The alternative energy research forum

reply to post by calnorak

One thing I don't get is, why don't we have electric cars with solar cells and wind turbines? Surely if your going 25 mph or faster you would have enough wind to charge a battery? And solar, we only use our cars a fraction of the day if at all.

The drag from the wind would create a negative energy balance, in other words, you would only be recharging the system less than what could be converted from wind to electricity.

It would be pointless.

It is possible to run a car with a wind turbine, but maybe not the way you think. Look for wind-powered vehicles.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Which energy efficient cars got scrapped exactly? And which patents exactly?

I know you're being cute because you can't be that naive, but since it's possible - I'll humor you..
The Inertial Storage Transmission. I do not recall the patent number but I worked with Vince Carmen on the trans-continental project to bring the car to the public's attention.

reply to post by calnorak

While I like environmental sustainability, I don't think that our 200 or so years of collecting data is sufficient for declaring climate change. The climate gate emails make it even less believable.

I agree with much of your response except the above. Don't have the wool pulled over your eyes so the World's Largest Oil producers can rest easy knowing they are safe from public outcry. You will notice that although the majority of weathercasters heard of climategate - less than half say they are skeptical about it. Weathermen.

In the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters to date, George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication and Center for Social Science Research asked these meteorologists early in 2010, when news stories about the climate e-mails were breaking, several questions about their awareness of the issue, attention to the story and impact of the story on their beliefs about climate change.

A large majority (82 percent) of the respondents indicated they had heard of Climategate, and nearly all followed the story at least "a little."

Among the respondents who indicated that they had followed the story, 42 percent indicated the story made them somewhat or much more skeptical that global warming is occurring.

These results stand in stark contrast to the findings of several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring. www.sciencedaily.com...

Read the last line and realize at least on this issue, you are being (falsely) politically motivated to NOT be concerned about climate change.

If YOU owned EXXON-MOBIL (or had a political party supporting your endeavors) this is exactly the kind of doubt you might put in American minds so the public would stop harping on ALTERNATIVE ENERGY and jeopardize your future profits.

Near-surface ozone has doubled since 1850 due to chemical emissions from vehicles, industrial processes, and the burning of forests. Dr Stephen Sitch, a climate impacts scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and lead author of the article, said: "Climate models have largely ignored atmospheric chemistry but in this research we have identified a cause of potentially increased warming with elevated levels of surface ozone likely to suppress plant growth."

Plants and soil are currently slowing--down global warming by storing about a quarter of human carbon dioxide emissions, but the new study suggests that this could be undermined by further increases in near-surface ozone.

As a result more carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere and add to global warming.

Co-author, Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter, explains: "We estimate that ozone effects on plants could double the importance of ozone increases in the lower atmosphere as a driver of climate change, so policies to limit increases in near-surface ozone must be seen as an even higher priority." www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Which energy efficient cars got scrapped exactly? And which patents exactly?

I know you're being cute because you can't be that naive, but since it's possible - I'll humor you..
The Inertial Storage Transmission. I do not recall the patent number but I worked with Vince Carmen on the trans-continental project to bring the car to the public's attention.

Eaton Hydraulic Hybrids.

Practicality on cars? Not much me thinks.

reply to post by boncho


One mans opinion. And I am grateful but now...
Let's get serious. Any educated opinions?

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by boncho

 

One mans opinion. And I am grateful but now...
Let's get serious. Any educated opinions?

Hydraulic hybrids are the same/similar technology you are referencing and they are in use today. Elaborate on what kind of opinion you are looking for.

Originally posted by zoso28
I would like to start a thread where we can put ideas, both our own and others, here in a central location. I believe replacing fossil fuels with more eco friendly alternatives is the most pressing issue of our times. I find it hard to believe that we put a man on the moon 40 years ago, but cant get off oil. I am looking for opinions, fact, links to projects, and even info on how we can contribute personally to this cause. I ask for civility and decorum of course.

Can we agree wind power should go away?

It's expensive, unreliable and kills birds.

------
I like the Gas Turbine Power Generation Plants. They run on naturals gas.

The turbines are also small and modular. That means quick and easy change out.

reply to post by VoidHawk


I think you are missing the point. The "mud" is not a simple mix of water and sand or dirt. It is a mix of chemicals which, as far as I know, the contents are unknown so that competitors cannot steal the formulas. I am saying that I dont believe this "mud" is more toxic than nuclear waste, how do we know?

Anway, Back on topic thanks for all the replies, I see I have a lot of info to peruse tonight. Keep it coming