Electric cars 'pollute more than petrol or diesel'
151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924700]what's a better energy storage technology then?[/QUOTE]
Battery's are basically already at the height of power storage and because of the Universe and how it works, won't be able to store any more significant amounts of energy. Methods of storing more are way to expensive as of right now.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37930969]Sorry, I should have been more specific. Nuclear [B]power[/B] incidents. Of course weapons testing is going to be destructive. That's part of why it doesn't happen anymore.[/QUOTE]
bohb hates nuclear energy, you won't be able to convince him otherwise.
[QUOTE=bohb;37930949]If the government is completely ignorant to security around and in nuclear facilities (remember the three old farts that easily broke into a nuclear facility just a week ago?) What is going to stop incidents like this again? It's ignorant and stupid to say that one gross violation of policy or one meltdown is going to prevent all future disasters. This doesn't even take into account the forces of nature or climate change that would present new dangers to old reactor locations previously thought safe.[/QUOTE]
Okay firstly, coal, natural gas and oil has produced a larger amount of disasters that have had far reaching affects beyond the first few months.
Secondly, it makes business sense to actually make Nuclear power plants as safe as possible, and if we don't always go to war. We shouldn't have to worry about our Nuclear power plants actually getting into any serious security issue.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37930432]We don't do that because we couldn't be sure what would happen to it after, or during. We don't want to, for example, accidentally end up dumping it on Mars or something after we have a base set up there. Not to mention that we'd look pretty dumb to any other intelligent life out there that sees it.
Or, you know, if it explodes on the launchpad...[/QUOTE]
Fuck it exploding on the launchpad. What if it explodes 500,000 feet in the air?
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;37931138]Fuck it exploding on the launchpad. What if it explodes 500,000 feet in the air?[/QUOTE]
Well, then we all get free plutonium! Also, cancer.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924700]what's a better energy storage technology then?[/QUOTE]
Fuel cells. Hydrogen powered vehicles are our best bet.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37931724]Fuel cells. Hydrogen powered vehicles are our best bet.[/QUOTE]
If I recall correctly there's no cheap way to harness Hydrogen for energy. Oh and it's less efficient than gasoline.
[QUOTE=mchapra;37931759]If I recall correctly there's no cheap way to harness Hydrogen for energy. Oh and it's less efficient than gasoline.[/QUOTE]
It's also infinitely more abundant and far cleaner than petrol. There's arguments for and against all methods of powering cars and shit but the crux of the issue is we can't keep using crude oil based compounds.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37931895]It's also infinitely more abundant and far cleaner than petrol. There's arguments for and against all methods of powering cars and shit but the crux of the issue is we can't keep using crude oil based compounds.[/QUOTE]
I'm not against it but really, we haven't found a way to cheaply harness it yet, or make cars that can use it efficiently if that is ever possible.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37931724]Fuel cells. Hydrogen powered vehicles are our best bet.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319909000603[/url]
[QUOTE=mchapra;37931928]I'm not against it but really, we haven't found a way to cheaply harness it yet, or make cars that can use it efficiently if that is ever possible.[/QUOTE]
I can personally guarantee that it will become efficient in the next decade or two, pretty much all we need is an effective way to store the hydrogen or produce hydrogen in the engine and a cheap enough catalyst and material sciences is booming just now with all the shit from nanotechnology and other branches of physics.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37932006]I can persoanlly guarantee that it will become efficient in the next decade or two, pretty much all we need is an effective way to store the hydrogen or produce hydrogen in the engine and a cheap enough catalyst and material sciences is booming just now with all the shit from nanotechnology and other branches of physics.[/QUOTE]
Yes, pretty much all we need is to solve the core problems with the technology.
I do agree with you though, I worked with some catalyst that was pretty damn effective by cost and not too difficult to prepare.
The storage and re-usability aspects are trickier.
[QUOTE=monkey11;37926224]
[video=youtube;N2vzotsvvkw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw[/video][/QUOTE]
I just wanted to repost this
[QUOTE=MightyMax;37930400]i don't see why we don't shoot off nuclear waste into the depths of space, surely a million dollar rocket is better than a billion dollar facility and containment vessels.[/QUOTE]
Another stupid idea, maybe dump it into volcanic fissures. Optimistically it should sink because uranium is heavier and denser than rock and so it wouldn't likely be ejected out, and would later dissipate deep inside the Earth. I wouldn't risk trying this though. Imagine a volcano erupting a load of radioactive ash
[editline]6th October 2012[/editline]
[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.
[/QUOTE]
Any object that sticks out of the ground and is exposed to wind sucks energy out of the atmosphere. Stupid mountains stealing our energy.
Electric Cars are only good for the environment if you look at them from the time you buy it, to the time you stop using it. Then the batteries get disposed of, but before that, they have to be made and shipped using materials from across the planet. They should be used to help get off our dependency of oil, but shouldn't be looked at as a Eco Friendly Carbon Neutral Green thing
[QUOTE=TheTalon;37935315]Electric Cars are only good for the environment if you look at them from the time you buy it, to the time you stop using it. Then the batteries get disposed of, but before that, they have to be made and shipped using materials from across the planet. They should be used to help get off our dependency of oil, but shouldn't be looked at as a Eco Friendly Carbon Neutral Green thing[/QUOTE]
These components are bought in massive bulk, so there is negligible impact on the environment from shipping them. Batteries are usually disposed of in clean manners.. they're definitely eco-friendly.
[QUOTE=bohb;37930282]It's experimental at best[/QUOTE]
France runs [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France"]nearly 80% of its electric shit off nuclear energy[/URL] and you're calling it "experimental"?
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
[QUOTE=bohb;37930282]
Coal is millions of times cleaner than nuclear energy, even though it is a finite resource. When properly burned, coal creates carbon rich soot and mostly carbon dioxide; Both of which are naturally recycled by plants.
[/QUOTE]
Coal causes huge amounts of damage every step of the way, from mining to burning. Not to mention all the deaths past and present, and ongoing damage due to air and water pollution. It is not a clean technology with wastes like mercury as well. I do agree that uranium based nuclear isn't a safe long-term bet because of human error, but coal is not the solution.
[QUOTE=bohb;37930282]If nuclear energy was so advanced, we wouldn't have had more than a dozen nuclear disasters that had world wide negative implications of all types of life. We also wouldn't be looking for places to bury the hazardous spent fuel rods and associated waste for 100,000+ years for it to be safe to be within 100 miles of.
Nuclear energy isn't advanced, and it isn't safe. It's experimental at best and Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown us this more than enough to stop trying to use it. There are far less dangerous alternatives to it.
Coal is millions of times cleaner than nuclear energy, even though it is a finite resource. When properly burned, coal creates carbon rich soot and mostly carbon dioxide; Both of which are naturally recycled by plants.
It's hilarious you think burning coal is fucking future generations. While it may cause minor problems for the near future, 100 millenia from now, people might not even remember why half the planet is uninhabitable due to nuclear waste potentially escaping and contaminating everything.[/QUOTE]
You know that soot is the result of incomplete combustion right? It's not a good thing that soot is created, and CO2 is a monumental problem right now.
The planet isn't becoming uninhabitable because of nuclear waste, frankly our nuclear waste is a flash in the pan. CO2 is forcing massive changes on our planet, changes that we're not even sure if we can stop or slow down.
Coal is fucking choking us, slowly but surely, Uranium isn't doing shit.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37924443]Clean coal, it's also currently our most abundantly feasible energy resource.[/QUOTE]
putting the word clean in front of something doesn't make it actually clean
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924700]what's a better energy storage technology then?[/QUOTE]
The Ultra-capacitors [url]http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/24-ultracapacitors-electric-vehicles[/url]
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37931724]Fuel cells. Hydrogen powered vehicles are our best bet.[/QUOTE]
Except then you still have to manufacture and transport hydrogen. Plus hydrogen is a bitch to keep contained both in terms of maintaining a liquid state and the fact that the smallest leak will result in a total loss pretty quick.
Meanwhile batteries would be reusable for a considerable period of time and would continue to improve. You might buy a new battery pack for your car years down the road (As the electric motor will likely outlast you) and get improved capacity or better reliability under adverse weather conditions. There isn't a whole lot you can do with a hydrogen fuel cell. The energy density is fairly low and the number of improvements will be relatively minimal in terms of performance.
It's funny that people drive more energy efficient sports cars then people do drive electric consumer cars.
Until electric car prices go way down, and lithium is more available, this will always remain an excellent and [I]proven[/I] concept, kinda like a space shuttle.
I know there are other problems with hydrogen, but why do people always mention crash-safety first. Most fuels tend to be dangerous if they release their energy too fast.
Ever seen what happens when you whack a nail into a laptop battery?
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;37971333]I know there are other problems with hydrogen, but why do people always mention crash-safety first. Most fuels tend to be dangerous if they release their energy too fast.
Ever seen what happens when you whack a nail into a laptop battery?[/QUOTE]
I think it's because when anyone hears "hydrogen", "crash", and "explosion" together they instantly think "Hindenberg".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.