take that climate freakshttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/electric-cars-pollute-1850-times-more-than-fuel-based-vehicles-study-finds/he said EV (el Vehicle) pollutes 1850 times more while driving 1000 miles than what happens if you drive 1000 miles with gasolinetire wear was calculated into the equationhe noted that the tires of EVs, due to their added weight, will also emit more microplastics into the airparticle pollution from EVs can also increase the risk of health problems, >including heart disease,cough, lung disease and, in extreme cases, can even lead to hospitalization, >cancer and suddendeath.
>>16079067So pollution is bad, yes?
>>16079067>he noted that the tires of EVs, due to their added weight, will also emit more microplastics into the airby that logic, an F150 should be much worse than a Prius. Do you agree?
>>16079074so use gasoline, problem solved
We need to use horses, bicycles, or walking maybe. Or nuclear powered trains?
>>16079107trains emit heavy metals from the tracks due to friction
>>16079103But if you can use less gasoline it's surely better, since it's even less pollution.
>>16079107imagine trains using nuclear power to produce heat and then heat is used for steam power
>>16079114yes we know iron is heavy, why not make the tracks out of magnesium then?
>>16079067Cope harder, fag
>>16079074Sure, and that's why the free market will reduce pollution to an optimal level, because people are willing to pay a premium for less pollution.Market regulations only stop innovation.
>>16079139imagine coal fired steam trains using a superpressure turbocharged firebox with steam turbines
>>16079204>>>/x/
>>16079067this is just big oil propaganda, they are seething because they can't sell you their special juice anymore, if you go electric. they will cause a ruckus including this shit psyop.you do not have a right to know the truth, you will obey and buy gas and hydrogen paste
>>16079067This article looks just at how much the tires are worn down and you are somehow saying that it generically "pollutes" more. This is an incredible cherry picking of a single attribute to make a very general statement. This is obviously disingenuous or dumb. I don't know which one makes me more worried.In the US and in countries that don't generate too much pollution per joule of energy, EVs don't release nearly as many greenhouse gases per km driven if powered off the grid. Also, people with EVs should have solar panels anyways ( from an economic standpoint really). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510008050?casa_token=VHwDhnFuwgwAAAAA:2u0qAPQjJXvoK6k6drkUlpoBMp-6TVN01uYactqkmnlZ_4Emdx10bS9EyjqO1luYqEy0nAPgI3w
>>16082278>people with EVs should have solar panels anyways ( from an economic standpoint really).that's the crux of the issue. if the car market goes away, as far as big oil is concerned there shouldn't be a need for cars, for cattle. if they're not making money out of it.remember, they DO control the whole environmental movement shit, they will weaponize it to take your EVs away, no need for them if you're not buying their slop. yeah it's a schizo take but perfectly explains it.
>>16082278>This is an incredible cherry picking of a single attribute to make a very general statement. This is obviously disingenuous or dumb. I don't know which one makes me more worried.First time on /sci/? This board is pretty much run by Exxon.
>>16079117yes all you well poisoning shills who are paid by the elites want to do is destroy the middle class while the elites and thr rich live in luxuryit's obvious who your masters areit's just very strange why you would so desperately defend them when they only see you as a useful idiot for their own goalsI want a greener planet with less pollution. microplastics and small particles are more unhealthy and dangerous than CO2. We should continue building gasoline vehicles on lighter and more durable frames. Cars should be like they were in the past in terms of durability. Being able to last for a lifetime is significantly better for the environment than having ti replace the car every 10-20 years.
>>16082323Then stop driving your truck to the store.
>>16082340no kill yourself elite paid shill
>>16082323So, high mileage, high durability and maintainability? Sounds good. Also, every time you can leave your car at home and walk to the bakery or take the bicycle to work is a net win, right? The less often you use, the less tyre dust you blow in the atmosphere, the less microplastics end up on our fields and the longer your car lasts.
>>16082457will the rich ever do that? if not then why should I? You're suggesting that I reduce my level of freedom and happiness while rich elites are allowed to not care. Not sure why you defend the elites who create a lot more pollution than I ever did.>Also, every time you can leave your car at home and walk to the bakery or take the bicycle to work is a net win,Not really, you're reducing my freedom by deciding for me what transport method I should take. Also time is money so unless your bike goes 60 mph it's not really worth it now is it?
>>16082467Do you dump your trash in your local rivers because "the rich" probably don't recycle either?>Not sure why you defend the elitesI don't even. You're just refusing to take any responsibility for your environmental destruction because some undefined "rich" are bad and evil.>you're reducing my freedom by deciding for me what transport method I should takeI'm telling you how to make your car last longer. No one will take away your car keys and take your freedom to drive to the bakery.> relying on a car, relying on fossil fuels from across the world to go to the bakery = freedom> taking a bicycle that relies on literally nothing, that you can fix and maintain yourself = slavery
>>16082467>Also time is moneyAlso, you admit to getting paid to post here?
>>16082467>Not sure why you defend the elites who create a lot more pollution than I ever did.because this is what they look like
>>16082483>Do you dump your trash in your local rivers because "the rich" probably don't recycle either?total non sequitur you middle class hating eco tard>I don't even. You're just refusing to take any responsibility for your environmental destruction because some undefined "rich" are bad and evil.The rich will continue to enjoy the luxuries such as eating meat and driving cars (freedom of movement) that after hundreds of years were finally obtained by the middle/lower classes and now you're advocating for stopping that. You're advocating I give up my wealth and freedom and inevitably it will lead to only the rich classes enjoying these luxuries. This is evil.>I'm telling you how to make your car last longer. No one will take away your car keys and take your freedom to drive to the bakery.If those rich classes who own the means of production built cars that lasted like they used to in the past you could use your car every single day and it would last a lifetime. This is much better for quality of life in terms of freedom and luxury than 'lol just don't use it'. You're literally advocating making my life worse for your own sad pathetic sense of justice. Kill yourself eco shill.You realise that if you kill yourself you can't use any those luxuries anymore, right? So your ideology ends with making people so destitute and poor they're forced to kill themselves to save the environment. You're evil.
>>16082911>The rich will continue to enjoy the luxuriesSo you are saying we should revolt against the rich? Eat them? Communism?
>>16082911>If those rich classes who own the means of production built cars that lasted like they used to in the past you could use your car every single day and it would last a lifetime.So your solution is to seize the means of production and make sure that they are used for the good of the people?
>>16082918>So you are saying we should revolt against the rich? Eat them? Communism?I'm saying that if the rich are allowed to do it, then so am I. They desire freedom of movement. They should get it. And so should I. If you eco tards want to improve society how about you start with yourselves. Stop owning cars. Live small. Stop eating meat. Means there's more for me.But there's your evil displayed. You don't want to give up your luxuries, you don't demand the rich give up theirs because you know it won't happen. So you bully the middle class to give up theirs. Evil.
>>16082921Fuck the rich. Stop licking their boots. No one should have the right to exploit the earth or the people.
>>16082926Lol empty wordsI'm not advocating decreasing the standards of living for the middle class. You are.
One blob of buck cheese coming up
>>16082937Well we're both saying we should eat the rich. So let's start with this, and then let's see what we can do afterwards. What do you think comrade?
>>16082340You wanted less pollution, right? That means you should stop unnecessarily driving your truck which is heavier than an electric vehicle meaning the tires wear faster and create more pollution than electric vehicles. If you really care about tire pollution then you should be driving the lightest vehicle you can find like a smart car, or a scooter, or a bicycle. You do care about the environment, right?
>>16083076Meant for >>16082323>>16082433
>>16079067>A press release by Emissions Analytics suggested that particulate matter pollution from car tyre wear can be 1,000 times higher than car exhaust emissions, and that car tyres may produce as much as 9.28 grams of particulate matter per mile, or 5.8 grams per kilometre. This is, however, a worst-case scenario – a crucial point that is not mentioned in the press release and which has consequently led to the ‘1,000 times higher than car exhaust emissions’ finding being widely reported in the media. Some common-sense calculations show how extreme this case is. >A typical 16” family car tyre weighs around 9 kg, so four of them on a vehicle gives a total weight of 36 kg. That’s not just the tread, but the full tyres. If a car did shed 9.28 grams of particulate matter per mile from the tyres, then the car tyres would physically disappear – and the car would be running on its alloys – in less than 4,000 miles. >In reality, the tread of a tyre is about 35% of the tyre’s total weight, so the tyres would be bald in less than 1,358 miles, or two months’ worth of driving for the average UK driver.
>lifesitenewsxDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdddddddddddddd
>>16083084Good debunk.
>>16083076you're only jealous of people who own vehicles because you're too lazy to earn the money to buy one for yourself
>>16083719>work for me, slaveto be fair you're literally saying the same thing
>>16083084>Electric vehicles are only 459 times cleaner than combustion vehiclesEnvironmentalists in SHAMBLES
>>16083719So you don't actually care about microplastic and particle pollution? That's the only explanation for why you would drive a truck instead of a lighter vehicle when any vehicle would do.
>>16083735You don't care about my wellbeing and my happinessThat's my issueyou pretend that you're advising me but all your advice always (seriously eco terrorist advice is ALWAYS) to make my life worse and that i should somehow be happy about itI love the planet. I care about microplastics and I want all chemicals gone from my society. But I won't decrease my living standards over it.Also a gasoline car from the 60's has no microplastics and is lighter than an EV. It produces less particulates.Your pathetic attempt at shoehorning someone into a role despite not knowing anything about anyone just shows you're not a good person, you do not care about my well being, you are not someone that anyone should listen to.You are evil. Simple as. And you can screech and pretend like we're somehow equally bad. But we aren't. I haven't decreased your standards of living. I would leave you free to pursue your happiness. You do not do the same for me. You are wrong and evil.>>16083076what truck you lying disingenuous shill? >>16083084No matter how you spin it, the particulate outputs from EVs are worse than the filtered gasoline car exhausts + the particulate outputs from gasoline cars because EVs are much heavier.>>16083104>>16083106>>16083731literal shillseco shills who are actually so unbelievably dumb and evil they want you to lower your quality of life simply because they demand itand if you don't blindly agree they'll pull this little rhetorical trick>>16083735where suddenly you don't care and are therefore evilbut it is them who do not care about youit is them who do not care about you and don't care about being good or evil so exactly like the atheist communists they commit the worst most heinous acts and then pretend they did a good thing. In fact they actually unironically believe they're allowed to not care about your or mine happiness. They feel themselves so utterly superior they think they have the right to make you unhappy.
These people are the psychopaths who got into control after the communists revolutions. The ones who just killed everyone and then pretended they were righteous. Who torture supposed bad people and then force them to admit to crimes they didn't commit.They're far worse than the Nazis or the inquisition ever could be. Because the religious and the fascists cared about truth. These people simply don't.
>>16083781>>16083784Take your meds
>>16083904literal bot phrase btwEvery /sci/entist know what mining the chans is nowdon't make me post the neural net stuff because then the thread will suddenly get deleted.
>>16079067Who throws a car away after 1,000 miles? Why not the much more realistic distance of when the battery dies?
>>16084115You really need to be medicated.
>>16084115>mining the chanshow does anyone know who's posting what? how can you tell bot posts if you're not the one making them? like be 100% sure? the chan well is poisoned by bots, especially with gone IP counter
>>16084121Strawmen. Strawmen throw their cars away after driving 1000 miles. The proclaimers on the other hand would simply walk.
The truth is human carbon emissions will go to 0 one way or another. Whether that be voluntary, or the environment forcing everyone into a dark age. The choice is yours.
>>16084304>everyone
>>16084325>my electricity comes out of the socket>what do you mean drought, I have a tap at home>I just close my blinds and then I won't see the resource wars
>>16084139nigger these kinds of troll posts>>16084131>>16083904>>16084304are all baitwhy do you think these commie shills don't respond to posts with any honestytaking your meds is bot phrase and that other post is climate doom postingSeriously ask yourself the fucking question dude would any one who actually honestly wants to discuss science actually unironically think that climate change will create a dark age?How beyond sad and stupid does a person have to be to unironically believe in "dark age" maymaysThey don't believe itThat's why they post itbecause these kinds of posts are meant to trollthey're not stupid they're malicious>>16083104>>16083106>>16083731see these shill bot posts>>16083076see this guy randomly accusing me of owning a truck>>16083735it's the same as this guya literal eco shillEither a bot or an actual communist shill which is why the conversation suddenly changed to>>16082939>>16082926muh you surely support communism right?they only do that because they're communists and like I said any real communist who isn't an useful idiot is a literal psychopathagain Look at this post and ask yourself is this poster a good person>>16083735it's literally paid shills and bots all meant to destroy the board
>>16084471Take your meds.
>>16079067someone needs to modify a tesla so it spits out a cloud of brake dust that rivals what the coal rolling trucks can do
>>16086154You Will NeverBeAReal Car
>>16079067By reading only the first sentence in that article I could already tell it's from a Christcuck schizo website, so I went to its hope page and sure enough, it is. I won't take my science news from a website that believes ghosts and spirits are real and worships a mythical ancient magic sandnigger.
>>16083084They report 36-73mg/km for typical driving. That's consistent with a normal tire life. The 5.8g/km is consistent with a racetrack. A better criticism is that "tire emissions" includes coarse road dust that settles and is resuspended, so they overestimate the amount each car actually added to the road. 1 g of coarse particulate (PM10) is much less harmful than 1 g of fine particulate (PM2.5). The tailpipe figure is PM2.5.
>>16087127>i hate jesuspost nose
>>16082911you're obsessed with politics, you're not here to discuss science go to >>>/pol/ thats where you belong, this is the science board
>>16089172uhm others keep bringing up politics too. If we'd had an actual scientific discussion it'd be about which kind of transportation creates the highest levels of pollution and we'd be talking about some measure on how do define pollution versus utility. But obviously the comparison is made between EV and gasoline cars to create political striveYou blame me but the thread was made in bad political faith. You're participating in it as much as I am. Yet you blame me and not yourself. Look in the mirror dumbfuck.
>>16089239nta but EVs are a serious threat to gas market. and gas is clearly on its way out. so they're trying to fight for a 3rd option which would replace gas, something you could buy constantly from a loicensed place. without the ability to charge from the fucking sun for free.and overall the car debate mania is more of a ruse to hide what has to happen (as far as carbon release/energy use goes) because of reasons that have nothing to do with plebs.
>>16089247>EVs are a serious threat to gas marketno they aren't
>>16090050Cope harder
>>16079067You can look it up. Gasoline cars emit more green house gases then electric cars when taking in account the US grid composition. >High weight means more micro plasticsWe should ban trucks then. We can all be driving small cars and move cargo with trains instead. Sounds like a plan to me
>>16090700CO2 isn't a pollutant and it isn't a greenhouse gas. CO2 is plant food, its good for the environment, enriching the atmosphere with CO2 will make nature flourish in ways that humanity has never witnessed before
>>16091776Source?
>>16091776environmentalists hate this fact for some reasonyou'd think they'd be happy about it, but instead it upsets them
>>16093172>Mars has no measurable greenhouse effectMars has a measurable greenhouse effect. It's measured to 5K, which is in good agreement with the thin atmosphere of 6-7mbar
>>16093172>Imagine being this retarded
>>16079067Somehow I don't trust this post from a random poster here. Yet I don't car enough to look into it. Good day, sirs.
>>16079150>magnesium train tracksFUND IT
>>16095109I think he meant he doesn't care enough
>>16094074>>16095109>>16095276
>>16097357Gas powered cars are better at everything as well as polluting less
>>16098717Cope harder. EVs are more energy efficient and have better acceleration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6zcI1GrkK4Sodium-Ion batteries are here, lithium will be eventually replaced.
>>16079204>people are willing to pay a premium for less pollution.
>>16094074car yourself back to where you came from, redditier
>>16100278Seethe
>>16079067nice job science, way to go. thanks for all unnecessary the extra pollution
>>16102544>projection
>>16104139Cope harder
>>16104208
>>16105825>>16104139
>>16079076Think about how bad an electric F150 must be
>>16106756>electric F150
>>16102907All in the name of solving a made up, nonexistent problem.
>>16102907>oy vey stop noticing
>>16099674A lower charge density but at least they don't explodestill makes ICE more appealing though
>>16107417More proof that the global warming merchants don't truly care about the environment at all
>drive a 4000lb vehicle instead of a 2000lb vehicle>this is sure to save energy amazing that so many people are dumb enough to fall for this logic.
>>16111550480 miles on one chargehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqzApRm0nis
>>16111554 (me)also 2 miles /kWh efficiency. how much efficiency does gas give you?
>>16111550Yeah, I can't believe anyone drives trucks anymore.
>>16111561that truck needs 240kWh for almost 500 miles. if we take an equivalent of 15 gallons of gas for the same range (with a truck) that means about 500kWh. seems twice as efficient in energy use terms. for the same 480 miles
>>16111572
>expensive status symbol transportation less efficient than pragmatic transportation solution shocking turn of events
>>16112721>has shit power delivery infrastructure>complains about car companymaybe upgrade your grid? weren't you supposed to be a 1st world country
who cares? we're all palestinians now.https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/
>>16113812>muh nationalistic inferiority complex
>>16079067if both personal transportation variants are polluting, then just use public transport.
>>16115267>lets drive a bus or a train to transport 1 person instead of just a car
>>16079067Yeah I bet their energy efficiency is fucking shit in comparison to a godly combustion engine.I mean just use combustion, use plant oils to turn into fuel instead of eating that toxic trash, and drive less. Where the fuck you need to fucking be? Like for real?You care so much about the environment but you just need to drive to fucking mcdonalds every day?>>16079117Yes, obviously there is a proper level of replacement where using gasoline is acceptable. however, the current poolitical zeitgeist is to fuck everything in the fucking ass and make the US worse than any 3rd world shithole.
>>16116485>Yeah I bet their energy efficiency is fucking shit in comparison to a godly combustion engine.Lol no. Do the math. Don't be afraid, it's high school level algebra.
>>16116471Weird cope
>>16115267why would I do something that's bad for me anon? instead of something that's good? if both are as bad environment wise?also why the fuck should I bother when aircraft carriers and transport ships are racing along earth's oceans, non-stop, for shit that has no benefit for me, or my life? why should I give away my benefits so others which are not me get to enjoy? lmao even
>>16118102>>16119840So you can't do the math? It's really easy. You just take the fuel economy of the car and convert it to miles per unit energy, use the range and charge of the electric vehicle to get miles per unit energy, and then simply compare the two figures. >lets drive a 4000 pound vehicle instead of a 2000 pound vehicle>we use less energy this wayIt's a testament to how inefficient an ICE is. Glad to hear you're trading in your truck for a sedan.
>>16120115at worst you end up the same, same fossil is burned a bit more efficiently in the powerplant but that is lost in charging and transport, which isn't a lot (the electric losses).but you have the option of running off a clean source, which you don't with gas.
>>16120126now you're talking out of your ass
EV vs ICE is retarded distraction from the obvious solution: plug-in hybrids. There is literally no argument. It's an easy win. That we never talk about it should tell you everything you need to know about both sides of the current debate. It's cheaper and better than an EV. It's better and cleaner than an ICE. There's no range anxiety. Material for batteries produces 5-10x as many vehicles. People can have their vroom vroom if they want.
>>16120115It still comes out ahead. Do the math. Prove that you have a diploma.>>16120126Non sequitur. You're making up numbers and you aren't factoring in the efficiencies of the engines. Electric vehicles pollute less by every metric except tire particulates.
>>16120311Hybrids suck ass. Why the fuck would you want to carry two engines and sacrifice power, efficiency, and acceleration while greatly increasing maintenance costs?
clearly the animal came through -
>>16121860>study-findsstudies can find a bunch of shit depending on how much money you have
>>16121860>404Lol. Tell me, was it about tire particulates or brake dust?
>>16120343Hybrids don't really replace Toyotas that are intended to work even in warzones and be servicable even by niggers, but rather they are a simplification/de-retardization vis-a-vis EVs.
>>16089247>gas is clearly on its way outbeyond delusional.
>>16079067>he said EV (el Vehicle) pollutes 1850 times moreactually, its more like 6000000 times more>this post was sponsored by King Abdullah Scholarship Program
>>16121988burgers diy-ing their own gas after the apocalypse lmao. gas goes bad fast (in post apocalyptic years). the two remaining neurons playing hide and seek anon?
>>16121939No they aren't, retard. They have two engines. That's the opposite of simplification. You might be the stupidest person ITT.
>>16122305Logistical simplification, not dependant on charging infrastructure etc.
>>16079067>el VehicleEn Ingles, por favor.
>>16112721The solution is a more robust grid powered by nuclear reactors.
>>16122305I knew you are to stupid to correctly parse my point. You believe it's some non-obvious fact that a hybrid needs to have 2 engines, repeating yourself twice. You are seriously such a subhuman, kill yourself.
>>16079067>take that climate freaksI don't get it. Only the most unserious 'climate freaks' think personal EVs are a good idea. They're shit for a multitude of reasons.The way to go is to reduce/disincentivize personal vehicle usage period (whether ICE or electric) except for where it's actually NEEDED, and increase focus and usage of public transport or just making communities where people don't need vehicles to get around.
>>16122442>>16122528Both of you are retards. Hybrids are garbage. When you complain about electric vehicles being charged by diesel generators just remember that's how hybrids work except they're less efficient and drive poorly.
>>16122446le Vehicle
>>16123333En anglais, s'il vous plait.
>>16122656>When you complain about electric vehicles being charged by diesel generators just remember that's how hybrids work except they're less efficient and drive poorlyPerhaps, but hybrids also charge their batteries when travelling downhill or using the brakes. How do you think they achieve over 60 miles per gallon?
>>16079067This PM 2.5 bullshit is so tiresome (get it? Tire-some hah!). But seriously, stop worrying about microplastics and particulate less than 10 nm. This is NRDC, IARC, CERT, and EWG bullshit. PM2.5 will not give you cancer. Neither will PFAS, PFOA, processed/red meat, aluminum, formaldehyde, fried foods, roundup, boiled water, sugar, wood dust, second-hand smoking, salted fish, or talc powder. People claim those things cause cancer, but the studies are shoddy and should not be trusted. This is the kind of shit science that makes people think everything causes cancer, and not just in California. Stop living your life in fear because of shitty science. It’s shocking to most people that science can be bad, but it’s true. Just because science says a thing, doesn’t mean the conclusions are true.
>>16123687So do electric vehicles, dipshit.
>>16123346ze Vehicle
>>16124412non-hybrid ICEs don't, do they?
>>16124434Yes, they recharge their momentum when going down hill.
>>16124419Bitte auf Englisch.
>>16124434Not unless they have a KERS, but being slightly better than the worst option isn't a compelling argument.
>>16127651>I need gas daddy tell me when I'm allowed to drivelet me guess, you too will DIY your gas?
>>16127660And you'll DIY electricity and batteries?
>>16128134on shorter timespans you'd only need some solar panelshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNGg0P7B5fI
>>16128298What do lead acid batteries have to do with EVs?
>>16129919you're going to find a lot of panels, or even build a simple water mill. plenty of alternators out there in cars.
>>16082467>while rich elites are allowed to not careYou permit them to pollute by continuing to buy their products. Grow a brain and buy from their non-polluting competitors, where non exist, become them.Hint: If you're having trouble finding competitors, it's because idiots like you have begged the government to ban them.
>>16079074Point to 1 example of anyone credible saying pollution isn't bad.
>>16130452>Implying there is ethical consumption under capitalismBig business tends towards monopoly and works in tandem with the government (basically its muscle) to beat out its competition. Show me one example of free market capitalism existing in the world for more than 2 minutes.
SHUT THE FUCK UPSTOP NOTICINT THINGS
>>16132318>Show me one example of free market capitalism existing in the world for more than 2 minutes.Can you believe they actually teach schoolchildren that free market capitalism is real? TV repeats the same lie constantly too. How low IQ do you have to be to be gullible enough to believe that lie?
>>16135400It's all propaganda to keep people from realizing the corporations are using the government to control the markets in their favor.
>>16079067They took down the website
>>16135400Half the population is below 100 IQ.
>>16132318>Need a loicense to sell ye muh medical treatment? That's communism I tell ya!>It's illegal to rent out muh guest room to underage galls for ''natural'' paymunt if y'know what I mean? China 2.0 anyday now.>Can't even fix ya roof without income taxes? Damn Bolsheviks!No you can't have wild west again Billy you've already had wild west in history class.
>>16136509I can't tell if you're actually this stupid or just deeply dishonest. Heavily regulated crony capitalism isn't communism, but it's still far from free market capitalism.
>>16137949Why did you add the word "real" to that quote of my post? Just to intentionally misrepresent me? I'm anti-communism. I support free market capitalism, which is something modern America does not have. We have heavily regulated crony capitalism.
>>16138661>heaven is where you go after you die.Atheists don't believe that, they believe that they're entitled to have a perfect world here on Earth, they also believe they're entitled to getting that without outputting any effort of their own to make it happen. Its almost as if they believe theres some sort of all powerful god thats supposed to make it happen for them
>>16139662>they also believe they're entitled to getting that without outputting any effort of their own to make it happen.keeping the cattle in check whenever they ask for more than food, for thousands of years already
the queen has spoken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2n2-acksw
>>16140691People are beginning to realize what a terrible idea electric cars are. All the major auto manufacturers are canceling their EV projects, Tesla stock is massively tanking.
>>16141614EVs are the best. Sabine is failing to compare 1:1. if you were to choose gas vs electric infrastructure from the very beginning the costs of fuck knows how many gas stations + lifetime supply of gas (with trucks, also factor in the CO2 emitted by them + their construction) is way way way higher than running cables and some transformers (which last a lifetime).in the grand scheme of things it makes way more sense to upgrade the power delivery infrastructure because that will be helpful not only for charging your EV. let alone that at some point fusion or some sort of nuclear my power everything, and a proper power grid would fit peachy.what she is saying is that in her particular circumstance, in her particular town, with her particular income it makes sense to get a Hybrid.smartest move is to upgrade the grid, by far. that costs money and big oil is shilling against itit's like coming up with a super fast train that runs on cheap fuel and going all>well the state of our tracks cannot accomodate for these fancy new trains so I guess you will suck cock and ride the old trains, no new trains for you. we are not upgrading the tracks for a fancy new train which uses less energy to get you from A to B, fuck you
>>16142002How about you make a convincing argument instead of that jigaboo shit about muggable cities.
>>16142034our power use increased, and the grid is not something you do in the 1900's and abandon forever, you upgrade it to suit your needs, just like railroads, normal roads for cars, you upgrade/develop in time, that's how society goes, depending on our needs.if you want to stop gas cars you need to move that service, power delivery to cars, to the electric grid, which means improving your fucking grid so it allows this major move.>allright, we invented the bulb, but you can't have light, because we have to build a grid. I guess we just have to abandon the lightbulb tech, use wood motherfuckers
>>16142002>if you were to choose gas vs electric infrastructure from the very beginningInterestingly, developing countries get to make exactly this kind of decision. That's why third world countries don't have land lines, but almost everyone has a cellphone.
>>16082278>people with EVs should have solar panels anywaysYour first paragraph was pretty on point, why would you ruin your post with such a retarded statement?
>>16142113invoking imaginary solar panels to try and minimize the tremendous pollution caused by EVs is a massive cope
>>16143454The study in the OP is about brake dust. Unless you use organic brakes you have no room to talk.
>>16143804EVs pollute more than normal cars because they weight twice as much and require twice as much energy. Thats also why EVs produce more brake dust and why they're far more dangerous in crashes. And all of that is without considering the way the batteries are prone to spontaneous combustion or the environmental impact of lithium mining
>>16079204>the free market will reduce pollution to an optimal levelThe optimal blood lead level is 0
>>16144768EVs require less energy because of how inefficient ICEs are. Regardless of which vehicles produce more brake dust you are contributing to pollution if you produce any brake dust. So do you use exclusively organic brakes? Or are you a piece of shit hypocrite?
>>16145398>EVs require less energy because of how inefficient ICEs are.WrongIf that were the case then normal cars would have been powered by gas generators ages ago and saved everyone a fortune in gas that way without stupidly adding the weight of a ton of rechargeable batteries
>>16146508Normal cars are powered by gas generators, moron. That's what INTERNAL COMBUSTION means. Do the math on it. Take the range per charge of an EV, convert it to MPG gas equivalent and compare that to the MPG of any ICE vehicle. It's high school algebra so it should only take you a few hours.Cute how you tried to deflect away from the fact that you don't use organic brakes and are a piece of shit hypocrite.
>>16149102>study finds
>>16149102Post the study so we can laugh at you.
>>16149102EVxisters…
>>16149102Musk made billions tricking retards into paying fortunes for the privilege of driving worse, more inefficient cars
>>16150619>>16151227Retard take.
Electric cars are one of the dumbest memes of all time, anyone who fell for it has it be extremely low IQ
>>16079067Biodiesel carsFields of sunflowers to fuel themKino
>>16153404Do the math on how many acres you'd need to plant and harvest each year.
>>16153704imagine saying no to collecting light from a field, and planting flowers instead, have them converted to biofuel, have that converted to motion. because reasons. fucking hell humans are so fucking retardedthat is electrolites from idiocracy levels of insanity
>>16153708You should be capable of analyzing your ideas. How many acres would you need to plant and harvest to replace fossil fuels with biodiesel?
>>16153712it's more simple than that. how much energy can flowers capture from the sun in the same amount of time for the same occupied area. that's all you need to know. once you have that value, you can work out the efficiencies (considering that other conversion to biofuel, and finally burning it for motion)
as far as I heard Tesla brake pads are most likely to rust out than ever get fully used, because of the regen thing. they barely get any use.that brake dust thing is so fucking disingenuous holy shit
>>16153715So do it.
>>16153704They're more efficient than the best solar panels and diesel engines are more efficient than other motors so it's, how much area of solar panels to power your tesla - 25% but we'll forget that last bitSay 10k watt car, drive it an hour a day, 10 hours sunlight per day, 1k watts of solar panels is like a small roof, like 1k sqft x2 because they only collect power during the bright half the year 43k sqft per acre so let's say 1 acre per 20 drivers once you power the planting/harvesting equipment300 million drivers, 15 million acres. Double it for the semi trucks and shiz. It's acceptable, you plant up like half of Oklahoma.Pic related before anyone tries to tell me about fertilizer
>>16153780What if hail takes out your solar farm?
>>16153769on the solar panel side of things for one square meter you have about 1000W out of which you capture say a conservative 200W (20% efficiency), which averages to around 1kWh - 1.5kWh (depending on location) a day. for one square meter of space.now you do your flowers
>>16153780>They're more efficient than the best solar panelsLol no. You've already failed.>1 acre per 20 driversLMAOhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency>For actual sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in a maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.[1] >Quoted values sunlight-to-biomass efficiencyPlant EfficiencyPlants, typical >0.1%[3]0.2–2%[4]<1%[5]Typical crop plants 1–2%[3]C3 plants, peak 3.5%[5]C4 plants, peak 4.3%[5]>5.4% net leaf efficiency.>A 2008 Hawaiian oil palm plantation projection stated: "algae could yield from 5,000-10,000 gallons of oil per acre yearly, compared to 250-350 gallons for jatropha and 600-800 gallons for palm oil". That comes to 26 kW per acre or 7 W/m2.[9] Typical insolation in Hawaii is around 230 W/m2.[10], so converting 3% of the incident solar energy to chemical fuel. Total photosynthetic efficiency would include more than just the biodiesel oil, so this number is a lower bound.>Contrast this with a typical photovoltaic installation,[11] which would produce an average of roughly 22 W/m2 (roughly 10% of the average insolation), throughout the year. Furthermore, the photovoltaic panels would produce electricity, which is a high-quality form of energy, whereas converting the biodiesel into mechanical energy entails the loss of a large portion of the energy. On the other hand, a liquid fuel is much more convenient for a vehicle than electricity, which has to be stored in heavy, expensive batteries.
>>16153796>That comes to 26 kW per acre or 7 W/m2that's so sad. not even talking about losses in turning to biofuel, also not talking about combustion engine efficiency.
>>16153783engineering issue
Elon Musk fires 14,000 people from Tesla because EVs suck balls and nobody wants to buy them. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13367065/elon-musk-tesla-lay-offs-email-supercharger.html
>>16153796The PV payback period is 2 years. The payback period with kJ should be the same as with $, but maybe it's longer. The biodiesel option needs a much smaller investment.
>>16154019>The biodiesel option needs a much smaller investment.you added in all costs, biodiesel conversion cost, tanker transporting it to stations so cars can get it? did you add ALL of it? also what's the burning efficiency? let's be generous at 50%.200W/m^2 vs 7W/m^2 is what almost 30 times less? count the internal combustion loss and you're at 60 times less energy after all is done for same area of captured energy. not factoring machinery involved, time wasted, irrigation, nutrients taken out of soil.the whole thing is a joke, completely retarded by comparison
>>16154026This
>>16154026The tractors, tankers and seed oil processes already exist. Farmers still need welfare so they should grow fuel instead of obesity.
>>16154057How many acres will it take to grow welfare for farmers? Why can't they just have some solar panels and sell the electricity?
>>16153826I don't really care about Musk's Tesla. I care about EVs in general.
>>16151227It was obvious from the get go that musk was scamming dumbasses with money and saving car culture; not the fucking environment.
>>16154082https://www.techspot.com/news/102786-battery-cost-plunge-turbocharge-renewable-energy-shift-iea.html>Battery costs have plummeted by 90% in less than 15 years, turbocharging renewable energy shiftsodium batteries will be 10 times cheaper or something. sodium is the 6th most abundant element on earth while lithium is like 33rd
>>16154074Any acres left over are for growing welfare. Some of that excess land will continue to go to solar panels. But if it all went to solar panels, there would be less of a buffer against bad harvests or interruptions to trade.
>>16154181You are a moron.
>>16153783Solar farms cause atmospheric downdrafts, they attract hail storms like a magnet
>>16155288good
>>16154076They sux and they're a pollution hazard, they should be illegal.
>>16084471>>literally paid shills and bots all meant to destroy the boardThinking that anyone would pay (money or time) to "destroy" a 4chan blue board = schizo behavior, so I concur that you oughta take your meds.
>>16148023I can smell the funyons on his breath
