Shop Floor Talk

Shop Floor Talk (https://www.shopfloortalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Mechanical & Electrical (https://www.shopfloortalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   A zero emissions engine? (https://www.shopfloortalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53574)

Ironman 02-08-2022 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greywynd (Post 780084)
make 10 in return.

Why then, do I have to pay 10 cents to get a 2 cent return on my $$?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it is important to the left, to crush industries they don't like. They were successful with nuclear and have never forgot it, or how to accomplish it.
CO2 is not even on the playing field when you compare it to water as a global warming gas.
And mass migration is driven, not by China, but by Soros Open Borders Initiative. We have seen what open borders have done to Europe. No. No thanks.

Shade Tree Welder 02-08-2022 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBoy (Post 780076)
Ah come on, not this again. You used the term biofuels first. And you used it to refer to fuels produced from crops grown today, not millions of years ago.

Fossil fuels are releasing CO2 that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago.

I do it for several reason, one to get people like you who buy into the agenda to
try to think for themselves, honestly I am not very successful. But you can't fix
stupid, even with duct tape.

The brainwashing of the Europeans is much more thorough than that of us North
Americans, I am really enjoying Canadian News lately, hey is Dildeaux still in hiding?

Millions of years ago in the 4.5 billion year old earth is not a lot of time.

Shade Tree Welder 02-08-2022 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBoy (Post 780066)
First off, thank you for an actual answer as opposed to "physics".

I don't have time to explain chemistry and physics to everyone... and I hate
typing. But hydrogen is a stupid solution, for what Gerry said and a 1,000
more reasons. Look up liquid Hydrogen and see what kind of energy that
takes.

Shade Tree Welder 02-08-2022 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBoy (Post 780077)
Yeah, at our latitudes solar is only any use as an input to a battery system. Off grid homes, camper vans, datacentres etc.

Not even that 20-30 year return on investment is a looser big time. If it was
not for government paying for these systems they would never get built. When
tax payers pay for things it brings the worst quality, return on investment and
inflated price structures forward. Tax funding of private business is never a
good thing, it destroys value. Always has and always will.

Shade Tree Welder 02-08-2022 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midmosandblasting (Post 780068)
Battery cars are great till the thing dies . We lost a Civic Hybrid at only 234,000 as the battery died . The only charging for regular start came from the hybrid so could not even run on the litttle 3 cyl . So a good car that still used little oil was no longer worth repairing .

Average EV battery life is 150,000 miles.
Average EV battery replacement is $30,000 (that is an old number, likely higher now)

So who is going to dump $30k into a new battery on a car with 150k miles on it? So are EVx lower carbon, not really, short life cycles.

JohnBoy 02-08-2022 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greywynd (Post 780084)
See herein lies the dilemna. Even as a ‘direct’ employee of the oil industry, many of the workers realize that oil is a ‘finite’ resource at this point. Maybe wind and solar are part of the solution. Issue is, at this point in time, the cost versus the return still makes them experimental at best. However, to me, it seems that, for the most part, those costs are being paid by a handful, typically Europe, USA, Canada and a few others. Some of the big contributors, like China, don’t contribute 2 cents unless they can make 10 in return.

Why then, do I have to pay 10 cents to get a 2 cent return on my $$?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the west has allowed so much industry to go to china a huge amount of their emissions is just making our stuff with cheap coal so the western countries can go "yeay we're good, china is bad". we're running out of places to dump on and they're catching up at a fast rate with nuclear and battery cars and reducing coal imports (although that's more political than environmental)

Shade Tree Welder 02-08-2022 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBoy (Post 780076)
At a macro level no, nature changes and nature adapts.

We won't know for sure if the majority of scientists are wrong or right until it's all over.

I love talking to parrots, you just parrot back the crap you have been fed.

1. Research C3 and C4 photosysthesis. C4 evolved to deal with low CO2.
2. Most of our editable crops come from plant that use C3.
3. In the past 500 million years what have been.
-- a. the average number of glaciers on the planet.
-- b. the average CO2 levels.
-- c. what are the average CO2 levels during ice ages?
-- d. what are the average CO2 levels in the inter glacial periords.


Then think about the simple fact we are still exiting the last ice age. We are not out of it yet. There are still ice caps and glaciers, which is not normal for earth.

Oh and a majority of scientists do not support global warming, also the data shows global temps have flat lined since 1998...

JohnBoy 02-08-2022 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironman (Post 780065)
The cracking of water to base components is a terribly inefficient use of electricity. The energy returned by cracking is about 25% of what you put in. The return of useful energy is god-awful. People have been trying to do this since the 1920s and the math didn't work even then. Maybe now it does work out, when you can con the taxpayer into paying for everything.

its grossly inefficient, the only way the math works out is if it's waste electricity when supply exceeds demand

Quote:

The second issue where I agree with Ron and green smoke, is that you cannot pressurize hydrogen and pump it down the line to the customer. Have you heard of low hydrogen welding rods? Well yeah, we have long known that hydrogen weakens steel. It can penetrate the matrix of the metal and head for our space. The only effective way they have found to store hydrogen where it can't escape and destroy your pipeline is to turn it into a hydride. Lithium hydride works well, and then you can heat it, preferably with a petroleum product, and the hydride will release the gas. The lithium hydride can be hauled by truck to the end user.

I dont see hydrogen being trucked around in any form for a long time, the only customers its likely to make sense for are power stations that will burn the hydrogen generated when the wind isnt blowing/sun isnt shining. there's a hell of a lot of money being invested by the gas industry in figuring that out as they have the most to lose or gain as the gas fuel incumbents.

JohnBoy 02-08-2022 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shade Tree Welder (Post 780093)
I love talking to parrots, you just parrot back the crap you have been fed.

1. Research C3 and C4 photosysthesis. C4 evolved to deal with low CO2.
2. Most of our editable crops come from plant that use C3.
3. In the past 500 million years what have been.
-- a. the average number of glaciers on the planet.
-- b. the average CO2 levels.
-- c. what are the average CO2 levels during ice ages?
-- d. what are the average CO2 levels in the inter glacial periords.


Then think about the simple fact we are still exiting the last ice age. We are not out of it yet. There are still ice caps and glaciers, which is not normal for earth.

yeah, as I said, nature changes and nature adapts. people are the ones that are going to struggle.

Quote:

Oh and a majority of scientists do not support global warming, also the data shows global temps have flat lined since 1998...
what percentage of scientists do you say don't support global warming theory?

JohnBoy 02-08-2022 12:03 PM

As I said above and before I don't know if man is contributing to climate change or not, but I think the costs of doing something about it and it being pointless are minor compared to the risks of doing nothing about it and having a catastrophe.

It's expensive energy and reduced economic growth for wealthy nations vs potentially displacing vast populations who's lands could become unsustainable.

I realise that's an idealogical position that is the opposite to what many on here hold, and I'm not looking to change your minds. I enjoy the debate and the learning opportunities and find the technological advancements that are taking place fascinating.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.