Jump to content
Due to a large amount of spamers, accounts will now have to be approved by the Admins so please be patient. ×
IGNORED

My bet to a workmate over the future of cars

danny_galaga

By danny_galaga
in Cars

 Share

Recommended Posts

danny_galaga Pinball Wizard

danny_galaga

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 24/05/2023 at 12:44 PM, Autosteve said:

Yer I understand what they are trying to do. Somewhere back in the 66 pages this topic takes up now I mentioned the rail line that does this energy production along it's whole length and can have multiple trains all generating power as long as they are going on the downhill run as the other return track is uphill.

They have been using that system for decades now.

The problem with this system here though is just how much power are you expecting from the drop of one building?

Then it becomes how many of these buildings do you require and who controls it all so the the end user gets a  constant supply of reliable power?

 

It's all in the article 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

oldhank
oldhank
Cursed
Cursed

To be fair, I am not so sure any car would fare well after being completely submerged in water...😆 Except for maybe James Bond's Lotus...

thegrunta666
thegrunta666

I can tell you @Gemini2544, a Tesla does not like to be fully submerged in water. We attended a job where they had flooded the car park that had car stackers , that stored the cars below floor level.

Posted Images

Boots Pinball Wizard

Boots

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Urgghhhh. More fucking diesels. I really don't think there should be any diesels in vehicles under 3.5 tonnes, and anything over must be hybrid to reduce particulates in traffic

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-investing-920-mln-ohio-diesel-engine-plant-2023-06-20/

Sorry, that's just ridiculous

Currently no EV or Petrol cars could tow a large caravan (other than ridiculously thirsty V8 Landcruiser), diesels under 3.5 tonnes are the only option.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prktkljokr Pinball Wizard

prktkljokr

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Urgghhhh. More fucking diesels. I really don't think there should be any diesels in vehicles under 3.5 tonnes, and anything over must be hybrid to reduce particulates in traffic

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-investing-920-mln-ohio-diesel-engine-plant-2023-06-20/

I now have 2 nice particulate spewing vehicles and I love em, Could not see myself trying to pull the loads I need to with a hybrid or a EV ever.

 

Diesels forever 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites
danny_galaga Pinball Wizard

danny_galaga

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Guys, concentrate a little harder. Anything over 3.5 tonnes can be a hybrid diesel. It means trucks aren't spewing asthma when stuck in traffic. And below 3.5 tonnes just not diesel. Nowadays I'd rather your pointless American pick up be petrol (which they always used to be) than diesel. Yes, it produces more CO2, but way less  respiratory inducing toxins like nitrous oxides and particulates. 

There is work we can do to reduce greenhouse gases. But also to just have cleaner air. You don't like clean air?

 

Just one more thing' that irks me- dickhead truck drivers using exhaust brakes in built up areas. If instead of exhaust brakes, there is a hybrid component, then you are still reducing wear on your brakes but also saving fuel as well as a huge reduction in unnecessary noise. That's a biggy for prime movers. Pretty much anything you do to save fuel pays for itself quickly at that scale 

Edited by danny_galaga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Autosteve Pinball Wizard

Autosteve

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Guys, concentrate a little harder. Anything over 3.5 tonnes can be a hybrid diesel. It means trucks aren't spewing asthma when stuck in traffic. And below 3.5 tonnes just not diesel. Nowadays I'd rather your pointless American pick up be petrol (which they always used to be) than diesel. Yes, it produces more CO2, but way less  respiratory inducing toxins like nitrous oxides and particulates. 

How about you do something to address your own concerns like move out of the city to the country where the air is lovely and clean?.

That is the problem, those that whine the most for change are those that actually are prepared to do the least to help themselves.

Another member sent me this the other day and I immediately thought of you.

It goes a long way to show just how impossible going carbon neutral really is.

The discussion was all started over my need to self power my farm, something I have been doing for near a decade now to the best of my ability with no government assistance, no hand outs, no whinging and certainly not trying to force others to do it.

When you consider that is just one house, it gives you an excellent idea of exactly how hard power is to produce unless of coarse we use some of that lovely uranium.

Maybe those that whine about change should be cut off the grid?

Lets see just how dedicated to the cause they really are.

Better still, make all forms of carbon based energy pricing means tested?.

400,000 extra "Australians" coming to live in this country this year and we are going wind, solar and electric vehicles?

Do the maths and as you say, think of our children.

What world are we really leaving for them here in Australia. One with no energy except for the rich.

Can't you see how this is all going?. Maybe one more NSW power station shutdown and you'll start to understand.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
danny_galaga Pinball Wizard

danny_galaga

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Or,

Since country folk love pollution so much, shift all diesels and coal power out into the country towns- it's a win/win. Country folk love pollution, city dwellers want less of it 😀

Yes, what world are we leaving the next generation? One with rising sea levels, less productive farmland, more floods, more droughts, more cyclones. What IS the real cost of energy? Insurance companies know- they are pricing it all into future premiums...

Also, per capita, cities are much more energy efficient than small towns. Look it up 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites
needlebat Proficient

needlebat

Posted
Posted

This is quite an interesting conversation you have going here. One of the interesting things about resource consumption in cities, is the difference between urban and suburban areas. Urban areas are energy efficient mainly because dwelling structures are well insulated due to their design and construction, and due to the positive impact of public transport, and proximity to services. Suburban areas have a different footprint because of differing design and construction, and the increased use of personal transportation. Suburbs also have a far greater water usage profile from yards and laws. It will be interesting to see the profiles change with working-from-home impacts on transport, and the relative ease and financial benefit of home, and block-based generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Autosteve Pinball Wizard

Autosteve

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 23/06/2023 at 12:50 PM, danny_galaga said:

Yes, what world are we leaving the next generation? One with rising sea levels, less productive farmland, more floods, more droughts, more cyclones.

 

 

Edited by Autosteve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...