Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[Drak3]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

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. 

Modern cats have little effect on engines. And exhausts have been redesigned to reduce that effect to vietually zero.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vode said:

Where does the electricity come from?

 

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

 

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

Its literally cents a day to run an electric car

[GoldenLag]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Modern cats have little effect on engines. And exhausts have been redesigned to reduce that effect to vietually zero.

the inherent way of how the catalyzer in a car works is by leaving some fuel unburned to then be used in the process of converting some of the harmful molecules. or at least that is how ive heard, and read that they work. you are free to correct me, but there is a loss of efficiency due to this. 

[asus killer]

39 minutes ago, Mihle said:

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)

 

 

people die from crossing the street, more people die from crossing the street than from asteroids crashing to earth, the difference is that one of those asteroids can end life on earth. Come on man.

 

 

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

solar panels prevent heat from reaching the earth, wind mills take energy from the wind

 

oh come on man.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

the inherent way of how the catalyzer in a car works is by leaving some fuel unburned to then be used in the process of converting some of the harmful molecules. or at least that is how ive heard, and read that they work. you are free to correct me, but there is a loss of efficiency due to this. 

That's the basics. But the detailed is that the unburnt fuel is a consequence of compression ratios used in gasoline cars. Engines don't use that fuel otherwise, nor can gasoline cars operate consistantly and reliably burn at stoichiometric ratios without getting prohibitly expensive.

 

Diesels with cats on the other hand operate ABOVE stoichiometric ratio, meaning that there's no fuel left for the cat, in theory. But diesels typically don't burn 100% of their fuel at low RPM idling. Fuel for the cat.

Diesels also now typically have DPFs and EGRs, which also reduce Nitrous Oxides (by way of burn off and remixing into the air intake, respectively). So even with the cat not operating effectively at high rpm, it's redundant.

 

The issue of harmful pollutants has been dealt with in newer vehicles, the issue is trying to retrofit older vehicles (most still on the road in first world countries are) and not getting assholes to 'delete' these systems (usually to gain horses [they don't], reduce maintenance [they don't, ECUs freak out and try to save the engine short term but instead damage it long term], or because they're assholes that role coal).

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, asus killer said:

people die from crossing the street, more people die from crossing the street than from asteroids crashing to earth, the difference is that one of those asteroids can end life on earth. Come on man.

are you comparing a game of chance that we are allways playing to a nuclear dissaster than can be cleaned up relativly fast?

 

lets use city-killer astroids instead, they are more fitting. would you want to decrease the death from accidents around the world that toll quite high when accounting the world. or would you risk a random astroid striking and maybe hitting a populated area around the world. roughly 1,3 million people die each year in car accidents. now a strike from a city killer can range from 0 (stricking siberia or pacific ocean) to about 50 million if it hits per-say center Tokyo.  neither are good, but one is saving more in the long run

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Interesting no one ever considers where exactly the electricity they're charging their vehicles with actually comes from....

Exactly!

ANd when they allow Night Charging and endorse that, it might not be the worst idea. But charging during the day is a very bad idea.

 

But hey, what'd you'd expect from the guys that brought the high failure rates of XBox 360 and PS3 as well as a ton of other electronics devices due to their RoHS horse shit...

 

 

You know that cars with explosion engines took off when they were more convenient than horse carriages!

Electric cars are not viable for all persons and not more convenient than normal fluid fuled cars.

 

PS: You know that you could modify DIESEL Engines to run on simple plant oil, if you wanted to??

So there are better ways to solve some problems than Electric cars wich aren't as green as people think. And also are bad for poor people who don't have much money...

 

And they are also less safe than normal cars as well, because when the Battery gets punctured, there is no way to stop the fire...

 

[GoldenLag]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's the basics. But the detailed is that the unburnt fuel is a consequence of compression ratios used in gasoline cars. Engines don't use that fuel otherwise, nor can gasoline cars operate consistantly and reliably burn at stoichiometric ratios without getting prohibitly expensive.

 

Diesels with cats on the other hand operate ABOVE stoichiometric ratio, meaning that there's no fuel left for the cat, in theory. But diesels typically don't burn 100% of their fuel at low RPM idling. Fuel for the cat.

Diesels also now typically have DPFs and EGRs, which also reduce Nitrous Oxides (by way of burn off and remixing into the air intake, respectively). So even with the cat not operating effectively at high rpm, it's redundant.

yay, the more you know.

also idling is becoming illegal for prolonged time in countries as it technically wasting energy, which is illegal. engines are becoming more efficient in the low RPM range as that is the common cruising RPM. 

 

regular combustion engines will fall out of favor though as electric and possibly hydrogen (hydrogen kinda sucks due to its godawful density. like the fueltanks in hydrogen is by volume about 90% of the tanks volume. like its dumb) taking over

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

also idling is becoming illegal for prolonged time in countries as it technically wasting energy, which is illegal

What a prolong time is qualified as can be bad for diesel and turbo owners in colder climates. You need to let it warm up to get oil flowing, and that can take an upwards of 3 minutes.

Then you need to let it idle to keep oil from burning in the turbo.

 

Plus, if you drive almost exclusively in the city, a 20+ minute high RPM idle might be necessary to regen the DPF.

[asus killer]

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

are you comparing a game of chance that we are allways playing to a nuclear dissaster than can be cleaned up relativly fast?

 

he was arguing that because more people die from coal than coal is more dangerous, i was merely showing him that his statement makes no sense. There's no way crossing the street is more dangerous than a life ending asteroid, even if the first takes more lives.

 

And a nuclear disaster can be cleaned relatively fast? tell that to the exclusion zones in Chernobyl or Fukushima or even the several nuclear test sites in the US, China or Russia.

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Electric cars are not viable for all persons and not more convenient than normal fluid fuled cars.

not all people no, but plug-in hybrids fill that gap quite nicely. still leaves a very small group of people that deperatly need fuel vehicles, but we shouldnt all be driving combustion vehicles because of them.

 

also electric vehicles do come with benefits (offcourse depending on region). those range from lower yearly fee, buss lane driving and some more. also less points of failure in the car. though you will be more dependant on profesionalls repairing vehicles (not that is all bad news).

13 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

You know that you could modify DIESEL Engines to run on simple plant oil, if you wanted to??

that leaves the question if we should spend presious farmland to produce fuel. also mixed fuels arent that uncommon atm allready

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

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.

The problem is they're only talking about something that will happen many years from now. Nothing happens tomorrow or next year as a result of this. It's political procrastination.

 

It's even worse if they stick to the plan to compare levels in 2025 and 2035 with the levels in 2021, because until 2021 that gives manufacturers an incentive to slow down adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles. The fewer are in service by 2021, the easier their targets in 2025 and 2035 will be.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

that leaves the question if we should spend presious farmland to produce fuel. also mixed fuels arent that uncommon atm allready

You can also recycle it.

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

he was arguing that because more people die from coal than coal is more dangerous, i was merely showing him that his statement makes no sense. There's no way crossing the street is more dangerous than a life ending asteroid, even if the first takes more lives.

oh i was dragging it into a larger context of death by sideeffects from global warming, i get where you are comming from. coal isnt great, but if it helps us getting from point A (heavily reliant on fossile fuels) to B (very green and not reliant on fossile fuels) quicker then im not 100% against keeping them, but if getting rid of them is the only incentive then i will side with that instead. 

 

6 minutes ago, asus killer said:

And a nuclear disaster can be cleaned relatively fast? tell that to the exclusion zones in Chernobyl or Fukushima or even the several nuclear test sites in the US, China or Russia.

techincally stading near many of the test sites isnt half bad these days. the worst isotopes from nukes decay quickly.

 

chernobyl exclusion zone is a special case of keeping it a secret, but the are has been large to also encompass a undisturbed wildlife.

 

Fukushima is relativly tiny and is planned to remove more topsoil (something they did in chernobyl) and make the are livable again. the exclusion zone in Japan is growing smaller and smaller. 

 

both fukushima and chernobyl are getting domes to contain any unexpected contamitation of the area. the Chernobyl plant had one earlier, but it wasnt made to stand the test of time. a new one is being built around it

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You can also recycle it.

very true. though should we spend that on generating power or fuel or even fertilizer? 

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

not all people no, but plug-in hybrids fill that gap quite nicely. still leaves a very small group of people that deperatly need fuel vehicles, but we shouldnt all be driving combustion vehicles because of them.

Yes, we should until the Problems with electric cars are solved.

 

You totally forgot the Batteries that are needed for Electric cars and the Wasted energy because of all the needed energy, transfer losses and other shit. So no, Electric cars should not be made the default yet.

And we should also look for alternatives to battery driven cars as batterys are very unsafe.

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

also electric vehicles do come with benefits (offcourse depending on region). those range from lower yearly fee, buss lane driving and some more. also less points of failure in the car. though you will be more dependant on profesionalls repairing vehicles (not that is all bad news).

That are not natural advantages that come with the technology, those are artificial advantages made by man/gouvernment. 

 

And I'm totally against Politicians fingering in Markets. The Market has to change because of natural influences, for example a new technology comes around that is actually better and offers advantages and/or lower prices.

Electric cars do neither. They increase the price for cars, the batteries will fail at one point and need replacing, wich will be more expensive than the car itself after a certain time...

 

What you people miss are the poor people who only can afford a 2000€ Car. And now you tell them they have to replace a battery for 1500€?? No, that's bullshit...

And also you miss the Waste that is produced by making Batteries, the Rare Earth stuff that goes into them.

 

No, I don't like this stuff. I don't see a real advantage over classical cars, only Propaganda and lies. 

Electric cars are NOT better for the enviroment, they are worse!

There might be no shit coming out of the exaust but the power has to be made somewhere and somehow. ANd that means nuclear power in many cases. And in other regions the power grid is not their best, Belgium announced blackouts. 

 

And now you want to force people to buy Electric cars? 

 

Its the same shit as with the RoHS stuff. if that wouldn't have happened, many millions of PS3 and XBox 360 wouldn't have died, a couple of hundreds of tons of electronics trash wouldn't have happened. So the Bilancy of the banning of lead in solder is already negative. And in the Military you still have to use Lead solder...

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

that leaves the question if we should spend presious farmland to produce fuel. also mixed fuels arent that uncommon atm allready

No, of course not. Until we build storaged Farms (ie another farm ontop of the farm)...

 

We don't do that right now because its expensive and farmers are payed very badly atm and we do not need it right now...

 

But its a better solution than Electric cars.

[poochyena]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

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

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

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

very true. though should we spend that on generating power or fuel or even fertilizer? 

It actually doesn't take that much energy to make biodiesel. You could do it at home. Probably takes as much energy to do it on a large scale as it does to just rid ourselves of it.

[Mr.Dingle]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

And we should also look for alternatives to battery driven cars as batterys are very unsafe.

That are not natural advantages that come with the technology, those are artificial advantages made by man/gouvernment. 

 

You sound like on of those people hwo had a Li-Po blow up in their face from their own incompetence . 

 

To be clear im no fan of EVs , but id gladly own one if charging stations were abundant here , since i mostly do city driving . 

For long range and "mileage" , EVs have a way to go ..

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, Mr.Dingle said:

You sound like on of those people hwo had a Li-Po blow up in their face from their own incompetence . 

No, I'm talking about accidents and other stuff.

You seen that the Tesla cars that were involved in pretty bad accidents burned down?? In the right situation, that can cause more deaths because of that...

 

While you might not like Gasoline much, it is proven and rather safe, as is a gas based fuel system...

[Mihle]

52 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

1. But charging during the day is a very bad idea.

 

2. But hey, what'd you'd expect from the guys that brought the high failure rates of XBox 360 and PS3 as well as a ton of other electronics devices due to their RoHS horse shit...

 

3. Electric cars are not viable for all persons and not more convenient than normal fluid fuled cars.

 

4. PS: You know that you could modify DIESEL Engines to run on simple plant oil, if you wanted to??

So there are better ways to solve some problems than Electric cars wich aren't as green as people think. And also are bad for poor people who don't have much money...

 

5. And they are also less safe than normal cars as well, because when the Battery gets punctured, there is no way to stop the fire...

 

1. It really depends on where the electricity come from. If your country have mostly solar, (don't think any country has that currently) charging while at work would be the best, but that doesnt make the most of sense depending on where you work.

 

2. On paper electric cars should be more reliable than petrol/diesel ones. They need fewer parts to work.

 

3. It's viable for a lot of people as long as they can afford it, especially in Europe where people travel shorter than for example US. Electricity is cheaper than petrol/diesel to run and on paper it's less that can break over time.

 

4. Plant oil is a very bad idea compared to electric cars. Plant oil production is really really energy inefficient. You can travel something like 10x the distance of electricity from 1 m2 of solar panels compared to that if plant oil from  1 m2 of plants. ( @Drak3 this is for you too)

 

5. Most cases that would happen you have good time to get out of the car. And if you haven't the collision is probably so bad you have a really high risk of dying. Electric cars have generally better crumble zone at the front of the car than petrol/diesel has.

 

 

 

[Mr.Dingle]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

No, I'm talking about accidents and other stuff.

You seen that the Tesla cars that were involved in pretty bad accidents burned down?? In the right situation, that can cause more deaths because of that...

 

While you might not like Gasoline much, it is proven and rather safe, as is a gas based fuel system...

Batteries as such are unsafe yes , but a gas tank ruptured in a crash isnt any less of a fire hazard .

 

And you got me wrong , i love petrol power , even though i daily a diesel . 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, Mr.Dingle said:

Batteries as such are unsafe yes , but a gas tank ruptured in a crash isnt any less of a fire hazard .

Yes, they are better because they are designed to burn in a controlled matter. Especially an LPG system is very safe, even safer than normal petrol and Diesel because of the Way it works.

 

Petrol is better because it doesn't burn instantly when it gets punctured and the Fire Fighters are trained to deal with Petrol and Diesel. Its not that bad as a Battery.

[Mihle]

24 minutes ago, asus killer said:

he was arguing that because more people die from coal than coal is more dangerous, i was merely showing him that his statement makes no sense. There's no way crossing the street is more dangerous than a life ending asteroid, even if the first takes more lives.

 

And a nuclear disaster can be cleaned relatively fast? tell that to the exclusion zones in Chernobyl or Fukushima or even the several nuclear test sites in the US, China or Russia.

I was talking compared to electricity produced.

All green technologies is also far far lower than coal.

 

Quite of bit of areas around Chernobyl that was before not safe is safe to live now, they just don't open the areas up because it's for one easier to let the zone be where it is, and most of those areas is just Forrest anyway. Also, it would have made you able to live much closer to it in the one direction than the other. So they don't bother. A lot of areas is not safe to live still tho, that's true, but it's less that it first seems like.

 

For Fukushima, almost all areas where people lived is now safe to live. Lot of people have moved back. Also, a lot don't want to move back.

 

In both these situation they do better safe than sorry.

 

First one was caused by shitty safety and rush.

Second was caused by Tsunami/earthquake. In many places in Europe especially, a Tsunami/earthquake like that could never ever happen as long as an asteroid doesn't hit.

 

You even know how many nuclear reactors that has/is running?

 

Nuclear test sites is nuclear test sites for bombs, not Nuclear reactors.

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It actually doesn't take that much energy to make biodiesel. You could do it at home. Probably takes as much energy to do it on a large scale as it does to just rid ourselves of it.

im more reffering to what alse we could be making instead, as other solutions do help other regions of industry or farming.

 

but generating bio/zero total emission fuels is a nice way of transporting energy over distance. 

 

also fish farms are throwing away a lot of fertilizer while making the fish. i would just like to say that as it is a major waste of potential fertilizer for farms.

 

11 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, of course not. Until we build storaged Farms (ie another farm ontop of the farm)...

or we can wait untill Siberia melts. like its a bad thing, but at this point it is going to happen anyway and we might aswell take advantage of it. (like yes there is a chance of stopping it from melting, but we are better off limiting the melting as there is no chance we will reduce emitions that quickly.

 

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, I'm talking about accidents and other stuff.

You seen that the Tesla cars that were involved in pretty bad accidents burned down?? In the right situation, that can cause more deaths because of that...

 

While you might not like Gasoline much, it is proven and rather safe, as is a gas based fuel system...

Diesel trucks and cars do catch fire aswell. nothing new. though its rate and i can count on 2 hands the ammount of times it has happened with fuel vehicles and ill be counting on 1 hand the ammount of times i know it has happened to electric vehicles (including the tesla dissaster) (in my country). percentile of electric vehicles is about 6,5%. the rest is hybrids and combustion engines. i havent seen much change in the rate of fire in either vehicle. though if you have data then im happy to see it. though i will say that age of the vehicle plays a role in this, but avoiding fire during collision is something electric vehicles do take into consideration