$5 billion express lanes will alleviate metro congestion, GDOT says

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by T Block

I didn't mean to start an on-going branch subject. And I usually try to make a presentation and then avoid on-going discussion.

But the trucking situation was related to too many trucks on the interstate highways. The future problem is going to be carbon-dioxide release and limited supplies of energy. Long haul trucks can be developed to use green or blue hydrogen but supply will be limited. Gray hydrogen is available but includes carbon release during reforming.

Carrying truck containers by train takes more time but uses less energy.

In any case, trucks or trains can have large amounts of torque with electric-motors and electric-motors can be run with hydrogen-fuel-cells. Also, with hydrogen-fuel-cells then battery weight is reduced.

Now the port of Savannah is in the news with an expanded train yard
.

The main thing that concerns me about tackling vehicles over carbon dioxide release is even if all vehicles were to go virtually 0 emissions, it wouldn’t even dent climate change. We actually came fairly close over the shutdown period of the Pandemic but we recorded only a 0.1% reduction of atmospheric Co2.

I don’t disagree that we should make every effort to reduce vehiclure emissions, but vehicles are a very small part of a very large pie, and no one is mentioning the other, much larger slices and how we are going to address those…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6...ature=youtu.be

[T Block]

Well, electrification of vehicles increases electricity demand by 50% with the target year being 2050. The growth of renewables can't keep up. So if the renewables are accounted to buildings and houses then fossil fuel will be accounted to vehicles. Or if renewables are accounted to vehicles then fossil fuel will be accounted to buildings.

One chart says the carbon-release from fossil fuel is currently 41% electricity and heat generation, 22% transportation sector, 20% industrial sector, 6% residential sector, and 10% other. Well, combine electrified of transportation with the electricity and heat sector and there's the 50% increase in demand for electricity. This calculation agrees with multiple sources.

In the U.S. there's no effective legislation while in Europe there is carbon-pricing. If the carbon price reaches the consumer then ground-source heat-pumps might become more popular.

Or there may be rationing of personal-vehicle use so that rationing of energy for buildings and houses is not necessary. The key year is 2050. Strangely enough, if there is rationing of personal-vehicle use then battery-powered electric-vehicles will likely be over-developed for their usage. Other types of vehicles are not primary designed for driving range because size of a fuel tank is not primary design.

The best hope for avoiding a rationing, or a taxation, or a high pricing of energy is ground-source heat-pumps for houses with lots and modular nuclear power which standardizes production of nuclear reactors and standardizes construction of nuclear powerplants. Also, carbon-capture of fossil fuel could be a significant fundamental.

Where are renewables ? Renewables top out on land use. The growth of renewables stops while the demand for electricity grows.

Long haul trucking is planning on the use of green or blue hydrogen. City-wide trucking is planning on battery-power
.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by T Block

Well, electrification of vehicles increases electricity demand by 50% with the target year being 2050. The growth of renewables can't keep up. So if the renewables are accounted to buildings and houses then fossil fuel will be accounted to vehicles. Or if renewables are accounted to vehicles then fossil fuel will be accounted to buildings.

One chart says the carbon-release from fossil fuel is currently 41% electricity and heat generation, 22% transportation sector, 20% industrial sector, 6% residential sector, and 10% other. Well, combine electrified of transportation with the electricity and heat sector and there's the 50% increase in demand for electricity. This calculation agrees with multiple sources.

In the U.S. there's no effective legislation while in Europe there is carbon-pricing. If the carbon price reaches the consumer then ground-source heat-pumps might become more popular.

Or there may be rationing of personal-vehicle use so that rationing of energy for buildings and houses is not necessary. The key year is 2050. Strangely enough, if there is rationing of personal-vehicle use then battery-powered electric-vehicles will likely be over-developed for their usage. Other types of vehicles are not primary designed for driving range because size of a fuel tank is not primary design.

The best hope for avoiding a rationing, or a taxation, or a high pricing of energy is ground-source heat-pumps for houses with lots and modular nuclear power which standardizes production of nuclear reactors and standardizes construction of nuclear powerplants. Also, carbon-capture of fossil fuel could be a significant fundamental.

Where are renewables ? Renewables top out on land use. The growth of renewables stops while the demand for electricity grows.

Long haul trucking is planning on the use of green or blue hydrogen. City-wide trucking is planning on battery-power
.

Well this is getting off topic but once more the main issue I have with all of this is, these factors even when subtracted to a minimal, will do virtually nothing against climate change. There are too many factors far beyond our individual and even government control that are contributing to it, ranging from agriculture, deforestation, developing nations (a BIG contributor), concrete, industrial manufacturing, and so forth. Literally to exist as a developed 1st world nation we live in today, Co2 output is purely inevitable. To truly cure the problem, massive changes, far beyond rationing but literally everything about the world we live in today would have to change, in fact it could quite possibly require less people living on earth.

EV's also are not as environmentally friendly as they are made out to be. The construction of a single EV lithium battery displaces as much Co2 as a ICE vehicle displaces over an operational cycle ranging between 2 to 8 year period of time depending on the vehicle and comparison ICE vehicle and many people do not keep a car for that long. The next problem comes with Lithium mining, that is far from environmentally friendly and will leave us heavily dependent on foreign nations for energy supply. It's basically no different than OPEC.

I'm not against going green, but I have an issue with the fact that the public isn't being fed the whole truth about the matter which leads me to believe there are underlying causes for the massive push towards EV's that has little to do with saving the environment but likely to fill someone's pockets. To truly fix climate change, we would have to change ALOT of things. Industries would have to change, airlines would have to as well, restrictions on developing nations would have to incur, even down to what we eat will have to be altered ... we would literally have to break down and reconstruct the society we live in today... ...changing what kind of vehicle we drive will do almost nothing toward the problem.

[columbusboy8]

As part of its climate change concerns, is there any truth that the current administration may be considering eliminating tailgating? Possibly even fining people for doing so? Imagine getting FINED for using your grill in YOUR OWN BACK YARD?? These folks are nuts!

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by columbusboy8

As part of its climate change concerns, is there any truth that the current administration may be considering eliminating tailgating? Possibly even fining people for doing so? Imagine getting FINED for using your grill in YOUR OWN BACK YARD?? These folks are nuts!

I personally haven't heard of it, sometimes I think stuff like that gets thrown at as scare tactics to keep us busy and worried while they focus on something else entirely different behind the scenes.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by columbusboy8

As part of its climate change concerns, is there any truth that the current administration may be considering eliminating tailgating? Possibly even fining people for doing so? Imagine getting FINED for using your grill in YOUR OWN BACK YARD?? These folks are nuts!

Lol.

Who would enforce a federal ban on tailgating in SEC football country during football season?

... Nobody.

... Nobody is going to tell rabid SEC football fans (or rabid Big Ten football fans, etc.) that they can’t cook chicken, hamburgers, hot dogs and sausage on the grill while tailgating during football season.

A presidential administration with a 36% approval rating especially is not going to ban people from tailgating because it is not something that would be doable, even if they had the political capital to do so, which they definitely don’t with such low approval numbers.

Some nominee for an assistant administrative position with the EPA suggested a ban on idling charcoal grills and old generators in a past research paper but clarified to a U.S. Senator that he himself grills out at least 3 times a week and that such a ban on tailgating is not realistic.

VIDEO: Capito Questions Biden Nominees (US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 27 Oct 2021)

Steering this back on topic, automobile emissions very likely probably generate significantly more pollution than backyard grills, and one likely way to maybe help cut down on automobile pollution seems to be to provide tolled express lanes where traffic will keep moving and maybe cut down on engine idling which generates more pollution.

[Need4Camaro]

rabid football fans

[architect77]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Lol.

Who would enforce a federal ban on tailgating in SEC football country during football season?

... Nobody.

... Nobody is going to tell rabid SEC football fans (or rabid Big Ten football fans, etc.) that they can’t cook chicken, hamburgers, hot dogs and sausage on the grill while tailgating during football season.

A presidential administration with a 36% approval rating especially is not going to ban people from tailgating because it is not something that would be doable, even if they had the political capital to do so, which they definitely don’t with such low approval numbers.

Some nominee for an assistant administrative position with the EPA suggested a ban on idling charcoal grills and old generators in a past research paper but clarified to a U.S. Senator that he himself grills out at least 3 times a week and that such a ban on tailgating is not realistic.

VIDEO: Capito Questions Biden Nominees (US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 27 Oct 2021)

Steering this back on topic, automobile emissions very likely probably generate significantly more pollution than backyard grills, and one likely way to maybe help cut down on automobile pollution seems to be to provide tolled express lanes where traffic will keep moving and maybe cut down on engine idling which generates more pollution.

long ago that would be true, but today's ultra low emissions internal combustion engines are much improved. Infact, supposedly one lawn mower engine emits the equivalent of 20 cars.

its good for attention. To be brought to activities that release VOCs and carbon. Then we'll see lower emitting briquettes for your backyard barbeque.