Tesla Model S owner fined for high emissions.

[dragoon20005]

The guy bought the car off from another owner who only drove 1k miles. And it was hardly used considering it was built in 2014. So it was left in the garage to rot until the new owner decides to buy it and bring it to Singapore. As for power generation. We have around 3 to 4 power stations in various part of our island and offshore all use compressed natural gas as fuel. So no coal is used. We buy the fuel from our neighbouring countries and via ships.

[Daegun]

Another thing to look at in coal vs. nuclear is the number of deaths caused by each. The number of lives nuclear saves over coal by cutting out fatalities related to mining/transporting the coal and the pollution caused from the plants in quite large.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

 

TL;DR Fine particle pollution from coal plants kills about 13,000 people in just the US each year. Chernobyl disaster (worst nuclear plant disaster in history) is estimated to have caused the deaths of just over 9,000.

[FakezZ]

21 hours ago, Sakkura said:

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).

Oh yeah that could definitely be the case. Don't get me wrong I'm not an electrical engineer . It just doesn't make sense to me that the efficiency of an electric car would have to do with the battery. 

 

17 hours 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?

 

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?

And then they should also take into account the emissions from making the car itself. And for petrol cars, they should take into account the oil extraction and the other processes crude oil goes through to turn it to gasoline... This is seriously just fucking stupid. I completely agree with you.

[CGurrell]

11 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

And then they should also take into account the emissions from making the car itself. And for petrol cars, they should take into account the oil extraction and the other processes crude oil goes through to turn it to gasoline... This is seriously just fucking stupid. I completely agree with you.

What gets me is the amount of environmentalists that went batshit crazy over the Toyota Prius back in the day about how clean it was, yet the mining of the nickel used in the batteries caused more pollution (I think it was CO2) than a normal car would produce in its lifetime, yet this isn't addressed when deciding how much Road tax it requires. In fact they also don't factor the pollution created when most of them were recalled for bad accelerators. In the UK I believe they're still free, or at least very cheap, to tax. 

[s3ns3]

24 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

And then they should also take into account the emissions from making the car itself. And for petrol cars, they should take into account the oil extraction and the other processes crude oil goes through to turn it to gasoline... This is seriously just fucking stupid. I completely agree with you.

gasoline price at pump is 75-80% tax so...

[Roughneck One]

I must admit I understand what the issue is here, when our local MP said that everyone should have an electric car to cut down the emissions caused from motor cars my first thought was millions of people plugging into the grid during the night to charge their cars, The power required to charge all them cars would break the national grid. Power stations would have to burn a lot more fuel (coal) to generate that much power. Other cleaner power solutions are currently being developed and at this time could never sustain that kind of demand. So the race is on, cars vrs power solutions.

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Ex14 said:

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

Very interesting indeed. Not quite sure how coal got involved in the conversation, but I digress. Natural gas is significantly better than coal.

 

But it has nothing on Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Nuclear, etc.

 

Singapore is right beside the ocean - it's prime real estate for nuclear power stations.

8 hours ago, dragoon20005 said:

The guy bought the car off from another owner who only drove 1k miles. And it was hardly used considering it was built in 2014. So it was left in the garage to rot until the new owner decides to buy it and bring it to Singapore. As for power generation. We have around 3 to 4 power stations in various part of our island and offshore all use compressed natural gas as fuel. So no coal is used. We buy the fuel from our neighbouring countries and via ships.

95% natural gas according to Wikipedia. Of course, as much better as that is compared to oil and coal, it's still a fossil fuel, and pollutes a ton.

4 hours ago, FakezZ said:

And then they should also take into account the emissions from making the car itself. And for petrol cars, they should take into account the oil extraction and the other processes crude oil goes through to turn it to gasoline... This is seriously just fucking stupid. I completely agree with you.

Interestingly enough, when I was reading the source article, the Singapore government actually adds an additional 25% CO2 emissions onto gas powered vehicles to account for pollution caused by the oil extraction/manufacturing/refining process, as well as the vehicle manufacturing itself.

 

So they are taking into account that extra process.

[suicidalfranco]

why not take into account the amount of CO2 released during the refinement of oil when taxing ICE vehicles at this point?

[Ex14]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Very interesting indeed. Not quite sure how coal got involved in the conversation, but I digress. Natural gas is significantly better than coal.

 

But it has nothing on Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Nuclear, etc.

 

Singapore is right beside the ocean - it's prime real estate for nuclear power stations.

And on "accident" would probably wipe our entire country off the map and cause alot of trouble for our neighbours.

[dalekphalm]

21 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

why not take into account the amount of CO2 released during the refinement of oil when taxing ICE vehicles at this point?

They do. An additional 25% of CO2 emissions are added to account for oil extraction and refinement. It's in the article.

10 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

And on "accident" would probably wipe our entire country off the map and cause alot of trouble for our neighbours.

Every nuclear disaster to date has been man made (Eg: Human error, cutting corners, not following safety procedures, etc). Nuclear power is safe if you follow the rules. Fukushima would not have happened if the operators didn't compromise safety for laziness and cost savings (The Tsunami didn't help, but wouldn't have caused a nuclear disaster had they followed the rules).

 

So, I don't know what to say? Don't fuck up? Ontario has been operating a Nuclear Power Station since 1977 with no nuclear disasters.

 

If they cut corners with safety and cost with a Natural Gas station, it could cause a mushroom cloud sized explosion. That would also be bad for your neighbours.

[Ex14]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

They do. An additional 25% of CO2 emissions are added to account for oil extraction and refinement. It's in the article.

Every nuclear disaster to date has been man made (Eg: Human error, cutting corners, not following safety procedures, etc). Nuclear power is safe if you follow the rules. Fukushima would not have happened if the operators didn't compromise safety for laziness and cost savings (The Tsunami didn't help, but wouldn't have caused a nuclear disaster had they followed the rules).

 

So, I don't know what to say? Don't fuck up? Ontario has been operating a Nuclear Power Station since 1977 with no nuclear disasters.

I do know what to say. You're overall just generalizing the entire issue. Each country has its own unique blend of politics and issue. Nuclear is not the be all-end all solution you're currently advocating. Yes alot of it is human error but there are some unimaginable/unexpected circumstances (like the tsunami for fukishima) that might happen (terrorism just to name a few). A cloud of smoke is nothing in comparison to the radiation that will not only render my entire home country uninhabitable for many years to come, but also impact our immediate and not so immediate neighbours in the world...and also because we have a plume of smoke that coversd our region from indonesia yearly (yay haze)

[dalekphalm]

19 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

I do know what to say. You're overall just generalizing the entire issue. Each country has its own unique blend of politics and issue. Nuclear is not the be all-end all solution you're currently advocating. Yes alot of it is human error but there are some unimaginable/unexpected circumstances (like the tsunami for fukishima) that might happen (terrorism just to name a few). A cloud of smoke is nothing in comparison to the radiation that will not only render my entire home country uninhabitable for many years to come, but also impact our immediate and not so immediate neighbours in the world...and also because we have a plume of smoke that coversd our region from indonesia yearly (yay haze)

You're just generalizing Nuclear Power as well.

 

I won't (and haven't) said that Nuclear is the best thing for everything and everywhere. But a location beside ocean water is literally the ideal candidate. Singapore is sheltered from things like Tsunami's by the layout of landmass in S.E.A., so what caused the Fukushima disaster cannot happen to your country (Plus, it wasn't actually the Tsunami at fault, but rather the company running the station that didn't follow the rules).

 

Also, the smoke and exhaust from fossil fuel burning kills more people a year than nuclear disasters have pretty well ever killed (Not counting the A-Bombs from the 1940's - those weren't accidents).

 

The risk is very small, as long as it's built properly and the operators don't cut any corners or ignore safety protocols.

 

Anyway, I digress. I won't try and force nuclear power down your throat - I'm just trying to enlighten you with facts and reasoning. In any case, Singapore should look at alternate greener methods for creating power, rather than relying on 95% Natural Gas. They should definitely examine Hydroelectric and hydro-tidal generation, given how close they are to open water.

[handymanshandle]

On 3/11/2016 at 5:20 AM, Sauron said:

Mistakes were probably made in the second test, or the car got damaged. Still, it's a wake up call for those who think electric cars are somehow 0 emission vehicles.

Well if they're powered off of solar energy the only emissions were the manufacture and transport of the car, and then the manufacture, transport and installation of the solar panels but once that's all done the car can't make much more pollution unless it started on fire.

[Tieox]

Perhaps the owner had too many bean laden dinners?

[Tieox]

Just now, huilun02 said:

I appreciate your thought for going green. I support green movements as well. Heck its the reason behind this article and you can clearly see if we're for or against it. But...

 

Nuclear power - Country too small to ever need it. Prohibitive cost and an accident would screw over the entire population.

Hydroelectric power - Our island country is well, at sea level...

Tidal power - Geographic location and underwater topography is way too shallow for this to possibly be viable

Solar & wind power - Relatively low yield of these methods would mean a lot of land area required, something we definitely don't have

 

Any more ideas?

Put the solar panels on the tops of all the buildings. (yes I know this is cost prohibitive) but just saying, it's something i see a lot now here in the UK.

[ApolloX75]

16 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

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.

It would except Hydro One has upped the cost so much and tacked on so many extra charges to our bills that it's completely moot. You either pay through the nose for hydro or you could drive a Challenger Hellcat around in second gear all the time for the same monthly cost.

 

Now if Hydro One gets their heads out of their asses and fixes the metering problems; billing issues and general douchebaggery that they have going on then maybe it will finally make a difference.

 

But this is Ontario.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, ApolloX75 said:

It would except Hydro One has upped the cost so much and tacked on so many extra charges to our bills that it's completely moot. You either pay through the nose for hydro or you could drive a Challenger Hellcat around in second gear all the time for the same monthly cost.

 

Now if Hydro One gets their heads out of their asses and fixes the metering problems; billing issues and general douchebaggery that they have going on then maybe it will finally make a difference.

 

But this is Ontario.

We did cancel a nearly 2 billion dollar gas plant so we've done some stupid things.

[Tieox]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Many of the newer commercial buildings are already outfitted with solar roofs (at least partially)

But if you knew how many people are living in high density high rise buildings, and our population density in general, you'd know solar roofs won't even satisfy a fraction of our requirements.

Fair enough, if their are high rise buildings then their is windows?

 

http://planetsave.com/2015/09/05/solar-power-windows-ready-for-production/

 

Not talking about it powering 100% but taking the load off, while alternative cleaner methods are found

 

 

 

[Sauron]

28 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Well if they're powered off of solar energy the only emissions were the manufacture and transport of the car, and then the manufacture, transport and installation of the solar panels but once that's all done the car can't make much more pollution unless it started on fire.

except it's not powered off of solar panels most of the time. I'm not even sure it's possible to produce enough energy with a single roof worth of solar panels.

[Tieox]

Just now, Sauron said:

except it's not powered off of solar panels most of the time. I'm not even sure it's possible to produce enough energy with a single roof worth of solar panels.

I believe it's one of those cases where everyone would have to be on board, every building with roof, and window panels, aswell as wind turbines where applicable.

 

Even then with current efficency with such techonlogy all we can hope even then is to make a sufficent dent in demand from polluting power generation.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Kierax said:

I believe it's one of those cases where everyone would have to be on board, every building with roof, and window panels, aswell as wind turbines where applicable.

 

Even then with current efficency with such techonlogy all we can hope even then is to make a sufficent dent in demand from polluting power generation.

Exactly

[Tieox]

Just now, Sauron said:

Exactly

The follow up step, is to ensure that the current investors in the polluting techonlogies powering our world, are seeing worthwhile markets to move into, for upcoming clean energy technology that can fill the remaining power demands, placed on fossil energy.

 

That I believe is even harder then getting everyone to put the solar panels on their roof/windows.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, ApolloX75 said:

It would except Hydro One has upped the cost so much and tacked on so many extra charges to our bills that it's completely moot. You either pay through the nose for hydro or you could drive a Challenger Hellcat around in second gear all the time for the same monthly cost.

 

Now if Hydro One gets their heads out of their asses and fixes the metering problems; billing issues and general douchebaggery that they have going on then maybe it will finally make a difference.

 

But this is Ontario.

True, there's definitely room for Ontario Power Generation to improve their management.

30 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

We did cancel a nearly 2 billion dollar gas plant so we've done some stupid things.

Also true - but oddly enough, that was an election promise. They said "If we get re-elected, we'll cancel this plant". And they got re-elected. And then people lost their shit about it.

 

Sure it was wasteful. They should have finished the plant and let it come online (Or better yet, never begun construction to begin with). But we did no they would do it. I voted NDP that election, not that it mattered - and not that NDP would have necessarily done any better.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Well it's fucking true. Electric cars are not very efficient. Electric cars are really dumb. Hydrogen cars are what is the future. Similar efficiency to petrol and diesel and similar costs. The only problem is infrastructure. 

[Tieox]

21 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I see some of you are thinking of some really decentralized means of getting power, something that is just emerging and cost prohibitive for individuals...

 

In an Asian country like mine... Well I couldn't even hope for it to happen in a decade or two.

I'm an idealist at heart, I hope one day that all countries get access to clean, renewable energy.  Not just for their leaders, but for every man, woman and child.  I think it's the thing all rich counties should be doing, not for wealth, but because it's the right thing to do for our earth, and ourselves.