Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

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

That's what I hope. 

 

I do not want a future where literally everything is a self driving EV. 

 

Let the people who need a commuter have them. I want a driving machine that gives me joy and makes driving a form of self-expression and joy, not a chore. 

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

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.

Honestly I think public transportation is one of the best ways to combat alot of pollution created by car emissions. It also helps release traffic which is always a plus. 

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

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.

 

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

if we had more nuclear reactors we might even be able to do fancy things like make ozone, or break CO2 down

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I think public transportation is one of the best ways to combat alot of pollution created by car emissions. It also helps release traffic which is always a plus. 

That's what I wish for. 

 

Hit 2 birds with a single stone 

[cj09beira]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I think public transportation is one of the best ways to combat alot of pollution created by car emissions. It also helps release traffic which is always a plus. 

bicycles for the win

i take half the time it would take me to use public transport and i save about 20 bucks per month 

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

CO2 contributes to carbonic acid, which is an extremely weak acid.

small ammounts add up, we are more concerned plant life will die due to a relativly rappid change in PH levels. 

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

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

its funny how a skyrocketing CO2 increase has been followed by an increasing temperature. its almost like CO2 is catalyst to a bigger chain of evens that spirals out of control......... say hello to the methane supplies of siberia, say hello to increased water moisture (green house gas and a powerfull one at that).

 

its almost if people have dedicated their lives to combat and research on this.........

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Those plants are also growing accordingly.

sadly studies are also being conducted to see if the nutrient contents of plants are reduces as an side-effect. mostly because (mostly) geneticly un-altered plants have shown a concerning decrease in nutrient content. they checked this due to concerned due to drop in nutrients in modern farm plants

 

 

like im not saying anything. a overwhealming concensis from the scientific community is saying this

[Brooksie359]

Just now, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

That's what I wish for. 

 

Hit 2 birds with a single stone 

I take the bus to work because parking in the city is expensive af. Honestly after using it for awhile I much prefer it. Get to work faster because of bus fast lanes and don't have to drive in traffic at all. Just sit on my phone for about 25 mins before getting to work.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, cj09beira said:

bicycles for the win

i take half the time it would take me to use public transport and i save about 20 bucks per month 

I live to far away for that but I know alot of people who live close to work that do that. It seems like a nice way to go. I get my bus pass paid for by my work though so it's free for me as well. I fill up my car maybe once a month tbh.

[Mihle]

56 minutes ago, G27Racer_188 said:

And what will the government do if people start making their own electricity? They will put a tax on it, so you will have to pay tax, because you are not buying their electricity directly. 

 

Aaaand there goes your cheaper option.

They would never do that in my country. Tho, electricity is so cheap that making your own electricity isn't worth it. Hydro power FTW

[bitsandpieces]

I wonder how are they going to supplement the increased power demand

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, G27Racer_188 said:

And what will the government do if people start making their own electricity? They will put a tax on it, so you will have to pay tax, because you are not buying their electricity directly. 

 

Aaaand there goes your cheaper option.

offcourse....... there is something called an income tax. and you selling electricity is just a business of selling electricity. its not like you are dropping a bomb or something. 

[cj09beira]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

offcourse....... there is something called an income tax. and you selling electricity is just a business of selling electricity. its not like you are dropping a bomb or something. 

he probably means for personal use as in charge your car and power the home

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

overwhealming concensis from the scientific community is saying this

That's false.

There is a concensus of climate change. That's it. Beyond that, it's contested heavily. What most people hear is politically correct hypothesis. Those hypothesese tends to fail.

[potoooooooo]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's false.

There is a concensus of climate change. That's it. Beyond that, it's contested heavily. What most people hear is politically correct hypothesis. Those hypothesese tends to fail.

No, the widely accepted theory is that CO2 is the primary contributor to climate change. There are other things that have more impact, but it is outweighed by the vast amount of CO2 we produce.

[RejZoR]

44 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

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

Not at the prices they are selling them now. For 35k € I get a decent petrol car with all the gas I'll ever need, yearly services and insurance and I'd still not reach the base expense for the electric car alone without any other expenses. And given how expensive electricity is on charging stations in other countries, you're not even benefiting anything with it. So, unless they hand me one over for the price of a petrol one, I'm not gonna be getting one anytime soon.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

the widely accepted theory

Again, thay's not true. It is neither widely accepted nor is it a theory.

[Coaxialgamer]

17 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I addressed that.

No , you haven't

Quote

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.

While Carbonic acid is quite a bit weaker than other forms of acid , it still causes acidification , reducing the typical PH of rain from about 5.7 to about 5.6 . Remember that it's a logarithmic scale , so it's actually not insignificant. Plus , we're producing a heck of a lot of it .

Quote

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

Temperatures have been rising at an alarming rate since the industrial revolution , with most of the increase happening after 1970. There is a general uptrend , and it's accelerating.  Temperatures over the course of the earth's history have fluctuated quite a bit , but not at this rate. Plus , these fluctuations are generally caused by something , most notably changes in solar activity . As it stands , the sun is actually in a phase of relative inactivity , with more sunspots. The fear isn't of an ice-age or warming up over the next 10000 years. the fear is of a +1 to 2°C increase over the next century . If that doesn't sound like a big deal , need i remind you that a decrease of 0.4C to 0.7C in 1816 was enough to cause widespread famine and death .

 

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Those plants are also growing accordingly.

It helps when we don't cut them down to build cities . Plus , most of this photosynthesis is occurring in our oceans , which are themselves seeing a decreas in PH ( which can potentially reduce the amount of plant life in said oceans , accelerating the issue ).

 

[Mihle]

1 hour 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.

 

It's much safer than coal or oil/gas. A ton of people die in coal ineustry every year. I don't remember the numbers but there was something like 100x or more people dead in coal industry than Nuclear.

0 people died from the nuclear meltdown Fukushima btw. (More people died from Chernobyl ofc)

 

For nuclear waste. Firstly, the total ammount of nuclear waste ever created by Nuclear plants until now, could fit on a football field and only reach 3m tall if I remember right.

Sweden or Finland, can't remember, have a project to store their waste 500m+ under the ground in solid rock that haven't moved for millions of years. Their plan is estimated to safely store it for 100 000 years or something if I remember right.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

No , you haven't

Catalytic converters.

Yes, I have.

1 minute ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Temperatures have been rising at an alarming rate since the industrial revolution

Only if you're an alarmist. Otherwise, it's a typical rise.

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's false.

There is a concensus of climate change. That's it. Beyond that, it's contested heavily. What most people hear is politically correct hypothesis. Those hypothesese tends to fail.

dammit, i know have to dismiss the simulations done due to a melting permafrost. i should also tell the Netherlands it is just a trend due to global fluctuations that decided to go haywire just after industrial revulttion in a period that was supposed to be relativly cold.

 

regardless of what you say. here is something that we know. CO2 levels are rising due to our own input. and is rising at an unnatural rate. temps have shown a trend to increase in what is supposed to be a "cold" period (you can correct me on this, my datapoint of cold period is a year or three old last time i checked). enviromental models have shown a continues increase in temperatures and a fear of permafrost melting has developed. 

 

CO2 and Methane are on of the two areas we humans contribute a lot either directly or indirectly. they are also the two variables we have the power to change. wouldnt it be nice to not have a ph change in the ocean? wouldnt it be nice to not kill wildlife that may disrupt ecosystems? shouldnt we take course of action to halt or at least delay the sideffects of global warming. and the side-effects are quite bad. like, OK the Siberian wasteland turning into farmland would be nice. but would the increase in temperature, decrease in land area, desert-spreading, PH-level of water be worth it at all (people are free to enter more bad/good sideeffects)? 

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Not at the prices they are selling them now. For 35k € I get a decent petrol car with all the gas I'll ever need, yearly services and insurance and I'd still not reach the base expense for the electric car alone without any other expenses. And given how expensive electricity is on charging stations in other countries, you're not even benefiting anything with it. So, unless they hand me one over for the price of a petrol one, I'm not gonna be getting one anytime soon.

say hello to the taxation of combustion vehicles to make elctric cars cheaper that the goverment of Norway has implemented. electric cars here are (relativly) very cheap, but are getting more expencive as time passes as more people get them, but also cheaper as the cost of production is dropping. 

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's false.

There is a concensus of climate change. That's it. Beyond that, it's contested heavily. What most people hear is politically correct hypothesis. Those hypothesese tends to fail.

No, it's not "contested heavily."  There's a vast consensus, because it's based on straightforward chemistry and physics.  CO2 traps heat; an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming effects; atmospheric CO2 has spiked dramatically in the industrial era and can't be explained away by volcanoes or other natural phenomena.

 

You can lie all you want about there being major doubts, but there's no evidence to support this. Hell, the Trump administration even accepted the reality of climate change in an NHTSA study (it purposefully left out evidence that Obama-era emissions cuts would help fight climate change, but still).  Can you cite even one major peer-reviewed paper that rules out human-made climate change?

 

Besides, even if we believe the myth that humans don't contribute to climate change, the reality is that EVs would still reduce immediately observable air pollution, not to mention noise.  That's enough reason to kill the gas-powered car by itself.

[Coaxialgamer]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Catalytic converters.

Yes, I have.

 

This is what you said :

Quote

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

Catalytic converts do indeed convert more harmful elements into less harmful ones , as you said . CO and NO are harmful when inhaled , which is why we use these converters . But they produce CO2 . CO2 , as i stated , is not a harmless byproduct , unlike Nitrogen or water .

 

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Only if you're an alarmist. Otherwise, it's a typical rise. 

Definitely not an alarmist . Just because you don't like hearing something doesn't make it false .

A near 1°C  increase in temperatures in the last 40 to 50 years isn't a natural phenomenon . And what certainly isn't is a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations .

 

Here's the last 1000 years if you want to compare :

 

Typical ? Yeah no .

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Catalytic converters

you mean the device that make the engine less efficient at the expence of the efficiency of the car? shure it makes it better in some ways. not that it should be treated as some magical device. 

[G27Racer_188]

30 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

offcourse....... there is something called an income tax. and you selling electricity is just a business of selling electricity. its not like you are dropping a bomb or something. 

 

28 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

he probably means for personal use as in charge your car and power the home

^^ this.

 

The original person I replied to said that EVs will push people at installing solar panes and windmills for themselves to make electricity to fill up the car. I just pointed out the action that government will take after.