Reply to What cars do you consider to be tacky/ cringe?

Forum Index » Cars and Transportation

Reply to "What cars do you consider to be tacky/ cringe?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

[/quote]
Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?[/quote]

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

&lt;url&gt;https://www.withouthotair.com/&lt;/url&gt;

[/quote]

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error[/quote]

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.[/quote]

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?[/quote]

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters =  30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

[/quote]

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing. [/quote]

Just read the book. I can tell you have read a couple of pages and that is it. The book is not long. You could already have made some progress with it in the time you have spent here on DCUM misstating the author's ideas.

The issue boils down to land area per capita, and the competing demands placed upon that land. When you add up all of our present energy and food needs, and the available land per capita, and the maximum potential energy per square meter provided by wind, solar and tides, you fall well short of the mark. The author concludes as follows:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

While the author's focus is on the UK and Europe, the same conclusions apply to the USA -- in fact, our situation is even worse because our present energy usage per capita is twice that of the UK.

[/quote]

I am not the one writing pages of nerdy calculations. And I was not  laughing at the author but rather at your very opinionated interpretations and conclusions. That said, it was an interesting link, thank you for that. I might actually read it sometime [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics