[Rules] How about an electric powered series

[deeks6]

This is the stupidest thing I have seen since the suggestion that the massive 0.28% of man made carbon in the atmosphere is gonna cause the sea level to rise 25 feet by next Tuesday and all the other ridiculous crap spewed by the Loony Left Warmists. Notice how "Global Warming" morphed conveniently into "Climate Change" ... don't start me on these fools.

[Bononi]

Next Tuesday ??? WTF ? I'm 6 meters above the sea and 300 meters far from it, we're totally screwed !

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Next Tuesday ??? WTF ? I'm 6 meters above the sea and 300 meters far from it, we're totally screwed !

My house is 1m above sea level. But 50miles form the see. I love the Fens.

[Marbot]

I'm about 250 metres above sea level. Reckon I'm OK here.

Whatever or whoever it is that's causing global warming/climate change, one thing is for sure, and that is the prognosis isn't good for the planets population.

Of course the other thing is that fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out too (and there's no denying that), which is possibly the main reason why alternative energies are being looked at.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Of course the other thing is that fossil fuel reserves are rapidly running out too (and there's no denying that), which is possibly the main reason why alternative energies are being looked at.

Yeah, and those who attack climate change scientists always conveniently forget that vital piece of information!

And the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are only used interchangeably at the moment because global warming is the only current global form of climate change that there is at present (and they have been used interchangeably for a while now). They are not one and the same necessarily.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

Yeah, and those who attack climate change scientists always conveniently forget that vital piece of information!

And the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are only used interchangeably at the moment because global warming is the only current global form of climate change that there is at present (and they have been used interchangeably for a while now). They are not one and the same necessarily.

The one constant about our planet is that the climate has always been changing and it always will. Man still exists because he has adapted to it. If the global temperature increases, man can migrate to the large expanses that are currently too cold to live in. If the global temperature decreases, then he can do the reverse.

But that's just a red herring. The real issue that man faces in the future is not the climate, its himself... or rather overpopulation. So rather than worrying about switching off lightbulbs, maybe we should be doing something about those people who are 'over-reproducing' !

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

So rather than worrying about switching off lightbulbs, maybe we should be doing something about those people who are 'over-reproducing' !

China tried that, with disastrous results. Now they build coal fired power stations everywhere and still most of the population don't have any light bulbs.

To say that man has no effect on global warming/climate control is also a bit misleading since it is so obviously the case. Certainly it is no coincidence that in just the last 50 years alone CO2 levels have risen well above what would be considered to be a natural rate.

It used to be that in the middle ages there were vineyards in the UK and the Vikings colonized Greenland, but that wasn't due to an increase in CO2, certainly not according to tree ring data (yes, there are trees that old!). More likely a result of sea currents, and it probably didn't happen on a global scale.

btw, I'm no tree hugger.

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

Yeah, and those who attack climate change scientists always conveniently forget that vital piece of information!

And the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are only used interchangeably at the moment because global warming is the only current global form of climate change that there is at present (and they have been used interchangeably for a while now). They are not one and the same necessarily.

Mate, you can believe in God, Santa and The Easter Bunny too ... just don't try to force other people to do so. Do your research and you'll find that many of your "Climate scientists" are NOT, the IPCC heavily edit every report (what the Russians and Nazis did ... propaganda) and I could ask you a hundred other questions that you and your "climate scientists" could not answer. The earth has been much warmer than this before a single drop of petrol was ever used. Hell, they used to make wine in England!
Stop swallowing the greatest lie ever perpetrated and follow the money. Even the founder of Greenpeace says it is a crock.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Mate, you can believe in God, Santa and The Easter Bunny too ... just don't try to force other people to do so. Do your research and you'll find that many of your "Climate scientists" are NOT, the IPCC heavily edit every report (what the Russians and Nazis did ... propaganda) and I could ask you a hundred other questions that you and your "climate scientists" could not answer. The earth has been much warmer than this before a single drop of petrol was ever used. Hell, they used to make wine in England!
Stop swallowing the greatest lie ever perpetrated and follow the money. Even the founder of Greenpeace says it is a crock.

Well, everyone can pack up now. We've reached the Godwin's law stage of the thread.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Marbot

China tried that, with disastrous results. Now they build coal fired power stations everywhere and still most of the population don't have any light bulbs.

Imagine the rate of consumption if China hadn't implemented population control ?

Originally Posted by Marbot

To say that man has no effect on global warming/climate control is also a bit misleading since it is so obviously the case. Certainly it is no coincidence that in just the last 50 years alone CO2 levels have risen well above what would be considered to be a natural rate.

Yes of course but that's a relative thing isn't it ? If a politician farts or speaks [the same thing ?], it will increase the concentration of methane in the atmosphere... but we are perfectly capable of adapting to the resulting climate change... just as we are with the increased concentrations of CO2 you mention here.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by ptclaus98

Well, everyone can pack up now. We've reached the Godwin's law stage of the thread.

Hehe, thought someone might mention that.

deeks6 I don't think I'm trying to inflict my opinions on anyone else at all, but I do disagree completely that climate change is the "biggest lie ever perpetrated". The earth's climate is changing, has changed and always will (as you admit yourself) but this time we're having an effect. The statistics show an obvious correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise, so humans must be having an effect of some description.

As you say yourself the earth has been much warmer before, and it may well be that the earth will have no trouble adapting. It has happened before. The question is whether we will adapt and I don't think we will (though I hope I'm wrong).

As Marbot says anyway whether we're warming up or not is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things seeing as we'll be running out of our major energy reserves frighteningly soon.

On the population thing, I agree completely with that too. I would go so far as to argue that population problems are the root cause of all of our problems, but there appears no obvious solution to it at the moment (though again I would happily like to be proved wrong).

[thebear]

Ok, guys. Enough is enough. Not much mention of racecars recently, was there? .

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by thebear

Ok, guys. Enough is enough. Not much mention of racecars recently, was there? .

Maybe not. But the issue remains as to why there seems to be a need for electrically driven race cars. Is it a climate change thing or a running out of fossil fuel thing? Or maybe it's just a Jean Todt on a green crusade thing?

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

The statistics show an obvious correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rise, so humans must be having an effect of some description.

Statistics can show whatever you want ... but in fact the non-greenie driven scientists and studies show that CO2 emissions rise AFTER temperature rises, not cause it. Oceans are where the vast majority of CO2 comes from and they take 800 years to heat up and cool down. Thus the temperature cycles ... there are cores taken in past studies that prove this (one about fishing I think that was not even trying to prove any climate stuff at the start).

I recall also in 1972 (conincidentally when we supposed to be heading into a new Ice Age) when we had a "Crisis" with oil - apparently only 5 years worth remained. Turns out that a few shieks wanted to trade their Silver-Plated Cadillacs with Gold Plated ones so the price had to go up! 40 years later we still seem to have some and we have, what, 500 million more cars on the road? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Here's how silly it can get:
http://www.ktvz.com/oregon-northwest...20/detail.html
http://www.earthlab.com/articles/blacktruffles.aspx

In Australia, we were told that our drought was to becoome the "Normal" and the Green Lobby forced the government to build a desalination plant instead of cheaper and more efficient dams. The building of this Desal Plant has halted now due to (wait for it) the fact it is FLOODED.

And now - the cars ... do some research into how the batteries are made along with other components and how are they transported around etc and work out for me the "carbon saving". Should make interesting reading. Do the same for Wind Turbines and Green Bags. Follow the money.

Don't get me wrong - I hate pollution but I am not going to blindly swallow the propaganda about this either. We have done a lot to reduce pollution (check photos of LA or London or other cities in the 70s and compare to now) and we will continue to do so. Whether you like it or not, the so-called "clean" energies need to be the "cheapest" to be taken up en masse. And that will happen too.

As for the thread, I'm all for Electric Car Racing - on the golf course!

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Maybe not. But the issue remains as to why there seems to be a need for electrically driven race cars

Dare I say: because the technology exists, and we can?

It's an engineering challenge, nothing more, nothing less. A bit like most forms of motorsport, really. Some people with big brains would like to race the chariots they've designed, and hurrah to that.

[mini1400]

Originally Posted by Bodysnatcher

for noise relevant to the speed - ice lolly sticks through the spokes

Dont forget electricity can be made from wind, water and solar sources too. Maybe not much in %age terms now, but it will increase.

Electric racing takes off, we get a wind turbine at each circuit to charge the cars up... oh, and somewhere to plug the caravan in!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by deeks6

Don't get me wrong - I hate pollution but I am not going to blindly swallow the propaganda about this either. We have done a lot to reduce pollution (check photos of LA or London or other cities in the 70s and compare to now) and we will continue to do so.

Ironically, the less polluting a car gets, the more CO2 (carbon dioxide) it actually puts out.

The EGR system (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) on a car vastly reduces the output of NOx, which is the gas that causes smog, like cities used to have a lot of back in the 60's and 70's with far fewer cars on the road.

Catalytic converters turn other harmful gases (Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide etc) into CO2, Nitrogen, Oxygen and water.

I'm guessing here, but I don't think that F1 cars have any form of pollution control fitted to their engines. Although, I would guess, things like KERS and even using the DRS will save fuel.

With regard to the seventies fuel crisis. It was never about not having enough fuel reserves and much more to do with political unrest in the Middle East. Supplies were cut (embargo), demand stayed the same, therefore prices rise.

Back to electric cars now.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Greem

Dare I say: because the technology exists, and we can?

It's an engineering challenge, nothing more, nothing less. A bit like most forms of motorsport, really. Some people with big brains would like to race the chariots they've designed, and hurrah to that.

Indeed. And the time will definitely come when I.C. engines will be looked upon, nostalgically. It's just a matter of time.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Greem

Dare I say: because the technology exists, and we can?

It's an engineering challenge, nothing more, nothing less. A bit like most forms of motorsport, really. Some people with big brains would like to race the chariots they've designed, and hurrah to that.

+1 definitely this.

I dont see a reason why any form of motorsport should be discouraged really. If they can make it work and get the spectator levels to maintain it then why not?

Nobody has mentioned one of the biggest benefits of everybody using an electric car. As the countries power stations are replaced with Nuclear or some magical green tech, all of the countries travel emissions will also go down without any cost or inconvenience to the owner.

Theres been a lot of climate bs science on here so far. The earths temperature is statistically at its most stable within the last 7 billion years. The earth has effectively failed to finish its last ice age as there is still ice on both poles (un heard of previously).

I agree with the general consensus that the only reason alternatives are being investigated is due to the rising cost of extracting oil.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by luke g28

+1 definitely this.

I dont see a reason why any form of motorsport should be discouraged really. If they can make it work and get the spectator levels to maintain it then why not?

If they can find a away to make them sound good, then why not.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Nobody has mentioned one of the biggest benefits of everybody using an electric car. As the countries power stations are replaced with Nuclear or some magical green tech, all of the countries travel emissions will also go down without any cost or inconvenience to the owner.

This is true. But Nuclear power seems to be getting a bit of bad press just lately.

Originally Posted by luke g28

Theres been a lot of climate bs science on here so far. The earths temperature is statistically at its most stable within the last 7 billion years. The earth has effectively failed to finish its last ice age as there is still ice on both poles (un heard of previously).

Well, that's another new theory...as indeed is the theory that the Earth is 7 billion years old ?????

Originally Posted by luke g28

I agree with the general consensus that the only reason alternatives are being investigated is due to the rising cost of extracting oil.

Yes. For me, and others, this is the main reason why there is growing interest in motive power that does not require any use of fossil fuels.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I agree with the general consensus that the only reason alternatives are being investigated is due to the rising cost of extracting oil.

Unless they figure a way of making electrically powered airliners, they had best fast forward to using simulator technology instead of holding events at all.

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, that's another new theory...as indeed is the theory that the Earth is 7 billion years old ?????

4.5 lol....dont mind me.

Originally Posted by davyboy

Unless they figure a way of making electrically powered airliners, they had best fast forward to using simulator technology instead of holding events at all.

I think its a bit much for the first useable electric vehicle to be an airbus. Starting small and working their way up would be more realistic.

Its kind of irrelevant really. Do you honestly think that we will not develop an alternative to the IC or jet engines in the next 100 years? You really think we will still be using the same technology? I dont imagine we will, with any luck the space race will take off again and some of that technology will work its way down to solve your airbus problems and maybe even down to individual transport.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by deeks6

We have done a lot to reduce pollution (check photos of LA or London or other cities in the 70s and compare to now) and we will continue to do so. Whether you like it or not, the so-called "clean" energies need to be the "cheapest" to be taken up en masse. And that will happen too.

Fair point, I totally agree.

Originally Posted by Greem

Dare I say: because the technology exists, and we can?

It's an engineering challenge, nothing more, nothing less. A bit like most forms of motorsport, really. Some people with big brains would like to race the chariots they've designed, and hurrah to that.

This is exactly why I think an electric racing series would be a great idea. After all, motorsports is in a way an enormous lab experiment in engineering.

Originally Posted by luke g28

The earth has effectively failed to finish its last ice age as there is still ice on both poles (un heard of previously).

Forgot about the ice cap thing, that's a very good point, we were only ever going to be getting warmer coming out of an ice age!

I would love to see real development in motorsports again, and with its help, electric-powered transport might become a real alternative to our current ways of traveling.

I think its a bit much for the first useable electric vehicle to be an airbus. Starting small and working their way up would be more realistic.

Its kind of irrelevant really. Do you honestly think that we will not develop an alternative to the IC or jet engines in the next 100 years? You really think we will still be using the same technology? I don't imagine we will, with any luck the space race will take off again and some of that technology will work its way down to solve your airbus problems and maybe even down to individual transport.

I reckon the possibility of everyone just not traveling as much as they used to is a very possible future. With the internet, further advances in that might mean that people decide to simply stay put.

However such a possibility says that use of the internet will be cheaper and easier than future modes of transport - but something like teleportation might not!!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ironically, the less polluting a car gets, the more CO2 (carbon dioxide) it actually puts out.

The EGR system (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) on a car vastly reduces the output of NOx, which is the gas that causes smog, like cities used to have a lot of back in the 60's and 70's with far fewer cars on the road.

Catalytic converters turn other harmful gases (Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide etc) into CO2, Nitrogen, Oxygen and water.

Don't forget low level Ozone, which is formed by sunlight reacting with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from the vehicles exhaust.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Don't forget low level Ozone, which is formed by sunlight reacting with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from the vehicles exhaust.

That's generally the NOx that the EGR system takes care of. Although it doesn't usually get rid of it all.