Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can this be a Global Warming Solution?

  1. Sep 27, 2006 #1
    Can this be a "Global Warming" Solution?

    This has been referred to before, at least once in the article "Would You Buy an American Car?" Still, it would be interesting if we could get some opinions. It's along the lines of the T-Zero, but they make their own components. Here are a few sites on the car.











    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 27, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see how this is a solution to global warming at all.

    As I said in another thread:

    - Warren
  4. Sep 27, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It also won't be a solution until more of the electric production is available from non-fossil fuel sources. Simply advocating electric cars without considering how that electricity is generated is really just burying one's head in the sand by pretending that somehow the energy coming out of that wall socket is cleaner than what you got out of the gas pump. It might be, but that all depends on where and how your electricity is generated. Around these parts, it still comes from burning coal.
  5. Sep 28, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    Agreed. Where do these people think the energy comes from??

    It seems a lot of time many parts of 'the environmentalist movement' are based on ignorance, and lack of education subject combined with a want to do good.
  6. Sep 28, 2006 #5
    More Nuclear power plants! :D
  7. Sep 28, 2006 #6
    But then again the global warming link with Carbon Dioxide, the main crulprit by consensus of the slippery slope of alarmism, is simply non-existent in reality when scrutinizing the evidence.

    There could be a very good reason to quadruple electricity generation using economical feasible renewals and nuclear power and convert to driving electric.

    It would relax the economic, political and strategical pressure on fossil fuels, reducing our dependency on it, which would be a noble objective.

    What it does not do, is changing climate, that's just hype.
  8. Sep 28, 2006 #7
    As I said more Nuclear power!

    Especially in Australia, we -only- have the most uranium out of all the countries, and we're just giving it away at the moment. Fund nuclear waste disposal projects like Synroc and make a few plants here and there.
  9. Sep 28, 2006 #8

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hmmm, yes and no. I agree that CO2 emissions as "greenhous gas" is overhyped. The more distasrous effects of our fuel dependancy is the "good old fashioned pollution" and environmental devastation it creates. The greehous gas emissions are indeed like spitting into a pool when it comes to the natural trend in climate change. But it is a lot of spit, and the pool is not as large as some might think.

    But again, I wish the environmental groups would focus on reducing the more noxious emissions.

    Oh and "Know Nukes"!
  10. Sep 28, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not entirely accurate. Due to the superior efficiency of the ellectric motor (as compared to the ICE), an immediate switch to all-ellectric vehicles, with a beefed-up power grid able to handle the increased demand, would cut polution released by driving to about half (according to the D.O.E.). It ain't zero, but it sure ain't nuthin'.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2006
  11. Sep 28, 2006 #10
    I think the point was it isn't a feasible solution within one's budget.
  12. Sep 28, 2006 #11


    User Avatar

    Nothing environmentally friendly seems to be economically feasible or within one's budget. :frown:

    I suppose somebody could come up with a list, but I sure can't think of one.
  13. Sep 28, 2006 #12
    Nice try but a few centuries ago I learned that the total effiency is the product of the efficiencys of all elements in the chain hence something like:

    Ef(total)=E(power generation) * Ef(electricty transport) * Ef(charging batteries) * Ef (electric engine)

    You may find that even with nuclear power generation, the transport from power plant to consumer has an low efficiency. A simple gaz powered car will probably always beat the electric car for emissions when the powerplant is non nuclear.
  14. Sep 28, 2006 #13
    Very simple, go nuclear 20 years ago. But then a certain group of people effectively opposed that. They appear to have a lot in common with the current group that let the world warm catastrophically.
  15. Sep 28, 2006 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Again, that would cut pollution released by driving, but would it cut pollution released overall, or add to what's being released by the electric plants?

    Long-term, with a switch to more electric generation from non-fossil fuel sources, sure, it ought to help (though, there are other environmental impacts of alternative energy sources that largely get ignored by the environmentalists because is isn't in the form of lots of obvious smoke belching out into the air, but the idea of so many humans living on the planet without making any environmental impact is just plain silly), and I certainly agree that we need to explore those options and become less reliant on fossil fuels that are finite in their availability. And, there are also political reasons to move away from energy sources that make much of the world dependent on just a few countries as suppliers for their fuel needs. So, I'm not objecting to a long-term plan to find cleaner energy sources that have less finite supplies, what I'm objecting to is the pie-in-the-sky view by some environmentalists that everybody needs to switch to all electric now as a solution to all the pollution problems, because given the current means to supply that electricity, it's just not realistic.

    I also don't understand the view that we shouldn't have an impact on the environment and ecosystem...as if we're somehow not part of it. But, I think I'm quite in the minority with my views in that regard. I have no expectation that humans are meant to exist as a species forever, or that the Earth is meant to have a static environment and ecosystem, or that our feeble attempts to prevent the environment from changing will have any long-term impact. We might change the way we impact the environment, but as part of the ecosystem, we will always have an impact on the environment in one way or another. Species evolve, the environment of the planet changes, mass extinctions have occurred in the past and will very likely occur in the future, the atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past, and likely will in the future, and I see that as more of a natural and inevitable progression of events than something unnatural we need to stop. If anything, trying to stop the environment from changing is unnatural in my opinion.
  16. Sep 28, 2006 #15
    Do you agree with the studies that do find relation between fossil fuel usage and global warming?
    IMHO your indifference to our environment is rather tempocentric. Had you been born into an already decimated world, you would likely have a different approach to a hypothetical past generation that allowed your environment to become less hospitable, don't you think? This isn't just about "the environment" - it's about future generations' rights (even if they're not mentioned in that sacred constitution of yours :tongue: ). :wink:
  17. Sep 28, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Such studies demonstrate correlation, not causation. How about this one?


    Did you ever suspect that pirates have such a strong impact on our climate? Amazing, isn't it, what a few pirates can do!

    And how is this anything but guilt-driven fear mongering? Sorry, we prefer to deal with facts, not baseless fear.

    - Warren
  18. Sep 28, 2006 #17
    More conclusive proof for global warming:


    Credit Benny Peiser
  19. Sep 28, 2006 #18
    Kill them, kill them all! :devil:
    But seriously, you think it is untrue we're making our environment less hospitable to future generations, and that it could be that much more hospitable if we put some effort into it? I know it may sound ridiculous at first, but let's look at this proportionately. This isn't some harmless bet - the rights of every generation to the planet that we inhabit only temporarily are at stake. Basic rights are not limited to past and present generations. I agree that there is much hype, disinformation and foreign agendas in modern environmentalism, but surely we can agree they "have a case". Now considering what is at stake, I believe it's safe to say we need pay more attention to the effects our luxurious lifestyles have on the environment. I don't believe people are aware enough - otherwise, why are so many city slickers buying big heavy cars? Why is public transport a dirty phrase? Why are the fish in the oceans running out, while those in the estuaries are being polluted with fertilizers?
    Somehow it seems what should be the most important issue - the preservation of our home - is being pushed back behind the scenes.
  20. Sep 28, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think we should attempt to reduce pollution even for the sake our own health, much less that of our children's children. However, this is not what this topic is about -- it's about global warming, which even the alarmists admit won't really cause much of an effect within a single lifespan.

    People have a right to inhabit a planet? Is there some kind of legislative body for inhabitable planets that confers such rights?

    Rather than putting words into my mouth, why don't you simply ask me? My answer would be no, I don't think anthropogenic global warming is real. I, for one, don't think there's a "case" at all.

    I agree, we should reduce pollution. We already know the kind of devastation pollution can cause. However, your argument does not extend to global warming, which, again, is the topic of this thread.

    This thread is not about pollution. Please stop trying to change the subject.

    - Warren
  21. Sep 28, 2006 #20

    Of course there is a lot going wrong on this world and we should do something about that but we are also in a fighting arena of conflicting interests, ideas and bias in a subjective world with agenda's.

    In that world somehow global warming settled firmly as next potential disaster after Y2K, the clash of the civilisations, the nuclear winter, Mutual Self Destruction, Race Eugenics, etc etc. There is always an imaginary fatal threat which needs to be fought to forfill the needs of the scaremongers and the need to be scared by the public.

    Catastrophical Anthropogenic Global Warming is physically impossible. It would be so nice if we could beat this ghost and focus on real problems in the objectively put correct priority.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Can this be a Global Warming Solution?
  1. Global warming debate (Replies: 6)

  2. Global warming (Replies: 3)