So; do we all feel dirty?

[aussiblue]

I don’t think that anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of science can really believe that climate change is not happening and that it’s not and issue for all humanity. See https://www.inverse.com/science/6143...change-deniers and https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1019082702.htm etc for more.

I do feel guilty and a little dirty about my petrol driven cars. But EV's are not the answer in terms of the being “green” either https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ev-e...rint-1.5394126 etc.

It would be nice if we could a better way to use hydrogen from water as our planet has plenty of that and it doesn't have to clean or salt free to make hydrogen. Of course getting hydrogen from water by electrolysis is a trivial exercise; the problem is that in most applications the energy used for the electrolysis exceeds the energy that can be generated by a motor using the hydrogen so produced. In my view, solar powered bulk hydrogen generation would seem the best option for Australia. Certainly there is yet no (and in my view never likely to be) any practical and efficient way to produce hydrogen in a car to be used to power its’ own ICC engine.

The big problem I think is that both of our major political parties are captured by the sponsorships they receive from the coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers and their associated polluting plastics industry.

If some of billions being spent on ineffective defence strategies that will just enrich foreign aircraft, submarines and other ineffective defence strategies (see /listen to today’s 7am podcast https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...g-the-military ) was spent on a National solar/hydrogen green energy strategy I think we could turn things around. Yes we need a new defence strategy but I don't think either parties proposal are what is needed.

We also need to tighten up on the existing rules and clamp down on those who modify their vehicles making them dirtier by removing catalytic converters, ERG and DPF systems etc. I have never seen WA EPA or WA Police do a roadside test of cars yet.

Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry is a big employer (especially here in WA) and export earner but there is a bigger picture we need to address.

[ivorya]

The whole debate, if you want to call it that, just reminds me of the cigarette debacle.

The dart companies hired marketers with slogans and lawyers that picked apart academics over, dotting the i, crossing the T.
We also now have a Media which only skew one way which is distorting truth and promoting opinion.

I remember my 1st Boss. He mentioned that working in an environmental laboratory will change in the coming years and for me to adapt myself when these changes come. I found this great advice!
Unfortunately, these media companies, still want to live in the 50s and not adapt with change and they'll do anything in their powers to stop it.

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I think Albo better start focusing on the poor people of Broadmeadows, Jacana, Dallas, Meadow Heights, Mt Druitt, Rooty Hill and Penrith rather than the people in Tuvalu or what the Greens voters want, who don't even vote for his party anyway.

Joe Banesi hasn't shaken off the PTSD from falling arss first onto a naughty toy in October last year.

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Bring back lead in paint and asbestos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykm3GI1oTnQ

[Cav]

I logged in here to see some dirty pictures.


I was disappointed

[Cav]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I don’t think that anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of science can really believe that climate change is not happening and that it’s not and issue for all humanity. See https://www.inverse.com/science/6143...change-deniers and https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1019082702.htm etc for more.

I do feel guilty and a little dirty about my petrol driven cars. But EV's are not the answer in terms of the being “green” either https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ev-e...rint-1.5394126 etc.

It would be nice if we could a better way to use hydrogen from water as our planet has plenty of that and it doesn't have to clean or salt free to make hydrogen. Of course getting hydrogen from water by electrolysis is a trivial exercise; the problem is that in most applications the energy used for the electrolysis exceeds the energy that can be generated by a motor using the hydrogen so produced. In my view, solar powered bulk hydrogen generation would seem the best option for Australia. Certainly there is yet no (and in my view never likely to be) any practical and efficient way to produce hydrogen in a car to be used to power its’ own ICC engine.

The big problem I think is that both of our major political parties are captured by the sponsorships they receive from the coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers and their associated polluting plastics industry.

If some of billions being spent on ineffective defence strategies that will just enrich foreign aircraft, submarines and other ineffective defence strategies (see /listen to today’s 7am podcast https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...g-the-military ) was spent on a National solar/hydrogen green energy strategy I think we could turn things around. Yes we need a new defence strategy but I don't think either parties proposal are what is needed.

We also need to tighten up on the existing rules and clamp down on those who modify their vehicles making them dirtier by removing catalytic converters, ERG and DPF systems etc. I have never seen WA EPA or WA Police do a roadside test of cars yet.

Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry is a big employer (especially here in WA) and export earner but there is a bigger picture we need to address.

I know I'm going to regret this

But

There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the cause of a warming planet.

It is only a theory.

Let's not confuse carbon with pollution.

100 years ago every scientist on the planet agreed with Eugenics until they were mugged by reality.

The same will happen with global warming/climate change/global boiling.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Cav

I know I'm going to regret this

But

There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the cause of a warming planet.

It is only a theory.

Let's not confuse carbon with pollution.

100 years ago every scientist on the planet agreed with Eugenics until they were mugged by reality.

The same will happen with global warming/climate change/global boiling.

ah huh, what's your point? 2000 years ago humans believed the earth was the centre of the universe, until, you know, science and facts proved otherwise.
Science evolves as facts are discovered. Things like satellites have helped significantly measure the changes in the atmosphere.

Here's a good link, will help many forum members here at a level they will understand

[aussiblue]

There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the cause of a warming planet.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

t’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Also see: https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/

[smoo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/




Also see: https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/

Righto. How long is it going to be before all of that joins the long list of failed climate predictions.

https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsd...te-predictions

[yakcam]

WOW, who would've guessed this thread would go on a downward spiral

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by yakcam

WOW, who would've guessed this thread would go on a downward spiral

Three things you should never ask:

- A woman her age
- A man his salary
- Climate change theory on AFF

[Charliewool]

Forget all the bandaid solutions!
We need something along these lines
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thinning

[fatgas]

We won't need any form of "thinning" Mr Wool, the earth has ways to keep things in balance should the two leggahs become too numerous. Hell, China has done it to itself with 40 years of one child with the added bonus of discarding first born girls.

[aussiblue]

We need something along these lines
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thinning

I don't think we can mention "thinning" in a thread that Cav has joined.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Wretched

ah huh, what's your point? 2000 years ago humans believed the earth was the centre of the universe, until, you know, science and facts proved otherwise.

Science evolves as facts are discovered. Things like satellites have helped significantly measure the changes in the atmosphere.



Here's a good link, will help many forum members here at a level they will understand

Whoa! There were humans in other countries well aware the world was not the centre of the universe and was not flat either.

You mean European humans that weren't the brightest in the world!

And agreed, the technology has improved a lot. Past discoveries were limited by the technology they had at the time.

Making assumptions because that's how it happened in the past is not a great way to disprove a point.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Three things you should never ask:



- A woman her age

- A man his salary

- Climate change theory on AFF

Problem is it's exactly like the EV threads. Those that accept that there could be truth in climate change and worth looking at vs those who definitely know (not open to any other suggestion) that climate change isn't true.

Most that look at the data for climate change suggest that they might be wrong but is it worth the risk.

If your habits make no change to the climate, how many here are going to sit in their garage and run their cars? Heck, plant a tree in your garage and "feed" the plant whilst you sit in the garage with the car running.

We are cutting down trees at an alarming rate and pumping more stuff into a closed system (the garage/planet) and expect it to make no difference. That is just illogical.

You might not die or pass out in the first few minutes of sitting in the garage with the engine running, doesn't mean the climate isn't changing in the garage.

[ljf12]

I am not saying there is no truth to the claims but is there is a list available of the vehicles that manufacturers “dump” on to the Australian market because of our standards?

Also what are the like for like alternatives sold in other markets not available here that use less fuel and emit less.

As I have said I am not saying government and other sectors claims are not factual but surely if asked they could provide details of actual vehicles that are “dumped” here or not available here.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by ljf12

I am not saying there is no truth to the claims but is there is a list available of the vehicles that manufacturers “dump” on to the Australian market because of our standards?



Also what are the like for like alternatives sold in other markets not available here that use less fuel and emit less.



As I have said I am not saying government and other sectors claims are not factual but surely if asked they could provide details of actual vehicles that are “dumped” here or not available here.

The Everest is offered with an Ecoboost engine in China. Much more efficient and less polluting than the 3.2/2.0 or V6 we get. But we don't see that motor here. Would be a much better drive with one of those over the garbage diesel one we get. At least give us the option.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Who cares, it's our country and we'll do what we see fit for our own people.

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

I reckon if we stop pulling in 500,000+ migrants into Australia every year we'll reduce our environmental impact as a country by having sustainable population growth.

A few facts on that net migration figure:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/pe...ecords%20began.

Temporary visa holders were the largest contributors to arrivals in 2022-23.
Of the temporary visa holders, the largest group was international students (283,000).
Other temporary visa holders include working holiday makers (70,000) and temporary skilled (49,000).

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by kypez

The Everest is offered with an Ecoboost engine in China. Much more efficient and less polluting than the 3.2/2.0 or V6 we get. But we don't see that motor here. Would be a much better drive with one of those over the garbage diesel one we get. At least give us the option.

I’ve been watching reviews of the 2.3 EB Ranger from the US and I gotta say that it’s not all that efficient.
The moment those larger wheels and tyres go on something like a Lariat (Wildtrak) the highway
fuel economy drops to a best of around 10 litres/100 km, the turbo seems to run rich whenever it
feels anything like increased load, the diesel not so much….

[kypez]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I’ve been watching reviews of the 2.3 EB Ranger from the US and I gotta say that it’s not all that efficient.

The moment those larger wheels and tyres go on something like a Lariat (Wildtrak) the highway

fuel economy drops to a best of around 10 litres/100 km, the turbo seems to run rich whenever it

feels anything like increased load, the diesel not so much….

Our Everest never saw less than 11.5/100. It was thirsty.

The Ecoboost is smoother, much less maintenance and petrol is a cleaner fuel than diesel.

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

I know no one reads the truck threads on this forums...
but here are my thoughts on diesel and where it all went wrong.

The post was showing a large old simply diesel engine which can easily run on Coconut oil or many other variants against another picture showing a complicated electronically controlled diesel bogged down with all the modern emission systems of today.

My whole point about the simplicity of the diesel engine and what the man (Rudoph Diesel) who designed and built it for was to run on coconut oil and veggie oil.

Once the petroleum industry got hold of it and ruined the original concept, we now have this problem which really didn't exist until we made it up.

Imagine if manufacturers and governments followed the principle of developing these natural farmed oils as the engine was intended for, instead of going down this route of completely stuffing up its designed efficiencies and smothering it in electronic BS it didn't need.

Its a well proven fact bio fuels and natural oils can run these engines well and economically but no we had to go down the stupid human path of over complication to fit an agenda.

Seems most of society will just follow what governments, big pharma and corporations, to tell them how to live, what they think they need to know and nothing more.
I'm sticking with mechanical injection and bio fuels thanks.
Euro 5 6 7 can blow.

It's just another case of going down the wrong path imo.

We had plenty of chances to build a strong biodiesel economy in the country by growing the fuel here and becoming fuel independent of imports.

Yes but this will take away valuable food land to grow it
Other countries have successfully grown Jatropha, sunflower and Rape seed crop on infertile farm lands away from coastal rain fall regions using pumped waste water inland to supply the crops.
Yes but it still takes away land for food
Last time I checked 100s of millions of acres of valuable farming land was destroyed under the guise of growing a product which is p*ssed up against the wall every weekend and only serves one purpose, getting drunk. Somehow this became a necessary industry and not a secure fuel source for Australia.

As for sugarcane do we use it for much ethanol production in Oz ?

So personally I don't feel dirty.

Agree completely and hence the interest in ethanol E85/E100. Sugar as we refine, process and consume it today isn't actually very good for the body.

[Franco Cozzo]

Plenty of treated waste water sitting around doing nothing around the regional fringes of Melbourne, was at a plant today with a whole lot of infrastructure doing nothing rusting away.

It's not fit for human consumption but you can use it to irrigate crops

[Sprintey]

This is a pretty good graphic of where the CO2 is emitted in recent times - 10 years old:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts

The amount being emitted today dwarfs the industrial revolution as quite simply there are so many more people in industrial economies.

Probably the biggest shock I've seen was this last year when Antarctic sea ice was greatly lower than previous winters, one in 6 million years statistical outlier - it had been holding up well despite both sides of the debate until then. The oceans are considerably warmer for this El Nino event - being at a solar maximum hasn't helped either.

Do I feel dirty? No. The article is a guilt hit - just look at how little the southern hemi produces. Australia has the requirement to travel much greater distances between isolated population areas in comparison with other nations. We're probably past the time we will not suffer some great disruption in ecosystems, so the question is now how to mitigate it.

Edit:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

3rd chart down is a breakdown of where CO2 emissions are coming from today, and historically. We are in with 'Oceania'.

[.:4:.]

I dont feel bad about my dinosaur burner. I dont drive often and my car is regoed and works. If i smashed the kays weekly and fuel costs became an issue, then maybe i would justify the $ to buy a more efficient car, but i owe no money towards my car and realistically, filling up once every 6 weeks, well no justification to spend heaps on a new car just to also not drive it much. Yes it wasn't my money (fuel card) but my old van I'd have to fill every 2 days. So 45L tank and got about 250kms from that so yeah that was a proper dinosaur burner. The 2.2L ranger i had after that, again work car, that would get about 700km to a tank of diesel but that had an 80 or 85L tank. Fairly similar to the triton i had after that with its 2.4L diesel. But that was working a service job out of a vehicle. In that case yes hybrid powersystems would work, but pure ev nope. In an emergency call out, imagine the customers response to you saying im on my way, just give me an extra 40 minutes as i need to charge the car to 80%... A 5 minute splash and dash you wouldn't even mention.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

I dont feel bad about my dinosaur burner. I dont drive often and my car is regoed and works. If i smashed the kays weekly and fuel costs became an issue, then maybe i would justify the $ to buy a more efficient car, but i owe no money towards my car and realistically, filling up once every 6 weeks, well no justification to spend heaps on a new car just to also not drive it much. Yes it wasn't my money (fuel card) but my old van I'd have to fill every 2 days. So 45L tank and got about 250kms from that so yeah that was a proper dinosaur burner. The 2.2L ranger i had after that, again work car, that would get about 700km to a tank of diesel but that had an 80 or 85L tank. Fairly similar to the triton i had after that with its 2.4L diesel. But that was working a service job out of a vehicle. In that case yes hybrid powersystems would work, but pure ev nope. In an emergency call out, imagine the customers response to you saying im on my way, just give me an extra 40 minutes as i need to charge the car to 80%... A 5 minute splash and dash you wouldn't even mention.

EV will cover 300 kms easily and you just plug in when you get home. Everyday you start with 300+kms available.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A few facts on that net migration figure:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/pe...ecords%20began.

Temporary visa holders were the largest contributors to arrivals in 2022-23.
Of the temporary visa holders, the largest group was international students (283,000).
Other temporary visa holders include working holiday makers (70,000) and temporary skilled (49,000).

They all eat, shit, use power and have to live somewhere regardless what the piece of paper says, so your point is irrelevant

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by kypez

EV will cover 300 kms easily and you just plug in when you get home. Everyday you start with 300+kms available.

Im not taking a dig at ev's. Its just as a work car in a service role where you carry say 400kgs in the back and do not know how many kays you do in any given day and add towing lifts etc if needed, that could become a time hassle. Also, if its a company vehicle, charging at home will need to be metered and payed by the employer, and also an employer will not be happy paying an employee during the day for the time taken said the work ev need 40 minutes to charge due to kays. Also, i was 24/7 as in took the afterhours callouts. So do my 8-12 hours a day, but if a call came to me at say 2am, id chuck me pants on and jump in the car. Also my house was single phase and the mains were only 63A, so a 4.8kw hws, 3.6kw ac so realistically 10A slow charging would be the only option and i dunno, but im pretty sure that takes many hours to satisfy an ev. Thats why i think hybrid in that role would work a lot better.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Im not taking a dig at ev's. Its just as a work car in a service role where you carry say 400kgs in the back and do not know how many kays you do in any given day and add towing lifts etc if needed, that could become a time hassle. Also, if its a company vehicle, charging at home will need to be metered and payed by the employer, and also an employer will not be happy paying an employee during the day for the time taken said the work ev need 40 minutes to charge due to kays. Also, i was 24/7 as in took the afterhours callouts. So do my 8-12 hours a day, but if a call came to me at say 2am, id chuck me pants on and jump in the car. Also my house was single phase and the mains were only 63A, so a 4.8kw hws, 3.6kw ac so realistically 10A slow charging would be the only option and i dunno, but im pretty sure that takes many hours to satisfy an ev. Thats why i think hybrid in that role would work a lot better.

63 amps single phase can run a 32 amp 7.4kw charger.

I carried well over 400kgs and tow my Race car which is 1500kgs without issues. Range still over 250 kms.

It can be done. If you leave the car at work, then it charges at work. If you bring it home, the modern apps will tell you exactly how much energy was used without an extra meter.

Sure, EV isn't for all use cases but your one works just fine with EVs. Just plug in when home and you're charging. You get about 50 kms/hr. Even if you wake at 2am, you'll be topped up.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by kypez

63 amps single phase can run a 32 amp 7.4kw charger.

I carried well over 400kgs and tow my Race car which is 1500kgs without issues. Range still over 250 kms.

It can be done. If you leave the car at work, then it charges at work. If you bring it home, the modern apps will tell you exactly how much energy was used without an extra meter.

Sure, EV isn't for all use cases but your one works just fine with EVs. Just plug in when home and you're charging. You get about 50 kms/hr. Even if you wake at 2am, you'll be topped up.

Max demand with a 20A hws, 15A ac and gpos and lights for a house wont allow a 32A outlet on a 63a single phase installation legally. But anyhows, im not starting an argument. Realistically how many decent sized comercial ev's are on the market for under the 40k a pov pack triton is?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Max demand with a 20A hws, 15A ac and gpos and lights for a house wont allow a 32A outlet on a 63a single phase installation legally. But anyhows, im not starting an argument. Realistically how many decent sized comercial ev's are on the market for under the 40k a pov pack triton is?

None and not even close sadly. They exist overseas but not locally. You'll make the cost back on fuel vs electricity so a larger outlay isn't as big an issue for many.

My comment is that the technology is there for it to work.