Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[handymanshandle]

I also wanted to add to what I was saying earlier that, I don't have a problem with EVs. I just don't think a government should force them en masse like some governments are doing.

 

Pollution is an issue for some areas, I doubt the claimed global environmental impact of ICE cars, frankly if I were to start a few franchised stores and offered delivery I'd honestly consider buying a few EV cars, particularly the Bolt EV to consist of a delivery fleet for that store.

 

For the lower costs associated with operating that fleet, I figure would justify even providing cars to the drivers to do their work. For that use case, I think EVs make a lot of sense. Far less to deal with like fleet fuel cards and such.

[Yoinkerman]

I live north of 54 where we get real winter.  My coworker has a leaf.  It's fine for everyday commuting.

[RejZoR]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

There was also research that came out either early this year or last year that looked at air pollution and brain cognitive function and learning outcomes. Their is an initial link between the two, more research is required, but the going theory is air pollution is making us less intelligent. That along with the known health risks of air pollution should be enough to find ways to make air cleaner where humans are. 

What's making people less intelligent is Facebook and Twitter, not air pollution...

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Chernobyl was controlled?

 

What?

 

It was beyond ridiculously bad. Multiple major problems that made the disaster much worse than could happen at a reasonable nuclear power plant. I mean they didn't even bother with a containment vessel, and the roof of the building was flammable... almost as if they deliberately designed it to ensure that as much radioactive material as possible would be carried up into the air with the smoke.

 

As for the consequences of Chernobyl, sure... but there's more nuclear fallout coming from coal power plants. Even if we continue to have Chernobyl-scale accidents regularly, nuclear power would expose the general public to less radiation than coal power does.

i mean control in the sense that you didn't had something much worst, at some point they did controlled it, they stabilized it.

 

9 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

So there is a waste problem, but no more than the massive waste and pollution problem currently from coal and oil

but why is it coal or oil vs nuclear. I never said i defended coal or oil did i? Everything is better if you compare it to coal so that's not a really high standard.

 

10 hours ago, Mihle said:

Worst case nuclear power plants will never happen. Chernobyl is the worst that will ever happen, safety and stuff is improved since then.

that's really optimistic, a really glass half full view of things In regards to Chernobyl you can read about it every scientist will tell you it could be much worst hadn't they stabilized it. 

In the case of Fukushima i'm sure the Japanese also said that something like that was impossible, if not they would do things differently, they predicted a maximum size for a tsunami and boy did they got things wrong.

 

 

10 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

 

hello from a person in the far north that have direct concequenses that you speak of. they are not that bad. countermeasures are in place if we notice any spikes. but today`s levels are safe enough to just use a passive mean to lower levels of isotopes in food, but even that has ended as it is nolonger needed. the worst isotopes decay quickly. nuclear fallout sucks, but it rare to happen and it is fast to clean. enviromental changes arent.

 

what country? Because over there they are really good at using renewables so you better then anyone could see that nuclear doesn't need to be a thing.

[IhazHedont]

As always, the debate on nuclear power is driven by emotions while being a very technical subject.

 

I saw a lot of mentions about nuclear waste. Which one ? So there are maybe several types of waste ? Maybe some of them are already recycled ? What is a Becquerel or a Sieverts ? Why Chernobyl incident can not happen again ?

 

Do you realize that if we do stop everything we are doing, every production facility, the CO2 concentration will need at least 10 000 years to reach the level as before the industrial era ? That it also means we can only "damage control" the effect of global warming and we crossed the limit point years ago ?

 

Do you also think that with renewable energies, if you country has a need of, let's say 1TWh, you will have 1TWh of renewable energy plants ? Isn't there some kind of ratio here ?
Don't you need also storage facilities in case wind/sun are absent ?

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

What's making people less intelligent is Facebook and Twitter, not air pollution...

Well I'd say both are just as likely, would explain the rapid stupid shift.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

i mean control in the sense that you didn't had something much worst, at some point they did controlled it, they stabilized it.

They stabilized it? What are you talking about? It was basically the worst imaginable outcome. Not only did the core melt down, but a large part of it exploded out through the roof, and more was carried into the air with smoke from fires in the reactor and on the roof. With properly designed plants, something like Chernobyl basically can't happen - as we see with Fukushima, which had three reactors melt down rather than just the one at Chernobyl, yet still released much less radioactive pollution.

[asus killer]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

They stabilized it? What are you talking about? It was basically the worst imaginable outcome. Not only did the core melt down, but a large part of it exploded out through the roof, and more was carried into the air with smoke from fires in the reactor and on the roof. With properly designed plants, something like Chernobyl basically can't happen - as we see with Fukushima, which had three reactors melt down rather than just the one at Chernobyl, yet still released much less radioactive pollution.

is it still out of control? if the answer is no then they stabilized it.

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, IhazHedont said:

As always, the debate on nuclear power is driven by emotions while being a very technical subject.

 

I saw a lot of mentions about nuclear waste. Which one ? So there are maybe several types of waste ? Maybe some of them are already recycled ? What is a Becquerel or a Sieverts ? Why Chernobyl incident can not happen again ?

 

Do you realize that if we do stop everything we are doing, every production facility, the CO2 concentration will need at least 10 000 years to reach the level as before the industrial era ? That it also means we can only "damage control" the effect of global warming and we crossed the limit point years ago ?

 

Do you also think that with renewable energies, if you country has a need of, let's say 1TWh, you will have 1TWh of renewable energy plants ? Isn't there some kind of ratio here ?
Don't you need also storage facilities in case wind/sun are absent ?

nuclear waste problem:

you can easily see more about this if you care to. And this is in the richest country on earth, i wonder how it goes elsewhere.

 

the c02 concentration is still not past the limit point, there are calculations for when we will come that, still not there. But i also don't think anyone is defending more emissions of co2. Nuclear and more Co2 aren't mutually exclusive. Most countries on earth don't even have nuclear power.

 

Renewables don't function like that, you should have more than one source and there are countless ones: wind, solar, geothermal, waves, etc.. And the point is to use as much as you can of those, not that it's likely every country to just use renewables but there is also less and less need for them if you invest in renewables. Most times if you have a cheap nuclear source there is less incentive to invest in renewables there are more expensive, the same applies to coal stocks, oil, etc..

 

 

[jagdtigger]

18 hours ago, Commodus said:

There are multiple studies showing that EVs are still greener overall, even in countries where the vast majority of the energy is 'dirty.'

They generously forgot about the short battery life and the little tid-bit that it isnt that simple to properly dispose the dead batteries...

 

Quote

I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself

(Winston S. Churchill )

 

[Sakkura]

24 minutes ago, asus killer said:

is it still out of control? if the answer is no then they stabilized it.

The same way the Japanese "stabilized" Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

[GoldenLag]

3 hours ago, asus killer said:

there they are really good at using renewables so you better then anyone could see that nuclear doesn't need to be a thing.

that it very irrelevant to the thing i was answering to. but shure. yes we produce above 100% in green energy compared to our usage. by that i mean we export energy and import in extreme cases or to have increased profits as we export quite a bit. 

 

why shouldnt we have nuclear or extra powergeneration to export to mainland Europe. everywhere isnt like Northern Europe, in many locations it has to be a thing. "has" in the sence it is way more convinient. 

3 hours ago, asus killer said:

that's really optimistic, a really glass half full view of things In regards to Chernobyl you can read about it every scientist will tell you it could be much worst hadn't they stabilized it. 

In the case of Fukushima i'm sure the Japanese also said that something like that was impossible, if not they would do things differently, they predicted a maximum size for a tsunami and boy did they got things wrong.

i see. you dont like regular saltwater reactors that is the most utilized reactortype in the world. and safety is a whole lot better since chernobyl. and the dissasters that have happended in regards to reactors are either being cleaned or have been cleaned to the point they dont want to do any extra. the reason Chernobyl exclusion zone is large is part to a national park being included there. 

[asus killer]

36 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The same way the Japanese "stabilized" Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

just look it up they did stabilized it, if they didn't you would have a nuclear reaction for far longer. I really don't know how i can put this any other way.

 

36 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

 

sure there are land locked countries that can't use waves or don't have geothermal, or others have less sun, but that should be the goal, 100% renewables, no? Using nuclear is a excuse to not do something else. And if it's their choice so be it, i just personally think we should all be doing more for pure renewables, that is the future pure and simple, there will be no oil, gas, nuclear, coal in the future. And the more you bet on it the less expensive it gets.

Really can't debate the details of the clean up in Japan, but i've seen the gigantic sacks of contaminated land all over the place, where will they end up? when you say "it's clean", it's a bit misleading. 

[leadeater]

44 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The same way the Japanese "stabilized" Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

If you sweep a problem under the carpet does the problem still exist?

 

Yes that was joke, Chernobyl was an utter disaster and the reactor core breached containment and melted everything around it. The only option after that point is to build containment around it but in no way does that make it stabilized, contained != stable.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

just look it up they did stabilized it, if they didn't you would have a nuclear reaction for far longer. I really don't know how i can put this any other way.

They did not stabilize it.

 

I suppose you may be referring to their attempt to dump boron onto the remnants of the core - but that basically had no effect.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

They did not stabilize it.

 

I suppose you may be referring to their attempt to dump boron onto the remnants of the core - but that basically had no effect.

Maybe it comes from the name of the containment structure, Designed Stabilisation Steel Structure (DSSS).

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

the c02 concentration is still not past the limit point, there are calculations for when we will come that, still not there. But i also don't think anyone is defending more emissions of co2. Nuclear and more Co2 aren't mutually exclusive. Most countries on earth don't even have nuclear power.

the depending on who you ask the "symbolic point of no return" has allready been hit. also there is no defines limit. 

 

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

Using nuclear is a excuse to not do something else. And if it's their choice so be it, i just personally think we should all be doing more for pure renewables, that is the future pure and simple, there will be no oil, gas, nuclear, coal in the future. And the more you bet on it the less expensive it gets.

nuclear is more of a stop gap measure. it is never supposed to be the end goal (unless you might count fusion). i dont think anyone here is arguing that it is supposed to be an endgoal. 

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

And the more you bet on it the less expensive it gets.

Really can't debate the details of the clean up in Japan, but i've seen the gigantic sacks of contaminated land all over the place, where will they end up? when you say "it's clean", it's a bit misleading. 

those "sacks" are a feet of topsoil to make the place habitable quicker. same was done in the area around the chernobyl reactor. 

 

its "standard" cleanup measures. the soil wil either have to be stored somewhere untill the isotopes decay, or be "watered down" to a point its considered safe soil again. 

 

the place around the reactor is clean. you can sit there without a mask. it isnt recommended in japan as they are still conducting cleanup and concern about dust from topsoil. 

 

in the way i say its "clean", it is clean enough to live there around the reactor after cleanupwork. the reactor will be the site which will be permanent "no-go-zone" for a long long time. nuclear power sucks when it goes bad, which is why im in favor of thorium salt reactors as mentioned earlier

[IhazHedont]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

the c02 concentration is still not past the limit point, there are calculations for when we will come that, still not there. But i also don't think anyone is defending more emissions of co2. Nuclear and more Co2 aren't mutually exclusive. Most countries on earth don't even have nuclear power

 

 

The non-return point has been crossed in 2015, confirmed by both the GIEC, and a consortium of scientists which wrote a report called the State of Climate.

Each GIEC report shows that instead of reducing our CO2 emissions they grow.

 

On this point we are fucked.

 

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

Renewables don't function like that, you should have more than one source and there are countless ones: wind, solar, geothermal, waves, etc.. And the point is to use as much as you can of those, not that it's likely every country to just use renewables but there is also less and less need for them if you invest in renewables. Most times if you have a cheap nuclear source there is less incentive to invest in renewables there are more expensive, the same applies to coal stocks, oil, etc..

 

 

My point was (and I think we talk about the same thing) that renewable energies are, by their own nature, not "drivable"as a traditional  power plant is, whether it is powered by coal or nuclear.

 

You always have a ratio between the calculated/average load, and the anticipated peak loads of a country electrical consumption, to you avoid load shedding and black outs.

 

This ratio is considerably superior with renewable energies because a windmill or a solar panel will always have a bad yearly efficiency, simply because they are intermittent source of power supply.

 

Consequently, battery storage facilities need to be built, and their costs are far more superior than building nuclear plants for the same amount of power.

 

That being said, we are talking about this with the idea that we will keep our way of living.

 

I will defend tooth and nail renewable energy if we leave our financial system based on hyper consumption.

But if we keep our way of life, then renewable energies are not an option.

[asus killer]

17 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

the depending on who you ask the "symbolic point of no return" has allready been hit. also there is no defines limit. 

 

it the no return point had already been hit then i guess there would be no point in controlling emissions. So i guess there must be some confusion as to what we are talking about.

[Jtalk4456]

15 hours ago, G27Racer_188 said:

They will find a way. For instance, they could tax at the time of sale, so, lets say you wanted to buy $5000 solar system, but they put 50% tax. You would have to pay $7500 for that system. The $2500 would go to the government to "fill the hole" from not selling you electricity.

 

As an example, several months ago, or a year, I don't remember exactly, there were some events that happened and the price of crude oil went down globally. As a result fuel prices everywhere went down, except in my county. Fuel went up in price that week.

i see what you're getting at but i don't quite buy it. First off, people would protest such a drastic tax change. Second, most areas are not powered by the government, but rather a company like Duke Energy, Union Power and many others. Even in NYC, independent companies make the power. So the government isn't taking a loss by me not buying from Duke anymore than if I stopped shopping at walmart and went to target.

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

it the no return point had already been hit then i guess there would be no point in controlling emissions. So i guess there must be some confusion as to what we are talking about.

its a symbolic point of no return. and there is allways a reason to reduce the damage that can occur. change in the PH is one of them. the point is to limit the damage. the definate point of no return is probably if we havent done anything by the time permafrost has melted and desert is spreading rampant. 

[asus killer]

35 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

its a symbolic point of no return. and there is allways a reason to reduce the damage that can occur. change in the PH is one of them. the point is to limit the damage. the definate point of no return is probably if we havent done anything by the time permafrost has melted and desert is spreading rampant. 

the point of no return should be as the name implies a point of no return, when a runaway scenario of out of control temperatures makes any possible thing man can do pointless, much like you had on mars or venus. If you can still makes changes with impact i can't see how we can be past a point of no return.

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, asus killer said:

the point of no return should be as the name implies a point of no return, when a runaway scenario of out of control temperatures makes any possible thing man can do pointless, much like you had on mars or venus. If you can still makes changes with impact i can't see how we can be past a point of no return.

As far as i know, regardless of what we do now we are going to increase temps by an average of 2*C. The issues start piling up when stuff starts to melt. 

 

Im not a climate scientist, i havent done the research to approximate a point of no return. Also we can allways return, it just takes a frickin long time to do so

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

They generously forgot about the short battery life and the little tid-bit that it isnt that simple to properly dispose the dead batteries...

 

(Winston S. Churchill )

 

current battery life isn't that short, in 10 years most teslas still have around 90% of the original capacity, seems long enough to me, specially considering battery tech is improving 

[Jtalk4456]

13 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

A lot of places in the world haven’t yet had the infrastructure to facilitate long-distance travel in electric vehicles.

 

Tesla Superchargers for instance aren’t in a lot of the world yet

 

Solve that hurdle and I think a lot of the world’s ready 

there's a video i posted above that explained why we don't really need a large infrastructure of superchargers to make electric work. The traditional gas station isn't needed in the same way that we are used to