Jump to content

Electric or Internal Combustion


Recommended Posts

On 3/30/2018 at 8:54 PM, Marc Ret said:

 

When did you move to PA?

I didn’t but I have driven all over the country  and every time I come back across the state line our roads are much worst than all the other states. They have been saying for 30 years there’s no money and our weather is to blame. I don’t believe them. Our weather is the same as surrounding states. They also blame our trucks can carry more weight than other states. I also don’t buy that argument. 

FD80D469-C56E-49E9-B3AD-F13B4142DB81.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • quailguy

    9

  • BlacknTan

    7

  • Zoli 16ga.

    5

  • Spin

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have said all I will on a subject that is loaded with misinformation, political posturing and a scientific community that has disagreed on key points and based that disagreement on long term conflic

It appears to me that a Tesla would attract people.......a turn-off right there.

Actually I'm waiting for the Infernal combustion engine. Hell of a speed I hear.

Posted Images

PaFlyfisher
On 4/3/2018 at 4:55 PM, quailguy said:

 Well, Venerable One, you may be correct. Although the reduction in coal production is mainly driven by politics IMHO (don't get me wrong, I've cursed acid rain and acid mine runoff with the best of them!)

  So long as the coal is produced in a clean way and the acids, etc, are scrubbed out of the smoke I'm OK with coal. I'm an "all of the above" type guy when it comes to energy, so long as it is as non polluting as is possible.

The US has much more natural gas than ever before, which has really driven down air pollution. There are all sorts of geopolitical reasons for the US to produce more gas as well.

  Out here in flyover country we need our personal vehicles because "I garrontee", as Justin Wilson used to say, no one else, no way else will we retain the freedom to travel when we need to do so.

I too am in the all of the above camp. With as little coal in the mix as possible. 

 

Just as with energy I'm an all of the above when it comes to transportation. Solutions in the city wont work for the country. To me it is the suburbs that are really the place where a lot can be done to reduce driving. Sprawl sucks. 

 

Where I most recently lived in the central PA mountains, having a car was essential. Even now in the city with my current schedule it remains so. However, I can easily see a day when my household will only "need" one car. We will keep both, but drive less and less. Even if people in midsize cities and up transition to fewer cars or less driving, that is tens of millions of people and hundreds of millions of less car trips. 

 

I envision a future where I own or ideally rent via some car-share a car to get hunting and fishing and hiking, but drive less and less day to day.  This only works if there is a critical mass. It won't work in small towns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Erickson

I once had a roommate who was into '66 Chevelle's and his enthusiasm for big blocks and raw power was something else. My best friend had a '69 Vette back in the day. At that time I was driving beat up, rusty International Scouts. That 2nd Scout had some launching power, and it roared pulling my flat bottom out of the river.

 

The flip side is my wife's Prius. She's had it for 6 years now, and it's been a hell of a good car. She averages about 57 mpg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, oak stob said:

There are undeniable pluses to getting old.

 

 

 Such as ??

Our minds are funny things. I don't really recognize the face that stares back at me from the mirror every day.

Who is that old geezer? Certainly not me. O.o 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dave Erickson said:

I once had a roommate who was into '66 Chevelle's and his enthusiasm for big blocks and raw power was something else. My best friend had a '69 Vette back in the day. At that time I was driving beat up, rusty International Scouts. That 2nd Scout had some launching power, and it roared pulling my flat bottom out of the river.

 

The flip side is my wife's Prius. She's had it for 6 years now, and it's been a hell of a good car. She averages about 57 mpg.

 

I had a friend in our little one horse town that had one of the first '66 Chevelle's with the 396. Beautiful car! It got stolen and he did not get it back for months, at which time he promptly sold it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:18 PM, garyRI said:

In a long view probably true. But the "long" is at least decades. This week "Moody’s Investors Services downgraded Tesla’s debt further into junk-bond territory on concerns about liquidity shortfalls."

 

A123 was supposed to have the answer for batteries, went public with a big splash, then went bancrupt and what is left is owned by Chinese interests. 

 

The entire alternative energy wind/solar scene reminds me of a cartoon I saw once that had a bunch of calculations on a blackboard with a guy pointing to a spot on the board & saying, to the effect, "and here the miracle happens". In my view the problem is storage. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine so there has to be petrochemical fueled backup. 

And coal, natural gas, and petroleum will always pollute. Further we will always need potable water though there is no new practical supply. The need for breathable air might be a consideration a few of us may be in favor of and perhaps a few more of us are becoming somewhat concerned about climate change and the increasingly erratic and extreme weather swings it is  and will cause in ever more serious degree in the foreseeable future. You see "science" was wrong about climate change and the computer models

that projected it's advance. Overall they are being proven wrong in real time and actual measurable effects. Yes they were wrong. They were too conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salmontogue
1 hour ago, Spin said:

And coal, natural gas, and petroleum will always pollute. Further we will always need potable water though there is no new practical supply. The need for breathable air might be a consideration a few of us may be in favor of and perhaps a few more of us are becoming somewhat concerned about climate change and the increasingly erratic and extreme weather swings it is  and will cause in ever more serious degree in the foreseeable future. You see "science" was wrong about climate change and the computer models

that projected it's advance. Overall they are being proven wrong in real time and actual measurable effects. Yes they were wrong. They were too conservative.

 

And you know this how?  Because you say so.  There is huge disagreement on this subject in the science community but in the meantime we will drive our electric car and study the available commentary minus the political blather.

 

Perk

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, salmontogue said:

 

And you know this how?  Because you say so.  There is huge disagreement on this subject in the science community but in the meantime we will drive our electric car and study the available commentary minus the political blather.

 

Perk

I'm sorry  salmontogue but the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is ongoing and that mankind's activity is the primary driver of it. Honestly it's well past a reasonable argument within the confines of verifiable fact. This is overwhelmingly supported internationally. It's time to face the music.

It's hard to look forward without irrefutable truth like finding out the major aquafer supplying your and say 12 million other people's water supply, is no longer viable do to chemical contamination or simply it went dry. Or rising sea level has caused salt water infusion of much of the near coastal ground water sources. Air quality? C'mon there have been air quality trouble in the good old USA most likely in your lifetime. There has in mine to be sure. Acid rain was a product of coal burning emissions partner and it was no small problem. Petroleum based fuels and coal sum total, are a dead end. They may be a necessary evil at this place in time but considering the threat they pose in continuing and exacerbating Immediate threat to human health and the environment. The intelligent and most rational course is to steer Away from them.

     To try and challenge the scientific evidence and come out on top just isn't possible. That's a lost cause at this point Bogus argument like claiming the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding (this expansion is in fact slow melting broken fragmentary ice that is melting and is only a couple of meters thick instead of the massively thick normal ice sheet.

Instead of boring folks and burning band width I'd ask you and any member of UJ to watch some pertinent past episodes of the HBO series "The Years Of Living Dangerously"

It's a dynamic and entertaining way to look at this aspect of the topic at hand.

      

Link to post
Share on other sites
salmontogue
2 minutes ago, Spin said:

I'm sorry  salmontogue but the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is ongoing and that mankind's activity is the primary driver of it. Honestly it's well past a reasonable argument within the confines of verifiable fact. This is overwhelmingly supported internationally. It's time to face the music.

It's hard to look forward without irrefutable truth like finding out the major aquafer supplying your and say 12 million other people's water supply, is no longer viable do to chemical contamination or simply it went dry. Or rising sea level has caused salt water infusion of much of the near coastal ground water sources. Air quality? C'mon there have been air quality trouble in the good old USA most likely in your lifetime. There has in mine to be sure. Acid rain was a product of coal burning emissions partner and it was no small problem. Petroleum based fuels and coal sum total, are a dead end. They may be a necessary evil at this place in time but considering the threat they pose in continuing and exacerbating Immediate threat to human health and the environment. The intelligent and most rational course is to steer Away from them.

     To try and challenge the scientific evidence and come out on top just isn't possible. That's a lost cause at this point Bogus argument like claiming the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding (this expansion is in fact slow melting broken fragmentary ice that is melting and is only a couple of meters thick instead of the massively thick normal ice sheet.

Instead of boring folks and burning band width I'd ask you and any member of UJ to watch some pertinent past episodes of the HBO series "The Years Of Living Dangerously"

It's a dynamic and entertaining way to look at this aspect of the topic at hand.

      

 

I have said all I will on a subject that is loaded with misinformation, political posturing and a scientific community that has disagreed on key points and based that disagreement on long term conflicting evidence.  If the scientists cannot agree how can the rest of us unless we are in mindless political lockstep.

 

More legitimate research and less political gamesmanship might be helpful.

 

End of my participation.  I don't choose to violate board rules.

 

Perk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Scientific American should be a viable source and authority regardless of political position. Personal financial involvement I suspect may be a driver influencing

desires rather than acceptance and/or behavior.

   In any case this is a reasonably non biased examination of the climate change argument. You want cold hard scientific studies, physical evidence? OK! No problem,  I can bury you with them. Perhaps the rest of the threads readers might be interested in this (qualified source I believe) article that focuses on the debate dead center.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Spin said:

mankind's activity is the primary driver of it. Honestly it's well past a reasonable argument within the confines of verifiable fact. This is overwhelmingly supported internationally. It's time to face the music.

It's hard to look forward without irrefutable truth like finding out the major aquafer supplying your and say 12 million other people's water supply, is no longer viable do to chemical contamination or simply it went dry.

I am willing to agree that this is all correct but so what?

 

Climate has always changed and with no help from humans & there are plenty of examples. Ever tour the Roman bath infrastructure in Bath England? They show how the Romans (their slaves providing the labor no doubt) had to deal with substantial changes in water levels during the time they ran that part of Great Britain. The Anisazi culture crashed at least in part because of a change in climate. Northern Africa was the granary of Rome & then it got dryer. There have been at least five major ice ages in earth's history with major glaciation and several "little ice ages" in recorded time. The ice ages were all clearly OK because no human activity was the cause, but somehow I think we would be a lot more concerned if another period of major glaciation (a true ice age) was coming upon us than we are about global warming.

 

And from what I have observed about human behavior, here in the USA we won't do anything meaningful (except bump our gums) until some really bad obvious things happen. For example: farmers in California will continue to pump water out of the aquifier to irrigate the desert until no water comes out of the taps in LA and it will take several more (Sandy type) super storms that flood tunnels under the Hudson River to politically powerful New York City. Then, here in the USA, maybe we might actually do something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spin said:

.... In any case this is a reasonably non biased examination of the climate change argument. You want cold hard scientific studies, physical evidence? OK! No problem,  I can bury you with them. Perhaps the rest of the threads readers might be interested in this (qualified source I believe) article that focuses on the debate dead center.....

 

Speaking personally and if numbers matter, I will opt out of the burial opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 7:30 AM, dogrunner said:

I didn’t but I have driven all over the country  and every time I come back across the state line our roads are much worst than all the other states. They have been saying for 30 years there’s no money and our weather is to blame. I don’t believe them. Our weather is the same as surrounding states. They also blame our trucks can carry more weight than other states. I also don’t buy that argument. 

Dogrunner, we allow 80 ton trucks, every other state is 40 ton.  That is a relic of Soapy Williams back in the 50s regarding steel haulers.  Combined with copious road salt (doesn't PA use sand?) and our roads are the worst.  I agree with you there.

 

Count me in with salmontogue and oak stob on the warmening debate.  I already unintentionally annoyed Brad last week, don't need it a 2nd time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 8:46 AM, Bede said:

However, I can easily see a day when my household will only "need" one car. We will keep both, but drive less and less.

 

In June, my wife and I are going to cut down to one car since with a job change neither of us are going to drive to work on a regular basis. 

 

Hopefully our old Toyota goes a few more years so that electric technology can mature a bit more before our next car since we'll almost certainly get something that's a hybrid, if not a plug-in.  

 

I'm going to be curious to see what Volvo does in their SUVs as they transition to electric.  Something like an XC90 that's mostly electric but has a miniature gas engine for backup would be attractive.

 

As for power generation, we'll probably go to a rooftop solar array soon.  In Minnesota, the breakeven point on the panels is seven and a half years on average, while the life of the panels is about 35 years.

 

It wouldn't surprise me though if the concept of owning a car individually disappears in metro areas in our lifetimes.  Uber and Lyft are already convenient and cheap in cities.  I expect car shares will continue to grow.  Transit is generally getting better, and cities are getting more dense.  I already know people going from two cars down to one, as we will soon.  It's a bigger jump to go from one car to no car, but changes are happening quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...