Motor Industry V's Climate Change

[TestECull]

Motor vehicles have helped, yes, but much more damage can be averted by shutting down any combustion-based power plants permanantly. There's many alternatives to power generation now that work, such as nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, wind, hydrogen fuel cells will also work on this level because their combustion outputes water and only water. Yes, autos did contribute, but at the levels they're currently at, they're nowhere near as bad as they used to be. I'd say if they shut down the CO2 emitting power facilities, there'd be a noticeable drop in national CO2 belching-out. Seriously, people, go nuclear, we've gotten auto emissions as low as financially feasible...


And yes, I support using hydrogen in place of gasoline because it produces only water as emission, and can be used in current piston engines with no internal mods. All one needs to do is replace gas with H2, retime, adjust fuel mix and go!

 

[Philly]

Hydrogen has qutie different properties from any carbon-based fuel. I wouldn't be suprised if an engine would require significant modifications to handle the new fuel.

And how about fuel cells? Would we be using them at all? Do they have any benefits over hydrogen combustion?

 

[GT4 genius]

Hydrogen has qutie different properties from any carbon-based fuel. I wouldn't be suprised if an engine would require significant modifications to handle the new fuel.

And how about fuel cells? Would we be using them at all? Do they have any benefits over hydrogen combustion?

Yes the are far more efficent and maybe smaller and more powerful, but you need a small amount of platnum in them. Making them expensive.

 

[Philly]

How much platinum is required? We make electronics with gold. How much problem can there be with a small amount of platinum? If we're talking a grand or two, then issues will come up.

 

[GT4 genius]

they hope to have it down to 2 grams in a few yrs

 

[Famine]

Just to add a few more negatives to the bioethanol list:

12 UKs needed to grow enough crops for the UK's bioethanol supply.
Half of the planet needed for planet's bioethanol supply - so close, but no cigar there, Steveisiov.
Bioethanol requires fossil fuels to make, costs 75% more than regular gasoline and is about 55% as efficient.


Also, all this talk about "carbon neutral fuels" (because the crops "take in" carbon dioxide and release it when burned) is patently ridiculous if you think about it for more than a moment.

Fossil fuels release carbon dioxide when burned too. Where did the carbon dioxide come from? Oh yes! They were plants once, and took in carbon dioxide when they were growing. During the Carboniferous Era. When global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was directly comparable to how it is now.

So fossil fuels are also carbon neutral by the same definitions.

 

[DustDriver]

This is interesting too:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646

They say the ethanol plants produce a lot of air pollution.

The EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has cracked down in recent years on a lot of Midwestern ethanol plants for excessive levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene, and volatile organic compounds, some of which are known to cause cancer.

I don't know in which country it was, but they made fuel from the waste of sugar plants.
That's better than having to grow plants which are only good for fuel, and nothing else.

edit: with a bit more research it turns out brazil use the sugar cane, but they can't use it to produce sugar when they use it for fuel. And i clearly remember there was a country which made it from the waste after producing the sugar.

edit 2: it seems brazil is that country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
the waste of the sugar cane is called bagasse

 

[Stevisiov]

Just to add a few more negatives to the bioethanol list:

12 UKs needed to grow enough crops for the UK's bioethanol supply.
Half of the planet needed for planet's bioethanol supply - so close, but no cigar there, Steveisiov.
Bioethanol requires fossil fuels to make, costs 75% more than regular gasoline and is about 55% as efficient.


Also, all this talk about "carbon neutral fuels" (because the crops "take in" carbon dioxide and release it when burned) is patently ridiculous if you think about it for more than a moment.

Fossil fuels release carbon dioxide when burned too. Where did the carbon dioxide come from? Oh yes! They were plants once, and took in carbon dioxide when they were growing. During the Carboniferous Era. When global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was directly comparable to how it is now.

So fossil fuels are also carbon neutral by the same definitions.

Well I have been had for certain, It just shows its worth researching before taking someones word for it, I belived it when I was told it. I think it is settled that biofuel is no real replacement, 12 uk's worth of space to fuel our own country is just ridiculous, So what is there to move onto when conventional fuel runs out, I am not sure what we should move onto? Famine any suggestions...

 

[Famine]

Well... you've only got my word for it - but at least I lay out my figures and calculations for you. I could be wrong - my original figures might be out.

 

[Sureboss]

Simple solution.

Tiny Nuclear plants instead of Engines.....

 

[Philly]

Simple solution.

Tiny Nuclear plants instead of Engines.....

A 12,000 pound Peugeot 206?

We could partially adopt biofuels, but it would be so temporary that creating that huge infrastructure probably wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Sureboss]

Magnetic energy?

 

[GT4 genius]

Magnetic energy?

What about it!

 

[Philly]

Magnetic energy?

:idea:We could create a massive underground network of tunnels to carry a person from their home to anywhere in the country via mag-lev technology!

 

[GT4 genius]

:idea:We could create a massive underground network of tunnels to carry a person from their home to anywhere in the country via mag-lev technology!

Ok lets try and keep this realistic!