Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Forget electric cars - enough oil for 100 more years!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

bigalguitarpicker
16 Jul 2013 - 12:28 AM

I don't believe any of the climate change /green lobby info. And I also think that the amount of fuel going into the tank of the car should always read as a higher number than the price. As far as I'm concerned we are being robbed hand over fist by the banks, by the government and by big business. Public transport? That's great, if you live somewhere that has decent public transport.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Jul 2013 - 12:28 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

thewilliam
16 Jul 2013 - 12:36 AM


Quote: Public transport? That's great, if you live somewhere that has decent public transport.

Around here, the per-mile cost of public transport is a lot higher than the running cost of a typical car.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314948 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:25 AM

Were I live I can travel to London and back for about 15 quid, a little more if I get a ticket that includes unlimited tube travel, its a hell of a lot cheaper than using a car, and quicker Smile

MichaelMelb_AU
16 Jul 2013 - 2:19 AM

Yesterday I drove my 300000km old LPG fuelled car past our nearest fuel station. Petrol was 1.51$A per litre and LPG 69.9c per litre. Internal combustion engines of cars do not need oil or petrol as an ultimate source of fuel. Natural gas, synthetic fuels from coal (used by Germany during WWII - nearly a century ago), heck, even methane from rubbish dumps - all will do. And I did not even touch renewables here - such as sugar cane derived spirits, etc.
As for electric cars - as many others I fail to share media's admiration of them. Most of current electric energy production is coal burning technology - which gives loads more of CO2, ash, etc. per kW than petrol burning - where most of exhaust is water vapour. Because coal is pretty pure carbon and petrol - complex mix of hydrocarbons. I wish our electric car popularisers learned chemistry at school.Sad One other way is nuclear - but I fed up as is, having second thoughts when buying used stuff on e-Bay from Japan or Ukraine. Let's not full ourselves - things evil by nature ( and hidden deep by nature) cannot be entirely safe in human hands - period.

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 16 Jul 2013 - 2:21 AM
keith selmes
16 Jul 2013 - 11:46 AM

I think the electric car is interesting because we already have the infrastructure to deliver electricity just about everywhere by cable, and because there are several choices in generation, but the power coming out where the car is charged is always the same. You can change the back end, or mix and match power sources, and the car can always use it. Perhaps also, people find the idea familiar, just like all their home appliances.

The general negative public attitude to nuclear energy is hopeless. It's like dealing with a culture enmeshed in mediaeval superstition.

Kako
Kako  8136 forum posts
16 Jul 2013 - 12:47 PM


Quote: I think the electric car is interesting because we already have the infrastructure to deliver electricity just about everywhere by cable, and because there are several choices in generation, but the power coming out where the car is charged is always the same. You can change the back end, or mix and match power sources, and the car can always use it. Perhaps also, people find the idea familiar, just like all their home appliances.

The general negative public attitude to nuclear energy is hopeless. It's like dealing with a culture enmeshed in mediaeval superstition.

I agree that people nowadays are generally negative towards nuclear power, but the authorities that oversee these things have caused the problem by lax oversight. Several nuclear stations in both the US and Japan have been built on or very close to fault lines and thus are a potential disaster waiting to happen. If you think public negativity is bad now just wait 18-24 months until hundreds of thousands of tons of floating debris starts washing up all along the west coast of the US that has come from Fukushima...much of it is said to be radioactive. It will cost billions to clear up and property prices will plummet all along that coast. The scary thing is that Fukushima is still not under control and is still spewing radioactivity into the environment devastating the Pacific Ocean ecosystem and affecting all who depend on this ocean...i.e just about everyone in the world to some extent directly or indirectly.

Ironically one of the 'casualties' of the twin Japanese disaster has been research efforts in to building cars that run on water with no pollution as a byproduct...completely clean exhaust. Cars have actually been built to prove the concept works. When this technology finally makes it to mass market in the near future it will transform the world...Big Oil will be the biggest loser.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:01 PM


Quote: Ironically one of the 'casualties' of the twin Japanese disaster has been research efforts in to building cars that run on water with no pollution as a byproduct...completely clean exhaust. Cars have actually been built to prove the concept works. When this technology finally makes it to mass market in the near future it will transform the world...Big Oil will be the biggest loser.



Cars cannot "Run on Water" its a physical and engineering impossibility (as well as a long running myth)

Cars CAN run on Hydrogen, producing nothing but water as a by-product

(unless of course you have a definitive reference that proves me wrong Grin )

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:12 PM


Quote: coal is pretty pure carbon

I wish Grin

this basic article gives a clue.

Coal is produced from the same components as crude oil, it just got processed slightly differently in nature

but you are right about the potential of coal as a feedstock for gas, liquid fuel and chemicals. However, one negative factor is that the processes and by-products can be more problematic than those of crude oil processing

as shown here

There are no "Free lunches" in producing energy from carbonaceous sourced materials

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:32 PM


Quote: Brian1208, rather convenient though wouldn't you say that a technology that was adopted worldwide just happened to scupper much lower fuel bills for motorists who would have been using significantly less fuel. Rather like what happened when lead was introduced to petrol...engines that had demonstrated unbelievable mpg were overnight rendered useless. Funny how these things always seem to benefit the oil companies and not the masses.

If you are a conspiracy theorist then everything points toward a cunning plot by the oilcos Grin

as to why catalytic converters were developed,

this may help

and something on the introduction of them


Quote: Legislation
In 1968 the USA introduced the first restriction on vehicle emissions, followed, in 1971, by emission limits in Europe. Legislation has continued to be passed by governments around the world, setting stricter and stricter limits

In 1992 catalytic converters became compulsory on all new cars sold in Europe. The impact has been dramatic - in the UK alone, harmful road transport emissions have fallen by 45%. This figure is set to fall yet further as older cars are gradually replaced with newer ones which meet the higher EU emissions standards

1992 also saw the formation of the Auto Oil Programme, a cooperative project of the European Commission and the oil and auto industries. This led to the most stringent emissions laws to date in Europe, which began with the introduction of a new, mandatory European vehicle emission standard, Euro I, in which an emission level for carbon monoxide was set at 2.72g/km and the combined level for hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides was set at 0.97g/km


but I do realise that as a source I am corrupted by my acknowledged career in the oil industry and worst yet, my integrity is destroyed by actually knowing something about the subject Tongue

mikehit
mikehit  46179 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 1:49 PM


Quote: my integrity is destroyed by actually knowing something about the subject Tongue

Always a good indication of a company stooge, that is. You evil, evil man Wink

MichaelMelb_AU
16 Jul 2013 - 2:22 PM


Quote: ...
The general negative public attitude to nuclear energy is hopeless. It's like dealing with a culture enmeshed in mediaeval superstition.

Unfortunately, there is a very close link between nuclear energy and electric cars - as any other source will produce bigger numbers of pollution and fuel expenditure by km than burning organic fuels in the car engine. The pollution just gets outsourced to the nearest power station - where it all comes out in a single spot, way more concentrated and therefore much more dangerous. We need to count also energy losses in transmission and battery charge/discharge cycle.
Now to the nuclear. Maybe, somewhere in the future it will be clean and safe. But at the moment millions of tons of radioactive waste waiting for that happy future. Most of it in temporary storages, with no certain plans or schedules for their treatment. Meanwhile, a tiny dust particle that escapes from this sort of waste has a real potential to kill or cripple living been. Had this waste being produced in dark medieval times - it still would be with us, and maybe only slightly less dangerous.

keith selmes
16 Jul 2013 - 3:41 PM


Quote: millions of tons of radioactive waste waiting for that happy future.

it's not waste it's fuel, and the future starts now

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
http://www.itheo.org/bill-gates-invests-thorium-capable-reactor-venture
http://www.itheo.org/articles/government-india-statement-thorium


Quote: other source will produce bigger numbers of pollution and fuel expenditure

I don't really follow that - wind, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal energy shouldn't do that. I'm not convinced these are adequate technologies, but governments seem to be betting our futures on it, and they're very popular.

keith selmes
16 Jul 2013 - 3:43 PM

The things I remember about water powering cars related to electrolysis, which I think uses more power than it generates, and water injection in the combustion chamber, which sometimes is used to boost performance, but there are better ways of doing it. I think.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314948 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
16 Jul 2013 - 3:53 PM


Quote: The things I remember about water powering cars related to electrolysis, which I think uses more power than it generates, and water injection in the combustion chamber, which sometimes is used to boost performance, but there are better ways of doing it. I think.

Yes I`ve done some fun experiments using batteries and water, it took about 30 minutes to fill a small balloon with gas, it was probably not enough to turn an engine over once Smile

keith selmes
16 Jul 2013 - 4:01 PM


Quote: hundreds of thousands of tons of floating debris starts washing up all along the west coast of the US that has come from Fukushima...much of it is said to be radioactive.

This material is said to be unlikely to be radioactive. The possible danger is it may contain other toxic material, and invasive species. There may be danger from collision with large objects. It is the result of a tsunami, not a nuclear incident.

See here
http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/tsunamidebris/
"There is no reason to avoid beaches. Radiation experts believe it is highly unlikely any debris is radioactive, and the debris is not in a mass"


Quote: still spewing radioactivity into the environment devastating the Pacific Ocean ecosystem

Apparently there is evidence that leaks from contaminated coolant are continuing, but spewing out is misleading. There is continuing local contamination in sea water and fish, but it's difficult to find evidence of widespread damage and definitely not any reports of devastation. I think this is because there is no obvious evidence, and scientists have to establish where there may be higher than normal radioactivity, in a vast ocean which is mainly not much affected. If there was widespread devastation it would be pretty well known by now. No-one could hide that.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.