Tesla Model S owner fined for high emissions.

[Ex14]

28 minutes ago, Kierax said:

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.

unfortunately all most people care about is their pockets and how lined it is with cash.

[Tieox]

Just now, Ex14 said:

unfortunately all most people care about is their pockets and how lined it is with cash.

Sadly true, yet those people only have power while, the people permit them to have it.

 

Anyways let us not de-rail this thread.

[handymanshandle]

3 hours ago, 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 suppose how much a power a Solar Panel roof will capture will greatly depend on where you are in the world.

One way or another there are plenty of carbon neutral renewable resources to choose from. Or Nuclear provided that safety measures are taken also Nuclear is Carbon Neutral too but it isn't renewable.

 

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

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. 

The problem with Hydrogen cars is that water vapor is a GHG and would still cause warming but I suppose if you could replace most of the CO and CO₂  with just water vapor in a city like Bejing that might actually be good but that might cause excess rain(?)

 

Anyways here are some articles from the EPA/US Department of Energy

Here's one on EVs https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

Here's another on ICE vehicles https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Hydrogen cars are on pretty much par with EVs in terms of efficiency.

[Sauron]

32 minutes ago, wcreek said:

I suppose how much a power a Solar Panel roof will capture will greatly depend on where you are in the world.

One way or another there are plenty of carbon neutral renewable resources to choose from. Or Nuclear provided that safety measures are taken also Nuclear is Carbon Neutral too but it isn't renewable.

Even assuming constant ideal sunlight throughout daytime it would be hard to power a car on a single (normal sized) rooftop - especially if you live in a skyscraper, where hundreds of people share the same roof.

 

The problem with all renewable energy sources is that they just aren't enough. We use more energy than we can produce with solar panels even assuming total coverage of all otherwise unused surfaces - and solar panels are about the most efficient renewable source we have.

 

Nuclear fission can only be a temporary solution. The true revolution will (hopefully) happen with fusion reactors.

[handymanshandle]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Even assuming constant ideal sunlight throughout daytime it would be hard to power a car on a single (normal sized) rooftop - especially if you live in a skyscraper, where hundreds of people share the same roof.

 

The problem with all renewable energy sources is that they just aren't enough. We use more energy than we can produce with solar panels even assuming total coverage of all otherwise unused surfaces - and solar panels are about the most efficient renewable source we have.

 

Nuclear fission can only be a temporary solution. The true revolution will (hopefully) happen with fusion reactors.

Nuclear Fusion will be pretty cool. Still it's not like the renewable stuff still can't be used to a lesser extent.

[Nineshadow]

In Romania you don't pay any emissions fee on an electric car. Oh , and 5% of taxes.

[Sakkura]

13 hours ago, wcreek said:

The problem with Hydrogen cars is that water vapor is a GHG and would still cause warming but I suppose if you could replace most of the CO and CO₂  with just water vapor in a city like Bejing that might actually be good but that might cause excess rain(?)

That's not really a problem, since more water vapor created just means more rain. It doesn't hang around like CO₂ does.

 

The problems with hydrogen lie elsewhere. It's just not a convenient energy carrier.

[the dutch guy]

22 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

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. 

 

sorry to have to be blunt but you are wrong in every part of this argument.

electric cars are the most efficient drivetrain out there, even when taking the electricity from a "dirty" coal plant it is still polluting less then a regular liquid dinosaur burning car. this is basic efficiency rules that do not take more then 2 minutes on google for you to find. 

a hydrogen car is still an electric car, the car does not move because of hydogen but the electricity generated in the fuel cell by the hydrogen. this extra conversion needed to make the hydrogen in the first place (where do you think that stuff comes from?) is what is the problem here. a model T from 100 years ago is more effiecent and less polluting then a hydrogen car when you add the numbers. this is not a secret, it's there for you to find with a 2 minute google search.

 

 

please google your facts before trowing them out please, or keep them to yourself.

[Misanthrope]

It's nice to see that some of you notice that despite the title and the counter intuitiveness some of you do recognize that electric cars are pointless if we still generate electricity by burning fucking coal.

It's a step in the right direction, sure. But there's a lot more that needs to change on many places of the world with renewable energy being way too expensive for struggling economies and Nuclear being somewhat unfeasible due to educational needs to support it: Although here in Mexico we do have nuclear most of the energy still comes from burning coal and most people can barely afford that, let alone something a lot less efficient (read: more expensive in the long run).

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, the dutch guy said:

electric cars are the most efficient drivetrain out there, even when taking the electricity from a "dirty" coal plant it is still polluting less then a regular liquid dinosaur burning car. this is basic efficiency rules that do not take more then 2 minutes on google for you to find. 

[Citation Needed]

I am mostly interested in the "basic efficiency rule" you are referring to because I could not find that on Google.

 

2 hours ago, the dutch guy said:

a hydrogen car is still an electric car, the car does not move because of hydogen but the electricity generated in the fuel cell by the hydrogen. this extra conversion needed to make the hydrogen in the first place (where do you think that stuff comes from?) is what is the problem here. a model T from 100 years ago is more efficient and less polluting then a hydrogen car when you add the numbers. this is not a secret, it's there for you to find with a 2 minute google search.

That is just flat out wrong. Hydrogen cars don't really exist today (outside of prototypes, research and maybe a handful of actual commercial ones) so you are making an assumption. There are two types of hydrogen vehicles. The first type is the one you are thinking of. They are called fuel cell vehicles. They use fuel cells (not necessarily hydrogen) to charge a battery, and then they got a motor that's powered by that. An example of this is the Toyota Mirai.

The second type is what's called hydrogen internal combustion engines. They burn the hydrogen to power the wheels directly, no battery needed. It's like a regular combustion engine but instead of petrol it uses hydrogen. An example of this would be the BMW Hydrogen 7.

 

The second type does not have any "extra conversion".

What I think is funny with your comment though, is that you say "extra conversion" as a reason why hydrogen cars won't be as efficient as electric ways. But what you don't realize is that electric cars require "extra conversion" compared to regular combustion engines as well.

 

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that the model T is more efficient and less polluting than a hydrogen car as well. I mean, assuming that it is even true, we are still talking about extremely early prototypes products when we talk about hydrogen cars. Electric cars, as we can see in this article, might not be more efficient than combustion engines either, but they might be in the future.

[Daegun]

2 hours ago, the dutch guy said:

electric cars are the most efficient drivetrain out there, even when taking the electricity from a "dirty" coal plant it is still polluting less then a regular liquid dinosaur burning car. this is basic efficiency rules that do not take more then 2 minutes on google for you to find. 

Incorrect. New, similar sized gasoline cars produce low enough emissions that if you get your energy for your electric car from a coal pant you're polluting more.

 

http://www.divergent3d.com/2015/07/03/the-making-of-an-environmentally-beautiful-car/

 

This is something that is known. People are simply too wrapped up in that the car itself produces no emissions.

[Sakkura]

39 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

[Citation Needed]

I am mostly interested in the "basic efficiency rule" you are referring to because I could not find that on Google.

 

That is just flat out wrong. Hydrogen cars don't really exist today (outside of prototypes, research and maybe a handful of actual commercial ones) so you are making an assumption. There are two types of hydrogen vehicles. The first type is the one you are thinking of. They are called fuel cell vehicles. They use fuel cells (not necessarily hydrogen) to charge a battery, and then they got a motor that's powered by that. An example of this is the Toyota Mirai.

The second type is what's called hydrogen internal combustion engines. They burn the hydrogen to power the wheels directly, no battery needed. It's like a regular combustion engine but instead of petrol it uses hydrogen. An example of this would be the BMW Hydrogen 7.

 

The second type does not have any "extra conversion".

What I think is funny with your comment though, is that you say "extra conversion" as a reason why hydrogen cars won't be as efficient as electric ways. But what you don't realize is that electric cars require "extra conversion" compared to regular combustion engines as well.

 

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that the model T is more efficient and less polluting than a hydrogen car as well. I mean, assuming that it is even true, we are still talking about extremely early prototypes products when we talk about hydrogen cars. Electric cars, as we can see in this article, might not be more efficient than combustion engines either, but they might be in the future.

For fuel cell vehicles, the conversion of electrical power (or other source of power) to hydrogen, then back to electrical power, is going to struggle to be anywhere near as efficient as just using a battery. You could point out the issues that batteries have with weight, bulk, and slow charging, but hydrogen tanks are pretty damn bad themselves, plus you have to have both fuel cells and the actual electrical motor in the car. Charging time is still something a fuel cell vehicle would improve on, but it's not nearly as crippling an issue as it used to be. And hydrogen is a serious hazard both in the vehicle and at gas stations (but hey, this could mean a gas station would be selling an actual gas! woo!).

 

Hydrogen for an internal combustion engine is just a bit pointless. Why not just use methane? Or propane? Converting to hydrogen is just odd. It's harder to store, harder to generate, and is harder on the engine - requiring a bulkier, more expensive engine. It works, it's pretty straightforward, it's just... a bit silly?

[the dutch guy]

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

[Citation Needed]

I am mostly interested in the "basic efficiency rule" you are referring to because I could not find that on Google. 

 

basic conversion statistics are not hard to find:

 

dead dinosaur: 25~35% effective in the engine alone, this ignores the losses in conversion and transport from crude to gas station wich would reduce it another 5~15%.

electricity hovers around the 50% mark in production. but there are virturally no losses in transport and actually getting it into your car and to the wheels

 

hydrogen based drivetrains are a different thing, you are stuck with calculating in pure watts. something that is hard to do with dead dinosaur.

in relative terms there is about 9.7kW of energy in a litre of petrol. so lets take that as a base here.

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That is just flat out wrong. Hydrogen cars don't really exist today (outside of prototypes, research and maybe a handful of actual commercial ones) so you are making an assumption. There are two types of hydrogen vehicles. The first type is the one you are thinking of. They are called fuel cell vehicles. They use fuel cells (not necessarily hydrogen) to charge a battery, and then they got a motor that's powered by that. An example of this is the Toyota Mirai.

The second type is what's called hydrogen internal combustion engines. They burn the hydrogen to power the wheels directly, no battery needed. It's like a regular combustion engine but instead of petrol it uses hydrogen. An example of this would be the BMW Hydrogen 7.

 

The second type does not have any "extra conversion".

What I think is funny with your comment though, is that you say "extra conversion" as a reason why hydrogen cars won't be as efficient as electric ways. But what you don't realize is that electric cars require "extra conversion" compared to regular combustion engines as well.

 

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that the model T is more efficient and less polluting than a hydrogen car as well. I mean, assuming that it is even true, we are still talking about extremely early prototypes products when we talk about hydrogen cars. Electric cars, as we can see in this article, might not be more efficient than combustion engines either, but they might be in the future.

yes, hydrogen cars are not really comerically viable and here is why: it takes a fuckton of energy to make the frigging hydrogen.

 

 

 

please absorb this picture i have added to clarify. this should answer why hydrogen sucks in all it's glory.

 

the tesla i drive gets around 185~200W/km. that would mean if you could power it with petrol it would do 50km/l or 2l/100km without even trying.

 

and please do not confuse efficiency with pollution.

[Sakkura]

6 minutes ago, the dutch guy said:

yes, hydrogen cars are not really comerically viable and here is why: it takes a fuckton of energy to make the frigging hydrogen.

 

please absorb this picture i have added to clarify. this should answer why hydrogen sucks in all it's glory.

To be fair, it is possible to generate hydrogen from other sources than electric power. However, those sources are problematic in their own right. You can get hydrogen from fossil fuels, but that obviously doesn't solve any of the issues with fossil fuels. You can get it from biological sources, but that's very difficult at this point and has problems regarding land-use required.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Hydrogen for an internal combustion engine is just a bit pointless. Why not just use methane? Or propane? Converting to hydrogen is just odd. It's harder to store, harder to generate, and is harder on the engine - requiring a bulkier, more expensive engine. It works, it's pretty straightforward, it's just... a bit silly?

Hydrogen is cleaner than methane and propane, which is the whole point of changing from gasoline.

Methane is actually an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, while burning hydrogen literally just creates water and nothing else.

 

Assuming we can solve the storage, production and transportation issues of hydrogen, it would be the perfect fuel. And yes, I completely understand that it's like saying "if we can solve world hunger and wars, then Earth would be perfect". Not exactly small challenges.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, the dutch guy said:

basic conversion statistics are not hard to find:

 

dead dinosaur: 25~35% effective in the engine alone, this ignores the losses in conversion and transport from crude to gas station wich would reduce it another 5~15%.

electricity hovers around the 50% mark in production. but there are virturally no losses in transport and actually getting it into your car and to the wheels

Where did you get those numbers from? The part about there being "virtually no loss in transport and actually getting it into your car and to the wheels" is bullshit. Simply transporting the power over the power grid will lose you about 6% energy. The charger itself has also been found to only have an efficiency of about 80%. So just counting that we are down to ~75% efficiency, without even counting for the losses from actually creating the electricity, or the engine, or batteries (which are notorious for degrading).

 

33 minutes ago, the dutch guy said:

yes, hydrogen cars are not really comerically viable and here is why: it takes a fuckton of energy to make the frigging hydrogen.

It's pretty funny that you looked up that article, but didn't actually bother reading it. Here is what the conclusion says:

Quote

Fuel Cell Cars would appear to be the best long term solution and may replace the hybrids and plug-in electrics.

 

Here is another interesting tidbit that you conveniently left out from your post:

well-to-station efficiency for electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars:

Electric car: 52.50%

Hydrogen: 61%

 

The vehicle efficiency is far lower, but that's because it is based on the numbers from a concept/test car. Not a production car. You are also using numbers based on fuel cells, not hydrogen combustion engines.

 

Even your own source disagrees with you, but I am still interested where you got all these numbers from. I will early be waiting for you to post the sources.

[Necrodead]

People seem to forget that electric cars are only as emissions free as the kind of power you use. If your country burns coal for power, well you have a coal powered car.

[kuddlesworth9419]

On 12/03/2016 at 7:15 PM, wcreek said:

The problem with Hydrogen cars is that water vapor is a GHG and would still cause warming but I suppose if you could replace most of the CO and CO₂  with just water vapor in a city like Bejing that might actually be good but that might cause excess rain(?)

 

Anyways here are some articles from the EPA/US Department of Energy

Here's one on EVs https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

Here's another on ICE vehicles https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Hydrogen cars are on pretty much par with EVs in terms of efficiency.

That's even if you believe we cause climate change. And how so called Green House Gases actually effect the climate. It's not as simple as they put it. Adding more GHG to the atmosphere doesn't always cause warming or more aggressive weather. It can even cause mass freezing across the northern hemisphere. 

[handymanshandle]

3 minutes ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

That's even if you believe we cause climate change. And how so called Green House Gases actually effect the climate. It's not as simple as they put it. Adding more GHG to the atmosphere doesn't always cause warming or more aggressive weather. It can even cause mass freezing across the northern hemisphere. 

Are you saying that Climate Change isn't happening? The science is there to prove it.

Though GHG isn't totally at fault for climate change, and it's not inherently all to be blamed on humans but perhaps by human activities. (Cattle emit a lot of CH₄ and CO₂ could be in part to blame for climate change)

Deforestation is probably a cause too.

So to say that climate change is a complex thing and there are more than one definite causes is accurate.

 Though I do think that hydrogen fuel cell cars will generally replace ICE in most places as it's cheaper and probably easier to implement same could be said about CNG/LPG though the methods used to get them aren't very clean or sustainable which I guess is the nice thing about hydrogen is that it'll be here as long as we have an atmosphere.

The Toyota Mirai if I recall correctly is basically an electric vehicle but instead of plugging it into a regular EV charger you just refill with hydrogen whenever the fuel cell gets low.

 

 

[kuddlesworth9419]

6 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Are you saying that Climate Change isn't happening? The science is there to prove it.

Though GHG isn't totally at fault for climate change, and it's not inherently all to be blamed on humans but perhaps by human activities. (Cattle emit a lot of CH₄ and CO₂ could be in part to blame for climate change)

Deforestation is probably a cause too.

So to say that climate change is a complex thing and there are more than one definite causes is accurate.

 Though I do think that hydrogen fuel cell cars will generally replace ICE in most places as it's cheaper and probably easier to implement same could be said about CNG/LPG though the methods used to get them aren't very clean or sustainable which I guess is the nice thing about hydrogen is that it'll be here as long as we have an atmosphere.

The Toyota Mirai if I recall correctly is basically an electric vehicle but instead of plugging it into a regular EV charger you just refill with hydrogen whenever the fuel cell gets low.

 

 

You probably don't realise this but who exactly gives you this information. It's all from the media. You might want to look up both sides of the story and look up other scientists finding because they are also very interesting. No one really understands what is happening. We think we can understand something more complex then we like to think.

[Ex14]

1 minute ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

You probably don't realise this but who exactly gives you this information. It's all from the media. You might want to look up both sides of the story and look up other scientists finding because they are also very interesting. No one really understands what is happening. We think we can understand something more complex then we like to think.

you might wanna see your sources more closely. and how much the scientific community actually backs global warming. The ones that don;t basically are paid off.

[kuddlesworth9419]

12 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

you might wanna see your sources more closely. and how much the scientific community actually backs global warming. The ones that don;t basically are paid off.

Probably because any scientist that disagrees is blacklisted. Do you always listen to just one side of the argument. There are multiple websites that tell the other side of the story and I suggest everyone read up on them not just the mainstream websites. Science is meant to be a debated subject. But for some reason there are a few topics that are not debated at all, climate is one of them. It all to do with politics.

 

It does sound very tin foily but that is just how the world works. It's not a very cut and dry place we live in. It's also never just two sides and when there is a mass agreement you should say wait a minute how come all these people suddenly agree with one another and then you realise well they have choice if they want to keep their jobs or get investment. 

 

Read all of these and you might start to understand the situation and the exaggerations that have been made. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

It's always about politics even when it looks lie it's not. Why do you think you have to pay emission tax now. Well it's so governments can make more money. Probably to make up for lost revenue because big companies no longer pay any tax. 

[Ex14]

2 minutes ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

Probably because any scientist that disagrees is blacklisted. Do you always listen to just one side of the argument. There are multiple websites that tell the other side of the story and I suggest everyone read up on them not just the mainstream websites. Science is meant to be a debated subject. But for some reason there are a few topics that are not debated at all, climate is one of them. It all to do with politics.

 

It does sound very tin foily but that is just how the world works. It's not a very cut and dry place we live in. 

 

????? do you know how science works??? I read peer reviewed journals. While your supposed sources have no such backing from the scientific communtity and even use some dubious methods to inflate their supposed supporters and use outdated data points cherry picked to support their nonexsistant cause.

Yes this is the way the world works. which is why we have people liek you who mistakenly follow these misinformation. If this is about politics, wouldn;t EVERY government official be FOR climate change? but no. Majoirty of the vocal voices are ones that speak out against climate change? 

And lastly Science is NOT a debatable subject. We don;t argue that theres this force called gravity? or that we're made of atoms? science is PROVEN by not just one person but by a whole multitude of Scientist. You should really talk to a real, proper scientist. The ones that are really invested in their work are one of the purest people i've known, who chase knowledge and understadning of how our world works. Not like your shrills that you read.

I'm all for knowing the other side. (which i do, I've tried reading their poor report which is a ripoff on its own right.) But not when they're so undeniably wrong like the cause you're trying to promote. I'm all for debate if the scientific community is divided on a matter (like the models of quantum pyhsics) but not when 99.9999999999999999% actually says something DOES exists. It might not be Global Warming everywhere, but Global CLIMATE CHANGE is real.

[kuddlesworth9419]

6 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

 

????? do you know how science works??? I read peer reviewed journals. While your supposed sources have no such backing from the scientific communtity and even use some dubious methods to inflate their supposed supporters and use outdated data points cherry picked to support their nonexsistant cause.

Yes this is the way the world works. which is why we have people liek you who mistakenly follow these misinformation. If this is about politics, wouldn;t EVERY government official be FOR climate change? but no. Majoirty of the vocal voices are ones that speak out against climate change? 

And lastly Science is NOT a debatable subject. We don;t argue that theres this force called gravity? or that we're made of atoms? science is PROVEN by not just one person but by a whole multitude of Scientist. You should really talk to a real, proper scientist. The ones that are really invested in their work are one of the purest people i've known, who chase knowledge and understadning of how our world works. Not like your shrills that you read.

I'm all for knowing the other side. (which i do, I've tried reading their poor report which is a ripoff on its own right.) But not when they're so undeniably wrong like the cause you're trying to promote. I'm all for debate if the scientific community is divided on a matter (like the models of quantum pyhsics) but not when 99.9999999999999999% actually says something DOES exists. It might not be Global Warming everywhere, but Global CLIMATE CHANGE is real.

Man made climate change has never been proven though. Climate change is obviously real as it's been an ever changing process when the planet first formed. What I am saying is humans humans are not the cause for climate change. And actually no most scientists don't believe in man made cliamte change 

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

The 97% figure is pure bullshit. 

[Ex14]

5 minutes ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

Man made climate change has never been proven though. Climate change is obviously real as it's been an ever changing process when the planet first formed. What I am saying is humans humans are not the cause for climate change. 

the first part is right . climate change is natural. But man effected climate change is the main thing. The scientist isn;t claiming we MADE climate change, just thaT our actions are affecting the climate in a way thats unnatural, more specifically, in too short a duration of time.

 

Edit : i'm not going to argue with you with that article. Just oging to say please do abit more research on who the author of that articles are. Lastly, I wsould ask that you find an article disproving Global warming from a NON American source. just try. I challenge you. Also why not visit one of the author's wiki page and see some of the issue and views on various issue on the matter.