Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@travisdh1 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Plus they are WAY quicker than a gas car!
OMG, a Tesla when the pedal gets pushed all the way down is like going over the big hill on a rollercoaster. Literally experienced that exact sensation riding in one in California in 2013 when I visited Pertino with @scottalanmiller and @Nick42
Nothing a gas powered car can't do, but not likely as efficiently as an electric.
Definitely not as efficient - or really even possible without a HUGE engine, etc, etc... power to mass ratio and all. Also electric has all of it's torque at zero RPM, pretty big difference.
Technically correct, but try going down a dragstrip in an 8 second alcohol-burning car. Your Tesla is no match for that power.
Really? Well a Tesla today might not be - but I would definitely bet that an all electric car can be made that would smash that thing. It boils down to battery capacity and speed at which it can dump that capacity to motors. If the electric motors can handle it, again, 100% torque at 0 RPM.
Both vehicles suffer more from tire traction at that point.
Hold that thought. Seen this the other day: http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-s-race-car-is-a-crazy-fast-modified-str-1791251540
Yeah, electrics at drag strips are actually unfair to the normal cars!
I suppose for a torque show we just look at trains - diesel electric trains. Those motors are damn huge, and not meant to go fast but the torque is off the hook. I'm sure they could be modified to go fast more than torque and smoke current dragsters.
I've seen that Ford's new diesel pickups with be north of 1000 ft pounds with just a PCM flash.
at 1 mpg
Rollin' coal!!! LOL
-
Let's put a pic of that for effect.
-
I think I was behind that thing on the way to work this morning!
-
@Grey said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Art has a huge point though - we still get the power for our electric cars from coal and oil burning power plants. There are fewer and fewer nuclear power plants today, so unless we already have that new method of power production, we are still burning the fossil fuels.
So to Art's point - are we better off burning the fuels in the cars to generate power to move our vehicles or are we better of burning the fuel, converting it to electricity (loss) - but might be equal loss to burning in car), then having to transport it - generally through some type of conversion (loss), then storage (again loss).
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greenest-american-cities-renewable-energy-2016-8
Have they overcome the problem where a panel didn't used to product as much power over it's lifetime as it took to create it in the first place?
These are definitely lofty goals - let's see if even one of them makes it, let alone all of them.
-
The desire to lower the use of electricity seems far fetched unless the technology to use less while providing the same or better solutions seems unlikely at best.
Oh you know all of those new IOT things at Best Buy - they are now illegal in all of those cities to help ensure our demand for power stays the same or goes down. lol
-
Interesting - I was once (or more than once) told that SF electric buses caused more pollution at the power plant than the old diesel buses did running downtown. If true, at least the pollution wouldn't be right were the people where.
But while looking to back this up, I found this article that states that SF uses a hydro-electric damn, so it seems extremely unlikely that power generation for the buses would be worse than the old buses.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Interesting - I was once (or more than once) told that SF electric buses caused more pollution at the power plant than the old diesel buses did running downtown. If true, at least the pollution wouldn't be right were the people where.
But while looking to back this up, I found this article that states that SF uses a hydro-electric damn, so it seems extremely unlikely that power generation for the buses would be worse than the old buses.
There is so much to consider with renewable energy. It's kind of crazy.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Interesting - I was once (or more than once) told that SF electric buses caused more pollution at the power plant than the old diesel buses did running downtown. If true, at least the pollution wouldn't be right were the people where.
But while looking to back this up, I found this article that states that SF uses a hydro-electric damn, so it seems extremely unlikely that power generation for the buses would be worse than the old buses.
There is so much to consider with renewable energy. It's kind of crazy.
Exactly right - in reading over Grey's link - I'm made to wonder - those cities who have gone all renewable, do they have any reliance on places that aren't all renewable for stuff? If yes, does their city generate enough overage of power to cover those costs as well?
And example, do they manufacture their own air and water turbines? If not, do they generate enough left over power from their system to do everything required to make those things?
If they don't, then they aren't really 100%.
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Grey said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Art has a huge point though - we still get the power for our electric cars from coal and oil burning power plants. There are fewer and fewer nuclear power plants today, so unless we already have that new method of power production, we are still burning the fossil fuels.
So to Art's point - are we better off burning the fuels in the cars to generate power to move our vehicles or are we better of burning the fuel, converting it to electricity (loss) - but might be equal loss to burning in car), then having to transport it - generally through some type of conversion (loss), then storage (again loss).
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greenest-american-cities-renewable-energy-2016-8
Have they overcome the problem where a panel didn't used to product as much power over it's lifetime as it took to create it in the first place?
These are definitely lofty goals - let's see if even one of them makes it, let alone all of them.
Yes, most modern solar panels can repay their production, shipping, and installation costs in just under 4 years, including the carbon/energy manufacturing costs. They've been able to do that for just under a decade. Prior to ~2008 they were somewhere in the 10-15 year payback with an expected life of ~20, I think, years. Of course that depends on where you are located and a lot of other conditions. Unfortunately they are still only ~40-50% efficient (only slightly less efficient then a coal plant, much less efficient then a natural gas plant). The benefit is that the source is basically free...
-
@coliver said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Grey said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Art has a huge point though - we still get the power for our electric cars from coal and oil burning power plants. There are fewer and fewer nuclear power plants today, so unless we already have that new method of power production, we are still burning the fossil fuels.
So to Art's point - are we better off burning the fuels in the cars to generate power to move our vehicles or are we better of burning the fuel, converting it to electricity (loss) - but might be equal loss to burning in car), then having to transport it - generally through some type of conversion (loss), then storage (again loss).
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-greenest-american-cities-renewable-energy-2016-8
Have they overcome the problem where a panel didn't used to product as much power over it's lifetime as it took to create it in the first place?
These are definitely lofty goals - let's see if even one of them makes it, let alone all of them.
Yes, most modern solar panels can repay their production, shipping, and installation costs in just under 4 years, including the carbon/energy manufacturing costs. They've been able to do that for just under a decade. Prior to ~2008 they were somewhere in the 10-15 year payback with an expected life of ~20, I think, years. Of course that depends on where you are located and a lot of other conditions. Unfortunately they are still only ~40-50% efficient (only slightly less efficient then a coal plant, much less efficient then a natural gas plant). The benefit is that the source is basically free...and renewable
-
@travisdh1 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Does anyone realize that every energy conversion suffers loss? It's so ridiculously laughable to me every time people fire up the electric vs. gas vehicle debate. It generally requires fossil fuels to generate electricity (on a large scale), and then you get another potential drop when converting from AC to battery DC potential electricity. There is no magical "save the planet" clause that kicks in and gives you a conversion bonus for being "green", and when you're all done wasting energy to look like you've done the planet some great service, you throw your massive used-up lead-acid batteries in a landfill. Sure, technology keeps getting better, and there may come a point when we can produce all of our electricity w/o the use of fossil fuels, but until that actually happens in the real world, physics renders the argument invalid. I'll accept that using solar panels to generate the power to charge your car is a step in the right direction, but now you've added another layer of toxic batteries to the chain. And my 3 cars average about 350-400 miles per tank of gas, at roughly 25-30 mpg.
You went and got me started, here we go.
We should be 100% nuclear power generation right now. Most of the current reactors in the US are so old it's not even funny. Yet we keep operating the old, known to be dangerous, designs a la Fukushima. We have abundant fuel, safe reactors that can not melt down, and can recycle around 99% of the fuel. Yet we do NONE of this... excuse me, I need to go collect the duct tape because my head just exploded.
I'm with you 100%. Nuclear is one of the only valid short term energy forms that will be able to quickly replace coal and natural gas. Modern designs have a 80-95% efficiency and it is almost impossible for them to meltdown. On top of that the spent fuel rods can be used in a different style reactor to produce even more power (that's where the 95% efficiency comes into play). On top of that there have been some really cool advances with fusion reactors that could go a long way if we were actually investing in them, the current theoretical models are almost breaking even on power generated/power used.
-
What do you think the hang up is?
The environmental lobbyists?
The cool/natural gas lobbyists?I can't imagine it's financial...
-
@Dashrender Third party interests
-
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
What do you think the hang up is?
The environmental lobbyists?
The cool/natural gas lobbyists?I can't imagine it's financial...
It's all financial. The cost of a nuclear plant is astronomical compared to the cost of a coal or natural gas plant. Then you have the propaganda effect of recent reactor meltdowns and the many smear campaigns against nuclear (often funding can be traced back to Nat Gas and Coal organizations). Most, sane, environmentalists know the benefits of nuclear the big question they have is what do we do with the waste, if we can show that a modern design has almost no waste the buy in would be amazing.
Coal is dead, it won't come back. The cost of natural gas is cheap enough now to offset how inexpensive coal is. By the time the cost of nat gas goes up we will have significantly invested in wind, solar, hydro, and geo-thermal.
-
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Plus they are WAY quicker than a gas car!
OMG, a Tesla when the pedal gets pushed all the way down is like going over the big hill on a rollercoaster. Literally experienced that exact sensation riding in one in California in 2013 when I visited Pertino with @scottalanmiller and @Nick42
Nothing a gas powered car can't do, but not likely as efficiently as an electric.
Nope. No gas powered car in the world can match 100% torque and stay in the band throughout the run. Nothing.
No electric car can replace the rumble and snarl of a supercharged V8. They may be faster but they are certainly less fun.
That is simply because your perception of a muscle car is the rumble and and snarl. That is your perception simply because that is what existed to give you that experience.
Future generations will not share that experience and thus that sense of what a muscle car should entail.
-
@JaredBusch said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@thanksajdotcom said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@MattSpeller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@art_of_shred I think the point is completely lost in there. Electric vehicles are the future and they will be much better for the environment. While today's technology may not be perfect that is how we humans progress - one step at a time. It sounds like you are arguing that we shouldn't bother and just continue our destructive ways. That is not progressing anything.
Plus they are WAY quicker than a gas car!
OMG, a Tesla when the pedal gets pushed all the way down is like going over the big hill on a rollercoaster. Literally experienced that exact sensation riding in one in California in 2013 when I visited Pertino with @scottalanmiller and @Nick42
Nothing a gas powered car can't do, but not likely as efficiently as an electric.
Nope. No gas powered car in the world can match 100% torque and stay in the band throughout the run. Nothing.
No electric car can replace the rumble and snarl of a supercharged V8. They may be faster but they are certainly less fun.
That is simply because your perception of a muscle car is the rumble and and snarl. That is your perception simply because that is what existed to give you that experience.
Future generations will not share that experience and thus that sense of what a muscle car should entail.
Correct and they will be missing out.
-
@JaredBusch Consider for a moment why people love to work on leaky old push rod v8's with carbs. I assure you it's not because they run sub 10sec 1/4 miles. Nor is it the gasoline that will inevitably run down your armpits and splash in your eyes.
-
@coliver said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@Dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
What do you think the hang up is?
The environmental lobbyists?
The cool/natural gas lobbyists?I can't imagine it's financial...
It's all financial. The cost of a nuclear plant is astronomical compared to the cost of a coal or natural gas plant. Then you have the propaganda effect of recent reactor meltdowns and the many smear campaigns against nuclear (often funding can be traced back to Nat Gas and Coal organizations). Most, sane, environmentalists know the benefits of nuclear the big question they have is what do we do with the waste, if we can show that a modern design has almost no waste the buy in would be amazing.
Safe nuclear is not new. The military has been using it for years. It is the stupid human factor that is blocking it. Nuclear costs would be significantly lower without a bunch of the BS overhead due to propaganda.
You want to learn a little from a comic? Try this, http://xkcd.com/radiation. It was published not long after Fukushima in 2011.
Yeah Fukushima had other issues with causes related to the owners and politicians. But facts are facts when it comes to radiation numbers.
Coal is dead, it won't come back. The cost of natural gas is cheap enough now to offset how inexpensive coal is. By the time the cost of nat gas goes up we will have significantly invested in wind, solar, hydro, and geo-thermal.
I have no idea on these numbers, but I believe you from what little I do know.
-
@travisdh1 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
First you have to prove to me that humans are the cause of climate change, and define what is a normal climate. After all, the planet has spent more time in ice ages than our current mild climate. Listening to peoples arguments, they all make me think they'd rather freeze to death.
WTF did I just read?
-
@JaredBusch I should have said the cost and convenience of natural gas is killing coal. Nat gas isn't cheaper then coal, although it is close, but the costs to frack, transport, and burn nat gas more then makes up for it.
I'm by no means promoting nat gas. I'm glad that NYS put a moratorium on fracking it and that the proposed pipelines going through our state are running into roadblock after roadblock.
