• Electric cars 'pollute more than petrol or diesel'
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TestECull;37925766]They're hideous, they only work in certain areas, and then there's this... [video=youtube;7nSB1SdVHqQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ[/video] This all means wind farms only work in a select few areas. Other areas they either don't work, get attacked by NIMBYism, or explode when a storm rolls through.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you're saying coal power plants are 100% safe and have never ever blown up or exploded
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925768][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html[/url] I'm assuming this is credible.[/QUOTE] read the full article? [url]http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html[/url]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37925827]read the full article? [url]http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html[/url][/QUOTE] This is still saying what I was saying. Wind isn't fully green because it can cause undesirable effects on the climate.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925768][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html[/url] I'm assuming this is credible.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-wind-farms-are-not-causing-global-warming/2012/04/30/gIQAMl2GsT_blog.html[/url] The media blew the paper way out of proportion as they always do. [quote]The Daily Mail ran the headline, “Wind farms make climate change WORSE.” That’s wrong. [b]Zhou himself complained that the media coverage of his study has been “misleading.”[/b] [/quote] That's not to say that wind doesn't have it's negative environmental draw backs: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU[/media] They've been known to kill quite a few golden eagles. However, in relation to other power sources, killing a few birds every so often is far less negligent than pumping toxic gasses into the atmosphere .
I mean you can claim wind is preferable, or less dirty, and you would be correct. However, the term "clean" generally means no net impact on the environment, which isn't true in the case of wind energy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925907]I mean you can claim wind is preferable, or less dirty, and you would be correct. However, the term "clean" generally means no net impact on the environment, which isn't true in the case of wind energy.[/QUOTE] Well yes, There is really no form of energy production that's going to have zero effects in one way or another. But in a scale of dirty to clean, wind is far cleaner than a lot of what's out there. Solar being the cleanest.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925540]There isn't really a "clean" source of energy right now besides solar. Wind sucks energy out of the atmosphere which can have bad effects on the environment. Hydro-electricity fucks up the flow of rivers and can hurt salmon spawning(which has huge impacts on the environment at large) Nuclear energy has toxic by-product which needs to be disposed of properly in order to have negligible effect on the environment. Coal/Oil is already well known.[/QUOTE] Hydro-electric, while can be devastating to aquatic/riparian environments, is a tougher one to look at, because many of the dams have been around so long, that it might even be more disruptive to remove them, and if they are preexisting, might as well harvest out of them. That and the building of hydroelectric dams are a one time affect on that environment. Sure it is very drastic, permanent, and can be every bit as devastating, but it also does not have more repercussions as production continues, such as coal. I'll look more into wind energy, since you pointed raised that point, and I had not heard that before.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37925907]I mean you can claim wind is preferable, or less dirty, and you would be correct. However, the term "clean" generally means no net impact on the environment, which isn't true in the case of wind energy.[/QUOTE] no, your semantics is off "clean" means relatively little impact, not no net impact. wind and solar both can be considered "clean"
And yeah, as mentioned, "Clean" is a pretty relative term.
[QUOTE=monkey11;37925950]Hydro-electric, while can be devastating to aquatic/riparian environments, is a tougher one to look at, because many of the dams have been around so long, that it might even be more disruptive to remove them, and if they are preexisting, might as well harvest out of them. That and the building of hydroelectric dams are a one time affect on that environment. Sure it is very drastic, permanent, and can be every bit as devastating, but it also does not have more repercussions as production continues, such as coal. I'll look more into wind energy, since you pointed raised that point, and I had not heard that before.[/QUOTE] That one time affect on the environment can be devastating by itself though. As is the case with the Belo Monte dam they're building as we speaking in Brazil. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam#Environmental_effects[/url] [quote][b]Belo Monte's 668 square kilometres (258 sq mi) of reservoir will flood 400 square kilometres (150 sq mi) of forest, about 0.01% of the Amazon forest.[/b][62] Though argued to be a relatively small area for a dam’s energy output, this output cannot be fully obtained without the construction of other dams planned within the dam complex.[6] [b]The prognosed area of reservoir([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir[/url]) for the Belo Monte dam and the necessary Altamira dam together will exceed 6500 km2 of rainforest.[/b][/quote] [quote]The National Amazon Research Institute (INPA) calculated that during its first 10 years, the Belo Monte-Babaquara dam complex would emit 11.2 million metric tons of Carbon dioxide equivalent, and an additional 0.783 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent would be generated during construction and connection to the national energy grid.[68] [b]However, independent studies estimate greenhouse gas emissions of an amount that would require 41 years of optimal energy production from the Belo Monte Dam complex in order to reach environmental sustainability over fossil fuel energy[/b][/quote] [quote]The fish fauna of the Xingu river is extremely rich with an estimated 600 fish species and with a high degree of endemism, with many species found nowhere else in the world.[67] The area either dried out or drowned by the dam spans the entire known world distribution of a number of species, e.g. the Zebra Pleco (Hypancistrus zebra), the Sunshine Pleco (Scobinancistrus aureatus), the Slender Dwarf Pike Cichlid (Teleocichla centisquama), the plant-eating piranha Ossubtus xinguense and the Xingu Dart-Poison frog (Allobates crombiei). [b]An independent expert review of the costs of the dam concluded that the proposed flow through the Volta Grande meant the river "will not be capable of maintaining species diversity", risking "extinction of hundreds of species.[/b][/quote] [quote][b]Among the 20,000 to be directly displaced[/b] by reservoir flooding, resettlement programs have been identified by the government as necessary for mitigation. Norte Energia have failed to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from the Juruna and Arara indigenous tribes to be impacted by Belo Monte.[/quote] Dams can be awful, depending on location.
Wasn't there some research into graphene batteries recently? I remember something back around march. Extremely efficient in terms of weight. No idea how expensive, or environmentally friendly they were to produce though.
[QUOTE=OvB;37926041]That one time affect on the environment can be devastating by itself though. As is the case with the Belo Monte dam they're building as we speaking in Brazil. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam#Environmental_effects[/url] Dams can be awful, depending on location.[/QUOTE] I definitely agree, which is why I made sure to mention that in my post, but well thought out locations and careful considerations, can make for very beneficial dams. And like I said, sometimes the damage has already been done, so get the best out of it. [editline]5th October 2012[/editline] Also, Nuclear was brought up, and I think that this is an interesting video. A lot of people are already familiar with Thorium. On this guys paper, it's the perfect solution, but many disagree. Thoughts? [video=youtube;N2vzotsvvkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw[/video]
Wouldn't it be cool it we could somehow harness solar wind to directly create electricity
[QUOTE=RobbL;37926411]Wouldn't it be cool it we could somehow harness solar wind to directly create electricity[/QUOTE] Solar wind? Am I missing something or are you suggesting making wind turbine blades out of solar panels?
Well solar wind is basically a huge mass of charged particles
[QUOTE=RobbL;37926486]Well solar wind is basically a huge mass of charged particles[/QUOTE] Jokes aside, that looks really fascinating. Something I hadn't heard of before.
[QUOTE=RobbL;37926486]Well solar wind is basically a huge mass of charged particles[/QUOTE] Isn't the Ozone layer supposed to protect us from solar wind? Unless you're suggesting we spend trillions upon trillions to build space tether.
-snip forgot that I opened this page a few hours ago-
even if you charge your electric car from clean energy you car still is powered by a lithium battery, a device that is EXTREMELY toxic, both to manufacture and dispose of
Hydrogen Fuel Cells, I don't understand why we don't use them. There clean, cheap and cool.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]no shit sherlock also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] At least it's better than Tar Sands That shit is like giving mother Earth crystal meth.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]no shit sherlock also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://niggaupload.com/images/vLdF.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Killer monkey;37927391]Hydrogen Fuel Cells, I don't understand why we don't use them. There clean, cheap and cool.[/QUOTE] a: fuel cells are expensive b: we still haven't fully worked out the safety kinks yet (a crashing hydrogen car in 2012 can explode) c: no widespread infrastructure (pumps, refineries, fuel transportation) to make a,b, and c a reality requires money no one has right now
[QUOTE=The golden;37927427]Oil companies wouldn't get filthy rich off of them. It's really that simple. They have some things that need to be ironed out first like storage. Sadly nobody is really interested in investing in R&D about them.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bctransit.com/fuelcell/"]They are already on the road[/URL].. public transit trials for Hydrogen fuel cell buses are going well from what I've heard. Also the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_F-Cell"]Mercedes-Benz hydrogen fuel cell car[/URL].
[QUOTE=The golden;37927656]Yes, but the hydrogen is produced in Quebec and is brought to BC via fossil-fuel trucks. :v:[/QUOTE] Its airlifted in masses and lasts a long time, but its still loads cleaner.
this article makes no sense, electric is infinitely more efficient than gas, and the coal used to produce that electricity is 1000's of times more efficient than a diesel engine.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;37927798]this article makes no sense, electric is infinitely more efficient than gas, and the coal used to produce that electricity is 1000's of times more efficient than a diesel engine.[/QUOTE] And even if the coal is worse, the electric car can get energy from many different sources, including renewables, while a gasoline engine can't (without modifying it at least a little). Internal combustion engines need something to burn, but electric motors just need a source of electricity, and there's many, many different ways to get that.
Also producing electric cars may take a lot of energy but that is only a problem as long as most energy is fossil generated, this is why we need to change our energy sources as fast as possible, green energy devices do take more energy to be created but that just means we should invest that energy as fast as possible while the earth/society is still in a state were it can compensate it. A wind turbine produces the energy it uses in around 3 months at least here in Germany and counting the lifetime of one the "Joules/Joules" as in "Joules spent to produce enegy/Joules produced" is slightly higer than with coal but then again a higher requirement of energy to produce energy is no problem as long as the energy you invested is green.
[QUOTE=meppers;37927577]a: fuel cells are expensive b: we still haven't fully worked out the safety kinks yet (a crashing hydrogen car in 2012 can explode) c: no widespread infrastructure (pumps, refineries, fuel transportation) to make a,b, and c a reality requires money no one has right now[/QUOTE] Not to mention the main way to get hydrogen is through refined hydrocarbons (still releases CO2 into the air), or electrolysis, whose efficiency is 50-70%. Why don't we just make all our batteries with electricity from a renewable energy plant? Problem solved.
I wish solar was more efficient, and the idea to put orbiting solar arrays that beam energy down through microwaves was do-able right now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.