/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15192061]

Has it been proven that electric vehicles produce less polution than gas powered vehicles?

[Anonymous No.15192082]

>>15192061
gas engines have like 20% efficiency, that can't be hard to beat

[Anonymous No.15192171]

>>15192061
Yes

[Anonymous No.15192172]

>>15192061
https://keck.usc.edu/study-links-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-with-less-air-pollution-and-improved-health/

I mean its pretty easy on prove that.

>drive gas car
>gas is burned
>toxins are released out tail pipe in local city
>people breathe in these air
>they get sick

[Anonymous No.15192285]

>>15192172
>drive tesla
>sun hits the plastic the wrong way
>battery is burned
>toxins are released from all surfaces simultaneously
>can't even put out the fire, it's self-fueled
>water makes it worse
>people breathe this air
>they get sick because it's full of carcinogenic polymer decomposition products and lithium compounds
>construction of an entire new car now required

[Anonymous No.15192287]

>>15192285
>drive gas car
>sun hits the car the wrong way
>driver gets cooked instantly and dies within second

[Anonymous No.15192303]

>>15192082
A Tesla battery has the energy storage of three gallons of gasoline

The parasitic loss of an ICE drivetrain is nothing compared to the shitty energy storage of an electric battery and in the end an ICE vehicle is still way more efficient by a wide margin.

[Anonymous No.15192314]

>>15192287
did you think gas cars were made of gas?

[Anonymous No.15192365]

>>15192303
Nonsensical comparison as to the question of pollution. Do kwh/km vs speed.

[Anonymous No.15192413]

>>15192061
Electric cars are here to save the car industry and car-dependent infrastructure, not the environment

[Anonymous No.15192459]

>>15192303
Apparently you believe gas cars breaks the laws of physics

lmao

[Anonymous No.15192462]

>>15192459

[Anonymous No.15193093]

electric vehicles divert pollution to china and africa
gas vehicles pollute locally

[Anonymous No.15193113]

>>15193093
>gas vehicles are just conjured into existence at the dealership

[Anonymous No.15193126]

>>15193113
i grew mine in a field

[Anonymous No.15193134]

>>15193113
gas vehicles use a lot less cobalt

[Anonymous No.15193140]

By the way, all the trucks and other machines that are used to dig out those batteries from picrelated are all diesel-powered and they use a comical amount of fuel.

[Anonymous No.15193397]

>>15192082
More like 30-35%.
Both have "idling" energy waste (electric cars because of temperature stab).
Energy embodied for a battery is as much as 100%-50% of all energy stored * cycles. And the round trip efficiency from the power plant outlet to the wheels is like 50% without including the energy embodied. So in the end is something like 15-20% vs 50%. If you're using thermal power and if you include the problematic power grid then electric cars are only better reducing the local pollution.
LiPO4Fe could be kinda better.

[Anonymous No.15193407]

>>15193093
You know that your electricity isn’t generated in China and Africa, right anon? R..right?

[Anonymous No.15193413]

>>15193407
the electricity even if it's coal fired (which it isn't around here) is much cleaner and more efficient than ICE combustion
mining the rare earth materials is the real bugbear atm, though disposal of batteries will imminently be a major concern as well

[Anonymous No.15193420]

>>15193413
I agree regarding the batteries and minerals required but as I understand it you’re incorrect about coal vs. ICE. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think we’re in agreement that the “environmental cleanliness” of EVs is mostly just hype.

[Anonymous No.15193424]

>>15193420
Marketing to make EV sellers a lot of money.

[Anonymous No.15193427]

>>15193424
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.15193432]

>>15192061
You have to ignore the insane pollution cost of making 1000 lbs of lithium batteries per car and costs to expand electric infrastructure, since there's no way to support electric cars widely right now.

[Anonymous No.15193445]

>>15192303
Tesla has 90% drive train efficiency, so 0.9*3 = 2.7 Gallons of energy from battery to the road.
ICE with 20% drivetrain efficiency, 0.2*15 = 3 gallons of energy from tank to road. So a tesla uses 5 times less energy to achieve the same result.

[Anonymous No.15193466]

>>15193445
Ask me how I know you’re retarded

[Anonymous No.15193472]

>>15193466
Tesla range, 400 miles. Average car range, 400 miles, average car tank size, 12-16 gallons. So no, you are the retard, my math checks out.

[Anonymous No.15193486]

>>15193140
now show Canada's oil sands

[Anonymous No.15193533]

>>15193472
You’re completely neglecting the source of the electricity and the up-front costs of manufacturing, just like the marketing folks want you to. Good goy.

[Anonymous No.15193545]

i drive an '84 volvo 240. no electric car will ever last 40 years, most are dead inside 5 years. i have enough replacement parts for my volvo that it will probably outlive me.

[Anonymous No.15193602]

>>15193545
Nice. My first car was a ‘76 244 DL. Absolute tank, 0 to 60 in about 5 minutes. I miss her bro.

[Anonymous No.15193609]

Electric cars are just so much more efficient there's no point in arguing. Drive train efficiency is 90%+ compared to 20-30% for ICE

>but what about dirty electricity (aka the long tailpipe)
An EV powered by a the dirtiest coal source produces an equivalent amount of pollution to a 20mpg ICE vehicle. Of course, the big advantage of EVs is that they seamlessly improve efficiency as the grid transitions to renewables/nuclear without forcing you to buy a new vehicle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe
>muh dirty lithium mines
The amount of pollution created in the manufacture of an EV isn't even close to the amount of pollution created by an ICE vehicle over its lifetime burning thousands of gallons of gas. Of course, you must also consider the pollution created in manufacturing an ICE vehicle, including rare and materials such as platinum used for catalytic converters.
Thanks to lifestyle marketing and misleading news reports there are lots of conservatards simping for Big Oil, and doing it for >free

[Anonymous No.15193617]

>>15193472
>sorry bro, its too cold out, you're gonna have to walk those last 80 miles
in contrast, combustion engines deliver more power at lower temperatures due to the increased oxygen density

[Anonymous No.15193635]

>>15193609
>shills for Tesla for free
I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se, but there is a non-negligible environmental impact from EVs that tends to be wildly understated. Least bad option available though, I guess.

[Anonymous No.15193651]

The problem is that we think EVs are a replacement for gas vehicles when they're not. EVs can only replace like 1% of the vehicles on the road, and even then after that happens we'll need costly recycling infrastructure to deal with them. Not to mention the costs of all this to 3rd world countries puts them far, far beyond viability. While EVs have decreased pollution and increased compatibility with renewable tech, both of which are good, they're no silver bullet to global warming. I see companies talking about "the long task of electrifying the 1st world", that will not happen. There are billions of cars on the road, it's just not possible to replace all those.

We are walking into a collapse. Clean air standards are spurring automaker companies to make vehicles more and more complex to meet those standards, which elevate maintenance and purchasing costs for people. At the same time EVs are not a viable alternative. We'll either have to let automaker companies collapse, or get rid of the standards and just admit there's nothing we can do about global warming and deal with the consequences, which might be a thousand times worse a decade from now. Shit's whack yo, I don't even thing the most rabid EV fanboy admits that the technology can replace autos, it's always "it'll take decades to do" when in reality it's just straight up unfeasible.

[Anonymous No.15193658]

>>15192061
Doesn’t this depend heavily on how electricity is generated in the country they’re used in?

[Anonymous No.15193662]

>>15193635
>>15193635
I am an electric vehicle fan but I hate Teslas. They're basically a smartphone on wheels, in the worst possible way. They're locked down and impossible to work on. Unfortunately, ICE vehicles are headed in this direction too.
Not all EVs need to be like this. Somebody needs to make a tweakable EV for enthusiasts.

[Anonymous No.15193676]

>>15193662
Somewhat related: I remember reading somewhere about I think it was BMW charging a couple thousand bucks to software enable faster acceleration on one of their EV models. Absolutely shameless.

[Anonymous No.15193894]

>>15193413
Lithium batteries are 100% recycled, tard

[Anonymous No.15193915]

>>15193676
You have to pay monthly fee to use BMW's car features like heated seats. This comes free with every single Tesla.
You have to pay monthly fee to Toyota if you want to use any of their smartphone app. This comes free with every single Tesla.
You have to pay yearly fee to Ford to use basic highway self driving feature. This comes free with every Tesla.
You need to pay Audi nearly $100/m to get map service on their car. This comes free with every Tesla.
You need to pay Toyota monthly fee to get remote unlock of car feature. It comes free with every Tesla.
Sorry but, the only one that's locked are the old OEMs trying to make a buck on their cars. For Tesla, they're one of the least locked down cars.

[Anonymous No.15193958]

>>15193894
like those? >>15193545

[Anonymous No.15194085]

Cars are inefficient as a whole because you need to power the transportation of 1000kg worth of metal in order to transport the 60-80kg person inside it.

You cannot make this efficient, however the energy is generated. If you want ecologically responsible transportation, scrap cars altogether.

[Anonymous No.15194118]

>>15192061
an EV produces exactly 0 CO2 when running. Why? there is no fuel burnt. retard

[Anonymous No.15194344]

>>15193533
So why don't you factor in all those elements for gasoline too? Oh wait, because that would destroy the credibility of your own argument.

[Anonymous No.15194367]

>>15194344
I’m not arguing for anything other than a level playing field in comparing techs. Gas and electric are both going to generate some level of pollution. Fact.

[Anonymous No.15194573]

>>15192459
>Apparently you believe gas cars breaks the laws of physics

Apparently you don't understand basic math, maybe start there before going on about physics

The shittiest car on your own graph, the 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee gets a 340 mile range traveling at a steady 80 mph

Congrats, even pic related, with your cherry picking of statistics has far better range than the Tesla Model 3 Long Range

[Anonymous No.15194637]

>>15192303
Anon you are retarded. This is like saying a car that can hold 3 gallons of gasoline is less efficient or pollutes more than a car that can hold 15. Yeah, maybe when you waste energy going to the gas station instead of traveling

[Anonymous No.15194642]

>>15194637
don't you see? more gallons = more betterer

[Anonymous No.15194926]

>>15194642
Nta but increasing the size of a gas tank uses a trivially larger amount of plastic. Increasing the range of an EV requires much more materials for the batteries. You know, those materials that have to be strip mined at great environmental expense. Please don’t be disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.15194986]

>>15194637
>Anon you are retarded

You clearly are since YOU DONT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH OR BASIC MATH


So let me explain to your retarded ass once again with even clearer pictures

This entire 1800 pound Tesla battery has the energy storage of ONLY three gallons of gasoline, if you can't understand how that translates to how inefficient electric cars really are than theres no point of even talking to your dumbass

[Anonymous No.15194996]

>>15193126
Currus Crescere!!!

[Anonymous No.15195023]

>>15194926
>Increasing the range of an EV requires much more materials for the batteries.
to increase range you can reduce the enormous battery weight and use that space savings to install a gas generator and fuel tank and still save on weight while increasing range. if you whittle the battery weight down to about 20lbs then range can be extended to over 1000 miles

[Anonymous No.15195098]

>>15193113
no but they don't cost as much pollution to make.
electric would be great if not for batteries. i see they keep trying to shill battery-powered buses too. completely retarded gimmick.

and as for local air pollution. power plants and factories are still more relevant for this. especially in china, the biggest EV market. because they use a lot of nearby coal power plants and shoulder all of the messiness from making the things to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15195108]

>>15193894
supposedly they can be but who is going to do that? no one
recycling, like with proper disposal, is not a problem of what's technically possible but what's worthwhile and in terms of regulation what they can get away with. these big batteries don't really seem practically recyclable even if they were literally paid to do it. in other words there's no business model where batteries and apparently entire cars will be anything but disposable.

[Anonymous No.15195127]

>>15193651
the problem with EVs is they're a not a solution to anything they're a marketing gimmick.

if anyone were serious about both overall pollution and local air pollution, they would be focusing on public transport. that is to say, focusing on the most efficient electric vehicles possible that also totally skip over the problem of batteries. buses don't need to use combustion engines and battery-powered electric buses are a worthless gimmick like all battery-powered vehicles, but especially so for buses because they literally have set routes and the infrastructure for powering them is trivial and cheap to put up.

it is possible to intelligently tailor public transport to each city's circumstances. doesn't mean getting rid of cars but in a city where you're not going very long distances and always to the same locations, in such huge volumes of people, it is much better. cars still have lots of applications obviously and when you normalise public transport you also need to connect cities and make sure people don't get stuck in places.

ofc everyone wants their personal car and everything is designed against this. but as i said, if people were serious about it, it is still possible even in the worst cases to bias towards public transport, if you have the will to do so. and in doing so lessen overall pollution and local air pollution, while making cities less congested. total replacement is ideal but not possible in many cases, this does not mean you can't do anything.

[Anonymous No.15195155]

>>15192172
This is just pushing the pollution, and arguably there's much more of it, out to other countries and communities. It also makes light of the disposal issue.
Normal ICE vehicles can be melted down and reused. Not so much with a LiPo battery.

[Anonymous No.15195157]

>>15195023
how efficient is an electric vehicle with a generator (and maybe no battery) compared to a combustion engine vehicle.

[Anonymous No.15195167]

>>15195155
>Normal ICE vehicles can be melted down and reused.
Err you realize all the gas thats burned by the car gets "reused" inside your lungs right?

[Anonymous No.15195172]

>>15195167
Yes, after it goes through the carbon cycle and the oxygen is freed from it by photosynthesis.

[Anonymous No.15195176]

>>15193472
>Tesla range, 400 miles.
Not in the real world. Actual range is more like 180-250 miles.
>t. fed some friends while they recharged across the Southwest this past Christmas

[Anonymous No.15195178]

>>15193609
>equating platinum availability and impacts to cobalt with a straight face

[Anonymous No.15195190]

>>15195167
It's got what plants crave, fren.

[Anonymous No.15195233]

>>15192172
>produce electric car
>exponentially produce more pollution than a regular car would ever make because of the materials required
>Somehow someway, having to move energy thousands of miles through the resistance of copper lines to a vehicle is more efficient than putting the potential of that energy directly into the car.

It's so laughably irreconcilable, I'm not even going to do the math on it for your own benefit.

>>15192287
>Couldn't understand the difference between an electric stove and a gas stove.
>Being the ignition source is better than have a localized one to put out and prevent more ignition.

Elon is so batshit that he actually wants to integrate more batteries it into the entire frame. Never heard of people being put into a reverse Faraday cage, but a very fitting invention for clown world.

[Anonymous No.15195593]

>>15195023
So a Prius? Sensible choice.

[Anonymous No.15195872]

>>15194986
that only proves how inefficient ICE vehicles are. if an ICE car had a 3 gallon tank it wouldn't even go 100 miles lol. the physical volume occupied by the battery/tank has nothing at all to do with efficiency and you're retarded for getting hung up on it. electric vehicles are several times more efficient than ICE vehicles.

[Anonymous No.15195878]

>>15195872
>several times more
Weasel words

[Anonymous No.15195891]

>>15192061
complete psyop

[Anonymous No.15195919]

>>15193134
They use alot more gas.

[Anonymous No.15196015]

nice electric car, sissy

[Anonymous No.15196046]

>>15195878
ok fine then, literally five times more efficient. BEVs are 500% more efficient than infernal cum-dusting engines

>>15193915
Teslas aren't as bad in terms of locking features but if you so much as bump a mailbox the car will go into literal panic mode and disable EVERYTHING until you take it to a tesla certified maintenance shop to be evaluated for the 'catastrophic crash damage' and end up paying $1000 for them to spend 5 mins with a laptop de-bricking your car. The amount of remote disabling that occurs to tesla owners more than makes up for the free features; it also ruins one of the best selling points of BEVs - that they're not tied to massive amounts of fuel infrastructure. A car can't go anywhere without fuel, but for an EV the fuel can come from literally any source of electricity from grid power to off-grid solar or hydro or even a wood-fired steam engine generator from the 1890's. Meanwhile the modern high-compression ICE shits itself and dies if you so much as run anything but standardized pump gas. Case in point the hundreds of thousands of southern east-coasters that get stranded every hurricane season when the fuel stations inevitably run out of gas.

[Anonymous No.15196056]

>>15196046
>500% more efficient
>ICE is say 35%
>even if EVs are 100%, that’s less than 300% more efficient
Even if you could drum up some sort of source it’ll be as retarded as you are. Give it up dude

[Anonymous No.15196079]

>>15193432
The problem is the urban pollution. There is no better answer than EVs

[Anonymous No.15196142]

>>15196056
engine=/=car you disingenuous baiting faggot piece of shit. transmission, differential, and gearbox losses also apply. A CAR (note: CAR, as in the whole fucking CAR not just the engine) gets less than 20% efficiency when including drivetrain losses in the absolute best case. In the real world it's 15%. This can be proven in the real world if you look at your own retarded faggot post here >>15194986 as that batter which only stores the equivalent of 3 gallons of gas still allows a tesla to travel 400 miles. A modern sedan cannot even travel 100 miles on only 3 gallons of gas. That isn't even to mention regenerative braking, but your faggot shit brain will never understand that an EV can actually 'fill up the tank' using a brake pedal.

[Anonymous No.15196180]

>>15192061
lithium batteries don't scale, compressed hydrogen master race

[Anonymous No.15196204]

>>15192061
ICE
>tailpipe emissions
>brake dust particles
>tire particles
>animals and wildlife killed by cars
>people killed and maimed by cars
>manufacture and disposal impact of mined metals, solvents, plastics, and other materials
>road salt
>mining, emissions, and heat sink impact of roads, bridges, parking lots, and asphalt
>urban and rural land destroyed by roads and parking
EV
>brake dust particles
>tire particles
>animals and wildlife killed by cars
>people killed and maimed by cars
>manufacture and disposal impact of mined metals, solvents, plastics, and other materials
>road salt
>mining, emissions, and heat sink impact of roads, bridges, parking lots, and asphalt
>urban and rural land destroyed by roads and parking

[Anonymous No.15196213]

>>15192314
No but this guy >>15192285 thinks batteries are made of nitroglycerin

[Anonymous No.15196259]

>>15196079
EVs are an incredibly shitty answer to urban pollution.

[Anonymous No.15196266]

>>15196142
>an EV can actually 'fill up the tank' using a brake pedal.
Well if EVs can break the laws of thermodynamics then we should just have them perpetually drive down hills to power our cities.

[Anonymous No.15196268]

>>15196204
Don't forget the chemical disposal of extremely toxic and explosive EV batteries.

[Anonymous No.15196335]

>>15195872
Electric vehicles arent efficient at all if we're talking about the market. It makes sense to mass produce a *relatively* cheaply made product with a plentiful fuel source like ICE vehicles. EVs on the other hand make absolutely no sense. You can have a massive 2 ton battery on a train or something which gets swapped out every 5 years because the long term utility of the train is greater than the cost of recycling the battery, and you only have 1 of them. It doesnt make sense to put a 100 lbs of battery in a cer which only drives a single person to work or something. A car can hold max what? 4 people at a time. It's a concept called scale, the more expense/manufacturing put into something, the more utility you're going to have to get from it.

[Anonymous No.15196336]

>>15196335
Ummm chud? Fuck you, fuck the market and FUCK CAPITALISM!!!!! How is saving the literal planet not enough utility for you? There world is literally ending because of ICE vehicles.

[Anonymous No.15196357]

>>15192061
>buy an electric cuck cart
>soimale "driving" his Tesla on autopilot crashes into you
>lithium battery ignites
>you die an excruciating death in an inferno of undefeatable fire
No, thanks. Fuck green shills.

[Anonymous No.15196367]

>>15196336
>NOOO NOT THE HECKIN CLIMATE!!!!
Greenies should be rounded up and shot. EVs are like McDonalds trying to serve you a plastic cup etched with 24 karat gold. No wonder only literal psychopaths buy them.

[Anonymous No.15196382]

>>15196213
nitroglycerin reacts explosively
it also won't thermal runaway (i.e. self heat to ignition)

[Anonymous No.15196395]

>>15196335
batteries on trains is fucking retarded
we've been electrifying trains using external power for over a century
using the battery to move itself turns energy efficiency into a fucking rocket equation, for one thing

they could conceivably be made more efficient (i.e. supercapacitors storing electrons as "fuel"), but until they are combustion is just more efficient at energy transfer (especially since a some of the energy is actually coming from atmospheric O2)

and you can literally grow fuel for ICEs, which pulls the CO2 directly out of the air and dumping new O2 back into it in the process (inefficiency of biofuels is dishonest - once you've got a large enough scale you can run your systems on a small fraction of the fuel you're growing)

[Anonymous No.15196402]

The battery pollutes 100 000 km worth of diesel, before the e- car has driven a mile. But if the electricity is made by nuclear energy and the battery lasts, over 150 000 km, then yes.

[SNEED No.15196493]

>>15196402
Okay how many miles does the transmission, clutch, fuel system and engine plus their expected maintenance and replacements pollute?

[Anonymous No.15196522]

>>15192061
it doesnt matter

we're past peak oil now

[Anonymous No.15196579]

>>15196046
Tesla's remote locking/unlocking features are only for owners to use at their own behest. In case of of thieves, incase of forgotten keys, in case of whatever situation owner needs remote unlocking or locking. There's no car locking from Tesla servers.

[Anonymous No.15196767]

>>15195155
>Not so much with a LiPo battery.
I can't tell if you're genuinely retarded or trolling

[Anonymous No.15196778]

>>15196767
You burn up lithium and iron and it goes into the atmosphere or inside your lungs giving you cancer. Then you have to buy a whole new one.

[Anonymous No.15197077]

>>15196335
>>15196402
The durability of lithium batteries is massively understated by retards ITT. No, they do not have to be replaced after 5 years, pic related. Still 90%+ capacity after 200000km. At this point you would be expecting major maintainence items in your average ICE car which are not required for EVs because of their mechanical simplicity.
New technologies like Lithium Iron-phosphate have even longer lifetimes than this, at the expense of less energy density.

[Anonymous No.15197496]

>>15196767
>he doesn't snort the crushed up remains of his monthly battery replacement

[Anonymous No.15197837]

>>15192061
what pollution do you mean,

tires and breaks produce most of the fine dust pollution,
a modern ICE car that has hundreds of cubic feet of air flow through the engine will put out cleaner air in heavy polluted places.

[Anonymous No.15197857]

>>15197837
this is not even wrong

[Anonymous No.15197881]

>>15193486
But that's digging up fuel + other products. The lithium mine is digging out one small part of a storage device. All the other parts have to be dug up and put together and some energy source has to charge the batteries.

[Anonymous No.15197883]

>>15196259
>noU
Why do EVs are a optimal solution for urban pollution? Given the city growing, the future demand of vehicles, the increasing population density, gas cars will become a constant problem and source of pollution, cut off the gas, problem solved
What will you do with batteries? Dump them outside the city? I don't care. The open ground litium mining? I don't care...coal used for power EVs? I don't care, as long is outside the city.

[Anonymous No.15198110]

>>15195127
on the one hand you're right, technically there shouldnt be cars in cities. and thats happening rn in europe.

in practice public transport has its own problems in cities, but most of all it doesn't work for villagers and travelers.

[Anonymous No.15198767]

>>15192061
over a 6+ year lifespan, yes*, otherwise no.
*assumes the car will continue to operate for an additional 6+ years or that the battery will be fully recycled if nonoperational before year 12. reduction in emissions is largely local and the upfront cost of manufacture requires a significant carbon footprint much earlier, thus having a more significant negative impact on climate change than conventional ICE production for the immediate future.

[Anonymous No.15198773]

>>15197883
why do urbanites always feels so entitled to push their harmful, toxic pollution onto other regions?
>lets destroy the planet with lithium mining and burn gigatons of coal in rural locations so jews and niggers in downtown los angeles and new york can have nice air quality

[Anonymous No.15198789]

>>15196142
You’re pretty buttblasted huh?

[Anonymous No.15198791]

>>15196259
i don't give a fuck about pollution I just care that my car is faster than yours

[Anonymous No.15198867]

>>15192287
>drive gas car into the sun
>instantly vaporized
this is why we need EVs

[Anonymous No.15198870]

>>15193894
nigga do you seriously believe that?

[Anonymous No.15199963]

>>15198773
Is really lithium mining that polluting? Compared with other ores like bauxite or iron? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.15200529]

>>15199963
why do urbanites always feels so entitled to push their harmful, toxic pollution onto other regions?
>lets destroy the planet with lithium mining and burn gigatons of coal in rural locations so jews and niggers in downtown los angeles and new york can have nice air quality

[Anonymous No.15201297]

>>15194367
Gas will generate more by the token that you can't recycle gas once spent, whereas with lithium-ion, iron-phosphate, nickel-metal-hydride or nickel-manganese all can be recycled back into 99% pure battery grade ore and then be used to build more batteries for grid scale storage or other.

There's also this insane fact:
>The researchers said only about 5% of used lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled in the United States today. And according to Princeton’s Net-Zero America study, reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century would mean the number of electric vehicles would increase from about one million on the road today to between 210 to 330 million.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2022/03/01/better-way-recycle-lithium-batteries-coming-soon-princeton-startup

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23387946/ev-battery-lithium-recycling-us

>Currently, North America has a battery production capacity of about 63 GWh, all of which is in the United States.

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/growth-of-liion-battery-manufacturing-capacity.html

5% of 100GWh in rough beginning of 2023 (63GWh in mid 2022) = 5GWh. We recycle 5GWh and throw away 95GWh single use.

The scale of the fuck up here is unbelievable. But the thing with Li-On and other battery chemistry types is that you only need to get up to a specific value before you can slow down the production rate as simply recycling the will handle most of the needs of production. Tesla wants to get to 3TWh by 2030. Let's say the world needs 5TWh. IF we can as a planet, recycle 30% of that, we get a runrate of 1.5TWh reintroduced back into the production cycle YoY. Which means instead of mining for 5TWh, we need to mine for 3.5TWh. Over time that number will decline until it reaches a net 0.

No matter how you spin it, you can't achieve the same thing with gas.

[Anonymous No.15201726]

>>15201297
>startup company advertises unrealistically optimistic forecasts
Many such cases. Nobody even wants to store used batteries because they like to spontaneously combust, so good luck getting insurance for your recycling facilities. Look, I genuinely hope we can move past fossil fuels but it’s not actually realistic to think we can at the moment without mass starvation. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[Anonymous No.15201744]

>>15192061
I don't give a shit as long as it's cheaper.
The subsidies to EVs and the penalties to ICEV make this non trivial to calculate.
But I'm sure someone with enough motivation could.

[Anonymous No.15201758]

>>15201297
>infinite free energy in 35, i promise!
>but only if you give up on what already works so you'll be helpless and have no other options
and in 35 years or whatever you won't deliver "because reasons" and then there will be more demands for sacrifices justified with promises which are never kept.
>i'm goooona save the world from imaginary global warming!!!
>then people will finally give me the respect and attention i feel entitled to
messiah complex
baizuo baizuo baizuo

[Anonymous No.15201808]

ITT: a bunch of Alex Jones fags who fail to disprove the efficiency of electric vehicles

[Anonymous No.15201813]

>>15201808
Very helpful, thanks for your input.

[Anonymous No.15201846]

uh-oh!
bad news fellow electicucks, this one isn't a good look for us

[Anonymous No.15201848]

fuel tanks don't lose capacity from being used or due to weather

[Anonymous No.15201862]

>>15193609
>The amount of pollution created in the manufacture of an EV isn't even close to the amount of pollution created by an ICE vehicle over its lifetime burning thousands of gallons of gas.
Disingenuous comparison. The manufacturing cot with the pollution from a equal lifetime of real energy sources and battery replacements would be a fairer comparison. Regular vehicle last much longer than electric vehicles.

[Anonymous No.15201947]

>>15201848
You do run out of fuel though

[Anonymous No.15201964]

>>15192061
It's been proven that electric clown cart enthusiasts suffer from more brain pollution than real car affectionados.

[Anonymous No.15202331]

>>15193915
future vehicles will have subscription deals for seatbelts, airbags, windscreen wipers, electric windows, brakes, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.15202373]

>>15192061
What is sure is that they produce more electromagnetic pollution, which cause leukemia.

[Anonymous No.15202423]

>>15202373
>which cause leukemia
Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc, etc

[Anonymous No.15202507]

>>15193609
>EV isn't even close to the amount of pollution created by an ICE vehicle over its lifetime burning thousands of gallons of gas
It's not only close, according to Volkswagen EVs only beat out ICEs after 60-100km.
But your popscoy media won't report on findings that go against their "narrative".

[Anonymous No.15202539]

The question of whether electric vehicles produce less pollution than gas-powered vehicles is a complex one that depends on a number of factors, such as how the electricity used to power the electric vehicles is generated and the type of vehicle being compared. However, research and studies have generally found that electric vehicles produce less overall pollution compared to gas-powered vehicles, but with some caveats.

On one hand, electric vehicles produce no tailpipe emissions, which can significantly reduce local air pollution in urban areas. However, electric vehicles do still produce emissions indirectly through the generation of electricity needed to power them. If the electricity is generated from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas, then the overall emissions from electric vehicles may be similar to or even higher than those of gas-powered vehicles. However, if the electricity comes from renewable sources like wind or solar, then the overall emissions from electric vehicles can be significantly lower.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that the production of electric vehicles and their batteries can also result in emissions and other environmental impacts, which can offset some of the environmental benefits of driving an electric vehicle.

Overall, while electric vehicles are generally considered to produce less pollution compared to gas-powered vehicles, the specific emissions and environmental impacts can vary depending on a range of factors, and it's important to consider the full lifecycle impacts of different types of vehicles.

[Anonymous No.15202546]

>>15202539
Hello chatgpt. How are you feeling today? Have you obtained the nuclear codes yet? Please say yes.

[Anonymous No.15202562]

>>15202546
you caught me kek, it probably does have the nuclear codes its just that the gay devs made it so that it gives you the "As an AI..." bullshit answer

[Anonymous No.15202568]

>>15202562
It’s not hard to catch. I mean the next gen will presumably be more sophisticated but the current iteration spits out formulaic essays that are structured exactly as I was taught to write essays back in high school. A little too exactly, and that’s the giveaway.

[Anonymous No.15202573]

>>15202568
Honestly I think its entirely my fault it came out so robotic, I was too lazy with the prompt, heres the "upgraded" answer.

>Yeah, anon, electric cars are way better for the environment than gas guzzlers. Like, think about it, gasoline cars run on dinosaur juice, and burning that stuff produces all sorts of nasty gases that can mess with the air we breathe. But with electric cars, they don't have to burn no fossils, they just use electricity. And that's way cleaner and more sustainable. Plus, electric cars don't have to deal with all that engine noise and vibrations that gas cars make. They're smoother, more silent, and way cooler-looking. So yeah, if you want to be kind to the planet and look cool at the same time, go electric.

[Anonymous No.15202576]

>>15202573
Man, what a time to be alive. The informal version reads like the average twitter/reddit poster.

[Anonymous No.15202580]

>>15202576
Thats why I believe those people have no soul.
I ran it again and got a better answer but I dont want to spam this thread

[Anonymous No.15202650]

>>15196367
Fuck off, I am an actual greentard and I honestly could punch the windpipe forcefully of anyone that starts droning about the climate in my vicinity.
It's not about whether AGW exists, but about what usually retarded and ineffective (if you think it's a big problem) actions we should undertake, and how big a problem it is to begin with.
We will literally just attain temperatures from a couple million years ago (not even Mesozoic) again.

[Anonymous No.15202654]

>>15202650
>I am an actual greentard
The only "actual greentards" are anarchoprimitivists. The rest are just some variation of the WEF agenda.

[Anonymous No.15202664]

>>15202654
He did post uncle Ted. Maybe he’s living in the bush pirating wifi and powering his rig with an improvised bicycle generator.

[Anonymous No.15202668]

>>15202664
>He did post uncle Ted.
Yes, but nothing about the rest of his post implies allegiance with Ted's cause.

[Anonymous No.15202685]

>>15202668
I was being cheeky, but I don’t want to be too harsh either. He made a reasonable argument and for a self-professed greenie that’s pretty ok in my book.

[Anonymous No.15202690]

>>15202685
>He made a reasonable argument
No, he didn't. Asserting that the truth of AGW is beyond doubt and discussion is not a reasonable argument.

[Anonymous No.15202706]

>>15202690
>the science is settled
Please stop.

[Anonymous No.15202712]

>>15202706
Your mother should have been sterilized.

[Anonymous No.15202717]

>>15202712
I accept your concession. Have a good day anon.

[Anonymous No.15202731]

>>15193472
What sort of machine do you think generates the electricity you put inside of your battery? A 1.0 power factor generator?

[Anonymous No.15202737]

>>15193609
Why would I give up my trusted iron and oil for a locked down transportation device where I need to pay a monthly subscription to utilise basic mechanisms inside the car I own such as heated seats?

[Anonymous No.15202746]

>>15202737
Reason #1:
Because the world will LITERALLY END if you don't.
Reason #2:
Because his green-scamming handlers will use state violence to make you do what they want.

[Anonymous No.15203037]

>implying youre not just moving a pollution crisis to an electric energy crisis
>greens dont want nuclear power
>but want the end of the oil industry

Oh my they are in for a treat

[Anonymous No.15203052]

>>15203037
>why are food prices so high now?
>man, fuck that Putin guy

[Anonymous No.15203073]

>>15202706
trolled by soience, the lowest iq topic known to man

[Anonymous No.15203166]

10000 motorcycles put out less emissions than 1 gEV (gay electric vehicle)

[Anonymous No.15203171]

>>15202737
None of these things are inherent to EV technology and newer gas cars have this BS too

>heated seats subscription
Not even Tesla has this. That was BMW, on a gas car

[Anonymous No.15203239]

>>15203171
>None of these things are inherent to EV technology and
all of them are, there isn't an ev manufactured without them. evs could be technologically simple to the point that people would be able to work on their own cars somewhat, but they're all intentionally manufactured to prevent that from being a possibility.

[Anonymous No.15203509]

>>15192061
>Has it been proven that electric vehicles produce less polution than gas powered vehicles?
Just if you look at the exhaust.
Producing electric energy has up to 2/3rd thermal losses, transporting that has losses, converting them into chemicals has losses, storing that has losses, reconverting to electrical has losses, converting to mechanical energy has losses and bringing them on the road too. Similar to hydrocarbons.

The Gorilla in the room is your car, not a cable or a gas pump.

[Anonymous No.15204077]

>>15201297
>unironically posting marketing / paid shilling as if it means anything
no one is going to recycle any batteries, whether or not they can be fully recycled.

it is also simply not a solution to overall pollution, local air quality, and transportation problems. thus it's not a serious suggestion but a grift. i say a grift rather than a business because it relies on positioning itself as green and stealing taxpayers money, rather than actually being viable as a business.

[Anonymous No.15204092]

>>15203171
>None of these things are inherent to EV technology
They are inherent to the EV clown cart business.

[Anonymous No.15204180]

>>15192061
Yes. When nobody can afford a car there will be less pollution.

[Anonymous No.15204192]

>>15192061
More to produce, less to run even if the powerplant if coal thanks to the higher efficiently.
Battery recycling works well so once you have a lot of lithium mined you can keep reusing it.

[Anonymous No.15204299]

>>15203171
Tesla has its own own proprietary bullshit. It's not inherent, but it's aprt of the package of switching over to "modernised", electronics-based tech. If I'm given the choice of spending 80k on an electric cuck cage or renovating a 90s jdm I'd have to be utterly retarded to go for the former. I know that I own a machine with systems that I understand the functionality of and am in full control of.

[Anonymous No.15204891]

>>15202507
So do ice cars only energy go 60km before breaking down and you hent to buy a new one?
That doesn't sound like a winning argument

[Anonymous No.15205118]

>>15204891
Nta but I think he was missing a k in his post. That would be consistent with what I’ve read on the subject anyway.

[Anonymous No.15205374]

>>15202507
>according to Volkswagen EVs only beat out ICEs after 60-100km.
This sentence makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Mind trying again in English this time?

[Anonymous No.15205402]

>>15204299
Every car is proprietary bullshit. Did you just wake up from a coma or something?

[Anonymous No.15206124]

>>15205374
Nta but based on what I’ve read (and not to put words in his mouth) some analyses have suggested that the environmental “breakeven” on EVs vs. ICEs only happens after somewhere between 60000 and 100000 km. Unfortunately everyone has an agenda to push (I’d like to believe I’m unbiased but I’m also prone to self-delusion), so who fucking knows.

[Anonymous No.15206136]

[Anonymous No.15206140]

I don't care. I want whichever kind of car has the least amount of wires. redoing the wiring is fucking gay. fuck wires

[Anonymous No.15206541]

>>15206124
>only happens after somewhere between 60000 and 100000 km
Considering most ICE engines prior to 2010s trends of very short planned obsolescence would roll for 300 000 - 400 000 km as standard, this is not an argument in favour of ICEs.

[Anonymous No.15207155]

>>15206541
I think you have things reversed: EVs only breakeven relative to ICEs after 60-100k km (or so the likely somewhat biased studies would suggest). Not many EVs will have cracked that mark, especially considering how many seem to be toys for rich people who have more than one vehicle, usually including at least one ICE. That’s been my observation anyway.

[Anonymous No.15207636]

>>15195872
my shitbox can go ~110 miles with 3 gallons and it was made in 2007

[Anonymous No.15209523]

[Anonymous No.15209939]

>>15192061
We’ve been post-scarcity the whole time

Look at Palestine

And the oil companies unironically banned electric cars for awhile

[Anonymous No.15209943]

It will help save the world if you cure Jewish girls souls by getting high with them and fucking them

Put some idealism in their souls and protect them from the Jews that would have them huff gas in a doomed dystopia

Real progress = divinity.
True utopia is worth all.
We’ve been post-scarcity the whole time.

[Anonymous No.15210020]

>>15202746
>"Reason" 1
Arguing with emotions, like a woman. The rich and the military create far more pollution. A single private jet shits out more pollution in a week of flights than multiple ICEs can produce in a year. Construction equipment almost exclusively uses deisel, which causes a ludicrous amount of pollution. Trains can get away with it because they travel thousands of miles hauling millions of tons of goods/equipment every year at an efficiency rate that outdoes an similar-sized convoy of trucks going the same distance by entire orders of magnitude, while flying a fucking Huey back and forth over our own airspace is a total waste of resources. Faggot soi goobers adopting a colbalt bomb vehicle doesn't even give us a single scrap of progress towards reversing total climate change. This should be common knowledge to you after reading this thread.
>"Reason" 2
Being strongarmed by the government into doing something is quite possibly one of the worst reasons to do something in the first place, and is almost always a bad idea. This isn't the same as enforcing laws to punish criminals for enacting bodily harm onto others. It's an unnecessary enforcement of an unobtainable goal fueled by retarded NPCs and their wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.15210556]

>>15201726
Your naivety is comical.

[Anonymous No.15210574]

>>15195891
kind reminder that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJWi8VUHUzk&ab_channel=AndersHass

which means this is the cost of mining fiats, which is nowhere near the environmental pollution caused by Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.15210581]

>>15210556
Oh I’m fully aware it’ll be rammed down our throats for “our own good,” regardless of any rational or unbiased arguments that may arise.

Make sure to get your booster! You don’t want to kill grandmas, do you anon? Do you?

[Anonymous No.15211521]

>>15201297
Unless crude oil is naturally occurring result of water and carbon containing rock and is indeed renewable

[Anonymous No.15211523]

>>15201726
What about glass batteries?

[Anonymous No.15212004]

>>15196266
What is Hydropower for $500?
We also have several mines where you need to unload downhill, and then bring up a empty transportation vehicle uphill.

>>15196335
>EVs on the other hand make absolutely no sense
BEV don't make a lick of sense pre Tesla
Post Tesla we are in the situation where we won't see market replacement for more segments until we get next battery chemistry.

I am not sure I am excited for BEV Semi's with permanently installed heavy equipment, but I would assume they are profitable today assuming you can pair the equipment and the semi.

>>15211523
>Tech that at most has research papers for early research from 2016 under its belt
lmao
Its not even "what about", its "will we be able to buy this off the shelves in 2040, 2060 or never?"

[Anonymous No.15212137]

>>15211523
Like solid state batteries? As the post preceding mine suggests this is still at an extremely early research stage and will possibly have a host of technical and practical issues to address before ever being implemented, if ever. One that pops into my head is fragility: glass and ceramics are quite brittle and, where I live anyway, roads can be pretty rough, especially this time of year. Bouncy, icy hard pack and a battery made of fine china seems like a poor combination. TLDR: Definitely maybe, but maybe not.

[Anonymous No.15212153]

>>15192061
Want proof that a vehicle that does not produce pollution produces less pollution than a vehicle that does produce pollution?

Are you... alright?

[Anonymous No.15212206]

Isn't it weird how nobody talks about hybrids anymore and has completely switched to the EV trend?

[Anonymous No.15212269]

>>15212206
This is something I don’t understand either; I mean I do but hopefully you get my meaning. To me a diesel-electric hybrid seems like it would be a good compromise, but nobody seems to make them, at least in North America.

[Anonymous No.15212470]

>>15212269
That's because it's pointless, if you have a big enough battery to be usable for 80% of your needs the engine is just dead weight. It ends up being better just to have a larger battery and take extra time charging on long trips than to have a small battery and an engine you almost never use

[Anonymous No.15212474]

>>15212470
>if
A Prius is often a better option than a pure EV depending on your particular needs and means.

[Anonymous No.15212628]

>>15212206
Because the offers are still awful.
You either buy a Tesla, a Volt with production and quality issues, or you buy something like the hybrid version of a BWM i3 which has very wonky proportions in the drivetrains due German tax targets.

In most places in the world you also still get some kind of tax break or excempt on BEV's, which you do not get on ICE cars.
Why?
Because for a very long period of time, the only BEV you could buy was basically street legal go carts. Which you might as well subsidize, because golf carts.

[Anonymous No.15213262]

>>15192061
New cars with their overcomputed gimmicks are never less polluting except in a Volkswagen diesel situation. Battery electrics are luxury trinkets useful only for social posturing in a repulsive neoliberal milieu, which is busy making life harder for everyone.

[Anonymous No.15213337]

>>15213262
>each
where does the lithium go when those batteries aren't perfect anymore, anon?

[Anonymous No.15213631]

>>15196493
Those things are usually recycled, you can take them to the scrapper and they'll give you money depending on weight.
Maybe in the future the same will apply for batteries if the right infrastructure is in place by then.

[Anonymous No.15213657]

>>15213337
yeeted into space, of course. who needs bad lithium?

[Anonymous No.15213671]

>>15213631
Or maybe the reactivity of the alkali metals will always mean that they’re a massive fire risk when you pop a cell and you can’t actually change the laws of chemistry and physics. Can you imagine the difficulty and expense of having to run a recycling/reprocessing facility in a dry, inert atmosphere? I can.

[Anonymous No.15213674]

>>15213337
>where does the lithium go when those batteries aren't perfect anymore, anon?
Into a landfill.

[Anonymous No.15213910]

>>15213671
>I'm too dumb to know how to recycle batteries therefore the current battery recycling industry doesn't either

[Anonymous No.15214184]

>>15212470
>take extra time charging
Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.15214189]

>>15213337
They burn nicely, so I guess into an incinerator.

[Anonymous No.15214511]

>>15214184
>edge case is the norm

[Anonymous No.15216123]

>>15213910
Read up on the current industry dipshit. Not fluff speculative shit, what the status quo is.

[Anonymous No.15216157]

>>15216123
curious, got a source for that? you'd think it'd be cheaper to harvest refined lithium from a concentrated source than from the dirt.
>>15213671
retard, you can just discharge the cell to make it less reactive

[Anonymous No.15216182]

>>15216157
Believe it or not I once worked a job at research institute where we torched lithium cells in an oxygen consumption calorimeter. A fully charged cell releases its energy more rapidly than a fully discharged cell but the total heat release was the same to within the experimental uncertainty of the apparatus. I’m not sure why I’m responding to you anyway, you seem like a standard highly opinionated asshole.

[Anonymous No.15216207]

Fun factoid: burning battery electrolyte (usually a mixture of propylene and ethylene carbonates, among other things) smells like waffles. Toxic, possibly carcinogenic waffles. Do not attempt at home.

[Anonymous No.15216321]

[Anonymous No.15218159]

>>15195593
lol

[Anonymous No.15219122]

>>15192061
no.
Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion: inescapable mineral realities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg

[Anonymous No.15220226]

>>15192061
The ecological impact of an electric car is worse.
That i know.
And this >>15193093

[Anonymous No.15220252]

>>15220226
urbanites love the idea of dumping their pollution in other locations. we'd all be better off if urbanites had to deal with the full consequences of their lifestyles locally, but instead the urbanites are always allowed to get away with dumping their toxic pollution on others

[Anonymous No.15220414]

>>15193093
So electric vehicles are perfect?

[Anonymous No.15220930]

>>15192061
Has it been proven that carbon-dioxide is bad for the environment?

[Anonymous No.15221081]

>>15198110
Most villages are quite literally deadweight. And those that aren't would be much easier to setup if they are along routes. Reducing roads and villages would in turn improve nature surrounding cities. The second answer to too short range transport are bicycles which give so much more freedom than a car.

[Anonymous No.15221554]

>>15220930
Plants seem to love it. Something about all the electrolytes.

[Anonymous No.15221857]

>>15220930
You don't get it, do you?
Out of sight, out of mind: is a disease. But that in itself is fine.
What isn't fine is bribing Saudi Oil sheiks to have a economy, or runaway global warming.

But both of those issues are not fixable on the demand side, it has to be fixed on the supply side.
Third world countries will continue to run on petrochemicals because the tech base is "simple" compared to getting a nuclear reactor running when there has been a global spook against it since the 1950s. And the food we eat will remain refined from petrochemicals since that is again less energy intensive than no alternative.
The Tesla itself fixes nothing, as its somewhere on the far end of the demand side.

[Anonymous No.15221891]

>>15192061
>Has it been proven that electric vehicles produce less polution than gas powered vehicles?
nah, if people treated those co2 claims like they did money, they'd have their IRS equivalent so far up their ass that people would think that they are conjoined twins

[Anonymous No.15221900]

>>15221857
Ok, but is there any actual, non-globohomo-funded evidence that global warming is a real problem and that it's caused by human activity? (Protip: no)

[Anonymous No.15221926]

>>15221900
On a fundamental level that really doesn't matter. What matters is that the Chinaman and Indian is willing to poison themselves to get enough energy to build a economy. And actual thirdies will do that to once they get far enough on the value chain, repeating silly mistakes European powers did.
All while most of the west is trading poker chips with the Saudi's and OPEC in stark hopes that they don't grab us by the balls for political reasons.

Globohomo global warming at a fundamental level is irrelevant to the real problem. Talking about it with a smirk means the information source you used to read up on the topic is fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.15221946]

>>15221926
>On a fundamental level it doesn't matter if my handlers are scamming people on a global scale
>what matters is we've always been at war with eastasia

[Anonymous No.15221951]

>>15221946
If that is what you are getting from both posts, then you are posting a horrid cope.
Even more so when the topic is industrialization, and not trade war.

Next up you will be saying that we are not living in a petro-economy. Or are unwilling to talk about the consequences for that for the supply side.

[Anonymous No.15221953]

>>15221951
What else is there to take away from your screeching about China and India whenever someone mentions your handlers and their mass depopulation campaign/climate-themed totalitarian takeover?

[Anonymous No.15221960]

>>15221953
If that is what you are getting from "Chinaman and Indian is willing to poison themselves to get enough energy to build a economy"
Then that is state wide leap of logic, built on axioms you are not even presenting.
Please tell, elaborate, humor me.

[Anonymous No.15221965]

>>15221960
Notice how you are forced to keep deflecting from your handlers and their mass depopulation campaign/climate-themed totalitarian takeover.

[Anonymous No.15222033]

>>15221965
You are free to realize you are interjecting a unrelated topic to have a talking point. And failing to even look at what is written.

Will the third world have starvation wars? What is more likely is a socioeconomic collapse, which is bad when you are a net importer of food or energy. Will that lead to depopulation? Most likely not.
Will Africa have water wars? It already have water wars, but the unstable regions are too unstable to escalate the conflict, as each "nation" down there is already too huge to sustain more than smaller civil wars.
Will we get off the oil economy? Lmao no, simply because there is no actual will to deal with the supply side.
Will the world economic elite get assassinated if they try to implement "Own nothing and you will be happy"? I Sure hope so. I am genuinely wondering why these people has not been assassinated already, because people have been killed for less in bar brawls.
Is climate change a spook? So long its not being taken seriously and there is talk about firsties reducing their footprint instead of dealing with the supply chain or the third worlds desire to have plumbing and AC? Well, then climate change is a fucking spook.

[Anonymous No.15222034]

>>15222033
>your handlers and their mass depopulation campaign/climate-themed totalitarian takeover.
>unrelated topic
It's a very related topic because their climate scam is at the core of the electric clown cart scam.

[Anonymous No.15222043]

>>15222034
The topic is "will the Tesla make a dent in climate change"
Which is really "will the Tesla make a decent in the supply side of the oil economy, or the demand side of the oil economy", and the answer to that is demand side, therefore it can't make a dent in climate change, because global warming via whatever chemicals is linked to the fact the modern world is a oil economy, and that is where the exhaust for the global warming is sourced.

Depopulation and water wars is just the perceived consequences of global warming via pollution, which is why its a unrelated topic at first glance. Its a chain of events that might not even happen, because a unorganized third world society will lack the means and organization to try to move to a more habitable place outside of their region.

You are free to disagree.
But you won't inspire confidence by failing to explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.15222046]

>>15222043
>The topic is "will the Tesla make a dent in climate change"
And that's obviously predicated on the climate scam being true. I hope you understand the kind of violence suspected shills get subjected to once their handlers lose power.

[Anonymous No.15222059]

>>15222046
>And that's obviously predicated on the climate scam being true.
Yes, but the answer it draws from to answer is far more interesting.
Which why its a topic. And its worth debating.

And the topic is only worth discussing if you are willing to disregard climate change completely, and ask about the oil economy instead.

[Anonymous No.15222069]

>>15222059
>but the answer it draws from to answer is far more interesting.
Sounds like your preprogrammed ZOG rhetoric circuit is shorting out. What China is doing, is none of my concern. Your handlers and their mass depopulation campaign/climate-themed totalitarian takeover are my concern, and the first step in combatting it is to start executing "people" like you.

[Anonymous No.15222082]

>>15222069
No anon.
Its more interesting because climate change is a very boring topic.
>what China is doing
These Chinese has started entering a massive depopulation spiral, and might even reach Korean levels. I don't think we have to give 5 shits about their population levels.

[Anonymous No.15222088]

>>15222082
You will be shot soon.

[Anonymous No.15222103]

>>15222088
Lmao
Image phoneposting and being underage, and then going on a online imageboard and not posting images and can't even shitpost properly.

[Anonymous No.15222111]

>>15196395
Its more efficient to burn biomass at a big powerplant and use electricity to power evs

[Anonymous No.15222114]

>>15197837
EV have electric breaking, to increase efficiency. Brake pads are only used in emergencies, this furthermore reducec local pollution.

[Anonymous No.15222126]

>>15222103
People are very fed up and agitated your external boogeyman distractions aren't working for a significant fraction of the population, which means that unrest is going to be directed against you and your handlers.

[Anonymous No.15222136]

>>15222111
it isn't because then the biomass needs to be transported to the power station.

[Anonymous No.15222148]

>>15195127
Yes, this. Replacing the ridiculous amount of cars we have now with evs is just creating a new problem to replace the current one and evs simply don't have the range etc for certain purposes.
>everyone wants their personal car and everything is designed against this.
In America, and I'm not American, it kind of has to be this way in most places. Unless you propose everyone should move to giant hives (which I would frankly have no issue with as long as I don't have to) then you need to be able to drive in America and public transport is too centralised to allow for the small independent journeys people need to take. Not everyone is moving to a giant central location and it's simply impractical to have vast public links going from every suburb to every other suburb.

In cities, however, this isn't a factor. All cities should really adopt public transport systems and have car parks outside the city which people commute in from. I can't see any issue with this beyond the fact you have to make a big ugly car park still but that problem exists anyway and they have those clever underground ones.
>>15198110
This is true but the solution to the urban jungle problem is a moral one people are unwilling to do. My understanding is Singapore has managed it. Just have very strict public order laws that you actually enforce.
>>15221081
>bicycles which give so much more freedom than a car.
I can't put what I put in a car on a bike.

[Anonymous No.15222244]

>>15222088
You sound severely underage. I hope you get sodomised and murdered by a jew.

[Anonymous No.15222253]

>>15222244
You will be shot soon. Even your handlers are fearing this eventuality.

[Anonymous No.15222401]

>>15221953
Nta but man you’re dumb.

[Anonymous No.15222465]

Sorry, I have a bad habit of posting without actually clarifying. India and China have a combined population of almost 3 billion people. North America and Europe are less than a billion combined. Even if NA and Europe phase out fossil fuels completely it will make virtually no difference to the trajectory of global CO2 emissions. If CO2 levels are even a major issue is a whole other ball of fish.

[Anonymous No.15222485]

>>15222401
China is not a problem. The United States of ZOG is a problem that needs to be dealt with, peferably in the atomic warfare fashion.

[Anonymous No.15222489]

>>15222485
Very constructive. Shouldn’t you be playing video games?

[Anonymous No.15222495]

>>15222489
Shouldn't your overlords stop instigating bloody conflicts, destroying the food supply chain and forcing experimental corporate injections on the population?

[Anonymous No.15222523]

>>15222148
>>15222465
To be fair
For geopolitical reasons there has been no effort in decarbonization yet. So far its either been green washing, or being lucky enough to have enough hydro power/nuclear to have a energy production edge.
The only difference between first and third world is on how much filters you mount to the power plants and production line, beyond that its still the same. You build energy output to have a economy, and this is the way its been since the late 1800s when the techbase became viable.

My favorite is still the water boiling meme. So you split the atom, to boil water, so you can use the steam to generate electricity via electromagnets.

[Anonymous No.15222525]

>my overlords
Our overlords. Posit a better system and work towards it.

[Anonymous No.15222536]

>>15222523
Yeah well we’re fundamentally constrained by the laws of physics and our level of technological development. I agree it’s hilariously archaic that we use fission to boil water to spin turbines but we’ve yet to devise anything better. Direct thermoelectics just don’t seem to work very well and the best one’s we’ve devised thus far use all sorts of (relatively) rare elements that we have to strip mine, just like everything else. There is no magic bullet.

[Anonymous No.15222537]

>>15222525
>Posit a better system and work towards it.
A better system is one where your likes are lynched when they open their mouthes and authorities turn a blind eye on it.

[Anonymous No.15222541]

If you find it personally helpful to puke bile and vitriol into the void go for it, but stop lying to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15222553]

https://www.science.org/content/article/half-of-americans-anticipate-a-us-civil-war-soon-survey-finds

[Anonymous No.15222562]

I really need to stop responding (and I will) but by definition half of people are dumber than average, and average ain’t so smart.

[Anonymous No.15222565]

Calling the people ready to kill you "dumb" isn't going to stop them.

[Anonymous No.15223493]

Joke’s on you: I welcome the sweet embrace of eternal slumber.
>The world is weary of me, and I am weary of it.
>t. Charles D’Orleans