• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yato God of Tofu

Electric cars are not that eco-friendly.

81 posts in this topic

Put lifespan into perspective. Fair enough these are hybrids rather than pure EV's, just because people over here haven't clocked up this sort of mileage in EV's yet.  

But Prius's are popular minicabs, and they're running 400K+ miles with no battery or hybrid drive issues, it's the rest of the car which wears out first 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the facts back the topic thread, it can only mean one thing. Someone who buys hybrid, is just a total dick.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2017 at 0:52 PM, Knight of Cydonia said:

1. "Electric cars are coal-powered cars". This is a simplistic statement and very misleading. Recent numbers show that only 30.4% of the US electricity grid is coal, and that number has been dropping quickly (compare to past years, such as in 2011 with coal at 42.3%). Natural gas now produces the most on average (33.8%), and it's a lot better (50-60% less CO2 emissions than coal). Furthermore, it's interesting he lumps coal and natural gas together as just "fossil fuels" on his pie chart, and only talks about the change in percent usage of fossil fuels as a whole rather than how much of that is specifically coal and how much is natural gas. As I mentioned, natural gas is a lot better than coal, so the actual distribution is a huge thing to conveniently leave out. For all we know, the amount of fossil fuels will stay the same, but natural gas will heavily outweigh coal by 2040 (as is the trend now). This will significantly affect the cleanliness of electric cars... so why not mention that?

 

2. The electricity grid is highly dependent on where in the US you are. As I said in a previous post, 45% of Americans live in areas with low emissions - a much better power production mix than what I'm guessing he would have used in the video (the specific distribution he actually leaves out, but it seems like he uses an "average" across the US as a whole). Using the average to paint the picture for all electric cars is inaccurate. Over time these will just get cleaner, while conventional cars will still run off gas.

 

3. I question his use of just a "3%" increase in renewable energy by 2040. Just since 2011 there has been a net 1.7% increase in wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and hydro production (a 1.3% drop in hydro, but a 3.0% increase in the rest, with solar production clearly on the rise). 

 

4. When he compares the Nissan Leaf to a "comparable" vehicle, it's a diesel... but diesels have higher fuel economy and less CO2 emissions than gasoline counterparts.

 

5. No mention of how electric car batteries can be recycled. Nor that batteries have been rapidly improving in tech over time, a big part of that thanks to the electric car market.

 

6. Love how he compares (at the start) 25,000 lbs CO2 for manufacturing of electric cars, to 16,000 lbs CO2 for conventional cars. But when comparing CO2 emissions he uses tonnes. Saying "only" 3-5 tonnes CO2 less in emissions sounds a lot less significant than saying 6,000-10,000 lbs. And again, these numbers are using his "average" energy mix, but electric cars are going to be cleaner depending on the area you're in. Conventional cars aren't going to be.

This can be added to by saying that the U.S. state of Georgia is building two AP 1000s and the U.S. state of South Carolina is building two AP 1000s those four units will spare the burning of over 40,000 tons of coal per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 8:32 PM, Perspektiv said:

If the facts back the topic thread, it can only mean one thing. Someone who buys hybrid, is just a total dick.

Oh man, I bought a PriusC...crap I'm a dick! Oh, and I'm trading it in for a Prius Prime. :P

 

Yeah screw the enviroment! :o like a true conservative I am.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I prefer the idea of a fuel efficient vehicle.

 

I like the idea of mandatory hybrid vehicles, for typically gas guzzling vehicles. This would make more sense to me.

 

Until you can make an electric car as low cost to own as the most popular selling cars on the market. I just don't see these types of vehicles catching on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo has made a big to-do about switching its production over to hybrids and EVs in the next couple of years.

 

But I notice there are no electric Maseratis, electric Rolls Royces, electric Ferraris, electric Mercedes, or electric Lamborghinis on the streets of L.A. The luxury car makers better get on board, or they'll be left behind.

 

OTOH I can see how horses might make a comeback... die-hard gasoline/diesel fans will probably start buying horses when gas and diesel become expensive specialty fuels for antique cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ferrari, Porsche and Maclaren have produced hybrids, likewise in the same market BMW. Aston Martin expect to have an EV in 2020

 

It's a well observed phenomenon that purchasers of luxury products are the first to adopt to new technology, although I can't answer as to whether this out of desire to protect the environment, or desire to be the first with a new gadget.

 

I hear nothing about an all electric Ford Focus, GM Astra, Honda Accord to name three global big sellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to remember that cars only make up a small portion of the CO2 contribution. There is no efficient alternative to Semi-trucks, Cargo boats/trains, and Airplanes right now. This is where the technology needs to advance the most. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're talking about piloting induction loop charging on main roads. Should this technology prove viable then it would pave the way for electric trucks. 

 

For aviation I think hydrogen will be the best option. The burn pattern of hydrogen works best in rotary engines and turbines, so should work on jets. 

The fact that it's lighter than aviation kerosene should offset the heavier fuel tanks. 

Going by weight alone 1Kg of hydrogen seems to go as far as 4-8Kg of diesel or petrol. 

Obviously, as hydrogen takes a greater volume of storage, the design of planes may need to be rethought, but it's viable. 

There's already a form of "hybrid" power coming into shipping, sail assisted engines which use wind and oil power 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.7.2017 at 2:32 AM, Perspektiv said:

If the facts back the topic thread, it can only mean one thing. Someone who buys hybrid, is just a total dick.

I guess it make a person more of a dick to call someone a dick since they buy a car that is better for the enviorment. 

 

Volvo has made a big to-do about switching its production over to hybrids and EVs in the next couple of years.

 

But I notice there are no electric Maseratis, electric Rolls Royces, electric Ferraris, electric Mercedes, or electric Lamborghinis on the streets of L.A. The luxury car makers better get on board, or they'll be left behind.

 

OTOH I can see how horses might make a comeback... die-hard gasoline/diesel fans will probably start buying horses when gas and diesel become expensive specialty fuels for antique cars.

They are developing hybrid cars. Then Mercedes have electrical cars. But again Maserati, Lamborginhi etc. isn't everyday cars and have other purposes than i.e Mercedes. 

 

We need to remember that cars only make up a small portion of the CO2 contribution. There is no efficient alternative to Semi-trucks, Cargo boats/trains, and Airplanes right now. This is where the technology needs to advance the most. 

So? Do that mean that we shouldn't pursue eco friendly cars? Also things like Trump currently do doesn't exactly help the development of more eco friendly trucks, plans, boats etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

 

 

So? Do that mean that we shouldn't pursue eco friendly cars? Also things like Trump currently do doesn't exactly help the development of more eco friendly trucks, plans, boats etc.

Because throwing money at things always solves the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it make a person more of a dick to call someone a dick since they buy a car that is better for the enviorment. 

 

I'm not telling anyone here who have hybrids, that they're dicks. I was finding humor in the scenario of someone buying electric, doing harm to the environment worse so than gas vehicles (per the proposal in the thread). So combining the two... I don't know. I giggled at the thought. My post was light hearted.

 

I have a very fuel efficient vehicle. As much as possible, I put the car aside, and bike. I walk, rollerblade. I even sometimes take the bus. I appreciate the thought of trying to make the world better. Doesn't make you a bad person if the intent is in vain.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hybrids, as opposed to a pure EV are a compromise, but a useful stop gap whilst a full ZTEV infrastructure is built. They're at their most effective in urban areas where pollution is at its highest level, and also mountainous areas. These locales maximise regenerative braking to recharge batteries, and the torque characteristics of an electric motor are optimised for acceleration from low speed. A PHEV which can give enough ZE range for a daily commute is even better. Where they lose out is steady state driving, when the extra weight carried falls to offset regenerative braking. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

 

 

I'm not telling anyone here who have hybrids, that they're dicks. I was finding humor in the scenario of someone buying electric, doing harm to the environment worse so than gas vehicles (per the proposal in the thread). So combining the two... I don't know. I giggled at the thought. My post was light hearted.

 

I have a very fuel efficient vehicle. As much as possible, I put the car aside, and bike. I walk, rollerblade. I even sometimes take the bus. I appreciate the thought of trying to make the world better. Doesn't make you a bad person if the intent is in vain.

 

 

 

But it isn't. They only look on production emmission of electrical cars and falsely comclude they pollute more.

 

It's a major fallacy. Not only because most  EVs pollute less when they are produced but also pollute way less when used. So total pollution is lower. Again it is like being opposed to seatbelts as they may result in minor injuries, while the alternative is fatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it is like being opposed to seatbelts as they may result in minor injuries, while the alternative is fatal.

 

I think I have lost you on a joke, that didn't go over well for a couple people O_o

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's a joke there, it's a fact. Just like people who tried to sue manufacturers for minor burns after an airbag deployment, not caring that the said airbag protected them from far worse. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19.7.2017 at 9:23 AM, Skycaptain said:

I don't think there's a joke there, it's a fact. Just like people who tried to sue manufacturers for minor burns after an airbag deployment, not caring that the said airbag protected them from far worse. 

An actual friend of my mine was on a motorcycle tour in Germany. There it was a major crash and he took CPR on the people he found there. It is actually true one of them went to sue him for injuries to his ribs etc. Of course the guy who sued him lost, but it is a clear example of how shortsighted many are. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read before that electric cars may in fact pollute more than petrol or diesel where the electricity is produced by coal. On that account, I'm of the view that nuclear is the most efficient way to provide large amounts of clean energy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I've read before that electric cars may in fact pollute more than petrol or diesel where the electricity is produced by coal. On that account, I'm of the view that nuclear is the most efficient way to provide large amounts of clean energy.

No, solar is definitely the way to go. Like EVs, solar arrays eventually reach a point where the amount of time they devote to producing electricity offsets the carbon footprint of the equipment that was used for making them.

 

Nuclear fuel has to be processed (which is NOT cheap), and the radioactive waste that's separated out has to go somewhere, because it will be dangerous for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pramana said:

I've read before that electric cars may in fact pollute more than petrol or diesel where the electricity is produced by coal. On that account, I'm of the view that nuclear is the most efficient way to provide large amounts of clean energy.

But where it is not? There's other forms of energy supply than coal. Coal which is faded out not only because of governments regulating the industries to move away from coal, but looking at USA coal is there too on the way out even with Trump's support of coal, as other energy sources are simply better and more effecient than coal. 

 

It's basiclly taking one extreme (which is then debatable if it will be worse than fuel) and saying th 99% who don't use that are just that bad because.. no logical reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pramana said:

I've read before that electric cars may in fact pollute more than petrol or diesel where the electricity is produced by coal. On that account, I'm of the view that nuclear is the most efficient way to provide large amounts of clean energy.

Yes. Nuclear power is one of the best sources of energy. Uranium and plutonium are the most energy dense fuels humans use. Each represents a 3 million fold energy density over fossil fuels. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear works when there is no sun or wind. I could go on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0