Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)

- - Hurricane (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/107901-hurricane.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbosina (Post 2428594)

Sure, but if that electricity is generated from hydro, solar, geothermal, or wind... Whole different story.

Those sources are not viable today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbosina (Post 2428579)

Nobody's saying you need to get rid of your F250. Heck, I own a turbocharged piston aircraft, and they're going to pry that out of my cold dead hands. And electric airplanes are still a long way off, although there are some very light, all-electric GA aircraft that are showing promise.

What I am saying is that the sooner we replace oil as a primary fuel, the better. 10 years from now we'll have electric F350s, boats, and whatever other toys you want (aside from commercial aircraft). As a nation, we should be investing heavily in bringing replacement technologies to market. It's a win-win: we create jobs with the development of the new tech (admittedly, it'd probably be a transfer of jobs from petrochemical extraction and refinement, rather than a net creation of jobs), and we quit pouring so much carbon into the atmosphere. We also deprive nations like Iran and Saudi of their leverage over us.

Show me the one negative result of such a scenario.

Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 2428621)

How much electricity is actually produced in those ways? Also, you have to count all the energy ( dirty energy) that goes into building Teslas and the nasty bit of producing the batteries. Then, there's taxpayers earning median wages paying for the tax break.

GF

The premise of the electric vehicle is that someday we will invent a battery technology that doesn't pollute more than gas. Right now, a Tesla has to be driven for more than 8 years to have a break even carbon footprint over a gasser, then it starts saving the environment:rolleyes:. Green tech isn't green, it's setting up an infrastructure that could be green some day, if we can go around the laws of thermodynamics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 2428660)

Yea, electric vehicles have a higher carbon foot print to manufacturer, but produce less carbon over its life span, but is recouped rather quickly.

I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...ull-report.pdf

Page 22

Quote:

For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, on average, the extra manufacturing emissions are o set within 19,000 miles, or in about 16 months of driving, based on the sales-weighted elec- tricity emissions of where EVs are sold today (assuming a 265-mile-range BEV travels the same rst-year mileage as the typical new gasoline car). When driving a BEV recharged from the cleanest regional grids in the United States, these extra manufacturing emissions are o set within the rst 15,000 miles of driving, or in just under one year for the aver- age driver. On the dirtiest grid they are o set within 39,000 miles, or in less than three years for the typical vehicle owner.

Page 21

Quote:

For a full-size 265-mile-range BEV, manufacturing emis- sions are approximately 68 percent, or 6 tons of CO2e higher than a comparable conventional gasoline vehicle. Total global warming emissions of the full-size BEV, when powered by the electricity grid mix representative of where BEVs are sold today, are 53 percent lower than the comparable full-size gasoline car, thereby saving 54 tons of CO2e. The global warming emissions from manufacturing a full-size BEV are about 33 percent of its lifetime global warming emissions; the remaining 67 percent come from driving it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I like BIG Bus (Post 2428556)

Seems as if the words 'climate change' has thrown someone into a, what was it again, "religious, mouth-frothing sort of hysteria" and made them come across in a rather blame-casting, guilt-assigning, preachy sort of way.

So the potential catastrophic consequences to 10's of millions of people isn't worth hysteria to you? You don't think that perhaps that is his concern?

And if you don't believe it, I suppose you would support doing more research to determine the exact effects, since many scientists are concerned climate change could be the end of a significant portion of species on the planet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMoon (Post 2428681)

Yea, electric vehicles have a higher carbon foot print to manufacturer, but produce less carbon over its life span, but is recouped rather quickly.

I'd be curious to see the source of your 8 year break even.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...ull-report.pdf

Page 22

Page 21

The source is the actual manufacturing process, vs the assumed model manufacturing process, that is where Green technology is a scam. Read the modeling assumptions in that article you posted, they assume the battery is the GREET model applied to the Nissan Leaf. However, the Nissan Leaf is a USA made battery, which is specially manufactured to have the lowest carbon footprint model for comparison. Tesla on the other hand, sources 18650 commodity batteries from Panasonic that are similar to common rechargeable batteries. I'm not even considering the low volume production inefficiencies of Tesla.

Tesla's are a fun, good looking car, but not some environmental friendly alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemons (Post 2428623)

Those sources are not viable today.

History is full of people who think like you.

From Columbus's expedition of 1492 (which was derided and rejected by his native Portugal as an impossible dream), to man's conquest of space (which was also derided as pure fantasy by those who warned that the vacuum of space would be instantly fatal and the technology would never be invented to conquer it), to the personal computing revolution, history has been full of naysayers who are always ready to tell you why it can't be done.

Fortunately, history tends to relegate people like that to the sidelines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShyGuy (Post 2428632)

Cool. Then some Democratic presidential candidate can claim, "We're gonna put those gas and oil rig workers out of work!" :rolleyes: and then lose the election to Eric Trump.

Like I said, the entire climate change phenomenon was presented in entirely the wrong way to the American public. Guilt never works as a tool to change people's behavior.

The question isn't whether oil will be replaced as the planet's primary source of transportation-related fuel (cars, boats, planes, etc) in our lifetime. It will. The question is, what's going to replace it, and who's going to hold the patents on that technology?

Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me.

Climate change shouldn't be a question of belief or even politics. Even if you insist on denying it's happening, it's blindingly obvious that our future economic and political security depend on identifying a viable replacement and bringing that technology to the mass market.

Some would say that's not the job of government, that we should leave it to market forces to sort out. To that I would say, if it had not been for the United States government, if we'd relied on private industry to take us into space, we still would be looking up at the moon and wondering when, if ever, we'd visit it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbosina (Post 2428852)

Listening to the Trumpniks on this forum, I guess they're happy to let, say, China take that lead. All because they want to spite them durn liberals. It's utterly perplexing to me.

That's absolutely not what's happening, the liberals are the ones blocking next generation nuclear power that the Chinese are working on. Jimmy Carter specifically is the one who ordered it shut down.

Turbosina,

I'll make a not very brave prediction here--petroleum won't be replaced in transportation in this century. Oil has too much of a lead in energy density over any foreseeable electrical source. It's something like 20 times more energy-dense than any electrical power source.

The energy density of jet fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg versus the best current rechargeable battery is about 250 Wh/kg. It will take a major breakthrough or nuclear power to replace oil.

GF