Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[Coaxialgamer]

6 hours ago, Imbellis said:

As long as the origin of the power is still creating CO2, as with around half the power produced, electric vehicles mean little besides the location where the fuel is burnt.

Precisely.  That's actually a huge benefit, despite not seeming like one. Major cities such as paris routinely see pollution peaks during summers or days without much wind. This is dangerous and unhealthy for the people living in such places. 

 

Power plants are usually placed well away from major population centers, so it enables cities to have overall cleaner air, even if you end up producing the same amount of CO2. 

 

Plus, it's still generally more efficient to produce power in one large power plant than having millions of small diesel motors running around the country. And that's ignoring that coal is being phased out anyway for cost reasons. New coal plants aren't really being built. It's largely natural gas plants, nuclear or renewable. 

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Vode said:

As long as we burn coal for electrcity this is a ridiculous effort. Dumb as hell.

Coal is way better for the enviroment than gasoline.

 

31 minutes ago, asus killer said:

nuclear is cancer, there's the potential for a disaster and the waste problem.

That is true for every source of energy.

[Jtalk4456]

53 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's a nice sentiment, but it isn't a decision like this that will actually make anything happen. We need some real action to achieve the goal.

What do you consider real action? I'm not familiar with EU Enforcement but even if better enforcement is needed, you still have to have something to enforce. 

53 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

RIP decent European vehicles. It's been a nice 30 some year run.

First off this isn't killing any current vehicles at all, it just pushes for better performance of those vehicles. It's not just saying all cars must be electric. And even if that was the case, are you insinuating electric cars are inherently bad? 

50 minutes ago, Vode said:

1. Where does the electricity come from?

2. Not even talking about the batteries, which are an environmental disaster on their own.

1. even coming from dirty energy, the use of electricity is far more efficient than the use of gas in an engine, meaning less of the energy put into the car is wasted. And of course the eventual goal is to not be burning coal, so it still makes perfect sense

2. Are we forgetting that gas powered cars also contain batteries? Having batteries in inevitable, but they've gotten much better over the years and the environmental damage from making a battery is nothing compared to the environmental cost of constantly burning fossil fuels for years over the life of the vehicle.

57 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

-snip-

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but not the conclusion. With greater adoption, will come better charging. And we can't expect the infrastructure of a technology to be perfect before having enough of the product to need the infrastructure in the first place. Also with regards to charging, it's a misconception that we even need this the way that most imagine. Here's a good video detailing why that lack of infrastructure really isn't a big problem 

Spoiler

 

 

1 hour ago, Imbellis said:

As long as the origin of the power is still creating CO2, as with around half the power produced, electric vehicles mean little besides the location where the fuel is burnt.

The petrol engine doesn't need a retirement. Perhaps adaptations, but it has places where electric isn't viable.

Refer to my response to Vode. Also can you elaborate on places where ev's aren't viable and what makes them not viable? Given there are ev's with similar ranges to gas cars, I'm not sure why the viability would be different based on location.

 

54 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Can the infrastructure of more rural countries handle this change? A farmer in a rural area might not be up to letting go of their diesel truck that's been working since the 80's.

 

Also, typo in the title.

Fair point, but again, this isn't saying everything has to be EV. It's just pushing it for faster adoption. Most of that adoption will take place in cities and denser areas. There will be some stragglers, but if you refer to the video I put in response to rejzor, there really isn't an infrastructure difference between rural and urban areas with regards to the average user who won't drive even half the available range on an average day.

54 minutes ago, Commodus said:

-snip-

Exactly

 

41 minutes ago, yian88 said:

WTF kind of laws? they just simply vote emissions should be % percent lower in upcoming years? based on fucking what?  if we dont have the technology to improve that much how can they vote such laws.

Why do you think we don't have the technology to do that? 18% of current fiat sales are for EV's. It CAN be done, but the market isn't pushing enough for it, which is why the government has stepped in. Also, even without EV's, current cars CAN be more efficient and produce less emissions. Plenty of gas only cars exist that can get 40 and higher mpg currently

40 minutes ago, EPENEX said:

Electric vehicles might be nice there, but where I live we have something called winter where it gets below -20 F every year. I would much rather have a car that runs on gas.

Why is there this conception that EV's can't drive if it's cold?

 

40 minutes ago, asus killer said:

this "you have to sell cars that emit only x%" has been going on in Europe for a long time now, still the only thing it achieved was for manufacturers to cheat the tests and because EU has so much manufacturers it really doesn't control as it should. This is just more pointless nonsense.

 

don't you mean more renewable sources of power using wind and solar for example. Why would anyone build nuclear reactors? to help the nuclear industry lobby

while nuclear is not the cleanest option, it is orders of magnitude cleaner than traditional fossil fuels and offers a much higher energy density than solar and wind by far. Also while solar wind and water do not work in all geographic areas, you can place a power plant down wherever you need. As for those scared of nuclear holocaust, When operated properly, nuclear is not more dangerous than coal or oil plants. There's currently nuclear plants running all over the world that have no problems because they follow rules, unlike the historical examples of plants blowing up.

 

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Also, typo in the title.

What typo? I have no clue what you're talking about. XD

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

CO2 isn't the problem. CO and Nitrous Oxides are.

 

CO2 is benefitial to plant life, and of the green house gasses, CO2 is the one that doesn't warrant caring about.

 

And guess what catalytic converters on gassers and newer Diesels do: convert CO, hydrocarbons, Nitrous Oxides into water, inert Nitrous, and CO2.

If CO2 is of no consequence why do we have goals to reduce CO2 emissions?

[Dissitesuxba11s]

2 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

What typo? I have no clue what you're talking about. XD

Quote

Eurpe

Missed an O. Or should it be European? Solved

 

Got me while I was commenting.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Dissitesuxba11s

[Drak3]

Just now, Trixanity said:

If CO2 is of no consequence why do we have goals to reduce CO2 emissions?

Political theater and misinformation.

2 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

are you insinuating electric cars are inherently bad? 

For anything more than an A to B faster than a bike.

2 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

First off this isn't killing any current vehicles at all

Yes, it's restricting new vehicles. There won't be many more decent European cars moving forward.

3 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

pushes for better performance of those vehicles. 

It doesn't. The opposite actually. It pushes for fuel "efficiency" at the cost of performance.

[Coaxialgamer]

57 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

CO2 isn't the problem. CO and Nitrous Oxides are.

 

CO2 is benefitial to plant life, and of the green house gasses, CO2 is the one that doesn't warrant caring about.

 

And guess what catalytic converters on gassers and newer Diesels do: convert CO, hydrocarbons, Nitrous Oxides into water, inert Nitrous, and CO2.

That's because CO and Nitrous oxides are immediately harmful to us when inhaled. CO2 isn't. That's why diesel is still relatively unpopular here, as it creates more of those byproducts. 

 

But that's not to say CO2 is completely harmless either. For starters, it's one of the most abundant greenhouse gases we emit. It also contributes to acid rain and overall acidification of our oceans. 

Plus, while plants use CO2 for photosynthesis, the fact that temperatures are rising shows the ecosystem is at capacity, ie plants are already absorbing as much co2 as they can. Which is not helped by the fact that we're actively cutting down large swaths of forest every day. 

 

Plants certainly use co2, but it's still deadly past a certain concentration. And that toxic threshold is much higher than ours. 

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

That is true for every source of energy.

you lost me at wind or solar or geothermal, etc... are as dangerous as nuclear.

 

2 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

while nuclear is not the cleanest option, it is orders of magnitude cleaner than traditional fossil fuels and offers a much higher energy density than solar and wind by far. Also while solar wind and water do not work in all geographic areas, you can place a power plant down wherever you need. As for those scared of nuclear holocaust, When operated properly, nuclear is not more dangerous than coal or oil plants. There's currently nuclear plants running all over the world that have no problems because they follow rules, unlike the historical examples of plants blowing up.

 

there are problems in almost every nuclear plant of a yearly basis, most just go under the radar, because it's in no ones interest to disclaim it. You also can't very much account for natural disasters like the recent tsunami, but we could also be speaking about earthquakes or any other natural disaster.

You also can't compare the problem of global warming and co2 that can be reversed to the one created by nuclear waste that takes ages to become safe.

 

[Trixanity]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Political theater and misinformation.

Yeah, I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that.

[EPENEX]

4 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Why is there this conception that EV's can't drive if it's cold?

They can, I knew someone with a Tesla model s who drove it in the winter, they're just generally not good winter vehicles.

[D13H4RD]

The only emissions that matter to me 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Vode said:

They scale back on Nuclear power. Burn coal instead. LOL

That would make zero sense seeing as coal plants let out more radiation to the surround area than nuclear power plants. There is radioactive elements in coal that when burned get released into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy is honestly the most feasible option right now and is alot better than the dirty energy sources. 

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

We aren't ready yet. Electric cars may work great in California, but over here where we have temperatures even below -10°C during winters and sub or around zero temperatures for several months, batteries are far from efficient. And while range is somewhat better now, charging isn't. Petrol engine needs 5 minutes for a refill to 100% with included time spent for payment and they can be "charged" all over the world without any complications. Charging an EV takes more than half an hour even on the fastest charging units. Assuming you even find one that isn't occupied. Then you have to deal with 500 providers each using its own dumb system of payment through complicated app systems. Imagine placing a 60 year old person in position of using an EV when they get scared by slightly more modern controls on a freaking washing machine. I don't like the way they are pushing these charging stations and I'm a tech geek, expecting normies to embrace it is next to impossible. It just won't work.

 

I've spent quite some time thinking of going EV and the more I was digging, the more I wanted to stick with petrol powered car.

living in a nordic country with a relativly large fleet of electric vehicles. you will be surprised how few find the downsides of electric vehicles concerning.

 

there are issues, yes. but most of them are solved by having more elctric cars. because that is how the free market operates

[Coaxialgamer]

12 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you lost me at wind or solar or geothermal, etc... are as dangerous as nuclear.

 

there are problems in almost every nuclear plant of a yearly basis, most just go under the radar, because it's in no ones interest to disclaim it. You also can't very much account for natural disasters like the recent tsunami, but we could also be speaking about earthquakes or any other natural disaster.

You also can't compare the problem of global warming and co2 that can be reversed to the one created by nuclear waste that takes ages to become safe.

 

Even when you include nuclear disasters, nuclear energy still ranks lowest in terms of deaths per Twh. 

And it releases less radiation in the environment than many fossil fuels as well. 

Nuclear waste is definitely a problem, but a decent consolation is that the really nasty stuff usually becomes inert fairly quickly ( the elements with the lowest half lives are the most dangerous) or gets reused as fuel. 

But ultimately, nuclear is still just a stopgap, being it is not a renewable ressource, thus isn't sustainable. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Imbellis said:

As long as the origin of the power is still creating CO2, as with around half the power produced, electric vehicles mean little besides the location where the fuel is burnt.

 

That matters a lot. I can easily see first-world cities improving their air quality, in exchange for massive emissions at some safe distance of their population, or perhaps at the risk of a few Chernobyls somewhere in the third world...  

 

As others said above, emissions can be reduced by concentrating power generation, but even if it was a pure relocation, it still is much more sensible to move emissions (especially those other than CO2) away from where most people live. In some "valley cities" like México or Santiago it could make a night and day difference.

[seon123]

44 minutes ago, asus killer said:

nuclear is cancer, there's the potential for a disaster and the waste problem. You are from Portugal if you had a nuclear accident there in such a small country you would all end up refugees in Spain.

I did not understood the part of the renewables, what's the downside? care to elaborate

Potential for disaster? Because so many have happened due to technical errors. And with power plants that weren't from the 60s... Chernobyl was due to extreme incompetence, and the Fukushima-Daiichi happened during a natural disaster that killed 15k people, and that displaced 230k people. The nuclear power plant is a relatively small consequence. 

All of Ukraine didn't end up as refugees after Chernobyl, and it didn't kill 170k people, as happened in a dam collapse in China. 

Everything has a chance of disaster, and the danger of nuclear is objectively lower than any other power source per kWh, except for hydro. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

If you take the statistics of US nuclear, it's 5 times safer than hydro. 

 

There's a permanent storage facility being built in Finland, and fast breeder reactors can use spent nuclear waste for power. 

 

Does that make nuclear fission the power source of the future? No. Does it make nuclear the best option to replace coal power plants? Most definitely yes. 

[cj09beira]

36 minutes ago, asus killer said:

nuclear is cancer, there's the potential for a disaster and the waste problem. You are from Portugal if you had a nuclear accident there in such a small country you would all end up refugees in Spain.

I did not understood the part of the renewables, what's the downside? care to elaborate

the down sides are not so hard to see, dams prevent normal water flow, solar panels prevent heat from reaching the earth, wind mills take energy from the wind, it can be argued that theur effect is small, but is it?, and can we continue to use more of it without consequences, i am mostly concerned about the heat not reaching the earth, as we all know there is heat underneath our feets but how long will it last, i for certain don't want our core to cool down any faster than it needs too.

 

nuclear isn't cancer, people being scared of it is what is preventing it from being the good energy source it can be.

"current" reactors are almost like a horse cart compared to what can be done

in the 80s the Us was developing a new form of ractor called molten salt reactor, and its awesome,

TL;DR it uses the waste of current nuclear reactors as fuel, its a lot safer and it it almost can't meltdown (almost because people could force it to)

 

TL;give me the details

it uses molten salts as the name implies, the fuel is dissolved into them which means that the nuclear reactions happen in a liquid the cool thing about that is that  the reactor is no longer limited by any geometry, the molten salt thing allows for some other cool things like if there is a rupture in the container the salt will first poor out a little but because its dense it will cool down and solidify, thus closing the whole before too much slips out, the salt also keeps the temperature at its optimal level as the salt caries the fuel when the salt heats up it separates the fuel thus decreasing the amount of nuclear reactions, if it cools down too much the fuel will get closer together and thus more nuclear reactions will happen increasing the temp again, aka no more meltdown risks, now because its a liquid its also easier to take heat from it (as its not concentrated on small rods) thus much lower steam pressures can be used leading to much less risk of a steam pipe rupture and less damage if it does happen.

now the problem is that there research was stopped around 80%+ of the way because of the military wanting a nuclear submarine, thus the research done didn't amount to anything for decades, but there is a good thing in here, china in their search for better energy sources seems to have found the research and seems very interested in it, which will hopefully make the US jealous and will drive enough political force to make them start developing it again (sorting out the kinks) (they had a reactor running but there were still things to figure out, like what material to use as a casing to prevent corrosion.

[GoldenLag]

57 minutes ago, asus killer said:

nuclear is cancer, there's the potential for a disaster and the waste problem. You are from Portugal if you had a nuclear accident there in such a small country you would all end up refugees in Spain.

I did not understood the part of the renewables, what's the downside? care to elaborate

there is also a waste problem from [insert fossil fuel power plant here]. considering how little waste is produced from nuclear power and how little newer nuclear powersolutions create. its a pretty good deal. note how there is a "maybe" in that dissaster. it doesnt mean it has to be an dissaster. note how there is allways massive waste in form of non-natural-cycle-CO2 from fossil fuels. 

 

also portugal is small, but exclusion zones are that large after some cleanupwork. Portugal is about 100km across on the thinnest locations (roughly, idk exactly)

Edited October 3, 2018 by GoldenLag
needed to re-paste the map

[D13H4RD]

Quote

We are an endangered species you and I

We, lovers of speed. 

We, devotees of power, performance, and noise. 

 

"Go away", we are told, "and take your carbon fibre and your fire-spitting V12s with you". 

There's hardly a place out here for us anymore. 

Not amongst all the commuters and congestion. 

Not in this growing age of safety and restraint. 

 

Where practicality trumps adrenaline. 

Where the ratio of miles to the gallon is championed over horsepower, to the weight. 

 

The evidence is everywhere 

You and I are being squeezed out, pushed aside and hunted down at every hairpin turn. 

 

And yet, there is hope 

There is a safe haven 

A place where we are free to challenge conventions, push the laws of physics and drive our powerful, our beautiful machines, hard. 

 

It's not a racetrack in Germany or a highway in Montana. It's not even a real place actually. It's more than that. 

 

It's a communal celebration of horsepower, torque, grip, leather, technology, beauty. 

 

It is the last bastion of automotive lust. 

 

And it's right there (sadly), in your living room. 

Only people who really love cars (and own an Xbox) can relate 

[Monkey Dust]

One of the current problem with EV take up is that they are quite a bit more expensive than the equivalent ICE car because of the battery. Maybe the batteries will come down in price and drive EV take up. Or maybe increased EV sales will cause a shortage of rare earth mineral and push the pricing up, decreasing EV sales again. Predicting the future is impossible, which makes legislating for 12 years time rather silly. 

 

Ultimately though, frequently using powered personal transport is unsustainable regardless of what powers it. Encouraging more working from home, building affordable housing very close to where employment is, is our only shot at cleaning up the environment. Cutting the distance we all travel is the best way to cut pollution.

[D13H4RD]

Maybe solve the congestion issue? 

 

That's still one of my pet peeves of commuting. 

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

We are an endangered species you and I

We, lovers of speed. 

We, devotees of power, performance, and noise. 

 

"Go away", we are told, "and take your carbon fibre and your fire-spitting V12s with you". 

 

There's hardly a place out here for us anymore. 

Not amongst all the commuters and congestion. 

Not in this growing age of safety and restraint. 

 

Where practicality trumps adrenaline. 

Where the ratio of miles to the gallon is championed over horsepower, to the weight. 

 

The evidence is everywhere 

You and I are being squeezed out, pushed aside and hunted down at every hairpin turn. 

 

And yet, there is hope 

There is a safe haven 

A place where we are free to challenge conventions, push the laws of physics and drive out powerful, our beautiful machines, hard. 

 

It's not a racetrack in Germany or a highway in Montana. It's not even a real place actually. It's more than that. 

 

It's a communal celebration of horsepower, torque, grip, leather, technology, beauty. 

 

It is the last bastion of automotive lust. 

 

And it's right there (sadly), in your living room. 

sports cars will probably not go anywhere, it will simply not be the daily driver and be more of a weekend thing

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

That's because CO and Nitrous oxides are immediately harmful to us when inhaled

I addressed that.

8 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

It also contributes to acid rain and overall acidification of our oceans

CO2 contributes to carbonic acid, which is an extremely weak acid. Nitrous Oxides cuase the acidification you're so worried about, which again I addressed that.

14 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

the fact that temperatures are rising shows the ecosystem is at capacity,

Temperatures fluctuate constantly. But that rise doesn't scale to the rise in CO2.

15 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

ie plants are already absorbing as much co2 as they can.

Those plants are also growing accordingly.

 

15 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Yeah, I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that.

Basically misinformation (either outright lies or bad data as a result of a mistaje) spreads. People buy into it.

 

Political theater takes over and uses this bad information (wittingly or otherwise), and makes policy revolving around it. From there, you maintain your stance and demonize any and everyone that disagrees with you.

[GoldenLag]

26 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Why is there this conception that EV's can't drive if it's cold?

hello, from hilly part of Norway. not as big of an issue as people make it out be. the cold has caused some issues, but i would like to see the numbers compared to combusiton engines failing due to cold.

 

21 minutes ago, asus killer said:

ou also can't compare the problem of global warming and co2 that can be reversed to the one created by nuclear waste that takes ages to become safe.

kek, you can reverse CO2 global warming...... man if only we though of that....... its almost like you need some sort of green-ish energysupply for that to happen. almost like we have to minimize fossil fuels massivly for that to happen. and even then it will take millenia to achieve it. its not like we have major issue like permafrost melting (though can be seen as a benefit as Russia becomes a agricultural powerhouse)

 

 

also. cleanup from nuclear dissasters are quite effective. and nuclear waste can be contained for a very long time. CO2 is a lot harder and more timeconsuming to handle. maybe we should minimize the ammount of it or something