.
>>28998745Powerful.
the powerplant and shit is still there, in addition to the pollution coming from the ICE powered car. with EVs, the pollution only comes from the power plant. so there is a net loss of emissions in the air.
>burning coal3rd world problems.
>>28998745This. So much this.
>>28998745I've had both and have never thought either
can you feel it?
>>28998766Not my problem
>>28998745So bold
>>28998748What about the pollution of making the EV? Is it less than the pollution of making an ICE car?
>>28998800when you factor in the fact that there is no pollution coming from the EV, the life time pollution of EV ownership will always been less than that of the car.
>>28998803less than that of the ICE car*
>>28998748Lol.It takes like 20 years to break even on an EV over ICE because of how intensive mining for rare earth elements for that batteries is.So scrapping an EV after 15 years and buying a new EV polluted nore than just running the ICE for 15 years and buying a new ICE.>b-but the batteries are recycled!!Still wont break even for new production as the world shifts to EV until after youre long dead
>>28998809>It takes like 20 years to break even on an EV over ICEnot at all. and we will be mining that shit regardless because batteries are also used in ICE vehicles in addition to everything else electronic.
>>28998800Yes the production of an EV is less polluting than a combustion car.
>>28998745Not to mention all the increased weight destroying tires, roads, and anything else it rolls over.
>>28998826most of that is done by lorries. EV makes a negligible difference on road maintenance and tire consumption. the vast majority of road wear will be from lorries.
>>28998813what's wrong with greenhouse gases? they literally make plants grow. communists are so dumb.
>>28998752also white bitches
>Over a 20-year period, methane is 80 to 86 times more potent [as a greenhouse gas]Gas cars release CO2 and NOx.The largest source for electricity in the US is methane (natural gas).There are so many variables when you try to consider total vehicle emissions. Even making a simple assumption like assuming same weight and tires or forgetting one emissions source in a supply chain can throw the calc off a good amount.
>>28998839American spotted
>>28998773He will say he should have driven a car for a week and then right after his doctor takes casts off his limbs, he will buy a new bike and he will ride more carefully... for the first week and then he will be going faster and faster and the cycle repeats
>>28998842they set the methane on fire, it neutralizes the threat converting it to ecologically useful carbon dioxide
>>28998846>he will ride more carefullyThis accident wasn't his fault though. It was some other dummy. He didn't survive his injuries either. There is no next time
>>28998849I know, there were many flaws in that argument, was being slightly deceptive.Methane, traditionally a byproduct of gasoline extraction used to be just sent to the atmosphere or burned off on-site.My point, that numbers can easily be manipulated in something this complicated, still stands.
>>28998856ooh chose the wrong pic.
>>28998856There are many, many holes in the ground all across the world where natural methane gushes out. They should collect this methane and convert it to useful energy or just set it on fire if it's a logistical nightmare.
>>28998842there is no scenario where driving around with a miniature power plant under the hood produces less emissions than an EV. even with everything else that could possibly be factored in. ICE is the most inefficient way of transporting people.
>>28998868>there is no scenario where driving around with a miniature power plant under the hood produces less emissions than an EV.Oh yeah? Also, it's "fewer" not "less."Power plants are generally 30-55% efficient. Then there are losses in transmission and modulation, then there are losses within the EV itself.A Model Y has exactly twice the curb weight of my car and requires fancy-ass tires from the weight and torque to keep people from killing themselves. Was that factored in?My point is, it's not that different. You could go after cruise ships and military fuel use, but you want to ruin the experience of driving a car? >1 GOTO 2>2 PRINT "Go fuck yourself, maybe don't have more than one kid if you want to save the planet."
>>28998868Ok. You can make another thread when EVs come with lightweight fuel cells instead of 65,000 laptop batteries. The current generation of EVs is a complete scam and only retards buy this garbage. Hope that helps!
>>28998871>Power plants are generally 30-55% efficient. and? do you think there will be more power plants because people drive EVs? do you think the power plants stop existing because people drive ICE? >then there are losses within the EV itself.EVs are far more efficient at converting energy into motion than ICE.>A Model Y has exactly twice the curb weight of (unspecified vehicle of who knows what class that may not even be directly comparable)wow, what completely useless information. a model Y is 4000 to 4400 lbs. compare that to something like a Rav4, which is 3300 to 3700 lbs. the weight difference between the already heavy ICE car and an EV is negligible. usually around 500 lbs. this does not make up for how inefficient using a power plant under the hood is and the total emissions it will cause over the life time of the vehicle at all. not even with le special tires.>Was that factored in?see the image here>>28998813 there is a huge difference in emissions from ICE to EV. regardless of anything else, you can't beat the efficiency of an EV.
>>28998881Why do you hate cars? Why not air conditioning, or planes, or cruise ships, or cargo ships sending chinese plastic garbage (plastic is made from crude oil)? Huh? Why just cars?>EVs are far more efficient at converting energy into motion than ICE.No shit, because that energy was made in a power plant. You can't ignore that. Your phone is probably partly powered by burning coal. >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X2600051X>EVs are 25-40% efficienct
>>28998890>because that energy was made in a power plant.renewable energy exist. and the burning of coal doesn't stop if everyone drove ICE. driving an EV therefore becomes a net gain on emissions reductions. EVs are just the superior method of transportation even when factoring in anything else.
>>28998893So you ask me to sacrifice driving lightweight manual ICE cars just so everyone can go on planes and carry disposable garbage around on boats?The current grid is not renewables, you cannot ignore that most electricity in the world is from fossil fuels. The most-environmentally-friendly grid is France, but they literally have slave labor towns in the african desert to get their uranium....No.Should we work toward a better world? Yes, but focusing on cars is idiotic. You can make a difference in every other thing, but everyone only sees cars because they don't know what goes on. How about pharmaceutical or fertilizer production waste? No? You don't care? Yeah, you only hate cars, you don't care about the environment. That hipster chick you liked in HS isn't going to have sex with you for buying an EV.
>>28998745I don't fucking care about the climate thoughever, I care about not going to the filthy gas station
>>28998900>Sheltered man is scared of gas stations>More at 11
>Why yes, I am willing to drop the price of multiple used cars to buy and charge an EV without using the grid.See? It's so easy
>>28998902>>28998900The gas stations where I live are nicer than the gas station where you live.both of you
>>28998914Why care, though?You'd pay money and give up a fun car to not be around other people?I'm 36, 135 lbs today. I live in a 2/3rds black place. I've never had a gun. I have zero fear about that. Why would you? I'm more nervous going into publix than the gas station where crackheads live behind it, not sure why.I just don't get why people are so scared of gas stations.
>>28998899>the existence of bad energy means there can never exist new clean energybad faith argument. EVs are superior to ICE and electricity can come from anything else besides what we use now.
>>28998922Is it? We could improve many, many things with bigger impact. You guys are just tunnel-focused on cars. Why?
>>28998921That's all projection. I gas stations where I live are nicer than the ones by you. Simple as
>>28998930No doubt. But if my scrawny unarmed ass if fine with the gas stations here, why would someone larger and more-armed be scared of gas stations elsewhere?
>>28998946Not my problem. The gas stations near me are nicer than the ones near you. Simple as
>>28998745You should actually look up the fuel mix of your power supplier, you might be surprised (if you live in a 1st world country at least).
>>28998959Okay? As I was saying, why be scared of your gas stations if they're so nice? What's there to be scared of? Are you going to drop $25k on a solar setup and more for an EV off your trade-in to avoid 5 minutes at a gas station every week or two?
>>28998766Yes but in 2 stroke.
>>28998962>why be scaredI'm not. The gas stations near me are nicer than the ones near you. Simple as
>>28998745The difference is you aren't farting pollution directly into my face you filthy street shitting savage.
>>28998976You've gotta try better at trolling than that.I guarantee the station nearest to me is nicer than whatever you have. Brand-new shell in the nicest neighborhood for an hour around.But, what does that do for me exactly? Do I appear to be concerned about gas station quality? When I lived on the other side of town people would bother you and try to get money, but all I ever had to say was "hey man, I only have card and I'm in a hurry for family stuff." Not a big deal, at all.
>>28998985I see you've pivoted. The gas stations where I live are nicer than the ones by you. Simple as
>>28998991My local gas stations no doubt are shittier than yours. Black majority, but no one will fuck with you. People ask for money, but you just say no and they don't fuck around. No gas station, especially the "hot" ones don't have cameras, they're not going to do shit.
>>28999001>My local gas stations no doubt are shittier than yoursSimple as
>>28998773motorcycle derangement syndrome
EV's don't work everywhere. They might in some countries, where the temperature is in their range and the infrastructure is in place. We don't all live there. Fortunately gas powered options are improving in some areas.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DADPd4AiSeA&t=599sAI warning
>>28998904Bruh, my neighbor spend $55,000 on his solar grid.Doesn't even charge a single Model Y overnight.That's $55,000 @ 5.8% interest since it was rolled into his mortgage.
>>28999008But why should I care?I actually enjoy going to the gas station. Parking the miat, stunnin' on all the fatties by being the the hottest guy there, checkin' out the chicas, grabbin' some liquor. IDK, I don't know why it bothers people so much, it takes 2-10 minutes. Usually 2.
>>28999018My next door neighbor added the Tesla wall mounted battery and made that work for him. Unrelated, but the cameras on his car identified the thieves stealing his BMW motorbike (he got it back,thieves charged). I'm not that fond of Tesla's myself, but I understand why people like them.
>>28999022Sounds like you care a lot since you keep replying to the fact the gas stations near me are nicer than the ones near you
>>28998837I heard that school books for kids in elementary/middle school in my yuropoor country don't even mention anymore that plants use greenhouse gases to grow but rather they only demonize greenhouse gases as dangerous. I guess the marxists completed their long march through the institutions.
>>28998773Kek, bikefags can carry on seething
>>28998868>there is no scenario where driving around with a miniature power plant under the hood produces less emissions than an EV. even with everything else that could possibly be factored in. ICE is the most inefficient way of transporting people.Not really. There are lots of transmission losses and loss in and out of the battery. Plus a huge energy cost and toxic emmissions in making a battery and a lot of CO2 if you care about that, which scientifically speaking you shouldn't.
>>28999527all the shit you're talking about is already factored in>>28998813 and as you can see, EV is still cleaner.
>>28998773He died
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-21/evs-are-much-lower-emitting-than-combustion-carsMy BloombergNEF colleague Corey Cantor just published a detailed report on the lifecycle emissions of electric vehicles, looking at everything from average battery pack sizes by region, battery manufacturing emissions, current and projected electricity-generation emissions, day- and night-time charging trends, and more.Corey comes to the same conclusion that virtually all other independent studies have: EVs have lower lifecycle emissions than their internal combustion counterparts.Even in places like China, where coal still plays a large role in power generation, EVs have lower emissions overall. The reduction is around 27% there, compared to 71% lower in a market like the UK, where coal has been mostly pushed out of the generation mix. In a market like the US, an EV becomes a cleaner option after about 25,000 miles of driving, which is about 2.2 years for the average US vehicle.The power sector is changing rapidly, with more clean generation capacity being added to the grid. This means that by 2030, the breakeven point will have moved up significantly in all regions. An EV made in the US in 2030 will be lower-emitting after a year of driving, while in China, it will be after just over four years, based on current trends. Battery recycling eventually will push EV emissions down even further, as will localizing battery production closer to demand centers.One final caveat to all vehicle lifecycle emissions work is that most studies (including BNEF’s) don’t include emissions from refining and distributing gasoline and diesel.These fuels don’t just appear at the pump, and anybody who has driven by an oil refinery can see the vast scale of our current energy infrastructure. This is a tricky area to pin down, but global refinery emissions are somewhere around 1.4 gigatons of CO2 annually. That’s a few percent of global CO2 emissions.
>>28999638There's a lot more to pollution than CO2. A lot more.
>>28999638been trying to tell the chuds this all along. if you're a truck hating redditor, why don't you support EVs? they are superior for transportation.
>>28998748False. The power plant has to run at a higher capacity to power those EV's. Yes, the power plant is still there in the ICE/deisel scenario, but it's putting out less emissions because it's not pumping out as much power.
>>28999655Yes, which is why combustion engines are let off the hook way too easily. I hate how these cancer generating cars are still allowed in my city.
Git gud Amerifatsos.
>>28999658They're gay
>>28998773
The only shills remaining for ICE cars are either MAGA tards and jeets. The Hormuz disaster was proof enough how shitty it is being reliant on petrol instead of multi-sourced electricity with a million backup mechanisms.
>>155792919which one is the bag of frozen peas
>>28998745>>28998766>>28998773I love diesel power motorcycle
>>28998752Still the cheapest and most reliable method of electricity generation.
>>28998858And let's never forget all the energy still locked up in America's beautiful clean coal.
>>28998745The obvious message here is that a gasoline car has neither issue
>>28998899People focus on cars because 99% of them see driving as a chore and wouldn't do it if there were a reasonable alternative. Driving should be a hobby.
>>28998829But EVs weigh as much as them now
>>28998923DudeWeedLmao
>>28999860but they don't>>28998881>a model Y is 4000 to 4400 lbs. compare that to something like a Rav4, which is 3300 to 3700 lbs.
>>28999663>. The power plant has to run at a higher capacity to power those EV's. Yes, the power plant is still there in the ICE/deisel scenario, but it's putting out less emissions because it's not pumping out as much power.source?
>>28998813>>28998748When the time comes to replace all the batteries on EVs once they inevitably degrade and become unusable, that's when the fun will start.
>>29000124ironic since EVs outlast any euroslop luxury brand. If you don't mind replacing the engine on your BMW/Audi/Merc every 100k miles, (which will cost more than a battery) why care about this? people have been telling you for decades that euro slop luxury doesn't last and you still shill them.If you give a shit about vehicles lasting, you should be a fan of trucks. but you're probably one of those redditors who makes threads saying how no one needs them.
>>28998748Being this stupid must be a bliss. No worries.
>>29000137so how do you explain >>28998813
>>29000124>When the time comes to replace all the batteries on EVs once they inevitably degrade and become unusableBy that time, any ICE would have been sent to the scrapyard. Each year more and more range is added to EVs. Soon even a massive battery charge loss of 20% (means you've driven 400k+ km) will still result in a car with functional range. How many ICE cars are functional at that point without massive maintenance?
>>28999672>Git gud Amerifatsos.That's very similar to how it is in some parts of America though >>28998960
>>28999866Are the emissions from smoking 2 oz a week worse than a Tesla Model Y's in a week? (yes)
>>28998748Increased power usage still means increased pollution, retard.
>>29000219okay, but it's still EVs actually lower emissions even when factoring in power usage.>>28999638
Gas car:>emits fumes from car>emits fumes from gas station>emits fumes from truck transporting gas>emits fumes from refinery>emits fumes from ship transporting oil>emits fumes from oil wellsElectric car:>emits fumes from sheep farting while grazing under solar panels
>>29001160>Electric car:>>emits fumes from sheep farting while grazing under solar panelsI love how EVs fans all have sub-100 iq and think like cartoon versions of realityEVs are less efficient than ICE because batteries have orders of magnitude less power density than gasoline. You need to drag along a 1500 pound battery to do the work of 10 gallons of gas Your pea brain cannot comprehend how much MORE energy would have to be spent if everything was switched from ICE to EV. Which is why you haven't seen factories and trucking adapt to EV since that loss of efficiency also means millions of less dollars made.
>>29001196They've charged a an electric car with a diesel generator and filled an equivalent vehicle with diesel, and the EV used less diesel than the diesel car. Power plants are far more efficient, and they have stricter emission controls to reduce pollution. And then the grid is mixed, with renewables becoming the primary source of electricity soon.You're litterally in a discussion where op had a cartoon drawing of a completely false reality equating EV emissions to gas car emissions.
>>29001196its still more efficient than losing 60% of your energy to heat and sound
>>29001204>its still more efficient than losing 60% of your energy to heat and soundif you understood what orders of magnitude meant you'd realize that no it in fact isn't more efficient
>>29001196>all that retardationMeanwhile, in reality:https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
>>29001196>>29001235towing is the only situation where having gas is advantageous. Electric is far more economical in passenger vehicles
>>28998752how many solar panels does it take to make a solar panel?
>>29001196Moron. You're confusing power efficiency with power DENSITY. Petrol is dense as fuck but the internal combustion engine is only operating at 30% efficiency. The rest becomes heat. An electric driveline is over 90% efficiency. And remember this is not even factoring the extra petrol used to produce and transport the petrol you're driving with.
>>29001160>Gas car>Engine exhaust of Euro 6D car cleaner that the air entering the engine. Euro 7 standard engines are in development.>Electric car:>Brakes wear faster due to heavy weight, emits much more dangerous particles that causes cancer>Same with wheel tires.>Electricity loses on transportation unless you charging your car at power plant itself. While you can transport diesel or gas fuel around the world and it loses only a couple of droplets.>No technology to fully recycle batteries, wind turbines and solar panels other than burying them underground.>Battery wears off just by existing, needs frequent replacing. Battery production isn't quiet environmental friendly and costs as much as 40% of a new car.>To run 1 mln kms on an electric car you need at least 3 battery replacement and 8 engine replacements https://www.drive.com.au/news/tesla-model-s-to-clock-one-million-miles/
>>29000198Nobody smokes what they claim to. It's either next to nothing or way, way more
>>29001160What would be growing under a solar panel?And why even have them in a field instead of a rooftop or parking lot?
Tesla won
>>29002546>Brakes wear faster due to heavy weight, emits much more dangerous particles that causes cancerEVs have issues with their brakes rusting because they're not being used at all due to regen braking.
>>29002557They are placed there, too. They're placed everywhere.
>>29002588The thousands of Teslas I see with caked on brake dust beg to differ.
>>29002546Electric cars motor brake, causing almost no brake dust compared to ICE cars. Try again bud.
arent car tires and our cheap clothing the two biggest sources of microplastic pollution in our bodies? heavy EV's have much heavier tires and shed way more tire particulate, dont they? how come the environmental shills arent pushing for smaller/lighter vehicles?
>>29002597theyre still shedding massively more amounts of tire particulate, arent they?
>>29002599id love a small EV though
>>28998745I don't give a shit if EVs were powered by panda blood in cyanide capsules made by child slaves, full self driving has gotten so good at Tesla that's all I care about.Is it expensive? Well, it ain't cheap versus some used econobox. I don't give a fuck, it's cheaper than a chauffer.
>>29002599they have to redo all the microplastics studies because they realized their disposable gloves contaminated all the samplesits still probably pretty bad tho
>>29002588even in my prius the rotors rust if i dont intentionally brake hard once in a while and those have like 1/10 the regen of a EV
>>29000219engines are inefficient as piss, electric motors are genuinely efficientturbines and generators just as efficient because a generator is just an electric motor anywaytransporting electricity is 6 gorillion times more efficient than oil based anythingelectricity is literally magic, anon
>>28999674I only accept open wheel shit as a valid comparison to crotchrocket danger.Maybe the dragracing too but that's not the problem of the vehicles themselves.
>>29002914>engines are inefficient as piss, electric motors are genuinely efficientElectric motors just convert stored chemical energy into torque, that stored energy usually comes from power plants.>turbines and generators just as efficient because a generator is just an electric motor anywayOk, you haven't even looked into this at a base level. Traditional power plants run at 30-55% efficiency, then there are more losses in modulation and transmission.You burn coal or gas to boil water to create steam to spin a turbine to spin a generator then modulate it for transmission and every step, every phone pole, has losses.But yeah, sure, it's magic if you assume it's all solar. It isn't. It's mostly burning traditional "fossil fuels."
>>29002546>>Electricity loses on transportationYeah but I'm sure it isn't 70-75% like an engine just throws away into the air as heat and emissions.>unless you charging your car at power plant itself.You forget conversion losses, kek. It's never gonna be 100% but it's gonna be a damn side more than 30%.>While you can transport diesel or gas fuel around the world and it loses only a couple of droplets.Okay, think for a second what transported the fuel to your local gas station? Kek.>No technology to fully recycle batteriesWho the fuck said anything about recycling, if those shits are useless for a car they're still useful for my home solar.>8 engine replacementsThis makes no fucking sense though, electric motors basically don't fucking fail. I bet Tesla won't replace individual power electronics and will insist on swapping the entire drive unit. Maybe an oil change every 200000k would help it last, there's videos of people doing it on theirs.
>>29002925>Ok, you haven't even looked into this at a base level. I will admit I haven't.>Traditional power plants run at 30-55% efficiencyWell, I guess we're fucking doomed then, it's all shit.
Yo. EVfags. You have what you wanted.You got the $35k sub-4 sec monsters with self driving.Why do you insist on forcing them on everyone when you know now that electricity isn't magic free energy?Why not be glad that you can buy what you want at reasonable prices?
>>29002595Wrong, every parking lot I have to use is still an unbearable hellscape. And there's no shade, either.
>>29002599>>29002600It depends on how you drive and how heavy the car is. It's still nothing compared to trucks and lorries. The extra tire wear does not outweigh the gains from no brake dust and no engine exhausts.
>>29000114A source isn't necessary, it's basic common sense. A generator converts fuel to power. The conversion creates byproducts relative to the amount of fuel burned. If the generator is producing less power, it's burning less fuel, in turn creating less byproduct.
>>29003144most folks drive like retard (you can see their brake lights turn on on the hwy)cars in the 00's weighed around 2000lb, now everyone is driving 3000lb suvs, 4000lb teslas and 5000lb pickup trucks and they all seem to have lead feet
>>28998813>>28999638>ghg>co2All environmental policy is based on those complete spooks. It's all about creating energy scarcity at the end of the day.
>>29001920>Petrol is dense as fuck but the internal combustion engine is only operating at 30% efficiency. The rest becomes heat. An electric driveline is over 90% efficiency.I'm talking about NET of the entire system, you fucking idiot. You're the type of retard who gets confused by "per capita"
>>28998745It depends heavily on the energy source used to power the car, but EVs always breakeven with ICE eventually, even on 100% coal. It just takes longer. This is because EVs are roughly 4x more efficient than ICE, so while they have higher upfront environmental costs, they are better in the long run. My state is 60% nuclear and I have rooftop solar so my breakeven is going to be pretty quick.
>>29002936>if those shits are useless for a car they're still useful for my home solar.Retard...
>>29003320>it source isn't necessary for EVs causing power plants to burn more fuelso you made it up.
>>29003442Petrol is an extremely wasteful energy source for cars, faggot. Most of it is just blown in the air as heat.
>>29002941Same reason smoking is banned from most places: because pregnant women prefer non birth defected babies.
>>29003657That baby will pollute a lot more than my cigarette.
>>29003664So?
>>29002941are you being forced to drive an EV?
>>29001920>Petrol is dense as fuck but the internal combustion engine is only operating at 30% efficiency. The rest becomes heat. An electric driveline is over 90% efficiency.See OP’s picture. That’s the point of this thread. You can act like everything is nuke, wind, solar but it isn’t.The engine for EVs, in most of the world, is a power plant. The battery just stores energy generated elsewhere and it’s idiotic to pretend like that part doesn’t exist. China? EV Land? They get their electricity from burning coal.
>>29003732What’s this? 60% coal?? In the largest market on earth? Never! Electricity just comes from the wall!
>>28998745I only drive/own an EV because it uses a cheaper "fuel". Because I own a home and can charge it there.If you can't charge at home, they don't make any sense. I also waited to get one until I could get a good price on a used one.
>>29003737No one cares about you, Chang. In first world countries things are much different: >>28999672, >>28998960.
>>29003802Oh?>>28998899And picrel, US is 60% fossil fuels, we just replaced coal for natural gas. The power plant about a mile from me switched over to nat gas about a decade ago. Let's not discount that methane (nat gas) is 80+ *times* stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2.An executive order several months ago mandated that military bases have a source of (specifically) coal energy big enough to power the whole base should all other sources fail.Oh, and we're (the USA) also shutting down nuclear plants.Oh, and there was that time a few months ago where Trump paid a company $129 million to NOT make wind farms.Don't count your chickens...
>>29003813heh
>>29003824I live in Alabama, USA. I've got blue eyes, I drink bourbon and smoke winstons. My car was made in Hiroshima lol, I'm a weeb, fuck China so hard.You can't address the fact that electricity isn't actually magic free energy. A solar setup good enough for an EV is like $25-40k.
>>28998745Just to show you how retarded this argument is, evs can be charged by:>coal>natural gas>propane>gasoline>diesel>bunker fuel>solar>wind>Hydro>Hydrogen>nuclear fusion>nuclear fission>biomass combustion>geothermal>tidal>human powered generatorsGasoline cars can run on:>gasoline refined by oil jews in a refinery and shipped to a gas station. Evs are simply superior in every way.
>>29003873>Reverts to "muh jewz" when the US is a net exporter. We don't answer to the jews or opec, that's just Trump being a powerbottom.
>>29003873gasoline/petrol is a byproduct of oil cracking and while current cracking is geared towards increased petrol production i wouldn't mind at all if it became like used fryer oil and you can get it for dirt cheap because most people drove EVs and wouldn't be bothered enough with the upkeep required for regular cars.
>>28998852>$3,000 for 96 months When did Western Sky start selling cars?
>>29003882>We don't answer to the jewsHAHAHAHAHHAAH
>>29003882>We don't answer to the jewsHold up you CANNOT be serious rn.
>>29004268Did you not see the last part of my post? About drumpf being a powerbottom to the Jews? It doesn’t have to be this way.
>>29004271Every single buisnessman and politician in the united states of america is a power bottom to the Jews. AKA your country is run by the jews. Kayne west's crashout was a masterclass in realizing, and happened entirely because he woke up to the fact that for the entire duration of his career, he's been getting screwed by and sucking off jews. Your country is run entirely by and for pedophilic Jews.
>>29004274Yeah.
>>28998752Renewable energy is a scam.Solar panels have a limited life. While newer panels have extended lives, most are <15 years. When most panels they reach the end of their life, they are not recycled. They are simply thrown away (buried) because it's more economical to do so. Think of all the metals, plastics, electronics, etc that are used in the manufacturing of those panles. Additionally, think of the MILLIONS of panels that are need to be made to power a fraction of a city because they are so inefficient. Then balance out the effort it takes to make them.Wind turbines are the same. Thousands of gallons of hazardous composite resin and thousands of feet of (unrecyclable) aramid, fiberglass, carbon fiber, and nomex are used in the construction of the blades. Which, the turbine blades also have a life limit. Most being <15 years. Again, with the same problem as solar, you need so many turbines just to power a fraction of a city. Both are not reasonable to carry on in the long run. It doesn't make sense. Think of the pollution of the manufacturing process for solar and wind.
>>29004338the solution is simple. start a one child policy like china to reduce the size of cities, and use some of those government gibs to buy back old solar panels and wind turbine blades similar to cash for clunkers to ensure recycling is done.problem solved.
>>29004348Options for recycling composites is extremely limited.What are you going to so with resin-soaked aramid stuck to nomex? Nothing. The titanium that's sometimes used as core material, sure, but the actual composite layers, no. Solar panels would need to be methodically disassembled and separate out materials. Which is extremely difficult in electronics. That's why E-waste is such a big deal.
>>29004366if we put up with E-waste already we might as well go renewable energy. Id rather deal with E-waste than poison my lungs from air pollution.
>>29004370The answer is, and always has been, nuclear.Minimal air pollution, and small areas for waste burial, compared to e-waste or turbine blades which will be hundreds upon hundreds of unusable acres for burial.
>>29004338I love when petrol sniffers throw around these numbers as if the extracting and refinement of oil somehow produces no waste whatsoever.
>>29004381Nuclear takes decades to build and even then is very hard to maintain and has always the security risk that renewables don't have.
>>29004382No where in that post does it support oil. Nuclear is the only logical power production method.>>29004383Do your own math, humanity can't keep up with renewable energy options for the next 100 or 200 years.
>>29004390Nah nuclear is very hard to both build and maintain. It's not just a magic bullet. Also one nuclear meltdown is enough for a country to sour on it completely. The future is renewable energy sources. The materials needed will become cheaper, easier and more renewable to produce. That is how it goes with every new technology.
>>29004398>The future is renewable energy sources.Then the future is a bunch of extra landfill space.>The materials needed will become cheaper, easier and more renewable to produce. There are none. You consume oil to produce both wind and solar. Oil is utterly unavoidable when it comes to manufacturing and maintaining anything.We're going to have to find a different metric for comparing the actual footprint of various power production methods. Say unit of square landfill volume per Megawatt Hour or something similar.
>>29004398"Build" and "maintain" are doable. We've done it before, and we are doing it now.Burying things in the ground isn't. If we want to continue to live on this earth long-term, we need to make changes.
>>29004398>materialsIt's an unobtainable pipe dream. Childish, actually. Waiting for something that may or may not happen is not something you build policy on or make decisions on.You still need thousands of wind turbines to power one factory. The materials needed will be extremely bad for the environment, both to manufacture and to dispose of. Unless you start making turbine blades out of wood or something, but we know that if it's a renewable material, it won't last. Which means more effort needs to go into producing blades at a higher rate to replenish what's out there and we're back to square one with being detrimental to the environment.
