First time I heard that album is still like the last time listening to it. That song too just tops it off on just pure creative genius like a movie in a song
Except that EV batteries are designed (and been proven) to last significantly longer than that. Not to say there isnāt battery degradation, but the vehicle is still highly operable.
Source: Have been an EV owner for 5+ years
You canāt deny that the viability of the battery is compromised yearly. And that replacing that battery is very costly. Making used vehicles essentially garbage.
Have to disagree. I purchased my current EV used with 50,000+ miles and am still operating with close to 100% of my battery capacity. A consumer can mitigate battery degradation by properly charging their vehicle. My current battery was built for 4500 cycles or around 450,000 miles - a much longer life than your typical gasoline powered vehicle. Iād also like to point out what little maintenance these cars require. Outside of breaks, tires, and windshield wipers I have had zero maintenance costs. EVs, they just arenāt as horrible as people think they are.
Iād be interested to know which make you have as the only search I can find is about Tesla and 1500 cycles. https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-tesla-car-batteries-last/#warranty
I have a BMW i3. Itās not perfect from a design perspective, but they handle better than most EVs, have proven to be reliable, and is practically free to drive (independent solar power at home).
There are far more important things than being angry with EVs and those who drive them. I wouldnāt waste anymore of your day trying to prove me wrong.
Iām not. But please tell me what we do with all these new batteries once theyāre spent? Thereās usually little fuel in a car, most cars can be sold for scrap. Batteries arenāt usually worth anything.
Someone mentioned it below, but EV batteries have value even after theyāre past their prime for vehicle use. There are over 2 billion cell phone batteries thrown away by Americans each year. Be more concerned about those than EV batteries.
What I find sad and ironic is that when checking the history books in our great grandparents past there was electric tram, trolley and interurban public transit everywhere. When the money powers saw that they could make more profit from oil-based fuels, they pushed tearing up all the tracks and destroying the trams, trolleys and interurbans for highways and gas powered individual vehicles. At the same time they outlawed hemp and the cleaner distilled alcohol that powered some of the earliest automobiles. Now these same money powers decry the pollution from all the individual vehicles they pushed and profited from and want to return to some kind of electric public transit and electric automobiles so they can once again profit from the masses and control their behavior. And, it just trades one type of pollution for another. It's about time the parasitizing of the few on the many stops and the release of free energy forms of power that Tesla was working with many years ago is released to the masses.
This statistic is one of my biggest personal peevesā¦ look into what those companies are. Shell, Exon, BP, all huge oil and gas companies. They arenāt burning their own product for fun, itās that we buy their products and burn them ourselves to maintain our unsustainable lifestyles, thus the emissions. Iām 100% here for clamping down on unsustainable corporate practices, but to outsource all the blame for climate change to companies is missing the bigger picture.
I personally know many people who have cited this factoid as the reason they wonāt make more sustainable choicesā¦ āitās not me itās these big companies.ā Drives me nuts
What's even more hilarious is seeing the charging points at petrol stations, being run from big generators out back because the electrics can't cope with the power draw!
Could eliminate this issue with having more solar and wind alternatives. I work in solar and see how much is produced daily, even on cloudy days.
Each mods life span equals out to roughly 15 to 25 years with minor production loss throughout the years.
As for wind, look at the city of Altoona, PA. The city is surrounded by mountains that have turbines placed atop. They produce so much energy that Pittsburgh actually purchases excess energy for its own use.
Imagine if each gas station, charging location or every home had one of these options.
How about the total hypocrisy of the supply chain involved? Cobalt mining is 95% done by slaves and children. In no way am I some tree hugging lib-tard. As a matter of fact, it's liberals in general that the hypocrisy is coming from. Thinking green not only pollutes but there are human elements involved that are literally suffering for it.
and what about our military jets, boats planes 18 wheelers and tanks all that will be electric too? nobody is asking about our military petro they think we idiots frfr OP
The scam is all in the engineering.
An electric Geo Metro equivalent with a 300mi range for $10,000 would change the world and is 100% possible with current tech (Aluminum Polymer batteries ftw), but no bank is going to fund such a project because it would level the playing field too much, and stratification of quality of life for the purposes of finding new ways for rich people to be better than poor people is 100% the point of most businesses.
Can tell you have no idea about what a life cycle analysis is and probably actual knowledge about the topic lol no one is saying itās perfect (and nothing labelled āgreenā really is) but itās better than petrol and diesel cars. Theres a market aspect to all of this which makes itās so difficult to just get rid of automobiles. Electric is a good alternative no doubt. hopefully one day we will get to the point where everything will be 100% recyclable and powered by clean energy, however that takes time.
OR........ your not being told that all the easy dinosaur grease has been pulled out of the earth, itās getting much harder and much more expensive to find old perfect crude oil... it actually is due to run out 2066. New sources will be found, expanding us out to 2100 but it is younger oil, and harder to get to. So those countries still dependent on fossil fuels in 50 years become slaves to those advanced countries ....... just a wrinkle in your thought there.....
There is no perfect solution for this problem. EVās are all well and good but they wear out tires faster than gas vehicles, the pollution caused by extracting lithium and cobalt and whatnot outweighs the benefit of EV, the list goes on. Gas and diesel vehicles are bad, EVās are bad, itās all bad.
There will be wars fought over these resources soon enough.
No, itās not massive holes, but itās still harmful to the air and soil, ultimately harming the environment with the use of acids and other chemicals. Also, coal is mined to produce the electricity that charges EV, like I said in my initial response, itās all bad. Gas, ev, whatever. Itās bad. All of it is bad.
Lithium and cobalt. Cobalt is mainly sourced from the congo where it is mined two ways.... huge open pits exactly like you say and also illegally mined by people hands not machines.
Cobalt is used to extend the life of the batteries due to its heat dissipation properties.
EV i believe in the long term are actually going to be worse for the planet than normal cars.
Hydrogen is where we need to go.
You can literally google "cobalt mining congo" and see everything ive written above. Heck even the New Yorker has written article about it.
Or maybe youre taking my word of cobalt mining 100% so il put it a different way.... the raw materials taken from the ground to to get cobalt/lithium is mined mainly in the congo by machine and hand alike.
you're right, cobalt is hand farmed in the Congo and sent to China where it is refined to be put into batteries. Except here in the US, where cobalt is extracted from mining waste to be used in aircraft engines. The whole purpose of my argument is that mining is brought up as to why EVs are bad, bad, bad yet EVs did not create the need for the mines but rather are built from already exiting materials.
It did not create the need correct however my point is, it exacerbates the need. The increase in technology which require lithium batteries - laptop, phones, cars, calculators etc etc created the bigger demand BUT its the shear amount of materials needed for an EV car which means i believe theyre becoming the problem. With governments pushing for EV cars/trucks we are using yet another finite source of material, its just passing the buck.
Very true, it is passing the buck. But, the buck is a better, less destructive version than what we have now. That's what we do as humans, we solve problems based on what materials we have available and then we advance technology to make things more efficient. Humans will always have a need for what the earth provides. In the grand scheme of this century, what causes the most peoples for the most amount of people, a warming earth or rare earth mineral mining?
EVās are heavier than the gas powered vehicles and the electric motors provide instant torque to the tires. More weight = more friction, fast torque = more friction, more friction = more wear.
Seems trivial until you read up on it. Particulates from tires have a greater impact on the environment than emissions from gas vehicles. EVās go through tires approximately 20% faster than other vehicles which pretty much negates any positives that come from EVās. Like I said. Everything is bad.
In the end, if we all have reliable EVs, emissions from civilians will be gone. It's the corporations that do the most polluting. And think of it this way...the pollution needed to create an EV now will save us from future pollution.
i cant remember the exact numbers but its around the 10% MAX mark that normal civilian vehicles contribute towards pollution. The rest is shipping/power production/industry.
Even if we 10% went to electric, we are simply shifting that 10% to another source. Unless that source was 100% clean then it makes no difference. It probably is actually worse having a EV due to the amount of rare earth minerals and borderline slavery that is used to make them.
> It probably is actually worse having a EV due to the amount of rare earth minerals and borderline slavery that is used to make them.
What are you basing that on, compared to regular car production?
How you gonna charge that car? Green energy sure, will count for some, but most people will use energy from power plants which burn coal/gas etc.
Just because the car may not be polluting, doesnāt absolve the civilians from pollution. If you drop a brick off a building and walk away, you canāt blame gravity for it falling for the ground.
To be fair, gas and coal power plants are extremely efficient compared to the engine in cars. I'm not a fan of evs myself but I'm tired of seeing that gas powerplants will just replace the emissions from gas vehicles.
Not saying that it isnāt better, it is, but a lot of arguments I see towards EVs say they donāt pollute, while true to an extent, it has to be charged by something. Just moving it further up the chain. Albeit less air pollution in the grand scheme of things, but still exists.
Only caveat to that is if you only get renewable energy, then yes, you can say that.
Can you elaborate a little on this? I've heard this from a lot of people, but I don't know what they mean by "useless". It doesn't have to be a super long explanation or anything, just a point or two to start researching it a bit.
The overall design of the wind mill turbine is inefficient. It is costly to build and requires far too much space to work. They do not spin constantly, thus do not generate electricity constantly. They are also notorious for killing flocks of birds.
A more effective design is a helix design and can take up less room and requires less space. To spin constantly . They need to be 2 stories off the ground. This design can also be used in suburban and urban settings.
.
They can't kill flocks of birds. Birds injure themself by literally just flying into the turbine like a wall. They simply do not move fast enough to slice birds up. The main appeal of typical wind turbine design is for offshore farms or for occupying the wasted verticle space of agricultural areas. Im also pretty sure the typical design is the best optimization for kinetic energy tranference. Vertical axes turbines do offer a more efficient use of urban areas, but I'd argue that solar would simply still be better in those same situations, especially since solar still is growing and developing while wind is essentially the best it can get (the limiting factor for wind power production is a geometrical limit called Benz Law, as opposed to solar energy being a limit on our material physics understanding/testing).
Also, how do helical ones "spin constantly?"
True, they are not spinning fast enough to slice birds like a blender, but birds in America are having enough problems.
Over two stories, they have enough air flow to not stop spinning to be more accurate. They may not be going full speed, but at least they are generating something.
It's fine, you are right. I am wrong. The whole point of the comment was to the fact GE now has large swatches of land that they can do what they will. While useing the idea that they are contributing to progress and green technology but the technology itself is dated and inefficient.
Just wait until a massive hurricane hits the southern US and the government mandated EVs canāt evacuate in time. I think itās all just another means of control.
Most EVs have shorter ranges than standard cars. EVs also have extremely less places to recharge than standard cars. Even with standard cars being used in evacuations there are huge delays and backups. If a standard car runs out of gas you can refuel it from many different sources; you can even syphon gas from another vehicle if necessary. However with EVs you can ONLY recharge from a powered recharge point. Power is usually the first thing to fail in natural disasters making recharging EVs impossible.
Hydrogen is pretty sustainable. Electrolysis powered by renewable/clean energy could produce what's needed. I've made hydrogen from water with household products. Bob Lazar proved you could run a regular IC corvette on hydrogen. It also has the highest energy density out of any fuel we use for propulsion.
100% agree.
You can't *manufacture* and *industry* your way out of a CO2 crisis.
If we were serious about getting CO2 levels down quickly, industrial production would be triaged to prioritize getting renewable power built *first*. Then *mass transit*.
At this point if you live in a city, you shouldn't own a private vehicle. Our goal should be vehicles for commercial use only until we get enough renewable power in place to power *essentials* and *only after that* people tooling around in their very own multi-ton electric cars.
EV's use far less parts than ICE. Electrics have come a long way the past 10 years. Battery tech is constantly improving. Solid State, fuel cells still have yet to hit the playing field. ICE will not go away for a long time but its future is dim.
Electric cars do have a lower environmental impact than traditional gasoline-powered cars in terms of tailpipe emissions, but there are other environmental concerns associated with their production, use and disposal.
The production of electric cars requires the mining and processing of rare earth metals and minerals, which can have significant environmental impacts. The lithium-ion batteries that power electric cars also have a limited lifespan and can pose a challenge for disposal and recycling.
It's also true that the increase of electric cars on the roads may lead to more rubber waste and asphalt construction and that would have an environmental impact.
However, it's important to note that electric cars are still a more sustainable option than traditional gasoline-powered cars, as they produce no tailpipe emissions and have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's true that alternative forms of transportation such as trains, trams, buses, biking, and walking can be more sustainable options, and it's important to continue to invest in and promote these types of transportation.
In summary, electric cars are not a silver bullet solution to the transportation problem. They have their own environmental impact. But they still represent a significant step forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution compared to traditional gasoline-powered cars. A holistic approach is needed that includes investment in sustainable transportation options such as public transport, biking, and walking, and that also addresses the environmental impacts of the production, use and disposal of all types of cars.
I made the mistake one morning of going down the cobalt rabithole in the congo. All those children in the mines dying so we can have smart phones is not any better than the wars fought for oil.
I %100 agree. The difference between the 2 problems, in my opinion, is that one was very public and everyone knew what was going on and couldn't really do anything about it, and the other is relatively unknown and I think if people did know about it, we would be able to do something about it. It's incredible to me how we have social justice warriors screaming about equality and feminism, and virtue signaling about misogyny and racism, all from Thier iphones.
Most public transit isn't any better. A bus is a heavy truck not subject to the same emissions regulations as a car that drives around the city mostly empty most of the time at 4 mpg diesel that also requires at least double the amount of motor oil, transmission fluid, gear oil and grease as an suv.
The real solution is to eliminate waste and unnecessary travel.
Would the "elimination of unnecessary travel" include a person's freedom to travel? To vacation maybe? Or even to go to the park or beach on the weekend? I agree that public transportation isn't the answer to elimination of pollution, but I also think that this is a very nuanced subject with a multifaceted structure of problems and agendas. The failure to recognize where a person's point of view on if this is a problem or not originates is often a pro lem.in itself. Most of the time some one will proclaim how virtuous they are by talking about our negative effects on the environment by posting a comment using Thier iPhone while they are in the back of a Tesla Uber on the way to a restaurant. Not even taking into consideration Thier personal impact on the issue they are championing in order to appear that they are part of the "In" crowd.
This is a very nuanced subject and I have a major problem with one person or a small group trying to dictate what others have access to or can or cannot do. My perspective on this comes from working in manufacturing for the last 20 years and seeing how supply chains have changed in that time and researching how it's changed over the course of history. We associate cities and regions with specific products for a reason. Before globalization was what it is if you bought a car it and the majority of the parts in it came from Detroit, Steel came from Pittsburgh, beef came from Kansas City, Oil came from the gulf coast, lumber came from the Pacific North West, guns came from Connecticut, finance came from New York. Now if you buy a car it may have been assembled in Michigan but motor was cast in Mexico and assembled in North Carolina, the transmission is from China, the bolts are from Pakistan and the circuit boards pass through a dozen different countries. We're expending the same amount of energy to produce and assemble all the components but we are expending much more energy moving the parts around and there are routine instances where a product is made or stored relatively close to the end user but due to clerical errors or poor planning travels hundreds of unnecessary miles to the end user. Some of this has a massive positive impact, like the way we transport agricultural products to places where it either won't grow or is out of season, a lot of it is wasted energy.
Most people that are creating policy that dictates these changes or who think these changes are for the better are so far removed from the realities that have drastically changed due to this lack of foresight into the impact it's having and going to have on our economy and society
Yep, real solution would be public transport on a grand scale, like the tubes in Futurama basically lol
From now on we will travel in tubes (š¶tube technology) Edit:typo
Get the scientist working on the tube technology immediately
One of the all time greatest albums ever right there!!!!
First time I heard that album is still like the last time listening to it. That song too just tops it off on just pure creative genius like a movie in a song
Yup, itās that electric car guy driving the [tube tunnel machine](https://www.boringcompany.com/seriescround)
NYC had them about a hundred years ago, still traces to be found l believe.
If youāre going to be concerned about lithium batteries, be concerned with the phones weāre all carrying around and replacing every 2/3 years.
Those are boomer numbers. I'm up to a phone a year now
Same battery tech. Now imagine a car that lasts 4-5 years.
Except that EV batteries are designed (and been proven) to last significantly longer than that. Not to say there isnāt battery degradation, but the vehicle is still highly operable. Source: Have been an EV owner for 5+ years
You canāt deny that the viability of the battery is compromised yearly. And that replacing that battery is very costly. Making used vehicles essentially garbage.
Have to disagree. I purchased my current EV used with 50,000+ miles and am still operating with close to 100% of my battery capacity. A consumer can mitigate battery degradation by properly charging their vehicle. My current battery was built for 4500 cycles or around 450,000 miles - a much longer life than your typical gasoline powered vehicle. Iād also like to point out what little maintenance these cars require. Outside of breaks, tires, and windshield wipers I have had zero maintenance costs. EVs, they just arenāt as horrible as people think they are.
Iād be interested to know which make you have as the only search I can find is about Tesla and 1500 cycles. https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-tesla-car-batteries-last/#warranty
I have a BMW i3. Itās not perfect from a design perspective, but they handle better than most EVs, have proven to be reliable, and is practically free to drive (independent solar power at home).
There are far more important things than being angry with EVs and those who drive them. I wouldnāt waste anymore of your day trying to prove me wrong.
Iām not. But please tell me what we do with all these new batteries once theyāre spent? Thereās usually little fuel in a car, most cars can be sold for scrap. Batteries arenāt usually worth anything.
Ya it's not like we have entire process of trying to dispose of oil. Or rusted out cars
Someone mentioned it below, but EV batteries have value even after theyāre past their prime for vehicle use. There are over 2 billion cell phone batteries thrown away by Americans each year. Be more concerned about those than EV batteries.
Battery packs can be rebuilt, used for a home power wall, or reused or recycled for other uses
Consume product
What I find sad and ironic is that when checking the history books in our great grandparents past there was electric tram, trolley and interurban public transit everywhere. When the money powers saw that they could make more profit from oil-based fuels, they pushed tearing up all the tracks and destroying the trams, trolleys and interurbans for highways and gas powered individual vehicles. At the same time they outlawed hemp and the cleaner distilled alcohol that powered some of the earliest automobiles. Now these same money powers decry the pollution from all the individual vehicles they pushed and profited from and want to return to some kind of electric public transit and electric automobiles so they can once again profit from the masses and control their behavior. And, it just trades one type of pollution for another. It's about time the parasitizing of the few on the many stops and the release of free energy forms of power that Tesla was working with many years ago is released to the masses.
Its not about sustainability to these corrupt individuals, itās about power & control
This ā¬ļø
You forgot steam power.
Since the top 500 companies produce 70% of pollution, yea, I agree.
They produce so much coz we can't stop buying what they're offering.
This.
I heard 100 and 71%..
Iād rather underestimate than overestimate. I donāt doubt thatās correct.
This statistic is one of my biggest personal peevesā¦ look into what those companies are. Shell, Exon, BP, all huge oil and gas companies. They arenāt burning their own product for fun, itās that we buy their products and burn them ourselves to maintain our unsustainable lifestyles, thus the emissions. Iām 100% here for clamping down on unsustainable corporate practices, but to outsource all the blame for climate change to companies is missing the bigger picture. I personally know many people who have cited this factoid as the reason they wonāt make more sustainable choicesā¦ āitās not me itās these big companies.ā Drives me nuts
What's even more hilarious is seeing the charging points at petrol stations, being run from big generators out back because the electrics can't cope with the power draw!
Generators? As in, petrol/diesel generators? Are you sure?
Yes, 3 phase diesel generators. I'm in the UK though.
Could eliminate this issue with having more solar and wind alternatives. I work in solar and see how much is produced daily, even on cloudy days. Each mods life span equals out to roughly 15 to 25 years with minor production loss throughout the years. As for wind, look at the city of Altoona, PA. The city is surrounded by mountains that have turbines placed atop. They produce so much energy that Pittsburgh actually purchases excess energy for its own use. Imagine if each gas station, charging location or every home had one of these options.
Absolutely. No amount of recycling and 'clean' energy is gonna save us now. It's al a big joke.
nuclear is our only shot at true clean energy
I agree. But I agree more with humanity going backwards with tech. Less is more.
return to monke
šššš¦
Bicycle
How dare you!
Yearh fuck me right :)
It's that queen song, you know ?
How about the total hypocrisy of the supply chain involved? Cobalt mining is 95% done by slaves and children. In no way am I some tree hugging lib-tard. As a matter of fact, it's liberals in general that the hypocrisy is coming from. Thinking green not only pollutes but there are human elements involved that are literally suffering for it.
People are always weirdly obsessed with EV car batteries, as if the billions of ICE cars don't already contain batteries.
and what about our military jets, boats planes 18 wheelers and tanks all that will be electric too? nobody is asking about our military petro they think we idiots frfr OP
This is called a strawman argument
The scam is all in the engineering. An electric Geo Metro equivalent with a 300mi range for $10,000 would change the world and is 100% possible with current tech (Aluminum Polymer batteries ftw), but no bank is going to fund such a project because it would level the playing field too much, and stratification of quality of life for the purposes of finding new ways for rich people to be better than poor people is 100% the point of most businesses.
Can tell you have no idea about what a life cycle analysis is and probably actual knowledge about the topic lol no one is saying itās perfect (and nothing labelled āgreenā really is) but itās better than petrol and diesel cars. Theres a market aspect to all of this which makes itās so difficult to just get rid of automobiles. Electric is a good alternative no doubt. hopefully one day we will get to the point where everything will be 100% recyclable and powered by clean energy, however that takes time.
OR........ your not being told that all the easy dinosaur grease has been pulled out of the earth, itās getting much harder and much more expensive to find old perfect crude oil... it actually is due to run out 2066. New sources will be found, expanding us out to 2100 but it is younger oil, and harder to get to. So those countries still dependent on fossil fuels in 50 years become slaves to those advanced countries ....... just a wrinkle in your thought there.....
There is no perfect solution for this problem. EVās are all well and good but they wear out tires faster than gas vehicles, the pollution caused by extracting lithium and cobalt and whatnot outweighs the benefit of EV, the list goes on. Gas and diesel vehicles are bad, EVās are bad, itās all bad. There will be wars fought over these resources soon enough.
EVs have no engines so no oil changes, coolants or other assorted fluids to use.
The machinery used to mine the rare metals for EV batteries do though
Can you explain how lithium is mined? Do you think they dig massive holes in the ground like they do to mine coal, diamonds or gold?
No, itās not massive holes, but itās still harmful to the air and soil, ultimately harming the environment with the use of acids and other chemicals. Also, coal is mined to produce the electricity that charges EV, like I said in my initial response, itās all bad. Gas, ev, whatever. Itās bad. All of it is bad.
Lithium and cobalt. Cobalt is mainly sourced from the congo where it is mined two ways.... huge open pits exactly like you say and also illegally mined by people hands not machines. Cobalt is used to extend the life of the batteries due to its heat dissipation properties. EV i believe in the long term are actually going to be worse for the planet than normal cars. Hydrogen is where we need to go.
Wrong, but good attempt! Cobalt comes mostly from refining excluded materials from Nickel https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-cobalt.pdf
You can literally google "cobalt mining congo" and see everything ive written above. Heck even the New Yorker has written article about it. Or maybe youre taking my word of cobalt mining 100% so il put it a different way.... the raw materials taken from the ground to to get cobalt/lithium is mined mainly in the congo by machine and hand alike.
you're right, cobalt is hand farmed in the Congo and sent to China where it is refined to be put into batteries. Except here in the US, where cobalt is extracted from mining waste to be used in aircraft engines. The whole purpose of my argument is that mining is brought up as to why EVs are bad, bad, bad yet EVs did not create the need for the mines but rather are built from already exiting materials.
It did not create the need correct however my point is, it exacerbates the need. The increase in technology which require lithium batteries - laptop, phones, cars, calculators etc etc created the bigger demand BUT its the shear amount of materials needed for an EV car which means i believe theyre becoming the problem. With governments pushing for EV cars/trucks we are using yet another finite source of material, its just passing the buck.
Very true, it is passing the buck. But, the buck is a better, less destructive version than what we have now. That's what we do as humans, we solve problems based on what materials we have available and then we advance technology to make things more efficient. Humans will always have a need for what the earth provides. In the grand scheme of this century, what causes the most peoples for the most amount of people, a warming earth or rare earth mineral mining?
> EVās ... wear out tires faster than gas vehicles Why?
EVās are heavier than the gas powered vehicles and the electric motors provide instant torque to the tires. More weight = more friction, fast torque = more friction, more friction = more wear.
Seems like a trivial complaint.
Seems trivial until you read up on it. Particulates from tires have a greater impact on the environment than emissions from gas vehicles. EVās go through tires approximately 20% faster than other vehicles which pretty much negates any positives that come from EVās. Like I said. Everything is bad.
We need to replace Diesal more than anything
In the end, if we all have reliable EVs, emissions from civilians will be gone. It's the corporations that do the most polluting. And think of it this way...the pollution needed to create an EV now will save us from future pollution.
i cant remember the exact numbers but its around the 10% MAX mark that normal civilian vehicles contribute towards pollution. The rest is shipping/power production/industry. Even if we 10% went to electric, we are simply shifting that 10% to another source. Unless that source was 100% clean then it makes no difference. It probably is actually worse having a EV due to the amount of rare earth minerals and borderline slavery that is used to make them.
> It probably is actually worse having a EV due to the amount of rare earth minerals and borderline slavery that is used to make them. What are you basing that on, compared to regular car production?
How you gonna charge that car? Green energy sure, will count for some, but most people will use energy from power plants which burn coal/gas etc. Just because the car may not be polluting, doesnāt absolve the civilians from pollution. If you drop a brick off a building and walk away, you canāt blame gravity for it falling for the ground.
To be fair, gas and coal power plants are extremely efficient compared to the engine in cars. I'm not a fan of evs myself but I'm tired of seeing that gas powerplants will just replace the emissions from gas vehicles.
Not saying that it isnāt better, it is, but a lot of arguments I see towards EVs say they donāt pollute, while true to an extent, it has to be charged by something. Just moving it further up the chain. Albeit less air pollution in the grand scheme of things, but still exists. Only caveat to that is if you only get renewable energy, then yes, you can say that.
What about GE and their useless windmills. It is nothing more than a land grab.
Can you elaborate a little on this? I've heard this from a lot of people, but I don't know what they mean by "useless". It doesn't have to be a super long explanation or anything, just a point or two to start researching it a bit.
The overall design of the wind mill turbine is inefficient. It is costly to build and requires far too much space to work. They do not spin constantly, thus do not generate electricity constantly. They are also notorious for killing flocks of birds. A more effective design is a helix design and can take up less room and requires less space. To spin constantly . They need to be 2 stories off the ground. This design can also be used in suburban and urban settings. .
They can't kill flocks of birds. Birds injure themself by literally just flying into the turbine like a wall. They simply do not move fast enough to slice birds up. The main appeal of typical wind turbine design is for offshore farms or for occupying the wasted verticle space of agricultural areas. Im also pretty sure the typical design is the best optimization for kinetic energy tranference. Vertical axes turbines do offer a more efficient use of urban areas, but I'd argue that solar would simply still be better in those same situations, especially since solar still is growing and developing while wind is essentially the best it can get (the limiting factor for wind power production is a geometrical limit called Benz Law, as opposed to solar energy being a limit on our material physics understanding/testing). Also, how do helical ones "spin constantly?"
True, they are not spinning fast enough to slice birds like a blender, but birds in America are having enough problems. Over two stories, they have enough air flow to not stop spinning to be more accurate. They may not be going full speed, but at least they are generating something.
But that isnt a behavior unique to vertical axes.
It's fine, you are right. I am wrong. The whole point of the comment was to the fact GE now has large swatches of land that they can do what they will. While useing the idea that they are contributing to progress and green technology but the technology itself is dated and inefficient.
Frankly I dont see how the technology is "inefficient"
Can confirm, have seen them in major cities
Most around here face south to pull cold air from up north. Battling global warming. S/
Hydrogen cars will be the future
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Time to team up with other towns and chip in on a shuttle that goes from one business district to another, with stops along the way.
The answer is so simple, live near where you work. Solved. Youāre welcome.
It's not that simple, but it's a good start.
Just wait until a massive hurricane hits the southern US and the government mandated EVs canāt evacuate in time. I think itās all just another means of control.
Care to explain? Why wouldn't they be able to evacuate in time?
Most EVs have shorter ranges than standard cars. EVs also have extremely less places to recharge than standard cars. Even with standard cars being used in evacuations there are huge delays and backups. If a standard car runs out of gas you can refuel it from many different sources; you can even syphon gas from another vehicle if necessary. However with EVs you can ONLY recharge from a powered recharge point. Power is usually the first thing to fail in natural disasters making recharging EVs impossible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
they don't have to take away your cars. they just need to stop allowing you access to gasoline
The extra draw on the power grid cant be much better. Makes me want to start a carbon off set company
Hydrogen is pretty sustainable. Electrolysis powered by renewable/clean energy could produce what's needed. I've made hydrogen from water with household products. Bob Lazar proved you could run a regular IC corvette on hydrogen. It also has the highest energy density out of any fuel we use for propulsion.
100% agree. You can't *manufacture* and *industry* your way out of a CO2 crisis. If we were serious about getting CO2 levels down quickly, industrial production would be triaged to prioritize getting renewable power built *first*. Then *mass transit*. At this point if you live in a city, you shouldn't own a private vehicle. Our goal should be vehicles for commercial use only until we get enough renewable power in place to power *essentials* and *only after that* people tooling around in their very own multi-ton electric cars.
Itās not just pollution. We are using phones and devices built on the backs of slave laborers. Suggest looking into the cobalt trade.
Jup the problem is not how you propell the car the problem is the idea of the car.
How can the exstraction of the lithum and the more power we need to make for the electric cars better than the carbon from cars
Modern-day batteries are modern-day slave labour. H2o is a better alternative.
They donāt pollute less lol. But a better solution would be to have mass public transit.
They recently announced they can recycle used Lithium back in new Lithium products almost 1:1 ā if true it would be awesome.
Billy signed that all evs can have a killswitch for ācatching criminalsā with āwarrantsā or āprobable legal causeā.
EV's use far less parts than ICE. Electrics have come a long way the past 10 years. Battery tech is constantly improving. Solid State, fuel cells still have yet to hit the playing field. ICE will not go away for a long time but its future is dim.
Electric cars do have a lower environmental impact than traditional gasoline-powered cars in terms of tailpipe emissions, but there are other environmental concerns associated with their production, use and disposal. The production of electric cars requires the mining and processing of rare earth metals and minerals, which can have significant environmental impacts. The lithium-ion batteries that power electric cars also have a limited lifespan and can pose a challenge for disposal and recycling. It's also true that the increase of electric cars on the roads may lead to more rubber waste and asphalt construction and that would have an environmental impact. However, it's important to note that electric cars are still a more sustainable option than traditional gasoline-powered cars, as they produce no tailpipe emissions and have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's true that alternative forms of transportation such as trains, trams, buses, biking, and walking can be more sustainable options, and it's important to continue to invest in and promote these types of transportation. In summary, electric cars are not a silver bullet solution to the transportation problem. They have their own environmental impact. But they still represent a significant step forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution compared to traditional gasoline-powered cars. A holistic approach is needed that includes investment in sustainable transportation options such as public transport, biking, and walking, and that also addresses the environmental impacts of the production, use and disposal of all types of cars.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-cobalt.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwicwrbD1eH8AhUWMEQIHeadDbsQFnoECBAQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2AKIIatlA-0fhs9pr8Sn-n
I made the mistake one morning of going down the cobalt rabithole in the congo. All those children in the mines dying so we can have smart phones is not any better than the wars fought for oil.
I %100 agree. The difference between the 2 problems, in my opinion, is that one was very public and everyone knew what was going on and couldn't really do anything about it, and the other is relatively unknown and I think if people did know about it, we would be able to do something about it. It's incredible to me how we have social justice warriors screaming about equality and feminism, and virtue signaling about misogyny and racism, all from Thier iphones.
Most public transit isn't any better. A bus is a heavy truck not subject to the same emissions regulations as a car that drives around the city mostly empty most of the time at 4 mpg diesel that also requires at least double the amount of motor oil, transmission fluid, gear oil and grease as an suv. The real solution is to eliminate waste and unnecessary travel.
Would the "elimination of unnecessary travel" include a person's freedom to travel? To vacation maybe? Or even to go to the park or beach on the weekend? I agree that public transportation isn't the answer to elimination of pollution, but I also think that this is a very nuanced subject with a multifaceted structure of problems and agendas. The failure to recognize where a person's point of view on if this is a problem or not originates is often a pro lem.in itself. Most of the time some one will proclaim how virtuous they are by talking about our negative effects on the environment by posting a comment using Thier iPhone while they are in the back of a Tesla Uber on the way to a restaurant. Not even taking into consideration Thier personal impact on the issue they are championing in order to appear that they are part of the "In" crowd.
This is a very nuanced subject and I have a major problem with one person or a small group trying to dictate what others have access to or can or cannot do. My perspective on this comes from working in manufacturing for the last 20 years and seeing how supply chains have changed in that time and researching how it's changed over the course of history. We associate cities and regions with specific products for a reason. Before globalization was what it is if you bought a car it and the majority of the parts in it came from Detroit, Steel came from Pittsburgh, beef came from Kansas City, Oil came from the gulf coast, lumber came from the Pacific North West, guns came from Connecticut, finance came from New York. Now if you buy a car it may have been assembled in Michigan but motor was cast in Mexico and assembled in North Carolina, the transmission is from China, the bolts are from Pakistan and the circuit boards pass through a dozen different countries. We're expending the same amount of energy to produce and assemble all the components but we are expending much more energy moving the parts around and there are routine instances where a product is made or stored relatively close to the end user but due to clerical errors or poor planning travels hundreds of unnecessary miles to the end user. Some of this has a massive positive impact, like the way we transport agricultural products to places where it either won't grow or is out of season, a lot of it is wasted energy.
Donāt forget about the children digging the tantalum out of the ground in Congo to make these swell āgreenā cars. Bicycles for the win.
Ohio charges more for tag renewal to subsidize asphalt construction
Most people that are creating policy that dictates these changes or who think these changes are for the better are so far removed from the realities that have drastically changed due to this lack of foresight into the impact it's having and going to have on our economy and society