bazalgette removed all the shіt.

 

[JohnW2]

I think you will find that the wording is "it is extremely likely" to be the result of human activity - because no one actually knows.

Quite so. Very likely (that human activity is at least a significant component in the melting pot) but essentially unprovable.

Some of you of a similar vintage to myself may remember the days when 'experts' were expressing concerns that we might be heading for a new "Ice Age". They didn't know for certain, either, but it seems that there were probably not right - at least so far! Whether any of those same experts are, in their old age, now talking about 'global warming', I don't know.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

The ice age theory is still around, but it's being shut down by the man made global warming argument.