Good to see ya Mad Mec.  How goes the Zadventure?

I eagerly anticipate MM's reaction  :-)

madmechanic,

my 65th birthday was yesterday. reading you here again is a big belated bday present.

and this, after mcfarmer gave me an early bday present last week with his wonderful posts!

on this guys comments.

most of what this guy states is correct.

some of it is theoretical and likely, some is rock solid factual....like solar cycles, and it being this warm several times just since humans existed, and co2 being higher for most of earths history, and the IPCC being busted with nefarious emails to fake the amount of warming  and with a few dozen global climate scientists controlling the peer review process and narratives....and so on.

however he is wrong about the theory of co2 NOT being a greenhouse gas in the troposphere.

not only does physics and testing tell us that it is.............we have developed the technology to accurately measure the amount.

he is on the right track in identifying the sensitivity getting lower and lower from the scientists-lowing the temp forecasts (even while they lie to us and tell us the opposite-its worse and worse to scare us and support actions to fight the fake climate crisis-exactly like the new administration has)

but he is wrong on there being no greenhose gas warming because we cam measure the amount.

its just half of what they claim it is and almost entirely beneficial...and things are not getting worse as we continue with the climate optimum for life during this century.

Profound:  Smoking Guns!!  Proof with accurate 2 decade long measurement of the actual amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 of 1 irrefutable reason for WHY global climate models continue to be too warm. Climate emergency is really about social justice and brainwashing people. Even MORE confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming. Models clearly too warm yet incredibly programmed to get even HOTTER!  Now, even more confirmation why the models are too warm. August 2020 https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/57636/

the optimal global  temperature of the planet for most life is probably around 2 degrees C warmer than this. the optimal level for co2 is double the current amount

NEW:  Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level. See the proof with thousands of studies. Showing Scientific American.....and mainstream science sold to us........ to be wrong about plants and the affects from Climate Change. December 2020

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/

That’s some impressive work that you’re doing with your car too. Well beyond my understanding.

Thanks for sharing!

I've seen that view before. :-)    Take your time, and it sounds like you are.

Now that I got you captive lol

Would you care to comment on the Clear Flame technology and if you think it has a future

People like ourselves are sure tired of adding Def to our fuel supply in heavy engines, 

Do you think they can get the cost down to be competative

Europe has a lot of diesel cars etc

Emmission standards, especially Ca. etc

I think Ca wants all new cars to be EV in 2025 but could be wrong. That is going to be a tough one. Maybe clear flame would be an alternative. Donno, just thinking

Thoughts???

I've not heard of 'Clear Flame' before so I would have to do some reading on it to even begin to form an opinion on it's viability.

Yes, Cali has some pretty ridiculous emissions standards (this from someone who lives in the state).

As far as any claim/hope/plan to have all new cars sold in Cali be 100% EV by 2025...good luck, but that is just my opinion.

I also go back to something I've been saying for years and years when it comes to anyone talking about EVs.

First, consider the environmental impacts of manufacturing an EV, from mining the rare earth metals needed for the motors and batteries. Then processing that raw material to extract the metals themselves (this often uses caustic chemicals). Then you have to transport that material to factories to be turned into the part itself. The supply chain goes on and on.

Next, lets look at the 'end user' or 'consumer' impact. The EV cult in Cali LOVES to taut "no tailpipe emissions", well, it's hard to have tailpipe emissions when your car has NO tailpipe, but that's nit-picking and me just taking their statement too literal. So lets look at their statement from a broader context.

What they are trying to say is that the vehicle itself generates no emissions. Ok, but that electricity has to come from somewhere. I've asked some of these EV owners "where do you get your electricity from when you charge your EV?" I cannot tell you how many times I've received the answer "from my charging station in my house." *facepalm*

This shows a complete short-sided and total lack of understanding on the supply network on their part. Electricity has to be generated before it can be transmitted to a house or charging station. IF one is lucky to live in VERY specific and limited parts of the country (not just Cali) then your electricity comes from either hydroelectric (dams) or nuclear. *gasp* yes nuclear is a VERY clean energy source and to this day it confounds me that we have a practical ban on new nuclear power plants in this country. But I digress.

For the VAST majority of the country, and in particular MANY east coast states, the electricity comes from fossil fuel power plants, often coal, sometimes natural gas. If that is the case, then your EV is likely far WORSE for the environment than a modern ICE powered vehicle. Allow me to explain further.

So, when electricity is generated, it then has to be transmitted. Transmission involves wires, which incur something called 'copper loss', this is power transmission field jargon for the power lost in transmitting electricity over wire cable, which is often copper. Copper (like basically any other metal) has inherent resistance, copper just happens to have that mix of low resistance to material availability which makes it ideal for power transmission. But that cable/wire resistance means that you will NEVER end up with all the electricity that you started out generating/transmitting when it finally gets to the point of use.

Then your charging station has to use inverters to convert the AC transmission to DC to charge your car batteries. This incurs conversion losses. The list goes on and on and on regarding electricity loss in the supply chain.

Anyway, the industry as a whole is nowhere close to being able to supply the number of EVs that California would want never-mind an entire country like the US. On top of that, there is an ever larger monster that every single power transmission engineer is dreading if the future is EV: Infrastructure.

The current electrical infrastructure around the country is totally incapable of handling the power needs that would be required for an entire state (like California, which is the most populated state) never-mind the entire country going EV. We will need more generation and a far beefier transmission infrastructure.

ICE power and efficiency continues to improve as it has for over 100 years, also, powertrains (primarily transmissions/gearboxes) have become MUCH more efficient in the last ~20 years. CVT transmissions (like the one in my 2017 Subaru Impreza) can actually be very good and incredibly helpful in squeezing out more fuel efficiency.

mm,

maybe the best energy post ever here dealing with this topic.

you explained things very clearly using proven physics and authentic facts about energy.... i love it!!!  

i know an environmentalist that calls electric cars -coal powered cars-

Renewable vs fossil fuels: Diffuse solar vs dense fossil fuels. Benefits of CO2. September 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39321/

Renewable energy:  When can it replace fossil fuels? August 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/35846/