Europe Parliament accelerating transition to Electric Cars

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

1. It really depends on where the electricity come from. If your country have mostly solar, (don't think any country has that currently) charging while at work would be the best, but that doesnt make the most of sense depending on where you work.

No, Charging in the night is best because you often have constant power power station that run at a constant pace and can't increase or decrease their output within a couple of minutes.

And in the night you usually have too much power generated...

 

While in the day you have certain times where high ammounts of power are required, when you then want to charge your electric car, the grid will break down.

 

So the only solution is that the Car Charging stations can be switched off by the power company. You really want that? 

 

And Solar is mostly bullshit that doesn't do much. Well, it helps to lighten the load on peak times on certain days but its not reliable, you can not count on Solar!

 

Just look up Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. We need those for the peak times when everyone is cooking and when the load on the grid is lighter, we waste electrical energy to pump water up a hill...

You need more knowledge about how the grid really works and not believe the Propaganda you hear from some sources...

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

2. On paper electric cars should be more reliable than petrol/diesel ones. They need fewer parts to work.

See, that is the Problem, you have no experience.

And with modern cars, the failures switch from Mechanical to Electronical. So it is with my Renault Scenic 2. The Motor works well it has no problems there but there is a problem with the electronics that breaks down every now and then with the car.

 

And with that, you will have MOSFET Failures and other fun. But the best part is when the batteries are done for. You can only charge them so many times. And then the Batterys are dead and need replacing. That will be fun. And pricey...

 

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

3. It's viable for a lot of people as long as they can afford it, especially in Europe where people travel shorter than for example US. Electricity is cheaper than petrol/diesel to run and on paper it's less that can break over time.

...wich is my point, that Electric cars are a Status Symbol for rich people and not something the average working class people want or like.

 

Electricity might be cheaper now but what do you think will happen when electric cars come around? Demand of Electricity rises, so do the prices.

 

And right now we are already at ~30-40cent per kW/h. That can easily double or tripple. 

As for heating: It is actually cheaper to do that with a Gas based (or even Oil (=Diesel)) based system than with electricity. So no, its not really cheaper. It only seems that way for whatever reason...

 

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

4. Plant oil is a very bad idea compared to electric cars. Plant oil production is really really energy inefficient. You can travel something like 10x the distance of electricity from 1 m2 of solar panels compared to that if plant oil from  1 m2 of plants.

That is a bullshit comparisation because you miss the waste caused by the production of the Solar Panels. Because they don't grow on trees. While Plants literally grow, though not on trees but in thge ground. And they take CO/2 out of the air and only need the sun.

What do you need to make 1m² of Solar Panels?? You seem to miss that point...

Especially the Energy needed for the Glas of the Panel (and the CO² produced by that)...

 

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

5. Most cases that would happen you have good time to get out of the car. And if you haven't the collision is probably so bad you have a really high risk of dying. Electric cars have generally better crumble zone at the front of the car than petrol/diesel has.

In theory but in practice nobody really knows because Electric cars are not proven while Petrol cars are around for over 100 Years. You should expect that the manufacturers know all the quirks fo that technology by now...

While this is not the case with Electric cars...

 

But we know that Lithium based Batterys, while better than the Nickel based ones, are not that great and will die sooner than later...

[Mihle]

@Stefan Payne In the long run, Electric cars is Greene than petrol and stuff, even if it pollutes more to produce. The greener to run outweigh it if you for example compare 2 cars that has driven 100k km. Just Google and look it up. 

Buying a new car before the old one is closing its life time is also a bad idea tho...

[Drak3]

22 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Plant oil is a very bad idea compared to electric cars. Plant oil production is really really energy inefficient. You can travel something like 10x the distance of electricity from 1 m2 of solar panels compared to that if plant oil from  1 m2 of plants. ( @Drak3 this is for you too)

Outright production is. Recycling used oil isn't.

[Stefan Payne]

13 minutes ago, Mihle said:

@Stefan Payne In the long run, Electric cars is Greene than petrol and stuff, even if it pollutes more to produce.

No its not because of the shit thats done in the production of the Car, especially Battery and Electronics.

That's something people seem to froget that that is also something to think about it and to calculate into the "greenness" Factor of a car.

 

There were some calculations by experts about Hybrid cars. And even they were all negative. Why should it be any better with real electric cars??

 

Quote

The greener to run outweigh it if you for example compare 2 cars that has driven 100k km. Just Google and look it up. 

Buying a new car before the old one is closing its life time is also a bad idea tho...

And that is why you have to take all the stuff that's needed to build the car into account, not just the consumption.

Also I think you can't really recycle the Lithium Ion Batterys, as Wikipedia also states:

 

Quote

As of 2017, the recycling of Li-Ion batteries generally does not extract lithium since the many different types of Li-Ion batteries require a different extraction process.^[7] Another reason why it isn't done is because the extraction of lithium from old batteries is 5x more expensive than mined lithium^[8] but efforts are being made to commercialize an industry in expectation of large quantities of disused batteries to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#Lithium_ion_batteries

 

While with the rest of the car, its different and common technology...

 

 

That are all things to consider. While you can make a new petrol car out of an old one, you can't make a new Battery Car out of an old one because the recycling isn't possible in all situations.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I think public transportation is one of the best ways to combat alot of pollution created by car emissions. It also helps release traffic which is always a plus. 

Sadly its only viable in certain areas and not everywhere...

 

And thus this is a chicken-egg problem.

Because the busses don't drive when we need it, we have a car.

And because we have a car, we don't use the bus.

 

Still, I think we should do more about the Lorrys and bring those back to the rails...

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Just look up Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. We need those for the peak times when everyone is cooking and when the load on the grid is lighter, we waste electrical energy to pump water up a hill...

we do yes, but for specifically getting more power, or using it later on as it is a way of storing energy that would otherwise be wasted. so its only a plus really as it acts as a battery.

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, Charging in the night is best because you often have constant power power station that run at a constant pace and can't increase or decrease their output within a couple of minutes.

And in the night you usually have too much power generated...

people that can afford a driveway/parking spot (not everyone can) often have nearby or explicit power solutions for cars. these will only grow more common as the electric car market increase. 

9 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And with modern cars, the failures switch from Mechanical to Electronical.

this is regardless of vehicle type. but it is why we have profesionals to fix vehicles. it is the mechanical that eventually kills the vehicle.

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And with that, you will have MOSFET Failures and other fun. But the best part is when the batteries are done for. You can only charge them so many times. And then the Batterys are dead and need replacing. That will be fun. And pricey...

so is, changing gearbox, flywheel, oil, timingbelt among others. maintinence will allways be pricey, it comes with any vehicle

12 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And right now we are already at ~30-40cent per kW/h. That can easily double or tripple. 

As for heating: It is actually cheaper to do that with a Gas based (or even Oil (=Diesel)) based system than with electricity. So no, its not really cheaper. It only seems that way for whatever reason...

depends on region and other factors like method of heating. central heating through the use of heatpumps is very efficient. 

15 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

wich is my point, that Electric cars are a Status Symbol for rich people and not something the average working class people want or like.

depends on goverment subsidies. also used electric cars arent that expencive. a cheap electric car would be exactly what the avarage worker would need as the commute ditance makes it very cheap to operate. or else they should relly on public transport.

17 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

What do you need to make 1m² of Solar Panels?? You seem to miss that point...

you also miss the point that solar panel can use otherwise useless landarea, meanwhile actual farming take up valuable farmland. materialcost of solar panels are decreasing as we can make thinner and more efficient wafers

19 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

But we know that Lithium based Batterys, while better than the Nickel based ones, are not that great and will die sooner than later...

well offcourse. better tech replaces worse tech. same way better fuel is replacing worse fuel. to bad there is a point where the better fuel isnt backwards compatible and you run into a wall

[GoldenLag]

13 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Also I think you can't really recycle the Lithium Ion Batterys, as Wikipedia also states:

 

Quote

As of 2017, the recycling of Li-Ion batteries generally does not extract lithium since the many different types of Li-Ion batteries require a different extraction process.^[7] Another reason why it isn't done is because the extraction of lithium from old batteries is 5x more expensive than mined lithium^[8] but efforts are being made to commercialize an industry in expectation of large quantities of disused batteries to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#Lithium_ion_batteries

the exact quote you used says you can......... it is just more expencive. just like coal was way cheaper than solar plants during the 1800s. industry goes for the cheap first. that has allways been the case

11 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Sadly its only viable in certain areas and not everywhere...

 

And thus this is a chicken-egg problem.

Because the busses don't drive when we need it, we have a car.

And because we have a car, we don't use the bus.

which is why public transport is public. no sane company would attempt to run no-profit for years before finally slowly adapting to new public transport

12 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Still, I think we should do more about the Lorrys and bring those back to the rails...

a coherrent rail-network for both medium-distance transport of people but goods are needed. also replacing large oil based merchant fleet to perhaps hydrogen based would be a wise investment. traveling a certain ditance by regular rail is faster than short distance flights simply due to pane having a lot of time on the ground filling passangers and not flying

[Linus_torvalds]

I was thinking to get power for my home from the sun When i calculated turned out i need about 6000$ and my setup would last about 8 years. If my solar panels or regular batteries do not have to be replaced because of some damage. I pay about 10$ a month 18$ in winter for electricity. In my country winter is only 3 months. Even if it's whole year i would have to pay 18x12=216$ year 8x216=1728$ for 8 years. So why the hell would i want to buy all these things and go full solar power? They have to work to make much more efficient solar panels and to cost less then one/third or even one/fourth of it's current price. That's all what they need to make so that people would gladly buy solar panels and use only solar power for their homes.

All countries must use sun, wind and water as electricity sources. Gladly my country uses only these sources of electricity. In 2015 my country produced 8.8 TWh from hydropower. As experts say potential capacity is: estimated with 80 TWh (27 TWh economically viable). If we had good economics we could build all those dams and sell all that electric power to turkey and azerbaijan. Only countries in the neigbourhood that at the moment are not our enemy. Russia and armenia are our enemies!

[yolosnail]

This is one of the few things I agree with that the EU are doing!

 

As much as I like cars, I just don't think I could bring myself to purchase a petrol or diesel car, I would much prefer an electric car. I can get a 2 year old Renault Zoe for about £6,000, which is pretty much the same price as an equivalent fossil fuel car, or if I wanted something a bit posher, a 2 year old BMW I3 is only around £15,000. The range of an electric car doesn't bother me, the most I would drive a day is 50 miles, as I live about 20 miles outside of the nearest big city, and most things aren't even that far away, and if I were to go any further, I would just get the train. It would be really easy for me to get a charging point installed at the front of my house, or there are charging points at a couple of the supermarkets around me, and even at a petrol station nearby!

I also don't get the appeal of loud cars, people with really loud cars don't realise that the energy that they are using to make their car loud could be used to make their cars faster, or more efficient, and that is exactly what electric cars do. You also hear car guys saying 'I like my car to go fast' when what they really mean is that they like their car to be quick, and electric cars are inherently better than that due to their instant torque. They will then respond with, "Yeah, but my car can go 150mph+", but realistically where are you going to do that in the UK, the roads are barely good enough to do 70! Acceleration and braking are the most important attributes to a car as you spend more your time stopping and starting than you do maintaining the same speed.

 

In the last few years, my local bus company has spent over £10 million on new more efficient buses, which I think is great. At the minute, I use public transport because where I live we have great public transport, and my bus pass costs less than my friends spend on their insurance, and that's before they pay for the car and the fuel. Plus, I'd rather spend 90 minutes sitting on a bus working than spend 40 minutes sitting in a car wasting time.

[asus killer]

40 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I was talking compared to electricity produced.

All green technologies is also far far lower than coal.

 

Quite of bit of areas around Chernobyl that was before not safe is safe to live now, they just don't open the areas up because it's for one easier to let the zone be where it is, and most of those areas is just Forrest anyway. Also, it would have made you able to live much closer to it in the one direction than the other. So they don't bother. A lot of areas is not safe to live still tho, that's true, but it's less that it first seems like.

 

For Fukushima, almost all areas where people lived is now safe to live. Lot of people have moved back. Also, a lot don't want to move back.

 

In both these situation they do better safe than sorry.

 

First one was caused by shitty safety and rush.

Second was caused by Tsunami/earthquake. In many places in Europe especially, a Tsunami/earthquake like that could never ever happen as long as an asteroid doesn't hit.

 

You even know how many nuclear reactors that has/is running?

 

Nuclear test sites is nuclear test sites for bombs, not Nuclear reactors.

i continue to feel like we are not on the same page here. I get that other energies sources cause deaths and btw i'm all for renewable, will never defend coal for example and there is also gas much cleaner. But to the point, there has never been a worst scenario nuclear power plant disaster, up until now they all where controlled in some way. That doesn't mean you could always control it in some future disaster.

Yes people die more from coal, form mine disasters or lung diseases or whatever, but apart from taking global warming too far that you can no longer control it, it's consequences will never be as severe as a uncontrolled nuclear disaster.

 

There are also other considerations, when we say fukushima is controlled, there where contaminated water leaking to the ocean in enormous quantities, nuclear fallout, etc... People in north of Europe surfer till this day the consequences of the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. 

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

This is what you said :

Catalytic converts do indeed convert more harmful elements into less harmful ones , as you said . CO and NO are harmful when inhaled , which is why we use these converters . But they produce CO2 . CO2 , as i stated , is not a harmless byproduct , unlike Nitrogen or water .

 

Definitely not an alarmist . Just because you don't like hearing something doesn't make it false .

A near 1°C  increase in temperatures in the last 40 to 50 years isn't a natural phenomenon . And what certainly isn't is a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations .

 

Here's the last 1000 years if you want to compare :

 

Typical ? Yeah no .

I love these graphs when they only show exactly what tree huggers want to show. Expand it further and you'll see huge temperature swings when Earth didn't even have any concept of humans, let alone any machinery or fossil fuels...

[GoldenLag]

@mate_mate91

this does vary by region. in you case it didnt make sence. though someone like me who would be paying 540$ a year in electricity cost might consider it to decrease costs. 

 

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

There are also other considerations, when we say fukushima is controlled, there where contaminated water leaking to the ocean in enormous quantities, nuclear fallout, etc... People in north of Europe surfer till this day the consequences of the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. 

hello from a person in the far north that have direct concequenses that you speak of. they are not that bad. countermeasures are in place if we notice any spikes. but today`s levels are safe enough to just use a passive mean to lower levels of isotopes in food, but even that has ended as it is nolonger needed. the worst isotopes decay quickly. nuclear fallout sucks, but it rare to happen and it is fast to clean. enviromental changes arent.

 

[Brooksie359]

35 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Sadly its only viable in certain areas and not everywhere...

 

And thus this is a chicken-egg problem.

Because the busses don't drive when we need it, we have a car.

And because we have a car, we don't use the bus.

 

Still, I think we should do more about the Lorrys and bring those back to the rails...

Where is viable is honestly the most important areas tbh. In rural areas where there aren't as many people and not many cars it's less of a problem than a city with a large population and tons of cars all releasing gases that have nowhere to go. 

[Mihle]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

1.No, Charging in the night is best because you often have constant power power station that run at a constant pace and can't increase or decrease their output within a couple of minutes.

 

 2. While in the day you have certain times where high ammounts of power are required, when you then want to charge your electric car, the grid will break down.

 

3. So the only solution is that the Car Charging stations can be switched off by the power company.

 

4. And Solar is mostly bullshit that doesn't do much.

 

5. Just look up Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. 

 

6. You need more knowledge about how the grid really works and not believe the Propaganda you hear from some sources...

See, that is the Problem, you have no experience.

 

7. And with modern cars, the failures switch from Mechanical to Electronical. So it is with my Renault Scenic 2.

 

 8. But the best part is when the batteries are done for. And then the Batterys are dead and need replacing.

 

9. ...wich is my point, that Electric cars are a Status Symbol for rich people and not something the average working class people want or like.

 

10. Demand of Electricity rises, so do the prices.

 

11. And right now we are already at ~30-40cent per kW/h. 

 

12. That is a bullshit comparisation because you miss the waste caused by the production of the Solar Panels. And they take CO/2 out of the air and only need the sun.

13. What do you need to make 1m² of Solar Panels?? You seem to miss that point...

 

14. You should expect that the manufacturers know all the quirks fo that technology by now...

While this is not the case with Electric cars...

1. I gave a spesific example, never said it counted in all situation, I gave a spesific situation, and for that situation it's true. Solar panels spesifically produce most around 12-14  in the day, while we use the most about 17-19 in the evening when people make dinner and stuff. In other situation where you use wind or nulcear or coal or whatever, ofc night is better. I just gave a single situation where it isn't true.

 

2. Most places the main grid is way over made compared to what we use now. At least in my country. Also, the other stuff we use electricity on like heating and making food and stuff  and industry use more electricity than what electric cars general would, based on how far people usually drive every day. I am not saying it's nothing, but it's not like we will use twice the amount either.

 

3. Most people will charge at home at night and not use public charging stations except longer trips when you don't work.

 

4. Its still better than using plant oil as fuel. Wind mills might still be better.

 

5. My country doesn't have that, we have real hydro power that it's storage is really efficient generally.

I wish all countries had the same possibility, but they haven't so we need to use other options.

Pumping water up to store it seems like it is much less efficient than just using big batteries.

 

6. I know quite a bit, I do not work in the field or anything, but know more than the average Joe. I bet you think I know less than I actually do. What propaganda are you taking about?

 

7. Exept for motor and batteries an electric cars don't need that much more electronics than petrol and diesel. Actually, an electric wouldn't have many of the different sensors a new petrol or diesel have. New petrol and diesel has so many sensors for many stuff an electric bcars doesn't have. Petrol car have straps(or what they are called) and sparks plug and many stuff electric cars just doesn't have. Especially electric motors or generally few parts and generally really reliable. More so than an petrol or diesel engine.

Most electronics in new cars is electronics cars don't really need to have to transport you forward.

Also, it's a Renault, that's probably one of the reasons maybe.

 

8.  Most electronics cars have battery warranty on 70 or 80% after 100k km for the lowest and 160k km for another. Battery lost more than that or died (doesn't really happen that much) free battery replacement.

 

9. Price will go down in the future, especially if government do no tax on them like here. Many people could live fine with an electric because most people don't drive that far most of the time. More than 50% of new car sales in Oslo is full electric.

 

10. Only if energy production doesnt goup, and it will.

 

11. Here it's like 10 € Euro cents. Hydro power FTW.

Also, especially US has cheaper petrol/diesel than most European countries.

 

12. In the numbers In saw those was calculated for, and wouldn't make that much difference really. Solar panel factory can be powered by electricity. The longer time the goes the less the production of a solar panel matter.

 

13. It was just an example on space efficiency. 

 

14. First electric made car was created before the first petrol one. And electric was the first to pass 100 km/h if I remember right, but thats beside my point, they haven't  been common  before now. Much of what I say is on paper. Manufacturer will gain more experience in the future and electric cars will improve faster than petrol will.

 

 

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I love these graphs when they only show exactly what tree huggers want to show. Expand it further and you'll see huge temperature swings when Earth didn't even have any concept of humans, let alone any machinery or fossil fuels...

you will also notice how long it took for those swings to take place and how they act in a cycle. this is out of cycle, this is happening fast. this is happening in while our own input reflects it. 

 

we are far away from the highest recorded temps, but we are increasing temps faster than back then. the enviroment and ecosystems cant adapt as fast. we all know the O2 poisining that happened. it happened relativly fast and caused a mass exctinction. the enviroment hates fast changes- 

[Mihle]

48 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No its not because of the shit thats done in the production of the Car, especially Battery and Electronics.

That's something people seem to froget that that is also something to think about it and to calculate into the "greenness" Factor of a car.

 

There were some calculations by experts about Hybrid cars. And even they were all negative. Why should it be any better with real electric cars??

 

And that is why you have to take all the stuff that's needed to build the car into account, not just the consumption.

Also I think you can't really recycle the Lithium Ion Batterys, as Wikipedia also states:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#Lithium_ion_batteries

 

While with the rest of the car, its different and common technology...

 

 

That are all things to consider. While you can make a new petrol car out of an old one, you can't make a new Battery Car out of an old one because the recycling isn't possible in all situations.

Look up numbers, they ARE greener over their lifetime. Lower running emmisions more  than cancel out the higher production emmisions/energy usage. There has been done multiple research of it. Those include production cost.

 

Scrapping a petrol car that have 30% lifetime left to change to an electric or even newer petrol car is the worst for the environment tho.

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

you will also notice how long it took for those swings to take place and how they act in a cycle. this is out of cycle, this is happening fast. this is happening in while our own input reflects it. 

 

we are far away from the highest recorded temps, but we are increasing temps faster than back then. the enviroment and ecosystems cant adapt as fast. we all know the O2 poisining that happened. it happened relativly fast and caused a mass exctinction. the enviroment hates fast changes- 

We are insignificant fart to the Earth's timeline and changes. And nothing is happening "faster". Current global warming is pretty much in line with all the others in pretty much identical time period as all the other global warmings from the past.

[Mihle]

19 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i continue to feel like we are not on the same page here. I get that other energies sources cause deaths and btw i'm all for renewable, will never defend coal for example and there is also gas much cleaner. But to the point, there has never been a worst scenario nuclear power plant disaster, up until now they all where controlled in some way. That doesn't mean you could always control it in some future disaster.

Yes people die more from coal, form mine disasters or lung diseases or whatever, but apart from taking global warming too far that you can no longer control it, it's consequences will never be as severe as a uncontrolled nuclear disaster.

 

There are also other considerations, when we say fukushima is controlled, there where contaminated water leaking to the ocean in enormous quantities, nuclear fallout, etc... People in north of Europe surfer till this day the consequences of the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. 

Worst case nuclear power plants will never happen. Chernobyl is the worst that will ever happen, safety and stuff is improved since then. Exept those oldest ones in poorer old Soviet countries, but they aren't good or new ones. Newer ones have so much safety stuff. And even if a meltdown start to happen, have much more equipment and experience to limit it.

 

Chernobyl is worse than anything could happen now except maybe the oldest ones in poorer countries that should be stopped.

[Mihle]

18 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I love these graphs when they only show exactly what tree huggers want to show. Expand it further and you'll see huge temperature swings when Earth didn't even have any concept of humans, let alone any machinery or fossil fuels...

There was bigger ones,. It they happened in way way longer time. If you "zoom out" you will also see that. That the previous changes happened over a way longer time. 

 

Hope you are a troll.

[Jtalk4456]

4 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Don't think the whole world is ready just yet

Just curious, what do you think we're lacking to be ready?

4 hours ago, cj09beira said:

and with reactors like the molten salt reactors, safety is no longer a problem

Haven't looked into molten salt reactors, i'll have to check that later

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Interesting no one ever considers where exactly the electricity they're charging their vehicles with actually comes from....

Pretty much everyone has considered this, and it's still more efficient, see my responses above.

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

nuclear is cancer, there's the potential for a disaster and the waste problem.

So there is a waste problem, but no more than the massive waste and pollution problem currently from coal and oil

as much as I hate Sierra Club, they have a good article on this

https://content.sierraclub.org/coal/disposal-ash-waste

4 hours ago, G27Racer_188 said:

And what will the government do if people start making their own electricity? They will put a tax on it, so you will have to pay tax, because you are not buying their electricity directly. 

I don't see how the government can tax you for NOT buying something, but also this is more about the environment than about cost savings to the consumer

 

[Doobeedoo]

Well fuel is meant to be replaced one day so.

[GoldenLag]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

We are insignificant fart to the Earth's timeline and changes. And nothing is happening "faster". Current global warming is pretty much in line with all the others in pretty much identical time period as all the other global warmings from the past.

um....... what?

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Haven't looked into molten salt reactors, i'll have to check that later

essentially if it overheats a plug in the bottom melts removing the fuel(thorium mixture (salt)) from the catalyst (plutonium). essentially they cant have a meltdown. its a mess if it screws up, but it only kills and affects a single reactor. 

 

 

edit: note that that is one one design with a failsafe. there are others, this one just happens to be foolproof.

[GoldenLag]

13 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

-snip-

before you complain about that there being a short period. note how long the swings actually take in this graph. note that this is over 30 million years. those tiny spikes near the end took about 100k years each spikes. we have done the same height with our input in about 200 years. 

 

actually nvm. i have missinterpretted this graph, im sorry and will take full responcibility for that. since the industrial revolution the CO2 ppm has rizen 130 ppm from 280 to 410 in 2018. that is a very short time in the grand scheme of things. 

[G27Racer_188]

4 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I don't see how the government can tax you for NOT buying something, but also this is more about the environment than about cost savings to the consumer

They will find a way. For instance, they could tax at the time of sale, so, lets say you wanted to buy $5000 solar system, but they put 50% tax. You would have to pay $7500 for that system. The $2500 would go to the government to "fill the hole" from not selling you electricity.

 

As an example, several months ago, or a year, I don't remember exactly, there were some events that happened and the price of crude oil went down globally. As a result fuel prices everywhere went down, except in my county. Fuel went up in price that week.