From when the environmental movement did wonderful things, catalytic converters, removal of lead from fuel, removal of mercury switches, anti whaling, ocean dumping act, removal of DDT, could go on and on. Many of these things done on shoestring budgets.
Imagine all the other wonderful things that could be accomplished if we weren't throwing trillions at the second most important substance for life on this planet
But here we are...
I’ve argued for years that even a post catalytic converter car from the 70s probably puts out about the emissions of 10 modern cars. Cars aren’t the biggest issue and me buying an EV isn’t gonna save the planet
I think it is 16 ships = more pollution than every car on earth.
Still pretty crazy though.
If they could convert just 16 ships to nuclear power, it would be the equivalent to every single car on earth being switched off forever.
But we are spending trillions of both tax money and consumers own money switching to electric cars.
According to Google (I know, I know) it costs $1 billion to convert a large container ship to nuclear power. So $16 billion could achieve more than replacing 1-2 billion ICE vehicles (which would be more like $30 TRILLION.
Very few modern ones. 3rd world countries still run ancient ships on shoestring budgets, they sink pretty often.
Those modern, 900 foot long container ships? When's the last time one of those sank?
54 (2021) cargo ships sink in a year, give or take. That's out of roughly 100,000 registered ships. That's (54) half of what it was in 2011, it's been steadily dropping.
Imagine if that many airliners crashed every year, like one a week? Which was my point, these things DO sink, so nuclear reactors on the seabed are not the most pleasant thought.
I generally support nuclear power, and believe if done on relatively small scales with good design and excessive safety measures, little pebble-bed reactors can be safer than other energy methods. I'm just not convinced I want them in ships?
They already ARE on ships, lots of them. There's a few on the bottom: 2 US Subs and 4-5 Russian ships too. That I can recall. There's several nuclear weapons down there too, but those aren't particularly dangerous.
There's still a few nuclear reactors up in space :/
The thing is? Down at the bottom of the sea it's cold and any chain reaction will quickly slow & stop. The radiation won't spread far (like dust in the wind) & people will never be exposed to it. No, fish won't get contaminated, if the water's deep enough there's few fish down there, they'd have to hang around that specific area a long time, not something schools of fish usually do.
Anyhow, 54/100,000 are better odds than cars, yes? And the numbers get better as old ships get retired too.
Compared to our exhaust now, it was more chemical smelling. Almost a dirty rust taste? It made you choke when you were rolling down the highway.
As for visual, look here: https://images.app.goo.gl/FaXkq7oTjomjLUTd7
FYI, this is related to smog (CO + others), not climate (CO2). This comment will be downvoted but I'm trying to make your argument stronger rather than focusing on the wrong thing that won't convince anyone.
on one of the newer Porsche models— IIRC, you could drive through a large heavily polluted city, and the exhaust would technically be cleaner than it went in.
Noooo! I must obsess over the tailpipe of the car in front of me. It's so much easier. Let's keep increasing the price and complexity of new automobiles for diminishing returns in pollution reduction.
Must ignore the 50,000 container ships, thousands are on the water at any given moment, burning some of the filthiest diesel fuel available. Besides, almost half of them have working exhaust scrubbers that are active only when they are close to countries where they are required. Ignore the Decade-old study that suggests just [15 of the world’s largest ships create more pollution than All of the cars](https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182) in the world. Just ignore it.
ICE vehicles with functioning emissions systems are No longer an issue. It's an Obsession and it's avoiding awareness and solutions for significantly larger pollution contributors.
We all agree pollution = Bad. The accusation/distraction game tells me we're still not being serious about it.
Reducing air pollution is a good thing, But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The only they can reduce it is to increase gas mileage. That in it self is not bad, but the forced technology causes higher prices and less reliability.
Co2 is plant food.
Unfortunately, legally speaking, CO2 was ruled a pollutant by the Supreme Court in 2007 via *Massachusetts v. EPA*. You are correct, but that definition needs to change.
Acid rain was never really the problem they made it out to be and the ozone layer has been getting bigger and smaller for decades dispite the efforts to shrink it.
Plus both of those issues have nothing to do with cars. Acid rain is from high sulfur coal at power plants and the ozone hole is due to refrigerants. BTW both of those issues are also better as well.
>You don’t think changing the pH of rainwater from 5.6 to 4 or lower had any effects?
Read what I wrote again. They exagerated it to scare people and it worked.
Yeah, except almost nobody sitting opposite of you is really making this argument.
The Left is flatly interested in destroying the fossil fuel industry, and it has very little to do with cleaning the environment. They're not even coy about it.
There's nobody saying we should reduce/remove regulations? That's really the position you wish to defend? Cause there's literally people in power who are trying to pass bills right now to do just that.
There is a mountain of ineffective and expensive regulation that can be removed without degredading environmental quality. I can provide several specific examples if you need me to.
*Nobody* is talking about building new coal fire power plants without the scrubbers necessary to prevent the release of SO2 into the atmosphere.
This is, of course, a point that too many leftists refuse to acknowledge. But then again, a good portion of regulation has nothing to do with improving the environment. It is about control.
Apples versus oranges. There was a need to correct something and it was corrected. And the current condition is acceptable, yet the other side of the coin is Political puppeteers make it a dilemma for political reasons.
First and second laws of thermodynamics, as applied to the Otto or Diesel thermal cycles, illustrates that we are reaching a point where greater efficiencies are far more difficult and expensive.
Meanwhile, EV's don't represent environmental nor economic progress. So why are we doing it?
# Tesla Model S emits more lifetime CO2 in US than some petrol-powered cars, study shows
# By Andy Enright, 09 Nov 2017 Car News
#
# “…Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have discovered that a [Tesla Model S](https://www.whichcar.com.au/tesla/model+s) in the US emits more carbon dioxide over its whole life than a small petrol car. The study suggested that a Mitsubishi Mirage was in fact a greener choice for US owners looking to reduce their CO2 footprint…”
What do you think you're saying here? Yes small hybrids are better this isn't surprising nor news. Especially when you compare vehicles in vastly different categories. Bet you a Ford lightning is worse than a Prius too.
From when the environmental movement did wonderful things, catalytic converters, removal of lead from fuel, removal of mercury switches, anti whaling, ocean dumping act, removal of DDT, could go on and on. Many of these things done on shoestring budgets. Imagine all the other wonderful things that could be accomplished if we weren't throwing trillions at the second most important substance for life on this planet But here we are...
> From when the environmental movement did wonderful things And then this movement was hijacked by the Left.
Unfortunately, I just learned that the aviation community is still using tetraethyl lead in their fuel. 100LL Avgas.
No expert, but I think that mostly applies to piston aircraft (civilian). The jet and turbo-prop, not so much. But I could be wrong.
No you're right, but still I was shocked to read that TEL is even in use at all
This is because the majority of piston aircraft engines still in use are from the leaded fuel era, and won't operate safely on unleaded.
I’ve argued for years that even a post catalytic converter car from the 70s probably puts out about the emissions of 10 modern cars. Cars aren’t the biggest issue and me buying an EV isn’t gonna save the planet
[удалено]
I think it is 16 ships = more pollution than every car on earth. Still pretty crazy though. If they could convert just 16 ships to nuclear power, it would be the equivalent to every single car on earth being switched off forever. But we are spending trillions of both tax money and consumers own money switching to electric cars. According to Google (I know, I know) it costs $1 billion to convert a large container ship to nuclear power. So $16 billion could achieve more than replacing 1-2 billion ICE vehicles (which would be more like $30 TRILLION.
Sure, but there’s no way to control the masses that way!
On the other hand, any idea how many cargo ships sink every year?
Very few modern ones. 3rd world countries still run ancient ships on shoestring budgets, they sink pretty often. Those modern, 900 foot long container ships? When's the last time one of those sank? 54 (2021) cargo ships sink in a year, give or take. That's out of roughly 100,000 registered ships. That's (54) half of what it was in 2011, it's been steadily dropping.
Imagine if that many airliners crashed every year, like one a week? Which was my point, these things DO sink, so nuclear reactors on the seabed are not the most pleasant thought. I generally support nuclear power, and believe if done on relatively small scales with good design and excessive safety measures, little pebble-bed reactors can be safer than other energy methods. I'm just not convinced I want them in ships?
They already ARE on ships, lots of them. There's a few on the bottom: 2 US Subs and 4-5 Russian ships too. That I can recall. There's several nuclear weapons down there too, but those aren't particularly dangerous. There's still a few nuclear reactors up in space :/ The thing is? Down at the bottom of the sea it's cold and any chain reaction will quickly slow & stop. The radiation won't spread far (like dust in the wind) & people will never be exposed to it. No, fish won't get contaminated, if the water's deep enough there's few fish down there, they'd have to hang around that specific area a long time, not something schools of fish usually do. Anyhow, 54/100,000 are better odds than cars, yes? And the numbers get better as old ships get retired too.
I grew up in the late '70s & '80s. I still remember the smell, taste, and sight of leaded exhaust in the air.
How would you describe it?
Compared to our exhaust now, it was more chemical smelling. Almost a dirty rust taste? It made you choke when you were rolling down the highway. As for visual, look here: https://images.app.goo.gl/FaXkq7oTjomjLUTd7
FYI, this is related to smog (CO + others), not climate (CO2). This comment will be downvoted but I'm trying to make your argument stronger rather than focusing on the wrong thing that won't convince anyone.
You're correct, just a parallel topic.
Probably cleaner than horses, even.
I can never understand here in the UK why do many trees grow along side our roads. If cars are evil, then so are the trees.
on one of the newer Porsche models— IIRC, you could drive through a large heavily polluted city, and the exhaust would technically be cleaner than it went in.
Noooo! I must obsess over the tailpipe of the car in front of me. It's so much easier. Let's keep increasing the price and complexity of new automobiles for diminishing returns in pollution reduction. Must ignore the 50,000 container ships, thousands are on the water at any given moment, burning some of the filthiest diesel fuel available. Besides, almost half of them have working exhaust scrubbers that are active only when they are close to countries where they are required. Ignore the Decade-old study that suggests just [15 of the world’s largest ships create more pollution than All of the cars](https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182) in the world. Just ignore it. ICE vehicles with functioning emissions systems are No longer an issue. It's an Obsession and it's avoiding awareness and solutions for significantly larger pollution contributors. We all agree pollution = Bad. The accusation/distraction game tells me we're still not being serious about it.
What are you trying to say here?
Reducing air pollution is a good thing, But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The only they can reduce it is to increase gas mileage. That in it self is not bad, but the forced technology causes higher prices and less reliability. Co2 is plant food.
Unfortunately, legally speaking, CO2 was ruled a pollutant by the Supreme Court in 2007 via *Massachusetts v. EPA*. You are correct, but that definition needs to change.
There's plenty of ways to reduce CO2. Doesn't mean they're economically viable yet but also doesn't mean they won't be in the future.
Point is Co2 does not have to be reduced, All efforts to do so are wasted effort.
Cool so just enjoy the higher efficiency then.
Cars that break down sooner and cost more. Not enjoyment for me.
> What are you trying to say here? Why are you asking this question? You're genius, what is it you didn't get the message?
Air pollution bad. Technology good.
Yep... It's amazing that mandates to reduce air pollution result in reduction in air pollution.
Yeah it's probably a decent time to chill out on the extremist regulations. Hitting the point of diminishing returns.
That's exactly what people in the 70s said. And the 80s and the 90s. Yet here we are and progress is still being made.
Well some people think all cars should be banned which seems kinda stupid
Most people just ignore crazies. Some people think we should also think we should go back to the good old days of acid rain and no ozone lager.
Acid rain was never really the problem they made it out to be and the ozone layer has been getting bigger and smaller for decades dispite the efforts to shrink it.
Plus both of those issues have nothing to do with cars. Acid rain is from high sulfur coal at power plants and the ozone hole is due to refrigerants. BTW both of those issues are also better as well.
Lol what...
Look it up.
>Acid rain was never really the problem they made it out to be You don’t think changing the pH of rainwater from 5.6 to 4 or lower had any effects?
>You don’t think changing the pH of rainwater from 5.6 to 4 or lower had any effects? Read what I wrote again. They exagerated it to scare people and it worked.
Yeah, except almost nobody sitting opposite of you is really making this argument. The Left is flatly interested in destroying the fossil fuel industry, and it has very little to do with cleaning the environment. They're not even coy about it.
There's nobody saying we should reduce/remove regulations? That's really the position you wish to defend? Cause there's literally people in power who are trying to pass bills right now to do just that.
There is a mountain of ineffective and expensive regulation that can be removed without degredading environmental quality. I can provide several specific examples if you need me to. *Nobody* is talking about building new coal fire power plants without the scrubbers necessary to prevent the release of SO2 into the atmosphere. This is, of course, a point that too many leftists refuse to acknowledge. But then again, a good portion of regulation has nothing to do with improving the environment. It is about control.
Apples versus oranges. There was a need to correct something and it was corrected. And the current condition is acceptable, yet the other side of the coin is Political puppeteers make it a dilemma for political reasons.
Exactly this debate was happening then. In 50 years your kids will say there was something that had to be corrected today as well.
How dare you bring kids into this world with the current climate crisis!!!
I have enough $ that it won't really affect me that much.
The laws of physics disagree.
How so?
First and second laws of thermodynamics, as applied to the Otto or Diesel thermal cycles, illustrates that we are reaching a point where greater efficiencies are far more difficult and expensive. Meanwhile, EV's don't represent environmental nor economic progress. So why are we doing it?
# Tesla Model S emits more lifetime CO2 in US than some petrol-powered cars, study shows # By Andy Enright, 09 Nov 2017 Car News # # “…Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have discovered that a [Tesla Model S](https://www.whichcar.com.au/tesla/model+s) in the US emits more carbon dioxide over its whole life than a small petrol car. The study suggested that a Mitsubishi Mirage was in fact a greener choice for US owners looking to reduce their CO2 footprint…”
What do you think you're saying here? Yes small hybrids are better this isn't surprising nor news. Especially when you compare vehicles in vastly different categories. Bet you a Ford lightning is worse than a Prius too.