49 States have snow

[Strike For The South]

Thus Global Warming is disproved

Check please

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, according to scientists 49 states have snow ~:rolleyes:

[gaelic cowboy]

please tell me more sahib

[The Stranger]

lol... global is more than northern hemisphere... and if not mistaken according to the theory global warming leads to an ice age in the northern hemisphere?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who is the lucky 50th?

[Beskar]

Thus Global Warming is disproved

Check please

https://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7305/theshortversion.png

[Yoyoma1910]

Who is the lucky 50th?

I believe Florida... since it has such a low Northern border.


Edit: Found image and link for CNN... almost in Florida, but not quite.

CNN (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/11/snow-present-in-49-of-the-50-u-s-states/)

[ajaxfetish]

Who is the lucky 50th?
I'd hope Hawaii.

Ajax

[Idaho]

https://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7305/theshortversion.png

I think this is why they generally say climate change now.

[rory_20_uk]

That's about as rigorous as sticking your head out at night and saying "the sun doesn't exist".

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

I love how people think cold winters somehow disproves global warming.

They believe that the scientists have claimed that their winters will go from -20 to plus 15, when back in reality, the claim has been -18 instead of -20...

And then there's the problem of understanding what difficult words like "local" vs "global" means....

GO IGNORANCE!!

[Ironside]

State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2010
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/)
December was cold though.

[Centurion1]

hawaii has mountains so there is probably a chance they can occaisonally snowy peaks.

[Louis VI the Fat]

State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2010
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/)
December was cold though.2010 was the warmest year since records began.

Nobody cares anymore. Global warming has lost the ear of the world. It is too technical, too polarised. The sceptics have managed to kill it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5188/201001201012.gif

Go Québec! The country that has most to gain from Global Warming is also the one with the highest increase in temperature! :ca-quebec: :cheerleader: :ca-quebec: :cheerleader: :ca-quebec:

An area half the size of Western Europe, soon to have the climate of Ohio, and francophone. Together, we shall rule the universe.

God is a Catholic and he speaks French. :smitten:



Edit: where did my picture go? It's not showing! ~:mecry:
Link then: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201001-201012.gif

[Tellos Athenaios]

According to your map, France is heading for Canadian temperatures though. I guess God decided France wasn't all that it's cracked up to be, and relocated to Québec then?

Also: terribly outdated.

[HoreTore]

Two weeks ago is "outdated"....?

[The Stranger]

nono.. it is terribly outdated. cant u read....

[Tellos Athenaios]

Two weeks ago is "outdated"....?

Yeah, it compares 2010 with data from 1971-2000. So what about data from 2000 - 2010?

[The Stranger]

you do realise that global climate has a bigger time span than just the local weather. you can compare 2010 to 2009 but that will not really say much about any global climate shift. and global warming isnt something that is happening just now it has been happening for the last few decades and maybe even the last century...

[Fragony]

you do realise that global climate has a bigger time span than just the local weather. you can compare 2010 to 2009 but that will not really say much about any global climate shift. and global warming isnt something that is happening just now it has been happening for the last few decades and maybe even the last century...

Make that millenia, with clockwork precision. Now can we please move on to WATER SHORTAGES LEADING TO GLOBAL FEMINE AND CIVIL WAR IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

teh late$t

[The Stranger]

famine XD

[gaelic cowboy]

Make that millenia, with clockwork precision. Now can we please move on to WATER SHORTAGES LEADING TO GLOBAL FEMINE AND CIVIL WAR IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

teh late$t

We all remember from school the picture below of the water cycle, we used to think the cycle could continually renew itself so it was impossible to use up the water.

https://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2378/watercycleoptimized.jpg

Now we know it's possible to use the water faster than it is renewed into the cycle, if we add in some industrial conversion of water into various products chuck in a bit of pollution and we end up locking more out of the cycle. The problem can be solved if we reduce the rate of increase thereby giving mother nature time to catch up with our consumption.

[Fragony]

We all remember from school the picture below of the water cycle, we used to think the cycle could continually renew itself so it was impossible to use up the water.

https://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2378/watercycleoptimized.jpg

Now we know it's possible to use the water faster than it is renewed into the cycle, if we add in some industrial conversion of water into various products chuck in a bit of pollution and we end up locking more out of the cycle. The problem can be solved if we reduce the rate of increase thereby giving mother nature time to catch up with our consumption.

consumption huh, mother forgive me

See? Water shortages, it's the latest. The global warming hoax has outstayed it's welcome, now we get to be absolutely terrified about water shortages. IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

[gaelic cowboy]

consumption huh, mother forgive me

See? Water shortages, it's the latest. The global warming hoax has outstayed it's welcome, now we get to be absolutely terrified about water shortages. IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

I am talking about consumption from a technical engineering viewpoint Frag your taking the view this is some kind of green conspiracy.

Global warming does not affect the amount of water on the planet, what does affect how much we get is the amount we take out of the cycle and for how long it is locked out of it.

If I go and make a concrete block that water is to all intents and purposes removed forever from the water cycle.

We tend to waste a lot of water so correct pricing of our water and investment will easily repair this problem, however were not likely to do this are we cos it's a green conspiracy right.

[Fragony]

It's not a conspiracy it's a religion

[gaelic cowboy]

It's not a conspiracy it's a religion

It doesn't matter if the greenies are right or wrong on global warming Frag the problem with the "Water Crisis" is separate from it.

Were increasing our depletion of natural water stores beyond the rate of renewal, we will literally have water water everywhere with not a drop to drink.

[HoreTore]

Make that millenia, with clockwork precision. Now can we please move on to WATER SHORTAGES LEADING TO GLOBAL FEMINE AND CIVIL WAR IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

teh late$t

Water shortages have caused famines and wars for milennia.

The's a high riskthat we will face multiple such instances in the next few decades, however.

[Fragony]

It doesn't matter if the greenies are right or wrong on global warming Frag the problem with the "Water Crisis" is separate from it.

Were increasing our depletion of natural water stores beyond the rate of renewal, we will literally have water water everywhere with not a drop to drink.

Not a drop to drink. Sounds pretty apocalyptic, how are YOU going to educate your parents about water shortages?(!)

[Fragony]

Water shortages have caused famines and wars for milennia.

The's a high riskthat we will face multiple such instances in the next few decades, however.

Yeah industrial ages have always sucked

[gaelic cowboy]

Not a drop to drink. Sounds pretty apocalyptic, how are YOU going to educate your parents about water shortages?(!)

See your problem is that your limiting your thinking about water in terms of what comes out of the average kitchen tap my good man.

The majority of the water on the planet is locked in natural stores like ice and oceans etc etc and this is mainly out of our abilltiy to use. Evaporation from the ocean or melting ice gives us water which falls on the land or flows down the mountain to fill the streams and aquifers, we then take what we need for agriculture and industry.

The more water we lock out of the cycle and the faster we use it the more likely we come to a place where billions upon billions of gallons of water is stored in oceans but is not evaporating fast enough to fill your domestic water tank. We could never use up all the water on the planet however we can use up all the water in the cycle which moves seawater from the ocean to the land as freshwater.

hence water water everywhere but not a drop to drink

[HoreTore]

Yeah industrial ages have always sucked

A famine caused by a water shortage usually has to do with a river drying up(changing its course), thus causing the people depending on the rivere for their agriculture to relocate. However, to relocate they will first have to start a war against the people living in those suitable locations. This has been going on since egyptian times.

However, modern times, industry and agriculture has increased this occurance. The cotton industry in one of Central Asias -stan's(can't remember which one atm) has dried up most of the water in the region, for example.

The two rivers in Iraq(tigris and the other one I can't remember the name of) is the main source of water in the multiple countries they pass through. However, they start out in Turkey. Turkey needs electricity. What will happen if Turkey decides to give them the finger and dam up the river to provide itself with water? Kenyas Rift Valley is another place with a terrible fresh water situation, there is basically one source of it, and who gets to decide what industry it should sustain? The rose export? Or local wheat production? Who gets to profit?

There are real conflicts tied to water consumption and shortages these days, and people are already positioning themselves according to future situations. To believe that this is a hyped situation is plain retarded.

Water is a resource. Resources is the number one reason for conflict. The more valuable the resource, the more likely the conflict. The value of water will rise tremendously in certain regions of the world, regions that already have a multitude of ethnic, religous and political conflicts.

You do the math.

[Fragony]

That is why we need to buy more SUV's, warms up the planet, evaporates water faster. Please, it's all bull. We have no control of such things. Durable energy is the biggest joke of all, to make even 10% of our energy 100%-ok we would have to mine the planet tenfold of what we do now, and there probably aren't even enough natural recources to begin with.

@Horetore, look up the green crescent, Tigris rocks

[gaelic cowboy]

That is why we need to buy more SUV's, warms up the planet, evaporates water faster. Please, it's all bull. We have no control of such things. Durable energy is the biggest joke of all, to make even 10% of our energy 100%-ok we would have to mine the planet tenfold of what we do now, and there probably aren't even enough natural recources to begin with.

It seems like a reasonable assumption warmer planet means more water but the majority of evaporated water just falls back into the sea again.

BTW I never said we have control over evaporation of water, I said were using the water moved from the oceans to the land faster and faster every day.

[HoreTore]

We have no control over such things? What the hell??

How can we NOT have any control over it....?

How can we not have any control over whether we allow the cotton or rose industry to use up all the fresh water? How can we not decide whether we want to build a dam?

Edit: yes frags, Tigris rocks. But not if Turkey decides to dam all the rivers that creates Tigris, all of which are located in Turkish mountains.

THAT is the source of the conflict.

[Fragony]

We have no control over such things? What the hell??

How can we NOT have any control over it....?

Well I'll leave that question to social science

[HoreTore]

Well I'll leave that question to social science

Social science....?

Hnestly frags, you don't think there's a source for conflict if, say, Tigris is dried up to produce electricity? You don't believe that there will be conflict when millions of people have their primary source of fresh water removed?

[gaelic cowboy]

Another problem is that millions of gallons of water falls as rain and snow in areas where no one lives.

I live in the West of Ireland and it rains a lot but the east of the country can experience shortages as there are too many people using too much water. This has been caused basically by not charging for it and through underinvestment in water infrastructure.

In rural areas most people pay for there water as they have to join a local scheme to pipe water to there house yet in urban areas they can get it for free and so they waste a lot of it.

[HoreTore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Have a read, frags, and start your education. The fourth largest fresh water lake in the world, now all but gone thanks to unsustainable agriculture.

Though I won't be surprised if you believe its a hoax.

[Fragony]

Social science....?

Hnestly frags, you don't think there's a source for conflict if, say, Tigris is dried up to produce electricity? You don't believe that there will be conflict when millions of people have their primary source of fresh water removed?

Wouldn't that be a pretty localised affair rather than a global problem, let's redirect the Eufrat anyway if they do, and pray no polar bears die in the process

[HoreTore]

Wouldn't that be a pretty localised affair rather than a global problem, let's redirect the Eufrat anyway if they do, and pray no polar bears die in the process

Of course its a local problem, who's saying it will be global?

But lots of regional wars will of course effect the entire world, you can't honestly believe that a war between, say, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iraq won't be noticed in the rest of the world? Right on top of one of the worlds largest oil deposits? Not to mention the millions of refugee that will run down the doors to Fragistan.

[gaelic cowboy]

Wouldn't that be a pretty localised affair rather than a global problem, let's redirect the Eufrat anyway if they do, and pray no polar bears die in the process

Tigris and the Euphrates flow though Turkey, Syria and Iraq they have a combined population of around 130 million people any instability caused by Turkey using too much water would have global effects.

[Fragony]

Of course its a local problem, who's saying it will be global?

But lots of regional wars will of course effect the entire world, you can't honestly believe that a war between, say, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Iraq won't be noticed in the rest of the world? Right on top of one of the worlds largest oil deposits? Not to mention the millions of refugee that will run down the doors to Fragistan.

We are all in that in a different way, has nothing to do with the drying up of the credibility of climate-hoaxers, water shortages are just the next scare. Sea water is easily filtered by the way, not that we have to but still. Added benefit of harvesting deutorium

[rory_20_uk]

Desperation is the mother of advancement.

Expect to see a lot of development on such matters as design of desalination plants and more efficient re-usage of water (such as using grey water when appropriate). Yes, at the moment running desalination plants are hellishly energy intensive but they are slowly improving as more interest is placed in the area (unsurprisingly linked with people seeing a chance to make money out of it).

Generally where more water is required, there is plenty of sun. Solar power stations are getting more efficient and are just what is required to run the energy-intensive processes of purifying water.

It's the same the world over. In London it seems to have finally reached the point where it's cheaper to repair the leaks than just produce more clean water.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

We are all in that in a different way, has nothing to do with the drying up of the credibility of climate-hoaxers, water shortages are just the next scare. Sea water is easily filtered by the way, not that we have to but still. Added benefit of harvesting deutorium


Sea water is not easily filtered Frag desalination is a inefficient and energy intensive process which nature does for free.

[HoreTore]

We are all in that in a different way, has nothing to do with the drying up of the credibility of climate-hoaxers, water shortages are just the next scare. Sea water is easily filtered by the way, not that we have to but still. Added benefit of harvesting deutorium

It is? Really....

You should tell the Israelis that the answer to the question they have struggled with for 50 years is that simple.

Not to mention that water control was one of the reason for the 6-day war.... And nah, that war didn't affect the rest of the world at all. Errrr....

[Fragony]

Sea water is not easily filtered Frag desalination is a inefficient and energy intensive process which nature does for free.

Yeah, it does, so what are you so worried about. Turkey isn't cutting the Tigris, and there is no such thing as manmade global warming. All we are capable of is digging wells and building dikes, we are a fly on an elephants butt, dumbo doesn't notice it at all

[HoreTore]

My neighbor has a stone wall seperating his property from mine. I'll go have a chat with it, I bet it will be more fulfilling than this "discussion".

In other words, I'm out.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, it does, so what are you so worried about. Turkey isn't cutting the Tigris, and there is no such thing as manmade global warming. All we are capable of is digging wells and building dikes, we are a fly on an elephants butt, dumbo doesn't notice it at all

Nature desalinates water for free but were using the evaporated amount to quickly therefore it's a separate issue to global warming.

plus desalination uses energy to produce freshwater and we all know energy costs money, we end up paying twice for our water once to make the water and the second time to transport it too your tap. In a future where energy will cost more tomorrow than today we are saying we should create another energy intensive industry.

far far better to let mother nature do the job for us

[Beskar]

Fragony, go and water your plants with sea water. Then return after a week once your plants have died and go "Oops, I didn't release there was a difference between fresh water and sea water". Better yet, go to places where water shortages are a big issue, but they are 'surrounded by water'. There are reasons why many countries have distillation plants.

Also note: Distillation is ten times more expensive than water from natural sources. So unless you feel that at least paying a water bill ten times your current rate. The average water bill is £170 or so, so expect to see £1700. Then everything else will also go up in price, such as Food (requires water), the production of manufactured guns, pretty much, everything else will also go up in price.

Vast majority of the water on the planet is undrinkable. There are only limited amounts of fresh water sources which can be used.

It is not a 'green conspiracy' in the slightest, it just a demonstration of your ignorance. So attacking people who want to ensure that the costs involve stay down and make sure water continues not being a major issue are the ones you are attacking.

[Fragony]

No conspiracy it's a religion, already said that

@GC, what makes you think we can allow nature to do so, nature doesn't listen to climate-legislation, it just does it's thing with or without us

[gaelic cowboy]

No conspiracy it's a religion, already said that

@GC, what makes you think we can allow nature to do so, nature doesn't listen to climate-legislation, it just does it's thing with or without us

So you reject the idea that water is being used too quickly then, well thats fine your entitled to your opinion but it's wrong.

Water shortages on a global scale are not created by any warming effect or climate change or by greenpeace praying to the god of CO2 they are caused by the rate of depletion of freshwater being above the natural rate of renewal.

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that water shortages and reducing the consumption of water are of huge concern to industry.

[rory_20_uk]

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/demotivators/compromisedemotivationalposter.jpg

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

So you reject the idea that water is being used too quickly then, well thats fine your entitled to your opinion but it's wrong.

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that water shortages and reducing the consumption of water are of huge concern to industry.

It certainly is a 'concern' of a certain industry, just not the kind that builds anything. Latest jazz of the eco-nostra nothing more, and the flaggalants kneel down, I could say there is a bit of a relevant connection between Al Gore's electricity-bill and the values of the catholic church, wait I do

[gaelic cowboy]

It certainly is a 'concern' of a certain industry, just not the kind that builds anything. Latest jazz of the eco-nostra nothing more, and the flaggalants kneel down, I could say there is a bit of a relevant connection between Al Gore's electricity-bill and the values of the catholic church, wait I do

Unbelievable Israel spends millions on research on its water problem but it according to you it does not exist. Dublin experienced water shortages this winter due to reservoirs depleting too quickly cos when it's cold in Ireland we generally get no rain same as the UK.

It's not about climate change how many times do I have to say it.

[Fragony]

Unbelievable Israel spends millions on research on its water problem but it according to you it does not exist. Dublin experienced water shortages this winter due to reservoirs depleting too quickly cos when it's cold in Ireland we generally get no rain same as the UK.

It's not about climate change how many times do I have to say it.

No it isn' about climate change it's about human nature, mankind adores the idea of damnation, each and every time. Whenever there was an outbreak of the plague the flaggalants showed up. Even the plague got bored by that, it's gone

[gaelic cowboy]

No it isn' about climate change it's about human nature, mankind adores the idea of damnation, each and every time. Whenever there was an outbreak of the plague the flaggalants showed up. Even the plague got bored by that, it's gone

Yes and human nature is to use as much water as we like, but the reality is we don't need to use as much of it as we do.

Alarmists are talking about a different subject there talking like water will run out, it wont, but the rate we use it can be greater than natural processes allow the refill of our reservoirs.

There is plenty water but it's in places no one lives like the antarctic or it's undrinkable like the ocean, our ability to access this water is limited by our ability to harness energy to process an transport it to our taps.

[Fragony]

We will just have to drink soda instead if the water runs out.

But it isn't about water. It's about rapture, it's about teh apocalyps, it's about a maya calendar. Acid rain that should have killed us all in 2000, children who don't know what snow looks like in 2010. I will readily admit that I didn't know where these snowball-Damiens were but I'm pretty sure that snowball was an ad hominum

[Beskar]

We will just have to drink soda instead if the water runs out.

Have fun with your sodium carbonate...

[The Stranger]

We will just have to drink soda instead if the water runs out.

But it isn't about water. It's about rapture, it's about teh apocalyps, it's about a maya calendar. Acid rain that should have killed us all in 2000, children who don't know what snow looks like in 2010. I will readily admit that I didn't know where these snowball-Damiens were but I'm pretty sure that snowball was an ad hominum

NONONONONONOO IT IS ABOUT HITLER HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EARTH MAKING A MESS OUT OF THIS PLACE STILL WHILE HE CHILLS WITH LIPPE SMOKING SIGARS!!!

[Furunculus]

Nobody cares anymore. Global warming has lost the ear of the world. It is too technical, too polarised. The sceptics have managed to kill it.

if sceptics have 'killed' C(co2)AGW* then a large part of the blame must be put on the evangelical 'pro' camp, for they are the people that pushed public policy in advance of the science by; campaigning on conclusions that ALWAYS verged on the extreme end of what science postulated, and did so by placing a greater certainty on the science than was justified at the time.

when these extreme conclusions became unjustifiable the public became amenable to the sceptic message.

the science will advance to the point were the margin for interpretation becomes reasonable, but if climate scientists and policy wonks will have an uphill struggle in future it is because of the disaster-fetishists, not because of big-oil indoctrinating the 'dumb' public.

* Catastrophic CO2 induced Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Fragony]

NONONONONONOO IT IS ABOUT HITLER HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EARTH MAKING A MESS OUT OF THIS PLACE STILL WHILE HE CHILLS WITH LIPPE SMOKING SIGARS!!!

For a genius you sure are staggeringly normal, go here www.fok!.nl there it's smart, normal is really boring. Wrong thread, you want to take it the one you didn't reply to.

[The Stranger]

the site doesnt load.

and you cant be genius at everything. im sure einstein had some things he wasnt good at. or shakespeare...

[Strike For The South]

haha this ended up nicely

Even if one doesn't agree with the premise of global warming, one can surley agree that there are ways to improve humanities long term sustainability

There is a reason you don't shoot does and throw the little fishies back. People don't understand that. A balance must be struck.

[Fragony]

Sure, nuclear energy. But that leads to nononoNO BADBADBAD. Windmills and solar panels are 100% OK though, even if only 10% of our energy comming from it would increase mining tenfold. Flaggalants and fashionists drive in hybrid cars that are actually more polluting.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nuclear energy imo, is the only feasible way to go. There are many type of reactors that are safer and don't produce radioactive waste that can be used for bombs. There are also nuclear plants that use spent radioactive waste as its fuel and renders it into relatively harmless material. The stereotype must be over come however.

[Fragony]

The Green Khmer is ideologically opposed to nuclear energy. Even if nuclear were 100% clean and safe they would still claw eyeballs

[rory_20_uk]

Nuclear energy imo, is the only feasible way to go. There are many type of reactors that are safer and don't produce radioactive waste that can be used for bombs. There are also nuclear plants that use spent radioactive waste as its fuel and renders it into relatively harmless material. The stereotype must be over come however.

I was unaware the advances that have been made in the last 40 odd years with levels of waste something like 1/1000th of what it was (due to most being reused). Of course such improvements hardly help the anti-nuclear argument who would like us to use... well I'm never clear on that, as wave and tidal affects estuaries and beaches, wind affects bats and birds, fossil is CO2 and I'm sure there's a problem with solar. Biomass? Probaby against as it destroys habitats. :wall:

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

[rory_20_uk]

People don't need any inducements to be selfish. They're not neutral parties who would weigh up the evidence if it were not full of Industrialists and their lies. They're short-term thinkers who want cheap fuel, cheap food, cheap clothes - i.e. a good standard of living for them now.

Fish stocks are collapsing in the Atlantic. Who is pressing for increased quotas? Fishermen!

It's not specifically the amount of energy used, it's how the energy is generated.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

Red corner, lying scientists supported by lobby-groups of powerful industrialist and emmision-rights brokers, a billion dollar industry

Bleu corner, serious scientists who have no acces to MSM

[gaelic cowboy]

Fish stocks are collapsing in the Atlantic. Who is pressing for increased quotas? Fishermen!


~:smoking:

The worst thing about fishing is the people involved do not actually own the resource until the have caught it, therefore they have no incentive to protect the fish stocks. Of all the primary industries fishing has to be the most misunderstood of all, people they talk like fishing it is a subset of farming when infact it is more like mining.

[Idaho]

Red corner, lying scientists supported by lobby-groups of powerful industrialist and emmision-rights brokers, a billion dollar industry

Bleu corner, serious scientists who have no acces to MSM

I am starting to worry about you Fragony.

[Furunculus]

tbh Idaho, it doesn't appear much more unbalanced a view than yours below:


In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

[rory_20_uk]

The worst thing about fishing is the people involved do not actually own the resource until the have caught it, therefore they have no incentive to protect the fish stocks. Of all the primary industries fishing has to be the most misunderstood of all, people they talk like fishing it is a subset of farming when infact it is more like mining.

I agree that mining is a better analagy based on how fishermen appear to treat fish stocks with no thought to the future. But since fish numbers do regenerate they could be "farmed" "free range" at sea. Fat chance any time soon: get the money now, then demand aid from the EU for support...

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

I am starting to worry about you Fragony.

Don't worry about me I'm going to be perfectly fine, just like everybody else. In 10 years we will have a laugh about people who were absolutely terrified of CO2

[Idaho]

tbh Idaho, it doesn't appear much more unbalanced a view than yours below:

I gave a glib synthesis of the debate. Fragony has a near psychotic paranoia about the all-powerful leftist alliance trying to subvert the world for their own wicked ends.

[Beskar]

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

[Furunculus]

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

nuclear fission is just fine, whereas nuclear fusion has the potential to be much better.*



* at some unknown stage in our future.

[Fragony]

I gave a glib synthesis of the debate. Fragony has a near psychotic paranoia about the all-powerful leftist alliance trying to subvert the world for their own wicked ends.

No that's just that voice in your head, but it's a scam a lot of people get rich/live on. Is massive funding of NGO's a conspiracy? Nah it's just networking and job hunting.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

[Idaho]

No that's just that voice in your head, but it's a scam a lot of people get rich/live on. Is massive funding of NGO's a conspiracy? Nah it's just networking and job hunting.

More an economic sub-culture than a conspiracy.

[Idaho]

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

All run from reactors on their north coast - which if they blow, will send radiation across the UK and northern Europe, largely missing France. Gotta love those French.

[Beskar]

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

Chernobyl? Radioactive Waste which stays active for thousands of years, which has to be disposed at in special sites? Limited Fuel Desposits? A host of other major concerns.

Nuclear Fusion (ie: ITER) on the other hand doesn't have radioactive by-products or would cause a nuclear explosion, it is effectively has fuel in mass abundance (There is enough fuel in Lake Guevara alone to power Las Vegas for a trillion years) and can be easily set up on coastal sites. It's waste product is "Helium", which is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert monatomic gas. Intrinsically safe.

I think it is pretty clear which is the best option. When Nuclear fusion hits the gold, we will be on the verge on potential "unlimited energy" (produce it faster than we can use it), which will drastically reduce the constraints on resources such as water, it would get rid of concerns such as CO2, and it would put an end to wars over resources such as Oil/Gas as they become obsolete.

What is not to love about it? Everybody wins.

[Lord Winter]

Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Chernobyl? Radioactive Waste which stays active for thousands of years, which has to be disposed at in special sites? Limited Fuel Desposits? A host of other major concerns.

Nuclear Fusion (ie: ITER) on the other hand doesn't have radioactive by-products or would cause a nuclear explosion, it is effectively has fuel in mass abundance (There is enough fuel in Lake Guevara alone to power Las Vegas for a trillion years) and can be easily set up on coastal sites. It's waste product is "Helium", which is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert monatomic gas. Intrinsically safe.

I think it is pretty clear which is the best option. When Nuclear fusion hits the gold, we will be on the verge on potential "unlimited energy" (produce it faster than we can use it), which will drastically reduce the constraints on resources such as water, it would get rid of concerns such as CO2, and it would put an end to wars over resources such as Oil/Gas as they become obsolete.

What is not to love about it? Everybody wins.

Chernobyl as Lord Winter has said was largely part to the shoddy work of the USSR in the second half of the USSR while (although we didn't know at the time) it was already beginning its long decline. Not to mention that their clean up and contingency plans were not exactly the best thought out ("Let's just bury it all in the forest!").

Also to note is how the nuclear fission power has only been around for 60 years, at that time it was only around for 30. All technology is inherently dangerous in its first few decades of being used. The Model T came out in 1908, in 1958 after 50 years of development on cars, they were still death traps. It has only been in the last few decades that the standards on cars have become sufficient to become truly safe for the driver and his/her passengers.

Nuclear fission waste is actually much better than any other source of power. It is extremely dense which means that a years worth of waste can be stored in a relatively small room if it is shielded correctly. Coal plants actually also produce nuclear material as well in its byproducts and that material is injected into the atmosphere along with all its other toxins. The nuclear waste issue is quite frankly, not a problem. As I have said before as well, there are also plants that basically use that waste as its own fuel and turn it into inert waste which isn't nuclear.

Nuclear fusion is always being toted as being 50 years away. People said the same thing 50 years ago. To advocate on a technology which at this point has not even been successfully fulfilled is pretty much foolish if we are trying to make an impact now. Fusion is the best option, when it becomes available, but we have to do something now, not wait for it to come down 50 years from now.


Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

Also what he said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All run from reactors on their north coast - which if they blow, will send radiation across the UK and northern Europe, largely missing France. Gotta love those French.

Good thing they probably won't blow.

[Fragony]

More an economic sub-culture than a conspiracy.

Did I say otherwise? Never said it's a conspiracy, said it's a religion. Fact remains that making people absolutely terrified of CO2 is good business, and for the government it's a nice excuse to raise taxes. Better ways to spend these billions atm

[Tellos Athenaios]

Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

From my understanding, at current levels of energy demand there is enough uranium to supply the worlds energy demands for anywhere from 150-250 years depending on how much you project energy consumption will increase. That is still a century of additional research into better energy technologies, and it is better to spend that century using nuclear fission than emitting coal pollution. Even if you were to use up all the uranium, that will make nuclear bombs that much harder to produce because of the high cost of a dwindling supply (which is a win in my book) and then you could switch to thorium reactors, which would provide energy much, much longer because there is a lot more thorium in the crust than uranium.

I say we switch to nuclear fission to buy us enough time to get the fusion worked out. Then we switch to that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes, but reactors are sold as some kind of magic oil to rid us of our energy woes. Which is overselling them by a rather large amount. We might be able to cut coal consumption, which is a big thing. But it is not coal that is running out (there's still plenty of coal in the UK/USA/Germany). It is oil and gas. Well they're not running out either but it is getting increasingly difficult to extract these, and therefore it's getting increasingly expensive.

So to solve that we need something completely different. Yes you can put nuclear reactors in cars (ones capable of powering a submarine are about a dustbin sized affair, apparently), but then your basic terrorist going nuclear scare scenario gets in the way of the public stamp of approval. So, not going to happen anytime soon. Yes, you can put nuclear reactors in homes & flats -- same story different version. Yes you can make a concerted effort to rid the world of gas based kitchens and move on to electric/keramic ones and the same for central heating. Apart from a drop in food quality (with gas you can do things you just can't with electric/keramic), think of the nightmare in replacing all that equipment.

Think about it: nuclear reactors are no use if we cannot put them to good use. And we still haven't touched on the little problem of synthetic materials which we cannot do without in the course of our everyday life. The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

[rory_20_uk]

Gas is having a renaissance with the shale gas being found all over the place - no, again it is not a silver bullet as it can seriously wreck the area is managed poorly.

Most synthetic plastics could be replaced by plant-derived plastics which would also degrade more easily. Would three be an increase in cost? Probably - at least at first but it would be / could be sustainable.

There are the more odd ways forward - Japan have scientists which uses plankton to produce diesel of all things - effectively one could harvest intentionally made slicks.

One could use nuclear to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen to be used locally to replace natural gas in those areas where there is a large difference in the utility between the two.

Humans are very resourceful when they have to be. When it looks like things are going to go wrong I believe that most of the problems we have today created will be fixed - to create problems a decent way off in the future.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, but reactors are sold as some kind of magic oil to rid us of our energy woes. Which is overselling them by a rather large amount. We might be able to cut coal consumption, which is a big thing. But it is not coal that is running out (there's still plenty of coal in the UK/USA/Germany). It is oil and gas. Well they're not running out either but it is getting increasingly difficult to extract these, and therefore it's getting increasingly expensive.

So to solve that we need something completely different. Yes you can put nuclear reactors in cars (ones capable of powering a submarine are about a dustbin sized affair, apparently), but then your basic terrorist going nuclear scare scenario gets in the way of the public stamp of approval. So, not going to happen anytime soon. Yes, you can put nuclear reactors in homes & flats -- same story different version. Yes you can make a concerted effort to rid the world of gas based kitchens and move on to electric/keramic ones and the same for central heating. Apart from a drop in food quality (with gas you can do things you just can't with electric/keramic), think of the nightmare in replacing all that equipment.

Think about it: nuclear reactors are no use if we cannot put them to good use. And we still haven't touched on the little problem of synthetic materials which we cannot do without in the course of our everyday life. The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

While this isn't a solution, it would still be smart to implement these nuclear reactors on a large scale to replace our coal supplied energy if only for the environmental reasons. Then promote electric cars (which I know are not exactly where they need to be) with subsidies so that the public can buy them cheaper than internal combustion engines. I have not heard of a shortage of natural gas, I was unaware that those supplies are dwindling as well. Nevertheless the US uses 25% of the worlds petroleum supply. This is a chart I found from wiki on how the US uses it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usesofpetroleum.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Usesofpetroleum.png


So it looks like gasoline for car usage takes up almost half our consumption of petroleum. 46% of 25% is .115 or 11.5%. I think a reduction of 11.5% of the world's consumption of petroleum is good enough to warrant a major injection of capital towards nuclear power plants and subsidies for electric cars. I do not know the statistics for Europe, but I am sure the same tactic would take another chunk out of the world's usage of petroleum as well. Plus, you get to feel good about not polluting the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usesofpetroleum.png

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ehrm now we are having two things being mixed together that shouldn't be:

(a) Simple upgrades in the power infrastructure --> fission is a temporary option, fusion is a more desirable long term solution.
(b) Finding alternatives for oil/gas --> fission won't do. You need something capable of producing fair amounts of power at small scales but not too much power or the engine will tear the vehicle apart. You've got gasoline, diesel is better (because the engine design implies a much better fuel economy), electric is even better but not feasible for small stuff. The latter is not feasible for ordinary cars because the design of the engine either ends up favouring high amount of torque at low speeds or the exact opposite. The first is what you need to get a car going but the latter is what you need to keep it going at high speeds, and an electric engine can't really adapt well between the two modes of operation (a simple gearbox doesn't work as well as it does with more traditional engines). Trains get away with a relatively simple high-speed design or a simple high-power design because each wagon (well, each set of wheels) is powered by its own engine so they need only a single efficient design to achieve good results and the infrastructure is simply built/upgraded to fit the power requirements.

Now assuming you want to rid yourself of your gasoline/diesel needs as much as possible and you want to use fission/main power grid to do it, then you will have to use hydrogen fuel cells (or something very similar) for car engines and such like because these work much the same way as gasoline/diesel ones do. Unfortunately that technology requires a major infrastructure overhaul and probably a wholesale replacement of vehicles, too. That, on top of the fact the technology is still not much more than a proof of concept (so, not unlike fusion).

[gaelic cowboy]

Fission is temporary but thats only when compared to geological time etc. There is easy a few hundred years of fissile material available if one moves to other fission sources like thorium etc.

The key is having energy available to make the change from Oil/Gas so we can still produce electricity and drive electric cars (where they are suitable)

Fusion is likely going to be a long time in development and will require vast amounts of money and time in research and development, basically it would be even bigger than the space programme the mahattan project combined.

However the payoff is enourmous if it was achieved say in the next 100-150 years.

[gaelic cowboy]

The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

While the price element is true as regards our use of oil to make todays plastics, the reality is we can make it pretty much anything as long as one obtains the correct chain length of the molecules et voila we have made plastic.

[Lord Winter]

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

Human error is certainly a part of the Chernobyl disaster but it doesn't expose any dangers in building more nuclear power, nor would have it happened if it was not for the design flaws themselves. Much of the human error in Chernobyl was would never be allowed to take place with well trained engineers and shows a rampant disregard for the concept of safety. Design flaws allowed these errors to occur by allowing the staff to bypass many safety measures. In addition there were issues with both the design and material components used to build the fuel rods which also contributed to the crises. All of these issues have been addressed in modern reactors. Lastly, other reactors such as the the one at three mile island are designed to contain radiation that could result from a melt down. There is absolutely no evidence that a Chernobyl type situation would occur in the United States if we adopted a widespread policy of building nuclear reactors. Even if we don't launch such a program nuclear power may still be coming to the United Sates. New reactor designs are being developed for relativity small scale industrial use and could soon be a common occurrence.

I agree that fusion is superior to fission in every single factor except for the fact that fission actually exists right now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ehrm now we are having two things being mixed together that shouldn't be:

(a) Simple upgrades in the power infrastructure --> fission is a temporary option, fusion is a more desirable long term solution.
(b) Finding alternatives for oil/gas --> fission won't do. You need something capable of producing fair amounts of power at small scales but not too much power or the engine will tear the vehicle apart. You've got gasoline, diesel is better (because the engine design implies a much better fuel economy), electric is even better but not feasible for small stuff. The latter is not feasible for ordinary cars because the design of the engine either ends up favouring high amount of torque at low speeds or the exact opposite. The first is what you need to get a car going but the latter is what you need to keep it going at high speeds, and an electric engine can't really adapt well between the two modes of operation (a simple gearbox doesn't work as well as it does with more traditional engines). Trains get away with a relatively simple high-speed design or a simple high-power design because each wagon (well, each set of wheels) is powered by its own engine so they need only a single efficient design to achieve good results and the infrastructure is simply built/upgraded to fit the power requirements.

Now assuming you want to rid yourself of your gasoline/diesel needs as much as possible and you want to use fission/main power grid to do it, then you will have to use hydrogen fuel cells (or something very similar) for car engines and such like because these work much the same way as gasoline/diesel ones do. Unfortunately that technology requires a major infrastructure overhaul and probably a wholesale replacement of vehicles, too. That, on top of the fact the technology is still not much more than a proof of concept (so, not unlike fusion).

From my understanding, most the issues regarding electric cars seem to be able to be worked out over the course of 10-15 years. Although it is expensive, all accounts I hear of the Tesla Roadster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster) seem to be that it is an amazing car, with no major flaws in how it handles or accelerates. Most car manufacturers are developing electric cars for the long run which seems to indicate that electric is the way to go. If it is, then it really isn't that big of an issue to make the source of electricity come from fission than coal.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Human error is certainly a part of the Chernobyl disaster but it doesn't expose any dangers in building more nuclear power, nor would have it happened if it was not for the design flaws themselves. Much of the human error in Chernobyl was would never be allowed to take place with well trained engineers and shows a rampant disregard for the concept of safety. Design flaws allowed these errors to occur by allowing the staff to bypass many safety measures. In addition there were issues with both the design and material components used to build the fuel rods which also contributed to the crises.

I thought it was the control rods, the Chernobyl design implies that to decrease core activity (i.e. absorb more neurons, slow the fission down), you must first speed it up a little because of how you swap control rods.


All of these issues have been addressed in modern reactors. Lastly, other reactors such as the the one at three mile island are designed to contain radiation that could result from a melt down. There is absolutely no evidence that a Chernobyl type situation would occur in the United States if we adopted a widespread policy of building nuclear reactors. Even if we don't launch such a program nuclear power may still be coming to the United Sates. New reactor designs are being developed for relativity small scale industrial use and could soon be a common occurrence. Agreed. Chernobyl was, even when it was built, an outdated design and we have far superior reactor designs today (especially Thorium reactors show promise).


@ACIN: except that the Tesla Roadster still suffers from basic range problems. It's out of juice far to quickly, and when it does run out it takes far too long for recharging. That is because it consumes a *lot* of power to do what it does. Your basic diesel car can drive a solid 800 - 1000 miles without refueling, and you do not even have to drive economically to do it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@ACIN: except that the Tesla Roadster still suffers from basic range problems. It's out of juice far to quickly, and when it does run out it takes far too long for recharging. That is because it consumes a *lot* of power to do what it does. Your basic diesel car can drive a solid 800 - 1000 miles without refueling, and you do not even have to drive economically to do it.

From the top of my head, the Tesla Roadster can go 240ish miles before needing to recharge. I don't know the recharge time, so I can't say anything about that. However, the issue with driving is that for a commerical car intended for the average consumer, they will not be driving more than 240 miles a day, most likely. Ford kept hyping up its electric-gas hybrid (Volt or something?) that could go a measly 40 miles on electric. But they kept insisting that for the large majority of consumers, their research indicated that 40 miles was plenty for most consumers. The distance from Los Angeles to San Diego is about 120 miles or half the distance that the Roadster can go in a day. If you can get the mileage up to 300-350, then there really is no reason to nit pick about the electric not being able to cross 1/5 of the US before needing more fuel. Let the tuckers keep using diesel for the moment but I see no reason why in 5 years, the electric car won't be able to satisfy the needs of the average consumer taking a 20 mile commute to work each day.

[Major Robert Dump]

How does a white rappers comeback tour disprove global warming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D39Lm_HRfOs

[gaelic cowboy]

From the top of my head, the Tesla Roadster can go 240ish miles before needing to recharge. I don't know the recharge time, so I can't say anything about that. However, the issue with driving is that for a commerical car intended for the average consumer, they will not be driving more than 240 miles a day, most likely. Ford kept hyping up its electric-gas hybrid (Volt or something?) that could go a measly 40 miles on electric. But they kept insisting that for the large majority of consumers, their research indicated that 40 miles was plenty for most consumers. The distance from Los Angeles to San Diego is about 120 miles or half the distance that the Roadster can go in a day. If you can get the mileage up to 300-350, then there really is no reason to nit pick about the electric not being able to cross 1/5 of the US before needing more fuel. Let the tuckers keep using diesel for the moment but I see no reason why in 5 years, the electric car won't be able to satisfy the needs of the average consumer taking a 20 mile commute to work each day.

You wont sell cars that way by trying to sell limits, cars are about freedom and versatility not the average commute.

If it does less mileage than the last type of car then people will see it as inferior, and rightly so in my view.

However this below is the real problem with electric cars in my view


A full recharge of the battery system requires 3½ hours using the High Power Connector

[rory_20_uk]

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

Still maybe take 15 minutes which way longer than a fillup at the station any day

[Beskar]

Still maybe take 15 minutes which way longer than a fillup at the station any day

But you can't fill-up at home (with the petrol drive one), thus you wouldn't need to use a station in the first place. (for the electric)

[gaelic cowboy]

But you can't fill-up at home (with the petrol drive one), thus you wouldn't need to use a station in the first place. (for the electric)

If you go beyond the limit in mileage you will

[rory_20_uk]

I agree it would require a different approach to driving with more care and forethought. I think that a very large percentage of journeys would be catered for within these limitations, with notable exceptions (a road-based sales-rep isn't going to be satisfied).

I don't see why this issue should not require people to alter their habits.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

If you go beyond the limit in mileage you will

The newest cars can go 300 miles on a single charge. There would be zero issues unless you are traveling further than from Newcastle to London.

Since such a drive would take considerable time anyway, there is bound to be at least one stop at a highway service station, which you can use to further charge your car while you have a bite to eat.

[gaelic cowboy]

The newest cars can go 300 miles on a single charge. There would be zero issues unless you are traveling further than from Newcastle to London.

Since such a drive would take considerable time anyway, there is bound to be at least one stop at a highway service station, which you can use to further charge your car while you have a bite to eat.

This would require a massive amount of infrastructure, a high powered charge at some type of service station would end up causing massive delays far beyond 15 minutes were talking probably hours.

They way to do it is not to charge a batterry but replace it entirely, if an electirc car is designed for easy removal of said battery at some kind of way station which must take less that ten minute preferably down to 5 miutes you will sell electric cars. People are pushing the other kind to sell electricity not to save petrol.


Check out about 2.40 into video below


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp78rfNkfrY

[Husar]

Seen something similar before, but one thing bugs me a bit.

Basically until the EU/world government forces some standard I bet the batteries of the different companies won't be interchangeable, so you end up making yourself dependant on a single company if you buy such a car, let's say you buy a betterplace car and want to travel through Mexico, only to find out that they don't operate there and you end up stranded without a place to get a new battery because only Toyota has battery changing stations in Mexico? Of course there's a chance you can just plan really long recharge breaks in between but then calculate the hotel costs into that, and that you can only enjoy your actual planned holidays for four days less than planned because you spent that much waiting for the batteries to recharge during the trip.

So I say they need to develop a, preferably worldwide, standard for this.

[rory_20_uk]

Mobile phone chargers are FINALLY getting standardised but yes, this is one area where if there could be agreement of a standard early on it'd be great: several companies joint owning a subsidiary that produces batteries for all their cars for example.

~:smoking:

[miotas]

The problem with that is that the electric car industry is one where constant advances will be made for quite a long time. A Swap 'n' Go system for batteries would require that the batteries in the system are updated a regular intervals. If a standard plug was agreed upon then any new batteries, regardless of who made it should be able to plug into any car old or new, but new advances in battery technology would still require regular system upgrades.

[gaelic cowboy]

The problem with that is that the electric car industry is one where constant advances will be made for quite a long time. A Swap 'n' Go system for batteries would require that the batteries in the system are updated a regular intervals. If a standard plug was agreed upon then any new batteries, regardless of who made it should be able to plug into any car old or new, but new advances in battery technology would still require regular system upgrades.

You charge as has been said already at home or work but when your on the road you can just swap n go, this gets over the lack of freedom to roam that electric cars suffer from. Generally any old tyre will fit a car so I think that with batteries we should be aiming for the same.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

3.5 hours is a high power socket and the various safety features in most homes will strongly object to that kind of amps running through their circuit (it's amps you need for the recharging, voltage is something that a good transformer can fix). IIRC it was 16 hours for the Tesla from the mains in your garage/outdoor socket.

And as gaelic mentioned, it is not the daily commute that this is all about. If it were, public transport would work too and rather better at that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you are refusing to buy an other type of car until you are able to go as far as an 18 wheeler carrying 100 gallons of diesel than you are being unreasonable. This is an energy crisis, you are going to have to put up with more inconveniences for the next 15-20 years if you want to even continue driving 50 years from now. It is downright stupid for people to be so stubborn that they are still acting like their parents did in the 1970s, willing to wait 3-7 hours in line for gas, paying $5 or more per gallon during the oil embargo just so they can drive around for another 2 days tops.

You don't need a 1,000 mile range. It is a slightly inferior product with leap and bounds of improvement ahead of it compared to a slightly superior product that is on the express train to obsolescence in 30-50 years.

[gaelic cowboy]

My view is that much of todays economy is dependent on patterns of living we have from our cars so limiting the freedom to roam better be worth it. Too much of the talk from greenies is about getting rid of things like dishwashers etc that is not progress in my view.

Of course resources are finite but they are not any less finite by using electric cars unless the system is properly integrated into our world.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My view is that much of todays economy is dependent on patterns of living we have from our cars so limiting the freedom to roam better be worth it. Too much of the talk from greenies is about getting rid of things like dishwashers etc that is not progress in my view.

Of course resources are finite but they are not any less finite by using electric cars unless the system is properly integrated into our world.

No reasonable person is telling people to stop using appliances. All I am doing is saying that you can still have a car and live the American dream of being able to drive to the mall, just switch over to a technology which will cause inconveniences in the short term for the survival of the country in the long run.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you are refusing to buy an other type of car until you are able to go as far as an 18 wheeler carrying 100 gallons of diesel than you are being unreasonable. 18 wheeler, is that American for lorry?

What makes you think you won't notice the difference between 240 miles and somewhere between 800 or 1000 miles from your average to economical diesel? It's only about 4 times more often that you need to refuel/recharge, apart from the fact that when you do need to recharge you need to spend quite some time doing it.

This implies one thing. You might feel:


This is an energy crisis, you are going to have to put up with more inconveniences for the next 15-20 years if you want to even continue driving 50 years from now. It is downright stupid for people to be so stubborn that they are still acting like their parents did in the 1970s, willing to wait 3-7 hours in line for gas, paying $5 or more per gallon during the oil embargo just so they can drive around for another 2 days tops.

But try and convince the general public they should spend considerably more time recharging/swapping batteries (which incidentally weigh a lot) and do that 4 times as often as they would have to refuel otherwise. That isn't going to be an attractive pitch: hey, this Tesla might be a fast electric car that doesn't make you want to take public transport instead but it can't handle nearly as well as its archetype (Lotus Elise) would have you believe nor can it actually drive you to your holiday destination. (For those of you outside the US: not everyone flies. In Europe, plenty of people drive.)

No for “green” cars, I think that in the better way forward is not batteries but fuel cells.


You don't need a 1,000 mile range. Oh I don't need it. It is more a matter of convenience. But when it comes to the topic of ranges, you do realise your 240 mile range assumes that you do not use it for the daily commute? (Energy wasted by erratic acceleration/deceleration of the car.)


It is a slightly inferior product with leap and bounds of improvement ahead of it compared to a slightly superior product that is on the express train to obsolescence in 30-50 years.

[a completely inoffensive name]

18 wheeler, is that American for lorry? Yeah, it's a lorry in British English.



What makes you think you won't notice the difference between 240 miles and somewhere between 800 or 1000 miles from your average to economical diesel? It's only about 4 times more often that you need to refuel/recharge, apart from the fact that when you do need to recharge you need to spend quite some time doing it.

I won't notice the difference because as long as I don't drive more than 240 miles, I can still do everything I had been doing before. You have to drive to a gasoline station to fill up, all you need to do for electric is leave it plugged in your garage when you are done for the day. Get home around 5, do errands until 9, plug it in. Chill at home, go to bed, wake up at 5, leave at 6-6:30 for your job, that is nine hours it has been charging. If the power supply is able to match the high supply connectors people were talking about earlier than that is more than enough. Basically you plug it in whenever you don't need it and you should be fine.



But try and convince the general public they should spend considerably more time recharging/swapping batteries (which incidentally weigh a lot) and do that 4 times as often as they would have to refuel otherwise. That isn't going to be an attractive pitch: hey, this Tesla might be a fast electric car that doesn't make you want to take public transport instead but it can't handle nearly as well as its archetype (Lotus Elise) would have you believe nor can it actually drive you to your holiday destination. (For those of you outside the US: not everyone flies. In Europe, plenty of people drive.)

I was just using the Tesla has an example for my arguments. From the statements I have read from the Tesla company they are planning on releasing a second generation Tesla car that is half the price of the Roadster ($100,000) designed for average consumers (so not a flashy sports car but something more practical) with more comfort and convenience and then a third generation that is half of that (so $25,000 now) and so on.



No for “green” cars, I think that in the better way forward is not batteries but fuel cells.
From what I have read, fuel cells are a loooong way from being affordable to the public.



Oh I don't need it. It is more a matter of convenience. But when it comes to the topic of ranges, you do realise your 240 mile range assumes that you do not use it for the daily commute? (Energy wasted by erratic acceleration/deceleration of the car.)

Is someone's daily commute 120 miles long?


EDIT: I know that the technology isn't quite where we would like to be, but given the trend that has been occurring in the past 10 years in electric cars, do you really think there is any real chance that fuel cells or hydrogen or any other type of fuel which requires redoing the entire infrastructure is going to happen?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Fuel cells are still a long way off, but there is actually a major industry working on that right now. Basically, the technology is already there and working but it is now about getting the economics of scale to work out; hybrids could be an option there. I understand that to some degree it is the same story with electric cars but fuel cells have the added bonus of not needing to lug around batteries (which do get heavy and which do take up space).

You should not forget that battery-based electric cars have been flogged for longer than you or I have lived. The basic technology has been put into production cars since the 80s but battery cars consistently fail to deliver/take off in the real world. The closest you'll get is the Prius and other such hybrids, which still very much rely on that secondary engine for getting actual range or performance out of it.

I agree your average daily commute isn't 120 miles, but even in the Netherlands where the bike is a serious alternative to the car, a max range of 240 miles will still be a handicap on the market for any car that is to be sold based on its merit as a car rather than on some claim of good-for-the-environment.

Not directly related to the topic of the Tesla (but certainly to the topic of relying on fossil fuel); you may find this article interesting as well (a BP energy supply/demand forecast/projection till 2030). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/20/bp_global_outlook_2030/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fuel cells are still a long way off, but there is actually a major industry working on that right now. Basically, the technology is already there and working but it is now about getting the economics of scale to work out; hybrids could be an option there. I understand that to some degree it is the same story with electric cars but fuel cells have the added bonus of not needing to lug around batteries (which do get heavy and which do take up space).

You should not forget that battery-based electric cars have been flogged for longer than you or I have lived. The basic technology has been put into production cars since the 80s but battery cars consistently fail to deliver/take off in the real world. The closest you'll get is the Prius and other such hybrids, which still very much rely on that secondary engine for getting actual range or performance out of it.

I agree your average daily commute isn't 120 miles, but even in the Netherlands where the bike is a serious alternative to the car, a max range of 240 miles will still be a handicap on the market for any car that is to be sold based on its merit as a car rather than on some claim of good-for-the-environment.

Not directly related to the topic of the Tesla (but certainly to the topic of relying on fossil fuel); you may find this article interesting as well (a BP energy supply/demand forecast/projection till 2030). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/20/bp_global_outlook_2030/

The basic technology has from what I have heard constantly been held back for decades by oil/gas lobbyists. People have recommended to me watching a documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" This might all be hearsay, but I wouldn't be surprised that the reason that electric car technology hasn't radically changed in decades is because market forces don't want it to radically change for the better (until recently).

Well I am sure that limit as I have said before will continue to expand over the next 5-15 years, which will dampen that handicap quite a bit. Unless the fuel cells become worked out with the economy of scale in that time, then like I said I don't see another viable alternative.

Thanks for the link, I still need to comb over it more carefully before making any sort of judgment on what it says.

[HoreTore]

Conspiracy theories are almost always theories.

There is no grand scheme to stop the electric car by some money-grubbers. American car companies have simply chosen to focus their attention on other aspects of their compaby, as they have had the belief that the SUV is the way forward, not the electric car.

But there is no focus on SUV's in Japan or Germany, nor are there any allegations of "powerful lobbies" keeping the electric car down, but there still hasn't come a revolutionary electic car from either of them. Why? Probably because we're not smart enough to make them yet, we haven't come that far in our scientific progress.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Conspiracy theories are almost always theories.

There is no grand scheme to stop the electric car by some money-grubbers. American car companies have simply chosen to focus their attention on other aspects of their compaby, as they have had the belief that the SUV is the way forward, not the electric car.

But there is no focus on SUV's in Japan or Germany, nor are there any allegations of "powerful lobbies" keeping the electric car down, but there still hasn't come a revolutionary electic car from either of them. Why? Probably because we're not smart enough to make them yet, we haven't come that far in our scientific progress.

Perhaps, but you don't have the same knowledge of the corporate-government relationship the US has had since the large railroad subsidies of the 1840s.

EDIT: By that I mean for the US, it is not outside the realm of possibility for lobbyists to suppress research efforts or at least funding towards organizations that were involved in such research.

[HoreTore]

Perhaps, but you don't have the same knowledge of the corporate-government relationship the US has had since the large railroad subsidies of the 1840s.

EDIT: By that I mean for the US, it is not outside the realm of possibility for lobbyists to suppress research efforts or at least funding towards organizations that were involved in such research.

So what?

There's no hint of such a lobby in Japan, and do you see any revolutionary electric car there?

If Ford wanted to cut funding for an electric car there would be no need to go to congress, they could just slash their own research budget. Who's researching an electric car in the US? There are no others with the knowledge and resources to do it than GM, Ford and "thatlastoneIcan'trememberjustnow". And those three made the simple business decision that the money was in SUV's, and that there wouldn't be much profit in an electric car.

A standard decision, made every day in board rooms all over the world. Nothing sinister about it.

[Fragony]

About electric cars, what do you want to do with the batteries after the cars lifecycle runs it course, very enviromently friendly uh-huh. Hybrids also suck, they only go electric on low speeds, on higher speeds the weak engine needs to haul the extra weight of the electrical engine, no benefit whatsoever. Modern cars hardly pollute, and can be recycled almost nothing goes to waste.

[gaelic cowboy]

I wouldn't worry about disposal of batteries Frag we will do what we already do nowadays recycle and safely dispose of them in special facilities.

Far better reason might to discuss the relative merits or demerits of the fact that any expansion of the electric car will require a lot of rare materials at present technology levels.

[HoreTore]

About electric cars, what do you want to do with the batteries after the cars lifecycle runs it course, very enviromently friendly uh-huh. Hybrids also suck, they only go electric on low speeds, on higher speeds the weak engine needs to haul the extra weight of the electrical engine, no benefit whatsoever. Modern cars hardly pollute, and can be recycled almost nothing goes to waste.

Batteries?

You are aware that there is one in your car too, right? Along with more electronics than you could dream of. The larger battery needed for an electric car will do almost nothing, and is one of the most over-hyped bits of technology the world has ever seen.

[Fragony]

I wouldn't worry about disposal of batteries Frag we will do what we already do nowadays recycle and safely dispose of them in special facilities.

Far better reason might to discuss the relative merits or demerits of the fact that any expansion of the electric car will require a lot of rare materials at present technology levels.

Batteries aren't that easily recycled. But yeah to materials. Especially when it comes to solar panels. There just isn't enough

@Horetore, they are tiny in normal cars

[gaelic cowboy]

Solar panels are a terrible investment and require a lot of subsidy before they pay back, far better to use solar thermal power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy) if using the sun is your thing.

On the subject of solar energy a good investment for your home IF you have the room obviously is a Geothermal Heat Pump (http://www.reuk.co.uk/Geothermal-Heat-Pump.htm) they are an excellent buy to reduce your bill due to trying to heat water.

And if you do have the chance and money then try to get as close to a Passive House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) as you can, you might as well when your laying down big money to build anyway.

[HoreTore]

@Horetore, they are tiny in normal cars

Really? They're much bigger in an electric car? Twice the size, perhaps, not much more. And we've disposed of billions of these batteries already, I don't see much problem here. I see lots of hype though.

Npt to mention the tons of chemicals in a standard car you don't find in an electric car.

[gaelic cowboy]

Really? They're much bigger in an electric car? Twice the size, perhaps, not much more. And we've disposed of billions of these batteries already, I don't see much problem here. I see lots of hype though.

Npt to mention the tons of chemicals in a standard car you don't find in an electric car.

There is as I see it no problem in how we would dispose of these kinds of batteries we have the tech already it just requires ramping up a bit to increase capacity.

There is however a problem that a lot of rare materials are required in electric cars for the motors etc etc, at present tech there is no way around it and it will cost a lot as we gobble more and more of these materials. On the plus side Toyota are investing money trying to develop rare earthless electric motors but it's likely to cost a bit and take a while to produce an actual production model.

[Fragony]

Really? They're much bigger in an electric car? Twice the size, perhaps, not much more. And we've disposed of billions of these batteries already, I don't see much problem here. I see lots of hype though.

Npt to mention the tons of chemicals in a standard car you don't find in an electric car.

Of course they are bigger, they have to do a little but more than igniting fuel. Even a hybrid that only uses electricity at low speeds is much heavier because of them

[Hosakawa Tito]

Thus Global Warming is disproved

Check please


Yeah, according to scientists 49 states have snow ~:rolleyes:

Hehehe, and last Thursday I left the only state, Hawaii excluded, that didn't have snow. Bad move.:wall: