Why are people believing propaganda of electric cars being more environmentally friendly

The first eco friendly automobile was made over 100 years ago. And that engine was a diesel engine. And produces 80% less co's than electric cars do through a recharging cycle compared to bio-diesel. Not to mention how environmentally damaging it is to probably make one of those battery's.

3 Likes

I couldn't find what Tesla batteries emit when charging.
The raw materials to build certain parts of the car are having to mine for.
Also as we have more cars we will increase load on grid which in some areas could burn more coal. But I think as solar and wind and such start to get put into the grid that impact should begin to level out.
Then also as long as proper recycling is done than that impact should be lessened also.
Post some links showing what you got I would enjoy reading them and continue this discussion.

I don't like windmills. They kills eagles and their have been studies proven that wind farms cause depression and blindness to life that live around them. Because of the ultra low sound frequencies.

Would like to read about that do you have any links?

Please post links for

and

5 Likes

http://biodiesel.org/using-biodiesel/handling-use/emissions-calculator

Used cooking oil has to be mixed with a certian ratio of racing ethanol or everclear and lye. Depending on how crude the used cooking oil is. Emissions may vary. But that i rule of thumb with anything which is like baking a cake. Because it is an exact science.

If you are really interested you can become self educated about this. Teach a man to fish he won't bother you anymore.

2 Likes

Electricity is a fuel that we can gather and store in a multitude of ways. Some of them are very clean ways.

Right now, the manufacturing of electric vehicles does consist of a major detrimental environmental footprint. This is not because of the electric car, but because of the infrastructure already in place.

As we move to cleaner fuels for vehicles and cities, our need to refine more harmful oil and gas will diminish.

The electric car is a stepping stone to a better, cleaner world.

As other have requested, I too would like to see your reading material. Source your claims please.

3 Likes

I don't know why you posted a calculator.

As far as the wind turbines are concerned, that article only mentions a scientific study. It does not reveal any relevant results from a study.

I can see living near a wind farm being unpleasant, if you are close enough to hear it constantly. Personally, I have slept through fire alarms with no issue. Good thing they were false alarms. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Right. It isn't the electric car that is the problem, it's the source. There are plenty of ways to turn available resources into electricity. Water, wind, Geo thermal, kinetic, etc. All are a step in the right direction. This nation has the power to become fully energy efficient and self dependant. Will the Republicans invest in our self sustaining future?

Hell no.

Sorry for bringing politics into the discussion, but it needed to be said.

Solar energy that powers home batteries that charges car batteries. That's pretty damned clean, minus the resources it takes to create the batteries. If you can get 10 years out of those batteries then the carbon footprint would probably be completely negligible.

1 Like

By popular fucking demand. It's so simple I can read a book and make it at the same time. I will upload as many as I can.

-Methanol
Methanol is used for race car fuel, and can be purchases at many chemical supply places. This is the most expensive part of the process. Methanol is at about $5 a gallon. This still ends up being cheaper than regular diesel, since you add 20% methanol for the amount of WVO you use.

Like I said before. It's a science. Like baking a cake. This is easy to follow.

3 Likes

Actually you can make your own electricity with diesel engines. Sorry bio-diesel engines. In fact hospitals have several big ass diesel engines that are used as backup generators that can run up to acouple weeks. Do not quote me on longevity of how long they last.

1 Like

The republicans, really? The same republicans that rubber-stamped 95% of what the last administration wanted, to the tune of an additional nine trillion dollars in debt? Or, are you talking about the republican who currently occupies the White House, who voted democrat all his life and donated to countless democrat politicians? Those republicans? There's not a dimes worth of difference between most democrats and republicans and none of them give a damn about you, me, or this country. All they care about is power and control.

3 Likes

Keep this out of my thread. This thread is purely science based only.

5 Likes

Reported effects include those on the inner ear, vertigo, imbalance, etc.; intolerable sensations, incapacitation, disorientation, nausea, vomiting, and bowel spasm; and resonances in inner organs, such as the heart. Infrasound has been observed to affect the pattern of sleep minutely.

from https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/infrasound_508.pdf

freaky stuff. if you read into it.

Here is one that is weird that a scientist atributed to infrasound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident

It's because of the very low sound frequencies being produced. But that is taking this off the thread.

If only it were that simple. The primary reason why manufacturers are building electric cars, is because of the ridiculous CAFE standards which are imposed upon them, not due to consumer demand. This is what's known as a political mandate. Sure, the electric vehicle technology is beginning to mature and we're at the point where it does make sense to build electric vehicles, particularly for fleet service. But in a world where we already have rolling brown outs in the summer and the past administration went out of their way to decommission as many fossil-fueled generating plants as they possibly could, in spite of this, it is very difficult, indeed, to separate the politics from the science.

From a science perspective, let's talk batteries for a moment. If you haven't seen a cell phone battery experience a runaway thermal event, I'm sure that there are plenty of vids on the YouTube. Imagine a car-sized battery doing this! This is a serious safety concern and no one is talking about it. Of course the manufacturers claim that the batteries are completely safe. Ford claimed the same thing about the Pinto's gas tank.

Another issue is battery life. In a few years, these batteries (current technology) will only able to retain 1/2 of a charge and in less than ten years, the battery will need to be replaced. The only problem is that the replacement cost will be so high, that the expense will total the vehicle, whereas a diesel-powered vehicle, for instance, will typically go for many hundreds of thousands of miles on the same, energy efficient engine. What will this mean for landfills? Do we have a robust recycling strategy for all of these vehicles? If so, haven't heard of it.

Let's talk cost. Electric cars are so expensive, that the government has to pay people many thousands of dollars to buy one. Where do they get the money? Three sources, really. Obviously they take it directly for us through our taxes. Or they can borrow it - we're already $19 trillion in the hole, not counting unfunded liabilities, what's a few more billion? Additionally, when we aren't looking they print huge amounts of money, which devalues the currency (100 years ago, $1 was worth nearly $21 in today's currency). Devaluing the currency is a hidden tax on all of us and both political parties love to play this game, because it is largely hidden from us. Remember, the Federal Reserve is a quasi-government organization, so sorry, there's those pesky politics again.

OK, so back to the energy source. We mentioned fossil fuels ... they're bad. Of course if Mr. Peabody had made the right political contributions, this may have worked out differently for him. Nuclear power is right out. Hydroelectric dams are not an option, because the fish don't like 'em. We have a huge geothermal opportunity in Yellowstone Park, but the bears wouldn't like that. Ooooh! How about solar? Well, it's still pretty inefficient. NASA were having a go at perfecting solar panels for their projects, but it seems that we no longer have a meaningful space program. No worries, we can always give a few million dollars to companies like Solindra (assuming the requisite campaign donations were tendered) and hope that they don't fail in a spectacularly huge and embarrassing scandal.

What ever happened to hydrogen? Hydrogen may not be the ultimate answer, but they may be a bridge from where we are today, to tomorrow's more mature electric technologies. Until recently, the auto industry were quite bullish on hydrogen, but AFAIK, there are no government subsidies for hydrogen fueled vehicles, so that option seems to have been effectively killed off ... most likely, due to a political decision. But, burning hydrogen isn't as clean as electricity, is it? Considering that most of our electric still comes from coal, yes, hydrogen is pretty darned clean, in comparison.

And, what about fuel cells? They had their fifteen minutes of fame, but no one mentions them any more, either, so I presume that there is no meaningful R&D still going on in this area. I know that they are horribly expensive, but so is all new, emerging technology.

Perhaps there are other, better, more promising options, but the government has already made the decision for us, via their spending of our money, that we shall have gasohol and we shall have electric cars and we'll like it. Do we really want, or need a bunch of untrustworthy politicians, who are devoid of virtue, to make these decisions for us, as if we were children?

Here is my bottom line, the government should not be picking winners, or losers. They shouldn't be picking winning, or losing technologies, especially when these technologies are still in an immature state and they certainly shouldn't be picking winning, or losing industries, or companies. Surely this is something that the market needs to work out, much as it did 100+ years ago when gasoline, diesel, steam, electric and horse-powered vehicles were all common sights on our streets.

2 Likes

If you want this to be a scientific based discussion you need to actually cite your scientific research. Otherwise it's all just opinion and speculation.

This is true for both sides of the argument. So far there's no evidence here to back up anyone's claims on either side.

5 Likes

Whatever those who decide decide on, because that's pretty much the bottom line, it's not like good scientific arguments have ever changed the course of politics and economics lol... we just will have to live with it.

The main reason why the big corporations want electric cars, is because they want a change in the whole industry. Right now, they are frustrated that they can't get more profit out of making cars. They've tried everything, hiding SIM cards, tapping phone calls and SMS texts of customers for direct marketing to get them to go to "official" garages for maintenance, software to disable functionality in cars on the push of a button if a customer doesn't go to the garage to spend money often enough, etc etc etc... Now they want to move to an entirely closed system, whereby almost nobody can actually own a car, but has to rent a car through a car sharing subscription with the manufacturer, who then has exclusivity over parking lots in city centers and deals with local governments on exclusivity for his cars in a certain region. In such a system, custoùmers could not go to an independent garage, and they would have to pay any amount to even have any form of transportation. They also want self-driving cars so that they can regulate the demand and falsify competition in the regions under their control. The whole electric car business is basically an elaborate oligopolistic scheme. The end result for the customers is that there will be no freedom of movement, and that is very much in line with what corporate-enthralled governments these days want.
So stop discussing birds and bees, because every liter of fuel you don't use for your freedom of movement, will benefit the freedom of movement of the Chinese and Indians and Russians, because they are not planning on stopping their people from developing themselves by restricting their freedom of movement. The birds and the bees are fucked anyway.

2 Likes

I already did. You just lack knowledge of engine performance. And fuel systems. And I do not feel like turning a thread into a website or a Wikipedia.