Re: Better cheaper super capacitors

Methane has half the carbon of a long-chain liquid hydrocarbon. In most situations, a 2:1 improvement is considered to be pretty good. CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane. As they hate nukes and hydro power.

They hate energy.

But in the current situation a 2:1 improvement isn't good enough.

We have to cut our carbon emissions right back to stop global warming - the aim is to get the atmospheric CO2 level back to the regular inter-glacial 270ppm.

For good reason.

For very different reasons.

They aren't enthusiastic about nukes - we still haven't got an acceptable way of dealing with nuclear waste. It does stay dangerous for abut 100,000 years.

The aren't all that enthusiastic about flooding valleys to create hydro-electric reservoirs. It does mess up the local environment, and always seems to drive some species or other to extinction.

They don't. They just have reservations about some of the ways we generate it.

This is good example of you expressing yourself clearly, but expressing unfortunate opinions you have picked up from climate change denial propaganda, which you should have been able to recognise as fatuous nonsense but have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

The "greenies" that John Larkin fulminates about don't actually exist. They are an invention of the climate change denial propaganda machine.

If John Larkin had ever had a proper education he might be able to distinguish truth from concocted stories. Perhaps not - he doesn't seem to be able to learn much at all.

A fact which is well known to actual greenies.

It's a pretty silly thing to complain about, but the ING Bank does lend money to people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it to be burnt as fuel, which is an activity which we are giving up quite rapidly - if not quite as fast as we should. The side effects are nasty, and getting nastier.

That would only stop man-made global warming, which is a tiny fraction of the overall effect. Volcanos, forest fires and decomposing vegetation have far more effect than mankind has.

What mankind has done to apparently increase 'global warming' is to skew the data collection and statistics, supported by (and supporting) a growing industry of self-appointed environmentalists.

Then why don't they oppose tree planting and support the clearance of forests, which are the biggest source of methane when the trees and other plants die and decompose?

I definitely think we should be less profligate with our natural resources, but we should not be treating it as a religion and proposing feel-good knee-jerk 'solutions' which haven't been properly thought through.

Rubbish. The natural CO2 cycle does dump 790 gigatons pf CO2 into the atmosphere every year, but it also takes it out again.

About 60% human generated 29 gigatons per year stays in the atmosphere, while 40% dissolves in the oceans.

Not really.

Since you didn't check your claim before you posted it, you don't seem to have done a proper job of thinking about what you posted.

And John Larkin's claims about what greenies think come from climate change denial propaganda. I've not heard any real greenie say anything anything like that stupid.

If morons glue their hands to airport runways, the appropriate response is to instruct the pilots and truck drivers to ignore them.

Same inside museums.

You need psychopathic pilots and truck drivers for this to work, and there aren't nearly enough of them.

It's that kind of practical detail that escapes the right-wing psychopaths who post here. They don't really appreciate quite how unpleasant and anti-social their lunatic propositions look to saner people.

Absent some revolutionary new technology, I suspect you may be right. Mind you, we have people who are quite happy to only be able to drive for only

Tesla's super-chargers are quicker than that, and 200 miles is a rather short range for modern EV.

And electricity is quite a bit cheaper per mile than gasoline.

The "massive depreciation" is a temporary blip in a developing market.

The fuggin' idiot here is Cursitor Doom, who would still be getting around by horse and buggy, if he could afford it.

I isn't cheaper in the UK. If you compare the basic prices of diesel and petrol without tax against electricity without tax, electricity is certainly no cheaper if you recharge at home and massively more expensive if you recharge at a public charger. if you factor-in the depreciation of the battery, it gets even worse.

Not that you have bothered to show us your calculations.

Figuring in the depreciation of the battery is legitimate, but you have to compare it with the depreciation of a internal-combustion-engined car which is also pretty dramatic, and you haven't bothered to do that either.