Motor Industry V's Climate Change

[Joey D]

If there isn't much evidence why even argue it?

 

[BobK]

Is there not overwhelming evidence to show that they have caused climate change to at least speed up.

Not only is there no "overwhelming evidence", there's not much evidence at all actually. In fact, after cars became common, the Earth actually cooled down (1940-1975).

 

[YSSMAN]

If there isn't much evidence why even argue it?

Because people like to be opinionated and don't like to be proven wrong?

 

[GT4 genius]

I'am not opinionated, i still dont know which side of this argument i'm on but look at this, and please dont tell me its just natural cycles!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6971328.stm

 

[Joey D]

England was cold and rainy? What does that prove? Wasn't last summer one of the hottest on records?

 

[GT4 genius]

Exactly, which shows just how messed up the climate is!

 

[Stevisiov]

Exactly, which shows just how messed up the climate is!

Thats a really accurate conclusion, I am glad you are a scientist...

 

[GT4 genius]

Thats a really accurate conclusion, I am glad you are a scientist...

Ofcourse i'm not a scientist but surely the "small" amount of co2 our cars produce has to effect the greenhouse effect and in turn effect the global climate.

And these unusual and bizarre extremes are testimony to that especially as the are so close together

 

[Stevisiov]

And these unusual and bizarre extremes are testimony to that especially as the are so close together

You mean varied weather is the because of additional green house gases. Lets look at it this way.

hot summer oh thats global warmings fault right.

Wet weather oh yeh thats global warmings fault right.

So when we it rains it is global warmings fault, and when it is sunny it is global warmings fault so then what weather isn't it global warmings fault. Mildly warm and overcast? bright but a bit nippy? hammering it down and windy? Snowing fairly regularly? foggy and chilly? sunny and humid?

which of those are caused by global warming? do you know? can you say that any of those is global warmings fault, have we never seen them before? Are you sure a variety in weather year to year is the fossil fuels fault, after all its not like unusual weather patterns have just appeared this century. You cannot simply see different weather and go oh noes! its global warmings fault.

Now for the other part of your argument, sounds far more reasonable. Yes we are putting out a 'small' amount of additional CO2, and when i say small, it is refering to the overall proportion, therefore it is small, is this going to make a difference? well its tough to say for certain currently there is speculation. Sure the current temperature is rising, but it is entirely possible that it is part of a natural cycle. As off now we do not know enough about the climate to make any accurate guess to whether we are impacting at all. We don't really know how this additional CO2 is really effecting the atmosphere, there are many people who believe that we are melting the ice caps, the science it is based on is still estimates and guess work.

The fact is the earth currently is heating up, is it our fault with increased CO2, or is it just a natural cycle which has been happening for millions of years, we don't know, there is no way of telling. Despite all these graphs and 'evidence' which is often contradicatory with other evidence, it is not in any way proven, it isn't close to being proven, nor do I expect it to be proven any time soon. While we do have some of the best scientists working on it, we just cannot prove/disprove it. So you can believe what side you want, as of yet there is no right and wrong, just be careful which 'evidence' you believe, who ever side it supports. For me I don't think cars have enough output to really make any difference to climate change, but I am open to new hard evidence.

 

[Philly]

which of those are caused by global warming? do you know? can you say that any of those is global warmings fault, have we never seen them before? Are you sure a variety in weather year to year is the fossil fuels fault, after all its not like unusual weather patterns have just appeared this century. You cannot simply see different weather and go oh noes! its global warmings fault.

There really is no one way that global warming would affect ever part of the globe. It depends on the weather system. It might bring rain to one part of the world, snow to another, or extreme heat to another. As atmospheric and oceanic currents shift, weather patterns will more with them and mix and make wierd stuff. Can you expect global warming to create a little rain, snow, heat or any slightly different weather all in one place? No. I could see having summers getting warmer and winters getting cooler as a result but we can't blame the little stuff on global warming. I guess the result would be a change in the weather trends or a total loss of weather patterns and having total random weather every year.

Now for the other part of your argument, sounds far more reasonable. Yes we are putting out a 'small' amount of additional CO2, and when i say small, it is refering to the overall proportion, therefore it is small, is this going to make a difference? well its tough to say for certain currently there is speculation. Sure the current temperature is rising, but it is entirely possible that it is part of a natural cycle. As off now we do not know enough about the climate to make any accurate guess to whether we are impacting at all. We don't really know how this additional CO2 is really effecting the atmosphere, there are many people who believe that we are melting the ice caps, the science it is based on is still estimates and guess work.

Current temperature is rising. The Earth works in cycles. Both are fact. The question is: how much is the Earth's temperature rising compared to usual? Is this how the Earth reacts to usual climate cycles? Another fact in your writing: we do not know how much we are dumping into the atmosphere; and even less how much that amount is affecting our weather. I know I don't like walking into something where I have no idea what will happen, and that seems to be what we are headed into right now. We do not know what is going to happen. I'm not up for putting the plaet on the table.

The fact is the earth currently is heating up, is it our fault with increased CO2, or is it just a natural cycle which has been happening for millions of years, we don't know, there is no way of telling. Despite all these graphs and 'evidence' which is often contradicatory with other evidence, it is not in any way proven, it isn't close to being proven, nor do I expect it to be proven any time soon. While we do have some of the best scientists working on it, we just cannot prove/disprove it. So you can believe what side you want, as of yet there is no right and wrong, just be careful which 'evidence' you believe, who ever side it supports. For me I don't think cars have enough output to really make any difference to climate change, but I am open to new hard evidence.

There is no right or wrong at this point. That does not mean we can't take sides, in fact that means we can and maybe should take sides. This is the time when people can pick a side and not have to worry about being right or wrong. Once we discover the truth, I would hope that people realize this and work together to "set it right." And again, it's not cars that we should be worried about. It is the burning of fossil fuels in general that we are concerned about when it comes to CO2 ect.

 

[GT4 genius]

we do not know how much we are dumping into the atmosphere; and even less how much that amount is affecting our weather. I know I don't like walking into something where I have no idea what will happen, and that seems to be what we are headed into right now. We do not know what is going to happen. I'm not up for putting the planet on the table.

This is the first solid thing i agree with. Yes cars are only pumping a small amount of co2 into the atmosphere but there is only a small amount there, so it is quite possible that it is having an effect. And although we dont know whether it is or not we should still take precautions to lessen the amount we pump into the air. Because like you said we dont really have a clue what we are doing to the climate if anything at all.
We wear seatbelts in cars as a precaution incase we have an accident, not because we suspect we will!

 

[Stevisiov]

There really is no one way that global warming would affect ever part of the globe. It depends on the weather system. It might bring rain to one part of the world, snow to another, or extreme heat to another. As atmospheric and oceanic currents shift, weather patterns will more with them and mix and make wierd stuff. Can you expect global warming to create a little rain, snow, heat or any slightly different weather all in one place? No. I could see having summers getting warmer and winters getting cooler as a result but we can't blame the little stuff on global warming. I guess the result would be a change in the weather trends or a total loss of weather patterns and having total random weather every year.

I do not dispute that it may effect weather over the world, however what I was saying was a response to a previous post. You cannot simply look at bad weather and say, oh look its global warmings fault that. It is a very naive approach since the weather depends on so many variables. I have not said that global warming doesn't effect weather I was just disproving a point.

Current temperature is rising. The Earth works in cycles. Both are fact.

I believe I said that; 'Sure the current temperature is rising, but it is entirely possible that it is part of a natural cycle'.

The question is: how much is the Earth's temperature rising compared to usual? Is this how the Earth reacts to usual climate cycles?

I think I said that too; 'As off now we do not know enough about the climate to make any accurate guess to whether we are impacting at all. We don't really know how this additional CO2 is really effecting the atmosphere, there are many people who believe that we are melting the ice caps, the science it is based on is still estimates and guess work.'

Another fact in your writing: we do not know how much we are dumping into the atmosphere; and even less how much that amount is affecting our weather.

check the above.

I know I don't like walking into something where I have no idea what will happen, and that seems to be what we are headed into right now. We do not know what is going to happen. I'm not up for putting the plaet on the table.

That is fair enough, i couldn't argue that it would help a great deal to clean up our act, but do I believe the car shouldn't be the target, modern cars are very efficient however I think changing to Biofuel would be a good idea. The car gets the big blame yet there far worse practices out there which should be the target to help prevent green house gases. While you say the planet is at the table, again I disagree, we may be speeding up climate change, we may hit an ice age earlier than it could have been, however this does not constitute to destroying the planet. Sure an ice age will be devistating to my country, but it is going to happen soon anyway, it is going to happen cars or no cars.

There is no right or wrong at this point.

I think I said that; 'So you can believe what side you want,as of yet there is no right and wrong'

That does not mean we can't take sides, in fact that means we can and maybe should take sides.

Read above, I think I made it clear that you can choose which side you want, I am not sure why you have felt the need to repeat me.

This is the time when people can pick a side and not have to worry about being right or wrong.

Well if you truly believe in climate change then I think now is the time to act before it is to late...do you believe in climate change it has been hard to decifer from your post.

Once we discover the truth, I would hope that people realize this and work together to "set it right." And again, it's not cars that we should be worried about. It is the burning of fossil fuels in general that we are concerned about when it comes to CO2 ect.

quite true, i couldn't argue with that.

I am not really sure why you quoted my post, then re worded it and posted it. The fact you where quoting me suggests it was an argument, but I am confused what you where arguing.

 

[Philly]

I do not dispute that it may effect weather over the world, however what I was saying was a response to a previous post. You cannot simply look at bad weather and say, oh look its global warmings fault that. It is a very naive approach since the weather depends on so many variables. I have not said that global warming doesn't effect weather I was just disproving a point.

I was questioning your understanding of climate change. I was clarifying that you understood that it can change weather trends, while you seemed to say that does not affect individual days. Apparently you do understand that. Good.

believe I said that; 'Sure the current temperature is rising, but it is entirely possible that it is part of a natural cycle'.

You took my writing out of context here

think I said that too; 'As off now we do not know enough about the climate to make any accurate guess to whether we are impacting at all. We don't really know how this additional CO2 is really effecting the atmosphere, there are many people who believe that we are melting the ice caps, the science it is based on is still estimates and guess work.'

I think I was taking this a little further than that. I was trying to make the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming while it looked like your post said that we could not think about making a connection.

check the above.

Again, taken out of context. I was taking what you said and adding details/doubts to show a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming.

That is fair enough, i couldn't argue that it would help a great deal to clean up our act, but do I believe the car shouldn't be the target, modern cars are very efficient however I think changing to Biofuel would be a good idea. The car gets the big blame yet there far worse practices out there which should be the target to help prevent green house gases.

This I have said earlier. However, I disagree on the biofuel part. Doesn't burning boifuels burn a life-based carbon compound? Wouldn't that result in similar emissions? This is a solution to finding more stuff to put into our cars, not limit what comes out.

While you say the planet is at the table, again I disagree, we may be speeding up climate change, we may hit an ice age earlier than it could have been, however this does not constitute to destroying the planet. Sure an ice age will be devistating to my country, but it is going to happen soon anyway, it is going to happen cars or no cars.

Hyperbole. The planet might not get desroyed. It would be different. I cannot say any more than that.

I think I said that; 'So you can believe what side you want,as of yet there is no right and wrong'

Again. Taken out of context. I was actually kind of going after Joey for saying that there was no point in arguing the point. I was establishing a base for what I would be saying next.

Read above, I think I made it clear that you can choose which side you want, I am not sure why you have felt the need to repeat me.

Basically saying that if we want to argue, do it now because science should prove it at some point.

Well if you truly believe in climate change then I think now is the time to act before it is to late...do you believe in climate change it has been hard to decifer from your post.

Yes. I belive that we could be very well playing a role in speeding climate change up....or even causing it. I'm sorry you couldn't quite understand what I was saying. It was more implied.

quite true, i couldn't argue with that.

At least we're clear on something.

I am not really sure why you quoted my post, then re worded it and posted it. The fact you where quoting me suggests it was an argument, but I am confused what you where arguing.

I tried to use a different form of arguing. I'm sorry if it was a little unusual and you were not able to understand it. I was trying to argue without saying you were wrong, but trying to say that you didn't include everything. Hopefully you can get an idea of what I was getting at. I'll try to use something a little more elementary next time. Thank you for pointing out that it wasn't entirely clear, though.

 

[Stevisiov]

I was questioning your understanding of climate change. I was clarifying that you understood that it can change weather trends, while you seemed to say that does not affect individual days. Apparently you do understand that. Good.

I am glad that is cleared up.

You took my writing out of context here

I will refrain from doing that in future

I think I was taking this a little further than that. I was trying to make the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming while it looked like your post said that we could not think about making a connection.

This is the thing, there isn't a connection, we assume, that is what I am saying, sure we think we know how it works, but do we really, if we really did know then surely it would be point proved, move on, yet it hasn't been proven so we can't just go around saying there is a connection when we really don't know at all. I understand there may be a connection and I am sorry I didn't make it clear in my post. I have not said that 'we cannot think of making a connection', but I would recommend leaving that connection to the scientists, it is not proved, in fact it is not nearly proved, so you can't use it as evidence in your posts, that is all.

Again, taken out of context. I was taking what you said and adding details/doubts to show a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming.

Again I will avoid that for future.

This I have said earlier. However, I disagree on the biofuel part. Doesn't burning boifuels burn a life-based carbon compound? Wouldn't that result in similar emissions? This is a solution to finding more stuff to put into our cars, not limit what comes out.

This shows perhaps that you have little understanding of biofuel, or fossil fuel for that matter and why they cause problems.

Biofuel, when burnt releases carbon dioxide (oh noes!) however biofuel will not add to global warming because, you are only releasing existing CO2. The reason for this is, plants take in co2 from the atmosphere, they use this as part of their self-sustaining energy production, i.e it is a fundamental part of photosynthesis. So the only CO2 released from biofuel is the what the plant has absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place, we are not adding, just using what is currently cycling around the earth naturally. really you are using the plants energy as energy for your car instead, all is left to do is re grow the plants, so they can re absorbed what you took from them.

So how is this different from fossil fuels releasing CO2, well it is simple really, fossil fuels are got from underground oil wells, millions of years old, so when we burn them and release CO2, we are not using part of the earths current cycle, we are in fact re-introducing C02 that has been out of the cycle for millions of years, so we have what is already our current cycle and we are adding to it. This is supposedly why there is the increase in global warming.

See that is why Biofuel does not add CO2 emmisions.

Hyperbole. The planet might not get desroyed. It would be different. I cannot say any more than that.

Again this is based on a pretty tenuous assumption, could you fill me in on exactly the world is going to end, and what role carbon dioxide plays? As far as I know an ice age is not the end of the world, there have been many, yet life goes on. It is going to happen anyway.

Again. Taken out of context. I was actually kind of going after Joey for saying that there was no point in arguing the point. I was establishing a base for what I would be saying next.

I will avoid to do so in future

Basically saying that if we want to argue, do it now because science should prove it at some point.

I think it is a good stance to take, I would rather argue than let the media shove it in our faces, when I do not believe that is the case anyway.

Yes. I belive that we could be very well playing a role in speeding climate change up....or even causing it. I'm sorry you couldn't quite understand what I was saying. It was more implied.

Your post was such a poor argument it was hard to decide whose side you where on. While you tried to repeat me but put a different spin on to suit your argument it just served to erm I am not sure; the only bit which actually seemed to help your argument was this bit: 'Another fact in your writing: we do not know how much we are dumping into the atmosphere; and even less how much that amount is affecting our weather. I know I don't like walking into something where I have no idea what will happen, and that seems to be what we are headed into right now. We do not know what is going to happen. I'm not up for putting the plaet on the table.'

I tried to use a different form of arguing. I'm sorry if it was a little unusual and you were not able to understand it. I was trying to argue without saying you were wrong, but trying to say that you didn't include everything. Hopefully you can get an idea of what I was getting at. I'll try to use something a little more elementary next time. Thank you for pointing out that it wasn't entirely clear, though.

Wow, thats cheap shot, I will try to use something a little more elementary next time. Perhaps I can be more clear myself. I understood you were trying to repeat me and put a different spin on it to suit your argument, however there wasn't much spin going on, in fact you didn't really strengthen your argument at all, which is what confused me a little. So can we please keep this on an adult level, rather than bat around cheep shots in future, if you think I am out of line, then please tell me by all means, but please make sure you read my post carefully beforehand.

 

[Philly]

This is the thing, there isn't a connection, we assume, that is what I am saying, sure we think we know how it works, but do we really, if we really did know then surely it would be point proved, move on, yet it hasn't been proven so we can't just go around saying there is a connection when we really don't know at all. I understand there may be a connection and I am sorry I didn't make it clear in my post. I have not said that 'we cannot think of making a connection', but I would recommend leaving that connection to the scientists, it is not proved, in fact it is not nearly proved, so you can't use it as evidence in your posts, that is all.

At the time, there is no solid connection. However, if you think about it, it is not impossible to see that there could be something tieing global warming and climate change to greenhouse gas emissions.

This shows perhaps that you have little understanding of biofuel, or fossil fuel for that matter and why they cause problems.

Biofuel, when burnt releases carbon dioxide (oh noes!) however biofuel will not add to global warming because, you are only releasing existing CO2. The reason for this is, plants take in co2 from the atmosphere, they use this as part of their self-sustaining energy production, i.e it is a fundamental part of photosynthesis. So the only CO2 released from biofuel is the what the plant has absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place, we are not adding, just using what is currently cycling around the earth naturally. really you are using the plants energy as energy for your car instead, all is left to do is re grow the plants, so they can re absorbed what you took from them.

So how is this different from fossil fuels releasing CO2, well it is simple really, fossil fuels are got from underground oil wells, millions of years old, so when we burn them and release CO2, we are not using part of the earths current cycle, we are in fact re-introducing C02 that has been out of the cycle for millions of years, so we have what is already our current cycle and we are adding to it. This is supposedly why there is the increase in global warming.

See that is why Biofuel does not add CO2 emmisions.

I did not know that and I thank you for emlightening me on the subject. It makes perfect sense and now I can see why people are pushing biofuels so much.

Again this is based on a pretty tenuous assumption, could you fill me in on exactly the world is going to end, and what role carbon dioxide plays? As far as I know an ice age is not the end of the world, there have been many, yet life goes on. It is going to happen anyway.

I overstated the end result. I know that the earth will not end, and that life will go on. However, we do not know what will happen. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe we should expect the worst and be grateful when we get something far less mild.

I think it is a good stance to take, I would rather argue than let the media shove it in our faces, when I do not believe that is the case anyway.

True.

Your post was such a poor argument it was hard to decide whose side you where on. While you tried to repeat me but put a different spin on to suit your argument it just served to erm I am not sure; the only bit which actually seemed to help your argument was this bit: 'Another fact in your writing: we do not know how much we are dumping into the atmosphere; and even less how much that amount is affecting our weather. I know I don't like walking into something where I have no idea what will happen, and that seems to be what we are headed into right now. We do not know what is going to happen. I'm not up for putting the plaet on the table.'

I am also trying to take a more middle-ground stance, trying to take both sides' arguments into account and using them to make my arguements. Maybe I should just stick more to one side of the issue. Thank you for telling me that I am just confusing people.

Wow, thats cheap shot, I will try to use something a little more elementary next time. Perhaps I can be more clear myself. I understood you were trying to repeat me and put a different spin on it to suit your argument, however there wasn't much spin going on, in fact you didn't really strengthen your argument at all, which is what confused me a little. So can we please keep this on an adult level, rather than bat around cheep shots in future, if you think I am out of line, then please tell me by all means, but please make sure you read my post carefully beforehand.

I am sorry. I went way over the top on that one. I realize that what I was doing probably didn't work. Nothing against you. I'll stick to something else in the future. I usually try to be calmer about stuff. I don't know what I was thinking at that point. Please don't hurt me.

 

[GT4 genius]

I hope your little arguement is over now and we can continue with the thread, no more cheap shots please. Stevisiov90 i hope you can accept philly cheese's apology.

As for bio-fuels they may let us control co2 released but they cause price hikes in other common goods and they still wont solve the serious pollution problems we have in some big cities.

 

[Philly]

As for bio-fuels they may let us control co2 released but they cause price hikes in other common goods and they still wont solve the serious pollution problems we have in some big cities.

What do you mean by serious pollution problems in big cities? If you mean Los Angeles bad, we have to work on the cars and make them cleaner. If you mean chonking bad, then using greener methods for power production will solve most of the problem.

 

[Stevisiov]

I hope your little arguement is over now and we can continue with the thread, no more cheap shots please. Stevisiov90 i hope you can accept philly cheese's apology.

As for bio-fuels they may let us control co2 released but they cause price hikes in other common goods and they still wont solve the serious pollution problems we have in some big cities.

I accept, debates can get heated, it is not surprising, there have been some interesting points, I think it has been a decent debate so far, i wouldn't really call it a little argument, after all this is the opinions thread, opinions should be expressed.


As for bio-fuels, well I am not sure about the price hikes you speak of, currently it isn't cheap to produce, but that is only because we don't have the infestructure to mass-grow and refine the biofuel, if the market becomes big enough it is concivable that the prices would be seriously reduced.

What about power, well This is one of the main reasons I support biofuel, electric cars have proven difficult to make while getting a suitable power output, Lotus are in the process of getting an electric car that has performance, great but you have to plug it in at night, to guess what? the mains, in the UK at least the majority of mains electricity comes from factories producing fossil fuels. So not problem solved, we still have non mains cars that run off electricity e.g hybrids, well they at sometime or other burn fossil fuels while the battery cannot sustain the car, so again not as friendly to the environment. Then we have the solar powered car which is well err rubbish, slow small, as a car guy, I certainly do not see this as a viable alternative. Back to biofuel, does it have sufficient power, yes is the answer, originally we couldn't get to much power out of the biofuel but sure enough we can now, we have seen that the Audi Le Mans car runs off it, and F1 is even going to run it, to help advance biofuel technology. If you like power from a car and you like a nice sounding engine then biofuel is as close as you are going to get, personally I don't get to excited about the low hum of an electric car buzzing away, but that is just me. There are more out there, hydrogen is getting there, but we still have some serious problems compressing it, if we can't get it compressed enough then it won't last long at all and fueling it up will be quite a regular occurance.

Biofuel, solar powered, hydrogen don't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, while I do not really think we are impacting our planet enough for global warming, we will need to look to new fuel sources for the future, oil is running out, it may be 200 years, but we have to get off it while we still have enough fuel for reserve for whatever else we need it for. So which is the best to move onto.

Please note, there are other alternative fuel sources other than these.

Biofuel:

+ Most engines can easily be converted to run on the biofuel, this means you don't have to go out and buy a new car.

+ Modern biofuel does not lack power, which is good news for someone like me.

+ Your engine will still sound like an engine, good news again for someone like me, although it may not sound as nice as normal petrol.

+ In this country it is non taxable, though this may change if it becomes the main fuel source for cars.

+*May vary* Where I live in the recently agriculture has been dying, it has become to hard to compete with abroad, it may be different in other areas, this means there are many fields but not much going on in them, so these would be perfect for growing fuel for our cars, pump new money into farming. I would imagine it could become a lucrative business.

- To sustain this country there would have to be a massive amount of crop grown, I read it would need an area of half the country, which is alot. If this is the case then some would have to be imported.

- City pollution will not be solved, while you are not introducing new CO2, you are harvesting the plants from the countryside , and releasing it in the city, when you drive round the city. However the pollution isn't bad, normal petrol is far more 'dangerous to health'.

Electric solar powered

+ No pollution whatsoever, other than what it takes to build and maintain.

+fairly cheap to buy, no running cost, only maintenance.

- Very slow

- cannot convert normal cars, as they are often too heavy and would require a complete new engine and a bunch of solar cells.

- Very small and cramped, they have to be small and light so the battery can sustain them.

- They currently look like smart cars.

- They do not make much noise at all, not very fun, also it may be considered dangerous to pedestrians yet this is unlikely since they don't go fast enough to cause serious injury.

- put simply they aren't really car like, the closet we have to them are smart cars.

Hydrogen

+ Decent performance

+/- A normal car could run it but would need some serious modification,

+/- Bigger cars work better thanks to larger area for hydrogen storage.

- Currently we can't compress hydrogen easily so it would need a very big store.

- It will run out fairly quickly if we cannot find a convieniant way to compress the hydrogen, so stops to the gas station will be pretty frequent.

I may have missed a few points, I may have a few points wrong, but there are the pros and cons for the current alternative fuel sources. As you can probably tell, I am mostly in favor of the biofuel as our next fuel, because it will still be a car. Hydrogen could be a move further in future if we can find a way to easily compress it, I think it needs to be sub 200 degrees C to compress though which is obviously a problem.

Anyway I hope it is useful and provides a bit of information on alternative fuel.

 

[Philly]

I accept, debates can get heated, it is not surprising, there have been some interesting points, I think it has been a decent debate so far, i wouldn't really call it a little argument, after all this is the opinions thread, opinions should be expressed.

Thank you.

As for bio-fuels, well I am not sure about the price hikes you speak of, currently it isn't cheap to produce, but that is only because we don't have the infestructure to mass-grow and refine the biofuel, if the market becomes big enough it is concivable that the prices would be seriously reduced.

I think the price hikes he was referring to would be the result of a much greater demand for both crops and growing space that would be the result of powering our cars with the food we eat.

What about power, well This is one of the main reasons I support biofuel, electric cars have proven difficult to make while getting a suitable power output, Lotus are in the process of getting an electric car that has performance, great but you have to plug it in at night, to guess what? the mains, in the UK at least the majority of mains electricity comes from factories producing fossil fuels. So not problem solved, we still have non mains cars that run off electricity e.g hybrids, well they at sometime or other burn fossil fuels while the battery cannot sustain the car, so again not as friendly to the environment. Then we have the solar powered car which is well err rubbish, slow small, as a car guy, I certainly do not see this as a viable alternative. Back to biofuel, does it have sufficient power, yes is the answer, originally we couldn't get to much power out of the biofuel but sure enough we can now, we have seen that the Audi Le Mans car runs off it, and F1 is even going to run it, to help advance biofuel technology. If you like power from a car and you like a nice sounding engine then biofuel is as close as you are going to get, personally I don't get to excited about the low hum of an electric car buzzing away, but that is just me. There are more out there, hydrogen is getting there, but we still have some serious problems compressing it, if we can't get it compressed enough then it won't last long at all and fueling it up will be quite a regular occurance.

All points that I can agree with. However, with the electric car, if power was generated using alternative sources (e.g. nuclear), wouldn't that negate the problem of the 'power still being generated using fossil fuels?' And does the Audi R10 run on biofuel? I thought it was straight diesel, but I could very easily be mistaken. I don't follow that sport very closely.

Biofuel, solar powered, hydrogen don't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, while I do not really think we are impacting our planet enough for global warming, we will need to look to new fuel sources for the future, oil is running out, it may be 200 years, but we have to get off it while we still have enough fuel for reserve for whatever else we need it for. So which is the best to move onto.

These would all have different effects on CO2 levels. Hydrogen would probably end up increasing CO2 levels because we would have to cover the inefficiencies in both the car and the creation of the fuel, whereas with gasoline we have only the engine to deal with. (maybe fuel cells are a different story...) This is basically because our power is currently created by fossil fuels, and the only known way of producing the stuff is with natural gas. A little technological advancement and investments in greener power plants would help immensely.

Biofuels would keep CO2 levels the same, as stated above. Solar power would probably actually reduce CO2 emissions because the car itself makes no emissions and the only thing the car needs to run is light, which comes from the sun and has no harmful chemicals to mess with our atmosphere.

Please note, there are other alternative fuel sources other than these.

Biofuel:

+ Most engines can easily be converted to run on the biofuel, this means you don't have to go out and buy a new car.

+ Modern biofuel does not lack power, which is good news for someone like me.

+ Your engine will still sound like an engine, good news again for someone like me, although it may not sound as nice as normal petrol.

+ In this country it is non taxable, though this may change if it becomes the main fuel source for cars.

+*May vary* Where I live in the recently agriculture has been dying, it has become to hard to compete with abroad, it may be different in other areas, this means there are many fields but not much going on in them, so these would be perfect for growing fuel for our cars, pump new money into farming. I would imagine it could become a lucrative business.

- To sustain this country there would have to be a massive amount of crop grown, I read it would need an area of half the country, which is alot. If this is the case then some would have to be imported.

- City pollution will not be solved, while you are not introducing new CO2, you are harvesting the plants from the countryside , and releasing it in the city, when you drive round the city. However the pollution isn't bad, normal petrol is far more 'dangerous to health'.

Yup. Those all look good.

Electric solar powered

+ No pollution whatsoever, other than what it takes to build and maintain.

+fairly cheap to buy, no running cost, only maintenance.

- Very slow

- cannot convert normal cars, as they are often too heavy and would require a complete new engine and a bunch of solar cells.

- Very small and cramped, they have to be small and light so the battery can sustain them.

- They currently look like smart cars.

- They do not make much noise at all, not very fun, also it may be considered dangerous to pedestrians yet this is unlikely since they don't go fast enough to cause serious injury.

- put simply they aren't really car like, the closet we have to them are smart cars.

One question? Why? Why consider this? They only work in the sun. I thought we were over the solar car craze.

Hydrogen

+ Decent performance

+/- A normal car could run it but would need some serious modification,

+/- Bigger cars work better thanks to larger area for hydrogen storage.

- Currently we can't compress hydrogen easily so it would need a very big store.

- It will run out fairly quickly if we cannot find a convieniant way to compress the hydrogen, so stops to the gas station will be pretty frequent.

Another minus is that hydrogen really is lacking on overall technology. I think you covered most of that. The infrastructure is lacking too. This would be a ver expesive and time-consuming technology to implement.

I may have missed a few points, I may have a few points wrong, but there are the pros and cons for the current alternative fuel sources. As you can probably tell, I am mostly in favor of the biofuel as our next fuel, because it will still be a car. Hydrogen could be a move further in future if we can find a way to easily compress it, I think it needs to be sub 200 degrees C to compress though which is obviously a problem.

Anyway I hope it is useful and provides a bit of information on alternative fuel.

I agree with most of what you said, but I had a few complaints. Maybe I'm crazy. Who knows.

 

[Stevisiov]

I think the price hikes he was referring to would be the result of a much greater demand for both crops and growing space that would be the result of powering our cars with the food we eat.

It will definetly cost to implement a new infastructure this will disappear in the long run though.

All points that I can agree with. However, with the electric car, if power was generated using alternative sources (e.g. nuclear), wouldn't that negate the problem of the 'power still being generated using fossil fuels?' And does the Audi R10 run on biofuel? I thought it was straight diesel, but I could very easily be mistaken. I don't follow that sport very closely.

The Audi R10 won on diesel, They then decided on a Biofuel version, I am not sure what became of it. I may even be completely mistaken, but F1 is definetly set on biofuel.

These would all have different effects on CO2 levels. Hydrogen would probably end up increasing CO2 levels because we would have to cover the inefficiencies in both the car and the creation of the fuel, whereas with gasoline we have only the engine to deal with. (maybe fuel cells are a different story...) This is basically because our power is currently created by fossil fuels, and the only known way of producing the stuff is with natural gas. A little technological advancement and investments in greener power plants would help immensely.

You are correct about the hydrogen bit, it will take some form of energy i had my facts wrong, so it isn't really emmisions neutral but it is better than conventional petrol since far less is required this means stocks will last much longer.

Biofuels would keep CO2 levels the same, as stated above.

Correct Biofuel is emmisions neutral, it doesn't add anything therefore net CO2 output zero. OR it would be, technically it is not true, as it will take energy to produce, i.e fertillieser, but strictly speaking it is no emmisions.

Solar power would probably actually reduce CO2 emissions because the car itself makes no emissions and the only thing the car needs to run is light, which comes from the sun and has no harmful chemicals to mess with our atmosphere.

Incorrect, they will not reduce CO2 they do not take away carbon dioxide they just don't emit any, really it is a bit like biofuel, but not as useful, biofuel uses energy the plants obtain from the sun, similar in respect because the solar cell also gets energy from the sun, they are both CO2 neutral. When plants decay they release CO2, when the plant is put in your engine it releases CO2 Both are the same amount. only we are harvisting that energy, rather than letting the plant use it.

One question? Why? Why consider this? They only work in the sun. I thought we were over the solar car craze.

They haven't completely dissapeared, although I will not deny I really dislike solar powered cars.

Another minus is that hydrogen really is lacking on overall technology. I think you covered most of that. The infrastructure is lacking too. This would be a ver expesive and time-consuming technology to implement.

It is behind in technology that is why I said it is one for the future, but any infrastructure is going to cost just like it will cost to change to biofuel but i don't think I mentioned that.

I agree with most of what you said, but I had a few complaints. Maybe I'm crazy. Who knows.

No I wouldn't say you are crazy.

 

[Philly]

Incorrect, they will not reduce CO2 they do not take away carbon dioxide they just don't emit any, really it is a bit like biofuel, but not as useful, biofuel uses energy the plants obtain from the sun, similar in respect because the solar cell also gets energy from the sun, they are both CO2 neutral. When plants decay they release CO2, when the plant is put in your engine it releases CO2 Both are the same amount. only we are harvisting that energy, rather than letting the plant use it.

Oops. My mistake. You're right. Zero emissions minus zero plant recovery equals a net of zero like ten emissions would equal ten plant recovery.

 

[Danoff]

There is no right or wrong at this point. That does not mean we can't take sides, in fact that means we can and maybe should take sides. This is the time when people can pick a side and not have to worry about being right or wrong.

You shouldn't take a side until you know you're right (with a high degree of probability). Right now, only the person who says "I don't know whether we're causing substantial climate change" is right. What other unsubstantiated opinions do you voice?

 

[YSSMAN]

IMO, we're both kinda right, and at the same time kinda wrong. The truth is that we could all do more to protect the environment, but the problem is, none of us want to be forced to do anything we don't want (or feel) like doing.

I'm not about to give-up my petrol-burning VW for anyone or anything (well, another car would be nice...), and thusly, I must be part of the problem...

 

[GT4 genius]

To clarify what i meant by bio-diesel cuasing a price hike on goods, would be that some farmers that now grow edible crops will stop and change to bio-fuels eg rape seed, also a famer might decide on quiting milk production in order to produce bio-fuels, these will both lessen the amount of milk and say corn on the market driving up prices. And then take corn or barley or something if there is less being produced and there is increased demand from bio-fuels then prices will rise. Same applies to beef production, oat production etc.
This isn't very well explained just think of it as demand pull inflation with less supply.

 

[Stevisiov]

To clarify what i meant by bio-diesel cuasing a price hike on goods, would be that some farmers that now grow edible crops will stop and change to bio-fuels eg rape seed, also a famer might decide on quiting milk production in order to produce bio-fuels, these will both lessen the amount of milk and say corn on the market driving up prices. And then take corn or barley or something if there is less being produced and there is increased demand from bio-fuels then prices will rise. Same applies to beef production, oat production etc.
This isn't very well explained just think of it as demand pull inflation with less supply.

Its entirely possible, yet I doubt it myself well in most cases, Many of our prices if prices get unacceptable we will probably end up importing, it often happens, this is bad news for people who insist on organic since, organic food prices will possibly have a big increase, sure prices will go up for certain products, but I doubt it would be anything drastic except for examples similar to the one above.

And if they do increase I am willing to pay a little extra, in my eyes its a small price to pay for the advantage of not relaying on a finite resource such as petrol.

 

[Philly]

Its entirely possible, yet I doubt it myself well in most cases, Many of our prices if prices get unacceptable we will probably end up importing, it often happens, this is bad news for people who insist on organic since, organic food prices will possibly have a big increase, sure prices will go up for certain products, but I doubt it would be anything drastic except for examples similar to the one above.

The problem I see with this is that if other parts of the world went to biofuel, they would be struggling just as much to keep up with demand. In that case we would just have to put up with higher prices.

 

[GT4 genius]

But even bio-fuels need some diesel, i think, so they wouldn't completely stop the use of fossil fuels

 

[Philly]

But even bio-fuels need some diesel, i think, so they wouldn't completely stop the use of fossil fuels

But it would help us a LOT.

 

[KSaiyu]

You shouldn't take a side until you know you're right (with a high degree of probability). Right now, only the person who says "I don't know whether we're causing substantial climate change" is right. What other unsubstantiated opinions do you voice?

Exactly, only then will we understand in the future through more studies with this mindset what the causes and effects are of global warming, if it exists.

 

[Philly]

You shouldn't take a side until you know you're right (with a high degree of probability). Right now, only the person who says "I don't know whether we're causing substantial climate change" is right. What other unsubstantiated opinions do you voice?

That takes all of the fun out of it. You can't argue over science like this when it is proven. Until then, you can argue. That's what makes politics intereating and heated.