Electric cars pollute 1,850 times more then fuel based autos.

[Groogo]

The 2022 U.K.-based Emissions Analytics study found that after driving both a gas and electric car 1,000 miles, the number of particles collected from the EV was vastly greater than the gasoline-powered car.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/electric-cars-pollute-1850-times-more-than-fuel-based-vehicles-study-finds/

[De Hollandse Ezel]

引用自 Morkonan：

引用自 Groogo：

Heh, I take it as part of the overall waste, to begin with the energy used and emissions caused by manufacture will never be re-couped before the driving even begins. It's the overall inefficiency of design, of what would be a great innovation that we all likely would be on board with, it it ever works.

That article focuses on hyping concerns about tire-dust...

It's not about energy use to produce batteries/electric cars or waste there or even toxic by-products that are concerning for many reasons.


The reason EVs are making it to market and governments around the world are trying to adopt them if they can has to do solely with Carbon Emissions. That is why they are on the road, to reduce Carbon Emissions. In terms of discussing whether or not they should be used, that's what has to be addressed - Is their benefit in reducing Carbon Emissions worth some other risk/cost?

I agree that increases in efficiency are absolutely necessary and I do not agree that EVs are a solution in-and-of-themselves. (There's a lot of hype there that needs to be more realistically dealt with.) They can contribute to lowering carbon emissions and we won't see massive increases in efficiency until they're widely adopted... So, we have to take small steps now to make big ones in the future. /shrug

I not care for carbon emissions I see that as a NON issue.. at all.

but the soil erosion, polution and surface water polution as well as the massive drop in air quality EV cause (on top of it not al all being feasable for at least halve a decade.. or more..).. IS a concern..

I just hate it when cutting forests to burn instead of coal.. destroying jungle and farmland and rivers and lakes driving hundrends of spieces extinct to build solarcells, windmills and ev batteries...
is called "green"

to this old fashioned green it aint green aat all.. it is causing REAL polution to adress a FAKE problem.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

引用自 Morkonan：

引用自 Groogo：

Heh, I take it as part of the overall waste, to begin with the energy used and emissions caused by manufacture will never be re-couped before the driving even begins. It's the overall inefficiency of design, of what would be a great innovation that we all likely would be on board with, it it ever works.

That article focuses on hyping concerns about tire-dust...

It's not about energy use to produce batteries/electric cars or waste there or even toxic by-products that are concerning for many reasons.


The reason EVs are making it to market and governments around the world are trying to adopt them if they can has to do solely with Carbon Emissions. That is why they are on the road, to reduce Carbon Emissions. In terms of discussing whether or not they should be used, that's what has to be addressed - Is their benefit in reducing Carbon Emissions worth some other risk/cost?

I agree that increases in efficiency are absolutely necessary and I do not agree that EVs are a solution in-and-of-themselves. (There's a lot of hype there that needs to be more realistically dealt with.) They can contribute to lowering carbon emissions and we won't see massive increases in efficiency until they're widely adopted... So, we have to take small steps now to make big ones in the future. /shrug

ev are never the solution.
the solution is hydrogren LONG term

yes hydrogren production is less efficient.. as it uses electricity to make electricity.. but it is a way to store peak production without needing battery's.

it also needs not an upgrade to the grid meaning it can be done much easlier..

fuel cells are also not needing nearly as much materials and can be build relatively at the same weight as petrolcars.. and like petrol tanking is quick..

but to produce that electricity well as windmills and solar cells are also poluting.. you have 3 options

1 build a global grid.. forget the idea of energy independance.. build the RIGHT type of renewable powerplants.. on the globally ideal locations
**hydrothermal
*tidal
**solar mirror towers (using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to 1 central tower that powers a traditional turbine
**ground level unidirectional windmills (no need for all the concrete for a large mast and can run a traditional dynamo) no rare earth needed)
**waterdams

2 build a heck of a lot of nucleair powerplants (enough uranium for 600 years, enough thorium for 800..)

3 keep using fossil (enough for about 200 more years)


I'd like 1..
I don't want 2..
so 3 it is..

long term we might be able to farm algue on open oceans, unlocking all the surface of the earth covered by water for farming.. that can give us a source for bioplastic and biodiesel... there are even algue that produce hydrogen in that processs...

as well as long term we might finally get a viable variant of nuclear fusion..

we need however need to bridge the gap till we have nucleair fusion and oceanfarming figured out... fossil for me remains the best way to cover that time..

[Groogo]

Let's destroy thousands of acres of forest so we have flat open ground to install GREEN solar panels, oh wait just a minute, the trees, the trees scrub much more Co2 then the solar panels save. Could it be the people receiving the government grants for installing the so called "green" technology that are the only beneficiaries? Yes, I think that is exactly how it works!

[Triple G]

引用自 Groogo：

Let's destroy thousands of acres of forest so we have flat open ground to install GREEN solar panels, oh wait just a minute, the trees, the trees scrub much more Co2 then the solar panels save. Could it be the people receiving the government grants for installing the so called "green" technology that are the only beneficiaries? Yes, I think that is exactly how it works!

I´m unsure who wants to destroy a forest to build solar panels. They can be on roof of buildings, or cars for the sake of the topic...

[A&A]

So, the tires are problematic? Does regenerative braking solve the problem?

[Morkonan]

引用自 De Hollandse Ezel：

...
I not care for carbon emissions I see that as a NON issue.. at all.
..

This is really what it's all about for you, isn't it?

A lot of the other things and unsourced factoids you presented really just bear on this one issue. After all, if we didn't see a need to reduce Carbon Emissions, some of the true problems with widespread EV use would mean we wouldn't be producing them very much, right now.

That horse has run its race.

It's over.

EVs are here to stay so the issue now is that we have to work on producing them with greater efficiency, recycling their batteries safely, and retooling electricity production to make it safer and cleaner as well.

That is our choice, right now. Those are the things we have to do.

引用自 Groogo：

Let's destroy thousands of acres of forest so we have flat open ground to install GREEN solar panels, oh wait just a minute, the trees, the trees scrub much more Co2 then the solar panels save. Could it be the people receiving the government grants for installing the so called "green" technology that are the only beneficiaries? Yes, I think that is exactly how it works!

Ah, it's a conspiracy?

While I have issues with the production of solar-panels regarding environmental risk, solar-panel expansion is going to continue. Albeit at a slower-pace with certain schemes.

Where are these forests being destroyed, btw?

And, enlighten me, how do these trees "scrub" CO2?

You know that trees decompose, right? Many have leaves/needles that fall of that also decompose. That decomposition, according to my sixth-grade science class studies of The Carbon Cycle, is part of a natural process involving carbon-emission-producing bacteria and other organisms that digest such materials.

Trees temporarily sequester carbon.

Trees and other plants, while absolutely vital for our ecology and the overall health of the Earth's environment, basically sequester the carbon they consume for around sixty years, give or take. A small amount do so for longer periods if they die and are covered by soil or fall into a lake or something...

The problems caused by our carbon generation are caused by formerly ancient deposits of carbon that was more-or-less permanently sequestered (fossil-based fuels) being freed and released into our atmosphere by our use of them as sources of energy... It's the massive influx of sequestered carbon into our otherwise stable Carbon Cycle that has unbalanced it and our environment.

Planting trees doesn't solve that problem. It's arguable that using trees to build things like homes and long-lasting furniture items is better than letting trees naturally die off an rot, too.

[Triple G]

引用自 A&A：

So, the tires are problematic? Does regenerative braking solve the problem?

Partly, but higher quality tires would solve the problem way better. Unfortunately the people in the study didn´t have the money for them...

Edit: and i doubt that the people who complain about tires being problematic are using the best quality ones either...

[Groogo]

引用自 Morkonan：

Ah, it's a conspiracy?

I see nothing conspiratorial about that (other then an internet forum buzz phrase) if you are an American (as I am) then you will know that is business as usual.

[Voroff]

Whaaaa, 100 posts and no one thinks to replace the tires with another formula with less harmfull chemicals. Or just upgrade the tires to the class of humvees/SUV whatever truck-thing you already got. Seriously, tsssk.







The real solution is rail. Every housing in the states connected to the railway system.
And cycles. And small ULMs.

[Groogo]

引用自 Voroff：

Whaaaa, 100 posts and no one thinks to replace the tires with another formula with less harmfull chemicals. Or just upgrade the tires to the class of humvees/SUV whatever truck-thing you already got. Seriously, tsssk.







The real solution is rail. Every housing in the states connected to the railway system.
And cycles. And small ULMs.

And just think, you could have said that intelligently and politely without the jerkiness. *shrug*

[Morkonan]

引用自 Groogo：

引用自 Morkonan：

Ah, it's a conspiracy?

I see nothing conspiratorial about that (other then an internet forum buzz phrase) if you are an American (as I am) then you will know that is business as usual.

There is surely some lobbying going on, there. That is true.

But, to make its sound like that's the "cause" is just being disingenuous and smacks very much of the "AGW is a conspiracy" speak...

That for-profit hospitals exist in the US is a problem.

But, we still need healthcare, right?

So, the solution to the privatization of healthcare is not less hospitals... :)

[A&A]

引用自 Triple G：

Partly, but higher quality tires would solve the problem way better. Unfortunately the people in the study didn´t have the money for them...

Edit: and i doubt that the people who complain about tires being problematic are using the best quality ones either...

Yes, it is possible, but I really like the idea of regenerative braking. Not converting the energy into heat, but in electricity. Also extends the life of the brakes.

[RRW359]

引用自 Voroff：

Whaaaa, 100 posts and no one thinks to replace the tires with another formula with less harmfull chemicals. Or just upgrade the tires to the class of humvees/SUV whatever truck-thing you already got. Seriously, tsssk.







The real solution is rail. Every housing in the states connected to the railway system.
And cycles. And small ULMs.

I wouldn't say every house in the US needs to be connected by rail but having less car-centric zoning laws, less parking minimums, and more busses as well as making several upgrades to our existing rail networks would do a lot to help.

Also bikes and less infastructure that's built to be hostile to pedestrians as well.

[Groogo]

引用自 Morkonan：

引用自 Groogo：

I see nothing conspiratorial about that (other then an internet forum buzz phrase) if you are an American (as I am) then you will know that is business as usual.

There is surely some lobbying going on, there. That is true.

But, to make its sound like that's the "cause" is just being disingenuous and smacks very much of the "AGW is a conspiracy" speak...

That for-profit hospitals exist in the US is a problem.

But, we still need healthcare, right?

So, the solution to the privatization of healthcare is not less hospitals... :)

Nowhere did I say that was the only reason and that certainly was not my intent, that is your spin.

Edit to add: Less solar panels and more trees is good for all of us. Less inefficient Windmills that cause more Co2 from manufacture and maintenance then can never offset the power equation over their entire lifetime is also good for all of us. *shrug* I guess I'm just to green minded with the truth and the government grants keep ongoing into the in-crowds pockets.

[Triple G]

引用自 A&A：

Yes, it is possible, but I really like the idea of regenerative braking. Not converting the energy into heat, but in electricity. Also extends the life of the brakes.

That´s of course good.

But i´m unsure how much impact the heat has on the brake durability. It would have way more effect to brake "correctly". Like i rarely use the brake, as i shift down. Many people just press the clutch and brake. I only use it to actually stand still at the end - or if i´m way too fast, which rarely happens, as one sees in advance what´s happening.