Sign in to follow this  
arnulfo de l.a.

How much longer for the internal combustion engine?

Recommended Posts

I may be a pessimist, but I think climate change is coming faster and going to be worse than we thought, so yes, I think some serious change is coming.  Don't know if that's three years down the road or twenty.  Have though about this a lot recently.  Should I sell my old cars now before they're worthless or just bite the bullet when it happens?  Its such a huge hobby and industry the impact will be huge but there's definitely change a comin'.  Who's going to cut down the last tree on Easter island?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We can help limit pollution, and the US does more than many to do that.  But trying to prevent climate change isn't going to happen. (two very loosely connected things) of course anything can be strewed to look connected with enough interpretation.   As I said before for all the conservative efforts we take,  Mother nature shoves us back to where we were or much further back with one quick blow via a forest Fire , volcano or something else.  When we are careful of what we burn and restrict all emissions,  She comes in and smokes everything for sometimes hundreds of square miles,  from the entire car to the garage it's in and the garbage in the garbage can at the curb.  

Forest management is crucial and too many organizations can't see past the individual tree for the overall picture of forest health. 

I would worry more about overpopulation than climate change. 

Edited by auburnseeker (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that more methane gas is produced in California by cow farts than automobiles.  Whadda you do about that? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bio-fuels plantations could reduce the damage from so called "fossil fuels", as soon as the rain forests get burned off so plowing can start.

image.png.7b9b845a74c51a2e185a080714da1587.png.

 

It is a little tough on the locals.

image.png.d58ad58f06a755ec3966f232ff7900e6.png

 

They don't understand we need to keep the lights on.

DCnight.JPG.085962eb8381f38cdc183cee76041909.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RivNut said:

I read somewhere that more methane gas is produced in California by cow farts than automobiles.  Whadda you do about that? 🤔

There is a serious concern about methane gas trapped below the frost line at the poles.  Now that they are melting, this gas will be released.  Methane contributes 10x what co2 does to greenhouse effect.  One study I read calculated that due to this methane release was that it could be critical mass by 2030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 7:08 AM, RivNut said:

I read somewhere that more methane gas is produced in California by cow farts than automobiles.  Whadda you do about that?

 

Actually, contrary to popular believe, over 90% of a cow's release of methane is caused by their burps, not their farts. Since humans can somewhat relate to our release of internal gases, as both actions in humans (at least for me) is highly dependent on what we eat, apparently there has been research... found this on line...

 

"Interestingly, if a cow chows down on easily digestible food such as corn, it produces about a third as much methane as a cow that grazes on prairie grasses. This means that cows in high-density livestock operations such as feedlots or dairies actually produce less methane than grass-fed beef."

 

But for some ranchers, corn fed is prohibitively expensive, so without resorting to a severe reduction in red meat consumption,  maybe things can be done to at least capture 10%, of a cow's methane similar to what happened to the car's emissions of the 70's...

 

 

mikelestercattlelyticconverter1.gif.c0ddf7b65f48f13efb5cba3c9b4fc5b9.gif

 

but I have a sneakin' suspicion that this discussion is drifting a little off forum topic...

 

Later,

 

Mike Swick

Edmonton, AB

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother-in-law & my two sons have cars that consistently get BETTER than 54 MPG.  One is a fairly new, 2015, & my sons drive older cars that can achieve that now.

 

 

Tom T.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever wondered why Norway has such a high percentage of electric cars:

·         High stamp duty on internal combustion cars.

·         Electric cars are exempts from stamp duty and other taxes.

·         Exemption of roads tolls,  Free ferry travel,  Free recharging sites, Free public parking & access to bus lanes.

 H

eavy government policy driving out internal combustion powered cars.

Cheers

Tom K

 

images[3].jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway is also in a very lucky situation: huge budget surplus (about 4.5% of their GDP) thus they can afford to direct tax cuts towards whatever objective they have.

In their case, their electricity coming over 99% from hydropower, the switch to electric powered cars makes a lot of sense. In fact the Nissan Leaf is a best seller.

If electricity is made burning fossil fuels, the balance is not so clear, to the point that according to some research that I've seen, made at the KTH University in Stockholm, considering all the energy involved in building a car, and given an average life of 150.000 km, if ALL cars in the world switched to electrical power, the CO2 global output would be reduced by a meager 2%. In Italy only about 40% comes fron renewables.

As far as pollution goes instead, this would be a very different story. In Italy  we have a preponderance of diesel cars (about 55%) that have proved time and again to be a major source of toxic pollutants (in particular, the nanoparticles). I live in a highly polluted area (northern Italian flatland, graph here), and the switch to less polluting means of transportation would impact our lives significantly.

I think that the ICE still has decades of life ahead in conjunction with electric motors in hybrid cars. I drive daily a 2004 Prius (I was an early adopter) and a diesel Subaru Legacy. I'd buy an hybrid over and over again whereas I would never buy a diesel again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On June 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM, TKRIV said:

Ever wondered why Norway has such a high percentage of electric cars:

·         High stamp duty on internal combustion cars.

·         Electric cars are exempts from stamp duty and other taxes.

 

·         Exemption of roads tolls,  Free ferry travel,  Free recharging sites, Free public parking & access to bus lanes.

 

 

 H

eavy government policy driving out internal combustion powered cars.

 

Cheers

Tom K

That car would take all the joy out of driving, not because its electric but because there absolutely no attempt to give a bit of style!

 

images[3].jpg

 

Edited by arnulfo de l.a.
Forgot a word (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very telling that those folks who are closer to having one foot in the grave than one foot in a classroom are also the ones who don't care about climate change be it because of some garbage they heard on Fox News or just through sheer and utter convenience of being dead before it gets really bad.  The crap Boomers have done to our economy and the planet at large will be affecting us long after they are all dead and buried.  

 

And I say that as someone who loves my 10 MPG Riv, but someone who only drives it sparingly as a fun weekend car.  The EV revolution is already here.  It's not going to replace the ICE tomorrow, or next week or even next year, but the transition has already started.  In 20 years ICEs will be a minority for new car sales.  The major limitation is of course batteries and new battery tech seems to be introduced every other week.  There are already cars that can recharge to about 80% range in just 15 minutes or so.  Also the myth that our electrical grid can't handle the transition to EVs is exactly that - a myth.  Our electric grid is woefully underutilized at night.  That's why kW/Hr costs are typically far lower at night because utlities want you to use more of it at night and not at peak times.  Most EVs will be charged at night.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All depends on the way politics goes.  Forced mandate by people who believe anything they are told and don't question the manure they are bing fed, then things will speed along.   If people buck the status quo and question things so that real answers have to be researched and presented with guaranteed data/ AKA proof.    Then things might not speed along quite so fast.  I'm 45 by the way and an independent thinker.   I question everything no matter who says it until sufficient proof is given.  I have said it before.  Mother nature in one lightning strike that smokes a few hundred thousand acres and towns has a larger carbon footprint than we make in several years. 

I want to know the carbon footprint of everything we are replacing with something better and how big the entire footprint from build to resources used to recycle it in the end is before I determine it's a whole lot better,  plus how it will be feasible to implement both monetarily and is the infrastructure in place for it  to be implemented widespread.  

I wouldn't bad mouth your elders for ruining the planet.  You would not be in a nice air conditioned dwelling with all the technology much less a cool Riviera if it wasn't for all they did along the way.  There is bad biproduct to everything and many things weren't known in the past until the effects of time showed them,  then they found ways to improve things.  Every success comes with a little failure. 

I'm glad we are in a country where we were allowed the freedom to advance as far as we have.  

We could also have the greenest country on the planet in a few years if we really wanted it,  only problem is we would instantly be taken over by the least greenest country and we wouldn't have a thing to worry about then because ours would cease to exist.  We would then be stripped of our wonderful freedoms and our country would be just like theirs.  

No thanks. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw ten people on TV last night and for the 46th time they are saying the other guy caused all the problems. I am beginning to see a pattern.

 

And they were all speaking at the same time trying to be heard over the others. It looked like a group of Raptors that found dead meat in Jurassic Park. Maybe a closer metaphor than you want to think about.

 

Gee, thinking of dinosaurs, wouldn't we be in a fine mess if they had been smart enough to stop climate change!

 

This morning I was having coffee with a couple of old guys in a convenient store. I said "Look at how many items in this store will be thrown into trash bins after the product is used. Do you know how many jobs would be lost if the GNP didn't rely on the production of garbage?"

 

Cars, homes, ownership of property; it's all in the balance.

 

Hey, did that bunch travel to the meeting in electric cars or jets?

Bernie

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is very real, the data is there.  To deny it at this point is just pointing a gun at your grandkids head.  Sounds rough but true.  I worked 40 years at the same place, my commute was 2 miles each way.  When my office moved, I moved.  It was as much not wanting a commute as it was trying to be eco sensible.  I know not all people have the option.  I have 6 cars right now, and when people note that, I ask " how many do you think I can drive at once?".  Everyday driver is a 2.5l 4 cylinder, and that gets about 8000 miles a year..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


The Climate has been changing for millions of years without our input.  So yes, climate change is real and we are smart enough to adapt to it.  Seems like every decade is full of alarmists that talk about how we are all going to die.

We were supposed to run out of food a long time ago because of overpopulation.  In the 60's and 70's there was an Ice age coming.  The was report after report in the 2000's by respected scientists talking about how bad things were going to get by 2012, then 2015.  Acid rain in the 80's,  Ozone holes,  etc...

 

How crazy do you think scientists would get if the drought conditions of the 1930's happened today in the U.S..

 

We were supposed to run out of oil a long time ago according to scientists of the 60's and 70's

Now we have more oil reserves than ever, enough to last more than 100 years.  And when we run out we will adapt to something new.  People need to be educated on the benefits of oil and how almost everything that makes us live more comfortably comes from oil. 

 

The fringe environmentalist thinking has been slowly become more mainstream because of the constant bombardment of the liberal media, and teachers in schools.   And no I am not one of the guys that think pouring used oil down a drain is ok or that the clean air act was a bad thing.  (Exhaust pollution etc... was really bad in the 60"s and 70's and something had to be done.)

 

No one talks about the benefits of climate change or how we can adapt to it.  You can find that info but it's very hard because no one wants you to see it.  Heck,  There is a free app called "Inconvenient Facts" (Each fact is verified by three sources) that got so popular that Apple stopped all iphone users from being able to get it because it debunks so much of what you hear in the media.  You can only get it if you have a Samsung android phone.  It's always about how we are destroying the planet and that our children are all going to die if we don't do something.

 

What needs to be talked about is how to use our resources responsibly and in such a way to not impact the way we live.  Not all this chicken little stuff.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

After about 1960 onward it was “Global Cooling”

Some now claim that this was a myth, yet I clearly remember reading article after article in the 1970’s that we were headed for an ice age.

 

Then around 1985 it was “Global Warming”

Then “Global Warming” changed to “Climate Change” to encapsulate any weather anomaly.

Now we hear the term “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Emergency” as the world will soon end.

Edited by TKRIV
Typo (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically it's ALL about $$$$$$  & scaring the stuff out of many.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our cars will all, eventually, be affected by regulations and standards put in place to phase out the demonized internal combustion engine.

 

All the emissions of my life will never equal what one crackpot general can cause in explosions playing footsy on the border of some hostile country.  (I was in for the Pueblo one 50 years ago).

 

Around 1940 Albert Einstein and Edward Teller understood some ozone destruction would be associated with their kiloton nuclear detonations, but they knew it was similar to natural waxing and waning of the ozone layer and not such a big deal. Imagine the slang words they would have used if they knew over the next 50 years (until the Montreal Protocol 1988) there would be 540 MEGAtons of surface test detonations!

megaton.JPG.1985a8a0ac6ac4acb07ca5681c1126f9.JPG

They blamed that one on refrigerants, along with the ones used to blow Styrofoam that tagged to ones that had a lifespan in hermetically sealed systems. And that affects the old car hobby in the availability of R-12.

 

My wife says the activists and politicians were not put here for my personal entertainment. I told her I HAVE to laugh. If I ever started crying I would never stop.

 

I'm thinking the great confrontation will be a surprise. The media may call it the war of the not set readiness monitors, a looming automotive threat to the regulators.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be one of the first ones in line,  when they figure out a way to tax the terrorists and 3rd world countries always warring with one another as well as torching oil wells so they burn uncontrollably.  Get all those figured out and trim down their carbon foot print and I'll come to the table.  I won't even make you explain how you are going to control mother Nature's outbursts either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairbanks hit 96 in 1969, and the hottest recorded temp in Alaska was 100 degrees June 27 1915.  at Fort Yukon.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

The IPCC special report on extreme events states there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.

Have you read this in the main stream media? 

Yet alarmists claim that extreme events are increasing and mostly due to man and little to do with natural variability.

I bet you have read this many times.

 

We all know that this topic is highly politicised. You really need to be a independent thinker to work out what's going on.

 

The USA is the world leader in reducing emissions. US energy related CO2 emissions fell by 14% between 2005 and 2017 even as the economy grew 

mainly due to innovative technologies and greater use of gas and less coal.

Edited by TKRIV
correction (see edit history)
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 5:31 PM, rapom said:

Fairbanks hit 96 in 1969, and the hottest recorded temp in Alaska was 100 degrees June 27 1915.  at Fort Yukon.  

This will last a week, and the frequency of the records is increasing.  The jet stream is driven by the diversity of temps at the pole (cold), and warmer climes south.  The poles are warming and melting slowing the jet stream. As it slows, weather systems stall and instead of moving thru sit in one location.  In this case making baked Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 4:04 AM, TKRIV said:

You really need to be a independent thinker to work out what's going on.

 

All independent thinkers will be lined up and labeled deniers......... loudly and repeatedly.

image.png.105f1fed21f25f0f92c85450ef8124ae.png

 

A panel of well known reporters and news writers are all in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this