"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

[ttystikk]

The topic is climate change, so yes carbon emission are an important consideration.

Cars are more and more made from recycled materials. Some estimates put 25% of a car body as made from recycled metal. In the example I gave, the new more efficient car put out 25% less carbon than a good but less efficient car did. Just saying that if reducing carbon footprint is of high value to the consumer then the "buy old for greener car" doesn't hold.

If you want to do better then buy a new electric vehicle.

Churning the ground absolutely contributes to climate change. AND erosion.

Regarding an electric car, I plan to buy one as soon as I can afford to do so.

I'd also like to buy an electric full size pickup; think 'F250 Super Duty', only with an all electric drivetrain. I'd be only too happy to get into tug of war contests wth diesel powered trucks, electric drive would embarrass them, lol

My next foray into the bleeding edge of agricultural engineering will be the acquisition and integration of fuel cells into indoor growing.

 

[ttystikk]

Yeah you are right ttyshit
2 strokes are shit I will have to get rid of mine, only use them for racing anyway
I'm trying to do my best for the planet(think of the little kiddies future), if I get rid of the 2 strokes that leaves 14' 4strokes + 9' 4stroke racing motors to replace the 2strokes
That should help save the planet

or I could just grow outside and save hundreds of tonnes of co2 from getting pumped into the atmosphere (unlike some global warming preachers)
And maybe plant a couple of thousand trees

Name-calling, huh? That's the best you can manage? I was hoping to have a rational conversation with you but clearly you lack the fundamental skills.

 

[Fogdog]

Churning the ground absolutely contributes to climate change. AND erosion.

link? This regarding car manufacture vs old car. Post a link that breaks down the damage and shows how it is worse to buy a new car.

 

[Fogdog]

Churning the ground absolutely contributes to climate change. AND erosion.

Regarding an electric car, I plan to buy one as soon as I can afford to do so.

I'd also like to buy an electric full size pickup; think 'F250 Super Duty', only with an all electric drivetrain. I'd be only too happy to get into tug of war contests wth diesel powered trucks, electric drive would embarrass them, lol

My next foray into the bleeding edge of agricultural engineering will be the acquisition and integration of fuel cells into indoor growing.

Full size electric pickup? Wasn't what I was talking about.

Regarding your grow operation, It's amazingly good.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

My '74 Suzuki GT250 smokes

 

[fdd2blk]

My '74 Suzuki GT250 smokes

View attachment 3899941

View attachment 3899943

That's really clean.

 

[ttystikk]

My '74 Suzuki GT250 smokes

View attachment 3899941

View attachment 3899943

Bloody spotless!

 

[esh dov ets]

The California Air Resources Board estimated that for California, the average life of a car was 200,000 miles. In states that salt roads in the winter it's substantially lower.

So that's ~2.5 cars that weren't built because I've kept my car going so long

of course two sales outta 1000s won't hurt em. but 32 mpg is modern so 20 -30 years on a car is more efficient then buying 2 or three newer cars.

The thing is, they were built regardless.

It's the same bullshit with vegetarians, the animal still gets slaughtered and packaged despite your protest.

If you retired those "black smokers" they could be used for parts and you'd get a car that does decent mileage and doesn't fuck the environment.

Your cars puts out emissions that new cars don't put out at all.

I'm not ragging on you tho, I'd a 1990 Ford Fiesta (the Sky Blue one, lol, ugly as hell) and it was a rocket for its tiny engine, like a go kart you can throw around corners...

But lets be honest, they're friendly to your wallet and all power to you, I mean that. Keep them running, I don't oppose it in anyway whatsoever except the claim it's environmentally friendly.

if some company was going to murder aprox. 50 people a year and wanted to sell the shots fired would you buy a shot? even if thet will kill 50 tis year anyway i don't have to be one of the fifty. thats the protest. there are other ways people fight the meat industry , boycotting is for health and or conscience.
older cars tend o pollute more but it sounds like napsalot is mitigating the situation better than most

The most environmental vehicles are 2 strokes
To many moving parts in a 4 stroke
And a hell of a lot of mining goes into sourcing materials for lithium batteries

Electric motors have none of the issues you describe, occasionally the carbon brushes fail on older style motors but it's just carbon with a wire attached.

As for batteries, China is mining massive quantities of lithium anyway, may as well put it to good use. But there's also enough lithium cells in discarded electronic products to build battery packs for millions of cars.

the prius comes with batteries and things that need to be replaced by an electrician\mechanic within ten years. those cars are definitely consumer goods , a step in the direction of cleaner energy but also in the direction of disposability. some newer hybrids are decent and a tesla is nice but those are out of alot of peoples price range and electricity still comes from burning fossil fuel and Nuclear mostly. plus how do i keep it charged living in an apt. i try to stay as current as i can afford. if i could afford a current vehicle i would prefer to keep it for longer than 10 years. When they use the teach they where holding back from before i bought the last one> They make sure to dull out improvements over time even as they make other parts cheaper quality and the whole things less serviceable. So if you want to be environmentally friendly and keep up with the joneses you gotta pay for a whole other car very few years. or do some diy type up cycling

The life span depends on the panels, the cheaper Chinese ones have had some problems. The charge controllers, inverters and batteries have come a long way too.

This road has been traveled before. What you say only makes sense if the new car has similar gas mileage to the older one.

From: http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/weiss_otr2020.pdf
From Table 5.4: About 75% of all emissions over the life of a conventional gasoline-powered 1996 car (Toyota Camry) are generated in use. Only about 7% of total emissions are generated during manufacture. What you say only makes sense if the new car has similar gas mileage to the older one.

The effect of better gas mileage over the life of a car is huge in terms of cutting total emissions:

1996 Camry sedan, manual transmission EPA MPG: is about about 23 mpg
source: Toyota

Conventional gasoline engine, mid-size or compact cars, best mileage is about 36 mpg
source: https://www.cars.com/articles/best-and-worst-gas-mileage-2016-1420683223195/

If same manufacturing methods and fuel delivery methods are observed, then the total emissions (including manufacturing, fuel production and delivery, emissions on the road) of the car over its life cycle is:

1996 Camry: grams Carbon/km = 71.8 g C/km; at 20,000 km/yr for 10 years: 14,000 kg

2016 fuel efficient compact or mid-size car: 51 g C/km; at 20,000 km/yr for 10 yrs: 10,496 kg

So, getting rid of an old car -- that is not a bad choice in terms of carbon emissions.

2010 toyota hybrid 34 mpg vs 2016 camry hybrid 39 mpg... looks like you can get a new car for 20,000- 30,000 that gets 40-50 mpg
or some thing 6 years or older for around 11,000 that used to get 40-50 ish (current would be 30 -45[ take a-lot of shopping for over 30mpg at that price.]) for under 10,000 you gotta go back ten plus years and good luck finding one with better than 35 mpg ever (barring extensive expensive reworking) a 1000 - $5000 dollar car should get you 25 - 32
it takes ten years to save for a new 40+ mpg car at 40-80 gs a year. thats if you have ok rent. so yeah you guys that don't have rent and or make more then that a year can have a better car sooner then others. so fogdog and ninja must be driving cars with over 40 mpg and financially secure middle class or above.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

Bloody spotless!

That's all original paint

Same as this:

 

[Fogdog]

of course two sales outta 1000s won't hurt em. but 32 mpg is modern so 20 -30 years on a car is more efficient then buying 2 or three newer cars.


if some company was going to murder aprox. 50 people a year and wanted to sell the shots fired would you buy a shot? even if thet will kill 50 tis year anyway i don't have to be one of the fifty. thats the protest. there are other ways people fight the meat industry , boycotting is for health and or conscience.
older cars tend o pollute more but it sounds like napsalot is mitigating the situation better than most




the prius comes with batteries and things that need to be replaced by an electrician\mechanic within ten years. those cars are definitely consumer goods , a step in the direction of cleaner energy but also in the direction of disposability. some newer hybrids are decent and a tesla is nice but those are out of alot of peoples price range and electricity still comes from burning fossil fuel and Nuclear mostly. plus how do i keep it charged living in an apt. i try to stay as current as i can afford. if i could afford a current vehicle i would prefer to keep it for longer than 10 years. When they use the teach they where holding back from before i bought the last one> They make sure to dull out improvements over time even as they make other parts cheaper quality and the whole things less serviceable. So if you want to be environmentally friendly and keep up with the joneses you gotta pay for a whole other car very few years. or do some diy type up cycling


2010 toyota hybrid 34 mpg vs 2016 camry hybrid 39 mpg... looks like you can get a new car for 20,000- 30,000 that gets 40-50 mpg
or some thing 6 years or older for around 11,000 that used to get 40-50 ish (current would be 30 -45[ take a-lot of shopping for over 30mpg at that price.]) for under 10,000 you gotta go back ten plus years and good luck finding one with better than 35 mpg ever (barring extensive expensive reworking) a 1000 - $5000 dollar car should get you 25 - 32
it takes ten years to save for a new 40+ mpg car at 40-80 gs a year. thats if you have ok rent. so yeah you guys that don't have rent and or make more then that a year can have a better car sooner then others. so fogdog and ninja must be driving cars with over 40 mpg and financially secure middle class or above.

Ford Focus gets 30 city, 40 hwy. You don't have to be rich to drive a car with lower emission. What I said was a new car with much better mileage will over the life of the vehicle produce much less emissions with manufacturing and fuel production/distribution included than an older car that is less efficient.

If you can buy used and upgrade gas mileage, more better.

And yes, I'm financially secure middle class. A good education can pay off. But I don't drive an expensive car or one I bought new. Waste of money.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Churning the ground absolutely contributes to climate change. AND erosion.

Regarding an electric car, I plan to buy one as soon as I can afford to do so.

I'd also like to buy an electric full size pickup; think 'F250 Super Duty', only with an all electric drivetrain. I'd be only too happy to get into tug of war contests wth diesel powered trucks, electric drive would embarrass them, lol

My next foray into the bleeding edge of agricultural engineering will be the acquisition and integration of fuel cells into indoor growing.

Fuel cells consume propane...

 

[Fogdog]

Fuel cells consume propane...

Home fuel cells can convert natural gas to produce electricity with up to 80% efficiency. This compared to gas turbine plants that are no more than 40% efficient with 5% lost in distribution.

They are expensive and fairly new tech with not enough reliability track record to justify a purchase just yet. True that they aren't as clean as solar or wind but it's a move in the right direction. Tax credits to help purchase them can make fuel cells financially attractive to home owners.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Home fuel cells can convert natural gas to produce electricity with up to 80% efficiency. This compared to gas turbine plants that are no more than 40% efficient with 5% lost in distribution.

They are expensive and fairly new tech with not enough reliability track record to justify a purchase just yet. True that they aren't as clean as solar or wind but it's a move in the right direction. Tax credits to help purchase them can make fuel cells financially attractive to home owners.

I'm totally stuck on the idea of no input/no emissions, fuel cell would be more useful as a backup (because the sun is there every day).

 

[ttystikk]

Home fuel cells can convert natural gas to produce electricity with up to 80% efficiency. This compared to gas turbine plants that are no more than 40% efficient with 5% lost in distribution.

They are expensive and fairly new tech with not enough reliability track record to justify a purchase just yet. True that they aren't as clean as solar or wind but it's a move in the right direction. Tax credits to help purchase them can make fuel cells financially attractive to home owners.

Link to a fuel cell I can buy for my home? I haven't found one yet.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Rick Perry confirmed by Senate as Energy Secretary, 10 Dems confirm...

There's your "resistance", folks..

 

[Fogdog]

I haven't been sold on them and so haven't dug too deeply into practical aspects like "who should/can I buy from". Nobody is profitable yet and reliability isn't established either. From what I've read, the early market is for businesses that buy thousands of units and there is not yet a residential fuel cell equipment supplier. But, here is a link to a list of manufactures of fuel cell tech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_manufacturers

About 10 years ago I was part of a team that investigated fuel cell tech as a potential business opportunity for the company. What I learned at the time was that residential fuel cell power was potentially feasible. To me, the largest problem was the god awfully high temperature that is a requisite for efficient conversion of ethanol or propane into electricity in solid oxide fuel cells. Also materials in some solid oxide cell are exotic and scaling up this tech to any meaningful size will require either finding a new materials set or exploration for more sources of the material. That said, the problems didn't seem to me to require a major invention. The technology is feasible but for some reason we haven't yet seen the same kind of interest shown in electric or hybrid cars or solar.

After 10 years, I'm not surprised -- but disappointed -- that there isn't yet a major market or major distributor for residential fuel cells and I can't say for sure why.

After all this time, I'm still seeing this kind of statement coming from one of the players in the market:

What is the anticipated lifetime of the Redox Cube?
Under most operating scenarios a system such as the Cube should last for 10 years or more. Right now there is insufficient test data to validate this so initial systems will be sold with a warranty to alleviate any lifetime concerns.

My translation of the above: "this product doesn't reliably last 10 years". Their tech isn't ready for the market.

 

[Fogdog]

Rick Perry confirmed by Senate as Energy Secretary, 10 Dems confirm...

There's your "resistance", folks..

Blue dog democrats in red states aren't progressives.

deal with it.

 

[SneekyNinja]

I haven't been sold on them and so haven't dug too deeply into practical aspects like "who should/can I buy from". Nobody is profitable yet and reliability isn't established either. From what I've read, the early market is for businesses that buy thousands of units and there is not yet a residential fuel cell equipment supplier. But, here is a link to a list of manufactures of fuel cell tech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fuel_cell_manufacturers

About 10 years ago I was part of a team that investigated fuel cell tech as a potential business opportunity for the company. What I learned at the time was that residential fuel cell power was potentially feasible. To me, the largest problem was the god awfully high temperature that is a requisite for efficient conversion of ethanol or propane into electricity in solid oxide fuel cells. Also materials in some solid oxide cell are exotic and scaling up this tech to any meaningful size will require either finding a new materials set or exploration for more sources of the material. That said, the problems didn't seem to me to require a major invention. The technology is feasible but for some reason we haven't yet seen the same kind of interest shown in electric or hybrid cars or solar.

After 10 years, I'm not surprised -- but disappointed -- that there isn't yet a major market or major distributor for residential fuel cells and I can't say for sure why.

After all this time, I'm still seeing this kind of statement coming from one of the players in the market:

What is the anticipated lifetime of the Redox Cube?
Under most operating scenarios a system such as the Cube should last for 10 years or more. Right now there is insufficient test data to validate this so initial systems will be sold with a warranty to alleviate any lifetime concerns.

My translation of the above: "this product doesn't reliably last 10 years". Their tech isn't ready for the market.

It's the platinum catalyst.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Blue dog democrats in red states aren't progressives.

deal with it.

Why should I "deal with it"?

You think it's OK to vote for Republicans who call themselves Democrats in purple states. It's like they're pulling a blue sheet over your eyes while still voting Republican and since all you see is blue you think it's better than nothing.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Why should I "deal with it"?

You think it's OK to vote for Republicans who call themselves Democrats in purple states. It's like they're pulling a blue sheet over your eyes while still voting Republican and since all you see is blue you think it's better than nothing.

What's your solution?

Cry about it and spend your time building a library of duct taped assholes?

You vote for the moderate, it's a binary choice.

If they supoort Trump then they've had their chance, bye bye at the midterm.

"Should've, would've, couldve"...

Fucking snowflake, come live in reality from Trumpsville, you're either red or blue, I dislike the fact there's only two options but despite what you think, moaning on the Internet won't fix the things you're moaning about.