The end of the combustion engine as we know it?

[Poodle]

I think Grant's opinion up there is a fairly accurate representation of how a lot of people regard the whole pollution and climate change gig, unfortunately. It's all a conspiracy by the governments, banks and energy conglomerates, no doubt.

Very interesting concept there though, be curious to see how far it gets.

[Kezzieboy]

Yeah, what a terrifying thought. I was hoping my generation would finally be the ones to do something about it, but people around my age are still in denial :/

I've been trying to get my head around why rotary engines are so shite for a while now, you'd think that forcing a piston completely in the opposite direction would be less efficient than just nudging it around in a circle, but that's just not the case! Heat losses I guess account for a lot of it, and flame propagation is more complex in that sort of combustion chamber, but still!

[Grant]

It has been PROVEN by the scientific community that the increasing global temperatures are being caused by human generated carbon emissions? I genuinely thought that everyone had accepted this by now! The rate of climate change is NOT in line with the 'natural' changes observed historically. Even if it is, then that's even worse, as we can't evolve as quickly as it's changing. By 2050 sea levels will have risen significantly and the global climate will have changed significantly, marking the end of various ecosystems and creating massive issues with food supplies all over the world.

It genuinely stuns me that some people still haven't accepted the wealth of research showing that the climate change in the last century has been stimulated by the industrial revolution and the massive increase carbon emissions it has generated.

The automotive industry is ahead of the game, Euro 5 emissions regulations are incredibly stringent, but these changes need to be targeted at power generation and heavy industry, especially in the developing world if we're to avoid absolute catastrophe.

Which scientific community? U.N. Scientists? - Government scientists? Funny that...

Facts:

-Arctic ice is up roughly 50% since 2012
-Al Gore, one of the initial instigators of the Global warming theory, predicted that all ice on planet Earth would be gone by 2013. Correct me if I am wrong, but has it f*ck?!
-Global temperatures have not risen since 2002
-Co2 levels are uncorrelated to temperature rise, since 2004


An independent review recently showed that carbon pollution levels are down to that similar to what they were back in the early 1980's.. Thats quite astonishing, for example, considering there were circa 20 million cars on the road then, compared to the 34 million now. Not that cars are the sole contributor of course.

Due to the above, many 'scientists' are saying that 'greenhouse gasses' are at a level where the ozone level will no longer diminish. Yet the government still pump this 'zero emissions' bullshit.

Take for example the Low emissions zones in London. Just another excuse to tax the public and commercial sectors.

What do I know, heck I ain't a scientist. But if you just roll over and believe every piece of propaganda they feed you on the news, IMO you are a fool

[Niall]

It's a fact as well that the world has in the past and will in the future change and one of them changes will be temperatures, sea levels, etc. yes we are a contributing factor with our habits but by no means the sole cause.
Despite pollution being substantially less than what the media will have you believe, we are still pushed to cut it because it would mean we are healthier and as a result, less impact on the health service.
Also, with the fact we are cutting more and more trees down, we will get to a point where the remaining forests etc can't cope with the pollution.
Whilst on the subject of trees, it's now possible for us to create bio fuels from rotting trees and some countries actually have the forests now specifically set up to infect the trees to grow said bio fuels which can account for something like 20% of fuel used in them particular countries.
We are no where near as f*cked as the media will have you believe and if you do believe all of what they say, your a complete moron. There's no such thing as good news with our media!

[Kezzieboy]

I'm sorry but I'm still struggling to see what the benefits of claiming that global warming and pollution are worse than the reality are? If the Govt want you to believe anything, it's that everything is fine, so the petrochemical industry can crack on making a fortune with margins far greater than those of renewable energy based companies. Just look at fracking, that's being encouraged even though it's an ecological disaster waiting to happen. The government have been forced to listen adopt a more ecological stance because of pressure from the general public and scientific community, not the other way around.

And Grant, post me some links, I'd love to have a skim through, I've not seen a single peer reviewed, scientific document refuting the human impact on the global climate in years!

[Grant]

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4: The Telegraph

Even Rush Limbaugh covered it. But I'm not even going to go there


And how can you not see the benefits of it being over dramatised?

More tax on fuel
Low emissions zone tax
Renewable energy industries
The motor industry as people buy newer 'more efficient' cars
f*ck knows how many hedge funds and their associates
Biofuel companies, which is another source of tax (both at source and point of purchase) for the government.


See where I am going with this?

[lolsteve]

Just to add fuel to the fire
Recycling paper is bad for the environment or at least worse that growing new trees. When trees grow they intake huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and so on, if i recall from my dissertation it is ~800Kg of carbon for every 1m3 of timber. Therefore buy using virgin paper and other timber products we create a larger demand for them and increase the planting rate
The recycling process also requires alot of energy and clean water, plus chemicals and the likes which create pollution

Also Al gore is a dick, he himself emits high levels of co2 from all the travelling he does plus i think there was a thing where his huge mansion thing wasn't using energy efficient light bulbs
http://www.examiner.com/article/an-incon...al-average <-- random article thing

Also Also
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...00748.html
Do your bit for mother earth lads

[Rippthrough]

No, that thing has so many issues it'd take me an hour to list them.

[Kezzieboy]

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4: The Telegraph

Even Rush Limbaugh covered it. But I'm not even going to go there


And how can you not see the benefits of it being over dramatised?

More tax on fuel
Low emissions zone tax
Renewable energy industries
The motor industry as people buy newer 'more efficient' cars
f*ck knows how many hedge funds and their associates
Biofuel companies, which is another source of tax (both at source and point of purchase) for the government.


See where I am going with this?

You seem to have posted almost exclusively articles from right-wing media outlets. Says a lot about the skeptic argument. The one scientific paper you posted was from several years ago, and is one example lost in a sea of papers showing clear evidence that climate change is caused (or being accelerated) by humans.

The benefits you have listed pale into insignificance against the benefits to the establishment of denying climate change. The oil industry is the most profitable in the world, it has caused the invasion of countries and countless regime changes. Oil is the most potent political weapon today, and climate change could unsettle that. You mention hedge funds, there will be a great many more pockets being lined by the success of the oil industry than by renewables.

You'll find that there are more oil and gas companies ranking in the top levels of the global stock market rankings than any other market sector, and I'd be surprised if you found any green energy companies at all.

The rest of your list are tax gains, which only benefit the state, not politicians or the upper classes (or the UN, although I'm not sure what part they play in your conspiracy). Taxes don't line the pockets of politicians, they get a fixed salary, there is no reason for them to encourage more tax to be brought in, other than to increase spending on the welfare state. Hence why the right wing (i.e. Tories) want to decrease taxes, as it will profit them greatly, and the left want them increased, as it benefits the state.

But the most powerful pro-emission reduction argument for those such as yourself is below. It doesn't get any simpler...where are the disadvantages?

[Ben Jay]

So....spinning engines...pretty cool thing that

[Poodle]

Lol did you actually just cite Al Gore as a creator of the global warming theory?

[Kwik]

http://www.cfact.org/issues/climate-chan...ruth-file/

that's not right wing........

[Eeyore]

Global warming is happening... but there could be a number of causes etc.
This engine seems awesome...
it doesnt matter that they have spent time designing something new and not improving existing engines... its not like there are a limited number of engine people.
Anything new is awesome and this seems good. I wonder how it deals with heat and lubrication though.

[Rippthrough]

And sealing, and blow by...

[Grant]

And sealing, and blow by...

But just as the 'conventional' ICE as we know it, it will develop with time. Everything has issues during early development. Through time and advances, these are ironed out.

Not to say this is the new engine for mainstream car manufacturing, but its good to see people thinking outside of the box

[Rippthrough]

That thing has 10x the sealing issues that a rotary engine does, and they're still working on solving that bugger 60 years on.

[craigyt]

To make the power stations more carbon neutral they need to run on gas, rwe has converted and modified their gas stations to better efficiency than new builds but for some reason gas is too expensive. Its not viable to use gas stations. Coal is considerably cheaper so coal stations are on 80% utilisation most of the time where as gas is down at circa 20%!

The government want low carbon emissions but arent willing to invest in the low carbon stations, they think and hope that wind power and solar is enough for the uk to survive but its just isnt. The power industry is in limbo!

[RetroPug]

To make the power stations more carbon neutral they need to run on gas, rwe has converted and modified their gas stations to better efficiency than new builds but for some reason gas is too expensive. Its not viable to use gas stations. Coal is considerably cheaper so coal stations are on 80% utilisation most of the time where as gas is down at circa 20%!

The government want low carbon emissions but arent willing to invest in the low carbon stations, they think and hope that wind power and solar is enough for the uk to survive but its just isnt. The power industry is in limbo!

We will inevitably have to go nuclear.
This is something that a lot of people would not like to accept.

Despite all the hype, it is statistically a lot safer and cleaner than burning fossil fuels, and producing many industrial chemicals etc. and produces vastly less waste and pollutants. Yes, it does produce toxic waste, but it produces it in tiny quantities and it is all collected and manageable, it is not belched into the atmosphere where we can never control it nor get it back.

[Kwik]

Nuclear is the way forward but the problem is people think mushroom cloud straight away and not that when it is harnessed properly is an awesomely efficient way to mass produce energy

[lolsteve]

Fusion yo

[HDi--Power]

Will this engine not pool oil in the lower cylinders like an old radial engine too? looks like an A/C compressor made into a petrol engine
http://www.jaguar-swansea.co.uk/aircon/i...ePlate.jpg

The end of the combustion engine will be Electricity IMO

[craigyt]

To make the power stations more carbon neutral they need to run on gas, rwe has converted and modified their gas stations to better efficiency than new builds but for some reason gas is too expensive. Its not viable to use gas stations. Coal is considerably cheaper so coal stations are on 80% utilisation most of the time where as gas is down at circa 20%!

The government want low carbon emissions but arent willing to invest in the low carbon stations, they think and hope that wind power and solar is enough for the uk to survive but its just isnt. The power industry is in limbo!

We will inevitably have to go nuclear.
This is something that a lot of people would not like to accept.

Despite all the hype, it is statistically a lot safer and cleaner than burning fossil fuels, and producing many industrial chemicals etc. and produces vastly less waste and pollutants. Yes, it does produce toxic waste, but it produces it in tiny quantities and it is all collected and manageable, it is not belched into the atmosphere where we can never control it nor get it back.

I would have to agree, i love the idea of nuclear power!

Ivthink the best thing to do is when the tree huggers are protesting, shut the stations, black out so the huggers can see what the consequences are. All they do is protest, cause havoc then go home stick the kettle on n watch the tv to see how much trouble they caused!

Cut their power off n wait n see how long they last without power!!

[Kwik]

That's a great plan lol

[RetroPug]

Nuclear is the way forward but the problem is people think mushroom cloud straight away and not that when it is harnessed properly is an awesomely efficient way to mass produce energy

I would have to agree, i love the idea of nuclear power!

Ivthink the best thing to do is when the tree huggers are protesting, shut the stations, black out so the huggers can see what the consequences are. All they do is protest, cause havoc then go home stick the kettle on n watch the tv to see how much trouble they caused!

Cut their power off n wait n see how long they last without power!!

Yeah. Everyone wants electric lights, warm homes in winter, lovely home entertainment, the ability to cook etc. etc. but they also don't want nuclear power, don't want fossil fuels destroying the atmosphere and air quality and they don't want their tax money spent on expensive renewable energy.

[Kezzieboy]

Fusion yo

Can't wait for the French fusion reactor to start creating net gains, THAT shit is the future.

Fission is the past, it's a quick easy fix, but the waste issue just hasn't been solved. The by products of fission are unsafe for hundreds of years, that's fine at current levels of power from Nuclear, but if we start ramping it up it'll become unmanageable.

I think solar is doing big things, the way the tech has developed in a decade is astonishing, they used to talk about pay-off times in terms of lifetimes, now it's in years.

[Wolverine1091]

i bet you your life savings we won't be swimming with the fishies in 2050! I know you said significantly. But what you measuring in, mm's?

on the fusion band wagon though, if they were actually able, and there calculations right, we'd be o so sorted.

Anyway that engine seems crap. as has been previously said.

Wonder about the noise though.

[Kezzieboy]

I'd take you up on that, if I had these 'life savings' you speak of...I'm a student!!

Fusion has legs, if it didn't they wouldn't have shovelled billions of euros into developing it, but it's properly groundbreaking stuff, so it takes a looong time to get running properly. Latest I heard was net gains by like 2040, which is too late really!

[RetroPug]

Fusion yo

Can't wait for the French fusion reactor to start creating net gains, THAT shit is the future.

Fission is the past, it's a quick easy fix, but the waste issue just hasn't been solved. The by products of fission are unsafe for hundreds of years, that's fine at current levels of power from Nuclear, but if we start ramping it up it'll become unmanageable.

I think solar is doing big things, the way the tech has developed in a decade is astonishing, they used to talk about pay-off times in terms of lifetimes, now it's in years.

Fusion would be absolutely ideal. I agree that scaling up nuclear energy production would result in more nuclear waste being created, however I'm not sure unmanageable is the right word. Challenging to deal with yes, but I'd sooner call pumping pollutants into our air and water that we can never reign back in nor control unmanageable. At least nuclear waste produced is 100% controllable, despite the large challenges involved in controlling it properly.

[lolsteve]

Carbon dioxide isn't unmanageable, as I said before growing trees takes alot of that carbon back out of the air. There's a prototype station in denmark that releases the carbon into the soil rather than the air

[RetroPug]

Carbon dioxide isn't unmanageable, as I said before growing trees takes alot of that carbon back out of the air. There's a prototype station in denmark that releases the carbon into the soil rather than the air

Carbon Dioxide is fussed over as popular scientific opinion is that it contributes to global warming, it is by far not one of the most harmful substances released by burning fossil fuels, of which there are very many. Although large CO2 emissions are a problem as well given that we produce huge quanities of it and Europe has a fraction of the forest land it once did centuries ago.

Nitrogen oxides causing smog, sulfur causing acid rain, mecury poisoning the water supply, particulates causing respiratory problems etc. etc. are not suddenly fine because we planted some trees, are they?

Yes, there are many methods for trying to reduce these emissions, but the reality is that combusting fossil fuels is inherently dirty, produces vast quantities of waste and once released, these pollutants are extremely difficult to control and get back. We just don't see these pollutants as lots of them are invisible gases. Out of sight, out of mind is not a sensible waste management strategy in the slightest.

But then again I drive a Gti-6