Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

The world is in transition from fossil fuels to alternative energies. We are along for the compromise of the ride.

"We are along for the compromise of the ride"

Does that sentence actually make sense to you????

Does that answer your question? It'll have to cos that's it.

No, it doesn't.

You state a fact that is not particularly relevent to the question asked: Do you think it's ok to use fossil fuels for purely recreational use?

Sure we're on a very slow transition to alternative energy sources, so what?

In the meantime the question I asked still stands.

 

[universaldistress]

"We are along for the compromise of the ride"

Does that sentence actually make sense to you????



No, it doesn't.

You state a fact that is not particularly relevent to the question asked: Do you think it's ok to use fossil fuels for purely recreational use?

Sure we're on a very slow transition to alternative energy sources, so what?

In the meantime the question I asked still stands.

Don't be a retard. I see the blindness of your addiction limits your mind. The properties of the transition away from fossil fuel use for ANYTHING are the subject here. The fact use of oil needs to transition answers your question. All uses of oil need to transition. Wholesale banning of oil use for recreation will not happen, it will transition. Do you get it??? TRANSITION.

My estimation of you has just dropped significantly.

 

[adoucette]

The blindness of my addiction?

LOL, I use so little oil that you can hardly call it an addiction. I drive around 5 or 6,000 miles per year and I use NG for cooking and heating. So no, no big addiction to oil.

I do have a large cabin cruiser that I enjoy though. Twin 318 cu in V8s. that burn about 4 gallons/hr each at medium cruise speed (I used to fly and my plane burned about the same amount of avgas per hour).

So that's why I ask and your answer, that we need to transition away from fossil fuels doesn't answer the question though.

Saying that eventually, a hundred or more years from now, we won't have oil so eventually the use of oil will be a moot point doesn't answer the question.

And I didn't ask, "Will it be banned?", I asked your opinion on using it for this purpose.

During this long slow transition, do you think it is ok to use fossil fuels for purely recreational uses?

Seems like a simple question so why can't you come up with an answer that actually addresses the question raised?

 

[Billy T]

... The world is in transition from fossil fuels to alternative energies. ...

What evidence do you have for this hopeful claim? Yes more energy is now coming from alternate energy sources, but that added energy is a tiny fraction of the increased use of fossil fuels.

Note, nuclear energy is approximately static (or even decreasing in the US where some older plant are being retired and 30+ years have passed without a new one coming on line). Nuclear energy is truly "fossil energy" generated from solar energy, like all the other "alternate energies", at a different rapid phase at the end of larger star's lives. It makes very little CO2 pollution, just during the mining of uranium, but certainly can not be considered "pollution free" even if there never were reactor accident.

 

[universaldistress]

What evidence do you have for this hopeful claim? Yes more energy is now coming from alternate energy sources, but that added energy is a tiny fraction of the increased use of fossil fuels.

Don't be dense. Renewables do exist. We have already covered this Billy.

Seems like a simple question so why can't you come up with an answer that actually addresses the question raised?

My opinion about whether oil should be used for recreation is of no importance, well only in your BS agenda.

People will move away from oil use as tech improves.

 

[adoucette]

My opinion about whether oil should be used for recreation is of no importance, well only in your BS agenda.

I don't get it.

What's the point of this forum besides sharing information and opinions?

I'm also really curious as to what you percieve my "BS agenda" to be.

????

 

[Billy T]

Don't be dense. Renewables do exist. We have already covered this Billy. ...

Of course they do and have for thousands of years in the form of wind for pumping water and sailing ships and water wheel power for factories grinding grain, etc. at fixed locations. In fact 200 years ago they were once much more important than fossil fuels but now they are a tiny fraction of our energy supply and are a still decreasing as a percent of it.

That is why I asked you to support, what seems to me and by the data, to be a totally false claim that mankind was switching to "alternate energy"

In fact, especially since the discovery of oil as a fuel for the IC engines and kerosine lamps, mankind has been switching AWAY from alternate energies. Once all man had was renewable energy (zero fossil fuel) in the form of animal power, wind, hydro power, and of course wood.

Please try to give some evidence for your false claim. You are the one being dense and ignoring the facts.

 

[adoucette]

What evidence do you have for this hopeful claim? Yes more energy is now coming from alternate energy sources, but that added energy is a tiny fraction of the increased use of fossil fuels.

I notice a lot of those who post about making the transition to alternate energy are totally out of touch with the relatively small amount of energy we get from alternate energy sources.

What only a few of them seem to realize is how much energy we use and how most of the alternate energy we do get comes from old fashioned hydro power and burning wood.

In the US, we get a bit over 80% of our energy from fossil fuels.

Of the remainder, it's about evenly split between Renewable and Nuclear.

(which is roughly the same split as the rest of the world)

But, of the Renewable, the majority comes from Hydro and burning wood.

(Which is the same as the rest of the world)

In 2008, of the 7% of our energy that was renewable, 34% was Hydro and 28% was from burning Wood.

Biofuels represented 19% or a bit over 1% of our energy.

Wind, Waste, GeoThermal, Solar Thermal and Solar PV together represented about 19% or again, a bit over 1% of our energy use.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

I don't get it.

What's the point of this forum besides sharing information and opinions?

I'm also really curious as to what you percieve my "BS agenda" to be.

????

I have given you my opinion on your question. If you don't like it who cares.

Isn't for me to state YOUR agenda.

 

[adoucette]

Of course they do and have for thousands of years in the form of wind for pumping water and sailing ships and water wheel power for factories grinding grain, etc. at fixed locations. In fact 200 years ago they were once much more important than fossil fuels but now they are a tiny fraction of our energy supply and are a still decreasing as a percent of it.

I don't think that's true on a global basis Billy.

I think renewables are very slowly increasing as a percent of our energy supply but one reason for that is a large part of the world, and one that is increasing in number, still relies on wood as their primary energy source.

I agree with you though that renewables represent a tiny fraction of our total energy supply.

As you can see, Hydro is up just a skosh since 1970 and renewables, including biofuels, have grown to be about two percent since 2000, largely due to the amount of Brazilian and US alcohol production.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

You both seem determined to ignore the fact that renewables is a developing field of great importance.

Nuclear (as I previously stated, and you 2 refuted, but then I proved it) is also a big player.

Consider yourselves both out of touch and chastised. LOL.

 

[universaldistress]

I consider the description and premise of this thread to be BS. None of (either of you) your archaic rantings have proved otherwise.

 

[adoucette]

I have given you my opinion on your question. If you don't like it who cares.

Actually no, you've said that we will transition away from fossil fuels and you don't think they will be banned for recreational use, but you still haven't said if you think it's ok to use fossil fuels for purely recreational use.

Isn't for me to state YOUR agenda.

Well it is you who are the one who claims that I have a BS agenda.

I, on the other hand don't think I have an agenda at all (as I said, I'm not a big oil user myself).

So I have to ask you, what do you think my BS agenda is?

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

Actually no, you've said that we will transition away from fossil fuels and you don't think they will be banned for recreational use, but you still haven't said if you think it's ok to use fossil fuels for purely recreational use.

Yeah! that is my opinion dumbass. Your persistence on this just highlights your idiocy.

I, on the other hand don't think I have an agenda at all (as I said, I'm not a big oil user myself).

So why are you so determined to justify America's over consumption. Seems like a pretty obvious agenda to me.

 

[adoucette]

You both seem determined to ignore the fact that renewables is a developing field of great importance.

Not at all.
Looking at both Billy and my posts its easy to see that we are both quite aware of what's going on in the area of renewable energy.

I know I read a lot about it, all the time and keep up with the developments and the annual growth statistics and get news feeds on it etc etc.

Nuclear (as I previously stated, and you 2 refuted, but then I proved it) is also a big player.

Neither of us ever said it wasn't a big player. It has been providing about 5% of the globes primary energy for seveal decades, but it's just not growing much faster than existing reactors are being shut down, and with Fukishima still an ongoing problem (and they are SIX MONTHS from getting reactors 1, 2 and 3 to cold shutdown (and that is still not a for certain outcome) and likely to be a year or more before 100,000 people can move back to their homes), it's likely that even the flat line projections that were made a few years ago will be optimistic for nuclear's future over the next 20 years.

Consider yourselves both out of touch and chastised. LOL.

Not at all.
You seem to be a tad overly optimistic though unless you are talking about much longer time frames than I thought we were discussing.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

I don't think that's true on a global basis Billy. ...Arthur

Perhaps renewable are not a decreasing percent of total energy supply at present just a tiny fraction of it. One should however consider the huge subsidies that they enjoy when claiming even that they are growing percentage as these subsidies must soon end with the major governments of world going ever deeper into debt.

I.e. at present few if any of the "modern renewables" can make it economically on their own, but of course those that have been used for thousands of years will continue to be used. I.e. the current slight increase in use of renewables is a "blip" on the curve that will disappear with the end of the subsides. - It is very hard to compete with coal for making steam generated electric power, and only small part of the world will add to the cost of its electric power by forcing carbon capture, even if that should prove feasible.

 

[universaldistress]

unless you are talking about much longer time frames than I thought we were discussing.

I have said all along that it is going to take time.

 

[adoucette]

Yeah! that is my opinion dumbass. Your persistence on this just highlights your idiocy.

And yet you STILL haven't said YES OR NO to the very simple question.

Do you think it is OK to use fossil fuels for purely recreational uses?

So why are you so determined to justify America's over consumption. Seems like a pretty obvious agenda to me.

Bull.

That's not an agenda.

I've simply tried to explain to you the real DIFFERENCES that account for much of our higher oil consumption.

You were simply too convinced that you were right going into the discussion to appreciate the impact of these differences.

We are a much less dense country with far more miles of road per person then you are and because of that for most areas and transportation needs rail simply does not work, thus we also have more frequent and and longer daily commutes and rely heavily on airfare and trucking for shipment of goods.
To put it in perspective, on any given day there are over 20K aircraft flights a day across the US.
Because we are a more Suburban nation then you are (20% of your country live in or around London) we drive further and longer each day then you do and so we tend to buy slightly larger vehicles.
We are a mining and manufacturing based economy, you are not.
We are a rapidly growing country and thus requiring continual upgrades to our underlying infrastructure, which takes lots of energy to make and build, you are not.
We are a more wealthy country as evidence by our significantly higher GDP per Capita and one of the reasons is we take fewer and shorter vacations, so we want to get there fast and when we do, we play hard with our gas powered toys.

No agenda, just the way it is.

Arthur

 

[universaldistress]

I really feel that I have given this thread everything it needs.

EV market is growing, and will continue to grow. That much is obvious.

OUT.

 

[universaldistress]

And yet you STILL haven't said YES OR NO to the very simple question.

Do you think it is OK to use fossil fuels for purely recreational uses?



Bull.

That's not an agenda.

I've simply tried to explain to you the real DIFFERENCES that account for much of our highe oil consumption.

You were simply too convinced that you were right going into the discussion to appreciate the impact of these differences.

We are a much less dense country with far more miles of road per person then you are and because of that for most areas and transportation needs rail simply does not work, thus we also have more frequent and and longer daily commutes and rely heavily on airfare and trucking for shipment of goods.
To put it in perspective, on any given day there are over 20K aircraft flights a day across the US.
Because we are a more Suburban nation then you are (20% of your country live in or around London) we drive further and longer each day then you do and so we tend to buy slightly larger vehicles.
We are a mining and manufacturing based economy, you are not.
We are a rapidly growing country and thus requiring continual upgrades to our underlying infrastructure, which takes lots of energy to make and build, you are not.
We are a more wealthy country as evidence by our significantly higher GDP per Capita and one of the reasons is we take fewer and shorter vacations, so we want to get there fast and when we do, we play hard with our gas powered toys.

No agenda, just the way it is.

Arthur

Adoucette. I am not required to answer any fucking (benign) question you pose. I chose to answer it indirectly. The fact you can't or refuse to absorb the minutiae of my answer proves you are just an idiot.

Your agenda to justify over consumption is duly noted. LOL.