How Electric Cars Save The Planet

[Boges]

18 hours ago, reason10 said:

Maybe you should be asking why termites should have as much right to emit as much CO2 into the atmosphere, SINCE THEY EMIT MORE THAN ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY COMBINED.

And maybe you should be asking why CO2 is even an issue when it takes up LESS THAN A FUGGING PERCENTAGE POINT OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES?

I don't think it's particularly controversial to ask for a cite on these two claims. 

[Boges]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:08 PM, eyeball said:

The key to making EV work more sustainably, mind you we could do the same with conventional cars, is complete hands free automation and discouraging private vehicle ownership in densely populated areas. IE you simply google up a car and have it pick you up, drop you off before its takes off to pick up it's next passenger(s).

Completely replacing every privately owned conventional car with an EV car isn't necessary.  We have an opportunity here to both use less resources plus reduce clogged roads.

Or mandating Remote work were possible. 

Having Rent-a-Cars available for given trips only works if their availability matches high commuting times. 

I have to drop my kids off at the sitter/school and head to work in another town at 7:30 am. How does that get done by an automated car considering most of the population is likely doing the exact same thing at the same time. 

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, Boges said:

How does that get done by an automated car considering most of the population is likely doing the exact same thing at the same time. 

Bigger cars carrying more passengers - or a big fleet of small passenger vans or small buses.

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Bigger cars carrying more passengers - or a big fleet of small passenger vans or small buses.

I think you've invented the Bus. 

People won't sacrifice the convenience of a private vehicle unless forced to. 

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think you've invented the Bus. 

People won't sacrifice the convenience of a private vehicle unless forced to. 

The cost of stuff will probably do that. I expect a lot more bicycles in the future.

[Boges]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The cost of stuff will probably do that. I expect a lot more bicycles in the future.

The sight of adults on silly Electric Scooters has risen exponentially. 

[herbie]

I's argue for hydrogen but they've already convinced everyone that the most abundant element in the universe is too expensive to obtain.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I's argue for hydrogen but they've already convinced everyone that the most abundant element in the universe is too expensive to obtain.

It is at the moment and most of it comes from natural gas.

[Aristides]

21 hours ago, reason10 said:

What resources are we using? Can you even NAME ONE? (While you sit there drooling all over your keyboard, we already know you can't.)

Maybe you should be asking why termites should have as much right to emit as much CO2 into the atmosphere, SINCE THEY EMIT MORE THAN ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY COMBINED.

And maybe you should be asking why CO2 is even an issue when it takes up LESS THAN A FUGGING PERCENTAGE POINT OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES?

Name the resources. Or admit you are stupid.

A. or B.

Just like the school you dropped out of.

Well first you would have to teach someone who is too stupid to understand that termite farts are a result of eating vegetation that was already rotting and releasing the same amount of CO2 without a termite doing anything, as opposed to digging out carbon from the earths crust that has been stored for millions of years and burning it.

Or a normal carbon cycle as opposed taking carbon that had been stored over millions of years and injecting it into the environment over a few decades.

Until that sinks into their fat heads, nothing else is possible.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It is at the moment and most of it comes from natural gas.

Of course it does, the oil companies OWN natural gas. Just like ethanol ONLY comes from corn.... no human has ever made alcohol from anything else!

Where else does hydrogen come from? What's 70% ov the planet made of?

[Aristides]

45 minutes ago, herbie said:

Of course it does, the oil companies OWN natural gas. Just like ethanol ONLY comes from corn.... no human has ever made alcohol from anything else!

Where else does hydrogen come from? What's 70% ov the planet made of?

Separating it from water requires huge amounts of electricity. Cost is why natural gas is used.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Separating it from water requires huge amounts of electricity. Cost is why natural gas is used.

It costs to separate the H2 any way you do it. Electricity is one of the cheapest and easiest ways. Same way as rhe fake panic over charging EVs, at night when peak use is down. And behind dams where the water already is. Or with wind that also blows at night,, tidal and geothermal and solar on sunny days.

Only a couple years ago green electrical production also was 'too expensive', it sure isn't now. We use what we have, we solve the problems that come up. We don't bow to vested interests to influence what must be done.
Just think, a fuel cell that delivers tha power in your car eliminates any range anxiety about going CO2 free, But it then will face the ire of battery companies too.

Take the water. Electrolyse the water. release the oxygen into the air. Burn the hydrogen ebacki as water vapor, it rains back down, fills the dam to start it again. Perfect renewable and sustainable  cycle.

[Aristides]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

It costs to separate the H2 any way you do it. Electricity is one of the cheapest and easiest ways. Same way as rhe fake panic over charging EVs, at night when peak use is down. And behind dams where the water already is. Or with wind that also blows at night,, tidal and geothermal and solar on sunny days.

Only a couple years ago green electrical production also was 'too expensive', it sure isn't now. We use what we have, we solve the problems that come up. We don't bow to vested interests to influence what must be done.
Just think, a fuel cell that delivers tha power in your car eliminates any range anxiety about going CO2 free, But it then will face the ire of battery companies too.

Take the water. Electrolyse the water. release the oxygen into the air. Burn the hydrogen ebacki as water vapor, it rains back down, fills the dam to start it again. Perfect renewable and sustainable  cycle.

A recent UVIC study found that BC would have to at least double its generating capacity to go all electric by 2055

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-electricity-requirements-for-ground-transportation-2055-1.5341996

 

Quote

Crawford said hydrogen-powered vehicles weren't considered in the study, as the model used was already complicated enough, but hydrogen fuel would actually require more electricity for the electrolysis, when compared to energy stored in batteries.

 

. How many millions of hectares of terrain are you going to cover with wind and solar farms. BC has also been a net importer of power for most of the last decade. The only two rivers left to dam are the country's largest salmon producing rivers. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Aristides

[herbie]

In 2021, B.C. exported 11.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity and imported 7.5 TWh.
Site C is not online yet and will produce up to 6.1 TW per year. There's barely any solar & wind here, it hasn't been needed, tidal is being tried with minimal effort and geothermal is laughable here in the most active part of Canada.

We saw that research paper, but the 'demand for EV charging' is overly speculative at best. You obviously can;t run only BEVs the huge distances here, so the supposed 'growth' in vehicle use is a wild pessimistic guess.
This is not half a billion people in Europe with hundreds of years of rail transit. You gotta realize this 2035 'no ICE' vehicles ban is to make you get an EV or transit to go to work and back, not to go grocery shopping in Fort St John only on the day the supply train gets in or make the residents of Stewart pay to get bread and milk dropped from planes.
When most people have PHEVs w 100km battery range, fuel cell vehicles, and they actually improve the mileage of ICE engines the rules will change.

Like i said in another thread, ten years later the rating on a Jeep like mine has improved only 0.1L/100km. That's utter bullshit. And the kids here "needs" and F350 4x4 with the biggest honking engine they make. costs more than a house and lives in Mom's basement. Slow learners all of us.

[Aristides]

46 minutes ago, herbie said:

In 2021, B.C. exported 11.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity and imported 7.5 TWh.
Site C is not online yet and will produce up to 6.1 TW per year. There's barely any solar & wind here, it hasn't been needed, tidal is being tried with minimal effort and geothermal is laughable here in the most active part of Canada.

We saw that research paper, but the 'demand for EV charging' is overly speculative at best. You obviously can;t run only BEVs the huge distances here, so the supposed 'growth' in vehicle use is a wild pessimistic guess.
This is not half a billion people in Europe with hundreds of years of rail transit. You gotta realize this 2035 'no ICE' vehicles ban is to make you get an EV or transit to go to work and back, not to go grocery shopping in Fort St John only on the day the supply train gets in or make the residents of Stewart pay to get bread and milk dropped from planes.
When most people have PHEVs w 100km battery range, fuel cell vehicles, and they actually improve the mileage of ICE engines the rules will change.

Like i said in another thread, ten years later the rating on a Jeep like mine has improved only 0.1L/100km. That's utter bullshit. And the kids here "needs" and F350 4x4 with the biggest honking engine they make. costs more than a house and lives in Mom's basement. Slow learners all of us.

 

Not always. 

https://thenarwhal.ca/clean-b-c-is-quietly-using-coal-and-gas-power-from-out-of-province-heres-why/

 

Did you bother to read the article? It factored in Site C which will only increase generating capacity by 11.8 %. We would need the equivalent of 8 more Site C's to meet 2055 requirements.

BC will require all new vehicles to be zero emission by 2035. So we agree that is not possible.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Aristides

[herbie]

14 hours ago, Aristides said:

BC will require all new vehicles to be zero emission by 2035. So we agree that is not possible.

Obviously... or there will be a hell of a lot of old vehicles on the road. Already tickes me off at how many pre-DRL vehicles I see on the highways.

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Obviously... or there will be a hell of a lot of old vehicles on the road. Already tickes me off at how many pre-DRL vehicles I see on the highways.

Yes, I expect many models of ICE vehicles will appreciate in value once they can no longer be purchased new. 

[herbie]

DISC channel will have a new show, guys buying $25,000 Dodge Neons and restoring them. Flogging them for $75,000 which will be half the price of new subcompacts by then.

FB listings for 2025 F150s for twice the price they were bought for....

[Boges]

On 10/24/2023 at 3:59 PM, herbie said:

I's argue for hydrogen but they've already convinced everyone that the most abundant element in the universe is too expensive to obtain.

Extracting it is energy intensive and usually requires a fossil fuel source, which is counter productive. 

If Hydrogen can be produced using green sources, it becomes a viable option. 

[Aristides]

I think I would rather have a hydrogen fuel cell EV than a battery EV but I think we are some way from that being a viable option.

[Boges]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I think I would rather have a hydrogen fuel cell EV than a battery EV but I think we are some way from that being a viable option.

Sure and those cars exist, with limited infrastructure. I don't know of any places that support Hydrogen Cars in Canada. 

But honestly. Being able to charge your car at home, when you can, is a game changer. I don't think I'd go back. 

Where Hydrogen is sold as a fuel source for a car, there isn't much of a savings. 

[herbie]

15 years ago there were no BEVs and no charging stations at all.

Now many are using the exact same argument (they aren't there R.F> now) with hydrogen.
Also worth noting is the related development of ammonia as an easier to transport fuel source.

[Boges]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

15 years ago there were no BEVs and no charging stations at all.

Now many are using the exact same argument (they aren't there R.F> now) with hydrogen.
Also worth noting is the related development of ammonia as an easier to transport fuel source.

As I said, the lack of EV infrastructure is less of a problem because most EV owners have an avenue to recharge at home. 

Hydrogen definitely has a role to play in the movement away from Fossil Fuels. 

I think it will be required to decarbonize International Shipping and Commercial Air Travel. 

We need to bolster Green Electricity first though, because Hydrogen derived from Fossil fuels is somewhat pointless. 

[Aristides]

Net zero shipping and aircraft will require synthetic fuels and possibly hydrogen. There are no viable power plants to replace existing units in large ships or aircraft.

Some airlines are experimenting with synthetic blends now.

[Gaétan]

Battery vehicles are not a responsible choice because of the waste of resources and the pollution generated by the extraction of minerals and recyclable does not mean recycled, you will have tons of batteries which will accumulate like bottles that we don't know what to do with and which will pollute the environment, you would have to have multiple charging stations everywhere and wait an hour to recharge your vehicle, I see the queues appearing, that requires a network of huge infrastructure that needs to be built. When people are forced to wait 6 hours to recharge their vehicles they will buy one with hydrogen, battery cars are miserable and can hardly be used in the trucks which pollute the most. We must favor hydrogen, current service stations can offer charging which only takes a few minutes and allows you to drive more than 1,000 km on a single tank. To produce green hydrogen you need electricity but nuclear energy can be considered like wind turbines or the production of hydrogen could be done when the demand for electricity is less strong such as at night. The most ecological and future-proof choice is hydrogen. Hydrogen is an inexhaustible resource, it is everywhere in the universe. Battery factories will end up being big white elephants, they have no future. Billions in subsidies for battery factories are wasted money.

As I said you can not only take into account the gas emissions produced by the car, but every waste of precious ore and the overall pollution produced by the batteries in the end even the gas car has an impact less polluting, you are better off with hydrogen, wind turbines and nuclear power plants. Another case where the cure is worse than the disease.

Study: Electric Vehicles Pollute More Than Gas-powered Cars - The New American