Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2008, 09:01 PM #43
hmmmDonut
Life fails **
 
hmmmDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, fl.
hmmmDonut is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim96SC2 View Post
Where did you come across that?

Electric engines are inherently better at lower speeds, but are also heavy polluters, add weight to cars, and have different needs at higher duty cycles. Everything on earth has pros and cons.

The great thing about deisels is that they get high MPG thus reducing need for fossil fuels, and can burn more varieties on renewable fuels, thus reducing them some more. The drawback is soot but IIRC the urea (?) systems aim to reduce that.
How are electric engines heavy polluters? They have no emissions. Even if our current infrastructure is much more pollutant than one ran by nuclear power it is still much easier to control emissions from one source than from millions.
I don't know the weight of an electric engine, but I can't see how it would be heavier than an overweight iron block diesel engine.

Most of the energy used by an internal combustion engine is released as heat. It's inefficient any way you look at it.
hmmmDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-24-2008, 09:34 PM #44
paintballer9876
 
 
paintballer9876's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmmDonut View Post
How are electric engines heavy polluters? They have no emissions. Even if our current infrastructure is much more pollutant than one ran by nuclear power it is still much easier to control emissions from one source than from millions.
I don't know the weight of an electric engine, but I can't see how it would be heavier than an overweight iron block diesel engine.

Most of the energy used by an internal combustion engine is released as heat. It's inefficient any way you look at it.
They are heavy polluters because most of our current power is through burning fossile fuels, and the amount of cars today having them all electric, it would mean atleast 1 nuclear power plant, per mid size city and for bigger places like L.A. i wouldn't be surpised if it took 2-3 power plants. Motors also give off heat, in fact a lot more than you would think, not as much as a engine but for its size it gives off a lot.
paintballer9876 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 10:41 PM #45
hmmmDonut
Life fails **
 
hmmmDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, fl.
hmmmDonut is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintballer9876 View Post
They are heavy polluters because most of our current power is through burning fossile fuels, and the amount of cars today having them all electric, it would mean atleast 1 nuclear power plant, per mid size city and for bigger places like L.A. i wouldn't be surpised if it took 2-3 power plants. Motors also give off heat, in fact a lot more than you would think, not as much as a engine but for its size it gives off a lot.
Controlling the emissions of a single power plant is much easier than controlling the emissions of millions of cars. A switch to electric cars won't come over night, but it is the best option currently available.

Electric motors give off a very little percentage of heat compared to their usage of power. 10% of energy loss is much better than the 70% loss of a combustion engine.

I could care less about global warming. We have a plausible answer to our energy needs through the use of coal, nuclear energy, and electric cars. It's silly to hold on to an engine design that has reached it's peak in efficiency.
hmmmDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 11:10 PM #46
Jim96SC2
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmmDonut View Post
How are electric engines heavy polluters? They have no emissions. Even if our current infrastructure is much more pollutant than one ran by nuclear power it is still much easier to control emissions from one source than from millions.
I don't know the weight of an electric engine, but I can't see how it would be heavier than an overweight iron block diesel engine.

Most of the energy used by an internal combustion engine is released as heat. It's inefficient any way you look at it.
Heat isn't a big factor and most modern cars are fairly good on emissions.

Electric engines require energy to be created, stored, dispursed, stored, then used. All of those steps lose efficiency. Think about the amount of energy wasted from power plant to using the engine and then factor that into the "efficiency" equation.

As far as pollution, a standard battery pack for an electric or hybrid car contains an enormous amount of deadly posions, heavy metals <?>, etc. Factor dumping all those, reprocessing, replacing, etc.

As far a nuclear energy goes, people have problems with that too. We'd go from "ZOMG CO2 causes global warming" to "ZOMG, water vapor from the towers of nuc plants cause warming" from the GW nuts. Enviro's don't want them at all. The average person thinks their kids will mutate into 4 armed monsters.
__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.
Jim96SC2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 11:36 PM #47
hmmmDonut
Life fails **
 
hmmmDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, fl.
hmmmDonut is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim96SC2 View Post
Heat isn't a big factor and most modern cars are fairly good on emissions.

Electric engines require energy to be created, stored, dispursed, stored, then used. All of those steps lose efficiency. Think about the amount of energy wasted from power plant to using the engine and then factor that into the "efficiency" equation.

Gasoline has to be mined, refined, shipped, and stored. It is a horribly inefficient process. It is only in standard use because it has become so cost effective, but I assure you it won't be for long.

As far as pollution, a standard battery pack for an electric or hybrid car contains an enormous amount of deadly posions, heavy metals <?>, etc. Factor dumping all those, reprocessing, replacing, etc.

As I have said, battery technology needs to catch up with the times.

As far a nuclear energy goes, people have problems with that too. We'd go from "ZOMG CO2 causes global warming" to "ZOMG, water vapor from the towers of nuc plants cause warming" from the GW nuts. Enviro's don't want them at all. The average person thinks their kids will mutate into 4 armed monsters.

I'm not to worried about the enviro-nuts. Slap a zero emissions tag on a hummer and they would drive it.
.

Last edited by hmmmDonut : 01-24-2008 at 11:39 PM.
hmmmDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 08:20 AM #48
dzhezKov
одиH
 
dzhezKov's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, Fl.
dzhezKov is a Supporting Member
dzhezKov is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Jim96SC2 is correct. Electric vehicles are not our best option right now. Heat energy is dispersed when fossil fuels are converted no matter if it's done directly in the vehicle's engine, or in the power plant. If it's done in the power plant, you have the extra step of energy conversion from heat energy (combustion) to electricity. Furthermore you have wire resistance and transformers (which also give off heat energy) and finally, you have batteries, regulators, and speed controllers in the vehicles, all which decrease efficiency and furthermore lose more energy. You also have to convert from DC, to AC, and back to DC for electricity transport and usage over long distances, every time you do that is an energy loss.
__________________
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

"I've seen much of the world... It is brutal, and cruel, and dark."
dzhezKov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 08:30 AM #49
m3s0h0rn7
-//-
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Ethonal would never work on a long term run. The only real alternative is to go with electricity. Even then, you'd have to nip the source at the *** to make it cheap enough for day to day use. We need more nuclear energy to be produced and start cutting down on our foreign spending for fuel.
m3s0h0rn7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 11:12 AM #50
IanR
Shoot.Kill.Win.
 
IanR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Philadelphia
 has been a member for 10 years
I think if batteries become less damaging to the environment and more powerful, the electric car could really take off. I just read something about a new kind of lithium ion battery that was 10 - 100 times more potent. Its about 2 years away from becoming real but it gives you the kind of idea of what we could do.

I would be all for creating new nuclear plants. We have come a long way from Three Mile Island. Also we could protect them with troops that we bring home from overseas ONCE WE AREN'T DEPENDANT ON FOREIGN OIL !
__________________
2k1er...FTW

Slowly getting back into paintball...
IanR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 11:37 AM #51
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClawHammer View Post
Hydrogen fuel cells are the future. I consider myself a motorhead and love the internal combustion engine. However it is a dated and very inefficient design. Hydrogen is easy to make, easy to transport and is clean.
You are very close. They have discovered that ammonia/hydrogen engines actually make more power than with just hydrogen alone. This is the future of the automobile in the U.S.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2term8r View Post
How come no one has mentioned we should F*CK Kennedy, Obamma, and Clinton for voting AGAINST drilling in Alaska and the conitnental shelf. THey voted against expanding domestic oil! Booo the democrats! BOOOO
Yeah let's go cut down some more trees and **** up Alaska since the mainland is tapped out. While your at it I'm sure Hawaii has plenty of room for some off shore drilling as well. NEWSFLASH!!! Petroleum based motors make pollution!!!
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 12:40 PM #52
2term8r
Free Baller
 
2term8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mass.
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post


Yeah let's go cut down some more trees and **** up Alaska since the mainland is tapped out. While your at it I'm sure Hawaii has plenty of room for some off shore drilling as well. NEWSFLASH!!! Petroleum based motors make pollution!!!


NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH! We need to get off of middle east oil, not domestic! NEWSFLASH NEWS FLAsh NEWS FLASH lol hahah you are so naive.


NEWSFLASH NEWSFLASH
__________________
Mitt Romney 2012
2term8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 01:13 PM #53
||IcEs||
kek
 
||IcEs||'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuna View Post
no they haven't. I've heard of hydraulic hybrids which store some energy in the form of pressurized water but theres net positive way to extract energy from water moron.
Shut the **** up you utter tard.

It's been shown on a show you should look up as Top Gear and has been shown to actually, you guessed it, work.

What a scrub you are.
||IcEs|| is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 02:11 PM #54
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2term8r View Post
you are so naive.

Surely you can do better.
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 03:44 PM #55
2term8r
Free Baller
 
2term8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mass.
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post
Surely you can do better.


How do you suggest we supply our oil demands for the next 15 years without domestic oil drilling, mountain topping, oil shale, coal and off-shore drilling?

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida.

The US has one of the the highest corporate tax rates in the world for oil drillers and refiners, nearly 45%.

I know people in the nuclear power industry, specifically a nuclear safety engineer that has worked at 6 plants in the US. The nuclear energy sector on current track is as follows; keep the current number of reactors until it other forms of energy (oil) have gone up so much in price, that it become economically feasible to build newer reactors to counter the increasing oil prices. At current pace he claims we won't see a nuclear plant in the next 50 years, the time it'll take for oil to become a true problem.

I think that policy should change, and he agreed with me. We've been too late on so many policies regarding immigration, our economy, and now energy. Off shore oil should and Alaska should be open, nuclear energy needs to be embraced. Uniformed people are afraid of nuclear energy, but as we all know it has come leaps and bounds in technology, safety and output comapred to the reactors build over 20 years ago.

The two candidates that are strongest on opening up our own countries resources is:

A; Ron Paul

B; Mitt Romney




We didn't purchase the state of Alaska to protect polar bears and trees from the Russians. Yes we did buy it for foreign policy reasons reguarding the Russians and Brittan, but we also bought it for it's natural resources; we need to ues it.
__________________
Mitt Romney 2012
2term8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 07:17 PM #56
hmmmDonut
Life fails **
 
hmmmDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, fl.
hmmmDonut is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzhezKov View Post
Jim96SC2 is correct. Electric vehicles are not our best option right now. Heat energy is dispersed when fossil fuels are converted no matter if it's done directly in the vehicle's engine, or in the power plant. If it's done in the power plant, you have the extra step of energy conversion from heat energy (combustion) to electricity. Furthermore you have wire resistance and transformers (which also give off heat energy) and finally, you have batteries, regulators, and speed controllers in the vehicles, all which decrease efficiency and furthermore lose more energy. You also have to convert from DC, to AC, and back to DC for electricity transport and usage over long distances, every time you do that is an energy loss.
You can't honestly tell me that digging up crude oil from the ground, shipping it, refining it, then shipping it some more is more efficient then a purely electrical infrastructure.
hmmmDonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 08:15 PM #57
[JUSTIN]
●LOVE●
 
[JUSTIN]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Some of the alternative fuel methods use massive amounts of water which becomes a byproduct that is unusable for whatever reasons, toxicity i'm assuming. I know water rights are being bought up like hot cakes, and people are already talking about the water crisis, which will only be fueled by the oil crisis, should we chose to end it using certain forms of alternative fuel. You just can't win in this world.
[JUSTIN] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 08:56 PM #58
Jim96SC2
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmmDonut View Post
You can't honestly tell me that digging up crude oil from the ground, shipping it, refining it, then shipping it some more is more efficient then a purely electrical infrastructure.
I can't say with certainty yes or no. But I will say that regular fossil fuel burning plants used for electric cars would be very ineffiecient when the total system is taken into place. Talking about nuclear power and entending its use doesn't help the "right now". Same with battery technology.

Renewable clean burning ethanol is a good product to look into. As with electric/batteries there are a lot of new ideas being tossed around and technologies being developed.

Hydrogen is a good joke, nothing remotely viable.
__________________
It is perfectly acceptable to use 40 years of data to determine that over 4 billion years of existance and change, mankind is destroying the earth.
Heller v. DC: The Second Amendment is now an individual right. You can't have my gun.
Election '08: Proving that America will come out and vote for well dressed BS.
Jim96SC2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 01:03 AM #59
Oconnore
mmm Frogs
 
Oconnore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Massachussets
 has been a member for 10 years
The best thing about nuclear power is it is an incentive to reduce the number of nukes we keep. Stored nukes = wasted energy. Less nukes = safer world.

If we are not having a problem storing 10,000 nukes of weapons grade U-235, I don't think storing nuclear waste will be a problem...
Oconnore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 01:13 AM #60
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oconnore View Post
The best thing about nuclear power is it is an incentive to reduce the number of nukes we keep. Stored nukes = wasted energy. Less nukes = safer world.

If we are not having a problem storing 10,000 nukes of weapons grade U-235, I don't think storing nuclear waste will be a problem...
The world is no safer if a country has 400 nukes or 3,000 nukes.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 06:21 AM #61
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2term8r View Post
How do you suggest we supply our oil demands for the next 15 years without domestic oil drilling, mountain topping, oil shale, coal and off-shore drilling?

The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida.

The US has one of the the highest corporate tax rates in the world for oil drillers and refiners, nearly 45%.

I know people in the nuclear power industry, specifically a nuclear safety engineer that has worked at 6 plants in the US. The nuclear energy sector on current track is as follows; keep the current number of reactors until it other forms of energy (oil) have gone up so much in price, that it become economically feasible to build newer reactors to counter the increasing oil prices. At current pace he claims we won't see a nuclear plant in the next 50 years, the time it'll take for oil to become a true problem.

I think that policy should change, and he agreed with me. We've been too late on so many policies regarding immigration, our economy, and now energy. Off shore oil should and Alaska should be open, nuclear energy needs to be embraced. Uniformed people are afraid of nuclear energy, but as we all know it has come leaps and bounds in technology, safety and output comapred to the reactors build over 20 years ago.

The two candidates that are strongest on opening up our own countries resources is:

A; Ron Paul

B; Mitt Romney




We didn't purchase the state of Alaska to protect polar bears and trees from the Russians. Yes we did buy it for foreign policy reasons reguarding the Russians and Brittan, but we also bought it for it's natural resources; we need to ues it.
I think your forgetting a little matter of global warming/pollution. Why would we want to keep using oil when the technology is there to make quieter and safer pollution free cars that are not only good for the environment but get our country out from the control of Saudi Arabia. This isn't todays new. Climate change is for real. Are you going to argue with 95% of the worlds scientists on Climate Change? Oil got us into this mess. New and smart thinking will get us out and also stimulate new growth and jobs in a recessive economy with a dying automotive industry.
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 07:18 AM #62
scumquat1
My friends call me Scum.
 
scumquat1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Hole
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post
I think your forgetting a little matter of global warming/pollution. Why would we want to keep using oil when the technology is there to make quieter and safer pollution free cars that are not only good for the environment but get our country out from the control of Saudi Arabia. This isn't todays new.
We keep using oil because it is the cheapest and most practical source of energy to fuel things like automobiles and other vehicles. The technology may be available for alternative energy vehicles, it just isn't cost effective yet. It may become cost effective at some time in the future, but that isn't certain to occur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post
Climate change is for real. Are you going to argue with 95% of the worlds scientists on Climate Change?
Yes, and I'm also going to argue with your ridiculous statement that 95% of the worlds scientists somehow agree on climate change. Do a little more reading on the subject and try to move beyond what the mainstream media spoon feeds you regarding Global Warming.
__________________
A is A. It is what it is.

"Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men." - Ayn Rand.
scumquat1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 08:25 AM #63
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumquat1 View Post
We keep using oil because it is the cheapest and most practical source of energy to fuel things like automobiles and other vehicles. The technology may be available for alternative energy vehicles, it just isn't cost effective yet. It may become cost effective at some time in the future, but that isn't certain to occur.


Yes, and I'm also going to argue with your ridiculous statement that 95% of the worlds scientists somehow agree on climate change. Do a little more reading on the subject and try to move beyond what the mainstream media spoon feeds you regarding Global Warming.
How is a polluted environment cheaper than alternative energy? That is thinking inside the box. Look at it long term for a solution. With China and India's current growth rates the current supply of petroleum in the world can not be sustained without outrageous costs and hazardous environmental effects. Drilling in the U.S. will not help the environment at all only add to the pollution and long term effects of Global Environmental Destabilization.

If you disagree with my 95% statement prove it. I take it you haven't been to school lately. Ask any scientist in any school. Prove that it is not accurate.
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump