I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so on.
Depends what you mean by a failure. Cats. are very effective on some types of IC engines, emitting cleaner air than they burn, in terms of NOx, etc.
Fascism was defeated by money.
Money to provide the industry and the waepons.
He was born in 1843 so that might not have been a too-surprising attitude.
Couldn't make it up, could you?
Harry, you are _priceless_. Clueless, witless, brainless but also priceless.
Indeed. Just look at the various Euro emission levels to see if it's a "failure" or not...
Take NOx - which this latest scaremongering is about... Euro 3 (2000) introduced a cap on diesel NOx of 0.5g/km. Euro 6 (2014) is 0.08g/km
The London ULEZ (from 2020) is probably going to do a lot to address the NOx failures, but expect similar in other big city centres.
But if so, he was wrong. New thinking is needed. Not drivel from the past.
The age of cheap fossil fuel is almost over. We must use what remains as sparingly as possible to set us on the new renewable technology. Which age need never be over. And won't poison us or our children.
Er no, they weren't impossible harry. Thass the point. None of these breaks any physical law. Possibly, if some natural philosopher in the
18thC was asked about some of these, he'd might have said "May be possible but we don't know enough about nature to say one way or the other" but that's *all* he could have said. A 100 years or so later he might have said "Yes we broadly speaking understand how to do this but we can't build a vessel strong enough (or light enough, or whatever) to make the item in question a *practical* proposition.After all, planes flew in the early 20thC. Didn't mean that the following Tuesday fortnight they'd be rolling out the A380. Equally, only a fool might have said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Unless they believed that birds flew by magic, of course.
The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the car/plane needs no other energy source.
The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel. The synthetic fuel is only slightly less polluting than the fossil fuel. (It has no sulphur)
Stop wriggling. All diesel engines are polluting regardless of fuel. You need to get read up.
Thorium reactors, nuclear waste disposal, ..
I see you recognise yourself.
Before coke became widely used, iron was smelted with anthracite. I'm sure you'll admit that anthracite is a coal.
Funny, the thread title in *my* newsreader is:
Synthetic fuel from green energy - News
doesn't mention diesel at all. What planet are you on, again?
Slavery died out in the first world long before there was any cheap fossil fuel.
Yes, technology was the main cause of the demise of slavery in the first world.
No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore and always will be, particularly with technology. Even domestic slaves have no real use now that we get technology to do what we used to have slaves do.
It rarely came by accident in the past too.
They always did and that is why humans do a lot better than animals.
No one has no education anymore.
You are unlikely to invent anything even with education.
It still happens, just differently, most obviously with apps today.
Using the technology of ocean going ships.
It was much more the drive to do it that made it possible.
Doesn?t explain the Vikings that rampaged over a surprising amount of the world.
Hasn?t failed in Norway. They have done much better with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.
You get the opposite effect with much technology, cheaper makes it viable for everyone to have it.
Fascism was defeated by the yanks choosing to get involved.
It was about much more than just money.
There's no point in using slaves if it's cheap enough to employ people, and that's what happens - see eg construction workers in the middle east, lots of China, etc.
It's not technology which has replaced slaves, it's other forms of abusive labour.
I didn't know you could burn cats in car engines!
Not with coal and gas.
We should be using nukes.
Nukes don?t produce any of that.
when you have a population as low as they have and as much oil/gas as they have you can afford socialism. Till the oil runs out....
Simon Brown wrote: Socialism etc
Norway has major social problems. The people largely work in non jobs for the state and cannot afford to use restaurants or bars. The exchange rate is unreal.
The UK servant class now works in fast food outlets or on ready meal production lines.
I restricted my comments to the first world in the bits you snipped.
It is always going to cost more to employ people than to use slaves, because those you employ end up with more than just food and lodging.
It was in the first world, particularly with agriculture and house slaves.
it's other forms of
Not in the first world.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required