How does increasing the amount of fossil fuels used, and increasing the resulting amount of pollution put into the air, help the environment? The warming itself isn't necessarily dangerous (in fact, according to historical record, Earth isn't even up to its natural high yet), but the increase in pollution itself has a number of negative side effects, including negative side-effects for humans.
And, yes, it does mean ten thousand dollars per car isn't being spent... because, likely, it increased as much as up to fifteen thousand dollar per car.
You see, the big failure of electric cars is a little thing called entropy. The reason why the internal combustion engine originally replaced the electric engine, and the reason why it stayed king, is that it both is the most efficient method of producing energy and the fact it produces energy right there in the car, meaning that a lot less energy is lost due to transfers. Some might point out that a gasoline engine only actually gets to access around 30% of its energy... while failing to realize that, for power generation, that is actually an absurdly high figure. Nuclear power barely gets close, and some (such as wind energy) don't even get one sixth of that.
So, in order to power an electric car running off the grid, you need energy... the car must receive an amount of energy equal to what a gasoline engine made for the car would normally produce. Top it all off, you need more energy, due to the fact that gasoline engines supplement their energy with batteries that they can charge while electric cars don't do that. And then, due to the fact you are dealing with a car that gets its energy from a grid, you need even more energy generated than normal just to make up for the amount of energy lost to energy transfers... in some cases, this can be as much as 50% more energy. But it will never be less. In turn, this means that, per car, there would need to be an increase in cheap energy production in order to help fuel the car's energy needs by the amount of energy lost on its way to the car. Since cheap energy means either oil or coal, you're talking more fossil fuels used per car.
Oh, and electric cars are almost entirely made from oil products, even more so than gasoline cars are. Which means that, per car, you've increased the fossil fuel usage yet again.
Total bill? Probably, to be reasonable, around 1.51x the fossil fuel usage of a gasoline car. That, combined with how inefficient electric cars are about their energy usage (they somehow manage to be worse about it in a way that is baffling... which, in fact, was why they were originally replaced by gasoline cars), they tend not to be a good idea simply because of the massively increased energy bill. Note these issues might have been there all along in all cars... just were not noticed as much until you hit a car that runs entirely on electricity.
Note that none of the energy loss applies if they add solar panels to the car, and the cars would work fine in LA. But the cars would also be limited in just how far north of the equator they can go. The farther north you go, the more inefficient solar panels become.
MJ. Wow. Seriously, you need to find who ever taught you how cars work and the history of the automobile and demand an apology. Because they are spectacularly wrong.
My history lessons are, sadly, a result of public education.
That said, the first electric car was introduced in 1828 and the first American gasoline engine was made in 1893. Note the gasoline engine was introduced in a period where electric cars were wide-spread.
And I will say that, unless I completely misunderstand what the alternator and spark plugs are for in a gasoline engine, my talk about how cars work should be accurate enough. Though, I may be estimating the gasoline efficiency rather high, I will admit. But, when comparing an energy generation efficiency of 15% (some gasoline powered cars) to 0% (all electric powered cars), it's pretty obvious which one has the higher efficiency. And, unfortunately, when it comes to the environment, energy generation is the metric that actually matters; energy usage efficiency is a secondary metric that doesn't matter if the primary generation method has no efficiency. That is what ultimately makes electric cars worse polluters; they shift the generation of energy elsewhere, which in turn brings in the charging inefficiency (20% for a Tesla) and then adds in all of the inefficiencies of energy transference (as dictated by entropy) and by the inefficiency of the primary generation method (which, usually, is gasoline or coal generators).
To demonstrate:
So, let's be generous and say that a power plant has 1000 liters of gasoline it is burning to power an electric car. Let's be very generous and say it has the highest efficiency possible for gasoline.
So, that's 300 liters of energy. Add in energy transference, be extremely generous and say the car is parked in the power plant's parking lot, and factor in what is probably a standard loss of five percent. That comes to... 285 liters. Now, we say the car is a Tesla and add in their energy efficiency... That means that, out of 1000 liters, the car is only using 228, or 22.8%. So for the car to benefit from a full 1000 liters of energy, you would need to burn... approximately 4386 liters of gasoline.
If you apply the same energy efficiency to a car for its primary generation method, the car ends up benefiting from 300 liters of energy for every 1000 liters of gasoline. So for it to benefit from a full 1000 liters of energy, you need to burn approximately 3334 liters of gasoline.
Now, let's get into the fun math! There are 254,212,610 in the U.S. If each one needs 1000 liters of energy to operate for a week, then it amounts to the U.S. needing to burn 847,544,941,740 liters of gasoline in a week to power them if they're all gasoline engines. If they're all electric cars, then the figure rises to 1,114,976,507,460 liters of gasoline that must be burned by power plants just to power the cars. That is in addition to the amount burned to power homes.
Note that most gasoline generators are probably far more inefficient than this, and power lines are far longer and probably lose a lot more power than this. Totally, taking in LazarX's estimate of 90% loss at the generator and an estimate of a good 10-20% lost going through the power lines... You're talking insane amounts of energy wasted before it even reaches the car. So the disparity is going to be worse, not better, and the impact on total fossil fuel usage is only going to be worse.
Now, note that if the electric car generates all of its own energy, such as via having solar panels, then all of the above math becomes useless and then it becomes a comparison of the energy usage efficiency and questions as to the reliability of the power source. While gasoline will likely still win out for energy generation, in part because it has no limits on range from equator, it won't win out on energy usage, which ultimately would limit the gasoline-powered engines to those areas of the world where solar simply isn't worth the effort.
Edit: After this, the fact I am usually the person who designs a ship's power grid in any group I play with when doing a scifi RPG is probably no shock.
Krensky, I'm limiting my calculations to just energy to power a car based on losses from point of generation to point of actual usage. Now, let's work with your figures.
1000 liters of fuel. For an electric car, assuming that fuel is petroleum, they're working with a starting fuel power of 350 liters worth; the rest is just wasted.
Total loss from power lines reduces it to 315 liters.
Total loss on that for charging, according to the figures provided by Tesla, reduce it to 252... bringing it down to the same level as gasoline starts at. According to figures by GM, the actual losses of most electric cars will be around 30%, which means the actual figure is 221 liters worth of energy left. Note this loss is pure heat loss.
If we add in realistic figures for battery storage over the long term, based on lithium-ion batteries, you can expect the car to lose another 20% after one year, bringing it down to 177 liters of fuel. Then you cut that in half.
Realistically, most cares are going to be driven for more than a single year and stay in the market for decades later, so the first year high-efficiency is not actually the realistic impact of the car's energy figures. But even if it was, you're still losing another 4% just due to battery storage. The result in this case is 212 liters. Note that non-electric cars suffer the same problem; it's entropy coming into play.
So, for the first year, you have a total electric car energy usage of 106 liters of energy, and after that you get around 89 liters of energy. So, a total efficiency of around 10%.
Now, if you want to include the energy efficiency of distributing gasoline, we have to be fair and also include the energy efficiency of making an entire car out of petroleum products. In that case, electric cars lose due to the fact they are made out of petroleum products (and, in fact, are not viable without those petroleum products)... while you can produce a gasoline-powered car that features not one single petroleum product in it except for the fuel. Note the gasoline-powered car would have a fuel efficiency measured in yards, but it still could be done.
The funny thing about gasoline cars? The generation process is also part of the power usage. So they generally don't dip below 15% on power efficiency, just due to design.
So in the case of reducing fossil fuels, using a vehicle that requires fossil fuels to even exist is a losing proposition. Which is why electric cars are not the solution to the problem posed by gasoline cars. And why it is you have to find an entirely different power source to fix the problem. Preferably without finding a more explosive power source.
Now, if you want to include the energy efficiency of distributing gasoline, we have to be fair and also include the energy efficiency of making an entire car out of petroleum products. In that case, electric cars lose due to the fact they are made out of petroleum products (and, in fact, are not viable without those petroleum products)... while you can produce a gasoline-powered car that features not one single petroleum product in it except for the fuel. Note the gasoline-powered car would have a fuel efficiency measured in yards, but it still could be done.LOL
No, you can't.
Let's try this one more time.
You're wrong about how all thus stuff works. A conventional vehicle produces 87 lbs of CO2 driving 100 miles. A EV produces 54 lbs. These are well to wheel numbers and include mining/pumping, refining, distribution, everything.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php#wheel
So, lets recap. Pretty much every reputable source says electric vehicles are more energy and carbon efficient then gasoline ones. You say they're all lying. Occam's Razor says you're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.
Except, you know, the EPA seems to agree with me in saying that power plants produce pollution. Guess where electric cars get their power from?
According to your source:
Well-to-wheel emissions include all emissions related to fuel production, processing, distribution, and use. In the case of gasoline, emissions are produced while extracting petroleum from the earth, refining it, distributing the fuel to stations, and burning it in vehicles. In the case of electricity, most electric power plants produce emissions, and there are additional emissions associated with the extraction, processing, and distribution of the primary energy sources they use for electricity production.
So, in other words, you must add power plant pollution onto the pollution caused by electric cars. Now, what does my source say?
On Sept. 20, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its first steps under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. Power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon pollution in the United States: about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. comes from the generation of electricity by power plants.
One third. That's a lot of friggin' pollution. And electric cars are contributing to that!
Now, as it turns out, there are so many cars on the road that they produce most of the pollution in the U.S. and they are such a source of problems that, despite auto industry efforts, they are still being regulated.
Now, imagine how much the pollution will increase if you shift the energy production of all of those cars over to the power plants.
Interestingly, for the purposes of California, there's at least one impact study that says electric and hybrid cars would increase CO2 emissions. However, it should be noted that the science itself is, as of at least one study that can can be read here. If you want a better news story, try this one.
So, what do the official sources say? That the pollution from electric cars is from the power plants, which in turn are the largest stationary source of pollution in the nation... while the science says that they could reduce pollution, could increase pollution, or will have no impact at all because it all depends on the power plants.
Now, the best part is, your own source says I'm not wrong :P
Besides, if we applied Occam's Razor to this, then we're both wrong. Science doesn't use Occam's Razor often because Occam's Razor would invalidate three quarters of human scientific knowledge.
Krensky, I'm not the one ignoring the fact I have repeatedly advocated that there is a very, very easy modification that can be made to electric vehicles that would make them massively better than gasoline vehicles. In fact, I stated it in these two comments from my previous posts:
Note that none of the energy loss applies if they add solar panels to the car, and the cars would work fine in LA. But the cars would also be limited in just how far north of the equator they can go. The farther north you go, the more inefficient solar panels become.
Now, note that if the electric car generates all of its own energy, such as via having solar panels, then all of the above math becomes useless and then it becomes a comparison of the energy usage efficiency and questions as to the reliability of the power source. While gasoline will likely still win out for energy generation, in part because it has no limits on range from equator, it won't win out on energy usage, which ultimately would limit the gasoline-powered engines to those areas of the world where solar simply isn't worth the effort.
The technology necessary to do the above is on the market today.
So, what is my actual argument?
"Electric cars, as they exist now, are not good replacements for gasoline engines due to the strain they add to power plants."
All of the evidence supports that, it doesn't mention anything about a conspiracy (how you got the idea I was speaking of a conspiracy I will never know), and it actually fits in with the current research on the subject. And top it all off, I even turn around and point out a solution, which is something that Tesla itself has actually considered. So it's enough of a viable solution that it may actually be the future of electric cars, given the fact enough interest exists that at least one electric car company seriously considered it.
In order for your argument to be true (I'm taking your word that your intent is to prove my point wrong, despite you misunderstanding it), we would have to disprove one of the laws of thermodynamics and disprove entropy. My argument merely requires nodding to the actual science on the issue and then can be negated just by modifying the roof design and where the car gets its power from.
So, by Occam's Razor, you are completely wrong. By all provided evidence (including your own), you are still wrong. And top it all off, the problem I present is so easily fixed that the fact it still exists is ridiculous.
If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?
A Tesla model S usually comes with a 85kWh battery, which is the energy equivalent of 2.54 gallons of gasoline (regular, unleaded).
If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?
Because it varies too much by engine design in both electric and gasoline cars.
Edit: To note, the EPA calculated it at a standard amount after running tests for months. Problem is, this amount is an average. This means the actual kWh/mile that a vehicle gets can vary from the actual available fuel/energy based on design, in some cases resulting in a reality that is more and in some cases a reality that is less. As such, mpg remains more usable because it is based on energy derived from how much the car actually moves, not an estimate based on the assumption all cars are designed the same way.
If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?Because it varies too much by engine design in both electric and gasoline cars.
Edit: To note, the EPA calculated it at a standard amount after running tests for months. Problem is, this amount is an average. This means the actual kWh/mile that a vehicle gets can vary from the actual available fuel/energy based on design, in some cases resulting in a reality that is more and in some cases a reality that is less. As such, mpg remains more usable because it is based on energy derived from how much the car actually moves, not an estimate based on the assumption all cars are designed the same way.
You're saying we can't convert the math to kWh/mile for a gasoline car? Because I'm not very good at this stuff and I'm pretty sure I can do it.
You're saying we can't convert the math to kWh/mile for a gasoline car? Because I'm not very good at this stuff and I'm pretty sure I can do it.If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?Because it varies too much by engine design in both electric and gasoline cars.
Edit: To note, the EPA calculated it at a standard amount after running tests for months. Problem is, this amount is an average. This means the actual kWh/mile that a vehicle gets can vary from the actual available fuel/energy based on design, in some cases resulting in a reality that is more and in some cases a reality that is less. As such, mpg remains more usable because it is based on energy derived from how much the car actually moves, not an estimate based on the assumption all cars are designed the same way.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current figures on the market are problematic for conversion, due in no small part to different fuel/energy efficiencies that come into play and how the current EPA figure does not take those entirely into account. It basically ignores the "miles" part of the mpg.
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current figures on the market are problematic for conversion, due in no small part to different fuel/energy efficiencies that come into play and how the current EPA figure does not take those entirely into account. It basically ignores the "miles" part of the mpg.You're saying we can't convert the math to kWh/mile for a gasoline car? Because I'm not very good at this stuff and I'm pretty sure I can do it.If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?Because it varies too much by engine design in both electric and gasoline cars.
Edit: To note, the EPA calculated it at a standard amount after running tests for months. Problem is, this amount is an average. This means the actual kWh/mile that a vehicle gets can vary from the actual available fuel/energy based on design, in some cases resulting in a reality that is more and in some cases a reality that is less. As such, mpg remains more usable because it is based on energy derived from how much the car actually moves, not an estimate based on the assumption all cars are designed the same way.
So, what are you basing your comparisons off of then?
So, what are you basing your comparisons off of then?No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current figures on the market are problematic for conversion, due in no small part to different fuel/energy efficiencies that come into play and how the current EPA figure does not take those entirely into account. It basically ignores the "miles" part of the mpg.You're saying we can't convert the math to kWh/mile for a gasoline car? Because I'm not very good at this stuff and I'm pretty sure I can do it.If you're going to compare efficiency, why isn't this math being done in kWh/mile?Because it varies too much by engine design in both electric and gasoline cars.
Edit: To note, the EPA calculated it at a standard amount after running tests for months. Problem is, this amount is an average. This means the actual kWh/mile that a vehicle gets can vary from the actual available fuel/energy based on design, in some cases resulting in a reality that is more and in some cases a reality that is less. As such, mpg remains more usable because it is based on energy derived from how much the car actually moves, not an estimate based on the assumption all cars are designed the same way.
Known measures of energy efficiency based on electricity and conversions of gasoline to energy (both of which existed before the kWh/mile standard of the EPA), which in turn are easily used to extrapolate how much energy is wasted and how much actually ends up used. Limited, of course, to just the generation and usage of the energy. If we got too far beyond that, both types of engine would quickly end up with negative figures for energy efficiency.
All estimates used are somewhat rough estimates, but reliable enough for the purposes of this. And easily understood by those who read it.
Besides, I didn't want to go into the headache of figuring out actual kWh/mile figures.
Beyond that, I go on to note that the problems I cite with electric cars are easily solved in a way that completely negates all of the math I did.
kWh/mile is not something invented by the EPA. It's something invented by physics. You could also do it in Newtons if you wanted.
You're thinking of MPGe, that is a standard used by the EPA.
The standard used by the EPA also includes conversions for kWh, with various measurements.
Now, I admit I may have misunderstood the EPA literature. If so, I apologize; after awhile, the math gives me a headache.
The test to see how far a car goes on a charge would be the same as a tank of fuel. Fill it up with electricity (which you can measure how much energy is being transferred) and drive it till it stops. Rinse, repeat and you get an average.
Now those averages are just that, averages, and they will vary in real conditions. But that same argument applies to gasoline powered cars.
So, if we assume that an agency that is capable of testing gasoline cars (filling them up, measuring how far they go), I don't see why it's unreasonable to use their measurements for electric cars.
The Scion iQ electric version has a range of approximately 50 miles with a 12kWh charge. That's the equivalent of a 0.35 gallon fuel tank.
That's the rub of the problem... the EPA doesn't actually test most cars. They rely on manufacturer tests. Usually, their data is second-hand, and sometimes it's even third-hand or fourth-hand. Even when it comes to a lot of the tests the EPA mandates, they don't actually have a hand in actually running the tests. It's the automotive industry that does the actual testing.
That's part of why the EPA's figures and regulations are sometimes called into question... because there is some question on if bias is determining the data they are relying on.
There's more about the EPA, but that is not related to automobiles. But that more relates to why even some environmentalists I know are questioning if the organization is helpful, or if it is the next great stumbling block to actually helping the environment.
Okay, well that takes it back to... how can you claim anything on efficiency without data?
You can't say the data is good enough to back up your point, and then turn around and say it isn't good enough for someone else's.
I rely on scientific papers, such as this one for my sources of energy efficiency.
You rely on papers you didn't even read past the introduction? Because that paper is talking about best practices in computer simulation modeling for automotive subsystems besides the engine. While it's an interesting topic, it's not really relevant to the question of "What sort of engine results in the production of the least carbon emissions per unit of distance traveled?"
I used that one as an example. Nothing more.
Hey look, it's a libertarian arguing that the best way to solve problems with a government agency is to abolish it. Tre surprise.
My posting history establishes my views of the libertarian movement. I find it amusing you cast me with them without any evidence.
I also never said anything about abolishing it within that portion you quoted. Stumbling block agencies can be reformed, and the EPA has a history that makes it a necessary organization. So, it just needs a bit of reforming on some of its more questionable actions. But for the purposes of this discussion, they're doing a great job with what they have to work with. The problem areas are just areas where they've gotten overzealous and need to back off a bit and take a more sane approach to regulation.
In fact, for the purposes of this conversation, all I have done is question their methodology of data collection and suggest a measurement they use is unreliable. Both of those could be solved tomorrow, easily, with little impact on most of their regulation related to automobiles. In fact, I even referenced two EPA documents earlier in the discussion to support my stance.
I should make a petition for petitions.whitehouse.gov to ban YD's IP address from submitting petitions.
I'd sign that one.
IT, MJ doesn't need data. He has truthiness.
I find this comment hilarious :P
I rely on scientific papers, such as this one for my sources of energy efficiency.That dissertation has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Its about optimizing the efficiency of a power train design. Its also a fricking Mechanical Engineering dissertation, not a study. The author is writing about a methodology to model fuel efficiency of a power train to improve it during the design phase.
Did you even read the abstract?
I did. It was an example, nothing more.
Edit: I think I see the problem.
There is steady argument trying to pigeonhole me into a position of opposing electric cars. Give my first post a good, hard look... especially at the part about solar panels.
I do not actually oppose electric cars. I just think that the current treatment of them is repeating some of the past mistakes that eventually led to them getting replaced by the gasoline cars. In this case, those mistakes are hindering the growth of electric cars in the U.S. As such, a car with built-in solar panels would both solve the previous mistakes and solve the current problem, while giving the car a massive selling point. It also eliminates all discussions of how electric cars will affect the power grid, since they simply won't, and any issues of pollution related to power plants passing onto them, since solar panels don't emit pollutants unless something is going severely wrong with them (and, depending on design, maybe not even then).
After all, which would you buy... a car you have to plug in, or a car you never have to plug in or refuel at all?
I don't like dissertations. I scanned a few pages in a couple different chapters and found the second law of thermodynamics explained with almost the exact same phrasing. Dissertations encourage such a horrible writing style, it's painful.
It did not back your point. You highlighted half a sentence that explained that while EVs do not produce co2 themselves, power plants do. Your argument was that the gasoline engine produces less total co2 and pollution than a EV. Which is false and that source explained it in simple terms.
Then you said EVs should all be powered by solar panels in their roof and it was easy to do, with a link to a article that you said supported your claim, but was really about putting panels up on your house.
Then you imply you dislike libertarians, then you spout off an incrementalist version of their burn government down mantra. Just burn a little here and cut a little there and, oops, where did it go?
I'm done here. You don't know anything about what you're arguing about, you constant shift your argument, move goal posts, post stuff that looks related but really has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
Here's the relevant quote from the Tesla link I gave when I said that it was actually being considered by Tesla themselves:
Question: Why don’t you put solar panels on the car to at least partially offset the energy consumed by the car?
Martin: The only practical place to put panels on the Roadster is the roof (about 1 square meter). Ideally, this would then generate 263 kWh/year. However, the Roadster won’t always be in the sun, and it won’t be at its ideal angle. A 60% de-rating would be generous to account for shade and suboptimal angles, so the panel would generate about 150 kWh/year – driving the car an additional 2 miles per day. This is not even a 1% increase in driving range!
Elon: Although the amount of energy that could be recaptured from the top of the Roadster is small, I originally pushed very hard to have this option available. Martin argued that such panels would only be decoration.
Martin: Fins on a ’59 Caddy…
Elon: … Thank you Martin …But his real reason was that he needed to keep his engineering resources focused on completing the Tesla Roadster itself.
Martin: We may one day offer a solar-roof option for the Roadster. Perhaps an aftermarket company will beat us to it. In the mean time, we will partner with solar providers like Solar City to offer rooftop-based solar options for Tesla owners. We’d like to see a modular solar carport as well.
Considering you thought that link was only about solar panels on houses, it shows you did not even read past the first question. And yet, you sit there and claim I didn't even read sources?
Secondly, here's a quote from this post that highlights solar panels:
Note that none of the energy loss applies if they add solar panels to the car, and the cars would work fine in LA. But the cars would also be limited in just how far north of the equator they can go. The farther north you go, the more inefficient solar panels become.
First reply on the thread, my first post on the thread, and it clearly establishes an argument that solar panels negate the problem. The same argument I repeated again in the following posts:
Second post by me
Fifth post by me
Thirteenth post by me
In addition, while I was posting mathematics, you could have posted your own using the adjusted figures. After all, I did use your figures in one post.
So, I want to know where I moved goalposts... the only time I see is when I used your figures instead of my own. And even then, you did not discount the math when you easily could have posted counter-math of your own. I have been arguing for solar panels on electric cars as a means of solving the issue since the first post; that I just established. It can be seen that at no point did I shift away from that argument, and in fact you can see how every bit of evidence related to it, including the bits I posted, ultimately support that final conclusion.
Also, how is reforming an agency in any way slowly burning them away? Especially when I turn around and state that, aside from a couple issues that could be easily fixed, their policies would remain mostly unchanged in relation to automobiles? That's not very libertarian... After all, that same set of policies I'm talking about includes tighter restrictions on automotive pollution. And at the same time, those areas I said to pull back on I never said not to regulate. I said their regulation needs to be more sane. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, considering they would still be regulating it.
I do admit that I did not post much that agreed with my position that electric cars would increase CO2 from power plants much. One showed an increase in California, which is relevant to the thread topic (electric cars in California), and another agreed with me that it is the type of power source that determines how pollutive electric cars are... which was further supported by your own source. Which was my point of posting them.
Also, one slight problem with g of CO2... which rating are we using? The EPA has 11 of them. Even if we use the same rating for both cars, the problem we're going to run into is that they'll have similar mpg and, through it, similar energy efficiency ratings. Which is due to how the EPA calculates it. Which means that measure leads us right back around to the question of if the power plant reliance is worse or better.
This entire discussion has been frustrating. Even more so since you are making claims about my stance without any evidence to back it.
I don't like dissertations. I scanned a few pages in a couple different chapters and found the second law of thermodynamics explained with almost the exact same phrasing. Dissertations encourage such a horrible writing style, it's painful.
Yeah, those are painful.
Edit: Removed unnecessary sentence that seemed pretentious on second reading.
Been tried. Mods spanked the poster.I should make a petition for petitions.whitehouse.gov to ban YD's IP address from submitting petitions.I'd sign that one.
The Mods at whitehouse.gov?
|
The mods here pounced on em like Lil kittens lookin fur a plaything. Even posted this link on the tesla motors forums. Mods there deleted it. Guess they felt their petition to the whitehouse to get rid of state laws so tesla can sell direct to customers without going through car dealers was threatened by it. Short sighted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One positive aspect of power plant generation over vehicle generation is an economy of scale factor.
If an ICE and EV both result in the same efficiency regarding distance and speed, then the EV will have two positive results:
1) the point of emission can be more easily controlled and placed in areas where it will effect human health to a smaller degree
Using Los Angeles as the example, we could move the source of emissions out of the city to lower population density areas, plus the height of the emissions would reduce the impact on the local environment, helping to disperse it more evenly in the atmosphere. Doesn't address climate change at all, but it improves more localized environments.
2) processes for capturing and recycling the carbon emitted will be cheaper and more effective
There are new methods of using the carbon to grow algae which is then used to make other kinds of fuel, feed for animals and plastics. The primary purpose of this being to sequester the carbon, but doing so in a way that it offsets its own cost. This kind of method would be significantly harder and more expensive to utilize with ICE vehicles.
The Mods at whitehouse.gov?Been tried. Mods spanked the poster.I should make a petition for petitions.whitehouse.gov to ban YD's IP address from submitting petitions.I'd sign that one.
The Paizo Mods. Said something about that sort of behavior toward fellow posters being inappropriate.
Apparently its cool to be an idiot for years
Hey, now, I resemble that remark >.>
Especially since I didn't recognize the thread for what it is and got sucked in <.<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since I didn't recognize the thread for what it is and got sucked in <.<
Well, I came in wondering just why we we wanted to electrocute the inhabitants of Los Angeles.
>.>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I came in wondering just why we we wanted to electrocute the inhabitants of Los Angeles.
Especially since I didn't recognize the thread for what it is and got sucked in <.<
Wait, we need a reason?
*Quickly hides his mad scientist goggles*