EV and more environmentally health future?

[Electronics For Fun]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:58 PM, RadiatingLight said:

I like electric cars not only because they're greener, but also because they're just flat-out better. the model S P100D is already the fastest-accelerating production vehicle AFAIK, and the roadster 2 looks mind-boggling. plus, electric cars have only had a few years to develop -- imagine where they'll be in 15 years.

electric cars are not green at all, do you know how many gallons of acidic toxic waster is dumped into the land just to mine enough lithium to make 1 battery bank for an electric car?

[Electronics For Fun]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:59 PM, c00lFD said:

I personally think that it's a great thing, and I'll be getting a tesla soon. Climate change, despite what some may say, is real and is a serious problem, and electric cars will be a head start to making earth better.

no, electric cars won't do jack shit about climate change. this planet's climate has been in a constant state of change, so technically climate change is always happening and there is nothing that you can do about it.

[Electronics For Fun]

On 1/7/2018 at 9:09 PM, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, thats a big problem for me but I think eventually if we can get the United States on renewables soon, the tradeoff would balance out (or go into the green) and the environmental damage could be mitigated. 

it will be a very long time before electric cars become green. believe it or not coal power  and natural gas in the US is our cleanest resource for electricity.wind mills kill birds a and aren't very efficient and they are super expensive. solar panels contribute to something called the "heat island effect" which actually will make the planet hotter, and on top of that the production of solar panels produces all kinds of poisonous chemicals into the air like silicon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide which deteriorates the ozone layer. nuclear energy is clean if handled properly, but if somebody fucks up then it can be a environmental nightmare. so the only thing left is coal and natural gas, which would normally release all kinds of bad things into the air like mercury and other kinds of crap, but since the 90's it has been mandated that those things be scrubbed out of the flu gases. so coal plants only produce water vapor with a little bit of carbon in it which is no big deal at all. and there are natural gas plants that can actually clean the air.

[Coaxialgamer]

I have 2 major gripes when it comes to electric cars . Both are related to batteries.

-battery technology isn't there yet; batteries make up a significant portion of an E-vehicle's weight , they take a significant amount of time to charge and don't offer nearly enough energy density to even come close to a gas/diesel car's range . Current Li-ion batteries are also VERY expensive to build and harmful to the environment.

-Lithium ISN'T a renewable resource. We want to use it in cars , but there might not be enough of it to replace petrol . And it's not like lithium is only used in vehicles. That lithium is taken away from people who legitimately need it to sat healthy ( lithium is used quite a lot in the medical industry)

 

Basically , e-vehicles have one problem in my eyes : lithium-ion batteries . If we find an alternative ,cheaper, more energy dense material to store our energy , then they'll be able to fully surpass petrol cars technologically.

 

Hydrogen , for example , is abundant and inexpensive ( produced through electrolysis ). It can be used as a fuel in a "traditional"  combustion engine , and as such could be used in higher powered engines , such as planes , trucks and boats . It has a higher energy than even petrol. There's just the concern of safety when it comes to such high energy storage , but that could probably be remedied somehow.

[Electronics For Fun]

On 1/8/2018 at 6:42 AM, GoldenLag said:

Nuclear power is a reasonable stopgap to achieve greener energy in some areas. Thorium reactors mitigate some of the issues with Uranium, but there are few tl none thorium reactors around the world. The waste from thorium has a much shorter halflife and will be safer in a shorter amount of time. Most reactors these days are Uranium salt water reactors. The change to thorium would take a lot of time and the interest of a lot of countries to change. Its more likely we will skip to better solution than this rather than this stop gap.

 

 

Edit: we would also need tl produce fuel in Thorium rich countries like India and Norway which is an issue of its own. Due to shipping

yes because chernobyl and fukishima are a perfect of example of clean areas from nuclear energy. lol

[ShoByte]

On 1/12/2018 at 12:49 AM, Mihle said:

Quite a few cars with automatic transmission that I have seen allow you to use bottoms on the backside of the steering wheel to choose gear if you want to.

That's why I said what's the point of an auto then? New cars don't even use gears.

 

I don't see how this is going to magically fix pollution. There will be an increase in pollution making the batteries. Some studies show it'll be about the same.

[Mihle]

1 minute ago, ShoByte said:

That's why I said what's the point of an auto then? New cars don't even use gears.

 

I don't see how this is going to magically fix pollution. There will be an increase in pollution making the batteries. Some studies show it'll be about the same.

Studies show that producing electric cars do pollute more to produce but in the long run they pollute much less.  So dont throw away your new car to buy an electric, but if you are going to buy a new one it does pollute less to buy an electric one.

Well, at least if you buy an electric car with the size of battery that you need, not buying a Tesla 100D when you just drive short distances mostly.

[geo3]

I don't care about them. They won't "save the planet" nor will banning meat farming, or anything else that makes peoples lives suck more.  

 

Fucking shut down coal and other FF plants and replace them with nuclear! Should have been there 30 years ago but mass idiocy and fear of the 'N' word won't let us. 

[LienusLateTips]

1 hour ago, Electronics For Fun said:

electric cars are very bad for the environment, the production of the batteries is a major health hazard for the planet. do you know how much acidic toxic waste is dumped into the land just to mine enough lithium for 1 car batter bank? you would do less environmental damage if you were doing burn outs in a semi truck. not to mention that electric cars depreciate very fast, which means they are easier to total so you'll see more cars going off to junk yards and that creates more waste. and that doesn't even count the disposal of the batteries which isn't very good either. and electric cars are more likely to explode or catch on fire because the battery cells are more volatile than gasoline.

 

1 hour ago, Electronics For Fun said:

no, electric cars won't do jack shit about climate change. this planet's climate has been in a constant state of change, so technically climate change is always happening and there is nothing that you can do about it.

They are better in the long run.

1 hour ago, Electronics For Fun said:

no, electric cars won't do jack shit about climate change. this planet's climate has been in a constant state of change, so technically climate change is always happening and there is nothing that you can do about it.

So you are a climate change non-believer? Ok.

56 minutes ago, Electronics For Fun said:

it will be a very long time before electric cars become green. believe it or not coal power  and natural gas in the US is our cleanest resource for electricity.wind mills kill birds a and aren't very efficient and they are super expensive. solar panels contribute to something called the "heat island effect" which actually will make the planet hotter, and on top of that the production of solar panels produces all kinds of poisonous chemicals into the air like silicon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide which deteriorates the ozone layer. nuclear energy is clean if handled properly, but if somebody fucks up then it can be a environmental nightmare. so the only thing left is coal and natural gas, which would normally release all kinds of bad things into the air like mercury and other kinds of crap, but since the 90's it has been mandated that those things be scrubbed out of the flu gases. so coal plants only produce water vapor with a little bit of carbon in it which is no big deal at all. and there are natural gas plants that can actually clean the air.

Wind mills aren't that bad for killing bird, and they are getting cheaper by the minute. I don't know about how solar panels contribute to the heat island affect; haven't researched that. Any proof? Plus you forgot hydro/geothemal. Nuclear is extremely clean when not f***ed up.

40 minutes ago, Electronics For Fun said:

yes because chernobyl and fukishima are a perfect of example of clean areas from nuclear energy. lol

Both Chernobyl and Fukishima were extremely f***ed up. Missing fail-safe protections, etc

 

15 minutes ago, geo3 said:

I don't care about them. They won't "save the planet" nor will banning meat farming, or anything else that makes peoples lives suck more.  

 

Fucking shut down coal and other FF plants and replace them with nuclear! Should have been there 30 years ago but mass idiocy and fear of the 'N' word won't let us. 

Or hydro where possible. I get my electricity for a pretty cheap price thanks to hydro (US$0.08/kwH peak)

[geo3]

1 minute ago, JDE said:

Or hydro where possible. I get my electricity for a pretty cheap price thanks to hydro (US$0.08/kwH peak)

Renewal is fine where feasible. But were a long way from it being able to cover all our energy needs, and those needs do keep growing. Right now, only Nuclear could take up the slack of all the FF shutting down. 

[LienusLateTips]

Just now, geo3 said:

Renewal is fine where feasible. But were a long way from it being able to cover all our energy needs, and those needs do keep growing. Right now, only Nuclear could take up the slack of all the FF shutting down. 

Yeah, that's why I said "where possible".

 

Hydro can do a long way for areas where it's feasible. They shut down the last coal/oil power plant in BC a year ago, with only hydro, biomass, wind and natural gas left, since BC makes a lot of that stuff.

[Electronics For Fun]

4 minutes ago, JDE said:

 

They are better in the long run.

So you are a climate change non-believer? Ok.

Wind mills aren't that bad for killing bird, and they are getting cheaper by the minute. I don't know about how solar panels contribute to the heat island affect; haven't researched that. Any proof? Plus you forgot hydro/geothemal. Nuclear is extremely clean when not f***ed up.

Both Chernobyl and Fukishima were extremely f***ed up. Missing fail-safe protections, etc

no they aren't better, not at all. in the long run they will be worse because there will be more of them in junk yards in the long run because they have a terrible longevity.

 

no l believe in climate change, there is just nothing we can do about it though because we aren't the cause of it. 

 

the proof is that they are very shinny and dark colored and a fact is that anything shinny and or dark colored contributes to the heat island effect.anything that can reflect or radiate the suns rays will contribute to this effect. and putting large patches of shinny dark blue panels everywhere will only make it worse, it's common sense.

 

yes it is very clean when not fucked up, but when it gets fucked up it gets fucked up big time and makes the land around totally uninhabitable. the risk is small but it's still there, and it's not one that should be taken when it doesn't need to be. that's why they are shuttting down nuclear plants, because human arror is a very real thing.

[Hugh_Mungus]

On 1/7/2018 at 8:59 PM, DrMacintosh said:

The tradeoff with electric cars is that the batteries are pretty harmful. 

 

Other than that though I'd love for everyone to be driving Tesla model 3s and all electric Camrys.

Also is When electric cars crash if the batteries are damaged they instantly burst into flames engulfing the car.... So if some situations your life is in more danger..... Also when Richard Hammond crashed that electric car on "the Grand Tour" they talked about how the car randomly burst into flames everyday for the next 5 days.

[Ithanul]

21 hours ago, TheGleaner said:

His prototype actually could get up to 85mph. I seen it running on I-94 when I was down there

I was meaning the other one I read out several years back.  Think it was prototyped out in India.

[TheGleaner]

On 1/12/2018 at 4:36 AM, GoldenLag said:

 

As far as ive heard it was the CFC gasses (chlorofluorocarbons) that was the biggest hit in terms of thinning the ozone layer. as far as i know its on its way to recovery (slowly). I cant say for certain that standard greenhouse gasses effect the layer too much, im talking CO2 and Methane and such. But since greenhouse gasses is every gass with more than two atoms it covers a huge spectrum, so you arent technically wrong

Last I heard the hole(if that's what you're taliking about) fixed itself.

[Coaxialgamer]

2 hours ago, Electronics For Fun said:

no they aren't better, not at all. in the long run they will be worse because there will be more of them in junk yards in the long run because they have a terrible longevity.

 

no l believe in climate change, there is just nothing we can do about it though because we aren't the cause of it. 

 

the proof is that they are very shinny and dark colored and a fact is that anything shinny and or dark colored contributes to the heat island effect.anything that can reflect or radiate the suns rays will contribute to this effect. and putting large patches of shinny dark blue panels everywhere will only make it worse, it's common sense.

 

yes it is very clean when not fucked up, but when it gets fucked up it gets fucked up big time and makes the land around totally uninhabitable. the risk is small but it's still there, and it's not one that should be taken when it doesn't need to be. that's why they are shuttting down nuclear plants, because human arror is a very real thing.

I'd like to put a number out there : 7 million. That's the number of premature deaths caused by air pollution every year according to W.H.O.

Pollution caused by cars , coal plants , gas plants etc. A pure electric and nuclear world wouldn't have those deaths. That's not counting the lives lost by oil spills , chemical spills ,coal mine collapse etc, which are far too common.

 

Sure , nuclear has claimed lives in the last century . But you can't claim it's anywhere near the figure above .There have been only 5 major incidents in the last century . Only 2 resulted in an exclusion zone being placed. Fukushima was placed far too close to the ocean for it's safety. All the other plants were cold-war era facilities built for 1 purpose : making fuel for atomic weaponry.  The faster they could produce plutonium the better , safety be damned. Modern reactors are much safer.

Fun fact ; The Chernobyl power plant was actually active ,manned and producing power until the year 2000 when it was shut down.

 

But considering you're putting your head in the sand already by ignoring the mounds of evidence pointing to human-caused climate change , i doubt you'll listen to me anyway.

[TheSilverNiko]

On 1/9/2018 at 1:01 AM, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

No they're not.

I see that you're from America, so I presume you drove American cars, if so then I agree with you simply because the Americans cannot build cars.

If not, then you're still clinging to the old mentality of those who think that real drivers are only those who drive with a manual gearbox.

Manual gearboxes have absolutely no advantages over automatic ones, unless the automatic is poorly made which in some cars it is.

The only reason they still exist is because they're cheap to produce.

 

You must not have seen the beauty of the latest Ford Gt. Not to mention mustangs and corvettes. American muscle cars are great (I don't like camaros as much) also Tesla is american.

 

[TheGleaner]

3 hours ago, ShoByte said:

 New cars don't even use gears.

I didn't know they figured out how to make a replacement for the differential. technically all vehicles have gears.

3 hours ago, geo3 said:

I don't care about them. They won't "save the planet" nor will banning meat farming, or anything else that makes peoples lives suck more.  

 

Fucking shut down coal and other FF plants and replace them with nuclear! Should have been there 30 years ago but mass idiocy and fear of the 'N' word won't let us. 

Well Coal-wise, in Beulah ND they are capturing all CO2 and using it to extract oil, then leaving it there(in the ground, where it is stuck there until some MAJOR earth movement. They have to study it to make sure the layer/reserve is sealed). Nuclear kinda screwed itself with Chernobyl. Not really idiocy when you see what happened. I wouldn't want that near me. 

[DK1448]

On 1/7/2018 at 11:56 PM, Eduard the weeb said:

So recently there has been a really big push for electric cars and the future of them is looking more and more bright, so I was wondering wat up guys think about them, and maybe more ways to help reduce climate change 

 

like making meat harder to make EX pork or beef more expensive then chicken 

or

having higher priority of the national budget spent on helping reduce climate change and making stronger fines for things like littering or other things.

 

 

My own opinion 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

so I really like the idea of cutting out gas to help the environment, but I know there is alot of better ways like getting rid of use once things like coffee cups at coffee shops, plastic bags at X store, takeout containers, and more is really were we should start because that effects the environment alot and if people bought more multiple use thing that replaced those one time things it would help with the fight against climate change alot.

 

another thing I think that should be started is in the increase of more renewable resources 

I think a good idea would be is if in more tropical places they began putting more there in rebuilding, like for EX if there is a hurricane that wipes out alot of power then getting solar panels down would make it so more people would have power and it would be healthier for the environment. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its a step forward but we still have a long way to go. for one, we need more charging stations. also, electric cars are still relatively expensive. And were still burning fossil fuels to make the electricity in the first place. but its a good start.

[William Payne]

I have no problem with the concept of electrics and hybrids. I do though think that plugging them in is the dumbest idea out there and should have been left on the drawing board. 

 

Yes the batteries are big and substantial but they need to design an alternator of sorts that charges the car while it drives. There are 4 wheels on a car, make each one spin an alternator/generator that charges the battery. I can't see myself going through the motions of plugging my car in every time I park it at home. I am in and out multiple times a day. 

 

I am aware of the reasons why this hasn't been done and the limitations of it and all that. 

 

But recharging on the go is something they really need to think about. 

[mr moose]

Gotta laugh at people who want to save the planet but are opposed to nuclear.  They are worse than the blind who don't think the planet needs saving and are opposed to nuclear. 

 

 

[William Payne]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Gotta laugh at people who want to save the planet but are opposed to nuclear.  They are worse than the blind who don't think the planet needs saving and are opposed to nuclear. 

 

 

As far as emissions go Nuclear is as clean as it gets. It's just steam. Only problem is if you have a meltdown. There is the thorium solution as Molten salt will solidify and plug itself if it leaks from the reactor due to its high melting temperature. 

 

Thorium/Molten salt reactors weren't shelved because they didn't work. They were shelved for political reasons. 

[ShoByte]

On 1/13/2018 at 4:41 PM, TheGleaner said:

I didn't know they figured out how to make a replacement for the differential. technically all vehicles have gears.

Well Coal-wise, in Beulah ND they are capturing all CO2 and using it to extract oil, then leaving it there(in the ground, where it is stuck there until some MAJOR earth movement. They have to study it to make sure the layer/reserve is sealed). Nuclear kinda screwed itself with Chernobyl. Not really idiocy when you see what happened. I wouldn't want that near me. 

 

I meant the transmition, CVT doesn't use gears.

[Zodiark1593]

On 1/8/2018 at 9:43 PM, Drak3 said:

No, manual trannies are now just antiques that can't hold a candle to an auto-x tranny in any regard. They're dated pieces of shit, and extremely tedious.

 

A Cummins 6.7 with an auto6. That's a fun truck right there. Easy to manipulate it into shifting when you want to, with or without manual control, and a lot more responsive than a guy needing a stick in his hand when it comes time to pass someone on the highway.

I've driven a couple more different automatics through these country/mountainous roads for a bit (a BMW with steptronic, and a Saturn Aura). I still much prefer a manual gearbox for this sort of driving. Even the lowest gears on both the BMW and the Saturn were taller than my 2nd gear, and neither really held a candle to my Mazda when it comes to accelerating out of sharp bends, despite being considerably more powerful (the Saturn having a 70HP advantage). If I'm already in a low gear with the Mazda, responsiveness is verg sharp and can't be beat.

 

For highway driving however, I can see why modern automatics tend to be considerably more efficient. The overdrive ratios are rediculously tall while getting off the gas and coasting lets rpm drop even further without using fuel. Even coasting in nuetral on a manual (illegal in many areas) will still require the engine to burn some fuel to idle. Coasting in gear with a manual is particularly inefficient as energy is lost in just spinning the thing, especially with shorter overdrive ratios. For maximizing fuel economy, my car is much happier at about 60mph than what most traffic drives at. With high torque, low rpm engines being commonplace, the taller ratios prove to be more of a boon than a bane even in mountain driving.

 

Assuming weight can be brought down below 3000 lbs for a sedan, I wouldn't be opposed to a powerful electric car though. The weight is my 2nd biggest concern with electrics as batteries weigh a lot (next to range). Though engines and full gas tanks aren't exactly featherweights either tbh.

[TheGleaner]

18 hours ago, ShoByte said:

 

I meant the transmition, CVT doesn't use gears.

*some. My equipment that has a cvt does have gears. I regret buying a cvt.