Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.

Sorry you’re a little behind but my solar panels do an excellent job charging my batteries. Wind the jury is still out but the new tech should make a big change in efficiency.Heck my solar panel works well with a full moon.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Electrics would be good for reducing urban emissions, agreed.
Electrolysis cannot supply the demand. Even with the low numbers of hydrogen fueled cars now in use they have to strip hydrogen from hydrocarbon gasses. Unfortunately, a step toward the most effective solution is the least attractive - mass transit.
Similarly, the health care crisis would shrink to become a mere health care problem if people would only eat right and exercise.
Inconvenient is not the American Way.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Sometimes, it needs to be legislated. All government regulations are not all bad.

[Fair Game]

954Classifieds wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if we will truly ever know the real answer on this subject.People say that we had this type of warming hundreds of years ago and that its just a cycle.My answer to that is we didn't have cars and factories back then!!!

People?

The science says this warming is unprecedented for a thousand years or more, and that the known causes of past temperature change do not explain this warming.

[naw]

naw

[PHD]

The more things change the more they remain the same. Scientist corrects an issue than discover more issues that show their corrected issue is incorrect. Ask Einstein.

[litesong]

phdudd wrote:

Scientist corrects an issue than discover more issues that show their corrected issue is incorrect.

Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......

The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.

[litesong]

litesong wrote:
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......
//////////
pududd wrote:
The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.
//////////
litesong wrote:
pududd follows me around like a puppy dog & copies my ideas, tho he makes them worse in the process. But his copied ideas are better than his original thoughts.

[PHD]

litesout wrote:

litesong wrote:
Should have stayed with the flat-Earth concept.......'here be dragons' beyond.......
//////////
pududd wrote:
The only thing that is flat, why the top of your head.
//////////
litesout wrote:
pududd follows me around like a puppy dog & copies my ideas, tho he makes them worse in the process. But his copied ideas are better than his original thoughts.

So if I copy your ideas and make them worse your ideas must have by your own words useless. Now that you cleared that up it could be the first step in your recovery. Oh still the only flat thing here is the top of your head.

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry you’re a little behind but my solar panels do an excellent job charging my batteries. Wind the jury is still out but the new tech should make a big change in efficiency.Heck my solar panel works well with a full moon.

Behind? okaaay...
There are over 60 million passenger cars in the US alone. Maybe 1/10th of 1% of those are electric (not counting golf carts, mobility scooters, etc.). At .001 kw generated per square foot and between 1.8 - 2.7 kw and 6-10 hr to charge, how many panels would it take to maintain a mere 60,000 electric vehicles? If the goal is to replace the internal combustion engine altogether, that doesn't count for trucks, buses, landscape, farm and construction equipment, etc. etc. where toting batteries is (at the very least) impractical.

[litesong]

ChromiuMan wrote:

.......toting batteries is .... impractical.

Electric motors are wonderful, in-city pollution freedom(almost no pollution, no where, with hydro, wind or solar power), providing power in small packages, highest torque at lowest rpms, three TIMES the efficiency of 100 plus years of internal combustion engine development, simple, & providing utter quietness & smoothness, compared to ICE.

Work the battery technology & the miracles will follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[ChromiuMan]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Electric motors are wonderful, in-city pollution freedom(almost no pollution, no where, with hydro, wind or solar power), providing power in small packages, highest torque at lowest rpms, three TIMES the efficiency of 100 plus years of internal combustion engine development, simple, & providing utter quietness & smoothness, compared to ICE.
Work the battery technology & the miracles will follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Wonderful? Hmm. Okay.
It always comes down to the right tool for the right job. For personal transportation the electric motor is fine. For harvesting a few thousand acres of wheat - not so much.
There are many circumstances where toting batteries is impractical. The car in the video is carrying well over 600 lbs of lead acid batteries to feed its 300 HP motor, and the cost for these was probably around $9,000. A truck battery can easily weigh 6 times as much as the ones used in the White Zombie, and most trucks carry 2 just for the starter. To provide the amp hours to RUN a school bus, dump truck or semi would be off the charts.

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Behind? okaaay...
There are over 60 million passenger cars in the US alone. Maybe 1/10th of 1% of those are electric (not counting golf carts, mobility scooters, etc.). At .001 kw generated per square foot and between 1.8 - 2.7 kw and 6-10 hr to charge, how many panels would it take to maintain a mere 60,000 electric vehicles? If the goal is to replace the internal combustion engine altogether, that doesn't count for trucks, buses, landscape, farm and construction equipment, etc. etc. where toting batteries is (at the very least) impractical.

Inductive charging.Space Solar Power. Not practical but soon will be.

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Inductive charging.Space Solar Power. Not practical but soon will be.

Please don't go there. You'll look as silly as Tina Less Than a Box of Rocks.

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Please don't go there. You'll look as silly as Tina Less Than a Box of Rocks.

You look even sillier keeping yourself limited.

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>You look even sillier keeping yourself limited.

I said please, didn't I?
Get back with me after you've rewound a few motors. Inductive charging for high amperage applications? Inverse square law is just one of a half dozen factors against that gimmick - and that's all it is for 99% of applications, a gimmick. If your device is close enough for inductive charging you are better off just to plug it in. Space based power generation for terrestrial consumption? Not feasible for another dozen reasons.

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
I said please, didn't I?
Get back with me after you've rewound a few motors. Inductive charging for high amperage applications? Inverse square law is just one of a half dozen factors against that gimmick - and that's all it is for 99% of applications, a gimmick. If your device is close enough for inductive charging you are better off just to plug it in. Space based power generation for terrestrial consumption? Not feasible for another dozen reasons.

I said this is a Free America didn't I? You can limit your thinking if you choose. Henry Ford was called a gimmick with his assembly line and he was able to industrialize the world. Ya that rewind thing you talk about was covered in basic electricity class. Not feasible is because you choose to limit yourself.

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>I said this is a Free America didn't I? You can limit your thinking if you choose. Henry Ford was called a gimmick with his assembly line and he was able to industrialize the world. Ya that rewind thing you talk about was covered in basic electricity class. Not feasible is because you choose to limit yourself.

rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.

It was basic electricity class.Only if you choose to be done. You have a greater day.

[PHD]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
rewind was covered in electricity class... okay. I guess we're done here. You have a nice day, now.

www.ehow.com/how_8777580_do-yo urself-winding-electric-motor. html
Maybe this will help.