I agree. We need to remove the pollution at the power stations and tail pipes.
Are you talking about the GM plants that produce Diesel from sugar?
Electric planes have already flown and are going through certification in Germany though. (VTOL electric planes even lol)
The main thing about it though is that Airbus is topping the development of the E-fan engine because it's not efficient: https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Elektroflugzeuge-Siemens-stellt-Geschwindigkeitsrekorde-auf-Airbus-stoppt-Entwicklung-des-E-Fan-3676413.html
An electric catamaran is like an electric plane, a toy for rich buggers. It does not exist because it's efficient, but because it can be sold to hipster morons with money to blow.
On a lot of lakes in Germany, you can only operate electric boats, because these lakes are used as reservoirs for future potable water, so there is a zero-emission norm, not because of the exhaust gases, but because an electromotor can be fully sealed against oil leakage in case of mishaps.
1 Like
It's not safe to assume one industry results in the same outcome for another, which is why shows research is so important. There's a reason they use what the use and part of that is because of the engine design and just shear size.
It's a good example of why energy is produced at mass in power stations because it can be done far more efficiently as has been mentioned here than a diesel engine in everyone's house.
You miss the point. A Catamaran is supposedly the most efficient type of boat. The problem with a plane and boat is weight and energy density.
Hurry up better plug up your own tail pipe. Because your causing a ton of pollution.
not from sugar (i think you mean sugarcane?) from algae.
I dont have a credible source for this right now, but from this site https://greengarageblog.org/8-central-pros-and-cons-of-algae-biofuel
it seams 10000 gallons per acre can be produced. If the scaling process does not go horribly wrong, it shouldn't amount to much more than 55 square miles of algae production to satisfy the USA fuel needs.
And there are a bunch of advantages to research algae as many studies have shown they can be used in a variety of things: food (humans and farm animals), medicine, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere...
You still have the problem of feeding the organism and the farming land that would require. What if this creature escapes into the wild.
I'm not sure, but it sounds as bad an idea as the bio fuels from crops,maybe worse. Plus we have a better an alternative.
It's true they did have overheating issues pretty bad before but as the technology has progressed its become less of an issue.
This guy shows what happens with his model x
The thing is though, they were never really meant to be race cars. It just happens to be that they end up being fairly quick.
This guy has figured out what races a tesla is good at
why does it sound worse? can you explain yourself? you make a bunch of claims with no backing whatsoever.
Escape into the wild? It's a plant, it isn't mobile!
The feeding part is a problem to be solved, but just as they exist in the wild, they can exist in the tanks. There needs to be research to optimize the feeding possibilities for these organisms so as to mass produce. Heck, maybe they can even decompose trash!
also you keep ignoring the problems presented with the production of energy. Until these problems are solved (so far with no solutions of the horizon) the electric car is factually worse for the planet in this present moment if it starts to be mass produced and used:
Feeding algae? That's simple. Just toss in some shit. Algae loves that stuff.
Maybe read the thread. We can all agree burning stuff is bad. Farming land is bad and diesel doesn't grow on trees in nature...
Really? Dump cow pats in ponds.
LOL says the guy who avoids addressing criticism of the electric car. No i dont agree at all that just burning is bad, it depends on the quantity and as i have shown in this thread, the majority of CO2 pollution comes from the burning of the fuel for your proposed alternative...with no solution in sight for this problem!
Farming land is not bad (what the hell man!? should we also take down forest so as to not overuse the earth?)
Diesel does not in fact grow on treas...but the essential components (sugar) does soo bad analogy there mate.
I just don't agree. There is no difference in use because of economy.
Example from real life: electricity is really expensive in Germany, because there is an extra tax on it to develop renewable energy sources to provide electricity. Germany is full of windmills, water works, etc... and Germany actually is one of the first countries to have a strict phasing out planning of nuclear energy. So a kW/h is really expensive here. Most of the kWh's we get though, are generated in the so-called "Braunkohlerevier", where the RWE power plant stands in the middle of basically a huge hole in the earth's crust where huge machines linked up through conveyor belts dig brown coal up and it immediately gets burned to generate electricity. We can see the vapor cloud of the cooling towers all the way up here high in the Eifel. So I have to pay what, like maybe 10-12 times the actual price of electricity in order to finance renewable energy sources which are then not used? Or maybe the forests of windmills do not suffice for electricity demand... what will happen then when we all have to drive electric cars and need even more electricity, we pretty much all already have LED lamps and thermal pumps and natural gas in our homes.
But let's assume there is a possibility to generate enough electricity from renewable sources, which is pretty unlikely... So in order to buy that super efficient electricity, we need to pay more, which means that we have to be more industrious to make more to buy that energy that we use to be industrious to make money... which then raises demand, which makes it even more difficult to find enough renewable energy sources, which makes it even more likely that those large brown coal plants will run about rated capacity to produce all of the power needed to keep the lights on... it's a race that cannot be won. Fact is that there is no substance that is as safe, transportable, tradable, and economic, as fossil fuels, and there is none in sight. Before cars were fitted with internal combustion engines, they were fitted with electromotors. But as soon as internal combustion engines were invented, they left the concept of the inefficient electromotors to rest. In 150 years, the power factor of electromotors has barely increased, whereas the power factor of internal combustion engines is still rising, and there is still headroom. There is only one electric car that makes any sense for real life use, and that's the BMW i8, because it has a two cylinder super efficient motorbike engine on board to generate it's own electricity from fossil fuel. It's also forbiddingly expensive. There is no way to transport or store electric energy in an efficient manner, none, doesn't exist, otherwise it would be used on a massive scale by large corporations to improve their bottom line, but we see the opposite happen, the big corporations that have the brightest scientists on board, all seem to abandon electrical energy as a viable option.
That in itself, the fact that that is happening, cannot be simply stated because it's taboo for some reason, but why not, it's just as scientific to point out that those with the best scientists and the economic drive to use the most efficient energy form possible, are giving up on electricity and are continuing with fossil fuel. Why should applying healthy logic to such facts not be scientific? In my opinion, common sense beats reading fake eco-science articles any day...
1 Like
Nordschleife is not intended as a race track, it was intended as a test track. All the major manufacturers have research shops at the Nordschleife to do road certification of vehicles. One high speed round of the Nordschleife is like 1000 km on regular roads. The racing aspect was always a sideshow, the main race on the Nordschleife now is a 24h endurance race. If a Tesla can't make it to the first corner, which is the case, that means that it's not fit for normal road use period. It's not a problem with a VW Polo or a Fiat 500 or even a Lada Niva, even vans are tested on the Nordschleife without problems, and they are obviously not race cars, why can't a Tesla do it? Because a Tesla should not be on the road, that's why lol
1 Like
So farm something (sugar would be the desired end food) to feed to a GM organism to then harvest diesel to burn in a dirty engine. I'm not a biologist, but apart from C02 I don't think plants do much about pollution and I would rather have that C02 locked away for good and land used to produce something other than stuff to burn.
You seem very focused on C02. Thats a relatively small part of the combustion pollution problem.
This thread is ridiculous. You are trying to answer a question that literally is the jobs of 100s of thousands of people maybe even millions. You wont find an answer that means anything.
I can copy and paste 100s of white papers that demonstrate the pros and cons of both. But lets be honest who wants to read a 50 page paper with confusing graphs and small text that at the end says we dont know. Its too hard to tell there are too many variables to predict. A fluctuation of a penny in any area can make something 10 times more expensive. And those changes can happen every day. It runs on the stock market which I assume we all agree is not predictable and in fact changes when you do predict it.
How many of you are old enough to remember not having a water meter. My father was 20 when they put one in his parents house back in the 80s. Water used to be free. Just like land used to be free. Go ask someone before they had a water meter if they ever though water wouldnt be free.
Guess whats next. Air.
There is no reason as to why you cant easily gather air and clean it. Sure it might cost a lot but with all the hype around global warming and what not LA would be thrilled to have it. The big worry is when someone figures out how to do it well enough to start selling air. Dont believe me? Air is everywhere how is that possible. Water falls from the sky and yet people still pay for it. Those concepts have been burned into our brain you dont think air will be too. In fact Im sort of working on it now. Its still at the paper level which means its not possible to manufacture but in concept and test it works.
Lets face it oil is about the most useful thing on this planet. It isnt going anywhere. No matter what we are going to use it. No matter what the state of the Earth will get worse. There is no process that is perfect. Thermodynamics people. You are posting about the same side of a coin. It doesnt matter which is better they are both worse.
The problem isnt the cars, the problem isnt the way they run, and the problem isnt how they are made. Its the thing between the steering wheel and the seat. Fix that problem. Fix that mind set. The amount that we could save by simply changing our habits is far greater than the difference between gas or electric.
Some of the most dangerous people I know are sociologist. They get me to do shit with voodoo magic. I have meet quite a few and dated one. Trust me when I say this you want to change the world you find a few of them and let them tramp around. I cant say they wont abuse their power but the world will most certainly change.
People are the problem not the cars.
Oh and uh turbines can run up to about 90% plus efficient. Saw someone said 60% way higher
2 Likes
Keep in mind I'm not talking about renewables. Germanys aversion to nuclear is a bit weird, but it also doesn't seem like they have renewables down properly?
What's being emitted to power electric cars again? and at what rate?
The CO2 does not keep locked away for good in plants, when they die and decompose it comes right out again...
What is your obsession with stuff getting burned? burning is FUN!
algae can be raised on ocean surface, that can alleviate the amount of space needed.