Tesla Model S owner fined for high emissions.

[zMeul]

7 hours ago, war4sure said:

Singapore government apparently unable to comprehend how electric vehicle works

electrical energy is not magic!

electrical energy is created by burning coal, nuclear reaction and other greener alternatives, like hydro dams, wind mills, solar panel farms

 

now, if the country's energy is produced by polluting sources ....

[Yoinkerman]

45 minutes ago, zMeul said:

electrical energy is not magic!

electrical energy is created by burning coal, nuclear reaction and other greener alternatives, like hydro dams, wind mills, solar panel farms

 

now, if the country's energy is produced by polluting sources ....

Plot twist, guy charges it entirely off solar rip

[NateGSR117]

I hope everything get sorted out

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, FakezZ said:

Battery degradation will only affect the mileage, not the efficiency of the car.

Alright, I just would have thought battery degradation could reduce not just the capacity of the battery, but also the efficiency of even getting the available power out of the battery (higher internal resistance in the battery).

[Tech_Dreamer]

Damn! they go an extra mile *pun* to get the money either ways? i think the owner should get something as such as a personal usage solar hub or something because technically it's a valid reason in 'legal terms' , But at the end of the day it's just another uber ploy by the officials to milk the current isolated consumer , but make no mistake , they're already planning this shit as a tool for future events similar to this when electric cars gets more popular,  this thing needs to be put into place right now through a well funded legal battle

[s3ns3]

9 hours ago, dragoon20005 said:

the car in question was imported as a second hand car with 1K miles on the odometer

 

a showroom brand new Tesla will average at 181Wh/km

 

but according to LTA's "test" it was drawing 444Wh/km and based on the power draw and carbon emission it was slapped with a 15K fine instead of the 30K rebate

how is it second hand if its 1k mile?

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, edsdrafts said:

Although a bit misleading the idea is correct. Electricity is produced mainly by coal or nuclear. Both of which have negative impact on the environment and this is a fact. I was always skeptical about solar and other "alternative" sources since there are number of factors at play:

1) production of said hardware - how much impact does it have (all the way from ore to final product)

2) lifespan and value of said item

3) disposal

One could argue that small engine petrol car without unnecessary electronics is easier on environment in total than electric one. At least at the moment.

All true. Although frankly, Nuclear is still one of the very best power generation methods we have, and the environmental and personal danger of it is very minimal when implemented properly.

 

Fukumisha, for example, was primarily human error and corner cutting.

4 hours ago, zMeul said:

electrical energy is not magic!

electrical energy is created by burning coal, nuclear reaction and other greener alternatives, like hydro dams, wind mills, solar panel farms

 

now, if the country's energy is produced by polluting sources ....

Frankly, I think the biggest moral of this story is that the country should get rid of their damn coal power plants. There are so many better ways to produce power.

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There are so many better ways to produce power.

better is not cheaper

and it greatly depends on the natural resources of that country and it's topography 

 

as for nuclear power plants ... they produce toxic waste that is stored in deep underground caves - so much for "clean energy"

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

better is not cheaper

and it greatly depends on the natural resources of that country and it's topography 

I never said cheaper. But the benefits of the better generator stations almost always outweigh the cost. You also need less stations since nuclear, etc, are able to generate a much larger amount of electricity within a single station.

 

I personally think every country needs to get off coal generation asap. Obviously easier for the wealthier nations, but still necessary for everyone to do sooner rather than later.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I never said cheaper. But the benefits of the better generator stations almost always outweigh the cost. You also need less stations since nuclear, etc, are able to generate a much larger amount of electricity within a single station.

 

I personally think every country needs to get off coal generation asap. Obviously easier for the wealthier nations, but still necessary for everyone to do sooner rather than later.

we have a nuclear power plant with 2 functional units and 3 under construction

it only generates 18% of country's electricity need

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

we have a nuclear power plant with 2 functional units and 3 under construction

it only generates 18% of country's electricity need

*another way to write this*

 

Woah we power 18% of our countries needs of off a single power plant, and it's only at 2/5ths total capacity!

 

How much of your countries power does a single coal plant generate? A hell of a lot less than 18% I would bet.

 

Assuming the three units under construction generate the same capacity per unit as the current functional two, that would mean that once construction is complete, that single power plant would power ~45% of your countries needs. That's fucking awesome.

[zMeul]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

*another way to write this*

 

Woah we power 18% if our countries needs of off a single power plant, and it's only at 2/5ths total capacity!

 

How much of your countries power does a single coal plant generate? A hell of a lot less than 18% I would bet.

 

Assuming the three units under construction generate the same capacity per unit as the current functional two, that would mean that once construction is complete, that single power plant would power ~45% of your countries needs. That's fucking awesome.

and ignoring all the incidents and the absolute need for the Danube to be at a certain level for the cooling to take place - otherwise they shut down the reactors

it already happened couple of times

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I never said cheaper. But the benefits of the better generator stations almost always outweigh the cost. You also need less stations since nuclear, etc, are able to generate a much larger amount of electricity within a single station.

 

I personally think every country needs to get off coal generation asap. Obviously easier for the wealthier nations, but still necessary for everyone to do sooner rather than later.

I would like to add a point that the deprecation of coal-based and gas-based technologies is not really just for the sake of the environment or even energy efficiency. The resources for those technologies is starting to run short at an alarming rate, so even if you do not care about efficiency and/or do not believe in climate change, we still have to move on to something different or else we all run into a brick wall at 240 km/h.

 

I myself am somewhat hesitant with nuclear power, primarily due to the amount of technical caveats tied to it.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

and ignoring all the incidents and the absolute need for the Danube to be at a certain level for the cooling to take place - otherwise they shut down the reactors

it already happened couple of times

That sounds like a design fault to me. Certainly, I'm not saying nuclear is appropriate for every single scenario, given the cooling requirements. But when it can be safely used, it's often a great choice.

5 minutes ago, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

I would like to add a point that the deprecation of coal-based and gas-based technologies is not really just for the sake of the environment or even energy efficiency. The resources for those technologies is starting to running short at an alarming rate, so even if you do not care about efficiency and/or do not believe in climate change, we still have to move on to something different or else we all run into a brick wall at 240 km/h.

 

I myself am somewhat hesitant with nuclear power, primarily due to the amount of technical caveats tied to it.

 

Disregarding nuclear, both oil, and more specifically natural gas, are still better than coal by a lot.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

That sounds like a design fault to me

design flaw?!

how to even take into consideration drought .. you can't - the Danube is the single largest river in the country that can supply the plant with enough water to cool the reactors

[Nineshadow]

Also , why should the electricity used by the car to power itself from the grid matter? More specifically , why should the carbon emissions used to produce that energy matter?

 

Aren't these people supposed to check how much emissions a car produces? The emissions here aren't produced by the car. But if we are considering all emissions related to the car, that what's stopping them for making me pay higher emissions taxes for driving at a high speed past a cow which gets scared , then farts and produces extra CO2?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Disregarding nuclear, both oil, and more specifically natural gas, are still better than coal by a lot.

But even those are starting to run out. Ignoring the financial implications when it does happen, we need to start using renewable energy as primary sources ASAFP.

[bob345]

not surprising considering  the ridiculous vehicle laws in Singapore.

[SurvivorNVL]

54 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

All true. Although frankly, Nuclear is still one of the very best power generation methods we have, and the environmental and personal danger of it is very minimal when implemented properly.

 

Fukumisha, for example, was primarily human error and corner cutting.

Frankly, I think the biggest moral of this story is that the country should get rid of their damn coal power plants. There are so many better ways to produce power.

Clean coal burning is the majority of coal burning in everywhere but Asia, Russia, and China(the other Asia :P), but it's still a pollutant to some degree.  I find it deeply saddening that there is still such a stigma in regards to nuclear all around the world.  I mean, every disaster and situation has been surrounding gen 1 and gen 2 reactors, and the newer generation 3 and I believe there're model 4's - are so up to date, and secure - the level of power provided is incredible, and it is just a shame there're not more.  I mean, we could all be on electric if we wanted if there were many, many more reactors.  

In regards to all this - it does raise a point by Singapore.  E-Vehicle consumes electricity and electricity is achieved by coal for the most part or oil in some countries, and then can contribute to emission rates.  

[leonard_sun]

When I read the title I blurted out "What?!?" in the middle of the office.... But reading the article it does make sense...

The one thing ignored in the "green revolution" is the fact that though the car itself doesn't produce more pullution, it does still use energy. Energy has to come from somewhere and usually we produce energy no so cleanly.

 

To this day, the best way to be green is to be simple and frugal, use only the energy that is needed.

[Clanscorpia]

53 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

*another way to write this*

 

Woah we power 18% of our countries needs of off a single power plant, and it's only at 2/5ths total capacity!

 

How much of your countries power does a single coal plant generate? A hell of a lot less than 18% I would bet.

 

Assuming the three units under construction generate the same capacity per unit as the current functional two, that would mean that once construction is complete, that single power plant would power ~45% of your countries needs. That's fucking awesome.

I feel nice knowing almost 85% of Ontario is Nuclear powered. Most of the  rest is wind and hydro. I guess having an electric car here in Ontario would make a real difference.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Fukumisha, for example, was primarily human error and corner cutting.

Plus an absolute monster of an earthquake with a huge tsunami. Double whammy. And the natural disaster was much worse than the nuclear disaster.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Also , why should the electricity used by the car to power itself from the grid matter? More specifically , why should the carbon emissions used to produce that energy matter?

Why wouldn't it? What matters should be the amount of emissions that are generated by you driving. In the case of electric cars the emission is from the power plant that is used to fuel your car. In the case of regular cars it is the actual burning of gas that is creating the emissions. Just because you move the burning of fuel from inside the car to inside a power plant doesn't mean it is any better for the environment.

 

 

54 minutes ago, zMeul said:

as for nuclear power plants ... they produce toxic waste that is stored in deep underground caves - so much for "clean energy"

Both produce toxic material but the difference is the scale.

One gram of uranium can produce about as much energy as three tonnes of coal (according to some sources).

Even if the waste material is more dangerous per gram, it is still much cleaner (and safer I might add) than coal and oil because you need so little of it in comparison.

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why wouldn't it? What matters should be the amount of emissions that are generated by you driving. In the case of electric cars the emission is from the power plant that is used to fuel your car. In the case of regular cars it is the actual burning of gas that is creating the emissions. Just because you move the burning of fuel from inside the car to inside a power plant doesn't mean it is any better for the environment.

 

 

Both produce toxic material but the difference is the scale.

One gram of uranium can produce about as much energy as three tonnes of coal (according to some sources).

Even if the waste material is more dangerous per gram, it is still much cleaner (and safer I might add) than coal and oil because you need so little of it in comparison.

Not to mention that some of the next gen reactors can use spent fuel rods from older power stations as fuel. There is still waste at the end, but it does make the waste less radioactive.

[Ex14]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Frankly, I think the biggest moral of this story is that the country should get rid of their damn coal power plants. There are so many better ways to produce power.

that is you realise Singapore uses mostly  natural gas for its energy generation