toldailytopic: Do electric cars help, or hurt, the environment?

[PureX]

toldailytopic: Do electric cars help, or hurt, the environment?

I think the idea of a small, inexpensive electric 'commuter' car is a great idea. And they would be especially useful in urban and suburban areas, where most people live. They are small (easy to park), quick and agile (for city driving), fast (can drive on expressways), and very economical. They are perfect for going back and forth to work and running errands.

Here is an example of what I mean: It's a single seat electric car called a "Tango".

If something like this were made available inexpensively, so that they could be used as a 'second' vehicle to the family gas guzzler, I think they would become very popular, and cut our fuel costs and pollution output by a big percentage.

Unfortunately, the company that produces this car decided to come in at the top of the market instead of the bottom by selling the cars with Boze stereos, Italian leather, and 0 - 60 / 4 second acceleration and 120 mile range, which makes the car cost too much. The result is they are only toys for people with a lot of money. They should have focussed on building simple and durable cars that they could sell cheap so that the cars could become what they were intended to be: economy commuter vehicles.

Most of our driving is done within a 40 mile range, and with one person in the car. If we had these things, I think we would use them most of the time. And it would save us all a lot of money, fuel, and air pollution.

 

[annabenedetti]

:idea: If there are no cows in your area, you could go Tango-tipping.

 

[Alate_One]

We don't have the infastructure to support it. By design I might add. Build 150 more nuclear powerplants, and then worry about the electric cars. Liberals know this, which is why they want it now. Because we can't power it. California can't, by their own law.

The nuclear plants will not come into being because then electricity would be cheap and plentiful, and the liberals don't want that. Electric cars could then have more range because you can always charge it overnight, and that is freedom, which they don't want. Are you seeing a trend yet? They want you on a bus that pollutes more in one day than a Honda Civic does in a year. Because it limits freedom. They will drive a Range Rover, they just don't want you doing it.

You guys can keep asserting nuclear is the answer to all of our problems ad infinitum, however nuclear power is problematic because of the waste and other reasons. There's nowhere to put it. Nobody, liberals or conservatives, wants a nuclear waste dump in their back yard. And who would considering the waste is deadly for thousands of years? Nevermind the fact that accidents make the surrounding area unlivable for thousands of years.

Nuclear is also not economical because almost no corporations want to take the risk of accidents, nor are profit margins high enough, and operation times required to recoup investment are so long as to no justify the investment required. ALL nuclear power plants are government supported in one way or another.

 

[PureX]

You guys can keep asserting nuclear is the answer to all of our problems ad infinitum, however nuclear power is problematic because of the waste and other reasons. There's nowhere to put it. Nobody, liberals or conservatives, wants a nuclear waste dump in their back yard. And who would considering the waste is deadly for thousands of years? Nevermind the fact that accidents make the surrounding area unlivable for thousands of years.

Nuclear is also not economical because almost no corporations want to take the risk of accidents, nor are profit margins high enough, and operation times required to recoup investment are so long as to no justify the investment required. ALL nuclear power plants are government supported in one way or another.

The solution is ultimately solar. All our energy comes from the sun, anyway, except for nuclear energy. Which as you point out is insanely toxic and can only be a short term temporary solution as a result.

So the question is, how are we going to gather solar energy and contain it for storage and transportation? Hydrogen is the universe's solution, and would seem to be a good one for us, too, since it fits into our ecosystem with no toxic effects. So I think this is the system we should be working at making viable.

But of course we aren't going to do that because the oil and gas companies own the government and they like the monopoly that they have, now. So there will be no real development of a solar/hydrogen system anytime soon, even though we already have the components necessary, and they just need refined and implemented.

 

[Delmar]

For those who want government involvement, the best thing they could do is create/ encourage the infrastructure to refill autos with natural gas. It is more plentiful, cheaper, and much cleaner than petroleum and could easily see U.S. through until the green technologies become practical.

 

[PureX]

For those who want government involvement, the best thing they could do is create/ encourage the infrastructure to refill autos with natural gas. It is more plentiful, cheaper, and much cleaner than petroleum and could easily see U.S. through until the green technologies become practical.

The clean fuel technologies will never become practical until we stop reaching for more stop-gap solutions. Natural gas is just another stop-gap solution. We need to make a determined effort to develop a real long term solution. The only question is are we going to start now, before things get worse in terms of costs and pollution, or are we going to continue screwing around with the expensive and polluting stop-gap measure until we've nearly destroyed ourselves? Either way, what has to be done still has to be done. But if we do it now, it's gonna hurt a lot less than it will if we keep putting it off.

 

[Yorzhik]

You guys can keep asserting nuclear is the answer to all of our problems ad infinitum, however nuclear power is problematic because of the waste and other reasons.

What are the other reasons? Because waste is not really a problem.

Did you know all the waste that has ever been produced by nuclear power is still at the remaining plants today? Wow... that's a tiny amount. And currently it is kept cool in baths, but it can be spread and encased with no need for liquid cooling. The problem has nothing to do with technological feasibility and everything to do with politics.

Nevermind the fact that accidents make the surrounding area unlivable for thousands of years.

This could be a problem. However, there haven't been enough accidents to really understand the scope of what the problem could be. It may not be as bad as the great gains we get in energy.

Nuclear is also not economical because almost no corporations want to take the risk of accidents, nor are profit margins high enough, and operation times required to recoup investment are so long as to no justify the investment required. ALL nuclear power plants are government supported in one way or another.

No, really, the cost of getting the nuclear material and building a safe plant are cheap compared to the fuel cost of coal. But the costs are escalated artificially by law and regulation.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hydrogen is the universe's solution, and would seem to be a good one for us, too, since it fits into our ecosystem with no toxic effects. So I think this is the system we should be working at making viable.

It has intense government support. But it isn't going to work.

But of course we aren't going to do that because the oil and gas companies own the government and they like the monopoly that they have, now. So there will be no real development of a solar/hydrogen system anytime soon, even though we already have the components necessary, and they just need refined and implemented.

There is a great deal of money being poured into hydrogen, solar, and wind. Remember Solindra? And the oil companies are fine with other power sources because they own a share in most of the alternative energies, if one takes off they make their money there, too, because we'll still need oil even if there is a viable alternative energy. The only reason alternative energy doesn't work now is because it can't work with technology we have now or the foreseeable future.

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.

 

[Delmar]

The clean fuel technologies will never become practical until we stop reaching for more stop-gap solutions. Natural gas is just another stop-gap solution. We need to make a determined effort to develop a real long term solution. The only question is are we going to start now, before things get worse in terms of costs and pollution, or are we going to continue screwing around with the expensive and polluting stop-gap measure until we've nearly destroyed ourselves? Either way, what has to be done still has to be done. But if we do it now, it's gonna hurt a lot less than it will if we keep putting it off.

We are sitting on 150 years worth of natural gas. That is a heck of a stop-gap.

 

[PureX]

We are sitting on 150 years worth of natural gas. That is a heck of a stop-gap.

That's a wildly exaggerated estimate, as they always are when people are looking to make a lot of money and want to convince us that it's a good idea. And there are already serious environmental problems involved with accessing it. It's like a drunk saying he'll stop drinking just as soon as he finishes the case of booze he already has. But of course he always comes across another case of booze before the one he has is completely emptied. At some point we finally will have to tell the profiteers "no more", and begin the task of learning how to live life like sober, responsible human beings.

 

[PureX]

It has intense government support. But it isn't going to work.

What an amazing crystal ball you must have!

There is a great deal of money being poured into hydrogen, solar, and wind. Remember Solindra? And the oil companies are fine with other power sources because they own a share in most of the alternative energies, if one takes off they make their money there, too, because we'll still need oil even if there is a viable alternative energy. The only reason alternative energy doesn't work now is because it can't work with technology we have now or the foreseeable future.

The reason big oil owns so many other energy start-ups is to make sure they have no real competition. They have been raking in record profits for decades, and intend to continue doing so for as long as they can. So they use some of those huge profits to buy out any energy start-up that has a viable idea for alternative energy. Then they shelve the technology. And they've been doing this for many years.

This is why other countries have surpassed us in new energy technology. Once again we have allowed the greed of our big corporations to stop our nation from doing what it should be doing to ensure it's own future. We don't need the government to fund alternative energy, we just need them to put the brakes on corporate greed. But it's too late. The corporations own the government, now, so they can pretty much do as they please. And so they are. And the result is that you will be paying record high prices for any form of energy, indefinitely.

Welcome to the New World Order.

 

[PureX]

For the purposes of this discussion, let me play environmentalist for a few minutes. Are Electric cars really non-polluting? Actually electric cars hurt the environment. Here's why. Despite the 'green' image of the electric car, they are less efficient and yes polluting. The electricity has to come from power stations which are polluting in themselves. Most of the world's electricity comes from fuels which produce an exhaust no cleaner than car exhaust, such as coal. I still see, today, mile long coal train shipping coal to these power plants. Electric cars simply transfer their emissions from the tail pipe to the power station. That's not the whole story. There's the heavy battery. There isn't a real efficient nonpolluting recycling system in place for processing all of these Lithium Ion batteries in place as of yet. There isn't much of a market for thier after products when they are recycled.

Electric cars are far more efficient energy users. That's how they are less polluting. Combustion engines waste a LOT of their energy as heat. And then use even more energy trying to keep themselves cooled. Electric motors don't waste energy as heat, and so don't need to waste even more energy on cooling themselves. Also, electric motors are also electric generators. So they can be used to generate electricity as the car is being slowed down. Whereas a combustion engine is wasting fuel every time the car needs to slow down or is stopped.

 

[Delmar]

That's a wildly exaggerated estimate, as they always are when people are looking to make a lot of money and want to convince us that it's a good idea. And there are already serious environmental problems involved with accessing it. It's like a drunk saying he'll stop drinking just as soon as he finishes the case of booze he already has. But of course he always comes across another case of booze before the one he has is completely emptied. At some point we finally will have to tell the profiteers "no more", and begin the task of learning how to live life like sober, responsible human beings.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't demand low-impact technologies that reduce the footprint of drilling, but there are forces at work that will vilify every effort for me to continue to have my own vehicle, not matter how "green" the technology.

 

[PureX]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't demand low-impact technologies that reduce the footprint of drilling, but there are forces at work that will vilify every effort for me to continue to have my own vehicle, not matter how "green" the technology.

This is going to take longer than your vehicle is going to last. So no fear, there. All I'm saying is that fossil fuels are finite and polluting every step of the way. So why not start NOW at ridding ourselves of our dependence on them. Sooner or later we will have to develop a solar-hydrogen system, anyway, so let's be the world leaders in this technology. That would be good for both us and for the whole world.

But this isn't going to happen as long as the current energy conglomerates can control the market and continue to exploit fossil fuels for big profits. The problem with switching to natural gas is that they are are still going to price-gouge us, they will do even more environmental damage getting at it, and we will still be driving vehicles with combustion engines 30 years from now. And ALL of these things are going to be BAD FOR US. Good for the fossil fuel conglomerates, but bad for the rest of the world.

 

[Yorzhik]

What an amazing crystal ball you must have!

PureX is going through a stream on a horse. He wants to jump off the horse he's on because it poops too much and jump on to a horse that doesn't poop. Delmar and Yorzhik are riding with him and tell him "there's no horse to jump on to." But PureX sneers, "What an amazing crystal ball you must have!"

P., the vast resources the government has wasted on alternative energy has left us with nothing. Just enjoy your oil and coal until we actually have something to replace it with in at least the foreseeable future.

The reason big oil owns so many other energy start-ups is to make sure they have no real competition.

Oh, yeah "let's put a pile of money into those businesses so we can make the companies that get it lose it all!" Dude, you have a serious thinking problem. The reason they are putting money hither and yon is because they know oil will run out some day and they still want to make record profits when it does.

The oil companies would love a form of energy that even PureX would love. Then they'd sell it to you.

Then they shelve the technology.

Really? Can you name one? I think you are making that up.

This is why other countries have surpassed us in new energy technology.

Wow... I make my living as part of the new energy technology, and what you just said is very wrong.

 

[Nick M]

nuclear power is problematic because of the waste and other reasons.

What other reasons? And global warming from burning fossil fuels is not a problem? You see the pattern here from the heathen. It just doesn't want you having low cost energy.

There's nowhere to put it.

So then reactors have never had outages where they get refuled? Oh, I didn't know that.

Nobody, liberals or conservatives, wants a nuclear waste dump in their back yard.

If you had said I don't want a coal mine which kills constantly, I would agree. How many more miners have to die in collapses? Not that you care.

Nevermind the fact that accidents make the surrounding area unlivable for thousands of years.

Notice how it never offers an example? Google Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. Then you think about this lying scumbags comment about thousands of years.

Nuclear is also not economical

It is a fraction of the cost of all other forms of energy. It knows this, it is a liar.