>1.3 liter Isuzu 3-cylinder turbo diesel engine placed in the rear>.163 cD due to flush under tray, sealed front end, cameras instead of side mirrors>GM claimed the airflow through the engine bay and out of the rear apertures actually increased pressure behind the car>2 electric motors; one driving the front wheels and the other a starter motor that balanced the crankshaft and gearbox speeds>80 mpg combined
Like the VW XL1, experiments in efficiency are much more interesting and rewarding than 3 tonne EVs that just guzzle electricity and claim to be planet-saving.
>>28869438EVs are about zero emissions, not fuel efficiency. the push for them comes from the green air act. they do, decrease emissions compared to even the most fuel efficient gas cars.
You'd think with modern computing power cool concepts would be cheaper to create and thus more common now than they used to be.
>>28869438and just like vw xl1, it has negative cool factor for most normalfagsoh, you stripped everything out of your car to fuckin sip? lol what a dork, he spends money to not consume, what kind of retarded moron would willingly not consume when he has the means to?oh, you got a prius instead, which is not just a hypermiling toy but actually a hyper practical car? lmao what a nerd, imagine having this little road prescensenow, tesla with 600 horsepower effortlessly outdragging all the boy racers thinking they are hot shit AND being green at the same time? fuck yes, gimme ten
>>28869471>EVs are about zero emissionsAgain, 60% of US electricity is from burning coal and natural gas with no indication that that will chang. Germany and China use primarily coal. Power plants are 25-55% efficient and gas cars have pretty good emissions controls now.And they weigh significantly more, it takes more force (thus more energy) to propel a 5,000 lb car than a 3,000 lb one. Evfags calculations seem to always ignore that detail. And when you do those impressive acceleration pulls it absolutely dumps energy.They're zero emissions only in an idealized fantasy world. Or if you drop $30k on a home solar setup.
>>28869755Beautiful, clean coal.He also signed an order last month requiring military bases to source their electricity from coal for "national security."Good times.
>>28869755Except you're ignoring the fact that emissions come directly from the car. emissions don't stop at the car being built. EVs don't produce emissions, so they're objectively cleaner.there's no way around this.
>>28869761>Coal is abundant and cost effective, and can be used in any weather condition. Moreover, the industry has historically employed hundreds of thousands of Americans. America’s coal resources are vast, with a current estimated value in the trillions of dollarsThat's very reasonable.
>>28869808>emissions don't stop at the car being built.You didn't even read my argument. It had nothing to do with battery production or any of that. My entire argument was for the consumer lifetime of the car.60% of electricity is from burning fossil fuels at (realistically) 45% efficiency. You are just moving the "engine" to a plant out of town then wiring it to your car with 5-10% losses in transmission and modulation. Electricity doesn't just magically show up at the wall.
>>28869814>You are just moving the "engine" to a plant out of townthis is retarded and not how that works at all. EVs have been shown to reduce emissions, not increase them. and renewable energy exist. even if americans don't implement it, the rest of the world like Europe and China will. There is no mental gymnastics that will make an ICE powered vehicle cleaner than an EV.
>>28869821>this is retarded and not how that works at all.It's literally how it works for most people in most places. Your car has batteries that store energy made in a power plant. It's not like no emissions were produced, just not *in* your car. It's a mind game - "if they can't see the emissions, they'll be too stupid to know they exist.">EVs have been shown to reduce emissions, not increase them.Because they are based on idealized energy production and vehicles being the same weight.Look at picrel, is china increasing the percentage that's "renewables?" Yes. But, if you look, the coal line as a total is still going up...
>>28869821>There is no mental gymnastics that will make an ICE powered vehicle cleaner than an EV.Oh, I never said that, but there are so many variables to consider that it may be true. I'm saying that most EVs aren't zero-emissions because electricity isn't free energy. You can imagine a world like that, but we aren't there. France is the only country that comes close and they use actual slave labor in northern Africa to get their uranium. You want people to switch to EV and solar? Are you handing out $50k to every driver on the planet? $25k used EV, $25k solar and charger setup. No, most people would be charging off the power plant grid.
>>28869826>It's literally how it works for most people in most places.Source that EVs cause more emissions? you keep talking about where energy is coming from, but ignoring the fact that in addition to those coal plants, ICE cars produce emissions of their own, whereas the EV doesn't. so where do you think the extra emissions is coming from with EVs? do you think the plants are producing even more emissions because EVs are on the road? do you have a source for this? do you have a source showing how much less emissions plants would produce if there were no EVs on the road?
>>28869834>Source that EVs cause more emissions?Again, I never said that :P. Don't try to strawman me. Also, this stuff is SO complicated that I wouldn't trust any analysis that "proves" either way. It would be so easy to conveniently ignore one detail and skew the data.I responded to >>28869471>EVs are about zero emissions, not fuel efficiency.EVs are not zero emissions unless you have a solar setup or your local area is totally served by nuclear, which is unreasonable because nuke is usually only baseload and other sources are added with demand.
>>28869832>there are so many variables to consider that it may be true.lol>I'm saying that most EVs aren't zero-emissions because electricity isn't free energydoes it become free just because a car is burning gasoline in addiction to the coal plant not burning any less coal instead? if not, then we can safely say that EVs reduce emissions, they are cleaner than ICE cars, and therefore better for what the green energy act desires. why do you think a world with coal plants AND gasoline burning cars somehow produces less emissions than if we cut emissions from at least one of those sources entirely? the use of electricity will not go down just because everyone burns gasoline in their cars in addiction to the coal plants. the rise in electricity usage has to do with the rising global population.
>>28869846Not zero-emission.
>>28869843>Again, I never said thatso you agree that EVs are cleaner like i originally stated here >>28869471 ?>Also, this stuff is SO complicated that I wouldn't trust any analysis that "proves" either wayYou're trying to muddy the waters when you've just effectively agreed with what i said. EVs decrease emissions, not raise them. gas powered cars + coal is not lower emissions than EV + coal.>>28869843>EVs are not zero emissionsThey are, because there is literally zero emissions coming from the EV, unlike the gasoline powered car. you were claiming that the emissions that don't come from the EV will just be made up for by the coal plant somehow pumping out extra emissions from the coal to offset the reduced emissions from the EV, and this is not how that works.
>>28869849grab some emissions measuring tool and show me where the emissions is coming from on the EV. or show me how these coal plants are producing extra emissions to offset the non-emissions of the EV.
>>28869851>so you agree that EVs are cleaner like i originally stated hereNo, I think they probably are cleaner, slightly. But I do think there's the small possibility that they're worse.>They are, because there is literally zero emissions coming from the EV"Oh, hey, we burned coal to boil water to create steam to spin a turbine to charge the battery, but it's zero-emissions!" That's exactly what I'm talking about, you're too dumb to see that they just moved the emissions somewhere else. They sell you on them being magical free energy machines. A solar setup costs something like 8-10x what I paid for my car, you can't expect everyone to afford one and replace the panels every 5-10 years.You EVfags are trying to ban ICE, we aren't trying to ban EVs. It amazes me how often people think electricity just shows up at the wall.
>>28869857>No, I think they probably are cleaner, slightlyhow is something that produces zero emissions under operations "slightly" cleaner than something that does?>But I do think there's the small possibility that they're worse.how could you possibly think this? your own image is incredibly stupid because it implies that the power plants wouldn't be there if it were just ICE powered cars on the road, and I've already stated that isn't how that works at all. a better representation would be the emissions producing power plant is still there, but there is no emissions coming from the EV. so emissions overall has been reduced.>"Oh, hey, we burned coal to boil water to create steam to spin a turbine to charge the battery, but it's zero-emissions!"Do you think coal wouldn't be burned if everyone drove an ICE car? do you think there'd be a reduction in coal being burnt if everyone drove an ICE car?this is what you have a hard time understanding. the power plants don't just disappear like in your image, and the EVs don't cause more of them to be built to offset things. so if they aren't zero emissions, where do you think the extra emissions are coming from? it isn't coming from the plant. the plants will produce the same amount of emissions regardless. >they just moved the emissions somewhere elseYou haven't provided a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis. you harbor cartoon understanding of how energy works at all. No one is trying to "ban" EVs because they don't produce emissions by themselves but ICE cars do.
>>28869864You're very obviously proving my point. You're too stupid to see that a battery just stores energy generated elsewhere.You're trying to ban ICE, the onus is on you to know what you're talking about, which you don't.>Large cruise ships typically consume between 150 and 250 metric tons (roughly 50,000 to over 80,000 gallons) of fuel per day, often usingheavy fuel oil (HFO) or marine dieselIf you're such an environmentalist, why not go after cruise ships (which serve no purpose), industrial waste, pharmaceutical waste, airplanes, the militaries, etc? Why do you only go after cars, which have had significant improvements in emissions? Because you're too stupid to see further than 10 feet away from you.
>>28869866>a battery just stores energy generated elsewhere.and an ICE car acts as its own power plant in addition to the power plants that already exist? and you don't see how EVs are a net gain on clean energy?>You're trying to ban ICEI'm not trying to ban ICE. the highly intelligent europeans and chinese are. they look down on americans for not being clean energy. they apparently have this all figured out and are just waiting on america to catch up.>If you're such an environmentalist, why not go after cruise ships Why not go after both? i don't want the cruise ships there, either. or the industrial waste, or the pharmaceutical waste, or airplanes, or the military.id like it to all be gone.
>>28869432I've never seen this before.Good thread OP.Visually it's like a Saturn Ion in Cyberpunk 2077
>>28869875>id like it to all be gone.I would too, buddy. I like cars. I like engines. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I chose that because I like machines.I'm not giving up my manual miata for a boring surveillance box so some fat bitch can gamble on a cruise shit. I'm not giving up my miata so all cars can be integrated into smart cities and data collection. If you think my miata is a problem then you don't know the extent of human pollution. Personally I advocate for birth control as the best environmental move. Think of how many plastic single use items every human uses, those are made from crude and pollute the planet.You've got to really, REALLY prove, for certain, that EVs are significantly better in the long run for me to even think about caring. You give me one for free? I might drive it, but I'm not paying for it and I'm not voting for it.
even if a ev is powered by gas turbines its still cleaner than having to refine oil into gasoline and the logistics around getting it from refinery to the gas station. There's no situation where gas cars are cleaner
>>28869438Here's your peak efficiency EV my dude.
>>28869900>There's no situation where gas cars are cleanerNatural gas also has to be refined and we get it from fracking or alongside crude extraction.A dual-cycle nat gas plant is like 40-55 efficient, then you've got 5-10% losses in transmission, and 5-10% losses in the EV. EVs are heavier. In a basic nat gas plant or coal plant the efficiencies are closer to 30%.Gas cars have catalytic converters. You're not going to get me to give up my miata so some assholes can play wargames with toys made by other people.Agriculture is a huge avenue of pollution, with deforestation, water use, and fertilizer production - why aren't you demanding a tax on fat people? Why cars?
>>28869909>Agriculture is a huge avenue of pollution25%!? Whaaaaat?! With all that obesity and food waste? Whaaaat?
>>28869814Even when you "move the engine out of town" EVs still end up reducing emissions because the thermal efficiency of the whole powerplant->transmission line->EV-charger->EV-battery->EV-drive-motor chain is still significantly better than the 1.5l 3 cylinder powering your shitbox.
>>28869917Maybe. I didn't say otherwise. I doubt the "significantly" part, however.Why not ban air conditioning in office buildings? Why not tax obesity? Why are you obsessed with combustion engines? Did some Pixar movie psyop you as a kid?
>>28869864Holy fuck you're a dumb nigger
>>28869977Yeah, his whole argument is "power plants already exist, so it's fine." But we constantly make more power plants and when the demand increases plants burn more fuel. Idiotic.Anyone considered banning crypto? It's a fictional currency made by running graphics cards to their extreme. It serves no purpose.
>>28869909you're forgetting that EVs get a lot of energy back from regenerative braking
>>28869984That doesn't even make up for just the losses in the vehicle. Nonetheless the power plant or modulation & transmission losses. You've gotta do better than that - did you think "regen braking" would make me give up my manual car? You thought wrong.
>>28869977you're too low IQ to even understand anything i'm saying.>>28869981No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions. your retarded meme image literally suggest power plants don't exist in an ICE-only world.>But we constantly make more power plants and when the demand increases The demand for power increases because of the rising population. not EVs. EVs reduce emissions because they do not produce them themselves.
>>28869990>No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions.Well, that's incorrect so everything else falls. Why would increased demand not lead to more fuel burn and more emissions? How do you even reach such a conclusion?
>>28869994The increase demand is coming from the increase population, not EVs. did you even read what i said?
>>28869995It's from both dipshit. Why would you think adding EVs wouldn't increase electricity production? What even is that?
>>28869997okay, so post evidence that shows we would have lower emissions from this supposed "increase" in EVs on the roads if everyone drove entirely ICE vehicles like i already asked here>>28869834You still haven't provided evidence for this.
>>28870000You want to ban ICE, you have to provide evidence.But you think switching cars to BEV wouldn't increase electricity demand, and that's so incredibly idiotic that I wouldn't believe a thing you showed me.
>>28870002Provide evidence of what? that EVs actually reduce emissions despite your claim that they increase electricity use?https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-mythsHere you go.>But you think switching cars to BEV wouldn't increase electricity demand,Would it increase it to such a degree that it would cause power plants to emit more pollution? where is the evidence for this?
>>28870003You know, it'd do better to give you a vasectomy than for me to give up my 2,200 lb car for a 5,000 lb EV. You could focus on anything, but you focus on cars only, that tells me you don't actually care about the planet, just that I can't enjoy surveillance-free cars. You want to burn the coal, I wanna wam-wam-wam clutch drop, we are not the same and you can't tell me what to do no matter how fervent your desires for a free energy machine.Learn thermodynamics and organic chemistry and come back to argue.
>>28869471>EVs don't have engines so there are no emissions at all!Fucking kek.
>>28870003>Would it increase it to such a degree that it would cause power plants to emit more pollution?Why would increasing the amount of fuel burned not increase pollution? How do you even come up with this shit?
I miss fender skirts
>>28870764>he still can’t provide any evidence >he didn’t even bother reading the article linked that debunks exactly thatAnother low IQ with no rebuttal
>>28870757Correct. Feel free to link evidence that that shows we’d have less emissions from plants if everyone drove ICE only, or that EVs have increased emissions from plants.
>>28869909>Why cars?Cars shit out huge amount of exhaust and also everything around maintaining them is also hyper caustic to the environment, including agriculture.
>>28871174>he didn’t even bother reading the article linked that debunks exactly thatThe closest thing that article "debunked" is the idea that EVs would overstress the power grid.You (or someone else) said adding EVs wouldn't increase emissions. >>28869990>my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions.These are very different things. My argument was that, obviously, more demand leads to more fuel burned which leads to more power plants burning more fuel. That has nothing to do with anything in that EPA article. If you want to play ball, you've gotta do better than misrepresent your opponents' arguments (strawman).
>had potential to be a good thread>just two retards arguingmany such cases
>>28871240>had potential to be a good threadDid it?Please, redirect the convo to where you think it should be. That's a thing you can do.
>>28871246My god, what a miserable cunt you aresee the following posts>>28870918>>28869881
>>28869909>deforestationyou do know most of those trees are replanted?
>>28871271>EVfags trying to talk about environmentalism while ignoring that deforestation destroys habitats and soil fertility creating an industry [fertilizer and insecticide production] that's one of the biggest polluters on the planet.I guess you didn't care in the first place.
>>28871202>is the idea that EVs would overstress the power grid.Then it sounds like they make a negligible difference to the power consumption overall, and the increase in power consumption is largely coming from humans powering their homes and businesses 24/7. EVs have not affected the grid, more power plants have not been built as a result of EVs. >You (or someone else) said adding EVs wouldn't increase emissions.And this is true, not only do they not increase emissions, they actively reduce it because the vehicle itself isn't producing emissions. (it's almost like they are zero emissions vehicles). yea, we know it takes energy to build an EV, there is no way around that and it's like saying a fuel efficient vehicle isn't fuel efficient because there is energy used to build the vehicle itself. but we're talking about emission as it relates to the consumption of electricity when operating. >more demand leads to more fuel burned I agree, but is there more demand solely because of EVs or just more people and businesses being on the grid providing power hungry services such as AI data centers. which is actually what's increasing the use of electricity to such a degree that a widely measurable difference in power consumption can be seen, not EVs. there is no evidence to suggest that EVs have caused power plants to produce more emissions by themselves. there is evidence to suggest that if everyone drove an EV, we'd have less emissions overall. you could even argue that what electricity EVs use when charging for 30-60 minutes out of the day every 300 miles is more than offset by the increase in renewable energy. the increase in power plant energy consumption is largely by humans and businesses themselves. We could easily support EVs on the grid we have without increasing the need for more coal and gas burning plants if we weren't using electricity for added people and businesses.
>>28871301Again, you're re-directing the argument.>>28869990>No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions.Obviously adding EVs will do so. That's all I said and that's the post I responded to.
>>28871307PS. Seriously. I simply directly respond to the things EVfags say. Then they start putting words in my mouth - pretending I'm making completely different arguments which are easier for them to refute. If one really had a leg to stand on then they could do better.
>>28871307>Obviously adding EVs will do so.cool, where is the evidence for this?
>>28871374What? You think that adding an EV, or many EVs, to the grid won't burn more fuel or produce more emissions?This is exactly the shit i'm talking about. EVfags live in fantasy land.
>>28871374Me >>28871384To be clear. The anon's argument was that EVs don't make power plants produce more emissions.>>28869990>No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions.You EVfags keep pretending I'm arguing something else when I am intentionally simple in my wording. That's quite dishonest. Obviously adding more to the electrical grid makes power plants produce more emissions. I said nothing about the comparison to ICE. Nobody will directly address any I make, it's hilarious, they pretend I'm making the arguments that they expect.
>>28871384>renewable energy>We could easily support EVs on the grid we have without increasing the need for more coal and gas burning if we weren't using electricity for added people and businesses.Did you read this part of the post? do you think every time i plug an xbox in an outlet the gas/coal plant burns slightly more to accommodate that xbox on the grid?or do you just think EVs consume more electricity than we produce in renewable energy entirely by themselves?
>>28871392how much energy do you think america produces?How much energy do you think EVs collectively use by themselves?Do you realize we can store power and it isn't 100% used all the time? (so when i plug something into an outlet, it won't cause a plant somewhere to produce more emissions to offset that).do you acknowledge the existence of renewable energy at all?
>>28871403Again, you guys assume I was saying something completely different (strawman). It's weird, I was very clear.All I said was switching cars from gas to EV will increase electric power plant emissions. That's it, but you guys keep pretending I'm saying something else.It's pathetic.
>>28871412>All I said was switching cars from gas to EV will increase electric power plant emissions.where's the evidence for this? you don't even know how much energy america produces or what EVs collectively use or would use if that happened. so how can you arrive to this conclusion? what numbers are you using to do this math?
>>28871416never mind the amount of energy we'd save not making gasoline for cars and not needing to transport it around to gas stations. that could very well be energy redistributed to support charging EV.
>>28871416>where's the evidence for this?What? I can't believe you're this stupid. If more electricity is demanded, more fuel is used to produce more electricity. Duh. What the fuck? >We have one power plant in the whole world and we can draw off it all day and it won't burn more fuelWho thinks this? Are you in middle school?
>>28871419>If more electricity is demandedhow do you know more will be demanded instead of existing electricity being redistributed now that we don't have to make gasoline for cars?
>>28871421>how do you know more will be demanded instead of existing electricity being redistributedWhat existing electricity? We use nat gas and coal specifically because they're reactive to demand in minutes. Even if there were a magical surplus, it was still created by burning fossil fuels and more electricity had to be generated because EVs drew and caused more demand.It's not like there's a magical store of energy we're not using that magically is there for EVs.
>>28871431>What existing electricity?the existing electricity being burned to make fuel for cars. where do you think this would go instead? do you think it would just disappear? why do you think we'd need more overhead to accommodate EVs if you don't even know how much we produce and how much EVs consume? you're just assuming that anything consuming electricity requires a plant to produce emissions to offset it.
>>28871421Are you trying to say nat gas and coal don't have to be extracted, refined, and transported? Do you like fracking? Is that what environmentalists like? No.How about you advocate for anything else, there are better ways to reduce pollution as I have already outlined. Why focus only on cars and get every point wrong? Cars are by no means the largest source of pollution, and the number for cars also includes trucking. Maybe buy fewer dildoes from china - why gas personal cars? Why focus on that?
>>28871440>Are you trying to say nat gas and coal don't have to be extracted, refined, and transported?good thing we can generate electricity by other means, such as solar, wind, tidal, your mom running on a treadmill, etc. you're ignoring renewable energy.
>>28871446No, that's been my entire point. You guys are assuming renewable energy when most is made from burning fossil fuels and it's not changing in most places. Germany wanted solar but they realized coal is quick and solar only works 8 hrs of the day so they shut down every nuclear plant and increased coal.Yeah, they increased wind but that's bullshit compared to the coal .We do not live in a land with primarily renewables as electricity production. It's just not reality.In a world where electricity was free, magical energy, it'd make sense. But it is not.There are bigger gains against pollution to be made elsewhere, but you all fell into marketing hype. There is no free energy.Personal transportation isn't the biggest polluter, EVs (in the real world) aren't that different from ICE in their pollution. How about not have all those satellites, or data centers, or smartphones, or single-use plastics, or whatever - why focus on personal cars? EVs also (in reality) produce emissions because their batteries just store energy produced elsewhere, and they weigh more so require more energy to move the same and stickier tires which are also a major source of pollution.This all started from some guy saying EVs are "zero emissions" and another saying EVs don't make power plants pollute more. We are not in a world of solar, wind, and hydro. Despite how much you want it to be true.
>>28871459>most is made from burning fossil fuelsand this is not because of EVs. we can support the existence of EVs from renewable energy alone, let alone from the energy we wouldn't have to waste on gas cars.>EVs are "zero emissions" and EVs don't make power plants pollute more.Which means this is factually correct. because most of the energy for power plants is used by people and businesses, not EVs. EVs don't require more power plants or the burning of more coal and gas to exist, they can be sustained by renewable energy.thank you, and GG.
>>28871461>EVs don't require more power plants or the burning of more coal and gas to exist, they can be sustained by renewable energy.Oh so let's divert all of the renewable energy to EVs only then use coal and nat gas for the rest of the stuff we were already using renewables for, just so we can say EVs are emissions-free!Hilarious! Also, that's not how it works. You want the average joe to buy an EV and charge it at home. The plug doesn't say "oh gee, it's an EV" and sends magic renewably-sourced electricity to it.More EVs means more demand which means more burning of fossil fuels. Duh. They're not going to make a specific grid for renewables that only powers EVs just so you can make an argument.
>>28871469>Oh so let's divert all of the renewable energy to EVsNo, let's just divert the energy we waste making and transporting gasoline on EVs, or rather, that energy is now freed up, to be used on anything else, feeding the "demand" that EVs themselves would bring. we can always build more renewable energy sources as we go, to accommodate the EVs. since renewable energy production is not finite. there is no "diverting all of it". you don't even know what that means because you still don't know how much renewable energy we produce, how much energy EVs collectively consume when charging, and how much energy would be saved not making and transporting gas.So why in this instance would the coal and gas plant need to make more energy if the EVs don't have to increase demand? what happens to the energy not being used to make and transport gas for cars?
>>28871480>So why in this instance would the coal and gas plant need to make more energy if the EVs don't have to increase demand?Oh yeah, charging 5,000 lb cars for every commuter doesn't increase power plant demand.This is idiotic.We already use our renewables, if we diverted them (magically) to only EVs, we'd have to increase the amount of electricity we make from fossil fuels. WOW.
Hey, let's ban pets!You don't need a pet, they cost an immense amount in agriculture to produce their food, we spend crazy amounts in air conditioning and pharmaceuticals, transportation to the groomer and vet.If we killed all pet animals we'd save 5% emissions! Where's my AK?!
>>28871487Do you know how much energy it takes to charge these 5000 lb EVs? do you know how much total energy we produce and how much we use to make and transport gasoline? do you know that if we increased renewable energy production we could rely less and less on coal and natural gas as a whole?Where do you see the demand and where do you think the energy not making the gasoline goes?
>>28871491>Do you know how much energy it takes to charge these 5000 lb EVs? do you know how much total energy we produce and how much we use to make and transport gasoline? do you know that if we increased renewable energy production we could rely less and less on coal and natural gas as a whole?No. And neither do you. I was responding to >>28869990>No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions.AND>>28869990No, my entire argument is that the existence of EVs don't cause power plants to produce more emissions...Was I wrong in arguing those things? People keep trying to pretend I'm arguing totally different things. It's hilarious.
>>28871492Sorry, the second quote was supposed to be>>28869471EVs are about zero emissions.Am I wrong? Are EVs zero emissions? Does adding more demand to a primarily fossil-fuel grid not increase emissions from power plants?
>>28871492>No.So why are you saying it'll increase emissions from power plants without evidence? i asked for the evidence several exchanges ago, and no one has yet to provide anything but speculation, (very easily debunked speculation at that).>Was I wrong in arguing those things? Yes. because you're arguing without evidence. if there is no evidence to suggest they increase emissions from power plants, we can't assume they will by default. there isn't even any reason to given everything i just said.
>>28871496>So why are you saying it'll increase emissions from power plants without evidence?Why the fuck would drawing more electricity not increase power plant emissions? You're switching from gas to electricity and you don't think electric power plants will have to burn more fuel? I don't even need to explain that holy shit. How dumb are you?
>>28871495Why is there more demand if we aren't wasting energy on making gas for cars? where is that energy going? does it just disappear and the total energy consumption stays the same only for EVs to add to it? this is where i'm not seeing what you're seeing.
>>28871498>Why the fuck would drawing more electricity not increase power plant emissions? Because we'll have more electricity to spare from not wasting it on producing gas? where does that energy save go? it's just lost? where does the added renewable energy go? it doesn't count towards the grid at all?why do we need to INCREASE coal and gas production JUST for evs alone? why can't we reduce waste and increase renewables, saving energy and not needing to produce more as a result?
>>28871499Again, that's not what I was arguing, holy shit. Some guy said EVs are zero emissions, another said switching from ICE to EV wouldn't increase power plant emissions. That's what I was arguing against, that's it, you guys keep strawmanning by pretending I'm saying something else.I'm well aware gas has a distribution network. But nat gas and coal have to be refined and shipped, too. Yes, I get the scale thing.But... How about we tax fat people, cruise ships, airplanes, pharma waste, pesticide production, yadda yadda? Why cars when the change from ICE to EV isn't that different? Can no one answer me?
>>28871503Oh, coal and natural gas just show up, fully refined and processed?
>>28871503>why do we need to INCREASE coal and gas production JUST for evs alone? why can't we reduce waste and increase renewables, saving energy and not needing to produce more as a result?>Oh, why can't we just have all nuke and hydro?That's what I'm saying, it isn't that way. Your entire thing is predicated on "what if we did this?" But that isn't reality. Most electricity is made from burning fossil fuels. It's not Zero EV, it does increase demand on power plants compared to using gas for cars - duh. I never argued whether it was a net benefit. EVfags want to ban ICE, I don't want to ban EVs, you'd better have some damn good proof. And when you are saying "switching cars to EV won't increase power plant emissions" then I have zero trust in anything you say.
>>28871506>Some guy said EVs are zero emissions,they are, they literally don't produce emissions.>ICE to EV wouldn't increase power plant emissionsYou still haven't provided ANY evidence that they will. you can't even answer where our energy savings would go from eliminating gasoline.>That's what I was arguing against, With what? you aren't providing any evidence or even addressing anything that would suggest we'd increase emissions from power plants if we had EVs. you're just assuming every time someone plugs something in, a power plant SOMEWHERE has to emit more smog. even if the total energy demand itself doesn't need to rise as a result of EVs.>How about we tax fat people, cruise ships, airplanes, pharma waste, pesticide production, yadda yadda? I agree. we should. but we as individuals can't personally do that. but we can make the decision to drive an EV if we have the ability to do so (no everyone does, so let's make sure they do).>Why cars when the change from ICE to EV isn't that different? It is different. it reduces emissions from not having a personal mini power plant in your vehicle at all times. it reduces emissions and energy consumption in the transport industry entirely by not needing to refine gasoline. EVs change quite a lot. the air you breathed would be measurably cleaner.
>>28871515>EVs are zero emissions>Switching cars from gas to EV won't increase power plant emissionsYeahhhhh... about that.
>>28871515>You still haven't provided ANY evidence that they will.Why would drawing more electricity from a power plant that burns fossil fuels not produce more emissions? What even is this? How do you even make this argument?Electricity isn't free energy.
>>28871509>, coal and natural gas just show up, fully refined and processed?is coal and natural gas the only way to generate electricity? where did renewable energy go? where did the energy savings from not making gasoline go?>>28871514>That's what I'm sayingNo, you're saying EVs will directly increase emissions from plants. they won't. there is nothing to suggest they will. you're simply saying that coal and natural gas plants will still exist, but they won't have to emit MORE pollution because of EVs.>Your entire thing is predicated on "what if we did this?" But that isn't reality. It could be reality if we all drove EVs. which is what i'm advocating for. there'd be no need to produce and refine gasoline for passenger cars if everyone drove EVs. so that energy savings from not doing so could very well become a reality as EVs become more common.>Most electricity is made from burning fossil fuelsAnd this isn't because of EVs. so where why would we need to burn more because of them when we'd be saving energy from not making gasoline?>It's not Zero EVThe plants aren't polluting more because of EVs, so why aren't they zero other than the materials needed to make the EV itself (which is required for any car)?>it does increase demand on power plants compared to using gas for cars How, if EVs can just use the energy directly from the source, which is far more efficient, instead of needlessly making gasoline?>EVfags want to ban ICE, I don't want to ban EVs, you'd better have some damn good proofBecause EVs reduce emissions and energy waste from making a fuel instead of using electricity as the fuel itself. and i already provided evidence for this.>And when you are saying "switching cars to EV won't increase power plant emissions" You're supposed to be proving that it will. you're just assuming by default it has to for reasons that I've already addressed, while ignoring energy savings.
>>28871521Yea, what about that evidence you haven't provided? how about it?>>28871526We don't need free electricity, we can use the electricity we save from not making so much gasoline. in addiction to more renewables to add to the grid. why do we keep the same energy consumption level if we eliminate a wasteful use of energy?
>>28871528I provided the evidence very clearly. Most electricity is from burning fossil fuels so EVs aren't zero emissions. Adding demand to power plants requires them to produce more emissions. Just like how you complain about powerful engines emitting more. There is no free energy, when most electricity is from burning fossil fuels it requires more fuel thus more emissions.
>>28871527This guy thinks adding electrical output to a coal or natural gas plant won't increase its emissions. And he doesn't understand how coal and natural gas are extracted and refined, and he wants to ban ICE cars.Cute.
You know, even if we stopped using gas for personal cars, that is by no means the only reason we transport and refine cruise oil.Natural gas, the main source of US electricity, is the reason we do fracking.
>>28871539>Inb4 "we do fracking for EVs? Fracking must be great for the environment!"
>>28871533>I provided the evidence very clearly.Where is the link that shows EVs increasing emissions from plants?>Most electricity is from burning fossil fuelsThis isn't because of EVs. the existence of fossil fuel plants don't mean EVs have to run off them. they can run off renewable energy. but ICE vehicles can't. coal and natural gas plants exist because of the growing industrialized population and businesses. and EVs don't even have to use electricity from natural gas and coal to begin with. because that isn't the only way to generate electricity.>Adding demand to power plants Where is the evidence that EVs alone are increasing demand from power plants? how can you even trace the carbon footprint of an EV directly back to a powerplant if electricity can come from so many other sources. you even say yourself that "most" not ALL electricity comes from power plants, and "most" of that electricity is from people and businesses. you're just assuming the EV directly adds to the emissions of power plants with no evidence.>There is no free energyWhy do you assume energy that isn't being used merely disappears?
>>28871535This guy thinks renewable energy doesn't exist.>>28871539Would we see no energy use reduction at all if gasoline for personal cars didn't exist on such a mass scale? where would that energy go and what could it be used for instead if there was a reduction?
>>28871539"main" source, isn't the only source, so you're saying we could power EVs on renewables, but ICE powered cars don't have this option AT ALL!do you see why the EV is the better option?
>>28871543>Where is the link that shows EVs increasing emissions from plants?See, that's the thing. It's so obvious that anything else you say doesn't matter. Why would switching every car from gas to electricity cause electric plants (primarily powered by burning fossil fuels) to have to burn more fuel? Hmm? Are you saying I can slap on a GT35R turbo, with a fuel pump, fuel pressure regulator and tune it to dump 2.5 more fuel in my engine I won't produce more emissions from stock? Wow, zoinks!
>>28871547Oh, I'm my fantasy land where ever is free renewable energy!That's exactly what I'm saying, it isn't reality. You're basing your numbers on a "what-if" that isn't happening.
>>28871548>Why would switching every car from gas to electricity cause electric plants (primarily powered by burning fossil fuels) to have to burn more fuel?Because the electricity doesn't have to come entirely from the plants. the EV can run on renewables, but gasoline cars have to run on ENTIRELY bad energy. the existence of EVs doesn't mean we need to ramp up coal and natural gas production. there is no evidence to suggest it is. you're just assuming it is because the plants exist at all.
>>28871551in your fantasy land, energy that isn't used just vanishes entirely.
>>28871546We'd see an energy reduction if I killed you. Is it worth it?You want to ban ICE, it's up to you to know the facts and it's hilariously obvious how little you guys know. Take thermodynamics, please.You all always assume something that isn't real in your calculations. You want to act like heroes, there are other things which would make a bigger impact.Again. I simply responded to someone saying EVs are zero emissions - they are not 99% of the time and if the average Joe had them they'd be purely off fossil fuels.
>>28871558What? Your whole idea (just you) is that there's magical unused energy we have sitting around that EVs can tap into making everything okay? Jesus Christ.
>>28871560Just drive an EV, then you can reduce emissions directly without killing anyone.>>28871562This energy we save from not using gasoline isn't magical. it is a real thing, and it can offset energy demand (whatever that even is) from EVs. never mind the increase in renewables that would not necessitate more emissions from plants.
>>28871563Again, it's predicted on something that isn't actually happening. I never even said EVs weren't better holy shit. How many times do I have to say this? I'm just saying they are not zero emission, most electricity IS from burning fossil fuels, and switching to EVs will increase pollution from electrical power plants.Y'all keep trying to put words in my mouth.I need to see real goddamn proof, and when you guys are speculating on everything being renewable and the same weight I just am not going to believe anything you say.Why don't you ban cruise ships, or tax obesity? Or any number of other things? Because you've been trained to think that gas cars are evil. You aren't engineers, you're just going off what some lib arts journalists said. Reality is that fossil fuel use for electricity, as a total, is growing
>>28871567>it's predicted on something that isn't actually happeningYou mean like EVs increasing coal and natural gas production? >they are not zero emissionthey don't produce emissions themselves, and they can get their energy entirely from renewables, so that makes them pretty zero emissions as far as energy consumption is concerned. >most electricity IS from burning fossil fuelsThis isn't evidence that EVs will directly cause more emissions from these sources. this is an assumption.>I need to see real goddamn proof, where is the proof of the EV fossil fuel increase?>you guys are speculating on everything being renewableYou're speculating on the mere existence of plants at all, and i'm saying EVs don't have to rely on them. so they are zero emissions vehicles, in both the energy they used and from their method of propulsion.>Why don't you ban cruise ships, or tax obesity? Why don't we ban shitposting. why don't we enforce adult bedtimes by law?
>>28871571>You mean like EVs increasing coal and natural gas production?Holy shit. You still think that moving cars from gas to EV wouldn't make electrical plants emit more when clearly most are powered by fossil fuels?Explain that.>hey don't produce emissions themselvesNo shit, they're batteries, they store electricity made elsewhere, that's the whole gimmick. That's exactly what I'm saying. They put the blinders on your eyes to sell you a product, a product that sends everything you do to Palantir.
>>28871575>Explain that.Already did. renewable energy exist. the energy saved from not refining gasoline for passenger cars doesn't vanish.>they store electricity made elsewhereand that electricity doesn't have to come from natural gas or coal. where is the evidence that EVs are directly causing more pollution from these sources? why can't you link a single one?
This car was part of a broader program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles that involved the major automakers and the National Research Council. It was done in the later years of the Clinton administration.Ford and Chrysler produced workable concepts as well. Chrysler had an interesting idea with large molded plastic body panels, but it doesn't look like it went anywhere.
