FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Discuss your own car, automotive news and latest supercar launches.
#422504
You obviously don't get the negative emissions calculation. I've given you the numbers in my earlier post. Put simply, for each 2000kg of carbon the algae consumes (takes out the atmosphere) to create biofuel, 850kg is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Using this biofuel, we will reduce carbon in the atmosphere If we only go to zero emissions, we leave the atmosphere damaged.
Zero isn't good enough, we need to reverse at least some of the damage. Using algal or perennial grass biofuel turns us negative on co2 in the atmosphere.

If we look at what we have right now, nothing is at zero emissions. Remember most electricity generated "right now" is from fossil fuels plus the incredibly dangerous nuclear option. So each time you drive your electric car you are contributing/adding to the co2 in our atmosphere, plus giving the world the added problem of how to dispose of mountains of highly toxic batteries.
#422505
And as a ps to my previous post. To confirm the faith the UK government is placing in the future of electric cars. EVERY HOUSEHOLD CAN HAVE FITTED FREE an electric car charging point. Completely government funded! So Uk dwellers, if you haven't had the electric car charging man round yet, look into it. ITS FREE!!
#422506
You obviously don't get the negative emissions calculation. I've given you the numbers in my earlier post. Put simply, for each 2000kg of carbon the algae consumes (takes out the atmosphere) to create biofuel, 850kg is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Using this biofuel, we will reduce carbon in the atmosphere If we only go to zero emissions, we leave the atmosphere damaged.
Zero isn't good enough, we need to reverse at least some of the damage. Using algal or perennial grass biofuel turns us negative on co2 in the atmosphere.

If we look at what we have right now, nothing is at zero emissions. Remember most electricity generated "right now" is from fossil fuels plus the incredibly dangerous nuclear option. So each time you drive your electric car you are contributing/adding to the co2 in our atmosphere, plus giving the world the added problem of how to dispose of mountains of highly toxic batteries.


:doh: negative carbon balancing algae IS NOT AVAILABLE TODAY ON ANY SCALE, ITS NOT AVAILABLE TOMORROW EITHER, IT COULD BE AVAILABLE THEORETICALLY IN THE FUTURE

What you are saying about negative emissions is that we can produce energy that emmits but also has a side effect of reducing carbon being emitted elsewhere and actually have a net negative effect and I am saying thats theiretical in the future IF someone solves a so far evasive soultion to scaling up algae production beyond a fe barrels a year at present.
Solar and electric would ultimately create zero - to redcue emisions elsewhere we would be at liberty to use other methods as we are trying now to reduce in many more magnitudes of that sideeffect from the future alage solution - so thats an opiate offered by the oild companies and eagerly lapped up by 'some' of the populace

WE ARE NOT IN THE FUTURE, WE HAVE A ZERO EMISSION PATH WE COULD BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT TODAY, yes to charge your zero emission battery will cost in emission BUT ITS STILL 100x BETTER OVER THE LIFETIME OF THE CAR and we are close to been able to use solar for the charging the batteries - THEN apart from building the battery WE WOULD HAVE ZERO EMISSION FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE CAR - THAT WOULD BE a miilion times BETTER THAN BIOFUELS WHICH EMITT CARBON AND OTHER EVEN MORE DANGEROUS STUFF WITH UNKNOWN LONG TERM EFFECTS

I dont mind going on refuting misguided facts, as long as the usual b!thches dont start complaining - INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS NUCLEAR OPTION??? more dangerous than what we doing now if there is an accident so scrap that,

lets SPEND THE MONEY ON IMPLEMENTING SOLAR ( maybe as well as WIND AND TIDAL) NOW

We are close to solar able to charge the batteries - its just inconvenient cos it takes time and space - AS INVESTMENT GROWS THAT WILL BE SOLVED - thats why the car manfacturers, even those in F1 and backing ELECTRIC
Last edited by CookinFlat6 on 25 Oct 14, 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
#422511
Why don't most road going electric cars have solar panels.... or even a wind turbine it would charge itself up as it drove...


Before anyone points it out the extra weight of the ancillaries these would need would be to heavy to make it worth its while
#422518
Surface area Jabs

With todays solar tech (which is constantly improving the more is spent) we can do this

1 hectacre = 10000 square meters
We can run for 2,692,008 miles per 10000 square meters
Say you can stick 4 sq meters on top your limo
then you can charge enough to run 46 miles with your rooftop installation,
lets say that the charging rate is full charge i.e 46 miles in one hour,
then you would currently be able to just about get about town all day long for free at 46 mph
BUT
that doesnt factor in the weight cost of the panels although it assumes you you dont need much storage as its constantly charging so with some clever stuff that weight could be offset
BUT
Charging rates are probably around 12 hours so you could drive around at 3mph lol

this is off the top of my head using the available number for surface area, the charging rate could be better or a lot worse, and ofcourse yu need no british weather :irked:
I stand to be corrected by more accurate an better data

However we can then go into street lamps and bus stops and other places providing roof space so you dont have t lug around your own ppanels, just stop every 10 yards lol

anyway the point here is that its finally starting to enter the ball park of doable if money is spent the tech exists today just needs to be improved

in the meantime why not build electric cars and push the tech and improve it. I think nuclear would be the best short term solution till you have solar somehow practical enough to replace it to charge the batteries
Last edited by CookinFlat6 on 25 Oct 14, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
#422527
This is why Formula E and all the other stuff going on is all about pushing these boundaries, and try ignore the oil industry with their diversionary tactics and massive publicity campaigns and Government token schemes to REDUCE emissions by 20% using biofuels in the next 10 years
In 10 years of pushing the solar etc could become practical enough for everyone, and you have hrdrogen which needs diribution and production - with solar you buy the stuff and you dont need anyone else after to profit off you - which isnt very attractive
#422530
:blush: 1 last rant about the negative emission opiate

Its like a plastic surgeon who is worried about going out of business comes up to you and says - '

you got 2 options:

1 is to let me bash your face in, let I'll fix it afterwards and you will look even better than you did before

2 is let me not do anything at all to your face, in fact you can find other ways of improving your looks without surgery, just stop smoking and drinking for starters, then maybe try and wash your face with natural soap and not this chemical loaded stuff etc etc

just sayin...
#422534
Because what do they do when the oil runs out.

How much profit did Kodak make, until the chose not to diversify into digital photography.

Sony also decided to ignore flat screen TV's and stuck with trinitron for a bit too long.

Blockbusters (video/did rental) have just all died a death in the UK because of Netflix and Co.

ExxonMobil may be making a lot of profit now but as a business model if the do not look to the futire the writing is on the wall for it.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 22

See our F1 related articles too!