Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

One simple one is the mining of the metals needed to make the battery. These metals are scarce and will run out long before oil.

Hello; Yes to this answer. Let me add from an article I read recently that across most of the world the electricity to charge EV's will come from burning of coal. I get that the EV champions want to focus on the EV itself as it does not have a tail pipe. It is convenient to be able to ignore the emissions from the source of the electricity.

Your answer and my addition to your answer both have been posted several times in this thread already. Burkey mostly just does not respond to such answers, or at least has not in the past.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

Still no one has answered the big question.

What will we do with all the waste gasoline that will be a byproduct of making plastic and other goods from oil?

 

[sk47]

It is not just the cost of the box. If you have 100 amp service the lead in wire, the wire from the pole to the house, will also need to be replaced with one capable of handling 200 amps.

Hello; Good points. I have no idea about the cost to run a new heavy duty service today. A few years back a fellow I know was setting up service for a relative. He was complaining about how much the new boxes cost.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I see that Burkey has forgotten that several of the questions he asked in his two most recent posts have been answered already. In some cases answered in a lot of detail. No need to rewrite all these things again as they are already in place in past posts in this very thread.
I suggest a look back if this information has been forgotten.

No, I didn’t “forget”…..
You THINK you answered those questions but you actually haven‘t.

 

[Burkey]

Still no one has answered the big question.

What will we do with all the waste gasoline that will be a byproduct of making plastic and other goods from oil?

I don’t think you understand the process.

 

[sk47]

Still no one has answered the big question.

What will we do with all the waste gasoline that will be a byproduct of making plastic and other goods from oil?

Hello; I guess the best answer is some of the crude will be left in the ground and will still be around when people need it later on. Same for coal. Problem will be all the products made from oil and natural gas such as plastics or fertilizer. Not just plastics for food wrappers but the medical plastics. I can also include the heavy tars which make up our road beds.

You can tune the cracking of a barrel of oil to an extent, but as you say that barrel will by it's nature also produce some of the compounds we now use as fuels. I do not know what the plan will be. To get some of the things needed, lubricating oils for example, from oil there will also be these fuels created. I guess the oil chemist can make stuff out of some of it.

This is part of what I mean when I say the grand dream is not well thought out. One example of how it was tried to replace crude oil was when plastics were made from soy bean plants. That worked in a sense. They can make a plastic substitute and did use it to insulate wires in vehicles. Problem turned out to be rodents considered it something to eat. Lots of vehicles with ruined wiring from being chewed up.
I do not know what all the unintended outcomes will be with this push for the green new deals and EV's, but will wager there will be some.

 

[sk47]

No, I didn’t “forget”…..
You THINK you answered those questions but you actually haven‘t.

Hello; Ok tell me about T. Boone Pickens.

 

[sk47]

I don’t think you understand the process.

Hello; Go ahead then and enlighten us.

 

[sk47]

The 'dark side' behind the afterlife of solar panels (msn.com)

Hello; This report looks at the end life of solar panels. Turns out they can be recycled but are not being recycled much at all. Mostly thrown away. Much like the EV batteries there are few places where the recycling can be done, only one in the USA currently.
It is cheaper to throw them out now at one or two dollars compared to around $20 to recycle. As with many other parts of the "green" agenda there is the promise things will be better some time in the future. So this will be worked out some day, maybe.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Go ahead then and enlighten us.

I’m hardly about to try and science with a guy who doesn’t accept that CO2 can (and is) warming our planet.

 

[Burkey]

HA!
Obviously you have never been to swamp country like the southern US. IE FL, GA, MISS, AL, Louisiana. What are you going to do about all the methane being released by the swamps?

Yea, that smell in the air and water is methane.

Hey nice try at deflecting.

That’s naturally occurring methane…
What would you suggest we do about it exactly?
Theres a stark difference between the release of methane as part of the natural ecosystem and going forth to extract a gas, and releasing methane as some sort of byproduct.
I‘d hardly call it a deflection.
The pint was (and is) that IC engines are horribly inefficient, regardless of what you use to power them.

The simple harsh reality is that even if you use coal as your energy source for EV charging, it’s still roughly 40% better than an ICE in terms of CO2 output.
Why? Because IC engines are horribly inefficient.

Have a read for yourself.

https://rentar.com/efficient-engines-thermodynamics-combustion-efficiency/

 

[Burkey]

If you must understand the process, here it is.
Note, you don’t ”have” to make gasoline from it…

https://www.uwa.edu.au/science/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/How-is-crude-oil-processed.pdf

 

[sk47]

I’m hardly about to try and science with a guy who doesn’t accept that CO2 can (and is) warming our planet.

Hello; Interesting. I will figure you cannot enlighten us and have, again, come up with a way to dodge. You already did this ploy some pages ago as I recall. That being you already declined to explain concepts when you were finally pressed.

Many posts ago I found a link about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas up to a point, but once a particular level of concentration is reached additional concentrations will not increase the green house gas effect.
The concept was based on the quantum nature of the CO2 molecule. I even added some personal experience back in my graduate student lab days and my teaching days in schools which had the equipment. The neon light stories. The notion that gases such as neon, oxygen, argon, hydrogen and so on emit discrete wavelengths of light when excited into a quantum state. The demo equipment consisted of glass tubes filled with pure gasses and metal electrodes at each end. Run high voltage electricity into the sealed tubes and the gasses give off light. Turns out this is explained in part by quantum theory, the jumping of electrons from one energy orbit in the atoms to another and then shedding energy as light in quanta of discrete energy. The notion is the CO2 molecule reacts the same sort of way which will mean the greenhouse effect of the CO2 molecule has an upper limit in terms of concentration. To simplify, that once a set concentration is reached additional concentrations of CO2 does not increase the greenhouse effect. Best I can recall you let that slide without comment .

The other thing is I wrote those posts back a number of pages ago from memory just as I wrote this post from memory. So feel free to not "to try and science" with a guy such as me. Here is the thing. I and many others already have your number so to speak. I do not respond to most of your posts, but when I do respond it is not in order to make points with you personally. I use it as an opportunity to enlarge on concepts or positions for those others following this thread.

 

[sk47]

If you must understand the process, here it is.
Note, you don’t ”have” to make gasoline from it…

https://www.uwa.edu.au/science/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/How-is-crude-oil-processed.pdf

Hello; The link you provided does not support the statement you made. While I do figure the petrol engineers can figure away to rework the long chain hydrocarbons, such is not the way the oil refineries are currently set up to run. Yes the current process can be tuned to make more diesel than gasoline or tuned to make more gasoline than diesel, but using the equipment which is in operation currently always winds up with some gasoline and diesel.
Now I guess we can add another expensive wrinkle to the green revolution. That being the designing and building of different refinery equipment so that the volatile gasses and liquids which currently come from a barrel of crude can be made into something else. So another expensive bit to add to the list of things such as a new electric grid.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Interesting. I will figure you cannot enlighten us and have, again, come up with a way to dodge. You already did this ploy some pages ago as I recall. That being you already declined to explain concepts when you were finally pressed.

Many posts ago I found a link about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas up to a point, but once a particular level of concentration is reached additional concentrations will not increase the green house gas effect.
The concept was based on the quantum nature of the CO2 molecule. I even added some personal experience back in my graduate student lab days and my teaching days in schools which had the equipment. The neon light stories. The notion that gases such as neon, oxygen, argon, hydrogen and so on emit discrete wavelengths of light when excited into a quantum state. The demo equipment consisted of glass tubes filled with pure gasses and metal electrodes at each end. Run high voltage electricity into the sealed tubes and the gasses give off light. Turns out this is explained in part by quantum theory, the jumping of electrons from one energy orbit in the atoms to another and then shedding energy as light in quanta of discrete energy. The notion is the CO2 molecule reacts the same sort of way which will mean the greenhouse effect of the CO2 molecule has an upper limit in terms of concentration. To simplify, that once a set concentration is reached additional concentrations of CO2 does not increase the greenhouse effect. Best I can recall you let that slide without comment .

The other thing is I wrote those posts back a number of pages ago from memory just as I wrote this post from memory. So feel free to not "to try and science" with a guy such as me. Here is the thing. I and many others already have your number so to speak. I do not respond to most of your posts, but when I do respond it is not in order to make points with you personally. I use it as an opportunity to enlarge on concepts or positions for those others following this thread.

You don't get a response to most of your ramblings because you are wrong in your assumptions on the basic level. You are not amenable to any change in your beliefs based on actual evidence and the scientific method - which you absolutely do not understand.

Read:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=201&&a=82

Watch:


Wrong, wrong again.

I can't believe you are still pattering on about this.

Sponsored