Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars in a nutshell

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

politicallolcenter Rank: #81

Channel: automobiles

next random

Comment

oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Is-The-... -- The War On Coal Is Really Over

Tags: green | renrewable | Alternative | energy

+564

Views: 28339 Submitted: 10/12/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

It’s finally been found

662

Choose Wisely

457

Cards Against Common Sense

The Citroen Karin 1980

132

Man's new best friend

EA is the new Evil Empire

1741

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (121)

First 2 Last

[ 121 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#4 - summerizer#353 on commentsRank#353

Reply+138

(10/12/2017)[-]

Well firstly, it's generally much more efficient and cost effective to trap emissions at a power plant than in the exhaust of a car. You know, if your country has regulations governing such things because they don't want gasses and particulates pumped into the air.

Secondly, even if the emissions per joule of energy was the same or greater from the power plants at least you could position them out of the way, away from major human settlements instead of having millions of cars pumping out emissions. Look at how ****** the air quality is in any city.

#6 to #4 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply+3

(10/12/2017)[-]

Nuclear and hydro?

#7 to #6 - summerizer#353 on commentsRank#353

Reply+12

(10/12/2017)[-]

They're both good if you can get them going, but nuclear is really expensive and there's a massive stigma around it,k even though its extremely safe. Hydro is dependant on geography of course and can disrupt ecosystems.

#16 to #7 - anon id: 97cebda7

Reply+8

(10/12/2017)[-]

I'm pro nuclear, but there is one significant and real drawback. The outgoing cooling water has a measurable negative impact on the body of whatever it's exhausted to. I think that could be remedied by passive cooldown reservoirs or something though.

#133 to #16 - anon id: a7bacb5d

Reply0

(10/14/2017)[-]

Not true, water has to leave within like a tenth of a degree it enters. What do you think those huge cooling towers emitting steam are?

#8 to #7 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Replied to the wrong comment, oops.

#117 to #4 - anon id: 206f7093

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Please throw some energetic efficiency statistics for cars and fuel burning power plants.
I'm willing to bet cars are still more efficient burning fuel than traditional power plants, that make up most of the power supply anyway.
This is why in fact, electric cars would be less eco friendly than gas cars.

#118 to #117 - summerizer#353 on commentsRank#353

Reply+1

(10/13/2017)[-]

Diesel cars 41% max, 30% usually. Petrol cars 37% max, 20% usually. Although poor driving and sub par maintenance will lead to this being much lower. There's also

Coal power plants, 48% max, 30% low end. The only power plant efficiency lower than coal is solar but that's passive as opposed to burning something or transferring mechanical energy.

My point was that on large power plants you can afford to have very large and very expensive emission catching/converting devices that just wouldn't be viable on a car. So if all cars were electric the actual emissions would be far lower even for the same amount of power generated at the same efficiency.

#10 to #4 - anon id: 572198db

Reply-5

(10/12/2017)[-]

How far away though? This is one of the misconceptions of electricity - you can only push it so far down the line before losses overtake you - then you have to build the infrastructure to get the electricity to where it is needed - and importantly, the fuel to where it is needed. Look at Ontario, Canada. We could build a generating station up on Superior somewhere and send the electricity down to the South - Easy fuel in by boat, a decent project to put in the lines south, but by the time the electricity gets here there'd only be about 50 electrons left. So bigger plant, more fuel, more infrastructure, and it becomes not worth it. So generating needs to be built near the customer, and everyone gets all NIMBY about it.

#14 to #10 - summerizer#353 on commentsRank#353

Reply+5

(10/12/2017)[-]

For high voltage transmission it's around 1-2% for every 160Km, which comparatively is very little.

#5 - animesource#178 on contentRank#178

Reply+34

(10/12/2017)[-]

This agenda is useful for oil companies.
We have hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, which are mostly harmless. Could also add nuclear power which doesn't pollute either except for used fuel storage.

#27 to #5 - theonetheyfear

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

if you watch the process of making solar panels and how much chemical wast there is you would be surprise

#9 to #5 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply-3

(10/12/2017)[-]

Windmills are **** though.

#11 to #9 - trollmobile#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+7

(10/12/2017)[-]

not in reliably windy areas.

#12 to #11 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply-10

(10/12/2017)[-]

Because high cost per watt, human deaths, wildlife impact, and goddamn ultrasound torture in a huge radius are such good things.

#15 to #12 - anon id: 97cebda7

Reply+16

(10/12/2017)[-]

I live in windmill central, and as a person who has spent years living around them, including stupidly breaking in and climbing one as a teenager. I can safely say that most of that is bs. The ultrasound thing is fake, and half the time they say it's infrasound instead. I have seen a couple dead birds, and I'm sure that I'm not seeing every bird that has ever died in the vicinity of a windmill, but still, it's few. About as many dead birds as I've seen anywhere else. I've read that it can be a factor when windmills are first built in an area and birds don't know what they are, but they learn quickly. Birds aren't stupid, think of how quickly they learned not to trust people. The only real thing I can see being a problem is that some people think they're ugly. I don't think so, but I believe it. People thought telephone and light poles were an eyesore at first too.

#92 to #15 - anon id: 79be9e89

Reply+1

(10/13/2017)[-]

I did a report on wind turbines once. The kill rates are something like this
Wind turbines: 40,000 birds per year
Tall buildings: 100,000 per year
Feral cats: 4,000,000 per year

Turbines are really not that bad if you have wind. Texas works well because our peak wind is very close to peak consumption of power.

#96 to #92 - funnytime

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

additionally keep in mind there are over 50k wind turbines in the us - statistically not even one bird each turbine

#19 to #15 - mrgryphon

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

There's a campaign against building a wind farm on the outskirts of the city I live in. People here are pretty educated regarding windmills, so the major argument of the campaign is "They're an eyesore."

#24 to #12 - trollmobile#245 on commentsRank#245

Reply+3

(10/12/2017)[-]

sounds like you've swallowed plenty of coal-industry propaganda.

#29 to #24 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply-4

(10/12/2017)[-]

Nah man, coals the worst.
Windmills still **** doe.

#17 to #12 - shamblerdk#471 on commentsRank#471

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Better than carbon dioxide poisoning though.

#28 to #9 - epodax

Reply+4

(10/12/2017)[-]

Uh, sweety, here in Denmark 42% of our energy is provided by wind mills.

#30 to #28 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Probably because you're a rich flat nation with no nuclear.
Doesn't mean it isn't terrible.

#31 to #30 - epodax

Reply+2

(10/12/2017)[-]

Erh yeah, kinda does, I mean, I know politicians are stupid and everything, but a country wouldn't get 42% of it's energy from something if it didn't work and didn't work well.

#33 to #31 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply-1

(10/12/2017)[-]

Dude, you have the highest electricity cost in Europe.

#35 to #33 - epodax

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

Nah, it isn't that bad.

#36 to #35 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-expl...

And mind you, Denmark is way warmer than your nordic brothers.

#38 to #36 - epodax

Reply+2

(10/12/2017)[-]

In fact, if you just look at the "base price" we appear to have the cheapest electricity, apart from kosovo.

#37 to #36 - epodax

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

Mind you, 40% of the prices are taxes, which, in general is really high in Denmark, but that doesn't have anything to do with the productivity / how well Wind mill works.

#39 to #37 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Almost as though those taxes goes to cover the costs of the power infrastructure.
But to be fair neither of us know.

#40 to #39 - epodax

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

Well, I know (sorta), In Denmark we have a very different culture and we don't pay for Hospitals / Schools / etc, etc etc, which costs a **** ton of money, so, one way to get a reliable income to pay for these things is to tax something everyone uses, electricity.

#41 to #40 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

>Different culture from your other nordic countries
Yeah right.

If it's one thing politicians love it is to create different taxes as to cover different things.
Imagine if there was only income tax, then they couldn't get away with taxing way more through more subtle ****.

#42 to #41 - epodax

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

That's a completely different debate though, and one I am not qualified for, because I hate the living **** out of our shady government and wish some one would kick them out and go through all the "tax this and that so we can put more money into our own pockets."

#43 to #42 - sinery#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply+2

(10/12/2017)[-]

Windmills, they're evil I tell you.

#1 - grimfuck#54 on commentsRank#54

Reply+24

(10/12/2017)[-]

Smell that Smug!

#34 to #1 - darktoucan

Reply+3

(10/12/2017)[-]

#20 - flnonymousseven

Reply+19

(10/12/2017)[-]

what do you think is more efficient?:

one large fossil fuel motor power plant powering ten thousand electric cars

or ten thousand tiny fossil fuel motors powering 1 car each

what do you think is better for the environment?

always remember to think critically.

#73 to #20 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply-5

(10/12/2017)[-]

Efficient? Or better for the environment?
Those are two different and separate things.
Critically lumping things together is a critical error a lot of people make in the most critical way.

#113 to #73 - ronaldkun

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

'Efficient' would be better for the environment, dumbass, that means less fuel and less pollution for more energy. Furthermore, emissions are easier to control in a large scale plant than in millions of small engines.

#21 to #20 - anon id: 3d97e6c8

Reply-14

(10/12/2017)[-]

The internal combustion engine, with modern catalytic converters are the cleanest most efficient producers of power for the individual. To believe otherwise you must accept the lie that CO2 is pollution. Its NOT. CO2 is literally plant food and global warming being caused by humans is a lie to create world wide wealth redistribution.

#23 to #21 - flnonymousseven

Reply+6

(10/12/2017)[-]

not an argument. my point still stands. the CO2 comment is irrelevant.

> for the individual

well duh.

but producing anything on a larger scale will always be more efficient

#75 to #23 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

Just because it's more efficient on a larger scale, does not necessarily mean it is more better for the environment on a more larger scale.
The two things DO NOT equate.
Now answer my question instead of thumbing me down for being mad, cause you bad.

#76 to #75 - TheMather

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

More efficiency = less fuel consumption = less pollution.

#78 to #76 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

A lot of vehicles today have measures in the exhaust systems to make the pollution being produced by the engines to be inert. While as a general rule, this is true, but when you scale a LOT of things up, the amount of pollution they generate scales up as well. Not to mention that a lot of people only look at one, very small aspect of any part of production. What about the pollution caused by mining coals? How about the train hauling the coal to the power plant? All the employees driving to work and back? These lists can go on, and on.

If you want an accurate representation to compare, you better look at the whole picture, and not select one part of it to fit your argument.

#80 to #78 - TheMather

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Again, the higher efficiency results in a lower fuel consumption. While the generator will consume more fuel than a single car, it will consume less than the ten thousand cars it can power.
This means it produces less pollution than those ten thousand cars.

It also takes less energy to haul the coal and the workers to the power plant than it takes to first haul crude oil and workers to a refinery, and then haul the petrol to a gas station.

#87 to #80 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Lotta people wanting to kill the old way. Not so many wanting to come up with the "new" one.

So, let me propose a different question to you.
If you wanna get on the environmentally friendly train, why don't you start with literal tree farming, after all, slow tree growths can help offset the pollution caused by harvesting said trees. Thereby resulting in a more environmentally friendly paper towel.

Now, as to what is really better for the environment? I can tell you it's not the CFL nonsense that the EPA wants to ram down people's throats. Cause LED's top of the mountain right now, maybe soon followed by lazer lights, even more efficient.
I know it's trickier, but STOP EXCHANGING heat into an air-conditioned house, exchange heat from the refrigerators and freezers OUTSIDE FFS.
STOP with the "soluuurrr is freeee" garbage, that's ********. It's free if you NEVER maintain it, and steal it from a rich neighbor. And go without electricity whenever there's no sun.
Seriously tho, why are the residential-level wind turbines so gods-damned expensive? And un-promoted? Mechanical efficiency is there, we have a magnetically levitating train, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY. Not to mention car alternators. And the king of green power, hydroelectric. I'd bet your coal efficiency that if some jackass had not been in charge somewhere, and residential wind power was more promoted, this whole energy crisis spiel would already be licked.
Natural gas. Houses, cooking, heating, **** those coolers/freezers for meats, dairy, and produce at Wal-Mart? (Apparently cheaper than electricity or something, IDK.), cars (Oklahoma has enough LP stations that you can drive across the state in an LP car, that was the reference.), 0 emissions, too. (Seriously, the tech is already here. Been around for decades.). (Seriously, it ranks #1 on fuel for me, followed by diesel, then steam, and gasoline Gasoline is the worst fuel. .)
If you still feel like you have to push solar, then do an active solar system, none of this passive piezoelectric pandemonium, it'd be great for water heaters, and a supplement to a heating unit.

But nobody cares about this kind of thing. As long as they save the whales from evil diesel and ****, they can rest easy.

#93 to #87 - TheMather

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

I'm Norwegian, we have already killed the old way.

Norway is actively farming trees, we have outlawed deforestation, and our forests are actually growing bigger. Plus we additionally pay to effectively "rent" large parts of the Brazilian rainforest to protect it from deforestation.

Refrigerators need to exchange the heat to inside, because most fridges use a particular type of fluid that is very efficient at carrying heat, but sensitive to temperature. If the "hot" side drops below a certain temperature, this causes a chemical reaction that turns it into a gas, rendering it useless. There are alternatives that could be used, but the reduced efficiency already kills any energy savings from air-conditioning the minute difference a refrigerator makes.

For green energy production, Norway is already at the top of the world at 98.5% hydropower. And I'm pretty sure the remaining 1.5% is for purely practical reasons, like backup generators, and off-the-grid locations.

#104 to #93 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

I did not know that about the refrigerators. However, I do have a way around this problem. The idea does need more work, granted.
Heatsinks, or heatspreaders. Even though, technically speaking, being too cold outside should be an issue of reversing the heat exchange, as you'll more likely want to keep the heat in and the cold out.

#107 to #104 - TheMather

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

I only know because a friend of mine who works at a household/hardware store is a specialist in appliances.
Heatsinks don't work like that. All they are is a large surface area that conducts heal well, they only help something reach ambient temperature, not more or less. As for reversing the flow of heat, that would require more advanced hardware and some form of control system, and would waste a lot of energy in addition to being more expensive to produce.

#108 to #107 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Your control is temperature. All you need is a switch, some kind of thermostat. Since you're moving liquid, you don't really need to reverse the pump, you just need a way to re-route the flow such a way that it inverts the direction of the thermal exchange. Some type of valve...

#77 to #75 - flnonymousseven

Reply-1

(10/12/2017)[-]

I assumed you were baiting because you said something absurd with no supporting logic or evidence. if you want a serious response, try to form a serious argument.

efficient refers to more than just power output.

larger systems can have more efficient exhaust filtration systems
less power can be lost to radiant heat.
less power is lost to breaking and idoling.
on a whole, in a larger system less fossil fuel is consumed and more power can be produced with less waste and exhaust.

#79 to #77 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply+1

(10/12/2017)[-]

I'm going to refer you to this.
/channel/automobiles/Electric+hybrid+...
Get back to me when you get all that factored in.

#81 to #79 - flnonymousseven

Reply-1

(10/12/2017)[-]

you seem to assume we'll be using coal forever.

#82 to #81 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

I seem to assume that electric cars are the "future," and the .0000000000000014% efficiency of solar panels is NOT going to break the winds.

#83 to #82 - flnonymousseven

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

it's almost like technology improves as time goes on.

plenty of countries use wind and solar to cover large portions of their power needs.

dude, I get it.

environmentalists are insufferable, self righteous pricks and "green technology" is gonna wast a WHOLE lot of time and resources before it catches up and becomes worthwhile. And sometimes theres a rewarding sense of smug self satisfaction in going against the flow and hanging on to the status quo.

but is this REALLY the hill you wanna die on? trying to convince people that fossil fuels are better than renewable energy sources?

I mean, for a LONG time, horses were better than cars. cars were slow, expensive, inefficient and broke down a lot. most people used horses for years. but over time the technology got better.

same thing with computers. are you really gonna be the guy who clings to horse and buggies type writers and paper records? who shuns new technology because is has obvious initial shortcomings that will take time to overcome? are you SURE you want to be remembered as that guy?

#84 to #83 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/12/2017)[-]

Nuclear is more efficient than coal. There's a not so relatively new method for containing nuclear wastes. You don't hear about it much, and a lot of people are willing to shun the idea for whatever reason they make up.
But to say coal power is more environmentally friendly than gasoline cars to the guy who is waiting for the concept of LP cars to get out of Oklahoma You won't get this one, but I forgive you. , is like saying that the "all electric" semi fleet Wal Mart blabbered about 3 or 4 years ago, is going to kill the trains.

This goes back to a question I would ask of people who believe the ********, and won't look for better paths. Which one is more environmentally friendly, the electric hand dryer, or the paper towel?

#85 to #84 - flnonymousseven

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Can't say I agree entirely, but I see where you're coming from.

#88 to #85 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

/channel/automobiles/Electric+hybrid+...

#22 to #21 - bakonforall

Reply+3

(10/12/2017)[-]

#89 - anon id: a3a436fb

Reply+16

(10/13/2017)[-]

this is ****** ********, they're not perfect but electric cars are a positive an necessary step. **** off back to mommy''s basement redneckbeard

#90 to #89 - GeneralLeeInsane

Reply-5

(10/13/2017)[-]

Say that again, off anon, to me.

#115 to #90 - avatice

Reply+4

(10/13/2017)[-]

this is ****** ********, they're not perfect but electric cars are a positive an necessary step. **** off back to shaniqua you dumbass ******

#101 - captnnorway

Reply+12

(10/13/2017)[-]

OP has "political" in his name
OP is mentally retarded

coincidence?

#122 to #101 - simulatedsim

Reply-1

(10/13/2017)[-]

OP is named PoliticalLOLcenter
finds funny political memes because they're funny.

Now you however, will get offended over a funny political joke so I daresay you are the mental Midget

#125 to #122 - mrfeelbad

Reply+2

(10/13/2017)[-]

But this is not funny or political

#126 to #125 - simulatedsim

Reply-1

(10/13/2017)[-]

The funny part is subjective, and ever since Al Gore got so many votes from Eco friendliness it's become a new voter base and has become political

#127 to #126 - mrfeelbad

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

I still say it's not objectively funny more along the lines of look electric cars still run on fossil fuels since alternative energies aren't viable. There's no joke or gag. And environmental issues are only political if you drag political stuff into it

#128 to #127 - simulatedsim

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Anything is political if you drag political stuff in it, I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is.

Little secret, I'm half certain the joke is in environmentalists getting pissed at the reminder that their eco friendly cars don't change much and having them get riled up in the comments, seeing as half this post's comments are exactly that.

#129 to #122 - captnnorway

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

I get offended by political "jokes" because every one I see is straight up propaganda and I've blocked the channel because I don't want to see them. I wouldn't have this problem if the political faggots would ideally get off the site or at least stick to their little containment channel. Even ponyfags manage that, but I guess when you have the brains of a mule even people who **** horses are smarter than you.

#132 to #129 - simulatedsim

Reply0

(10/13/2017)[-]

Fair enough on the Channel issue

#119 - petresko

Reply+5

(10/13/2017)[-]

> I can draw a comic so anything I draw is automatically true without question.

#95 - anon id: f9e8bfce

Reply+5

(10/13/2017)[-]

I remember reading about this argument a few years back in an article. Unfortunately I don't remember where the article was from but they cited a study on the cost per mile and the amount of pollution generated per mile for the average electric vehicle against the average gas powered vehicle. What was found was that electric vehicles end up costing far less per mile and, when considering the sources of electricity such as coal power plants, they actually end up producing less pollution per vehicle. So, while the post above shows a large power plant being run to what I am guessing is a substation, with a few wind turbines producing a small amount of power, what it fails to mention is that this single power plant could produce the power for thousands of these cars. So, picturing all this **** to just power one car is a tactic to mislead the viewer into thinking electric cars are somehow bigger polluters than gas powered cars.

#44 - nigalthornberry

Reply+5

(10/12/2017)[-]

>Wind being the only source of power
***** there's hydro, Solar and Nuclear which are also pretty good.

My problem is what it takes to create the E-cars and what it takes to maintain them

#100 - funnytime

Reply+3

(10/13/2017)[-]

We have problems with emissions not only globally, but regarding cars mainly in big cities. in many places there are already limits to cars emission-wise, because it would harm our health otherwise. electric cars are the only option to solve this problem in the future, if we want to keep on using cars as we do it now. since electric cars dont need fossile ressources, they can be a technology we can use much longer than our cars with combustion engine, which has no future once fossile fuels become too expensive.

the later part of the comic impies that wind generated energy has no use/effect, this is missleading to wrong. its a renewable source of energy that works quite well. every kind of energy-production has its up- and downsides, but being against renewable energy production is short sighted and naive, since we have no choice but using these at some point.

First 2 Last

[ 121 comments ]

Add Comment