trinacriabob

How long until internal combustion engines are no longer the norm?

How long until internal combustion engines are no longer the norm (at least 50% of product)?   29 members have voted

  1. 1. How long until internal combustion engines are no longer the norm (at least 50% of product)?

    • 0 to 3 years
      0
    • 3 to 6 years
      0
    • 6 to 9 years
      1
    • 9 to 12 years
      3
    • Over 12 years
      21
    • Other - explain
      4

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

47 posts in this topic

Hey, we've seen gas prices go down and now they're going up. The seesaw has become exhausting and I welcome the day that some other non-fossil fuel type of engine is the norm. (I was happy to snag one of the last new 3800 V6s in the LaX and hope to drive it for a dozen or so years, knock on wood). I like driving around for the hell of it, especially where it's scenic.

So how long do you think it will take before you wander onto the new car lot and AT LEAST 50% of the cars on sale are NOT powered by a traditional internal combustion engine?

Feel free to comment as well.

Edited by trinacriabob
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never.

The technology is just too efficient, and dependable for us to get rid of. Plus, the ICU is adaptable, so you can burn 'clean' fuels like Hydrogen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never.

The technology is just too efficient, and dependable for us to get rid of. Plus, the ICU is adaptable, so you can burn 'clean' fuels like Hydrogen.

I goofed here.

I was considering "hydrogen," or any non fossil fuel, to be NEW TECH.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who wants the Detroit companies to go away say that plug-ins are what's gonna save us.

However, they won't save us if our electrical infrastructure doesn't get upgraded, and who knows when that's gonna happen...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone who wants the Detroit companies to go away say that plug-ins are what's gonna save us.

However, they won't save us if our electrical infrastructure doesn't get upgraded, and who knows when that's gonna happen...

Infrastructure improvements won't happen all at once, but neither will the onset of plug-in hybrids.

How in the world would someone think the ICE would be half phased out in less than 12 years? That's crazy talk. The poll should have had increments like 0-15 years, 15-30 years, 30+ years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked "OTHER" since 1912 was not an

option in the poll... before Kettering's

automatic starter was introduced by the

1912 Cadillacs, Steam & Electric

powered cars were more promissing

than gasoline/diesel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infrastructure improvements won't happen all at once, but neither will the onset of plug-in hybrids.

How in the world would someone think the ICE would be half phased out in less than 12 years? That's crazy talk. The poll should have had increments like 0-15 years, 15-30 years, 30+ years.

You'd be surprised what enviro-Nazis and Toyota-lovers think should and can happen before the next Presidential elections.

Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 12 years. Issues of where the energy would come to are nowhere near resolved. If global warming is proved to be true, it wouldn't be a good idea to burn tons of coal to power millions of electric cars...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over 12 years. Issues of where the energy would come to are nowhere near resolved. If global warming is proved to be true, it wouldn't be a good idea to burn tons of coal to power millions of electric cars...

1. Global Warming is all B.S.

2. Not all electricity HAs to be produced using coal,

why is this dead horse still being beaten?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Global Warming is all B.S.

2. Not all electricity HAs to be produced using coal,

why is this dead horse still being beaten?

1. I don't know, you don't know and sciensts don't know it either. It could be that we're entering an era of more chaotic changes in climate, irrespective of the cause. We shouldn't go back to living in caves (excpet that $300K on Satty's thread) but some degree of caution and study on this issue is not a bad thing...

2. Nuclear? OK, as long as (using a US example) the utilities don't enjoy the same image as, say, Amtrak.... hydroelectric is a good alternative, but there's the issue of infrastructure to transport it from the production locations to consumption locations...

I still think there are issues to be sorted out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I don't know, you don't know and sciensts don't know it either. It could be that we're entering an era of more chaotic changes in climate, irrespective of the cause. We shouldn't go back to living in caves (excpet that $300K on Satty's thread) but some degree of caution and study on this issue is not a bad thing...

2. Nuclear? OK, as long as (using a US example) the utilities don't enjoy the same image as, say, Amtrak.... hydroelectric is a good alternative, but there's the issue of infrastructure to transport it from the production locations to consumption locations...

I still think there are issues to be sorted out.

1. Fine then, clean coal. Everyone likes to be able to breathe. Don't make it about global warming, that's fear mongering of the highest degree. And to add insult to injury, it is now becoming very commercialized which is rather ironic. No, go the clean coal route, or tidal, or solar or wind power as they become economically viable and efficient. And for the love of God, please market them as "BETTER AIR FOR ALL" which is a MEASURABLE goal that is ultimately ATTAINABLE not some hypothesis that no one can prove or disprove.

2. Hydroelectric? Hydro power has already destroyed or damaged so much of the environment, do you want to further destroy it? Plus we have pretty well tapped most of the hydro power potential aside from tidal generators.

With the new Gen V and future Gen VI reactors, we should see far greater efficiency and greater safety standards. Nuclear fuel is plentiful (and if your gonna go and complain about uranium supplies, i have one word - Thorium). Nuclear fusion would be even better... and an old '80s technology seems to have made some promising advancements. Inertial confinement can be maintained for a split second by focusing lasers onto particles, heating them up and confining them just long enough to set off fusion, creating a lot of heat. As laser technology becomes more and more efficient, the greater chance this technology has to become economically viable.

And of course there's a myriad of other nuclear fusion techniques, hopefully one of them take off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a thread.

1. 68, you can't say that global climate change is a myth. You don't know.

2. Even if global climate change is 125% false, we are still running out of oil.

3. It's not the electrical generation capacity that we have to worry about. It's the transmission network that is horribly out of date. We are sitting on an incredibly brittle system that everyone refuses to upgrade.

4. There is no such thing as clean coal. Sure you might be able to burn it cleaner than before, but the process of getting it out of the ground is incredibly environmentally destructive. There's also a lot less coal around than we're being told.

Wyoming's Powder River Basin "is the most prolific coalfield in the United States" and in 2006 provided "over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly production."The coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total).

5. Traditional hydro electric is done. You won't see any more Hoover Dams or Tennessee Vally Power Authorities. Tidal and wave generation have potential.

6. Nuclear won't be viable for new construction in the U.S. until we get rid of the Jimmy Carter era regulations regarding the types of reactors we can build.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6. Nuclear won't be viable for new construction in the U.S. until we get rid of the Jimmy Carter era regulations regarding the types of reactors we can build.

There is already a race to see which company can build the first new nuclear reactor under a new consolidated contruction/operating licensing method by the NRC. ;) There are nearly a hundred new reactors being planned (granted, not all of them will come to fruition, but there is a LOT of interest by power companies to get new nuclear plants built.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, what a thread.

1. 68, you can't say that global climate change is a myth. You don't know.

I'm no LESS qualified than Al Gore is at these things

At least I do not BLATANTLY lie to make a point.

Tidal and wave generation have potential.

As does wind and countless unorthodox methods

that are being worked on... even solar makes

more sense than coal IMHO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no LESS qualified than Al Gore is at these things

At least I do not BLATANTLY lie to make a point.

Fine. Both of you are unqualified. I don't know what the true answer is, but I choose to err on the side of caution... ya know, just in case the facts that are not in dispute turn out to point to a bigger problem.

The World Bank agrees with climate scientists that the Andean glaciers that are the main source of water for much of Peru will most likely melt away by 2030. This will seriously harm agriculture, energy (hydro) generation, and people.

Warming oceans are driving fishing stocks poleward and by 2050 US fleets will find few cod, herring and prawns. In general, northern fisheries will increase while those in the tropics will suffer major losses.

The Audubon Society reports that more than half of the 305 species of birds in North American have shifted their wintering grounds northward over the last 40 years. During that time the average January temperature in the US has climbed 5ºF.

Energy Secretary Chu sees California's water shortages becoming ever worse, with the Sierra snowpack nearly disappearing over time. This will lead to "no more agriculture in California," and he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going." In 1997 California's population was 22 million; in 30 years it has grown to 36 million.

I personally don't care if my car is powered by genetically modified hamsters as long as it's cheap to fuel, has great acceleration, is smooth, quiet and causes minimal environmental impact.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine. Both of you are unqualified. I don't know what the true answer is, but I choose to err on the side of caution... ya know, just in case the facts that are not in dispute turn out to point to a bigger problem.

Except half of what you posted is not facts, it's taking some data (often an unstated timeframe of data from a specific region) and then pretending that the climate will act in a linear fashion over the next 20, 30, 50 years as predicted by that likely small subset of years worth of data. That's bad science. Predictions ARE NOT FACTS.

I agree with Teh Ricer Civic! that we should be reducing pollution & moving on to alternative fuels for measurable reasons like clean air and reducing our dependency on foreign oil, not on a political agenda being built on the poorly understood platform of global warming / climate change. Science (with careful guards to kick the politicians out of the process) needs to continue to understand climate, monitor it, and try to understand in what ways we do and do not affect it, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we only have a preschool-level understanding of how our world & climate work, and that isn't something worth basing panic and major policy change on.

Edited by PurdueGuy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of the past are not in question.

We do know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know how much of it we are putting into the air each year. We can observe the climate data from the last 100 years, we can observe animal behavior, we can observe plant growth patterns, and we can form a hypothesis.

Basic scientific method.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The facts of the past are not in question.

We do know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know how much of it we are putting into the air each year. We can observe the climate data from the last 100 years, we can observe animal behavior, we can observe plant growth patterns, and we can form a hypothesis.

Basic scientific method.

The quality of the data from the past, and just how far back the data needs to go to be relevant IS in question. A good conclusion from bad or inadequate data will still give a bad result.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only issue with nuclear is that someday people might want to fly planes into nuclear plants instead of skyscrapers...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world ends in 2012 (according to Mayans) and so will the internal combustion engine. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only issue with nuclear is that someday people might want to fly planes into nuclear plants instead of skyscrapers...

The nuclear plants have close to 5' thick high strength concrete that will prevent any plane getting inside the core. Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent steel's melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel. Banging a high speed plane on the concrete of Nuke reactor will be nothing more than banging a plane on rock.

Moreover, the core has capability of automatically shutting down the system if any external changes are detected by its sensors. In such an event there will not be any chain reaction to cause catastrophe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nuclear plants have close to 5' thick high strength concrete that will prevent any plane getting inside the core. Nuclear plant is more of a monolithic "heavy" structure unlike skyscrapers which have more degrees of freedoms. Nuclear plant walls have greater covering over the structural steel which will prevent melting its melting, unlike skyscraper's walls which have little or no cover for the structural steel. Banging a high speed plane on the concrete of Nuke reactor will be nothing more than banging a plane on rock.

Moreover, the core has capability of automatically shutting down the system if any external changes are detected by its sensors. In such an event there will not be any chain reaction to cause catastrophe.

Thx for the explanation! I'm still not so sure about it though...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...