Inboard engines and a changing world

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Surely you can admit that “Science” can be bought. And on the flip side “Science” often has political agenda’s and many times it justified in their opinion by the ends justifying the means.

There are many, many examples of both, neither “side” is pure.

Trust if you want to, but verify if you can.
Although the verification is tough, I mean how do you know this Dr. is better than that Dr. when trying to find who you want to operate on you? Your not really qualified and don’t have access to the data to find out. Now if you are a Surgeon and watch several of his operations, then you can have an informed opinion, but if your not, how do you find out?

So how does a plumber, or bank teller, Physician etc. validate data?

Science can be bought, but at that very moment, it stops being science.

True scientists are not swayed by financial gain. I was one and worked alongside many.

I'd say politically, a scientist is an agnostic and a moderate. Any correct answer is accepted. Truth is the only ly objective.

As an example, look at a publication called Phys Rev.

This is where new ideas in physics get published. When they are published, all the other physicists literally try to disprove the new discovery. It's only after standing up to that peer review is something considered real and factual.

That's how science works. Anything else (projects funded by companies or that have a goal or narrative before the end result) are not science, but are a form of propaganda trying to pretend to be science.

The Earth is considered to be round because no one can disprove it. That's why it's a scientific fact.

Sometimes new information will come along and change what WAS fact. For instance, it's looking like we may have discovered a 5tu force of nature. By that's just an ever marching pursuing of truth and better and better understanding of our world.

Science is "to the best of humanity's knowledge." It's our best stab, as a species, at the truth. We may learn more and update these things from time to time. But it doesn't mean the original knowledge was BS. It's just the best we could do as a species who is continually learning.

[a64pilot]

Well just one little example of the money to be made from climate change is this small company called General Electric with their wind turbines, now that comes to my mind only because I’ve worked with GE, there are many others of course.
Now of course GE is just this small little start up, and not a big company like the oil companies, and of course their stock has done extremely well in recent years and they can’t finance “science” because they are so small to push their wind turbines , and their stock has done so well that they have no need to make money on them, right?

I’ve been around “big” business after I Retired from the military, and it took me awhile to realize that with business, nearly anything can be justified as it’s “just business” things that are morally reprehensible are OK, if it’s “just business”.

I don’t understand how in their minds they can separate that, but people that you would normally think are nice people with good morals, change when it’s just business.

Now that’s not a universal truth obviously, but it’s amazing that most when faced with doing the “right” thing and making another nickel on a product have no reservation at all, they chose that nickel, because it’s just business, and your supposed to understand that profit is the most important thing there is, everything else is second.
When you question that, your looked at as a fool, cause any business man knows profit comes before all else.

Just understand that there is big business on both sides, and I’d be very surprised if you dig deep enough you may find that some of these green companies are owned by big oil. Or big tobacco etc. They will make money where there is money to be remember profit trumps everything

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Well just one little example of the money to be made from climate change is this small company called General Electric with their wind turbines...

I’ve been around “big” business after I Retired from the military, and it took me awhile to realize that with business, nearly anything can be justified as it’s “just business” things that are morally reprehensible are OK, if it’s “just business”.

....it’s amazing that most when faced with doing the “right” thing and making another nickel on a product have no reservation at all, they chose that nickel, because it’s just business, and your supposed to understand that profit is the most important thing there is, everything else is second.

GE has their fingers in most generator types, as well as most other facets of large-scale electrical infrastructure I believe, so they will be OK regardless. And I don't think you can state that GE's wind turbine profits come anywhere close to a rounding error of the profits in fossil-fuels.

Anyway, you're making my case for me. Business is assumed to be self-interested, so big oil is behaving defensively, pretty much the way you'd expect them to. Why don't people see that, yet happily accept the myth that science is equally or even comparably invested in bending the truth?

Just understand that there is big business on both sides, and I’d be very surprised if you dig deep enough you may ring that some of these green companies are owned by big oil. Or big tobacco etc. They will make money where there is money to be remember profit trumps everything

Sure, but the suggestion that the money and selfish motives on both sides of this are equivalent, and that just all about of a scientific specialty (and the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have reviewed the case) have been co-opted, is ludicrous.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

GE has their fingers in most generator types, as well as most other facets of large-scale electrical infrastructure I believe, so they will be OK regardless. And I don't think you can state that GE's wind turbine profits come anywhere close to a rounding error of the profits in fossil-fuels.

Anyway, you're making my case for me. Business is assumed to be self-interested, so big oil is behaving defensively, pretty much the way you'd expect them to. Why don't people see that, yet happily accept the myth that science is equally or even comparably invested in bending the truth?


Sure, but the suggestion that the money and selfish motives on both sides of this are equivalent, and that just all about of a scientific specialty (and the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have reviewed the case) have been co-opted, is ludicrous.

I take it you don't understand sarcasm

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I take it you don't understand sarcasm

As usual, you've taken it wrong.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

GE has their fingers in most generator types, as well as most other facets of large-scale electrical infrastructure I believe, so they will be OK regardless. And I don't think you can state that GE's wind turbine profits come anywhere close to a rounding error of the profits in fossil-fuels.

Anyway, you're making my case for me. Business is assumed to be self-interested, so big oil is behaving defensively, pretty much the way you'd expect them to. Why don't people see that, yet happily accept the myth that science is equally or even comparably invested in bending the truth?


Sure, but the suggestion that the money and selfish motives on both sides of this are equivalent, and that just all about of a scientific specialty (and the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have reviewed the case) have been co-opted, is ludicrous.

You don’t understand, yes big oil is acting in its own interests.
But you, because your a believer won’t see that the other side is doing the same.
Very often the environmentalists will very much overstate a problem, they know they are blowing something way out of proportion, but believe they must to get the idea across, and console themselves with it’s Ok to not tell the truth, because they are on the righteous side.

But you don’t understand that “big business” can only push their agenda just so far, and then it falls apart, look at Tobacco for an example.
It didn’t take joe average very long to figure out they were being lied to did it?

But big oil isn’t as stupid as you think, as soon as it becomes profitable to do so they will likely be the leaders in Bio fuels for example. Because as much as we would like to think it’s possible, but electric airliners and ships aren’t likely to happen.

But they will take that big money and diversify, or they are stupid.
GE as an example, I don’t know why they are losing so much money, but they are certainly diversified.
Big oil surely is, they just don’t call all the companies they own BP or Exxon, unlike GE.

[daysgoneby]

Originally Posted by skenn_ie

Hydrogeneration while under sail, from whatever type of propulsion system you envisage, isn't really viable IMO. You don't get electricity for nothing. If you are drawing electrical power, you are also slowing yourself down, considerably. Ditto wind power, unless the wind is substantially from behind.

Electric Motor, Ocean Crossing with Regeneration | Sailing Wisdom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWgbM9DoA7A&t=11s

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

You don’t understand, yes big oil is acting in its own interests.
But you, because your a believer won’t see that the other side is doing the same.

Who are you considering is on "the other side"?

Very often the environmentalists will very much overstate a problem, they know they are blowing something way out of proportion, but believe they must to get the idea across, and console themselves with it’s Ok to not tell the truth, because they are on the righteous side.

Sure there's hype and exaggeration on both sides. But specifically, who are you accusing of hype here: some of the press? activists? Then I'd agree. If you're accusing the entire field of climate science, then I'd strongly disagree.


Also, there's been some backlash in the scientific community that the warnings that get issued "officially" - eg IPCC, Paris Accords - have been toning down their pronouncements to make them more palatable and positive-sounding.

But you don’t understand that “big business” can only push their agenda just so far, and then it falls apart, look at Tobacco for an example.
It didn’t take joe average very long to figure out they were being lied to did it?

It took almost 60 years to get from "we see a connection between smoking and lung diseases" to a surgeon-general's warning on cigarettes.

But big oil isn’t as stupid as you think, as soon as it becomes profitable to do so they will likely be the leaders in Bio fuels for example. Because as much as we would like to think it’s possible, but electric airliners and ships aren’t likely to happen.

But they will take that big money and diversify, or they are stupid.

Of course they will, but they'll pick the low-hanging fruit of oil profits for as long as possible, downplaying the problems they're creating.


I never said big oil is stupid, or even evil. They're doing what businesses are expected to do - squelch any impediments to their profitable growth. It's right for them. Not so right for the greater scheme of things. It's just strange why so many won't acknowledge this, yet accuse scientists of all manner of perverse and corrupt influences.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Electric makes no sense for driving cross country or cruising. (My opinion).

This statement is so patently false it must be a typo or mis-statement.

It's quite clear that "electric/hybrid" powered vehicles are perfectly capable of crossing countries and even continents.

The onboard ICE generates the power that recharges the battery. So using a hybrid is just like driving an ICE vehicle, except it goes further on the same tank of gas.

This does, in fact, reduce overall emissions.

OTH, if you meant to specify "pure electric" vehicle, then I'd have to accept it is, as yet *difficult* to cross countries or continents without some difficulty or time delays.

But, having said that, in Oz there are now charging stations at suitable intervals for pure EVs on the major inter-city routes, such as Sydney to Melbourne and, I noticed last weekend while in a remote south coast seaport, even charging points popping up in such less well-travelled locations.

Maybe the US experience is different, but the map showing charging points in Oz gets more added to it every week....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

This statement is so patently false it must be a typo or mis-statement.

It's quite clear that "electric/hybrid" powered vehicles are perfectly capable of crossing countries and even continents.

The onboard ICE generates the power that recharges the battery. So using a hybrid is just like driving an ICE vehicle, except it goes further on the same tank of gas.

This does, in fact, reduce overall emissions.

OTH, if you meant to specify "pure electric" vehicle, then I'd have to accept it is, as yet *difficult* to cross countries or continents without some difficulty or time delays.

But, having said that, in Oz there are now charging stations at suitable intervals for pure EVs on the major inter-city routes, such as Sydney to Melbourne and, I noticed last weekend while in a remote south coast seaport, even charging points popping up in such less well-travelled locations.

Maybe the US experience is different, but the map showing charging points in Oz gets more added to it every week....

one little caveat there is ( in the USA ) only one actual hybrid car and that isa the Chevy bolt.
All of the others are not hybrids but actually dual fuel cars. When the battery is depleted or the vehicle hoes above 35 mph the ice directly powers the vehicle. As well as recharging the onboard battery bank.

In a true hybrid vehicle there is no direct connection between the ice and the wheels its all electric

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Who are you considering is on "the other side"?

Sure there's hype and exaggeration on both sides. But specifically, who are you accusing of hype here: some of the press? activists? Then I'd agree. If you're accusing the entire field of climate science, then I'd strongly disagree.


Also, there's been some backlash in the scientific community that the warnings that get issued "officially" - eg IPCC, Paris Accords - have been toning down their pronouncements to make them more palatable and positive-sounding.


It took almost 60 years to get from "we see a connection between smoking and lung diseases" to a surgeon-general's warning on cigarettes.


Of course they will, but they'll pick the low-hanging fruit of oil profits for as long as possible, downplaying the problems they're creating.


I never said big oil is stupid, or even evil. They're doing what businesses are expected to do - squelch any impediments to their profitable growth. It's right for them. Not so right for the greater scheme of things. It's just strange why so many won't acknowledge this, yet accuse scientists of all manner of perverse and corrupt influences.

except for the fact that bp has been manufacturing solar panels since the early 1980's
And Exxon started in the 1970's

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by newhaul

one little caveat there is ( in the USA ) only one actual hybrid car and that isa the Chevy bolt.
All of the others are not hybrids but actually dual fuel cars. When the battery is depleted or the vehicle hoes above 35 mph the ice directly powers the vehicle. As well as recharging the onboard battery bank.

In a true hybrid vehicle there is no direct connection between the ice and the wheels its all electric

There are many ways to define hybrid and a varying amount of cars qualify depending on the definition.

By you definition the BMW I3 REX also qualifies.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by newhaul

one little caveat there is ( in the USA ) only one actual hybrid car and that is a the Chevy bolt.

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/toyota/camry-hybrid

Strictly speaking, any vehicle which uses both EV and ICE means of propulsion is, by definition, a "hybrid".

So whether the ICE runs only a charger, or can in fact also drive the transmission is irrelevant.

The topical and relevant difference is whether or not the vehicle needs to stop and recharge the battery before proceeding, which is the case with a "pure electric EV".

So while some hybrids can also plug in to recharge (usually referred to as "plug-in hybrid EV" such as Mitsubishi Outlander) it isn't essential that they do so, unless they don't have an onboard charger that replenishes the battery charge via the ICE or even regen fror kinetic energy recovery.

The **key** thing pertinent to this discussion is that a "pure electric EV" **must** plug in to a power point/charger in order to be able to complete a longer journey. This is the base fact of the 'range anxiety' that is often spoken about as being a reason people aren't more widley adopting EVs.

So while a "hybrid" can go anywhere the old-style gas/petrol infrastructure exists, a pure EV needs the new 'charging infrastructure' which doesn't yet have anything like the coverage of the ICE fuel industry.

Eventually, Caltex, Shell, Texaco et al will have EV charging points in their stations, as they will be selling a product to those plugging in, and hopefully gettingn a few extra dollars from selling them coffees and/or groceries.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/toyota/camry-hybrid

Strictly speaking, any vehicle which uses both EV and ICE means of propulsion is, by definition, a "hybrid". .

actually they are dual fuel vehicles not technical hybrids
Calling them hybrids is actually just a marketing tool.

By definition
A hybrid vehicle uses two or more distinct types of power, such as internal combustion engine to drive an electric generator that powers an electric motor, e.g. in diesel-electric trains using diesel engines to drive an electric generator that powers an electric motor

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Adelie

There are many ways to define hybrid and a varying amount of cars qualify depending on the definition.

By you definition the BMW I3 REX also qualifies.

with the optional ice generator yes it would.
By definition
A hybrid vehicle uses two or more distinct types of power, such as internal combustion engine to drive an electric generator that powers an electric motor, e.g. in diesel-electric trains using diesel engines to drive an electric generator that powers an electric motor