- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Electric cars cleaner than any gas-only car for 97 percent of U.S. drivers
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:00 pm to CaptainsWafer
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:00 pm to CaptainsWafer
They probably get a badass tax break for it
0
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:01 pm to MLCLyons
quote:
Considering they are making electric big rigs, I'll say yes
Link?
That rig alone would have to weigh 40,000 pounds
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:03 pm to upgrayedd
We've got a longggggggggg way to go before fully electric big rigs are commercially viable. It's possible, but battery tech has to come a longgggggg ways.
I personally don't think electric propulsion via storage is the answer. We need a very compact form of extremely efficient power generation. Like an engine.
I personally don't think electric propulsion via storage is the answer. We need a very compact form of extremely efficient power generation. Like an engine.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:13 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Are they factoring in the emissions from the plants that produce the electricity that these cars run on?
What they need to factor in is the mining of the metals required for the batteries. The results of the mining process is worse than drilling for oil. Also are they factoring in what the hell to do with the spent batteries, you can't just throw them in a dumpster, have they thought about what happens to your water supply when the metals from the batteries leach into the ground water. Ask an environmental engineer what's easier to clean up an oil spill or soil/water contaminated with heavy metals.
Just saying there's a lot to electric cars that people gloss over because they are so fixated on carbon emissions.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:14 pm to John McClane
quote:
What are the emissions to manufacture the batteries for these electric cars?
0 emissions. They magically appear and they even dispose of themselves once rendered useless.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:16 pm to iPadThai
Interesting. Is that only accounting for the carbon footprint for operation of vehicle? I'm assuming manufacturing wasn't considered
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:21 pm to Emteein
They're concerned about what comes out of the tailpipe. This study is about twice as deep as I've ever heard one of my hippy friends go with it, and it doesn't even scratch the rainbow surface of what it takes to build these things.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:22 pm to FuzzyBearE
quote:
I have yet to see an article that takes into account the electricity production plant that those clean electric cars are running on....
That's what this article just did. Some of you guys really struggle with reading comprehension.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:28 pm to Merck
They also make a whopping assumption that 160mpg is not achievable without batteries.
I know a bunch of college kids who built a car in a year that got somewhere around 130mpg on a commercially available gas internal combustion engine.
I know a bunch of college kids who built a car in a year that got somewhere around 130mpg on a commercially available gas internal combustion engine.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:31 pm to alajones
quote:
As far as my opinion on solar, we need to harness the suns energy with the same efficiency and land footprint that we can now with fossil fuels. That's what I meant by "leaps in solar".
Unfortunately you'll be long dead before that day comes. So will your children, and their children, and their children.
Even at 100% efficiency, solar panels can't supply enough power to meet projected demand unless they cover enough usable land to make growing crops a dim prospect. Seriously, why do so many of you not do a little simple math before buying off on the promises of solar power, EVs, and the hundreds of others?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:31 pm to KG6
Personally I think a good solution charging the batteries would be to swap batteries at "refilling" stations. At least until we can get charge times down to a reasonable number.
Pull your car up and the entire battery pack is lifted out and replaced with a fully charged one. The other battery goes into a rack to be charged.
This wouldn't take more than a few minutes, similar to filling up with gas.
Pull your car up and the entire battery pack is lifted out and replaced with a fully charged one. The other battery goes into a rack to be charged.
This wouldn't take more than a few minutes, similar to filling up with gas.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:32 pm to Clames
Because math is evil you frick
Posted on 6/6/17 at 6:36 pm to dbeck
What if all the battery packs aren't credited the same? I don't think the removal battery method is a realistic option.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 7:15 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
At best you would probably come out marginally ahead with carbon footprint, for an exorbitantly more expensive, less convenient vehicle. Leading to energy shortages and rolling blackouts, just so we can say that we're "green".
I don't have the correct citation for this; however, the idea is that power plants and grids are more efficient at delivering power/ electricity than the typical gasoline engine (some generous multiple). Therefore, while you are still using fossil fuels you are technically getting more out of each one.
Further, with increased capacity and efficiency of batteries we should see gains in the ability to use solar/ wind energy.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 7:19 pm to alajones
quote:
At some point we will make the switch to electric. There's really no way around it.
Well, we will do that when we have to, no reason too just because some jackass thinks we should.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 7:22 pm to reb13
Solar will never be the answer to anything other than very small needs. Wind is extraordinarily cost prohibitive.
The answer lies is doing a better job of extracting energy from a fuel source. Nuclear is a step in the right direction.
The answer lies is doing a better job of extracting energy from a fuel source. Nuclear is a step in the right direction.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:08 pm to gthog61
Why do people get so defensive over fossil fuels on this website?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:15 pm to JBeam
I defend fossil fuels because they are effective, cheap, and plentiful. I'm not shitting on alternative fuels, but they aren't there yet. Give me my fossil fuels till the alternatives can do what fossil fuels do.
Basically, if you can get me a electric one ton that operates as effectively as my diesel, I'm open to it.
Basically, if you can get me a electric one ton that operates as effectively as my diesel, I'm open to it.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:24 pm to tigerinthebueche
I'm mostly talking about how every thread that even brings up conversation of alternative fuels is met with this hostile bitchfest on this site.
I mean I get it. Clearly an electric pickup truck isn't a thing yet. But then again, the vast majority of people don't need a pickup truck for their daily commute. So the discussion on the future of alternative fueled automobiles is needed.
I mean I get it. Clearly an electric pickup truck isn't a thing yet. But then again, the vast majority of people don't need a pickup truck for their daily commute. So the discussion on the future of alternative fueled automobiles is needed.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:38 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Are they factoring in the emissions from the plants that produce the electricity that these cars run on?
Nat gas baw
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News