Electric cars

[Anonymous No.10156923]

Electric cars are a complete scam, they are old and obsolete technology who only creates pollution from the corrosive accumulators.

[Anonymous No.10156925]

>>10156923
They pollute about 50% less than gasoline vehicles over their total lifetime.

[Anonymous No.10156929]

>>10156925
Imagine if you could run them from nuclear power.
Or even better, hydrogen (produced with process heat from nuclear) fuel cells.

[Anonymous No.10156931]

>>10156925
Lithium mines and oil drills are different.

>we only import moderate muslims, they rape and murder %50 less than the radicalised ones.

[Anonymous No.10156948]

>>10156929
>Imagine if you could run them from nuclear power.
Sorry friend we can turn electricity into diesel and power cars this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel

The toxic battery crap is the real problem while oil cars are only made out of metal that can be melted into its components.

[Anonymous No.10156951]

>>10156925
>50% less than gasoline
Citation needed

[Anonymous No.10156957]

>>10156948
That's why I added the part about hydrogen, plus, I was trying to stay within the assumptions of >>10156925.

But I agree, synthetic fuels are probably the future.

I know all too well how shitty batteries are (from manufacturing, environmental, capacity and safety perspectives).

[Anonymous No.10156958]

>>10156929
How are your investment in nuclear power doing shiller?

[Anonymous No.10156963]

>>10156958
>How are your investment in nuclear power doing shiller?


>Yet another butthurt Luddite that doesn't understand science

Let me guess, you believe we can power the world using renewables and unicorn farts?

[Anonymous No.10156966]

You need to be certifiably insane or stupid to want to get electric cars before you have renewable green (whatever the environmentalists certifies to be kosher) energy generation.

[Anonymous No.10156973]

>>10156957
>I know all too well how shitty batteries are (from manufacturing, environmental, capacity and safety perspectives).
Its refreshing to see a opinion of someone who realizes this (you can not imagine the number of times people will not even want to acknowledge I made this point about their batteries).

I think things like e-diesel are basically the hydrogen economy only made sane because
1) e-diesel is more energy dense then a tank of pressurized H
2) e-diesel is safer then a pressurized tank of H
3) e-diesel works with basically the same engines we have today so no need to reinvent the ICE.

[Anonymous No.10156980]

>>10156963
>believe we can power the world using renewables and unicorn farts?
Not him.
Nice line.

On a related subject what do you think will the energy sources for the future?
I'm banking on
1)Big Hydro (moving water)
2) Nuclear
3) [experiential] Atomic battery plants (radiation is energy kids why throw it into a cave if the radiation can give you consistent energy for decades)

[Anonymous No.10156997]

Here in Quebec we're powered mainly by hydro so I'd imagine electric vehicles are fairly clean.

[Anonymous No.10157001]

>>10156997
>electric vehicles are fairly clean.
Why is no one talking about the toxic battery crap that they produce after your battery is dead?

[Anonymous No.10157004]

>>10156923
>they are old and obsolete
L0Lno you fckn idiot troll

[Anonymous No.10157012]

>>10157001
At least it can actually be contained unlike fumes from an ICE.

[Anonymous No.10157014]

>>10157004
Oh really.
Answer me this:
What was first the electric car or the ICE?
All your documentaries say the electric car was first.

This makes the electric car older then the ICE car.

If you acknowledge this point we can move to the other.

[Anonymous No.10157023]

>>10157012
>I chose to have real proven toxins in my water supply to stop the imaginary and proven to be fake global warming from the completely harmless plant food named CO2
shiggy diggy.

[Anonymous No.10157028]

>>10157023
>implying CO2 is the only thing that comes out of the exhaust pipe

[Anonymous No.10157033]

>>10157028
its the one the greeneries are obsessing over.

[Anonymous No.10157036]

>>10157033
How about you stop making this about identity politics and start making it about facts?

[Anonymous No.10157078]

>>10157033
How about you stop making this about identity politics and start making it about facts?

[Anonymous No.10157133]

A lot of a car's pollution is in the manufacturing and disposal. If you really want to save the world: retrofit systems should be the main focus. It would be much better to convert the 86 Ford Tempo that you already have.

[Anonymous No.10157166]

>>10157023
imagine unironically believing this

[Anonymous No.10157196]

>>10156973
You know, I never though about it likethat.
Also, synthetic fuels can be made to burn very cleanly, so, damn, this sounds quite reasonable.

>>10156980
Hydro is great (look at Norway), but is not accessible.
As for nuclear - well, duh! But go explain that to plebs.
Nuclear batteries are cool for some cases, especially "off-grid" areas and emergency power.

[Anonymous No.10157210]

>>10157014
But the electric car still has the same problem from its inception, energy storage.
Pic related - left number column is MJ/Kg

[Anonymous No.10157217]

>>10156980
>Big Hydro
anon i can't even

[Anonymous No.10157219]

EVs are only bullshit in so far they are the consumerist answer to climate change. A switch towards electrified public transport would be cleaner and cheaper and more effective and much more realistic because batteries are expensive.
Lots of people never buy even buy new cars. They pay $3000 for a used car in good condition. How are they going to ever have an EV?

[Anonymous No.10157223]

>>10157210
What people don't tell you is that while gasoline is highly energetic on paper, we don't have a way to efficiently extract that energy in practice. We only get about 10% of the energy from gasoline in combustion engines. Besides, inevitably once solid state batteries become a thing I doubt energy storage will be a problem considering electric cars now are enough to fulfill the needs of 90% of drivers.

[Anonymous No.10157235]

>>10157223
Let me correct you, 20%.
Which is around 9 MJ/Kg.
Which is still over seven times more dense than Li-Po.
And we're not even looking at Diesel which is still more energy dense and is more efficient.

[Anonymous No.10157246]

>>10157210
Dude... crop your image or take care of your endless list of notifications...

[Anonymous No.10157249]

>>10157246
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10157256]

>>10157235
But people don't drive diesel cars. do they anon? Like I said before we have the ability to do so, and are doing so in developing more energy dense batteries.

[Anonymous No.10157258]

>>10157256
>But people don't drive diesel cars.

What are trucks, busses, ships, and just about any other piece of heavy machinery with an ICE?

[Anonymous No.10157305]

From an efficiency standpoint, using solar power directly is the best solution which means electric cars. The synthetic fuels discussed in this thread need energy to be made and the efficiency from your energy source to the energy extracted by the engine is abysmal. Furthermore, the emmisions from electric cars happen at power plants and can be scrubbed or sequestered with ease whereas ICEs emit particulate pollution, volitile compounds, and green house gasses which cannot be scrubbed or sequestered.

Ultimately there is only three sources of power on Earth: solar, man-made fission, and man-made fusion. Everything else is an efficiency game

[Anonymous No.10157319]

>>10157235
The sheer size of the electric car battery and the high energy efficiency of the motor obliterates any real differance in overall range. And you cant deny that elwctricity from power plants is cleaner per unit energy than normal car engines which are awful.

[Anonymous No.10157340]

>>10157210
However he challenged my fact that EV are older then ICEs and they really are.

I always love the green documentaries who say:
>The ICE is so old so old so old ....
>look at this new EV so new so new so not old ....
>The EV was before the ICE !

You seriously want to trust these people who fart propaganda out like this?

[Anonymous No.10157354]

>>10157256
>But people don't drive diesel cars
Jesus Christ are you removed from any form of reality.
Did you visit a gas station in your life?
Because they all have diesel for cars and there are diesel powered cars.

Visit a gas station and take a look.

[Anonymous No.10157388]

>>10157305
>sing solar power directly is the best solution which means electric cars.
Imagine being this delusional.
Even if you have solar panels over your home to feed you DC to the batteries the batteries are inefficient in storing this energy and they only get worse over time.

Sunlight is a extremely week source of energy.
Oil is millions of microscopic plants deposited over millions of years of sunlight.
You think about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YHsxXEVB1M

[Anonymous No.10157392]

>>10157014
>the electric car older then the ICE car
irrelevant you fckn idiot troll

[Anonymous No.10157394]

>>10157392
Yet you challenged this fact.

I always love the green documentaries who say:
>The ICE is so old so old so old ....
>look at this new EV so new so new so not old ....
>The EV was before the ICE !

[Anonymous No.10157408]

>>10157392
>>10157394
The anon is right enough and it is relevant to the opening the OP provides. Steam power was likely used by bubba around the world and as an ammunition transport in 1740 ish. ICE and electric were contemporary and electric was abandoned for being a piece of Crap. Times change though. There is no need to dump the advancement of any technology

[Anonymous No.10157416]

>>10157388
You fail to refute the fact that batteries are ever improving, are you a shill? Do you want to destroy the Earth? If humans really tried we could reasonably power everything with renewables, batteries will be a non-factor by 2020.

[Anonymous No.10157536]

>>10157394
>I always love the green documentaries
found the regressive

[Anonymous No.10157644]

>>10157416
Battery is pretty fucking nasty, and dangerous. D.C. Energy will kill your ass. Heavy metals and all that. Not the anon but you can't just be a fuel hater. Yes, batteries can improve and they will. Right now that stuff is a novelty. I don't know who figures that an electric car suits 90 percent of driving needs but that is bs. There are many places where you are still burning something somewhere when you plug in your car. We can make gasoline much more efficient faster than we could do anything else. There would be more of a market for it if we express a desire.

[Anonymous No.10157656]

>>10157319
You forgot to factor in transmission losses, usually locally burning fossil fuels will be less polluting than getting it from a power plant because of transmission losses.
Actually, transmission losses can get extremely bad as to the point that even though the Sahara gets more sun than is enough to power the entire planet, we still can't do jack shit with it IRL.

>>10157340
He's just autistic.

>>10157416
They're improving, just like fusion, they're still "not there", I'm not counting on stuff that "might be viable in the future".
I know that nuclear energy works, MSRs have been proven to work in the past.
Today we have the materials to build MSRs and the chemical processes to synthesize fuel, IT JUST WORKS.

[Anonymous No.10157705]

>>10157656
>locally burning fossil fuels will be less polluting than getting it from a power plant
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10157722]

>>10156923
>Old and obsolete technology
Oh boy do I wish I was alive to see gigantic ass bateries in cars from the late 1800's.

[Anonymous No.10157879]

>>10157388
>Sunlight is a extremely week source of energy.
Wew, lad. The fraction of sunlight that the Earth receives is 174 Petawatts and all of human energy consumption in all forms is 101 Petawatt-hours. That means that the Earth receives more than 13,000 times the amount of energy that humans use just from the sun.

You must either be a shill or a moron

[Anonymous No.10157885]

>>10157656
Transmission losses are about 1% per 100 miles. Even without cogeneration the worst fuel efficiency you can squeeze out is around 60 MPG for an electric vehicle

[Anonymous No.10158029]

Why don't we try a molten salt thermal sink? have a 30 pound insulated container with a heating element powered by the grid and a coil for heating a gas that expands and powers a small turbine. It would need more work than a Li battery but would be less polluting and less flammable

[Anonymous No.10158663]

>>10157705
>what are transmission losses
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/

[Anonymous No.10158667]

>>10158029
Why not dump some radioactive elements into the salt, and split their atoms?
The salt will become self-heating.

[Anonymous No.10158674]

>>10158667
Why no put a four foot wheel on the back of a ten speed?

[Anonymous No.10158680]

>>10158674
You fucking idiot, I was alluding to the fact that if we'd go through the trouble of thermal salt storage might even as well just build a MSR.

[Anonymous No.10158688]

>>10158680
I thought I was making it a good cop bad cop thing. I wanted to help. :(

[Anonymous No.10158746]

>>10157078
It's far too hard for these extra chromosome types to separate their politics from cold hard facts.

[Anonymous No.10158759]

>>10156931
LOL. More than 95% of lithium is not mined, it's pumped from the ground sort of like fracking. Not to mention that the amount of lithium used by an electric car is negligible compared to the amount of oil a car uses, AND oil drilling and transportation is still worse for the environment even if you ignore that the amount of lithium used is negligible.

You fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10158768]

>>10156966
We already do though. Even in the backwards US it's more than a third of power generation.

[Anonymous No.10158792]

>>10157644
What are you talking about? Batteries can be disposed safely and easily, emissions from fossil fuels cannot and are much more harmful regardless. Your answer to this is a) deny scientific facts and b) pretend that renewables and nuclear don't exist and aren't growing. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10158997]

>>10158792
I'm not denying shit. You go off half cocked without reading. I am confident in my knowledge of automotive technology and the manufacturing process. People are trying to sell you and I garbage. The answer is elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.10159043]

>>10157416
>Do you want to destroy the Earth?
I can not stop laughing when people say this, its so obviously retarded and makes you sound like a total retard.
The Earth the planet itself is is a gravitational ball of mass.
Me destroying the earth or the planet would require the complete destruction of this mass or spreading it around so that it fails to reform gravitationally. In less words and more pictures I need to do this:
https://youtu.be/p0qLzsIhUMk?t=123

You fail to understand that other planets like Mercury, Venus and Mars don't have any life and can not sustain life however they are still planets.

What you are talking is the biosphere, destroying the biosphere I laugh so hard when people say the planet line.

Now going back to the biosphere
>Do you want to destroy the Earth?
You understand the the toxic remnants of "battery recycling" are basically a pipe that throws toxins into the river.

We are not talking harmless plant food or some icky gases we are talking honest to god deforming toxins getting into the water and fucking up all life in the biosphere.

Its like you are the perfect captain planet villain who is only obsessed with polluting as much as humanly possible, only you are deluded and think this will somehow help protect the biosphere.

[Anonymous No.10159057]

>>10159043
Bravo

[Anonymous No.10159066]

>>10157879
>174 Petawatts
Citation needed.

Also are you factoring in the fact that for your plan to work we need to do something extreme and suicidal like covering the entire planet in solar panels thereby killing every plant on this planet(including covering the oceans) to get this energy?

All you need to know oil is biomass that accumulated over millions of years its like plants absorbing sunlight and getting fossilized on top of one another. We are taping into this energy that was made over millions of years.

You try to see the most efficient human made biomass and how long you need to grow it to get the same energy like in crude and on what area of land.

You seriously think your dinky cheap peace of plastic that breaks after 30 years can even compete? And somehow magically get more energy from the sun?

[Anonymous No.10159107]

>>10158792
>deny
You know one thing is provable verifiable and undeniable the other is a mystical ferry tail that was never observed and never experimentally verified.

So the question is how can you deny the toxic runoff from battery recycling?
Because this shit is real and you can see it with your own eyes and test it.

[Anonymous No.10159112]

Wouldn't it be better for the environment to just keep the old slant six going?

[Anonymous No.10159410]

>>10158997
Yes the complete lack of any substantive response in this post tells me you really know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10159418]

>>10159043
>muh plant food
Wow what a coherent scientific argument. Who needs a quantitative comparison of the effects of batteries vs. fossil fuels on the environment when we have such a stunning analysis.

[Anonymous No.10159420]

>>10159066
>Also are you factoring in the fact that for your plan to work we need to do something extreme and suicidal like covering the entire planet in solar panels thereby killing every plant on this planet(including covering the oceans) to get this energy?
Jesus Christ are you a troll or just an extremely pedantic moron? Why would one need to cover the entire plane in solar panels? Are you incapable of making an argument without makinf up ridiculous strawmen? Because that seems to be all you've done throughout this thread.

[Anonymous No.10159425]

>>10159107
>the other is a mystical ferry tail that was never observed and never experimentally verified.
I don't know what you're referring to since global warming from human CO2 emissions is the greenhouse effect proven by fundamental physics and chemistry and directly observed his radiative spectroscopy.

>So the question is how can you deny the toxic runoff from battery recycling?
Where did I deny it? I said batteries can be disposed of safely and easily. You're the only one denying anything here. Time to present some data to back up your claims, and if you don't like it then get off the science board, retard.

[Anonymous No.10159503]

>>10159418
Are you denying plants eat CO2?

[Anonymous No.10159506]

>>10159425
>can be disposed of safely and easily
This is absolute nonsense for anyone who knows how real recycling works. You are literally trading a non harmful gas for real environmental damages.
Do you even know how this disposal even looks like?

[Anonymous No.10159510]

>>10158688
Sorry mate, but with the amount of brainlets and shills flooding this board it's fucking hard to try and decipher any poster's motives.

>>10158759
>what are synthetic fuels?
The post

>>10159043
To add to that, THOSE TOXINS ARE MOSTLY STABLE AND DO NOT FUCKING DECAY.
They're just going to bio-accumulate all over the food chain.

>>10159503
>Are you denying plants eat CO2?
>plants eat CO2
The absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.10159513]

Thorium

[Anonymous No.10159519]

>>10159510
>food isn't eaten

[Anonymous No.10159524]

>>10159519
>CO2
>food
Pick one.

Do you even plant biology?
CO2, H2O and sunlight is used to synthesize sugar and O2- now THAT (sugar) is food, which can be cellularly combusted (with O2) to yield the stored energy and break down back to CO2 and H2O.

[Anonymous No.10159528]

>Ctrl+F
>ethanol
>alcohol
>Phrase not found

[Anonymous No.10159530]

>>10159528
E-diesel found.

[Anonymous No.10159531]

>>10159524
>plants eat CO2 but not only
yes plant food

[Anonymous No.10159533]

>>10159043
Ok? And? Either way the Earth will suffer massive losses from human's actions. We have the choice of massive desertification, wildfires, droughts, and ecosystem collapse on our current route, or battery waste. That's it, and I think I would choose the one that we can actually control better, we don't have to dump spent battery waste directly into our streams and rivers.

[Anonymous No.10159534]

>>10159528
>what are synthetic fuels

>>10159531
Food:"form of energy stored in chemical form"
Now, tell me, does CO2 have any stored energy IN CHEMICAL FORM that the plant can use?

[Anonymous No.10159537]

>>10159533
Or you could use hydrogen/synthetic fuels while having much less impact than batteries.
Also, look at the image posted at >>10157210 to understand why batteries are shit.

[Anonymous No.10159540]

>>10159533
>he believes in catastrophic climate change

[Anonymous No.10159542]

>>10159534
yes

[Anonymous No.10159543]

>>10159533
Anything there's a crash battery waste will be duped into the ecosystem, moreover seeing how much care people currently take to dispose of their batteries (which is to say none) I'm not at all confident

[Anonymous No.10159545]

>>10159528
That's because ethanol fucking sucks, it's energy yields are 1.1 at best and .9 at worst. At .9 it takes net MORE fossil fuels to produce it than what we gain. Companies like Algenol had a good idea but somehow they fucked it up and other biomass production methods either aren't scale-able(kelp) or are completely constrained by land and nutrients(corn) and we'd end up fucking over the Earth more.

[Anonymous No.10159548]

>>10159524
This is your brain on environmentalism. You literally need to deny provable facts or try to dance around the fact that plants need CO2 to produce practically anything in their bodies or grow.

And its all because the environmentalists need to demonize CO2 they can not be rational or sane about it CO2 must be the devil for them.

If someone says that floods are made out of drinking water a water hater can not say "yea however this movement of water is harmful here you see" its always insane shit like "NO! Water is a pollutant! OH MY GOD FLOODS! TOXIC! WATER IS TOXIC!"

And this is why the "CO2 is plant food" is so effective at showing to everyone that environmentalists have a faith and irrationally hate on CO2 with no self reflection.

Fun fact CO2 is not toxic like water however you can drown yourself in both.

[Anonymous No.10159549]

>>10159537
I didn't believe in this until I learned Gallium can efficiently produce atomic hydrogen, touche.

[Anonymous No.10159552]

>>10159534
>Food:"form of energy stored in chemical form"
The fact that you seriously need to dance around the fact that plants absorb and use CO2 to build practically everything in their body and are triggered by the "CO2 is plant food" statement speaks volumes.

[Anonymous No.10159557]

>>10159545
>it takes net MORE fossil fuels to produce
>it takes net MORE fossil fuels to produce
>it takes net MORE fossil fuels to produce
You realize there is no electricity mine on this planet and all electricity comes from other sources?
So the sane argument is to take other energy sources(hydro electric for example) and instead of charging batteries with it you create some synthetic fuels to run the same engines we have.

TL;DR!
Of course its takes more energy hen you get out of it!
If you get 100% out of it you created the perfect energy storage device if 101% you created the fucken perpetual motion machine!!!!

Look at battery storage efficiency, hint its not even close to 100%.

[Anonymous No.10159558]

>>10157014
>and obsolete

Please finish demonstrating this qualifier with a reaction image

[Anonymous No.10159564]

>>10159558
Why not.
EV where first, they worked, then where practically removed(excluding marginal applications) by ICEs.
How did this happen?(Post your conspiracy theory here)

The fact is batteries are inefficient in storing energy and this can also be seen today where even the newest batteries are struggling to get close to the energy of a tank full of diesel. (what is your conspiracy theory to explain this?)

[Anonymous No.10159569]

>>10159543
Remember these are he same people who scream
>>What will we ever do with nuclear waist keeping it contained is impossible a disaster in the making.
While on the other hand not giving a shit about batteries.

[Anonymous No.10159586]

>>10159545
>it's energy yields are 1.1 at best and .9 at worst
Ethanol is not that inefficient. Unlike other sources of power, ethanol doesn't require people to buy new cars. Thus ethanol is seen is a bigger threat to oil companies. It would make good business sense for them to lie about ethanol. Researcher Isaias de Carvalho Macedo published in "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Balances in Bio-Ethanol Production and Utilization in Brazil" (1998) that Brazilian ethanol yields about 8 units of energy output for every unit of energy input, and can be as high as 16:1.

The by-products of ethanol production also make excellent cattle feed and fertilizer, do your sources factor in the energy needed to make and transport these?

>we'd end up fucking over the Earth more
Modern agriculture will do that regardless of whether it is used for ethanol production or not. Humans try to impose their order on nature, so it is inevitably that agriculture would be fighting an uphill battle. The "Green" Revolution is unsustainable, and needs to be replaced with more sustainable alternatives. I suggest Permaculture.


>>10159557
We're not talking about free energy. If it takes more energy on average to harvest energy than we get, civilization would regress.

[Anonymous No.10159737]

>>10159503
Do you really think being this obtuse is working for you?

[Anonymous No.10159739]

>>10159510
>what are synthetic fuels?
>The post
What percentage of fuels produced are synthetic?

[Anonymous No.10159760]

>>10159548
Reminds me of this:
http://dhmo.org/

>>10159549
If hydrogen was easy to store safely, we could've had some actually clean means of transportation, it has some quite high energy density (even more than diesel).
Alas, it isn't that simple and even then, just like with nuclear where idiots just shout "Fukushima", they'll should "Hindenburg".

>>10159552
It isn't food, for the bajillionth time.
Is water food?

>>10159564
The ebil white man is hiding the Nazi tech for efficient batteries.

>>10159586
But it doesn't really work in ICEs all too well, it causes significant corrosion.

>>10159739
Not much, because it is a PROPOSED SOLUTION.
But let's be realistic, when it comes to oil, it's purely geopolitical, the US NEEDS OIL TO DOMINATE THE WORLD.

[Anonymous No.10159800]

>>10159066
>Imagine being so retarded that you couldn't use Google and thought solar power was an all-or-nothing proposition

[Anonymous No.10159889]

>>10159800
>He thinks google is an actual source
citation needed motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.10160069]

>>10159540
There is far more to ecological collapse than global warming, and all the signs point to massive losses of species and topsoil. The future is beyond grim, not in the least because of rampant apathy and carefree resource consumption.

[Anonymous No.10160090]

>>10159760
Trust me fuels can have 25% ethanol and it wont have a functional difference from pure gasoline, I'm not sure about retrofitting engines to use pure ethanol but it has to be cheaper than buying a new one.

[Anonymous No.10160105]

>>10160090
I mean, so long it isn't methanol it might be fine, but IDK much about it.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/811199/

[Anonymous No.10160164]

>>10160090
>Trust me fuels can have 25% ethanol and it wont have a functional difference from pure gasoline

This is true kids.

[Anonymous No.10160182]

>>10159548
fucking retarded argument

Environmentalists want all of the aspects of environmental degradation to be addressed. Climate change is a major issue within this domain, and CO2 happens to be the dominant anthropogenic component to that. Saying "environmentalists needed a bogeyman and they picked CO2" is disingenuous and stupid.

[Anonymous No.10160240]

>>10160182
Did you mean like, "The following is a retarded argument?"

[Anonymous No.10160331]

>>10156948
>>10157001
>toxic battery crap
What is this mysterious jimmy-rustling substance supposed to be?

[Anonymous No.10160335]

>>10159889
You are scientifically illiterate and should never post on this board again

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%2520FAQs.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiin7yUmeneAhUE54MKHdaBDvcQFjALegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2sjwL2LNsOKAq86W0B3cO8

[Anonymous No.10160357]

>>10156923
Don't forget the pollution produced by power companies who must supply the extra electricity. They aren't lowering their carbon footprint, just shifting where it originates.

[Anonymous No.10160389]

>>10160357
>He thinks pollution regulations are tighter on cars
Whew lad

[Anonymous No.10160400]

>>10157133
This practical and realistic solution to the problem is not on the table because it would impact economic growth (and here we are touching on the crux of the problem.)

[Anonymous No.10160494]

>>10160240
No the post I was replying was fucking retarded. My post explained why that post was fucking retarded by giving a good argument, although maybe you're too stupid to appreciate the logic of it.

[Anonymous No.10160498]

>>10160494
replying to*

[Anonymous No.10160508]

>>10160400
Why fix today what you can buy tomorrow

[Anonymous No.10160607]

>>10160508
because that's how the system is organized. his point was that if it was organized differently it would be cheaper to fix something than buy a whole new one. its a commentary on planned obsolescense really, and if we were serious about addressing pollution/climate issues we would look seriously at that. We don't though because the current model encourages consumerism by flat out ignoring virtually all externalities, whether they are related to ghgs, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, factory farming, or open pit mining. electric car and nuclear shills are just the latest iteration selling a grand new plan to save the world, while at heart ignoring the fundamental issues we have as a society/species.

[Anonymous No.10160644]

Rant:

Most carbon emissions are actually from very few companies, shifting most of the responsibility onto people just trying to make it through life is retarded. Of the existing consumer contribution, electric cars don't mean much unless the power sources are green.

As of now, electric cars are just subsidized participation medals for yuppies to feel like they made a difference TM and to look down on others for not doing the same, even though their lifestyle pollutes more than the ones they deride.

[Anonymous No.10160650]

>>10160607
bruh it was a sarcastic comment, of course I get the problem, I was just entertaining my hate for Americans.

[Anonymous No.10160656]

>>10160650
fair enough.

itsall totally fucking fucked mate. bloody hell.

[Anonymous No.10160771]

>>10160331
Arsenic, lots of CO2 in the manufacturing process (so much so, that it might take 9 years for electric cars to break even with regular cars when it cones to CO2 pollution), Lithium mining itself pollutes the environment a lot, cobalt is usually mined by child slaves in Africa, most lithium mining is based on extracting lithium salts - in areas where they don't have much water to do that (obviously no one cares so long as they can turn in a profit), toxic chemicals from the processing of lithium do occasionally leak into the water supply.
Also, recycling that shit isn't cost effective or practical.
Do I need to go on?

[Anonymous No.10160773]

>>10160389
>he doesn't understand what transmission losses are
>he doesn't know/denies that refined oil byproducts/biofuels generally burn cleaner than coal

[Anonymous No.10160794]

>>10160771
Your point? The more that electric cars catch on, then the more ethical and green the supply chain will become.

[Anonymous No.10160802]

>>10160644
>Most carbon emissions are actually from millions of fuel-burning sources
FTFY

[Anonymous No.10160877]

>>10160794
I don't think it's that simple, look at smartphones, they've catched on BIG TIME, and the supply chain is still ethically shoddy at best.

Plus, with stuff like cobalt, where almost all of the world's reserves exist in the DRC, I don't think it is that possible to make the supply chain ethical.

IMO, we should make some other battery tech that doesn't rely on Li-ion/Li-Po, but that's easier said than done, because for over 20 years some of the brightest minds in the world still haven't found anything better.
And it isn't like there isn't an incentive, I suspect most electronics manufacturers would be more than happy to get away from Lithium-based battery tech.

[Anonymous No.10162121]

>>10160794
>Muh economies of scale, brother
>The more we consume, the more we can consume!!
>It's in the good book of ECONOMICS; BELIEVE and receive SALVATION
>May the great feast continue! May you become content and bloated from stuffing yourself on the vast resources bounty.
>HALLELUJAH!

[Anonymous No.10162215]

>>10162121
t. chickenshit unabomber

[Anonymous No.10162240]

>>10162215
Thanks for admitting I got you fucking pegged, asshole.

[Anonymous No.10163169]

>>10160771
>Do I need to go on?
No, you completely jumped the shark at
>child slaves in Africa

[Anonymous No.10163192]

>>10163169
>being this retarded in 2018

>>10162121
/thread

[Anonymous No.10163200]

>>10159506
So you have no data, just denial. That's whay I thought.

[Anonymous No.10164181]

>>10163192
found the SJW

[Anonymous No.10164189]

And what about electric cars having no sound? When you are driving one or you are near one running it's like if the car were turn off and just moving with gravity. It must suck to no hear nothing when you press the accelerator. I think that the makers will make some type of fake sound so people hear something similar to a classic engine.

[Anonymous No.10164228]

>>10164189
I'd wager it's also more dangerous for pedestrians

[Anonymous No.10164264]

>>10164228
Yes, electric cars are very sad, the only sound is the sound of the wheels on the road. Well and a little electrical sound when they accelerate. But you have to be very close to hear that.

[Anonymous No.10164426]

>>10164189
>>10164228
>sound is a good thing
t. has never lived in a populated city
I was reading how people were trying to develop ways to use noise canceling technology to reduce the noise in cities because it was becoming unbearable for people living near boulevards. This would also help people living near a highway which are frequently unable to sleep if they are remotely stressed and there are tons of cars and trucks driving nearby.

>muh pedestrians
Why don't you look before crossing you inbred.

[Anonymous No.10164452]

>>10164426
Imagine cities with no sound of cars or other things... very sad.

[Anonymous No.10164500]

>>10164181
>pro nuclear
>SJW

Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10164644]

>>10157023
Where does the electricity which electric cars use comes from? From the power stations, which use fossil fuels and emit toxic wastes into the air and water. The transportation of this electricity creates even more wastage of powers.
>Muh electric supply
No that power you get from plugging the car into a socket doesn't come out of nowhere. First Law of Thermodynamics, fgt. You cannot create energy out of nowhere. There has to be some form of pollution. Accept the truth niggers.

[Anonymous No.10164754]

>>10164644
>You cannot create energy out of nowhere. There has to be some form of pollution.
The sun, the wind, tides, water falling a cliff, etc.

[Anonymous No.10164765]

>>10164754
which accounts for what like only 20% of our energy production. When you are using an electric car you are indirectly burning fossil fuel only.

[Anonymous No.10164775]

>>10164765
It will increase. The technology will improve and more solar panels, etc. will be installed. Also, why not increasing also nuclear energy and launching the radioactive waste into space?

[Anonymous No.10164858]

>>10164644
>Where does the electricity which electric cars use comes from? From the power stations, which use fossil fuels and emit toxic wastes into the air and water.
Those power stations are considerably more efficient than a car engine. And they can be replaced with less polluting stations.

>There has to be some form of pollution.
Which is why we should pick technologies that minimise pollution.

[Anonymous No.10165388]

>>10164858
>And they can be replaced with less polluting stations.
For example?

[Anonymous No.10165472]

>>10165388
Solar thermochemical.

[Anonymous No.10166371]

Why not drastically reduce the number of personal vehicles, build cities with walking and public transit in mind and have larger diesel-engine vehicles powered by refined biomethane? Cities up until the early 20th century had streets that were used for pedestrian and cargo cart traffic and the electric street car did everything a bus or a car did

[Anonymous No.10166478]

>>10166371
>reduce the number of personal vehicles
that will reduce personal freedom and privacy

[Anonymous No.10166985]

>>10166478
>personal freedom
Then have personal freedom to die from pollution.

[Anonymous No.10167008]

>>10164189
>>10164228
>>10164264
>>10164426
MFW my ICE is so quiet I'm uncertain if the engine is running or not before exiting the car.
My last ICE was far more noisy.

BTW Sound is a pointless discussion and making a car absolutely quiet is the best option minus some special case scenarios. We are talking about the toxic batteries.

[Anonymous No.10167218]

>>10166478
Everyone before the personal car had the ability to travel to any destination they wished, they either used mass transit to reach their destination in a speedy manner or they traveled by their own means (horse, walking, etc.) still plenty of freedom and privacy