Maker Pro
Maker Pro

90 amps for electric car charge!

K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
I agree. Electric cars are perfectly viable as second cars in a two car
family.

When we were younger, out "second car" was an old version of the
"first car". IOW, we kept the old one. Now they're quite different
vehicles (one car, one truck) for different purposes, in addition to
commuting. A "second car" costing as much as an electric car is a
non-starter.
For many it would also be viable to use one to commute to work. Many people
commute less than 30 miles and the car sits idle all day in the car park.

If you're foolish enough to buy an *expensive* new car as just a
commuter.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
What are you, an *intentional* fucking idiot? Really.

LOL! You really just can't figure this out, can you. Well, lots of others are
telling you the same thing.
 
H

Hope for the Heartless

Jan 1, 1970
0
Douglas Johnson said:
Sure. So is exhaling. But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. Net balance
to
the planet is zero (more or less).

The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas.

That glosses over a very important issue. Organic carbon is taken from
the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into sugars,
cellulose, etc. The key fact is that it's CO2. Convert it to methane,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it was
CO2.
 
H

Han

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in
Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

Later on in this listing, it states that since 1750, CH4 has almost
doubled, CO2 has gone up 25%. Therefore, while still a minor fraction
(and likely to remain so) CH4 is still a gas whose releases probably
should be controlled. Since the use of natural gas will increase out of
proportion to other energy sources and that of animal husbandry too,
let's try at least.
 
S

[SMF]

Jan 1, 1970
0
Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

1) CO2 is given in PPM
2) CH4 is given in PPB
3) Thermal conductivity is relative to concentration.
4) At higher concentrations CH4 can be 70 times as conductive
5) CO2 is a crappy forcing agent.
6) CO2 is at an excessivly low concentration, regardless, and used
to be at levels many times current.
7) AGW is a fraud. Always has been, always will be.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases


I'll see your wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
(see table of Global Warming Potentials)

And raise you two EPA citations...
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
(put in 1 metric ton of methane and the results are 19.1 ton of CO2)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
The table to the right of the definition of Global Warming Potential.

Followed by a chapter of IPCC paper...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
(see pg 212 for Table 2.14 for Global Warming Potential of methane)


Your citation only shows the radiative forcing due to the current levels
of each gas, not the GWP.

The marginal increase in RF from a unit mass (not molar) release of
methane versus CO2 is closer to the 20x number than you thought.

daestrom
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'll see your wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
(see table of Global Warming Potentials)

And raise you two EPA citations...
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
(put in 1 metric ton of methane and the results are 19.1 ton of CO2)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
The table to the right of the definition of Global Warming Potential.

Followed by a chapter of IPCC paper...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
(see pg 212 for Table 2.14 for Global Warming Potential of methane)


Your citation only shows the radiative forcing due to the current levels
of each gas, not the GWP.

The marginal increase in RF from a unit mass (not molar) release of
methane versus CO2 is closer to the 20x number than you thought.

daestrom



The depressing thing about it all is that whether or not humans are
responsible for much of the climate change, which I personally believe
they are, most of what I've heard indicates that even the most dramatic
things we've done to reduce our impact are but a tiny drop in the bucket
and it would seem the situation is essentially hopeless. I try to
minimize my negative impact on the environment in general, not so much
greenhouse gases but pollution in general, anyone living near a major
city can see and smell many forms of that. A lot of this "green"
movement is just token "feel good" stuff that like those various ribbon
magnets people stick on their car, make people feel like they're part of
the solution without having to actually *do* anything.
 
S

StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt

Jan 1, 1970
0
The depressing thing about it all is that whether or not humans are
responsible for much of the climate change, which I personally believe
they are, most of what I've heard indicates that even the most dramatic
things we've done to reduce our impact are but a tiny drop in the bucket
and it would seem the situation is essentially hopeless. I try to
minimize my negative impact on the environment in general, not so much
greenhouse gases but pollution in general, anyone living near a major
city can see and smell many forms of that. A lot of this "green"
movement is just token "feel good" stuff that like those various ribbon
magnets people stick on their car, make people feel like they're part of
the solution without having to actually *do* anything.


The Mayan gods are coming to get you, and there is nothing any of you
can do about it.
 
Top