Electric car: physical limits and overall balance

[nlc]

I feel that I should not participate in this subject, because I feel that I will quickly lose my temper!

It is like the harmful effects of radio waves from mobile phones: the majority of scientists agree on this point but we do not hear them, on the other hand those who say that there is no danger they are hears well because it is absolutely necessary to defend the financial interests behind!

There it is the same, there are so many financial interests behind the consumption of energy and the pollution that it is important not that C02 is a problem nor the cause of the heating! And as for the radio waves the "deniers" are always more present on the front of the scene.

The film al gore it's been a while since I saw it, and if I remember correctly, it explains well that for millennia there have been natural cycles of heating / cooling. I remember the curves. Indeed we are in a period of natural warming precisely, BUT the current warming measured exceeds disturbingly the previous warmings which were regular and regulated like music paper.

And the concern is that the CO2 in the air no longer comes only from natural warming, but also from man, who releases unimaginable quantities, and who unbalance natural warming: it amplifies it.

And beyond a certain stage one could very well arrive at thermal embalming, as in a badly polarized transistor: the more it heats the more the current passes, therefore the more it heats, therefore the more the current passes, etc ...
And at the end of the day ..... it burns out.

I still cannot understand how pseudo "scientists" can think and "claim" that man and the CO2 he releases have nothing to do with the current global warming.

You reason about your little person by telling yourself that you cannot influence as big a body as our planet (which is very tiny in fact). But take even the cars, which emit between 100 and 200gr of CO2 per km. Look out the window and watch this continuous flow of cars, 1 billion by 2010, night and day, worldwide, 24h 24/7/7 365 days a year.

Over 80 million barrels of oil evaporate into the atmosphere every day. These 80 million barrels have taken millennia to form by the decay of plants which have absorbed CO2. And we release all of a sudden in one day.
How can you be convinced that this cannot have an influence on nature and in particular on the climate?

And even if CO2 had no influence on the climate, it is not the only pollutant that humans throw in nature! It is almost the cleanest of pollutants finally CO2 in connection with all the other cocheneries (you will see the number of cancers in a few years in large agglos infested with diesel particles ...) that reject an automobile!

[Ramboman]

Take the trouble to read this document before gobbling up anything:

http://www.pensee-unique.fr/theses.html

I don't hold it against you, but there are other priorities that we ignore:

http://www.nosenfantsnousaccuseront-lefilm.com/

cordially

PS: politicians have already lied to us about so much ...

[I Citro]

Now I finished ;-)

Oh no, not already.

The debate was becoming interesting, especially since we are generally in agreement.
I also share your opinion on the information that is "delivered" to us in an abrupt and non-argued manner and which is then erected into dogma. I am thinking in particular of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the sponsors of which were designated by the media without any investigation. And I note like you that as soon as someone tries to dispute or question the presentation of the facts, he is not contradicted with rational arguments showing him in what and why he is wrong, then he is immediately doomed to gemonies and treated as an anti-Semite and traitor to the country before being reduced to media silence ...

This applies to many other things that enter the media field ...

Plus 1 with dirk pitt because indeed, global warming is not just the melting of the North Pole and its domino effect on temperatures, it is above all the rapid melting of all the glaciers that have emerged from the planet which are therefore not "ice cubes. in a glass". I am thinking of the inhabitants of Himalya who irrigated their cultures with water from melting glaciers and who no longer have water, of those of Latin America, and elsewhere ... All this ice that makes lacking in those who used it, causing havoc elsewhere ...

I like you too, and I am happy with the level of this debate of ideas. The important thing is to remain critical and vigilant.

[Remundo]

I approve of NLC

CO2 clearly has consequences for global warming.

Regardless of that, fossil fuels are neither social, economic, nor ecological ...

They are anti-social (war, access to energy), expensive (peak-oil ...) and polluting (particles, CO2). Spread the word.

That said, the electric vehicle only transfers the problem to the way in which electricity is produced.

In other words, the electric car has only the cleanliness of the electric energy that is put in it ... When it is more than 60% of fossil as in Germany, to see more than 80% as in Poland, is better a good Diesel ...

@+

[nlc]

What an argument!
Worthy of a great scientist!

Take the trouble to read this document before gobbling up anything:

I don't eat anything, I think for myself, it's better. And it doesn't seem to be the case for everyone here!

Forget the curves and the different arguments in favor of one theory or another, and think only for yourself, I asked the question in my previous post.

How can we think that burning more than 80 million barrels of oil day (who have taken millennia to form) cannot influence our little blue planet?

As a reminder, 80 million barrels of oil 12.7 BILLION liters, day ! This makes 147.000 liters of crude oil consumed SECOND, every day, all year.

How can we be convinced that it has no influence
No need for scientific study nor to fight by comparing theories: the man forcing an influence (bad) on his environment

[I Citro]

And even if CO2 had no influence on the climate, it is not the only pollutant that humans throw in nature! It is almost the cleanest of pollutants finally CO2 in connection with all the other cocheneries (you will see the number of cancers in a few years in large agglos infested with diesel particles ...) that reject an automobile!

The problem also exists in the countryside. Go see the movie Our children will accuse which talks, among other things, about pollution by pesticides.

[nlc]

I will add one thing, as an illustration:

ramboman: you drive at 130 km / h on the highway with your little family and you arrive in an area of ​​fog to cut with a knife. You have 2 options:
- Slow down because you have a doubt about the length of the fog zone
- Stay at 130Km / h, because after all the fog zone may only be a few meters.

What option do you take?
Personally I take the first, because I have a doubt, and I do not want to take risks for my small family, for me, and for others.

Do you take option 2?

All that to say that the 2 theories of global warming, whether we believe in one or the other, cheerfully adjust the shell, because the problem is not to validate a theory or the other.

The problem is that there is a doubt, and in case of doubt, we lift the foot, that's it!

[Woodcutter]

[...]
3rd clue, WE are telling us anything! I would take just one example: "when the ice at the pole melts, the seas will rise by 2015 to 2040 [sic] from 1.5m to 6m [sic] ... not very scientific all that.
If you want to have fun, fill a glass of water and put an ice cube. When this is stabilized, you will have the water to the brim and the ice cube that exceeds. All in all, the equivalent of the pack ice.
Let the ice melt, you will tell me if the glass overflows ... [...]

Pfff .... what not to read as bullshit ...

Another one that confuses land ice and ice floe ...

Are you a disciple of Allègre?
It is true that now to be fashionable, you have to be "anti-heating because of CO2" ...

Pitiful!

[Ramboman]

Phew!
A little longer, I was condemned for "revisionism"!
Let’s return positively to energy; apart from petroleum, phagocytosed due to some whim of nature by certain privileged countries, that we have:
- the wind; it would be interesting to calculate the cost of the wind KWh ...
- the water; curious that there are not more water mills ...
- cereals: it's criminal, when people are hungry!
- geothermal energy ???
- the sun, photovoltaics; Yes, but at what price?
- nuclear, the fundamental energy of the universe!
"For or against nuclear?"
A debate of the same type as the previous one ...
Such a "fear of the year one thousand" that we shut down the Saclay breeder, which was consuming its own plutonium waste.
With ITER, France is at the forefront of "controlled fusion", the energy of the sun, which is only an H-bomb which explodes permanently (largely influencing our climate).
Energy from the oceans, free like the wind (which is not entirely true).
With nuclear power, we have all the energy in the world; the only problem is to store it in the tank of our precious cars.
The batteries are ready, it only remains to manufacture them in volume at competitive prices, and recharge "at the pump" in a few minutes. I do it today with an RC plane equipped with a 3.5 KW motor, for a 15 min flight. The battery is 1800gr. My only problem in the field is that I need a 2 KW generator to recharge.
It's anecdotal, but the same technology can be transposed to the car without problem; then, no more oil!
"For or against nuclear?"
A beautiful debate, because if we agree on the "for", we have free energy for eternity!
cordially

PS: waste, we will have it "eaten" by our power plants!

[Woodcutter]

[...] I don't hold it against you, but there are other priorities that we ignore:

http://www.nosenfantsnousaccuseront-lefilm.com/

cordially

For your information, it seems to me that we are already talking about it in another subject, about this film ...

Furthermore, what this film denounces is part of the same logic of excessive consumption, and that's what we must fight against!

To return to your first intervention on this thread, if the solution is to return to consumption levels * equivalent to those of the XNUMXth century. so YES, let's come back to it, we (the human species) will not get any worse ...

*: energy, raw material, food ...