On 19/03/2021 05:14, Richard Falken wrote:
>    Re: Re: Taking a Stand in the War on General-Purpose Computing
>    By: David Higton to Deloptes on Fri Mar 19 2021 08:34 pm
>
>   > Diesel should be banned from the face of the earth.  It has killed
>   > thousands of people by pollution (particulates, nitrogen dioxide and
>   > carbon monoxide) and continues to do so.
>   >
>   > Also, once a diesel, always a diesel - that's the only fuel it can
>   > consume during its entire life.
>   >
>   > Electric cars kill very few people by pollution, because the pollution
>   > that's created today in the power generation process is much diluted
>   > before it reaches humans - and as time goes on, more and more
>   > electricity is being generated from non-polluting sources, so the
>   > pollution is decreasing.  Rapidly.
>   >
>   > David
>
> Conbustion engines tend not to produce meaningful ammounts of carbon monoxide
> unless they are badly tuned. Carbon monoxide is the signature of bad
combustion
> and car designers and techniccians go to great lengths to ensure the
combustion
> is any good.

Catalytic converters tend to clean up all partial combustion products.
That's why they are fitted.

Nitrogen oxides are a direct result of pushing combustion temperatures
and pressures higher in pursuit of 'green' virtue signals - increased
mileage per gallon/litre.

We would all like to have a 1000 mile range electric car that cost less
than a diesel, and didn't pollute the environment more than a diesel car
by dint of the mining needed to create the battery...

...but obviously in the land of green virtue signalling, pushing the
pollution out of your suburb onto a starving african kid crawling out of
a cobalt mine, is virtue of the highest order.

Oh and according to the Gospel according to Michael Mann, it doesn't
matter where you emit carbon dioxide, the final effect on civilization
is the same.


>
> Your regular coal powered power plant (which is the sort of thing a lot of
> countries would use to charge electric cars, if they had them in
significative
> numbers) is more complex.

Most of the windmills built use more coal to build - mainly in china -
than would be burnt to generate the same amount of electricity they
generate, over a remarkably short lifetime.

It is clear from the fact that no high visibility virtue signalling
climate change devotee has ever sold a beachside mansion in 'danger of
sea level rise', or private jet, that they they don't believe it either.

Its not science. Its *marketing*.

  If they happen to be using a bad source for fuel they
> are likely to produce a lot of byproducts like sulphur (in addition to the
> regular CO2). Nowadays this is less of a problem because they tune their
fuels
> more carefully and also process the exhaust smoke so if does not carry as
much
> bad stuff, but this makes all the deal all the less efficient.
>
So many people  cannot afford highly taxed fuel and 'renewable'
electricity that they are now burning coal and wood instead. I thought I
would never smell high sulphur coal burnt on an open grate again.

Spectacular own goal



> There is a coal power plant not far from here, and they are always testing
the
> environment for pollutants generated by it, and they always find them. While
> the argument can be made that remote power generation is more efficient than
> letting everybody use an internal combustion engine, results are not
thrilling
> either.
>
If the greens had their way, we would all be poisoned from the toxic by
products of burning pixie dust and unicorn farts



--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05