Tesla Model S owner fined for high emissions.

[kuddlesworth9419]

9 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

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.

What's natural. Humans are natural. Is the release of methane from fish natural or unnatural. When lightning starts a forest fire and burns down an entire forest and tons of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere is that natural. Or when someone starts a fire in a forest and causes the same damage is that also natural. Or when a volcano erupts and reduces the planets temperature reduces and plant growth plummets causing the death of half the population of Iceland. 

 

Carbon dioxide used to be in far higher percentages then it is today even before humans where around I don't see a slight increase in C02 as being major in any way. Especially when it's entirely beneficial for most animals on the planet. Animals don't do well int he cold but they do thrive in the warmth and plans love high concentration of C02. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jODIYw_5A40

[Ex14]

1 minute ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

What's natural. Humans are natural. Is the release of methane from fish natural or unnatural. When lightning starts a forest fire and burns down an entire forest and tons of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere is that natural. Or when someone starts a fire in a forest and causes the same damage is that also natural. Or when a volcano erupts and reduces the planets temperature reduces and plant growth plummets causing the death of half the population of Iceland. 

Humans are natural... b hut the burning of fossil fuel is NOT natural. Sure Coal fires happen once in a while, volcanic erruptions and so on. But not sustained dumping of these gases into the atmosphere, unless dolphins have actually been hiding technology that uses fuels as well. or maybe even the monkeys. Anyway read my previous post. I'm done trying to talk any sense into you. You claim we need to be more open minded when it is you that need to better closely examine your sources instead of blindly following opinions. Do you think it makes you look cool to be a "rebel"? I 'm telling you its not. Facts are facts. And this topic has been knocked wayy off close due to your FUD. I will not entertain you any further. have a good day.

[kuddlesworth9419]

8 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

Humans are natural... b hut the burning of fossil fuel is NOT natural. Sure Coal fires happen once in a while, volcanic erruptions and so on. But not sustained dumping of these gases into the atmosphere, unless dolphins have actually been hiding technology that uses fuels as well. or maybe even the monkeys. Anyway read my previous post. I'm done trying to talk any sense into you. You claim we need to be more open minded when it is you that need to better closely examine your sources instead of blindly following opinions. Do you think it makes you look cool to be a "rebel"? I 'm telling you its not. Facts are facts. And this topic has been knocked wayy off close due to your FUD. I will not entertain you any further. have a good day.

Have a good day to, or what's left of it. It's 9:29 here.

[Nineshadow]

If you own an electric car and you have to pay for the emissions generated by the national grid , then  if you have a normal car , why don't you also pay for the emissions generated by the extraction of petrol and other processes which bring it to its final form?

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Burning hydrogen creates only water, but creating hydrogen is another matter entirely. 

[Sakkura]

1 hour 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. 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. 

Oh wow, a truther. GG. I will need to see the birth certificate of your jet fuel, or it can't melt steel beams. 

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

If you own an electric car and you have to pay for the emissions generated by the national grid , then  if you have a normal car , why don't you also pay for the emissions generated by the extraction of petrol and other processes which bring it to its final form?

Ever heard of the fuel tax? It's a tax you pay on gasoline. It's a tax electric vehicles don't pay. You could make a very strong argument that the extraction/refinement of petrol is included in that tax.

 

11 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Burning hydrogen creates only water, but creating hydrogen is another matter entirely. 

Well yeah. Like I said before "if we solve the storage, production and transportation issues of hydrogen it would be the perfect fuel".

The good news is that there are a ton of different ways of creating it and we see lots of very promising signs of efficient hydrogen production pooping up all the time. We just need that one breakthrough that will make hydrogen production cheap and efficient...

 

Or maybe we should just put our bets on fusion reactors and then use electric cars.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well yeah. Like I said before "if we solve the storage, production and transportation issues of hydrogen it would be the perfect fuel".

The good news is that there are a ton of different ways of creating it and we see lots of very promising signs of efficient hydrogen production pooping up all the time. We just need that one breakthrough that will make hydrogen production cheap and efficient...

 

Or maybe we should just put our bets on fusion reactors and then use electric cars.

But there's no particular advantage to hydrogen. If we rely on a synthetic supply, again methane or propane would be better. They are not any more dirty that way, as you remove as much carbon in synthesis as you release when burning it. 

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Nineshadow said:

If you own an electric car and you have to pay for the emissions generated by the national grid , then  if you have a normal car , why don't you also pay for the emissions generated by the extraction of petrol and other processes which bring it to its final form?

Many (but not all) places do this.

 

In fact, Singapore, the country in question for this article, does this. To calculate the fees your vehicle has to pay, they add in around 25% emissions for the oil extraction/refinement processes.

 

Most countries also straight up tax gasoline (petrol).

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

But there's no particular advantage to hydrogen. If we rely on a synthetic supply, again methane or propane would be better. They are not any more dirty that way, as you remove as much carbon in synthesis as you release when burning it. 

No advantage right now. If we solve the current issues then hydrogen would be better than methane. That's what I am trying to say. Hydrogen has the potential to be the perfect fuel, but right now it has drawbacks. Burning methane will always be bad, even with a breakthrough discovery. 

[Sakkura]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No advantage right now. If we solve the current issues then hydrogen would be better than methane. That's what I am trying to say. Hydrogen has the potential to be the perfect fuel, but right now it has drawbacks. Burning methane will always be bad, even with a breakthrough discovery. 

If we solve the current issues, any fuel could be "perfect".

 

And no, burning methane will not always be bad. If you generate it from CO₂ and water via whatever path (biological or otherwise), then burn it back into CO₂ and water, nothing has gotten dirty. No net difference, just like electrolyzing water to hydrogen (and oxygen), then burning the hydrogen back into water.

[HarmFull]

At least Tesla goes and defends this man. Imagine Volkswagen doing that lol.

[bigneo]

This is the most, ridiculous thing ever. Does the rest of the people owning cars, electric or conventional get higher tax bands because they use electricity at their home, or for example, use lights in public places? After all, we all use power grids to get power don't we?

 

I understand government needs to make money some way, but this one is just unimaginably ridiculous...

[IhazHedont]

You guys can laugh, but this kind of thing is coming to France because the new EDF electric meter.

You may know that we are currently using 3 types of power: P (W), Q (VAR) and S (VA). Well, now EDF will be able to measure D, a deforming power.

 

It has no unit, but it translates how much your electric receptors will pollute the electric network because of harmonics. Any kind of power supply that needs to work on the current wave will generate harmonics. You are buying LED lighting ? Good for you, but it's actually one of the most polluting receptor in a house.

 

Apparently, this deforming power is actually consumming 2 nuclear core in France (but I don't have any source for this statement ...).

 

And this Tesla car ? Well, it's actually a really good harmonics generator.

[s3ns3]

11 hours ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

 Or when a volcano erupts and 

and all vocanos produce ~400 milion tonnes of co2/year .and thats a high estimate. we produce ~30 BILLION/year. we can measure this very easy couse the volcanic one is slighty heavier

 

you can disagree all day but human climate change is real. you cant take into account what happened before civilisation because...well because we werent burning coal and fuel at this rate

the ice is melting,less sunlight is reflected back,oceans absorbs more heat,more heat is trapped in our atmosphere.

look what happens to permafrost in the arctic

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, s3ns3 said:

and all vocanos produce ~400 milion tonnes of co2/year .and thats a high estimate. we produce ~30 BILLION/year. we can measure this very easy couse the volcanic one is slighty heavier

 

you can disagree all day but human climate change is real. you cant take into account what happened before civilisation because...well because we werent burning coal and fuel at this rate

the ice is melting,less sunlight is reflected back,oceans absorbs more heat,more heat is trapped in our atmosphere.

look what happens to permafrost in the arctic

Humans accelerating climate change is real. The Earth's climate has always been changing, just not as fast as it is now. BTW, Methane is another greenhouse gas that is actually worse than CO₂, and since it is predominately produced in landfills and cattle farms.....things which society relies upon+has loads of.....

[CGurrell]

Gues, can we get off of the topic of Climate Change? It divides opinion and just causes multiple arguments. I'm more interested in how Tesla and the Singaporean Government will decide which of the test results are accurate, the 444wh/km the government found, or the 181wh/km Tesla found. It should be interesting to see, as it's the different between a S$15,000 fine, and a S$10,000 incentive.

[nullbot]

Glad I don't live there...

[Jams4551]

Batteries are more harmful to the environment than gasoline, so I understand why.

[DragonTamer1]

9 hours ago, CGurrell said:

Gues, can we get off of the topic of Climate Change? It divides opinion and just causes multiple arguments. I'm more interested in how Tesla and the Singaporean Government will decide which of the test results are accurate, the 444wh/km the government found, or the 181wh/km Tesla found. It should be interesting to see, as it's the different between a S$15,000 fine, and a S$10,000 incentive.

It is entirely possible that it draws 444wh/km with such a low number on the odometer. The batteries will deteriorate over time naturally. If the car was plugged in constantly, it can actually shorten the life span of the battery even if it never moves. There are a lot of things you can do to damage a battery, and different types of batteries are more easily damaged by certain types of charging/discharging.

 

If it was left outside, or driven during wet weather, the motors will loose efficiency due to corrosion of the bearings and shafts inside. I can't imagine this particular one being exposed to so much water that the motor is in such a bad state.

 

Sensors may have gone bad over time.

 

This is speculation since I don't know the inner workings of a Tesla car.

[s3ns3]

10 hours ago, DragonTamer1 said:

It is entirely possible that it draws 444wh/km with such a low number on the odometer. The batteries will deteriorate over time naturally. If the car was plugged in constantly, it can actually shorten the life span of the battery even if it never moves. There are a lot of things you can do to damage a battery, and different types of batteries are more easily damaged by certain types of charging/discharging.

 

If it was left outside, or driven during wet weather, the motors will loose efficiency due to corrosion of the bearings and shafts inside. I can't imagine this particular one being exposed to so much water that the motor is in such a bad state.

 

Sensors may have gone bad over time.

 

This is speculation since I don't know the inner workings of a Tesla car.

as far as i know,tesla is powered by the usual 18650 batteries so ofc they degrade

[CGurrell]

12 hours ago, DragonTamer1 said:

It is entirely possible that it draws 444wh/km with such a low number on the odometer. The batteries will deteriorate over time naturally. If the car was plugged in constantly, it can actually shorten the life span of the battery even if it never moves. There are a lot of things you can do to damage a battery, and different types of batteries are more easily damaged by certain types of charging/discharging.

 

If it was left outside, or driven during wet weather, the motors will loose efficiency due to corrosion of the bearings and shafts inside. I can't imagine this particular one being exposed to so much water that the motor is in such a bad state.

 

Sensors may have gone bad over time.

 

This is speculation since I don't know the inner workings of a Tesla car.

My thought was that the electric motor was the culprit, as that's the only part of the car that consumes electricity (besides things like lights, sat-nav, AC etc). The figure of 444wh/km refers to distance, and the only part of a normal electric car that creates movement is the motor, sending power to the wheels. Heck it could be a wiring issue or an issue with the drivetrain, who knows, but I'm almost certain it isn't the batteries.