Would you buy an electric tractor?

[lilranch2001]

Yet I have seen MANY threads killed over much less.

I just like to see consistency!

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Living to average age of USA males means electric tractors will not be a part of many of our futures. The same goes for planes, ships and semi trucks I expect. The future is what makes the past the past.

 

[MossRoad]

Lets unpack that a bit. Who are you suggesting is in the minority? The crowd that wants continued responsible use of fossil fuels and allowing the free marketplace to improve that, or the emotional crowd that wants to make everything electrical or solar powered in a few years by government mandate?
And why must this be in another forum?
It痴 not political, its social, it痴 practical.
Fuel and propulsion are the way TRACTOR by net tractors keep moving. No need to kill any thread over that.

You can divide it into two crowds as you see it.
I see your first crowd the same way you do: The crowd that wants continued responsible use of fossil fuels and allowing the free marketplace to improve that.

However, burning fossil fuels wreaks havoc on the environment we have to live in. I'm more in favor of using fossil fuels to bridge the gap to the time we can find a better alternative. As for the free market, again, that goes back to my point about marketing. There's no such thing as clean coal. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. There's no such thing as clean fossil diesel fuel. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. Now they're finding that one of if not the biggest source of plastics pollution is from micro particles of car tires. All that environmental damage adds up. People that get effected by it the most complain the loudest. Poor people are affected the most. As the balance between poor and not poor tips, poor people will have the say-so and not poor people will be pushed aside. That's just the way it's gonna be.

 

[MossRoad]

By the way, I'm a proponent of nuclear power over renewables.

 

[Hay Dude]

You can divide it into two crowds as you see it.
I see your first crowd the same way you do: The crowd that wants continued responsible use of fossil fuels and allowing the free marketplace to improve that.

However, burning fossil fuels wreaks havoc on the environment we have to live in. I'm more in favor of using fossil fuels to bridge the gap to the time we can find a better alternative. As for the free market, again, that goes back to my point about marketing. There's no such thing as clean coal. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. There's no such thing as clean fossil diesel fuel. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. Now they're finding that one of if not the biggest source of plastics pollution is from micro particles of car tires. All that environmental damage adds up. People that get effected by it the most complain the loudest. Poor people are affected the most. As the balance between poor and not poor tips, poor people will have the say-so and not poor people will be pushed aside. That's just the way it's gonna be.

Filthy? Even though their impact has been reduced an amazing amount since the 70s???
Im reading that car tailpipe emissions are down 90% since the 70s.
Whats enough?

Poor people are affected the most? Poor people are affected more by greater expenses.
I would think the expensive way of making energy is the renewables like solar make the cost of electricity unaffordable by the poor. So wouldnt you think that if we build expensive ways of creating electricity, it is like a tax on the poor? Then they have less money for food, education, etc.

 

[MossRoad]

Filthy? Even though their impact has been reduced an amazing amount since the 70s???
Im reading that car tailpipe emissions are down 90% since the 70s.
Whats enough?

Poor people are affected the most? Poor people are affected more by greater expenses.
I would think the expensive way of making energy is the renewables like solar make the cost of electricity unaffordable by the poor. So wouldnt you think that if we build expensive ways of creating electricity, it is like a tax on the poor? Then they have less money for food, education, etc.

Yeah, it's still filthy. What's enough? Who knows?

Poor people live in the most polluted places, and have to spend more of a proportion of their income on food, fuel, rent, educations etc... as more wealthy people. I've seen people spend $400,000 on 100,000 gallons of jet fuel in 4 years to send their kids to college. And that's just the fuel, let alone the cost of the jet, pilots, fees, etc.... That's some serious disproportionate spending, consumption of resources, and production of pollution.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

You can divide it into two crowds as you see it.
I see your first crowd the same way you do: The crowd that wants continued responsible use of fossil fuels and allowing the free marketplace to improve that.

However, burning fossil fuels wreaks havoc on the environment we have to live in. I'm more in favor of using fossil fuels to bridge the gap to the time we can find a better alternative. As for the free market, again, that goes back to my point about marketing. There's no such thing as clean coal. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. There's no such thing as clean fossil diesel fuel. It's cleaner than it used to be, but it's still filthy. Now they're finding that one of if not the biggest source of plastics pollution is from micro particles of car tires. All that environmental damage adds up. People that get effected by it the most complain the loudest. Poor people are affected the most. As the balance between poor and not poor tips, poor people will have the say-so and not poor people will be pushed aside. That's just the way it's gonna be.

We are in agreement here. We are currently in a gateway phase to other energy sources. For all we know, Bush 2 had the right idea with hydrogen energy; the point is, we should ALWAYS be in a transient state to another energy source, prolonging a period of stasis will get us nowhere.... Explore now, or play catch up later.

 

[MossRoad]

Let's just look at trains.

Canals tried to kill wagons for shipping.
Just as canals took off, trains came along and killed canals.
Wood was the primary fuel on trains.
Coal killed wood.
Oil killed coal.
Electricity tried to kill oil as train fuel in some places (still is for passenger trains in a lot of places), but I think people realized it was inefficient to convert oil and coal to electricity and back to motive power with the cost of all the wires, poles, catenary, etc.. involved with electric trains so they stuck with oil directly on the trains and avoided the losses of transmission lines.

I read a study a few years back on power consumption in the U.S. based strictly on BTU efficiency. It concluded that people should burn corn directly in their homes for maximum extraction of BTUs into heat, burn natural gas in cars and trucks, diesel in trains, and oil in large ships for overseas transport. Those methods produced the most BTU's for the least refinement losses and least pollution.

The costs for converting houses to corn and cars and trucks to natural gas, and the infrastructure to deliver it, however, are cost prohibitive even over a couple decades.

 

[lilranch2001]

I believe we should all move back into caves and not any more babies, that is what would be best for the Mother Earth!

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I believe we should all move back into caves and not any more babies, that is what would be best for the Mother Earth!

I don't see guys lining up to become steers.