Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#151 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:32

So Henri, what are you personally doing about this. Given up flying in jets for holidays? What do your children or grandchildren think of that idea?

 

I did't think I would ever read something so pathetic from your pen Greg, but after After 5,591 posts - there it is. Did you have had a bad day or something?



Advertisement

#152 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:38

   Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that that will  have  even the tiniest effect on  atmospheric  CO2 levels?  Even if the entire world totally stopped burning  coal/hydrocarbons etc.  it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 levels to start to drop.  

 

 Symbolic gestures like those you are  promoting are totally pointless.   Do you agree with this last statement?

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)



#153 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:43

 The situation is far too uncertain to take the drastic action that the Greens and Labor are advocating.   There is no uncertainty about this - it will destroy the economy  and have zero effect  on GW/CC.

 

I am not a rabid advocate for extreme action. There is a sensible middle ground that will reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the longer term with zero detriment to the economy in fact probably the opposite.

 

Meanwhile the Australian economy has suffered massively from our representatives using CC as a political football.



#154 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:24

I did't think I would ever read something so pathetic from your pen Greg, but after After 5,591 posts - there it is. Did you have had a bad day or something?

 

  GL's comment seems perfectly sensible and relevant to me - what to you find wrong with it?  



#155 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:31

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)

 

"if humans stopped burning fossil fuels atmospheric  CO2  would stop rising".    I am tempted to write "well, duhh" (but I am not that rude).  Humans (the bastards) are not going to stop burning fossil fuel, or stop breathing etc.  



#156 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:41

  I am not sure what Hank was on about but -  Einstein signed a famous letter sent to Roosevelt  written by a group of scientists warning about the possibility of Germany developing an atom bomb.

 

 I  don't know why anybody would write a letter to any German scientist about a possible bomb  - Germany was where most of the original work on fission was done (Meitner et al)  - they were well aware of the bomb possibilities.   

 

 Hal should attempt to develop at least a slight sense of humour.  

 

 The only "Henri"  I have ever heard of is the famous English  King   "Henri the Eighth".  


Edited by Kelpiecross, 18 March 2019 - 04:46.


#157 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 March 2019 - 18:53

As for the Koenigsegggggg and similar "supercars" of this ilk - Veyron even Lambos etc. I regard them as **** ( this means "faecal matter" - it was changed automatically) - I have no interest at all in them. I like to see a car with "clever" engineering rather than just being ridiculously expensive. 

You may want to treat yourself to a few videos of Christian von Koenigsegg speaking about his cars and how they're made. 
A bit unfair of you to toss them on the not-so-clever-engineering pile. Especially the extra g's are unfair. It's the guy's last name and in the language we speak here, an egg is spelled exactly the same. 



#158 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 March 2019 - 20:50

Don’t feed the troll as they say. Kelpie is nothing if not well-versed in poking buttons.

Otherwise I agree with you. Christian’s work I think largely speaks for itself. They’ve been very creative at solving problems and pushing the envelope. Sure, the entire genre of HyperCars is a bit nonsense, but I think of it as the modern version of art patrons. Wealthy individuals fund creative individuals to push the envelope of their vision. I prepared a resume for them once upon a time but couldn’t convince my wife so I never passed it on. Often wish I had.

#159 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 March 2019 - 22:37

  GL's comment seems perfectly sensible and relevant to me - what to you find wrong with it?  

 

 

"if humans stopped burning fossil fuels atmospheric  CO2  would stop rising".    I am tempted to write "well, duhh" (but I am not that rude).  Humans (the bastards) are not going to stop burning fossil fuel, or stop breathing etc.  

 

The two posts above demonstrate the same piece of ignorance. If you re-check my post below you will find it makes no mention of humans breathing. Likewise, it is not necessary or even wise for an individual (Henri) to cease air travel. A better strategy is to advocate for sensible measures on a larger scale. Renewables are now cheaper. All new electricity generation infrastructure needs to be renewable. Some have even made the case that shutting down coal-fired plants to build renewables will save money. https://www.forbes.c...l/#342efc7231f3

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)



Advertisement

#160 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:14

Don’t feed the troll as they say. Kelpie is nothing if not well-versed in poking buttons.

Otherwise I agree with you. Christian’s work I think largely speaks for itself. They’ve been very creative at solving problems and pushing the envelope. Sure, the entire genre of HyperCars is a bit nonsense, but I think of it as the modern version of art patrons. Wealthy individuals fund creative individuals to push the envelope of their vision. I prepared a resume for them once upon a time but couldn’t convince my wife so I never passed it on. Often wish I had.

 

 I don't drool over "hypercars"  etc. because when you study the cars carefully you find there is nothing special about them.  Really just a powerful engine in a small car.  The detail engineering of a typical Toyota (for example) is,  I think, more sophisticated than any "hypercar"    It takes a lot of careful engineering to allow a car to run for half a million K's  without problems. 



#161 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:19

You may want to treat yourself to a few videos of Christian von Koenigsegg speaking about his cars and how they're made. 
A bit unfair of you to toss them on the not-so-clever-engineering pile. Especially the extra g's are unfair. It's the guy's last name and in the language we speak here, an egg is spelled exactly the same. 

 

The extra g's  are a reference to Clarkson on Top Gear  who spelled it that way.  But there is no question that foreigners do speak ridiculous languages.  



#162 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:43

(Sorry CP)

 

gg - We have been through this a 1000 times . Your reasoning might be correct but my basic attitude to GW/CC remains - it  might be happening/it might not be happening.  It might cause harm/it might not cause harm/it might actually have a beneficial effect.  

 

 The situation is far too uncertain to take the drastic action that the Greens and Labor are advocating.   There is no uncertainty about this - it will destroy the economy  and have zero effect  on GW/CC.

 

   Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that that will  have  even the tiniest effect on  atmospheric  CO2 levels?  Even if the entire world totally stopped burning  coal/hydrocarbons etc.  it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 levels to start to drop.  

 

 Symbolic gestures like those you are  promoting are totally pointless.   Do you agree with this last statement?

 

 You didn't answer the direct question.   Nothing can be done (by Oz) that would make the slightest difference to the world's CO2 levels.  Answers like "I believe" etc. are not really answers at all.   It is like the typical politician's evasive answer  "That's not the question - the real question is -etc." and then go on to ask something totally unrelated.

 

 It is not "rocket science" (as they say)  - there is nothing Oz could do  (even disappear from the face of the Earth) that would make the slightest difference.

 

 But action could be taken that would help if GW/CC is actually happening  and could be of benefit  to Oz even if it is not happening.   (Like Snowy 2.0 - a bit pointless, but it would do no harm and would keep a lot of people in employment).   


Edited by Kelpiecross, 19 March 2019 - 05:45.


#163 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,599 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 March 2019 - 06:49

Re jets. 25% of my carbon footprint is jet flying. It is one of the few areas where humans can directly reduce their carbon footprint. If somebody moans about CO2 and flies for holidays, then I guess they are expecting other people to make sacrifices while maintaining their own convenience. 

 

Amusingly I was debating with an American who proudly announced his CO2 footprint was half the national average. I pointed out that still left him using more than the average UK inhabitant.



#164 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 21:47

Re jets. 25% of my carbon footprint is jet flying. It is one of the few areas where humans can directly reduce their carbon footprint. If somebody moans about CO2 and flies for holidays, then I guess they are expecting other people to make sacrifices while maintaining their own convenience. 

 

Amusingly I was debating with an American who proudly announced his CO2 footprint was half the national average. I pointed out that still left him using more than the average UK inhabitant.

Actually I believe we can do a lot about climate change without any sacrifices. The inertia lies within vested interests, ideology and thinking that is not keeping up with (the rapidly changing) technology.

 

Did you read the Forbes article linked in post #159?



#165 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 22:18

 You didn't answer the direct question.   Nothing can be done (by Oz) that would make the slightest difference to the world's CO2 levels.  Answers like "I believe" etc. are not really answers at all.   It is like the typical politician's evasive answer  "That's not the question - the real question is -etc." and then go on to ask something totally unrelated.

 

 It is not "rocket science" (as they say)  - there is nothing Oz could do  (even disappear from the face of the Earth) that would make the slightest difference.

 

 But action could be taken that would help if GW/CC is actually happening  and could be of benefit  to Oz even if it is not happening.   (Like Snowy 2.0 - a bit pointless, but it would do no harm and would keep a lot of people in employment).   

I thought I did answer the question (see quote below).

"OZ" is responsible for >1% of world carbon emissions, so I guess internally we could only reduce world emissions by 1% - most people would say that is more than "the slightest difference". Regardless, I want to vomit every time I hear this argument. Its like saying "why should I vote", "why should I pay tax", "why should I donate" or "why should Henri stop flying?" - none of these will make "the slightest difference" in the grand scheme of things.

 

There is also a lot of action that could be taken that would make a much bigger difference with zero economic pain - did you read the Forbes article? The risk associated with building a new coal fired power station in Australia is high - no Australian company is prepared to take that risk. It seems certain that coal (and nuclear) will become far more expensive than renewables within the lifespan of a new power station.

 

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)


Edited by gruntguru, 19 March 2019 - 22:57.


#166 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,599 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 March 2019 - 23:35

There's an awful lot of subsidies in that Forbes article. Yes I know nukes and coal have hidden subsidies. Anyway, directly, even if Australia went 100% non carbon for domestic electricity, the effect on my carbon footprint would be ZERO. Indirectly yes it would change because industrial electricity would also be less CO2 intensive.



#167 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,671 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 March 2019 - 00:46

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

I am a little sceptical about a second Basslink cable to make Tasmania the "battery of Australia".

 

For one point, the total hydro capacity in Tasmania is 2,275MW, compared to Tumut 3's 1,800MW.

 

The largest power station in Tasmania is the Gordon Dam, rate at 432MW.

 

Tasmania has very little in the way of pumped hydro capacity at present. 3 of Tumut 3's 6 turbines can also be operated as pumps.

 

There has to be some serious upgrades to the system.



#168 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 03:20

There's an awful lot of subsidies in that Forbes article. Yes I know nukes and coal have hidden subsidies. Anyway, directly, even if Australia went 100% non carbon for domestic electricity, the effect on my carbon footprint would be ZERO. Indirectly yes it would change because industrial electricity would also be less CO2 intensive.

The Forbes article gives figures with and without subsidies. How well they transfer to Australia is another thing but the main takeaway is the rate of change of the price differential between renewables and coal/nuclear. We seem to be currently at a crossover point and only a fool would claim that the trend will abruptly halt right now. Building a new coal fired power station today (to commission in 2027) with a 40 year life expectancy would almost certainly result in a financial disaster.



#169 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 March 2019 - 04:25

I thought I did answer the question (see quote below).

"OZ" is responsible for >1% of world carbon emissions, so I guess internally we could only reduce world emissions by 1% - most people would say that is more than "the slightest difference". Regardless, I want to vomit every time I hear this argument. Its like saying "why should I vote", "why should I pay tax", "why should I donate" or "why should Henri stop flying?" - none of these will make "the slightest difference" in the grand scheme of things.

 

There is also a lot of action that could be taken that would make a much bigger difference with zero economic pain - did you read the Forbes article? The risk associated with building a new coal fired power station in Australia is high - no Australian company is prepared to take that risk. It seems certain that coal (and nuclear) will become far more expensive than renewables within the lifespan of a new power station.

 

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

  After quite a few years I think we are finally understanding each other.   I think less that I% is nothing (purely symbolic) - you think it matters.  I don't think it does.  Of course that  less-than-I%  means that conditions in Oz  would be similar to the way things were in the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Third World - but at least we would feel good (sitting cold and hungry in the dark) that we doing something to "save the planet".  

 As for the other examples - I think you have to choose your targets - I don't vote mostly as the local Labor candidate has a margin of about 20%  (no point in a symbolic vote).  We used to donate a lot of money to charity - but it has become clear that only a small percentage or nothing at all gets through the  intended recipients.   I pay tax otherwise everybody stops paying  and we end up like Greece where apparently most people just ignore the taxman.  

 

 Conclusion - do things that might make difference - not just symbolic gestures.    



#170 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:02

  As for the other examples - I think you have to choose your targets - I don't vote mostly as the local Labor candidate has a margin of about 20%  (no point in a symbolic vote).  We used to donate a lot of money to charity - but it has become clear that only a small percentage or nothing at all gets through the  intended recipients.   I pay tax otherwise everybody stops paying  and we end up like Greece where apparently most people just ignore the taxman.  

 

 Conclusion - do things that might make difference - not just symbolic gestures.    

As I thought. You are having an each way bet - changing your tune to suit your desired outcome a-la Tony Abbot. ("Paris agreement good > Paris agreement bad > Paris agreement good". "Malaysia solution bad > Malaysia solution bad.")

 

Let me summarise:

- Australia shouldn't reduce CO2 because it won't make much difference. (No chance that doing the right thing will help us influence other countries.)

- We should pay tax - it won't make much difference but doing the wrong thing might influence other people to stop paying their tax.

- Henri should stop flying - it won't make much difference but it would be a nice symbolic gesture.

- Do things that might make a difference - not just symbolic gestures.



#171 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,670 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:08

  After quite a few years I think we are finally understanding each other.   I think less that I% is nothing (purely symbolic) - you think it matters.  I don't think it does.  Of course that  less-than-I%  means that conditions in Oz  would be similar to the way things were in the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Third World - but at least we would feel good (sitting cold and hungry in the dark) that we doing something to "save the planet".     

We almost agree here.

1% reduction starting tomorrow would be the disaster you claim.

Less than 1% - say 0.2% by say 2030 can be done with minimal hardship (read the Forbes article.) That is a 20% reduction which expanded worldwide, would be a significant game-changer.



#172 Charles E Taylor

Charles E Taylor
  • Member

  • 194 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 March 2019 - 17:14

Hi

 

I don't post here much anymore.

 

 

You might find this adds some context to the various viewpoints

 

.https://www.aerosoci...amie-turner.pdf

 

 

 

Have fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Charlie



#173 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 506 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:08

Here is an alternative solution for long distance flights that surprisingly might be more efficient than jet aircraft.

We use sub-orbital rockets !!!

 

Once up to speed (something under 28000 km/h) in space with no drag you will effectively coast with no fuel use

The added bonus is that the flight times for travelling half way round the world is only just over an hour. This means that you can cram more passengers in and do not need to worry about inflight meals etc.

Elon Musk is convinced that he can provide rocket travel so cheaply that it could even be justified to replace standard air freight.

SpaceX plan to use methane as fuel, so there is still some CO2 produced , but it would be possible to use hydrogen.

 

https://www.cnbc.com...n-a-decade.html

 

https://forum.nasasp...p?topic=47450.0


Edited by scolbourne, 21 March 2019 - 12:30.


#174 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 1,966 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 21 March 2019 - 15:48

Here is an alternative solution for long distance flights that surprisingly might be more efficient than jet aircraft.

We use sub-orbital rockets !!!

 

Once up to speed (something under 28000 km/h) in space with no drag you will effectively coast with no fuel use

The added bonus is that the flight times for travelling half way round the world is only just over an hour. This means that you can cram more passengers in and do not need to worry about inflight meals etc.

Elon Musk is convinced that he can provide rocket travel so cheaply that it could even be justified to replace standard air freight.

SpaceX plan to use methane as fuel, so there is still some CO2 produced , but it would be possible to use hydrogen.

 

https://www.cnbc.com...n-a-decade.html

 

https://forum.nasasp...p?topic=47450.0

 

I seem to recall in my childhood watching something about sub orbit air travel way back in the 1980's seems we haven't made much progress in over 30 years.