Ah. You persist in your deliberate efforts to be a complete ignoramus about anything you deem too inconvenient for you to care about.
He didn't claim it meant jack, he just said it was nutty. Btw, 21C is a lot more than 10-20F.
Because warmth in super cold areas leads to .... melting which increases dark water on surface which absorbs more heat which leads to .... more warming.
How and in what way?
True.
I'm sure it's as simple as that with no complex modeling involved, and nothing else contributes to either warming or cooling.Because warmth in super cold areas leads to .... melting which increases dark water on surface which absorbs more heat which leads to .... more warming.
In one month data being proof of AGW.
OK. Point being we should disregards this.
In what universe did I claim that? For me, the strongest evidence of AGW is the absorption spectrum of CO2, the reflection spectrum of earth and the change in CO2 concentration over the last 150 years. Not what happened anywhere in one month.
Precisely. That, and the cooling of the stratosphere for me.
Not true.
But dirt-cheap
His story was internally coherent, and scientifically at least as sound as the general AGW one. He took the time to research things, with a much greater effect and better explained than I see from most people around here.
I think your numbers are off a little bit. Heating the inside of the car is not peanuts at highway speeds. It'd take a kW or to fight against the heat loss in the cold. Also, highway cruising requires around 25-30 hp, which is about 15-20 kW.
Because that's the level of technology we have now.
Even taking your numbers verbatim, you could easily extract that much from waste heat from the battery pack, electronics and motor. Use the AC unit as cooler for these components, put the heat into the cabin of the car.
That'd depend on the aerodynamics of the vehicle...
Why does it have to be air travel? We build high speed tracks running electrified trains on dedicated lines that reach 500+ KPH and takes hundreds of passengers at a time. Cheaper, cleaner, quieter, safer, more efficient. You can depart and arrive straight from a city center, you don't need to screw around with annoying procedures like checking in your luggage, standing in line for 20 minutes passing through ID and security checkpoints (take off your shoes, belt, empty out all the shit you got stashed in your pockets, pass through the naked-millimeter-scan X-ray cancer death machine and so on), deal with constant delays and so on.
I doubt electric air vehicles are ever going to be feasible. It's just too power-demanding, and batteries too heavy compared to the charge they store.
Good point, still doesn't solve the recharge issues on EV's though. The only thing I can think of is modular battery pack replacements at stations. You buy the EV, no batteries included. Then you sign for one (with a $10k deposit, earning interest) and that gives you the right to get a fully charged pack from a station where they can change it out in 10 minutes using robots (packs are heavy). You only pay for the charge and maybe some fee, say about $10 total for a "fillup". Battery pack would be stored under the passenger cabin, since most people like a higher and more commanding view of the road, and putting heavy stuff low is good for handling and safety. Sports EV's can have it under the hood and trunk, accessed from below. When you return the batteries without getting a new pack (most likely when you sell your car), you get your deposit back. It won't be a single pack either, they just need to standardize the size, and each car has the capacity for a number of them.
Cheaper only if you don't include the cost of building the track. Also, 500 kph isn't that fast compared to a plane. Any plane ride that's more than 1.5 hours would still be faster on the plane, and forget about LA to NY, it'd take more than 10 hours by a maglev train.
You never visit other places? I'm not a frequent flier but I've traveled at least 30 times over oceans. However, those vacuum tunnels sound promising, reminds me of Starship troopers. I'm sure they're unfeasibly expensive though.That's progress compared to air travel. The trip's most likely going to be faster overall as well unless you're going on an intercontinental trip, and that only happens a few times in most peoples' lives, if that much. We can keep a smaller fleet of conventional jet aircraft for such purposes, at least until we get our act together and drill vacuum tunnels beneath the atlantic and pacific oceans... Underground supersonic maglev trains, now, that'd be something!
God(s), do you have to be in such a damn hurry? So if recharging takes half an hour or whatever, will it absolutely kill you? Start earlier in the day if you need to make a long-distance trip.
Yes, many have thought of that idea, but I can imagine it'd be difficult to make it work considering the large variety of different size and shape vehicles out there.
Those tracks could stay in use for a century or more. Build cost is a one-time expense, it's not a compelling reason to not build them.
It's certainly fast enough to compete, most assuredly so if you also cut out the time it takes to get to an airport and the faffing-around neccessary once you get there before you're able to board the aircraft. Also, don't get hung up on any particular speed. 500kph wouldn't neccessarily be the upper limit.
No it would not, and even if it would, once we add proper environment tax on the airfare you wouldn't want to pay the excess cost unless you were in a real damn hurry, thus leading to regional air travel dying out and getting replaced by sufficiently fast rail travel instead, saving the environment shitloads in reduced emissions of all kinds of poisonous crap, and lowering noise pollution substantially as well of course.
Why would I need to "forget" about it just because it according to you would take 10 hours? How long wouldn't it take by car, something like three days? TEN HOURS, THAT'S RIDICULOUS! OOOHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...!!!!
No it wouldn't, because you can't steer a train into a tall building.
Airport security doesn't exist (only) to protect the passengers in the train, and the biggest threat against a train isn't bringing explosives onboard; trains are much sturdier than aircraft, so it would take a lot more to kill it. The big threat against trains would be mining the rail itself, and against that there's no security checkpoints on earth that will protect you.
Occasionally I do, not as often as when I was younger, but it happens. Hardly anyone makes frequent cross-oceanic flights though, not even if we only count us here in the west. Many people never do it even once in their entire lives.
You should read some Peter Hamilton... His Night's Dawn trilogy in particular.
No, but it's regression. It's called lower standards compared to the past. Electric cars have to have 5 minute recharge or they're a step backward. "will it absolutely kill you?" is a meaningless question, it also won't kill me to not wash my clothes often, or not eat meat, or turn my thermostat a couple degrees lower, or not drive a V8 if I wanted to (I don't have a V8 muscle car anymore) in the name of eco friendliness. All of that would just contribute to not being able to live my life to the fullest and give up some of the comforts I'm used to. I'm not going to give them up to help people in regions that are "threatened" by AGW, I don't give a shit. My parents never had to worry about AGW, and I'll die before I voluntarily submit to worse conditions than them. Only way I'll accept lower energy use is if the cost of energy is too high, not with any artificial bullshit legislation.
Yes, we're a long way from medieval times. When the previous generation did not have to compromise for their trips, why should I? Progress is moving forwards, not backwards. The only thing that will make me compromise is free market energy prices becoming too high. Not by artificial taxation or anything of the sort, but naturally due to supply/demand. My instant gratification is more important than some people that I don't know living in some corner of the world having to move because they're getting flooded. I simply don't care, because why should I? They're not me, my friends, or relatives, or countrymen. I probably wouldn't be able to communicate with them due to language barrier.Shit, if you consider it took about six months to travel from the abbey of Uppsala down to Rome (ONE way!) back in medieval days and then hear you whine that battery recharges absolutely can't take more than 5 minutes...you gotta admit we people have become so fucking spoiled. Sheesh.
Instant gratification is why we're busy wrecking this planet. We've become too lazy and too complacent. So recharging an electric vehicle might never take 5 minutes at most, unless we invent commercial-grade superconducting coil capacitors or something like that. There's no law of nature stating that recharging MUST be 5 mins tops for society to continue to function. That people as impatient as you demand it is not a compelling reason...
Cute...remember socialism only works until you run out of other people's money. Cost is ALWAYS a factor, if not the ONLY factor.Those tracks could stay in use for a century or more. Build cost is a one-time expense, it's not a compelling reason to not build them.
Anyway, cost is immaterial. Like I said, these things would be used for a long time, you don't have to make 'em pay for themselves anytime soon. Or even ever; the benefits to society would outweigh any expenditure regardless, it'd be like developing functional fusion reactors. Expensive, but it would be worth it regardless the price.
Anyway, things only "cost" because we decided they have to "cost". If we instead decide they DON'T have to "cost", then they won't. Problem solved.
Airfare is taxed enough (almost 100% in some flights!!) so don't even attempt to add an AGW tax to it. Might encounter some supersonic flying objects yourself if you try.
