Who wants an ALL electric car?

[Rike255]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

Did you read the rest of the thread? There is no evidence that electric cars will do anything to "save our environment." In fact, some suggest that the increase in pollution and waste from electrical power plants would offset any advantages from the decrease in automobile emissions.

And what about the trucking industry? I'd like to see an electric motor haul a 50-ton load.

My post suggested that electric cars can/do in fact help.



For those of you who don't know, well-to-wheel efficiency is a rating that takes into account ALL aspects of consumption of energy from the moment it is dug out of the ground (well), to the moment the energy is used in the car. This includes extraction (numbers on the chart uses natural gas as the energy source for the electric car), trucking, storage, etc.
Bear in mind that this chart is off of the Tesla Motors page (an electric car manufacturer) even they site numerous sources at the bottom of the page. Just keep that in mind before taking it as complete truth.

At present approximately 50% of US electricity is produced via coal, the dirtiest method (and cheapest) available. However, president Obama has made plans to reduce this percentage for the future.

Electric vehicles are still in a very infant stage, why are you worrying about the trucking industry? The change over (if it ever happens) will be an extremely slow process, by that time I'm sure the technology will be far more advanced then it is now. Take a look at the advancements that have already happened in the industry. The argument that an electric motor can't work in a semi-truck does not make electric cars less viable for us.

EDIT: By the way, on the chart, well-to-station efficiency means the same as well-to-wheel except it would measure only to the point in the cycle where the fuel is kept for consumers to refuel (ie: gas station for gas car, electrical outlet for electric car).

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

Wow...just wow. As a life long resident of Southern Nevada and the decades long debacle that is Yucca Mountain, I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do some research on storing nuclear waste...it's not as carefree and easy as you make it out to be. There are so many issues with it, they even considered blasting the stuff into space at one point.


Did you read the rest of the thread? There is no evidence that electric cars will do anything to "save our environment." In fact, some suggest that the increase in pollution and waste from electrical power plants would offset any advantages from the decrease in automobile emissions.

And what about the trucking industry? I'd like to see an electric motor haul a 50-ton load.

I didn't mentioned "save the environment"! No car would ever do that. What I meant about "conserving the environment" is reducing the speed of global warming by using fuel-efficient cars. "Conserving" is a lot more different than "saving" the environment.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by proxpilot

the only problem i see right now with electric, is batteries, Batteries are so effin heavy. the battery for my fork lift at work weighs 3000lbs. you can get about 6-8 hrs out of it but that's only at 10mph. the plus is you wont have to run any hydraulic pumps. you could run a giant LiPo batt to save weight but then your driving around on a giant Bomb!

Plus, your electric bill may rise up.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

These "green" arguments for electric cars always make me laugh. Where do you think electricity comes from? While some of our electricity comes from damns and wind turbines, the majority comes from coal, natural gas, and nuclear fission. There's nothing green about burning coal or dealing with nuclear waste. The decrease in vehicle emmisions would be nullified by the increase in the pollution and waste from power plants.

depends where you are. Here the vast majority is Hydro, then wind, then Nuclear and las fossil fuels (~3%)

also electric plants can be much better regulated and maintained and can have the investment put into them to be cleaner then cars. It also has the benefit of displacing the problem from street level where we all breath those dangerous emissions to higher up and outside the streets where plants can thrive on it.

Also if electric cars do go mainstream electricity demand would increase dramaticaly and easily surpass long before that currant capacity, so many new electric generators/plants would need to be built, and most would more likely be none-fuel based (hydro, wind, sun) and even if some are fuel based the will more likely be cleaner then what exists now. So it should be cleaner then what is now (GHG/MW will be lower)

[Purplegrasshopper]

Originally Posted by kotsedriver

I didn't mentioned "save the environment"! No car would ever do that. What I meant about "conserving the environment" is reducing the speed of global warming by using fuel-efficient cars. "Conserving" is a lot more different than "saving" the environment.

There is no evidence of a "global warming." All those global warming arguments are based on theoretical models. The Earth has natural swings in temperature. Ever hear of the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum?

[jadedeath]

This just in:

The Ontario Government just announced a rebate offer for people who buy electric cars of up to $10k.

The goal is to have 1-20 cars in Ontario to be electric by 2020.

Logan

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

There is no evidence of a "global warming." All those global warming arguments are based on theoretical models. The Earth has natural swings in temperature. Ever hear of the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum?

So a bigger jump in temperature than any previously seen before and glaciers that have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years melting is 'no evidence'?

Why didn't someone tell me it was make $#!+ up day?

Let me play, the sky is purple!

Logan

[Purplegrasshopper]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

So a bigger jump in temperature than any previously seen before and glaciers that have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years melting is 'no evidence'?

Why didn't someone tell me it was make $#!+ up day?

Let me play, the sky is purple!

Logan

Let me rephrase: There is no evidence the rise in the Earth's surface temperature is being caused by humans.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by xtop

get rid of the hippies and go nuclear i say

+1 really really bigstyle!!!

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by quexos

I'd love to have one, except I'd much rather have a Porsche Carrera GT !

There was a beautiful Carrera GT sitting next to the car I bought. I didn't quite have the $305k they were asking.

I wouldn't get an electric car just to have one. I want a car that is fun. I do see Telsas everyday now. That is the direction I would go, just not for that amount of bank. An all electric wouldn't work for me in my current living condition. There isn't a place to plug a car in. That will hold back a lot of sales, especially in urban environments.

This is what I want, coming to Cali at the end of this year...hopefully. http://www.flytheroad.com

Even that would have to be a second vehicle. Otherwise I'm keeping my sporty gas guzzler.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

So a bigger jump in temperature than any previously seen before and glaciers that have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years melting is 'no evidence'?

Why didn't someone tell me it was make $#!+ up day?

Let me play, the sky is purple!

Logan

ever recorded before you mean. we have no idea how its been in the past. you think gore made the internet too?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

Let me rephrase: There is no evidence the rise in the Earth's surface temperature is being caused by humans.

No. You are right that the earth cools and heats up and so the exact effect we have might not be known. The issue is we know what GHGs are we know what effect they have and we know they are there and we produced them. We know we are causing temperature rises. One can argue if our part is .1 or .5 or 1 or 10 degrees depending on if one (wants to) assumes the earth is in a warming (or cooling). But that we have an effect is beyond question.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by xtop

ever recorded before you mean. we have no idea how its been in the past. you think gore made the internet too?

that is not factual. Yes, it is not always easy, but how do you think that we know that there where ice ages and times when the earth was hotter. Trees that are alive today or animals and trees that died a long time ago give us many hints, also formations of natural stuff like ice (in the Arctic / Antarctic), silt (bottom of the sea)...

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

Let me rephrase: There is no evidence the rise in the Earth's surface temperature is being caused by humans.

But we are the ones that accelerate the process. Sure we aren't the cause of the rise in Earth's surface temperatures, but the products we use in our daily lives are the catalysts.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

There is no evidence of a "global warming." All those global warming arguments are based on theoretical models. The Earth has natural swings in temperature. Ever hear of the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum?

Yes, there are evidences of global warming. It's pretty much present, but you just can't see the big picture here. They may be theoretical models, but they can still be achieved, and yes the Earth does have natural swings in temperature, but not this extreme.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

So a bigger jump in temperature than any previously seen before and glaciers that have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years melting is 'no evidence'?

Why didn't someone tell me it was make $#!+ up day?

Let me play, the sky is purple!

Logan

And Purplegrasshopper is a GENIUS!!!

Mikey

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is not factual. Yes, it is not always easy, but how do you think that we know that there where ice ages and times when the earth was hotter. Trees that are alive today or animals and trees that died a long time ago give us many hints, also formations of natural stuff like ice (in the Arctic / Antarctic), silt (bottom of the sea)...

i'm not suggesting global warming isn't real and i'm not saying its completely a cyclical thing. i think we're helping a LITTLE (and what you call "little" is up for grabs i suppose) but its not all us like it seems some people suggest

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by xtop

i'm not suggesting global warming isn't real and i'm not saying its completely a cyclical thing. i think we're helping a LITTLE (and what you call "little" is up for grabs i suppose) but its not all us like it seems some people suggest

I'm not saying it's all us either.

But we can reverse the damage that we're doing fairly easily, it's just going to cost a bit more money.

Logan

[proxpilot]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

So a bigger jump in temperature than any previously seen before and glaciers that have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years melting is 'no evidence'?

Why didn't someone tell me it was make $#!+ up day?

Let me play, the sky is purple!

Logan

Ice Age anyone?? the earth froze and thawed once before. proof that the environment does change.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by proxpilot

Ice Age anyone?? the earth froze and thawed once before. proof that the environment does change.

But remember, he did mention about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.