The reduced emission car debate

Best 10 yr option for the global populace based on the real data and incentivised by the government?

Biofuels/petrol mix and hope someone invents a mass biofuel solution that doesn't mean we go hungry?
2
29%
Electric cars that could be charged by nuclear right now for zero emission or by fossil fuel fired for now until the solar, wind stations can replace them
2
29%
Do you think I am either a complete idiot or that my name is Shell, BP or Tex?, the answer is clear what the car companies are doing
2
29%
Other, please explain
1
14%
 
Total votes: 7

CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Ok its time to find out what those with an interest in cars and racing think about the biggest impending shakeup for 100 years

The situation
The environment is seriously in danger/already endangered by greenhouse gasses leading to climate change and the etreme weather, spoil erosion, tidal level rise and other woriies. A big part of this is proven to be man made burning of carbon rich fossil fuels especially in transportation

The debate
Car usage is exponentially rising as new regions develop further following the model of the so called 1st world. Therefore the cumulative effect of the increase in damage were things to carry on as they are is unthinkable. Something has to be done

There are many different approaches all governed by cost, price of implementation and logistical, social and political drivers

Zero emissions is the obvious end result to strive towards, although if that is not feasible immediately then the next best thing is to take steps now towards it - but something must be done and is been done

No need to go into all the options as a google search is available to those interested, however there are 2 main schools here of the next steps

One
Turn to zero emission electric powered cars charged by fossil fuels power stations for now, but very soon nuclear or other low or zero emission power stations or solutions such as wind farms, solar, tidal. Solar is natures answer to the power station that charges the battery - this, once implemented would be zero emission clean energy of mass transportation. Electric cars are not new, they have been around 100 years, but never caught on as nowhere as easy as petrol cars. However still not as convenient, the technology has improved vastly and is continuing to do so at an incredible rate - we already have the nuclear station option available to charge the battery - so theoretically if everyone agreed today we could all have zero emission mass transport costing around 50 - 100 times less than petrol and zero damage to the environment. There is opposition to existing nuclear and zero em power station alternatives like solar and wind etc will take a lot of time, money and political will.
The car makers are all backing the electric car end result via hybrids while the tech catches up with ICEs convenience. The oil lobbies have no interest in electric, nuclear, wind or solar as they lose their huge profit monopoly on energy. The environmental issue is addressed with this first choice, everyone pays more to start but soon they will be as convenient as petrol with the zero ems benefits

Two
Biofuel/fosil fuel mix. This option is favoured by the oil companies when forced to factor in the damaged environment into their plans. Biofuels are an alternative to fossil fuels as they are recently dead organic matter and not organic matter soaked in the earth for millions of years locking in carbon. The problem with crops is that they do no yield much energy for the space they consume, so turning over farmland means less food that costs more. To replace oil for the foreseable future with biofuels would need almost all the land mass we have turned over to growing crops just for energy.

A lot of frantic investment is going into making this more efficient and there is the promise of algae to do the job without having to use fertile farm land - but again there is no concrete solution only the hope of a breakthrough on this front to produce a mass method which is not happening at all

The benefits are that existing diesels ICEs can be converted to using a bio fuel mix that AT best would give a reduction of greenhouse gasses between 50% - 90%. At 90% lots of other more deadly gases would be emitted, that we would have to deal with later. Heres the kicker, if everyone used the pure bio fuels that only emitted 10% + the dangerous stuff no one knows the effects of - then we would not be able to grow any food. Therefore the governments have called for a 20/80 mix by 2025 - guess what the 80% is - yup fossil fuel diesel
But ofcourse the oil companies would only drop 20% sales

So there you have the basic argument started on this forum recently when it was claimed Hybrid-electric was a scam and that algae WOULD replace oil

The car companies who sell diesel cars that can be expensively converted to bio desiel are nevertheless spending all the r&d on hybrid and electric

So the big question - are the car companies right to throw money at developing electric and heading toward fully electric cars as good as petrol for price range and convenience or should they have given up and accept that everyone will prefer to continue with ICE petrol/ biodiesel, which costs 130% more and emits 60% less than petrol instead of accept electric cars which cost 0.025% of the price of petrol if implemented with TODAYS powerstation/electric car technology AND have 0 emissions?

Please vote and leave your reason (optional)
Please do not post any complaints or off topic stuff especially if you have nothing to add to the debate :thumbup:
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
What's Burning?
Banned
Posts: 21486
Joined: 24 Feb 10, 00:09
Favourite Driver: Lewis Hamilton, Nico Hulkenberg
Favourite Team: Porsche North America, Porsche LMP1
Location: PULL IN CASE OF FIRE

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by What's Burning? »

Hydrogen fuel cells to augment Electric power.
"I don't want to be part of a forum where everyone has differing opinions." Boom...
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

I always think of hydrogen fuel cells and remember the Hindenburg - well not actually remember it cos I was around - but pictures etc, I guess its a lot safer now to store, the transportation to the outlets could be expensive though.
And its about 2000£ to convert a car now IIRC
This would only really be to extend the range as if it was chosen as the replacement then hydrogen charging points will be everywhere and yu wont need your own big portable store for normal journeys
Hydrogen is a very good alternative for all mass transportation if the governments decided to ignore the oil guys and their 'useful idiots' and invested in the infrastructure. it would probably cause a shift away from individual cars and more into automated shuttles sharing power from a line or underfloor.

I wonder if anyone who drives has really never considered these questions instead thinking the car as it is will be here forever, there cant be drastic changes possible
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
What's Burning?
Banned
Posts: 21486
Joined: 24 Feb 10, 00:09
Favourite Driver: Lewis Hamilton, Nico Hulkenberg
Favourite Team: Porsche North America, Porsche LMP1
Location: PULL IN CASE OF FIRE

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by What's Burning? »

I can't think of another invention besides the car the toaster and the iron that have remained essentially unchanged from their original design 100 years ago.
"I don't want to be part of a forum where everyone has differing opinions." Boom...
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

With some of the classic stuff thats existed unchanged for the longest time, ironically enough the only thing that has changed after centuries is - electricity

guitars - electrc
Pianos - electric
cookers - electric
toothbrushes - electric
abacus - electric
heating - electric
lighting - electric
cooling - electric
but mention cars will inevitably become electric now we are on the road to overcoming the technological barriers present 100 years ago?

:yikes: THIS IS BLASPHEMY apparently to the useful idiot servants of the oil lobby
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Heres a great source about the benefits of bio fuels and how they are a MUCH cleaner alternative and in case you are not sure the colours are all green

http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesses/biofuels.html

and this is the really good part, where the 'useless idiots' already mind washed by those caring people who paid for all this research can get all their info so they can regale and educate others

http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesses/biofuels/biofuels-done-well/the-on-going-debate.html
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Interestingly, only 2 votes on this topic thats important to every car driver and presumably every member of this site.

Yet a couple of the usual melons are capable of posting just to complain about the level of entertainment they have been provided, but unable to click on a vote, unable to divert their energies from reading the bickering for 1 second preferring to hear about the wonders of biofuels and a regurgitation of BP Oils argument for it and the evils of hybrids, electricity and nuclear energy. So its ok to listen to half baked nonsense as long as it is not challenged by the truth - then it becomes hard work to think - all that bickering is hurting our brain cell

Lets take BPs word and buy bio fuels and oil 20/80 to avoid BP losing out in this environmental stuff, its much easier that way than to listen to arguments, lets spank ourselves for BPs benefit and let others decide things for us :thumbup:
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
User avatar
CigarGuy
Posts: 258
Joined: 10 Oct 14, 12:37
Favourite Driver: Alonso/Button
Favourite Team: McLaren
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CigarGuy »

What's Burning? wrote:I can't think of another invention besides the car the toaster and the iron that have remained essentially unchanged from their original design 100 years ago.

Guns
Speaking English as a second language
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

This is a well laid out argument for biofuels instead of electric cars

Blending higher levels of biofuels into road transport fuels could be a more cost-effective way of cutting the UK sector's emissions than a large-scale rollout of electric cars.
That is the conclusion of a new report by consultancy Element Energy and commissioned by oil giant BP, which part-owns the Vivergo ethanol plant in Hull.


after a bunch of rubbish, there is a little caveat

However, the report adds that stronger policy signals will be needed to encourage the industry to produce the advanced ‘drop-in' fuels derived from feedstocks such as algae or waste that do not compete with food production.


but hold on, biofuels dropped in with existing oil products are much cheaper and better than electric, as long as the industry (BP) are ENCOURAGED to use algae and waste - which doesnt work yet on any meaningful scale.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2295231/report-biofuels-could-cut-co2-cheaper-than-electric-cars

bet no one spots the irony here, maybe its too complicated when facts and links are posted, maybe better to have someone just make up statements and lies
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Heres some more 'sponsored' experiments

The amazing success of the Tesla model S proves that electric cars may have a chance of replacing liquid fueled vehicles in the long run. Skeptics point out that most of our electric power today comes from coal, which is dirty and inefficient. We must change to clean, renewable energy sources but is that really practical? The Tesla has proven that we can use photovoltaic solar power to recharge pure electric cars. Let’s calculate how much land is needed to renewably fuel a car using several possible electrical and biofuel approaches.


the conclusion after this comparative analysis of biofuels vs electric?

To summarize, here are the results, arranged in order of land use efficiency, with an additional column showing the acres needed to support one car based on 13,476 average miles driven per year according to the FHA:

Rooftop reflector PV electric 2,692,008 miles/year/acre 1/200 acres/car

Concentrated PV solar electric 1,266,000 1/94

PV panels solar electric 729,000 1/54

Algenol, Joule algae ethanol 234,000 1/17

Wind power electric 165,000 1/12

Palm oil diesel fuel 21,500 1/2

Sugar cane ethanol 15,600 .86

Corn ethanol fuel 10,200 1.32

Soy diesel fuel 2,679 5

Though solar electric is the clear winner based on land use, biofuels are still in the race, particularly if commercial scale designer algae becomes a reality. Biofuels have a gigantic advantage in remote areas because no power lines are needed. The liquid fuel can simply be picked up and delivered by trucks and ships. High-capacity power lines are very expensive to build and are seldom found in remote, tropical areas where land is cheap.
The existing sources of biofuels from soy and corn are an embarrassing result of political influence and heavy subsidies. We must stop letting politicians make technical choices!


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/08/fueled-vs-electric-cars-the-great-race-begins-10

so there you have it the facts and stats the show electric and solar is miles ahead - however biofuels could figure in the race IF algae becomes a reality :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

I hope no one minds if I just continue to rant to myself on this thread :hehe:

I know that at least 1 person will/has benefited from this presentation of the freely available info out there that is normally difficult to take on as the oil industry have spent a sh!t load of money to make it so. They rely on most people saying 'well, if it really was that simple I would have heard about it, or ofcourse there must be a big downside to electric/solar, because the governments are not rushing to implement it'

And the part I love the most is this - The car companies are actually the only ones promoting electric - because it give them more power vs the oil companies :rofl: :rofl:

So lets today examine the mindset and claim of a typical citizen with average abilities and open access to all the true facts.

spankyham wrote:Corn is a relatively inefficient base for bio-fuels, it is however convenient.

So we start with a fact that cannot be ignored that bio fuels are inefficient - but we qualify that setting the stage - it is convenient - convieniece has now framed the discourse. Convinience is a point introduced without mentioning the need to change the environment or pressing need to achieve zero emissions.
Ok the average mind can digest this - 'we are looking at other fuels and bio is convenient'

spankyham wrote: Switchgrass or algae are better solutions. These do not compete with food and use land generally not considered for food production. Algae does use normally non-arable land with saline ground water. It also cleans water. Valuable effects for our environment. It could be grown is sufficient quantities without impacting food production - in fact, it could contribute to greater food production through net beneficial effects on water.
.

Then we block off any smart debate by preempting the answer to any questions about the inefficiency of biofuels in land usage by mentioning something that only exists right now in cloud cuckoo land if to be compared to electric or solar or other zero emission solutions. And we forget to mention that even with algae 100% replacing oil we would still have carbon emissions as well as some other dangerous emissions we do not have a problem with yet but are even worse than carbon

And the coup de grace? - we throw in some psuedo theoretical facts about normal biological algae - not the ones we are gonna scietifically produce in mass - oh yes alqae in your garden pond clean water by feeding on waste - VALUABLE EFFECTS FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT :rofl:

biofuels are better than zero emission solutions becioase we can continue to use the oil based liquid fuels we love so much, and corn is much more convieneient that electric, why we could all grow corn in our backyard, oh and dont worry about needing too much land, we will just use algae which also clean the plannet

:doh: win win win :doh:
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
User avatar
racechick
Missing Mod
Posts: 23581
Joined: 03 Aug 07, 11:08
Favourite Driver: Lewis Hamilton
Favourite Team: Mercedes AMG Petronas
Location: Nottinghham UK

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by racechick »

Well I haven't voted yet because I don't know enough about it. The bit I do know means I'd likely vote the electric car option. They're getting cheaper, faster, going farther, generally becoming a viable option and of course are clean. When my little Suzuki gives up the ghost I'd consider one, for round town use especially, not just yet, in a few years.
Things are moving quickly with electric cars, and I can see them being the thing of the future. I think I've just talked myself into the electric car option.

Other thoughts I have about power are that we have to find an alternative to fossil fuels, they are limited in supply and we are in currently having to trade at inflated prices with the countries that have oil ( Russia and the Arab states) and that has a bearing on how we deal with these countries politically. France moved to nuclear years ago and I believe they're pretty mush self sufficient. We ( the UK) abandoned our programme and are now playing catch up.

Wind farms I have mixed views on. I don't mind the look of them but there will need to be SO many to get even part of what we need. In the UK the wind farms are a great cost compared to what we get out of it, so that the government can satisfy EU Regs on green power. But I don't think it's effective. And the costs for the green power have other implications and aren't even that green.
Anyway, as I say, more reading needed, I just pick bits up .
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abe Lincoln


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Great attitude RC. You do not need that much reading, infact in this thread is already enough to throw light on whats really happening and why we all feel we dont know enough about the debate.

As you rightly point out nuclear is an immediate solution to the power plant side - but a certain lobby has seized on the scare mongering side to scare Britain away. Instead of nuclear a massive investment could be made in solar and or wind which are proven alternatives and could be implemented IF the politicians were not fed by a certain lobby

So thats the power plant side - for the everyday mass transport emissions that are the biggest factor - a zero emiision alternative that we could switch to almost immediatel is electricity. But a certain lobby point out that electrictiy is not convenient and when charged with fossil fuel power stations is only about 100x better than continuing as we are.

But they have a great solution, mixing existing fuel with a toke towards reducing emissions - biofuels - which allow us to continue buying their oil

Why are car makers investing in electric? because they know the convenience angle is a crock, they know the cost of charging is a trump card, and they know that sooner or later the people and the environment will prevail, in the meantime a certain lobby are throwing everything at keeping their profits including the commissioning of millions of reports designed to appeal to the chronically weak minded and status quo motivated

Just ask yourself, what would you really prefer to drive, a clean cheaply charged electric car (and they are fast improving on convienience) or an ICE belching oil and an expensive additive that harms the environment in new and alarming ways and increases the rice of food? Then its easier to vote
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44
User avatar
bud
Shrub
Posts: 17633
Joined: 10 Jan 06, 03:02
Favourite Driver: Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton
Favourite Team: McLaren
Location: Adelaide, Australia, ɹǝpun uʍop

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by bud »

CookinFlat6 wrote:Heres a great source about the benefits of bio fuels and how they are a MUCH cleaner alternative and in case you are not sure the colours are all green

http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesses/biofuels.html

and this is the really good part, where the 'useless idiots' already mind washed by those caring people who paid for all this research can get all their info so they can regale and educate others

http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesses/biofuels/biofuels-done-well/the-on-going-debate.html


The only problem with biofuels is having enough land to grow it.
The worlds natural habitat has enough issues now without throwing that into the mix.
CookinFlat6
Banned
Posts: 7206
Joined: 21 Apr 12, 21:22
Favourite Driver: Hamiltonian
Favourite Team: HDL
Location: Banned

Re: The reduced emission car debate

Post by CookinFlat6 »

Exactly Bud, that biofuels are even recieving and subsidy or regulations from politicians is the biggest disgrace yet. The environment is a secondary thing to making money and keeping the oil industry happy. Any sabe world would ban all ICE tomorrow and force only zero em electric plus nuclear stations while building solar farms

And people are blind to this or even worse peddling the crap with authority on free speech forums
Image
2014 Monster 26x Bookie Mugger
2015, 2016 WDC: LH44