Does anyone think that it is practical to take out the engine from the P38, and hitch up two friendly donkeys to pull it while I sit in regal splendour in the car ?
I could be doing the gardeners a favour by letting Eddie and Bert [ the two donkeys] drop their poop along the road so that the gardeners can collect it and put it on their tomato plants.
Instant soluion to global warming and emissions.
Pierre3.
God No, think of the methane, it's worse than CO2......
just to add to the unleaded fuel comments , this my observation over the years .
in 1983ish the Aust gov introduced unleaded fuel to Aust , in 85 it was mandatory . at the time a friend handed me 3 or 4 pieces of paper to read in relation to unleaded fuel , the headline was why are or service station operators dying of cancer. it was a euro study so you may have also read it .it stated that the attendants cancer rate went from 10% to 90% in ten years . they found that the fumes from the pumps was causing cancers along with contact with the fuel and the exhaust fumes. it then stated that all pumps were to have vacuum extractors on all pumps and to stand up wind of the fumes and to not make contact with the fuel ever, wash it off immediately as it can be absorbed through the skin , it went on about the things you would expect . after reading this i just never used fuel for wash down any more .
over the years things changed as the gov pushed that cigarettes was the evil of the world causing all the cancers in the world so the big push for people to stop smoking , its bad for you, so they say . this is the interesting bit , in 85 the gov made it mandatory for unleaded fuel while pushing the smoking debate ,, so about 50% of smokers quit over the next ten years , this will fix the cancer rates . no it didn't cancer rate sored while smokers quit in droves , so smoking is not the problem . it take around 10 yrs for problems to show up when changes are made (unleaded fuels) cancer rates are still going thru the roof so to speak and the 15% of smokers that are left are still to blame , they now call it passive smoking from the people that used to smoke , it has to be that ,doesn't it . no its unleaded fuels , we have self serve here so no attendants to get sick just the population it self to do it them selves which is the part of the problem followed by people who park their car in the house (an attached garage to the house). when i ask people if they can smell the fumes in the house the answer is yes followed with so your happy living in the shed they look at you strange. i then explain this to them and that the fumes are super toxic when they start their car and it settles on the kids sport gear bikes etc and they don't know what to say , that sticky residue is a highly cancerous unleaded fuel . the cancer rates in Aust are still rising and people that smoke has settled around the 15% mark . i am no saying that smoking is good for you as i smoked for 30 yrs , not now tho, this my opinion on unleaded fuels that i have observed over the yrs here in Aust there is a lot more to this but im not going that far into it , just use commonsense when handlinfg the fuels and don't breath the fumes
PS a smart man could push that cigarettes are a health product that prevents cancers if you look at the stats 🤣
Unleaded fuel was a fiasco. The motor industry was being forced to clean up tailpipe emissions and the simplest option (for them) was to introduce catalysts to burn off the nasties - into nice clean CO2 which doesn't hurt anything.
The other option was Lean Burn technology which burnt a lot less fuel to start with, but needed much more precise engine management and new engines.
So... catalysts won out. Fast forward 30 years and it was absolutely the wrong thing to do as it increases CO2 emissions and introduced a massively poisonous carcinogen to the population.
It's a simple problem. We have long lost the ability to debate and discuss sensibly. So, if my dogma's bigger than your dogma, I win and you're a heretic. End of.
And yes, my P38 steadily rockets in value. In my world anyway.
I saw a new piece, I think that it was in the Guardian online, from some numpty again bashing the idea of using hydrogen. This time the argument was complaing that there would still be a reliance on ICE vehicles.
But that is exactly what I would want. Use hydrogen instead of petrol, and perhaps diesel if it could be made to work in a diesel engine, and keep the perfectly good vehicles that are powered by internal combustion engines. The idea of trying to scrap millions of ICE vehicles around the world just be replaced with new electric vehicles makes no sense to me at all. Especially when you consider all of the pollutants that will be generated by scrapping the vehicles. Surely, any right-minded person would rwalise that there has to be a solution whereby existing vehicles can be economically kept but just converted to run on another fuel.
GeorgeB is probably correct in saying that those who shout loudest, despite not necessarily being right, win the argument by drowning out any alternatives.
When you watch a lot of "successful" politicians on television you see them doing exactly this when being asked difficult questions - they start to talk loudly, constantly, and never-endingly, preventing the questioner being able to repeat the question.
On an aside, I wonder what it is like to have a dogma ??? I wonder if I could get one over the weekend and show everyone I know ? Although as I know only three people it probably isn't worth my while. Bugger. And I really did always want a dogma, especially an English Mastiff dogma !!!!
Pierre3.
Theres a lot of money to be made out of flogging new cars to people, which has clearly been the priority of the motor industry for many years, worse now by the addition of PCP type deals. Anything to demonise older vehicles in any way they can, only feeds this pattern further.
Batteries will get to a point where they will hit a severe problem - either disposal of them, or lack of materials to make new ones from being the likely causes that appear at this point, though who knows what else might become more apparant with time.
Hydrogen can also be used in a fuel cell setup, but try mentioning that to any of Musk's followers as its clearly got more potential than batteries once they crack how to make the hydrogen without producing emissions elsewhere that cancel out the benefits of it. Which has got to be a better bet than combing the seabed in search of Cobalt for batteries.
how to get the human population to do what they don't want to
you must first insight fear
then create confusion
then give direction
this is how religion has managed to last this long , they use this concept to run the church's and now the envirocyclers are using it to push us in the direction they want and because the people are to lazy to find out the truth them selves they will follow like sheep . no one has the time to fact check everything and the media are so left wing they will not tell you the truth either
as for hydrogen what happens when all the vehicles are spurting out steam on a cold day and the clouds start forming , will that be a problem releasing all that moisture into the air, will it form its own weather pattern . it's not a problem with 3 or4 vehicles but what happens when it's 3or 4 million ? dose it have the potential to change the weather on it's own?
Hi mad-as, sorry, I am confused about your message, and I am very worried about what I should do. Should I do anything, or not do anything about anything ? I don't know, I just don't know, and now I am afraid that the Thought Police are on their way. Please can you tell me what to do ????? 🤣. Should I go and see my priest and ask for salvation ??? 😅.
I can't see that emissions from hydrogen, water, will ever become an issue. I would suggest that with all the steam trains in the world there was no effect on the weather. Although, I suppose you could say that there may be millions of cars. But, a steam train would easily require 3 or 4 thousands gallons of water, and this was all puffed out into the atmosphere.
Maybe if hydrogen cars could effect the weather then it would probably be with rain. So if there was a very dry summer we could get all our mates to call around and run their engines until it rains !!! [OK, I think that that's enough with the jokes stuff].
Pierre3.
BrianH wrote:
Theres a lot of money to be made out of flogging new cars to people, which has clearly been the priority of the motor industry for many years, worse now by the addition of PCP type deals. Anything to demonise older vehicles in any way they can, only feeds this pattern further.
Batteries will get to a point where they will hit a severe problem - either disposal of them, or lack of materials to make new ones from being the likely causes that appear at this point, though who knows what else might become more apparant with time.
Hydrogen can also be used in a fuel cell setup, but try mentioning that to any of Musk's followers as its clearly got more potential than batteries once they crack how to make the hydrogen without producing emissions elsewhere that cancel out the benefits of it. Which has got to be a better bet than combing the seabed in search of Cobalt for batteries.
You're bang on.
The motor industry will only support action against climate change if it involves flogging more motors. They don't really care if it's battery powered or Hydrogen powered as long as it's new. I suspect they're very happy with the current situation which has gone Petrol -> Diesel -> Hybrid and is now heading in the direction of EV -> Hydrogen.
Each step requires a brand new car, of course.
My preferred solution would be
Petrol -> LPG -> H2
but fewer steps = fewer new cars - especially if you can convert existing petrol cars to LPG and that is not acceptable to the car industry in particular and the doctrine of eternal economic growth in general.
FWIW I'm on a 100% renewable electricity tariff and it's cheap (Octopus). So much power comes from renewables now that it won't be long before H2 is produced with "green" electrickery.
And Mad-As, just to keep you happy, the Aussies are forging ahead with solar (PV being an Aussie invention) at the regional level despite the federal government being a bunch of fossils, so you'll be benefiting from clean and cheap power too :)
It's not bloody renewable electricity, electricity from renewable sources maybe, but you don't renew the electricity, once you've used it it's gone. At least one of the energy companies include nuclear as a green source of power so it's about time they built a few more. Then maybe they'll stop cluttering the countryside with windfarms with a design life of 20 years even though it takes the first 18 to get back the production and installation costs
I've never heard that arguement before!!
Of course it's from renewables.
And most of the windfarms are offshore now where they slice seagulls instead of eagles :D
And yes, the government is building nuclear as fast as they can - which turns out to be not very fast at all...
I'm not against nuclear power stations but it would only take one big accident to make slowly rising sea levels and bit different weather seem the lesser evil to locals of the nuke plant, especially in a small country like the UK. But to be absolutely safe we could always pay the Chinese to build more of them for us lol.
Gilbertd iIrc you recently mentioned nuclear fusion has now been invented... Or were you joking?
No, the French did it about 2 years ago (although using a Russian design) and NASA have recently produced a small prototype with the intention of using it to power deep space missions. It does exist and the sooner it becomes mainstream the better.
One of the offshore windfarms is on Scroby Sands off Great Yarmouth. When it was first proposed to put 24 turbines there all the local fishermen told the developer they will all fall over, Scroby Sands are shifting and move with every tide. The developers claimed that their geologists knew what they were talking about and they would go down as far as the solid ground under the sands to give a firm foundation. Since they were finished there is a dredger constantly running around them all dropping rocks around the base to stop them falling over. If it wasn't for the green grants they would never cover the manufacture, installation and running costs before they get too old to remain serviceable.
i dont know how much your gov pay to the company's that own the turbines but in Aust the gov pay $500 000 per unit per year for the life of the turbine and they dont have to produce power for the payment , they just have to be their, no wonder they are building them . yes we did develop the solar panel and then gave it away , apparently it's the Australian way to help 3rd world countries 😂 i do be leave we have the ability to fix the issues we are just going about it wrong . i dont think covering the ground in solar panels is a good idea but putting them on roofs is a good idea , i dont think turning every car into an ev is it either but to replace 50% or more of them in cities through natural attrition is a good idea just for the pollution problem alone as for power production it should be from all types of systems from coal to gas to nuclear or fusion etc. as for cutting down the Amazon, if the governments are so concerned they should stop buying the products or simply start planting more trees of their own and stop bitchen about another country doing what they done to support they own country , we are suppose to be the educated society that dosn't use it's own ideas time to think out of the box and whilst not all ideas are practical they are a start . if it didn't work just state it and move on dont run with bad ideas and try and make it work like they do now . you don't get it right every time but you do learn from your mistakes
hi Pierre3 you are required to do nothing other than take some notice of the comments and make your own decisions, thats the media comments that is . you will see what is going on with the way it's put to you . as thunderburg would say "you have 1 year to make the change before it's to late " push the fear factor , create confusion buy not stating what the change will be and then give direction buy doing what she says . sorry it's not a joke , it's what is really happening and most are not seeing it . it is also how the media works ,especially when it comes to the government or the side they pick in an election .
PS i don't know what will happen if all the cars run on h2 , it's a question that i asked and isnt it all about the weather? if their is a risk that the weather pattern might change then it;s a no go as that is what all this is based on ,weather patterns . how humid would it be in heavy traffic in the city with no wind , an increase in humidity could produce fungus and molds too., we just dont know the effects and they are not going to tell you . as you stated the steam trains didn't cause a problem but they moved all the time not sat stagnant in traffic so the spread was greater also they didnt come in their millions world wide. just looking at the big picture
I heard the most sensible thing I think a woman has ever said last night. There was an advert on TV for the new Audi RS e-Tron GT, which we both agreed was a pretty nice looking car but when my missus realised it was an EV her comment was that it was just wrong. Her view is that EV shopping trolleys are a good idea, even smaller family cars used to take the kids to school too but an electric sports car is going to be like a man having sex with a plastic doll, it just isn't the real thing. Admittedly she drives a Mercedes SLK280 with a petrol 3.0 litre V6 under the bonnet and wants me to change the exhaust system for one that isn't as quiet......
you got a good woman they mate , don't let her get away
mad-as wrote:
hi Pierre3 you are required to do nothing other than take some notice of the comments and make your own decisions, thats the media comments that is . you will see what is going on with the way it's put to you . as thunderburg would say "you have 1 year to make the change before it's to late " push the fear factor , create confusion buy not stating what the change will be and then give direction buy doing what she says . sorry it's not a joke , it's what is really happening and most are not seeing it . it is also how the media works ,especially when it comes to the government or the side they pick in an election .
PS i don't know what will happen if all the cars run on h2 , it's a question that i asked and isnt it all about the weather? if their is a risk that the weather pattern might change then it;s a no go as that is what all this is based on ,weather patterns . how humid would it be in heavy traffic in the city with no wind , an increase in humidity could produce fungus and molds too., we just dont know the effects and they are not going to tell you . as you stated the steam trains didn't cause a problem but they moved all the time not sat stagnant in traffic so the spread was greater also they didnt come in their millions world wide. just looking at the big picture
As far as the hydrogen is concerned, the water generated from its use, would only be the same amount as what it was produced from in the first place. Yes it might be distributed elsewhere to its original source, but i can't see that making much real difference overall. Burning petrol/gas etc releases some water vapour as well and that seems to make very little difference.
I'd agree on the electric option for around town use - though in a lot of cases the "use" there isn't the most sensible way of some of that way vehicles are used, personally going round the supermarket shopping is a special kind of hell even before the current state of things. But if your going to crawl around town, either doing so on electric or a hybrid seems somewhat more sensible.
Pierre3 wrote:
I can't see that emissions from hydrogen, water, will ever become an issue. I would suggest that with all the steam trains in the world there was no effect on the weather. Although, I suppose you could say that there may be millions of cars. But, a steam train would easily require 3 or 4 thousands gallons of water, and this was all puffed out into the atmosphere.
Maybe if hydrogen cars could effect the weather then it would probably be with rain. So if there was a very dry summer we could get all our mates to call around and run their engines until it rains !!! [OK, I think that that's enough with the jokes stuff].
Pierre3.
Just got to point out that Steam is not a greenhouse gas. Burning coal for steam trains is a bad idea and that releases a lot of CO2 but it's not the water that matters.
If you used Hydrogen in the burners for a steam train, you'd be carbon neutral - as long as the H2 is produced using wind/hydro/other renewable electricity.