News   Jul 30, 2024
 345     2 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 535     0 

Star: GM adds new spark to electric car's future

That's odd Prometheus, you yourself indicated earlier that C02 was not "dirty." I was merely adding to your stated point. If you are concerned about "greenhouse" gases, then you should be far more concerned with water vapour, as it is the dominant infra red absorbing constituent of the atmosphere.

What I was pointing out that it (C02) is essential to life - as in its crucial roll in photosynthesis both on land and in the oceans. Unfortunately it is all too typical for many people who claim an interest in the environment to not understand much about it. Each year, the forests of the world emit far more C02 into the atmosphere than humans do. The oceans emit even more than forests. The fact is that there is a global cycle for carbon dioxide and it has existed for billions of years. Numerous plant species thrive in environments with higher C02 levels. That is one reason why some types of greenhouses are constructed.

If carbon dioxide is essential to life, then how can it be a pollutant? We all exhale carbon dioxide. Are we polluting by being alive? Is water a pollutant as well because it is a persistent "greenhouse" gas?

It is interesting how one molecule can illicit so many emotional responses. I think there are other molecules that deserve more attention than this one. Other people would differ in their opinion. But be that as it may...

I'm hoping there is no need from some protracted debate on the issue, so would it be possible at this time to get back to the thread on the electric car?


i know it's essential to life. that video was quite over the top. my feces are also essential to life. the microbes makeup part of the food chain and are therefore required for the circle of life. should i make a video defending the direct dumping of shit into our lakes and rivers?


nature is a delicate balance. we may only contribute 5% of all CO2 emissions, but maybe 5% is all that's needed to throw the whole system out of whack. if nothing is done to curb the trend, maybe in a few years, we'll be responsible for 10%, then 20%, etc.

shouldn't we tread lightly? do we want to find out the hard way that we were wrong?
 
How can atmospheric C02 destroy life? It makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere. In the past it has appeared at a considerably higher concentrations and life did not vanish. It becomes toxic at ranges of 20% of air volume and above.

Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere. That is different from how you are describing the use of nitrogen.

Electric cars, anyone?

Oh man. No one is saying CO2 is toxic, or that all life will vanish with elevated CO2 levels. What we're saying is high CO2 levels will change the environment to a point where it is more unfavourable for us humans. Of course we and many other species will survive, but our environment will be far less nice. Similarily with too much N. The N itself isn't toxic, but the increased algae growth results in dead fish and nasty water that we just don't want.
 
^The trouble is that you know none of this as a fact.

my feces are also essential to life

The subject was carbon dioxide, and not the feces the eminates from you.
 
Actually, the subject was electric cars.

Ford working on plug-in hybrids
Associated Press

DETROIT — — Ford Motor Co. and Southern California Edison will team up to test rechargeable hybrid vehicles in an effort to speed up mass production of the new technology.

The utility, which serves 13 million people in 11 central, coastal and Southern California counties outside Los Angeles, will get a Ford plug-in hybrid vehicle by the end of this year and as many as 20 by some time in 2009 to test their durability, range and impact on the power grid, said Susan M. Cischke, Ford senior vice president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally and other company executives plan to be in California on Monday to make the announcement, which Ms. Cischke says is a unique partnership between a power provider and an auto maker that should help bring plug-in hybrids to market more quickly.

Plug-in hybrids generally have batteries that power an electric motor, with an internal combustion engine for use when the batteries run low. The batteries can be recharged by plugging them into a standard wall outlet.

Southern California Edison will help Ford by placing the cars with consumers and collecting data, Ms. Cischke said in an interview.

“They have the wire-side knowledge about the grid and all the issues there,†she said. “By partnering with these two industries ... we're hoping that it does accelerate the commercialization and certainly drive some of the cost issues down.â€

Power shortages have been an issue in Southern California Edison's highly populated service area. The company is under a state mandate to build five power plants in that would fire up during peak energy use periods. The plants would help avoid projected energy shortages.

Many auto makers have plug-in hybrids that are similar to Ford's experimental vehicles, but mass production has been held back by cost and battery technology that limits the vehicles' range. Manufacturers are racing to bring the technology to market as consumers seek alternatives to the internal combustion engine and high gasoline prices.

“We see electricity as itself an alternative fuel in support of transportation,†said John Bryson, chairman of Rosemead, Calif.-based Edison International, parent company of Southern California Edison.

Mr. Bryson said the collaboration will allow Ford and the utility to better see how technology that has been tested in the laboratory works in the real world. He said plug-in hybrids have the potential put the power grid to better use, for example, by charging vehicles in overnight hours when electricity demand is lower.

Ford, Ms. Cischke said, already is testing two plug-in hybrids in its Dearborn labs that are based on the Escape small sport utility vehicle, a model that Ford offers as a gas-electric hybrid.

Ms. Cischke said it's still too early to predict when Ford can mass-produce the cars.

“That's one of the reasons for this program, to gather more data and fully understand the customer usage part,†she said.

She said that in the future, power generated by wind could be used at night to recharge vehicles.
 
^The trouble is that you know none of this as a fact.



The subject was carbon dioxide, and not the feces the eminates from you.


do you know for a fact that human related CO2 emissions are essential for life?

or are they just excess, like feces? :p
 
I feel like a complete fool for ever having doubted that Hydrogen is/was bizorky.

He sure as hell is.
 
I said that C02 is essential to life.

yes, but we were talking about the negative aspects of human generated CO2 excess in the environment. of course CO2 is essential to life, just like everything else on this planet in one shape or form, directly or indirectly, somehow. but guess what, CO2 is also responsible for death! CO2 is responsible for the death of almost every animal that ever lived on earth! the proof is in the brain tissue that's starved for oxygen! CO2 is worse than every mass murdering dictator that ever lived combined together! in the bible, they should replace satan with CO2!

at that particular moment, saying that CO2 is essential to life is like saying - I LOVE TURTLES!

see how useless it is to make a statement that CO2 is essential to life? :p
 
yes, but we were talking about the negative aspects of human generated CO2 excess in the environment.

You mention the negative aspects; can you prove those negative aspects?

Does nature differentiate between the C02 produced by other forms of life and C02 originating from human activities? If so, how?

As far as gasses go, oxygen is pretty corrosive. It will kill you given enough time. Should it be banned as well?

Electric cars, anyone?
 
You mention the negative aspects; can you prove those negative aspects?

Does nature differentiate between the C02 produced by other forms of life and C02 originating from human activities? If so, how?

As far as gasses go, oxygen is pretty corrosive. It will kill you given enough time. Should it be banned as well?

Electric cars, anyone?

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2) no, nature doesn't differentiate. nature is indifferent. there is no way to identify a molecule of CO2 that is related to human activity. and you know what, that's not important. what were talking about here is amount of CO2 being increased in the environment by humans. remember, all it takes is a little interference to bring this fragile system down. the environment may always be there but we won't if we continue the trend.

pack your shit folks, we're going away - george carlin.

3) LOL!
 
With respect to scientific bodies, the assumption you are advertising with the above link is that science is the source of authority, and that authority increases with the number of scientists who agree with whatever that consensus is. But science is not primarily about authority. It is an exceptionally effective approach to inquiry and interpretation. Skepticism is essential to science. Consensus is foreign.

By "fragile system" can one assume you mean the ecosystem? If you do, then one can quickly look at global history and see that it is quite robust and enduring.

Once again, can you prove the negative aspects of C02?
 
It didn't appear to be a valuable way to waste seven minutes and twenty-nine seconds of my life.
 
It didn't appear to be a valuable way to waste seven minutes and twenty-nine seconds of my life.

you asked me to "prove the negative aspects of C02" and i did.
 
In your own very specific and unique way, you did. Not in the way I would have liked, but whatever.
 

Back
Top