| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2007 03:15:34 PM · #126 |
CHEVROLET VOLT COULD NEARLY ELIMINATE TRIPS TO THE GAS STATION
GM introduced its Chevrolet Volt concept sedan, powered by the E-flex System, GM's next-generation electric propulsion system. The Volt could nearly eliminate trips to the gas station.
"The Chevrolet Volt concept sedan is a battery-powered, four-passenger electric vehicle that uses a gas engine to create additional electricity to extend its range, stated GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz." The Volt draws from GM's previous experience in starting the modern electric vehicle market when it launched the EV1 in 1996."
"The EV1 was the benchmark in battery technology and was a tremendous achievement," Lutz said. "Even so, electric vehicles, in general, had limitations. They had limited range, limited room for passengers or luggage, couldn't climb a hill or run the air conditioning without depleting the battery, and had no device to get you home when the battery charge ran low."
The Volt can be fully charged by plugging it into a 110-volt outlet for approximately six hours a day. When the lithium-ion battery is fully charged, the Volt can deliver 40 city miles of pure electric vehicle range. When the battery is depleted, a 1L, three-cylinder turbocharged engine spins at a constant speed, or revolutions per minute, to create electricity and replenish the battery. According to Lutz, this increases the fuel economy and range.
"If you lived within 30 miles from work (60 miles round trip) and charged your vehicle every night when you came home or during the day at work, you would get 150 miles per gallon," Lutz said. More than half of all Americans live within 20 miles of where they work (40 miles round trip). In that case, you might never burn a drop of gas during the life of the car."
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 03:26:25 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Flash:
When the battery is depleted, a 1L, three-cylinder turbocharged engine spins at a constant speed, or revolutions per minute, to create electricity and replenish the battery. |
Yup -- same principle as been powering diesel-electric locomotives for quite a few years now -- good for Chevy for moving in the right direction, however belatedly. I've heard that some Toyota Prius owners "hack" their vehicles to accomplish the same thing -- keeping the gas engine off almost all the time; I prefer to keep my warranty intact for now. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 04:26:53 PM · #128 |
Just to let you know where I stand. I don't think the earth is warming up, but I am fully in favor of electric and alternative powered everything. Gas and Oil is dirty, smelly, dangerous and is a 100+ year old technology. However we decide to change the way we do things in this world I am all for it.
I don't have an agenda, but it would be cool if we could come out with new stuff rather than just riding around in the next model of vehicle, where all they did was add an ipod, and change the shape of the bumper. To me I just don't understand why a car cannot get better gas milage than 44. Honda has had models getting close to that for 20years. It is time that the car companies really came out with something inovative. Car companies are so worried about keeping up with thier competition that they don't ever think about the possibility of being inovative. They have a car show each year and show cars that never ever come out. Instead they insist we drive a car that is hardly changed from the 70's. How come in one years time the latest and greatest computer technology can be made more and more affordable while autos get higher and higher each year. I am fully prepare to support the market by buying an electric car as soon as I can get a decent one for under $90,000. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 05:23:12 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
How come in one years time the latest and greatest computer technology can be made more and more affordable while autos get higher and higher each year. |
Thankfully the safety requirements on cars mean they take a bit more testing than most computer software or hardware. I'd rather my car didn't crash every few days and a blue screen of death might take on a different meaning at 70mph. Car electronics runs on something more like a 7 year cycle, compared to the 18 month typical electronics product cycle.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:15:54 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Just to let you know where I stand. I don't think the earth is warming up, |
You don't think the earth is warming at all? or you don't think it's related to greenhouse gas? The former is pretty well as undisputable as the nose on your face. The latter? well, I think that's pretty undisputable as well, but I would give leeway for disagreement.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 06:23:56 PM · #131 |
I think the world is heating up, but not because of humans. I also believe that it will cool down and heat up again. And again and again.
I would like to add this to the conversation. As of right now the sun is putting out about 1% more heat than usaul. Not sure why, but that may have something to do with the recent temptures.
Travis
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 07:00:55 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I don't have an agenda, but it would be cool if we could come out with new stuff rather than just riding around in the next model of vehicle, where all they did was add an ipod, and change the shape of the bumper. To me I just don't understand why a car cannot get better gas milage than 44. Honda has had models getting close to that for 20years. It is time that the car companies really came out with something inovative. Car companies are so worried about keeping up with thier competition that they don't ever think about the possibility of being inovative. They have a car show each year and show cars that never ever come out. Instead they insist we drive a car that is hardly changed from the 70's. |
Car companies make what people will buy. The simple fact is that until gas prices appeared headed past $3/gallon, fuel economy was not part of the consideration for most consumers. Consumers want bigger and faster, not high efficiency. I remember the gas crisis of the 1970's well enough to know that's when economy cars like the Honda Civic started to really get popular.
Great advancements have been and continue to be made in IC engine technology. However, those advancements have not been used to increase ful economy, typically, they are used to increase power and reliability. That's what the consumer wants. It's that power that gives consumers a 7000lb vehicle that can go 0-60mph in well under 8 seconds.
There are also increased safety standards/equipment (ABS, Airbags, door beams etc.) that result in heavier cars and in turn, more powerful engines to keep performance in line with consumer expectations.
The Honda Civic is a good example. When it debuted in 1973, it featured a 1169cc engine, which made all of 50HP. It weighed all of 1500lb and got about 40mpg. And went 0-60 eventually.
Today's Honda Civic is a very different car. The LX has a 1800cc engine that makes 140hp. The car weighs about 2700 lb and gets about 40mpg. It's also significantly bigger than the original Civic and even bigger than the original Honda Accord.
Admittedly, other engineering advances have been made, but what is quite impressive is that Honda has kept fuel consumption roughly the same while tripling the power output in a car that's three times heavier. If you bother to look up performance data, you'll also notice a significant improvement over yesterday's Civic, despite the current model being almost twice as heavy.
If enough people want it, the automakers will build it. If consumers had continued to demand ever-increasing efficiency, I have no doubt that today's cars would be much more fuel efficient.
If you want an efficient automobile, get yourself a Smartcar. It gets nearly 70mpg.
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 19:04:00.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 07:26:40 PM · #133 |
| Note that the "Big Three" US automakers are currently suing the Federal government to prevent implimentation of stricter fleet-wide fuel economy standards. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 07:43:24 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Note that the "Big Three" US automakers are currently suing the Federal government to prevent implimentation of stricter fleet-wide fuel economy standards. |
We all know they can do it themselves without regulation right? I mean the H3 gets better mileage than the original Hummer right? What more do you want?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 07:53:10 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Note that the "Big Three" US automakers are currently suing the Federal government to prevent implimentation of stricter fleet-wide fuel economy standards. |
Wouldn't you sue if the government told you that you were going to spend a lot of money to give consumers something they don't really want.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:15:40 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Just to let you know where I stand. I don't think the earth is warming up, |
You don't think the earth is warming at all? or you don't think it's related to greenhouse gas? The former is pretty well as undisputable as the nose on your face. The latter? well, I think that's pretty undisputable as well, but I would give leeway for disagreement. |
We have had several years of the coldest snowiest winters on record. I just think the earth is in the same weather cycle as the 1930's. |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 03:11:42 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Just to let you know where I stand. I don't think the earth is warming up, |
You don't think the earth is warming at all? or you don't think it's related to greenhouse gas? The former is pretty well as undisputable as the nose on your face. The latter? well, I think that's pretty undisputable as well, but I would give leeway for disagreement. |
We have had several years of the coldest snowiest winters on record. I just think the earth is in the same weather cycle as the 1930's. |
Well, consider yourself lucky, it's been friggin' balmy here in Michigan the past few winters. This one's the worst yet.
Message edited by author 2007-01-10 03:12:47.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 02:14:11 PM · #138 |
Here's how the media twists the facts to mislead the gullible:
NOAA, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a release issued on Jan 9th ( ref: here ) said:
"A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases. This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the U.S. and other parts of the world. It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Niño-related circulation pattern."
Notice that they did NOT say, nor did they even imply, that the increase in greenhouse gases was anthropogenic ( caused by human activity ) in any way, shape, or form.
Yet, the N.Y. Times headlined their story
Agency Affirms Human Influence on Climate"
( ref: here )
and includes this clip:
"...this time a long-term warming trend from human activities was said to be involved as well."
and this one:
"'A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,' the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El Niño and the human influence were not known."
It seems to me that the article's author, Andrew C. Revkin, is not practicing "objective" journalism when his reporting goes so far astray from the facts - a claim often levied against the N.Y. Times ( and with good reason, as far as I am concerned ). |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 02:57:25 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Here's how the media twists the facts to mislead the gullible:
NOAA, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a release issued on Jan 9th ( ref: here ) said:
"A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases. This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the U.S. and other parts of the world. It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Niño-related circulation pattern."
Notice that they did NOT say, nor did they even imply, that the increase in greenhouse gases was anthropogenic ( caused by human activity ) in any way, shape, or form.
Yet, the N.Y. Times headlined their story
Agency Affirms Human Influence on Climate"
( ref: here )
and includes this clip:
"...this time a long-term warming trend from human activities was said to be involved as well."
and this one:
"'A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases,' the release said, emphasizing that the relative contributions of El Niño and the human influence were not known."
It seems to me that the article's author, Andrew C. Revkin, is not practicing "objective" journalism when his reporting goes so far astray from the facts - a claim often levied against the N.Y. Times ( and with good reason, as far as I am concerned ). |
Are you complaining about the media or claiming that none of the millions upon millions of pounds of greenhouse gases per year that are generated by human activities have any effect whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 03:11:48 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you complaining about the media or claiming that none of the millions upon millions of pounds of greenhouse gases per year that are generated by human activities have any effect whatsoever. |
I'm complaining about how the media fabricates statements in order to influence the gullible public.
I have no doubt that human activity adds somewhat to the level of greenhouse gasses, but I do doubt that the amount of greenhouse gasses added by human activity has any measurable bearing in the current global warming trend. |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 03:23:19 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... I do doubt that the amount of greenhouse gasses added by human activity has any measurable bearing in the current global warming trend. |
Hmmm, well I doubt your doubt.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 03:26:26 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm complaining about how the media fabricates statements in order to influence the gullible public.
|
That goes both ways.
I don't think the public is as gullible as you believe. There's a lot more people who doubt the veracity of their reporting than you seem to think.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 04:34:05 PM · #143 |
Looks like more biased reporting...
Climate Experts Worry as 2006 is hottest year on record in US
Here's one of those biased quotes...
"People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change."
Wait...how do you bias a quote? Isn't that the same NOAA that didn't link the two in a few posts above?
Hmmm...there's gotta be a bias in there somewhere. It's the Washington Post for crying out loud! Maybe I had better check out the other 288 articles Google news lists...
Message edited by author 2007-01-10 16:34:27.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 05:02:50 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Looks like more biased reporting...
Climate Experts Worry as 2006 is hottest year on record in US
Here's one of those biased quotes...
"People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change."
Wait...how do you bias a quote? Isn't that the same NOAA that didn't link the two in a few posts above?
Hmmm...there's gotta be a bias in there somewhere. It's the Washington Post for crying out loud! Maybe I had better check out the other 288 articles Google news lists... |
Note that Mr. Lawrimore's "quote" did not make it into the "official" statement released by NOAA. Perhaps because 1) it is his *opinion* and he could not produce sufficient scientific evidence to support its inclusion in the official release, or 2) he is held to a higher standard of proof because he was a contributor to the IPCC Third Assessment - Climate Change 2001, and might, therefore, be perceived as being biased by those who question the findings published by the IPCC ( like me ).
Sorry, Doc, while I can be swayed by facts, I won't be swayed by repetition. You could "quote" 1,000 articles offering opinions, but ONE that shows facts outweighs them all. I will draw my own conclusions based on facts ( though they must come from a credible source ).
P.S. You CAN'T bias a quote, but you can't claim to be quoting NOAA, when NOAA didn't say it, Jay Lawrimore did.
edited to add postscript
Message edited by author 2007-01-10 17:10:16. |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 05:51:28 PM · #145 |
or 3) his boss Mr. Bush wouldn't let them put it in the final report.
Maybe this counts then? It's a NOAA position paper on Hurricanes...
"There are recent studies that suggest the warming of the
oceans in the Atlantic main development region in the 20th century is due to the increase in greenhouse gases, and in turn these warmer waters provide more fuel to the development and intensification of hurricanes."
FAQ: State of the Science: Hurricanes and Climate
Is US Hurricane report being quashed? This was published in Nature likely the most reputable scientific journal we have.
Message edited by author 2007-01-10 17:56:42.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 06:02:57 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Looks like more biased reporting...
Climate Experts Worry as 2006 is hottest year on record in US
Here's one of those biased quotes...
"People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change."
Wait...how do you bias a quote? Isn't that the same NOAA that didn't link the two in a few posts above?
Hmmm...there's gotta be a bias in there somewhere. It's the Washington Post for crying out loud! Maybe I had better check out the other 288 articles Google news lists... |
Note that Mr. Lawrimore's "quote" did not make it into the "official" statement released by NOAA. Perhaps because 1) it is his *opinion* and he could not produce sufficient scientific evidence to support its inclusion in the official release, or 2) he is held to a higher standard of proof because he was a contributor to the IPCC Third Assessment - Climate Change 2001, and might, therefore, be perceived as being biased by those who question the findings published by the IPCC ( like me ).
Sorry, Doc, while I can be swayed by facts, I won't be swayed by repetition. You could "quote" 1,000 articles offering opinions, but ONE that shows facts outweighs them all. I will draw my own conclusions based on facts ( though they must come from a credible source ).
P.S. You CAN'T bias a quote, but you can't claim to be quoting NOAA, when NOAA didn't say it, Jay Lawrimore did.
edited to add postscript |
So, you reject a "... a broad scientific consensus..." in favor of what?
I don't see any evidence of facts, figures or "broad scientific consensus" supporting your claims. All I see is ranting about the media.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 06:49:37 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
or 3) his boss Mr. Bush wouldn't let them put it in the final report. |
Do you *seriously* believe that Bush reviews and reserves approval of all of the documents released by NOAA and other agencies? I don't.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe this counts then? It's a NOAA position paper on Hurricanes...
"There are recent studies that suggest the warming of the
oceans in the Atlantic main development region in the 20th century is due to the increase in greenhouse gases, and in turn these warmer waters provide more fuel to the development and intensification of hurricanes."
FAQ: State of the Science: Hurricanes and Climate
Is US Hurricane report being quashed? This was published in Nature likely the most reputable scientific journal we have. |
Counts for WHAT? You need to separate in your mind my disagreement with anthropogenic causation for global warming from my AGREEMENT that global warming IS occurring, that it ( global warming ) may be causing increased levels of atmospheric CO2 ( historically, warming precedes rises in CO2 by some 800 years ), and that it ( global warming ) may even be exacerbated by increased levels of greenhouse gasses.
I am not, repeat not, arguing that global warming is not real. I am arguing that there is no proof that it is caused, or impacted to any significant degree, by human activity.
In fact, the links you provided support my position. To quote:
Originally posted by FAQ:
What are the Human-Induced Factors in Climate Change and Hurricane Activity?
* The potential impact of anthropogenic warming on hurricanes is a relatively new research area for NOAA scientists.
What Are Key Research Areas?
* Understanding whether or not and to what degree anthropogenic forcing is having an influence on hurricanes |
Namely, there is no proof that hurricanes have been influenced by anthropogenic activity. |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 06:56:18 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
or 3) his boss Mr. Bush wouldn't let them put it in the final report. |
Do you *seriously* believe that Bush reviews and reserves approval of all of the documents released by NOAA and other agencies? I don't.
|
haha, sorry. I meant Karl Rove.
Anyway, I did sorta forget your beef is that we are not contributing to greenhouse gasses in a significant way. I agree the NOAA statement doesn't say that. I disagree that there is anything but a overwhelming consensus that our contibution to the greehouse gasses is substantial (thought not exclusive).
here's a good article for the skeptic, since it was written by Mr. Skeptic himself, Michael Shermer.
The Flipping Point
here's a summary quote (but I do suggest you read it).
"Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism. "
Message edited by author 2007-01-10 19:00:08.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2007 06:58:45 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you reject a "... a broad scientific consensus..." in favor of what? |
Why, in favor of FACTS, as I thought I clearly stated. A broad scientific consensus doesn't equate to FACTS.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't see any evidence of facts, figures or "broad scientific consensus" supporting your claims. All I see is ranting about the media. |
FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL NOAA release, on their website. The release is a FACT.
FACT: I supplied the link to the ACTUAL article from the N.Y. Times, on their website. The article is a FACT ( though the article, itself, is not factual ).
FACT: The N.Y. Times article claims that the NOAA release implicates HUMAN activity as a factor in global warming in it heading, and in two other statements contained in the body of the article.
FACT: Those are FALSE attributions. The NOAA release never mentions HUMAN activity in relation to global warming. |
|
|
|
01/10/2007 07:01:06 PM · #150 |
Read that Shermer article Ron. Just posting again since we posted at the same time.
|
|
