Hybrids and why they may the be wrong idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Most plants do. That said, some people are bent out of shape about more CO2 ppm than there was before. They keep claiming it is a pollutant. I don't agree, but I would like to see unbiased research on the subject rather than the crap we have now. I also would like the greenies to get it into their head's their socialistic nonsense of killing cars, choking industry off and putting windmills up isn't going to solve the problem EVEN if it IS the problem.

There are 6 Billion plus people on this rock, and more of them are trying to live to a better standard than they had 20 years ago. Since when is the god given right of a bunch of limo liberals with a green bent to tell the emerging world to give up what we already have? Add in the fact that they wont be taking away what we have except out jobs and our money, and giving it to the emerging nations. OH and of course China, well it will do what the heck they want, because after all, they are China and they don't give a flying fidoo about the enviroment.


So all you guys who love your hybrids, keep on with your fantasy......

---

Don't get confused that all greenies are liberals. My mum is right of Thatcher on most things yet she's the greenest person I know.

I don't know if rising Co2 causes global warming. It probably doesn't. But I don't think it's an ideal situation for us to be increasing Co2 emissions and cutting down more of what consumes Co2. It's not gonna have a positive effect on biosphere stability. I think the greenies should focus on deforestation more than emissions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Don't get confused that all greenies are liberals. My mum is right of Thatcher on most things yet she's the greenest person I know.

---

Word

You have to keep up with the Joneses by organic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I don't know if rising Co2 causes global warming. It probably doesn't. But I don't think it's an ideal situation for us to be increasing Co2 emissions and cutting down more of what consumes Co2. It's not gonna have a positive effect on biosphere stability. I think the greenies should focus on deforestation more than emissions.

---

THAT I would agree with, and I think most thinking people would. That being said, I'm not totally convinced that deforestations is a huge problem right now, but we should be watching it, and not do nearly as much as we do in many cases.

And Daniel, if we use electrolosis to split water, and use nukes for the power, what is the harm in that? And how much energy does it take to make a battery? I read somewhere that more energy is consumed by a Prius than a Hummer H1 when both are driven to 100,000 miles. All because of all the exotic stuff that goes into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

THAT I would agree with, and I think most thinking people would. That being said, I'm not totally convinced that deforestations is a huge problem right now, but we should be watching it, and not do nearly as much as we do in many cases.

And Daniel, if we use electrolosis to split water, and use nukes for the power, what is the harm in that? And how much energy does it take to make a battery? I read somewhere that more energy is consumed by a Prius than a Hummer H1 when both are driven to 100,000 miles. All because of all the exotic stuff that goes into them.

---

I agree that nuclear is the way forward. I think wind, tidal, hydro etc etc all have their place but nuclear should be there as well because it's the one source of power that is 100% dependable and clean.

This illustrates the point extremely well. If the power used to power the cars is dirty it doesn't matter where it comes from.
http://23.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ku...xzwwo1_500.jpg

My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

---

How much energy does it take to manufacture a hydrogen fuel cell compared with chemical batteries?

Anyway, I believe cars using electric motors *are* they way forward, the question is how do we supply the motors with their power? From hydrogen, batteries charged from the mains, that's still the big question.

I think we've established in the past few years that bio-fuels are not the solution.

As I understand it, to make hydrogen all you need is water and electricity. The question then is how easy is it to transport hydrogen? Can it be put into tankers or pipelines.

The likes of Iceland with it's geo-thermal power and France with lots of nuclear stations have access to plentiful and cheap electricity, they could become the new energy producing nations?!

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years. I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I agree that nuclear is the way forward. I think wind, tidal, hydro etc etc all have their place but nuclear should be there as well because it's the one source of power that is 100% dependable and clean.

---

Ok I guess I misunderstood your stand. I would agree with this statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

This illustrates the point extremely well. If the power used to power the cars is dirty it doesn't matter where it comes from.

---

Exactly. And a point that is missed by many, many "green" advocates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

My point about hydrogen versus pure battery is that it all takes energy from the grid, Hydrogen just takes more and I don't see the point of that. It's a waste and I don't see the point of waste.

---

Are you sure that batteries don't suck up just as much energy from the grid, if not more, than splitting water? I don't know for sure either, I'll do some digging, but I remember hearing some outragous numbers for engergy to build a battery. Then you have to dispose of them somehow, and some batteries are just about as toxic as nuclear waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

IMO we'll still be using oil products to power the majority of our cars for the next 50-100 years. I read an article recently which claimed there is more oil left in the ground than has been used in the whole history of mankind.

It is more expensive to get at than simply drilling a well and sticking in a pipe but it is there and technology is already available to recover it. Whereas electric or even hydrogen cars have simply too many flaws for the foreseeable future.

Oh and ps; who you ask has most of this "trapped" oil? You guessed it - the good old US of A. Lucky blighters!

---

I did hear most of it was in Canada? But anyway you are right, there is lots and lots of oil left, the problem is getting at it, and then refining it once we've got at it.

We *can* use those sources and the technology is available but at a high cost, so we can continue running our cars on oil, but it'll be much more expensive than we've been used to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

How much energy does it take to manufacture a hydrogen fuel cell compared with chemical batteries?

---

I'll be honest and say that I don't know.