Unknown to evolution Only Tesla has built in EMF shielding especially for children & back seat passengers Go Figure Go Figure
Again you are pontificating about something you know nothing about. https://forums.appleinsider.com/dis...standard-could-change-device-charging-forever https://forums.appleinsider.com/dis...standard-could-change-device-charging-forever If I could swap batteries I would own a minimum of 3 batteries for my phone alone. Apple wants to sell me batteries instead of watching me buy power banks from Anker and fiddle with charging cords and battery packs in my pocket. They want to sell me swappable batteries that are ready to go without trying to charge a phone on the go with a cable away from grid or vehicle power sources. I’m glad. I’ll pay them well to make my life better. I’ll be happy and they will sell 2-3 batteries they never would have sold before. I’m just educating you. I don’t have any real interest in convincing you CATL and NIO may know more about their market and customers than you. Or that Apple is doing what you say they aren’t. I just see a knowledge deficit and remedy it. It’s the old “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” thing. You are dehydrated. I’m offering hydration. But you can reject the knowledge. You can keep on believing Apple isn’t pursuing swappable technology even though they are. I just don’t like to see disinformation and misinformation out there that may mislead people so I provide more accurate information.
Walking may produce more fossil fuel emissions than driving. Walking is certainly healthy, but not necessarily less impactful on atmospheric CO2. It’s a common misperception that walking is carbon free, but it’s far from it. The average person burns 100 Calories walking a mile. That’s 400 BTU. It takes between 7 and 10 Calories of fossil fuel to produce a Calorie of food (depending on the food) the average American eats. So we multiply 400 BTU by a factor of 7-10 to find how many BTU of fossil fuels it takes to walk a mile. We get 2800-4000 BTU of fossil fuel to walk a mile. Driving the average car uses about 3500 BTU of fossil fuel perpassenger mile. So yes, walking to work may produce more fossil fuel emissions than driving depending on what you drive. It’s amazing how beliefs about emissions and emissions reduction are often based on very false premises and denial of science.
That's a long way from standardization. But, remember that I only used cell phones in support of a specific point. You repeatedly "pontificate" (right?) about cell phones when the topic is EV charging.
Here in CA, in Iowa, in China, the emphasis is on solar, wind and (in China) hydroelectric. CA has extra energy during the day, ready to be used for charging industrial batteries (such as Tesla Builds), and industrial purposes. Suggesting that WALKING consumes FOSSIL FUEL is total BS accounting, and you know it. People consume food even if they just sit in some pick-up somewhere. And, EVs use electricity. Things ARE changing. We are NOT static. Our legacy auto manufacturing requires tariffs to keep them alive.
Alfred doesn't have to worry. Damage from electromagnetic radiation can be (and is) measured. Years of health data shows that you are safe making cellphone calls. But, ignoring childhood vaccinated IS dangerous.
You brought up cell phone. Not me. I just corrected your misinformation. You brought them up. I pointed out standardization and swapping are happening NOW. We are in the process of moving to standardized batteries that are easily swappable in cell phones. For real reasons. I have probably told you 100 times on PF, if you don’t want a subject discussed then don’t introduce it to the conversation. If you do, and your introduced subject is based on misinformation I will correct it.
Suggesting walking consumes fossil fuel is not BS. It is a FACT walking consumes fossil fuels. Just like an ICE gasoline engine, the body requires energy inputs. And those energy inputs are fossil fuel based for the average American. You can REDUCE the amount of fossil fuels you use to walk. But you aren’t really interested in reducing emissions. You even deny that using fossil fuels causes emissions now. Wild. It’s sad the population is so deficient in education in simple physics and biology that they believe humans don’t use fossil fuel energy and create emissions through fueling their bodies. You are the second individual who’s claimed to be an engineer that doesn’t understand biological processes require energy and that mechanical advantage matters. Unbelievable. You are welcome to deny the science. But it’s a cold hard fact walking in the US often creates more emissions than driving an ICE vehicle the same distance. Go ahead. Deny basic physics and biology. It’s what ya’ll do best. It’s why you will never actually solve any problems. You don’t know what the problems are or what causes the problems.
Sometimes you make some good points. This is NOT one of those times. This is akin to saying that living isn’t carbon free.
It’s a very good point. It forces you guys to face facts. It’s a fact your choices in what you eat have a significant environmental impact. It’s a fact your choice of transportation has an impact as well. Denying fossil fuel usage to facilitate walking matters is equivalent to denying fossil fuel usage to facilitate moving an ICE vehicle matters. When we put ethanol in an ICE vehicle the honest analysis of emissions accounts for fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol. Same for a biological method of transportation. You created a thread about emissions from agriculture. This is WHY emissions from agriculture are so high. Because people like you don’t understand it’s the CONSUMER who is driving creation of those emissions. If you REALLY think accounting for fossil fuel usage in human biological motion/work is not a good point, then your entire thread about agricultural related emissions is not a good point. I’ll reiterate, it’s very concerning we have engineers who I assume had some formal education in physics that can’t understand fossil energy emissions are fossil energy emissions no matter if it’s combusted in a controlled explosion to do work or whether it’s eventually used as energy to do work through respiration. If you don’t care about emissions from living then you better quit caring about emissions from agriculture. Because that’s where the buck stops when it comes to ag related emissions—you living.
What uses fossil fuel is our methods of agriculture and our shipment of foods that aren't available locally. As you have said, there is work being done to reduce the impacts of agriculture. Your comment about ICE is being addressed by finding non-fossil fuel methods of transportation and demanding greater efficiency in ICE vehicles. Yes, humans emit CO2, as do many other animals. But, you can not pitch that as a problem.
CO2 is not a problem in moderation. The world is producing far more CO2 than can be naturally sequestered. Today’s CO2 levels cannot possibly be sequestered, even if we were to reforest and/or re-grass the entire planet. Oil is a wonderful commodity. It’s used for mobility and intricate plastics that are used in medical procedures. Oil should always be used for military vehicles, because power plants are often attacked. If oil is so valuable, why are we burning it all up over the course of 10 generations. We could conserve it, and make it last for hundreds of generations. Better for the future, and better for our environment and our climate.
Yes! People are being told walking and cycling etc. are “green” forms of transportation like an EV using hydroelectric sourced power. But it’s a lie. Cycling and walking use as much or more fossil fuels than driving an ICE vehicle on fossil fuels. And 99.999% of people are too uneducated to see the lie. We can reduce fossil fuel usage for transportation in automobiles and walking and cycling and running. You allude to one very effective way to do this—eating food produced locally and with less fossil fuel based fertilizer etc. But if we expect the consumer to make changes to reduce agricultural emissions, they need to be informed about the current source of fuel they are putting in their body. It’s fossil fuel. And their walking and cycling is analogous to gasoline powered automobiles, not EVs charged by wind power. Walking and cycling are not “green” modes of transportation. They could be. But not until people are educated enough to understand why currently they are not. Since apparently kids aren’t being taught basics of physics and biology, and neither are young adults in college/university I guess you are stuck with hearing it from me. I’ve never pitched CO2 emissions from human lungs as a problem. But it is interesting to note the diet high in carbohydrates the American public has been incentivized to consume DOES result in humans producing more CO2 than a diet of protein and fat. Surprised the US has the highest health care related carbon footprint on the planet? A healthy diet higher in protein and fats grown closer to home reduces fossil fuel inputs all along the chain, clear down to reducing health care emissions! And it reduces CO2 emitted directly by humans from respiration!
It’s just a fact. Your appeal to the stone fallacy response doesn’t cause physics to cease to exist. Your denial of science doesn’t negate the facts. Nor does ignorance of physics and biology negate the facts you can’t refute. Is this how you treated your teachers and professors when they informed you of facts you were previously unaware of?
Well, there are certainly those who do not agree with you. More than that, CO2 is by no means the only chemistry emitted from ICEs and entering human lungs.
Humans are encouraged to eat foods and exercise in a way that is healthy. As for food, we should work on reducing the fossil fuels and other less healthy additives used in agriculture.
POM, the statement that was made was: “Cycling and walking use as much or more fossil fuels than driving an ICE vehicle on fossil fuels“. Now, if you agree with that statement, I will say the same thing. SHOW YOUR MATH!
Unfortunately we aren’t encouraged to eat healthy foods in the US. If you ever doubt this, start by comparing ingredients lists on the same products in the US vs Europe. Whatever the encouragement is, it isn’t working for diet or exercise! I was propositioned by a carbon credit broker yesterday. Wanted to pay me to implement “green” practices. I’m interested in your opinion on this. It’s one option to move the needle a bit on ag net emissions.
Upthread. https://www.prevention.com/fitness/fitness-tips/a41048373/calories-burned-walking/# https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a1127/4206698/# It’s not “my math”. It’s just facts.
So, hybrids consume fewer BTUs than do "efficient" cars - and much fewer than average cars. We can improve that by removing the ICE engine that is in every hybrid vehicle.. At the same time, we're continuing efforts to move to clean cheaper energy sources. This table doesn't address the costs of diesel rail commuter lines vs electric rail. The diesel commuter line from SF to San Jose has just switched to electric. There is far less noise, no pollution, less energy cost, and less required maintenance than on full sized diesel rail commuter trains.
