So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.
So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.
Biofuels and hydrogen powered cars are economical and thermodynamicly never going to happen.
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies. With the ice sheet gone it will expose vast new oil reserves and price of fossil fuels will drop.
There are a lot of greenies who beleive anything is possible and feel the laws of physiscs, thermodynamics and chemistry does not apply to them. They will continue to beleive cars can be powered with the electrolysis of water and CO2 and water in the atmosphere can be converted into automobile fuel economicly.
Electricty from solar and wind in 50 years will might be able to provide less than 20% of the world’s electricty needs. We just do’t have the raw resources to produce more.
Nuclear power while not without issues is far better than all of the other methods we know about and certainly causes far less heath problems for people compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are responsible for causing the premature death and heath issues for one billion people or about one eighth of the worlds population.
Edit on my Golf engine claims in the previous page:
I am wrong.
What I assumed I saw is not possible on that Golf engine. I assumed I saw something and I am mistaken.
The space between the cylinders on that engine (and most engines) is smaller that the width of the plain bearing below it (and I know that).
So I probably witnessed a cock up of two idiots lifting the crankcase too high after fitting the cylinders and snapping a ring open below the cylinder and sweating big ones realising that they F'd up.
I was wrong, I should research stuff more and not trust my eyes as much and, being a mechanic, know better.
Sorry about that, I feel like a right fool.
Back to our usual programming.
So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.
Biofuels and hydrogen powered cars are economical and thermodynamicly never going to happen.
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies. With the ice sheet gone it will expose vast new oil reserves and price of fossil fuels will drop.
There are a lot of greenies who beleive anything is possible and feel the laws of physiscs, thermodynamics and chemistry does not apply to them. They will continue to beleive cars can be powered with the electrolysis of water and CO2 and water in the atmosphere can be converted into automobile fuel economicly.
Electricty from solar and wind in 50 years will might be able to provide less than 20% of the world’s electricty needs. We just do’t have the raw resources to produce more.
Nuclear power while not without issues is far better than all of the other methods we know about and certainly causes far less heath problems for people compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are responsible for causing the premature death and heath issues for one billion people or about one eighth of the worlds population.
BTW driving short distances is also not good for petrol cars. For example: the piston seals can seize up causing high oil consumption.
The piston Seals???
Really?
Where, where, WHERE do you get this idiotic garbage from?
Do you make it up or are you just so clueless you don't even know what piston rings are? Please stop talking about things you have less than no idea about. it's embarrassing to read as well as frustrating. have you no self pride, no dignity? Do you enjoy people laughing at you and making such a fool of yourself.
Please stop. Just STOP. you bring down the credibility of this forum as well as having demolished and form of respect anyone could have for anything you dribble out.
In any case, again that's pure and utter garbage but please provide factual evidence that what you say is Correct like you demand off everyone else.
Unless you were driving your car round the block and never gave it an oil change, you would Never cause the rings to stick on any car made and running on any fuel produced in the last 20 years at least. Aside from that, everyone that knows about cars clearly knew that in the day it was not the rings that stuck or got carbon deposits it was always the conrod valves due to the old type oils having a high ash content which never fully burned off due to the engine not reaching proper temp due to the short drives.
At least do your homework and have SOME idea what you are talking about.
That's the thing with these discussions, if you get over trying to push a point and always be right, you can be inspired to look things up and learn things.
Try it some time, I guarantee it will help you with your 5th grade studies a lot.
Do you have ANY clue how the internal combustion engine works
and what the engine computer monitors and the controls it has over the engine?
Why am I even asking. you wouldn't know how the engine in a lawn mower works much less have the ability to fix it but you still come up with all this moronic garbage as if it's a real thing.
Please go away and stop embarrassing us all or YOU provide the "scientific" reports you want others to provide to back up your garbage assertions.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!You guys should start your own thread.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!You guys should start your own thread.Yup, to quote the poet; “get a room”.
as your posting was to allow you to
feel good by making someone else feel bad, I decided to leave it in its entirety.
I posted it to show the hypocrisy of someones claims. It worked.
Twice in fact and better than I expected!
I'm glad you left it . Gave me a good laugh at the indignation of your reply and grandstanding.
It certainly did get better and better and more laughable as you went on.
Please continue.
This, from the grandstanding king!
I took it, as anyone else would, at face value, which was that you were talking crap!
You certainly do not inspire confidence in your competency, when you can't make a simple posting without calling people names, using stupid terms like "greenwashed" & "gubbermint".
You could have expressed the sensible components (& indeed, there were some, amongst the dross) of all your long, drawn out posts in a couple of paragraphs, but that wouldn't allow you to show off your feelings of superiority!
I & others have had "run ins" with nctnico on this thread, but no one showed the naked aggression you exhibit.
Perhaps you should start to behave a bit less like a five year old!You guys should start your own thread.Yup, to quote the poet; “get a room”.
I do not agree, george8 has done a good job showing up some of the stupid idiotic posters in this thread who simply spread disinformation about things they know nothing about, valves on conrods and replace in situ piston rings being but two examples. I think the mods have done a particularly poor job in regulating this thread and allowing it to degenerate into a farce, they seem to have an attitude whereby renewables is an allowable home for cranks as long as they don't stray into other forums, this being a pity as the renewables forum has now become unusable for it's true purpose whilst this thread remains. Personally I think it should be deleted as a very bad example of what to post in forums.
Is this why farming releases so much CO2.
This is defiantly contributing to man caused climate change.
But now I can clearly see that two opposing engineering sides will result in armageddon, I rather have a lot of unscientific people doing that job.
@georgr80:
My basic understanding of firework (and explosives in general) tells me that it is highly unlikely fireworks release CO2.
Also growing crops needs fertilizer (made from fossil fuels nowadays) and animals tend to release methane. Add to that that most part of the crops aren't used and left to rot (and thus releasing CO2 and methane) the net result of farming is that it may release more greenhouse gasses than get absorbed. And lets not forget everything being grown gets eaten at some point.
Farming HAS to release more Co2 than it takes but again so what?
Is this why farming releases so much CO2.
So Much?? What would you propose, we stop agriculture? That will certainty reduce C02 emissions when most of the world population staves to death.QuoteThis is defiantly contributing to man caused climate change.
So are you in everything you do every day of your life. So what? We could eliminate all the co2 production and the world would be all happy but unfortunately no one would be left. Kind of a moot point isn't it ?
I'll guarantee one office block power consumption generates more co2 every single day than a farmer creates in a year. You car probably generates more CO2in a year than a farmer using a flame weeder as well and remember, those crops absorb Co2 when the are growing so are carbon neutral.
Not much point eliminating co2 or shutting down farming if we are all going to starve to death and they will be no one left on the planet.
I'd suggest there are a whole lot more sensible things to target and raise awareness of than complain about c02 emissions from an absolutely essential industry that keeps us all alive.
Wonder how much Co2 is generated by something Unnessacary like for instance, 4th of july Fireworks. Around the US there must be hundreds of tons of fireworks releasing massive amounts of Co2. Maybe questioning that and trying to have fireworks banned as the unnecessary and wasteful Co2 they generate would be a better place to start asking questions. Then you can move on to other things that are a lot less essential than food production.
Criticizing co2 from agriculture sounds like a poorly thought out complaint straight out of the Green rabble rousing play book to push the agenda without thinking the Idea through logically and practically.
[...] smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it [...]
[...] smoke a couple of marijuana joints and mellow out before making you next post. Keep you mind open so you can lean something nd think about it [...]
Now I know why you say the things you say.
Also growing crops needs fertilizer (made from fossil fuels nowadays) and animals tend to release methane. Add to that that most part of the crops aren't used and left to rot (and thus releasing CO2 and methane) the net result of farming is that it may release more greenhouse gasses than get absorbed. And lets not forget everything being grown gets eaten at some point.