Posted by Daniel J. Stern on October 27, 2005, 3:57 pm
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, richard schumacher wrote:
> Making a car largely free of petroleum and pollution is a worthy goal
> even if it is not directly economical.
Even if it's imaginary? Hint number one: A vast amount of petroleum goes
into the manufacture of a new car, even a Prius. Hint number two: Very,
very few places in North America produce electricity in ways that even
remotely approach freedom from pollution.
Posted by JazzMan on October 28, 2005, 1:18 am
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
Hint number two: Very,
> very few places in North America produce electricity in ways that even
> remotely approach freedom from pollution.
Mobile sources are far less efficient at capturing the
energy in fossil fuels than fixed sources. Among other
reasons, that's the case because there's no need to move
the mass of a fixed source so there's more freedom to
engineer better heat recover/use technologies.
Also, going to all electric vehicles opens up the options
as to fixed source energy technology. You can't do solar,
geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc, power generation in a mobile
source, so burning fuel for mobile source means pretty much
hydrocarbon gases or liquids.
JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************
Posted by Daniel J. Stern on October 28, 2005, 3:01 am
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, JazzMan wrote:
>> very few places in North America produce electricity in ways that even
>> remotely approach freedom from pollution.
> Mobile sources are far less efficient at capturing the
> energy in fossil fuels than fixed sources.
Sure, ace. C'mon up here to Toronto, where they're dumb enough to burn
dirt ("coal") to make electricity. Stand outside at the height of summer
or winter demand, try to breathe without coughing like a 3-pack-a-day
smoker, and *THEN* maybe we'll talk about reality's tendency to poke holes
in your theoretical niceties.
> You can't do solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc, power generation in
> a mobile source,
Geothermal and hydro are out, but I guess you'd better let a great many
militaries know their nuclear submarines are either not nuclear or not
mobile, and I can think of a lot of solar car engineers and racers who'll
be most amused to know they aren't really doing solar power generation in
a mobile source.
Posted by JazzMan on October 28, 2005, 3:26 am
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, JazzMan wrote:
>
> >> very few places in North America produce electricity in ways that even
> >> remotely approach freedom from pollution.
>
> > Mobile sources are far less efficient at capturing the
> > energy in fossil fuels than fixed sources.
>
> Sure, ace. C'mon up here to Toronto, where they're dumb enough to burn
> dirt ("coal") to make electricity. Stand outside at the height of summer
> or winter demand, try to breathe without coughing like a 3-pack-a-day
> smoker, and *THEN* maybe we'll talk about reality's tendency to poke holes
> in your theoretical niceties.
>
Nice insulting tone, that's not like you Daniel. I'll assume your
account has been hijacked and give you the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, I didn't mention coal, and mobile sources haven't used coal
in almost a century. Fixed source power generation using coal
cleanly is possible, but expensive, so don't condemn coal just because
it's coal, condemn it because the power companies would rather pollute
to make more profit than spend to be socially responsible. And BTW,
though coal comes from the ground, it is far from being "dirt".
> > You can't do solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc, power generation in
> > a mobile source,
>
> Geothermal and hydro are out, but I guess you'd better let a great many
> militaries know their nuclear submarines are either not nuclear or not
> mobile, and I can think of a lot of solar car engineers and racers who'll
> be most amused to know they aren't really doing solar power generation in
> a mobile source.
What are you trying to say here? I can't parse a meaning from
the kludge of words. By mobile source, I and referring to
cars and trucks, you know, people transportation. I have yet
to see a nuclear bus or plane, though a B52 did fly once with
a nuclear reactor aboard. As to the solar racers, I got to
talk to the race team personnel for the GM Sunraycer when it
came through my town many years ago. Yes, they are "mobile"
sources that are solar powered, but it was in no way practical
to use in day to day transportation. Your second paragraph is
a classic case of an reductio ad absurdum arcument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_absurdum
Anway, hope you get the account hijack taken care of...
JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************
Posted by Daniel J. Stern on October 28, 2005, 2:37 pm
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, JazzMan wrote:
>> Sure, ace. C'mon up here to Toronto, where they're dumb enough to burn
>> dirt ("coal") to make electricity. Stand outside at the height of
>> summer or winter demand, try to breathe without coughing like a
>> 3-pack-a-day smoker, and *THEN* maybe we'll talk about reality's
>> tendency to poke holes in your theoretical niceties.
> Nice insulting tone, that's not like you Daniel.
Not only do you apparently not know me well, but you also have a thin
skin. I was taking a shit on Ontario and Toronto's halfassed air quality
control efforts, and not on you.
> I'll assume your account has been hijacked
You have a flair for the dramatic. Nope, it was I.
>> Geothermal and hydro are out, but I guess you'd better let a great many
>> militaries know their nuclear submarines are either not nuclear or not
>> mobile, and I can think of a lot of solar car engineers and racers
>> who'll be most amused to know they aren't really doing solar power
>> generation in a mobile source.
> What are you trying to say here? I can't parse a meaning
Awright, I'll simplify for you:
Solar cars exist. They are mobile, and they get their power from the sun.
Nuclear submarines exist. They are mobile, and they get their power from
nuclear reactions.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that you can't do nuclear or solar
mobile power generation.
> I got to talk to the race team personnel for the GM Sunraycer when it
> came through my town many years ago.
Good. I was on the UM Solar Car Team.
> Yes, they are "mobile" sources that
> are solar powered
There you are, then.
> but it was in no way practical to use in day to day transportation
True. That wasn't the question, though.
XML site map
> even if it is not directly economical.