Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a hypothetical and a complete failure to remotely correlate it to reality.
An 6 mile in diameter asteroid hitting the earth would also have a huge impact. Sooner or later it will happen. According to scientists, it has happened before right?
If we go back to the failed attempt at math it's actually 1.2 feet or 1.244 if you want to be exact. This we know would have an impact because a large portion of the world's population lives directly on or near coastal waters. We can simply measure what that imapct would be, the results of out measurements would be unequivocal. That is not the case with CO2.
That all besides the point becsue my original post was intended to give perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.
....the first stage used refined kerosene and liquid oxygen for fuel. Ironic considering the point your are trying to make.
Quote:
we certainly can develop better power generation systems and transportation options to move people.
You're up against a lot. Fossil fuels can cheaply be extracted, can be stored and have a huge amount of energy relative to their volume and weight especially when you consider transportation. As far as cars go the biggest competitor to fossil fuel powered vehicles is more efficient fossil fueled powered vehicles. Even when you consider electric vehicles they are powered by fossil fuels for the most part too.
.You're up against a lot. Fossil fuels can cheaply be extracted, can be stored and have a huge amount of energy relative to their volume and weight especially when you consider transportation.
Yes, but they also emit carbon pollution which has been building up since the dawn of industrial use, and that buildup finally reached a point where the effect on the environment is measurable. It doesn't seem to laymen that a small percentage of increase can be responsible for such large changes in the environment.
Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use, yes, but we can't afford the cost of their pollution any longer.
Quote:
As far as cars go the biggest competitor to fossil fuel powered vehicles is more efficient fossil fueled powered vehicles. Even when you consider electric vehicles they are powered by fossil fuels for the most part too.
But that's only because electric cars have only been viable in the marketplace for a couple of years, whereas gas powered vehicles have been dominant for more than 100 years. Electric vehicles running on batteries charged by renewable energy, or by electricity from hydrogen generated by renewable energy are completely free of carbon emissions. And if fusion energy does become practical, it will be another source of pollution-free power for EVs.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that EV drives are far more energy efficient than are conventional ICE vehicles.
"But that's only because electric cars have only been viable in the marketplace for a couple of years, whereas gas powered vehicles have been dominant for more than 100 years. Electric vehicles running on batteries charged by renewable energy, or by electricity from hydrogen generated by renewable energy are completely free of carbon emissions. And if fusion energy does become practical, it will be another source of pollution-free power for EVs. "
Wonderful. And just when it that supposed to happen for everyone driving?
Alternative energy and related products can be the catalyst for the next economic revolution providing numerous good-paying, middle-class jobs for our citizens.
What will increase our GDP? You keeping at those math problems Don't think too far into alternative energy, think clean energy. Time to throw in some chemistry to that STEM mixture. What happens when eco-turds mix in ethanol into gasoline? We burn more gallons and price remains the same. Stay far away from eco-solutions, especially anything related to CO2-climate regulations. Only regulation of carbon dioxide I support is complete combustion emissions.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels On the "Big Lie" | Jewish Virtual Library
If we go back to the failed attempt at math it's actually 1.2 feet or 1.244 if you want to be exact. This we know would have an impact because a large portion of the world's population lives directly on or near coastal waters. We can simply measure what that imapct would be, the results of out measurements would be unequivocal. That is not the case with CO2.
That all besides the point becsue my original post was intended to give perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn't seem to laymen that a small percentage of increase can be responsible for such large changes in the environment.
I'm no laymen where this topic is concerned OpenD but to say CO2 is causing the increase in temperature is like saying you added insulation to your house and it's trapping heat without knowing if the windows are open. The variables that regulate climate are far more complex than one single gas.
Quote:
But that's only because electric cars have only been viable in the marketplace for a couple of years, whereas gas powered vehicles have been dominant for more than 100 years. Electric vehicles running on batteries charged by renewable energy, or by electricity from hydrogen generated by renewable energy are completely free of carbon emissions.
That's besides the point, I can get in my car and drive for 6 six hours. Fill up in 5minutes and drive for another 6 hours. I can repeat this process until the car mechanically fails. For one of my trucks I could of done this 24 hours. At my house I have enough coal in 6*12*5 space to heat 6000 sq. ft for the entire season and my house is old.
Quote:
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that EV drives are far more energy efficient than are conventional ICE vehicles.
Efficiency doesn't matter if it's not practical. EV's certainly have their place but don't expect they are going to replace gasoline/diesel.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-08-2014 at 09:38 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't think too far into alternative energy, think clean energy. Time to throw in some chemistry to that STEM mixture. What happens when eco-turds mix in ethanol into gasoline? We burn more gallons and price remains the same. Stay far away from eco-solutions, especially anything related to CO2-climate regulations. Only regulation of carbon dioxide I support is complete combustion emissions.
