| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419116 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 07:44   |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris wrote:
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
8 now, isn't it?
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
Still twice as many births every day compared to deaths ...
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419117 is a reply to message #419112] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 10:13 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:40:56 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Those 439 reactors produce about 400 GW of electricity. The world
>> currently consumes 20 TW of electricity . To replace fossil fuels
>> (absent renwables for argument sake) with nuclear, would require
>> 19,600 additional reactors (at 1GW each); and given the
>> amount of time necessary to build such a large fleet, by the time
>> it is complete worldwide consumption will have increased by 50%
>> at current 2.3% annual growth rate, so closer to 30,000 new 1GW
>> plants would be necessar
>
> Yes that's the basis behind saying that if we have the fuel to run
> those 439 for 30k years (claimed for breeder reactors upthread) then we have
> the fuel to run 30K reactors for 439 years and then we need a real
> solution15
>
> Personally I think we have a better chance of building the 100K or
> so million litre flow batteries that we'd need to run everything off
> intermittent sources.
>
>> Fundamentally, we cannot continue to grow energy consumption by 2.3%
>> annually for much longer.
>
> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
>> And given that capitalism requires annual
>> growth, in its modern incarnation, the global economy must transition from
>> growth-based to steady-state. That's gonna be hard.
>
> Yes it is, but that growth is only essential so that the money
> manipulators can cream off their cut for doing nothing productive.
Yes, and they're the ones who write the rules, sadly.
https://prospect.org/power/mapping-corruption-donald-trump-e xecutive-branch/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419118 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 10:13 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
You're behind the times. It reached seven billion last year.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
The horsemen will need ride again, it seems.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419119 is a reply to message #419113] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 10:15 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>> pulling a load.
>>>
>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>
>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>
> In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
> <snip>
We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
appear to be universal.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419120 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 11:57 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
No, It's not. In certain ethnic groups, it's actually falling quite
rapidly. China is Falling, Iran is Falling, ethnic Russia its falling
Nigeria is is rising rapidly. Citizization (new word) is growing, and
anyone touring rural France, Scotland and Ireland can see it happenin.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
Most Industry will be in Asia in a very few years. The West is comitting
hari-kiri, led by bufoons.
>
> Andy
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419121 is a reply to message #419116] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:00 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> 8 now, isn't it?
>
>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>
> Still twice as many births every day compared to deaths ...
surely that should be ^debts^
All that nonsense is derived from Nazi Propogands, derived
from US medical thought from the 1930's
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419122 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:06 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
8 billion, recent figures.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419123 is a reply to message #419119] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:07 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>> > Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>> > pulling a load.
>>>>
>>>> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>
>>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>
>> In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>> <snip>
>
> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
> appear to be universal.
Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419124 is a reply to message #419120] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:11 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
> On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>
>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> No, It's not.
Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight
And it's still growing in the world. Some countries (Japan
springs to mind) are decreasing. And the growth rate is
decreasing worldwide, but it's still growing.
The expectation is we'll reach 9 before it starts declining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419126 is a reply to message #419122] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: johnson
On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>
>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>
>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>
> 8 billion, recent figures.
yes, American 'billions'
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419127 is a reply to message #419123] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: johnson
On 2023-02-16, maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>> >> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>> >> pulling a load.
>>>> >
>>>> > So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>>
>>>> What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>>
>>> In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>>> <snip>
>>
>> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
>> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
>> appear to be universal.
>
>
> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
> be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>
>
Quite so: we have plenty here in the UK too.
Thankfully the Prime Idiot of Scotland is abandoning her post.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419128 is a reply to message #419126] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 12:57 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
johnson <root@example.net> writes:
> On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>>
>>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>>
>> 8 billion, recent figures.
>
> yes, American 'billions'
It's my understanding that even the British have accepted the
American definition of billion at this point in time.
https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/bu dget/how-much-is-a-billion.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419129 is a reply to message #419124] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:04 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>> On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>> No, It's not.
>
> Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight
One could agree about that. How does anyone know how many there is?.
Who counts the counters? Japan, I suppose, is a pointer, reportedly
boys spend most of their time in their rooms, looking at games and
porn. Also the highest use of adult nappies. There may a correlation
between adult nappies and condoms :):)
The girls spend most of their time on smartphones. I don't know any
way of becoming pregnant by smart phone (The mind boggles). It may
be on alt.risks.
>
> And it's still growing in the world. Some countries (Japan
> springs to mind) are decreasing. And the growth rate is
> decreasing worldwide, but it's still growing.
>
> The expectation is we'll reach 9 before it starts declining.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419130 is a reply to message #419125] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:06 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>> On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>
>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>
>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>
>> No, It's not.
>
> https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach- 98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100
>
>
I think one could safely ignore any web address with `un' on it.
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419131 is a reply to message #419127] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:10 |
GreyMaus[1]
Messages: 1140
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, johnson <root@example.net> wrote:
> On 2023-02-16, maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 15/02/2023 19:32, maus wrote:
>>>> > On 2023-02-15, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On 12/02/2023 22:50, maus wrote:
>>>> >>> Most hybrid's I have heard of have petrol, not deisel, engines. Utterley useless for
>>>> >>> pulling a load.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So a Land-Rover V8 can't pull anything?
>>>> >
>>>> > What has a Landrover V8 got to do with anything? (Thoughts of Tina Turner}
>>>> >
>>>> In case it's escaped your notice it's a petrol engine.
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> We pulled a travel trailer (caravan to those across the pond) with a
>>> 1962 chevy impala (gasoline/petrol). Maus' experiences in Eire don't
>>> appear to be universal.
>>
>>
>> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
>> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
>> be stopped by 2030. Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>>
>>
>
> Quite so: we have plenty here in the UK too.
> Thankfully the Prime Idiot of Scotland is abandoning her post.
I will have to find a Scots politician with a fishy based name
--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419132 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:21 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
But, God forbid that the birthrate drops below replacement level! Then the
seals will be opened and the four horsemen ride out.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419133 is a reply to message #419128] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:21 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> johnson <root@example.net> writes:
>> On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> > True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> > can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>>
>>>> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>>> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>>>
>>>> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>>>
>>> 8 billion, recent figures.
>>
>> yes, American 'billions'
>
> It's my understanding that even the British have accepted the
> American definition of billion at this point in time.
>
> https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/bu dget/how-much-is-a-billion.html
>
It’s even worse if Google shows you an article from an Indian paper where
they talk about krors of lakhs. Or is that lakhs of krors?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419135 is a reply to message #419123] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:08 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 16 Feb 2023 17:07:28 GMT
maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
Nope but most are - this has more to do with the relative price per
mile of petrol and diesel which gets more important the bigger the load.
> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
> be stopped by 2030.
Also all petrol, propane and other directly fossil fuel driven
vehicles.
> Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
We *have* to stop using fossil fuels just as the guy whose just
found €500 in the street *has* to stop buying rounds while he still has
enough left for the taxi home.
The thing is the manufacturers are likely to beat them to it, by
the time 2030 rolls round I doubt there will have been any new mainstream
IC for some time. Long term it will save them a fortune IC engine
development is getting ridiculously expensive to do and they're already all
busily tooling up for EV production and rolling out their EV from scratch
designs.
The first corporate war might be international car manufacturers
fighting over access to lithium.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419136 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 13:10 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per
>> capita can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
Make that 8 but the roll off of the sigmoid is showing, it's
expected to flatten at around 10 billion.
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
We can't control it, but the most effective way to influence it
seems to be to make people feel richer.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419139 is a reply to message #419129] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 14:52 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight
>
> One could agree about that. How does anyone know how many there is?.
> Who counts the counters? Japan, I suppose, is a pointer, reportedly
> boys spend most of their time in their rooms, looking at games and
> porn. Also the highest use of adult nappies. There may a correlation
> between adult nappies and condoms :):)
>
> The girls spend most of their time on smartphones. I don't know any
> way of becoming pregnant by smart phone (The mind boggles). It may
> be on alt.risks.
An interesting observation but I have to ask: Just what does that have
to do with Hunter Biden's laptop?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419141 is a reply to message #419114] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 15:31 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-16, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>
> It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
'zackly. The planet doesn't care about per-capita consumption,
just total consumption. Conservation tries to reduce per-capita
consumption, but that only works until the general populace is
reduced to a subsistence level. If population continues to grow
beyond that point, things get ugly.
> In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
> It's now over 6, and still growing.
>
> If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
Hear, hear.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419142 is a reply to message #419139] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 16:13 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> maus <maus@mail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2023-02-16, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it is over 6. Currently 7.9 billion, so pushing eight
>>
>> One could agree about that. How does anyone know how many there is?.
>> Who counts the counters? Japan, I suppose, is a pointer, reportedly
>> boys spend most of their time in their rooms, looking at games and
>> porn. Also the highest use of adult nappies. There may a correlation
>> between adult nappies and condoms :):)
>>
>> The girls spend most of their time on smartphones. I don't know any
>> way of becoming pregnant by smart phone (The mind boggles). It may
>> be on alt.risks.
>
> An interesting observation but I have to ask: Just what does that have
> to do with Hunter Biden's laptop?
>
>
Hunter’s laptop has to do with EVERYTHING. I think, if you check, you’ll
see he has some stuff about spy balloons there too.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419143 is a reply to message #419135] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 16:13 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2023 17:07:28 GMT
> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
>
> Nope but most are - this has more to do with the relative price per
> mile of petrol and diesel which gets more important the bigger the load.
>
>> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
>> be stopped by 2030.
>
> Also all petrol, propane and other directly fossil fuel driven
> vehicles.
>
>> Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>
> We *have* to stop using fossil fuels just as the guy whose just
> found €500 in the street *has* to stop buying rounds while he still has
> enough left for the taxi home.
>
> The thing is the manufacturers are likely to beat them to it, by
> the time 2030 rolls round I doubt there will have been any new mainstream
> IC for some time. Long term it will save them a fortune IC engine
> development is getting ridiculously expensive to do and they're already all
> busily tooling up for EV production and rolling out their EV from scratch
> designs.
>
> The first corporate war might be international car manufacturers
> fighting over access to lithium.
>
I might still be around by 2030, but I probably won’t be buying a new car
then. Possibly a used car, but they’re going to have to pry my gas-powered
car from my cold dead hands (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a
very long shot).
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419144 is a reply to message #419143] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 16:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2023-02-16 22:13, Peter Flass wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 16 Feb 2023 17:07:28 GMT
>> maus <maus@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Go along any road, anything pulling anything is diesel. (Or Deisel),
>>
>> Nope but most are - this has more to do with the relative price per
>> mile of petrol and diesel which gets more important the bigger the load.
>>
>>> I can't remember. The EU parliment has decided that all deisel will
>>> be stopped by 2030.
>>
>> Also all petrol, propane and other directly fossil fuel driven
>> vehicles.
>>
>>> Just goes to show, all the idiots are not in the US.
>>
>> We *have* to stop using fossil fuels just as the guy whose just
>> found €500 in the street *has* to stop buying rounds while he still has
>> enough left for the taxi home.
>>
>> The thing is the manufacturers are likely to beat them to it, by
>> the time 2030 rolls round I doubt there will have been any new mainstream
>> IC for some time. Long term it will save them a fortune IC engine
>> development is getting ridiculously expensive to do and they're already all
>> busily tooling up for EV production and rolling out their EV from scratch
>> designs.
>>
>> The first corporate war might be international car manufacturers
>> fighting over access to lithium.
>>
>
> I might still be around by 2030, but I probably won’t be buying a new car
> then. Possibly a used car, but they’re going to have to pry my gas-powered
> car from my cold dead hands (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a
> very long shot).
You can keep using your ICE (in Europe) for years. Till 2050. Then you
won't be able, not because they'll pry it from your cold dead hands, but
because you will not be able to buy petrol or diesel.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419151 is a reply to message #419143] |
Thu, 16 February 2023 23:48 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:13:20 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a very long shot).
In many ways they already are a big improvement on ICEs. In fact
apart from the range available with a full tank and being cheaper I can't
think of a single advantage for IC based cars.
The current crop of EVs have more range than I care to drive in a
day and far more than I usually drive and the lower running costs will in
due course cancel out the higher purchase cost so those advantages are more
illusion than fact. They're also getting cheaper - especially with the
Chinese getting into the market.
There are far fewer moving parts so there's much less regular
maintenance.
They accelerate faster than IC based cars.
Those designed for towing do so *extremely* well, there's a video
of Tesla X pulling a 40 tonne artic up hill in snow!
They usually have a very low centre of gravity from putting the
batteries down as low as possible - which makes for good handling.
Many these days have mains power take off (V2L) which is handy for
power tools on the move.
They don't emit toxic fumes.
Finally, unless you're driving a long distance in one day you never
have to go into one of those dirty, smelly filling stations because you get
all the charging done at home, at night.
So I'm curious - just what are the big advantages of IC cars ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419153 is a reply to message #419144] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 00:45 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 22:40:12 +0100
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> You can keep using your ICE (in Europe) for years. Till 2050. Then you
> won't be able, not because they'll pry it from your cold dead hands, but
> because you will not be able to buy petrol or diesel.
If it's a diesel then it should be easy enough to run it on home
made biodiesel - making instructions and even kits are easily available
online, try not to burn down the house.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419158 is a reply to message #419133] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 05:07 |
|
|
Originally posted by: johnson
On 2023-02-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> johnson <root@example.net> writes:
>>> On 2023-02-16, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 12:21:39 +0000, Vir Campestris
>>>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 16/02/2023 10:41, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> >> True, the real question is how much energy consumption per capita
>>>> >> can we sustain and what can we do with it.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's not just the energy per capita, but the number of people.
>>>> >
>>>> > In 1800 the world population was less than a billion.
>>>> > It's now over 6, and still growing.
>>>> >
>>>> > If we don't get that under control nothing else matters.
>>>>
>>>> 8 billion, recent figures.
>>>
>>> yes, American 'billions'
>>
>> It's my understanding that even the British have accepted the
>> American definition of billion at this point in time.
>>
>> https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/bu dget/how-much-is-a-billion.html
>>
>
> It’s even worse if Google shows you an article from an Indian paper where
> they talk about krors of lakhs. Or is that lakhs of krors?
>
crores
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419161 is a reply to message #419153] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 10:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Kurt Weiske
To: Ahem A Rivet's Shot
-=> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
AAS> If it's a diesel then it should be easy enough to run it on
AAS> home made biodiesel - making instructions and even kits are easily
AAS> available online, try not to burn down the house.
So, after the Motor Law [1], instead of a Red Barchetta,, it'll be a 1980s
Mercedes 300D that the kid takes out for joy rides?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta
kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
| http://realitycheckbbs.org
| 1:218/700@fidonet
.... "The swift blade penetrates the salad."
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
* realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419163 is a reply to message #419161] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 10:44 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 07:21:00 -0800
"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-8e2-this> wrote:
> To: Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> -=> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> AAS> If it's a diesel then it should be easy enough to run it on
> AAS> home made biodiesel - making instructions and even kits are easily
> AAS> available online, try not to burn down the house.
>
> So, after the Motor Law [1], instead of a Red Barchetta,, it'll be a 1980s
> Mercedes 300D that the kid takes out for joy rides?
Well perhaps, but a Tesla Roadster is a pretty good Red Barchetta
and if they ever do the promised version with a cold gas thruster pack[1]
replacing the back seats it will make any previous sports car look like a
kids toy. I'm not holding my breath, I won't be surprised if it never
appears.
Failing that the Porche Taycan 4S is not exactly slow off the mark.
There are more options and will no doubt be far more by the time
2030 rolls round.
[1] 3G of thrust in any direction *including* straight up.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419167 is a reply to message #419151] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 18:33 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:13:20 -0700
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a very long shot).
>
> In many ways they already are a big improvement on ICEs. In fact
> apart from the range available with a full tank and being cheaper I can't
> think of a single advantage for IC based cars.
Range is a biggie, also recharging time. Not everyone has access to a
charger at home. once EVs become more common support infrastructure will
start showing signs of stress.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419168 is a reply to message #419167] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 19:00 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:13:20 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a very long shot).
>>
>> In many ways they already are a big improvement on ICEs. In fact
>> apart from the range available with a full tank and being cheaper I can't
>> think of a single advantage for IC based cars.
>
> Range is a biggie, also recharging time.
Not a particular biggie - ranges are approaching 500 miles;
that's a good 8 to 10 hours of driving time. A stop for
30 minutes half-way through for lunch or a picnic at
a rest area would be a nice break, and you'll get a
charge while eating.
> Not everyone has access to a
> charger at home.
That's true today, however even fewer have a gas station
at their home either. Rather a wash, don't you think?
Charge times are becoming more competitive with gas tank
fill times.
> once EVs become more common support infrastructure will
> start showing signs of stress.
Or the support structures will be built out to prevent
stress - a significant part of the recently passed
Infrastructure Investment act.
It's pretty clear that the car manufacturers are all
on board (simplifies the process of building a vehicle,
that's for sure).
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419169 is a reply to message #419167] |
Fri, 17 February 2023 22:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2023-02-17, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:13:20 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a very long shot).
>>
>> In many ways they already are a big improvement on ICEs. In fact
>> apart from the range available with a full tank and being cheaper I can't
>> think of a single advantage for IC based cars.
>
> Range is a biggie, also recharging time. Not everyone has access to a
> charger at home. once EVs become more common support infrastructure will
> start showing signs of stress.
Although you can charge at home overnight without needing new hardware,
all that extra load on the electrical grid will indeed cause problems.
Here in B.C. we have lots of hydro power, but most new capacity is
earmarked for LNG production or sales to California.
Another factor that isn't yet fully appreciated is battery life.
EVs haven't been around long enough for a significant number of
batteries to wear out, so we have yet to find out exactly what
is involved in amortizing a $25,000 replacement battery.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419171 is a reply to message #419167] |
Sat, 18 February 2023 02:35 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:33:29 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:13:20 -0700
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (or make EVs an improvement on ICs, which is a very long shot).
>>
>> In many ways they already are a big improvement on ICEs. In fact
>> apart from the range available with a full tank and being cheaper I
>> can't think of a single advantage for IC based cars.
>
> Range is a biggie,
Range is not a biggie! Pretty much every EV on the market has more
range than anyone sane would drive in a day and way more than anyone should
drive without a good break.
> also recharging time.
For overnight it doesn't matter and the charging time at high speed
chargers is around coffee and snack time on most of the current crop of
EVs. So no charging time is not a biggie.
> Not everyone has access to a charger at home.
For those that do it's all advantages, but yes if you can't charge
at home they're less attractive.
That is a solvable problem and not a problem with the cars,
everyone has to park somewhere, providing a charge point that activates at
night by every parking spot shouldn't be hard.
> once EVs become more
> common support infrastructure will start showing signs of stress.
Why ? The grid that can take everyone cooking an evening meal in
the same narrow window should have no trouble delivering a few kilowatts
to each car at a steady drain overnight when nearly *all* the big consumers
are idle. If the car is at home during the day then a solar porch makes a
*lot* of sense and makes the car largely independent of the infrastructure.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: After the storm, hopefully [message #419172 is a reply to message #419153] |
Sat, 18 February 2023 07:33 |
Alexander Schreiber
Messages: 8
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 22:40:12 +0100
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You can keep using your ICE (in Europe) for years. Till 2050. Then you
>> won't be able, not because they'll pry it from your cold dead hands, but
>> because you will not be able to buy petrol or diesel.
>
> If it's a diesel then it should be easy enough to run it on home
> made biodiesel - making instructions and even kits are easily available
> online, try not to burn down the house.
In principle yes (I mean, the very first Diesel engine ran on peanut oil),
but there are traps. Biodiesel usually isn't straight up vegetable oil,
but usually chemically processed vegetable oils (e.g. rapeseed methyl
ester, aka RME) and that stuff can be decidedly unfriendly to the
fuel system and the engine (e.g. plastics and metals - with pure RME
some plastic have shown noticeable degradation and some metals have
shown corrosion) plus you might end up diluting the engine oil if
RME is passing by the piston rings and if your engine has a common
rail fuel injection system, it might not like the changes in lubricant
property (as it is being lubricated by the fuel).
That's why biodiesel for use in engines not specifically rated for
100% biodiesel use (where all the above traps have been defanged by
appropriate choice of materials and design) is usually used as a mix
of biodiesel and regular diesel with various mix ratios. Some engine
manufacturers specify "up to 5% biodiesel".
So will running 100% biodiesel in a diesel engine not rated for kill
the engine? Most likely not, but you should expect to pay a lot more
attention to regular servicing and maintenance to spot (and fix) whatever
issues (e.g. plastic parts of the fuel system degrading) crop up.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
