Haakon
has an accommodating arse
I think it does, longer term. Its several rungs down the order though after electricity, agriculture, deforestation and aviation...
Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,
- Thread starter John U
- Start date
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ty-urges-fastest-possible-action-on-emissions
The govt was blaming runoff:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/declining-water-quality
Wow - someone is about to be in big trouble.
The govt was blaming runoff:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/declining-water-quality
Gotta get your story straight, people.
Scotty T
Walks the walk
Thing is a 75kwh battery pack is way more than most ev's should have by about double. Range and power nobody needs, a luxury. A 35kwh battery pack that can be recycled at end of life is going to compete pretty well. Get the grid sorted and petrol is waaaaay behind.
Comparisons of model 3 and Polo are apples and oranges. A BMW M model or AMG Merc would be fairer.
I'm a car guy, fuck petrol in the tailpipe, combustion engines are just plain dumb.
Hard to believe this ad is from 2011:
This was 5 years ago:
Comparisons of model 3 and Polo are apples and oranges. A BMW M model or AMG Merc would be fairer.
I'm a car guy, fuck petrol in the tailpipe, combustion engines are just plain dumb.
Hard to believe this ad is from 2011:
This was 5 years ago:
rangersac
Medically diagnosed OMS
Nah not the magic bullet but they are an improvement. And as Scotty says 75kwh is massive overkill for most requirements. I'd say the sweet spot is around 40kW and I actually own two EVs. One a Mitsu Outlander PHEV and the other a Gen 1 Nissan Leaf. Both bought second hand as I'm not financial enough for the new stuff. The Outlander has a 12kWh battery, the Leaf a 24kWh. Even though the Outlander only has a battery range of 45km or so, that probably covers 80% of the driving it does. Do the maths on the larger battery in the Leaf and you are looking at around 18 months to break even point compared to the Polo. And living in Tas with 8.5kW of panels on my roof I can feel slightly confident of the emissions profile of the electricity charging it all comes from.
Anyway getting back to the original study and chart which provoked this discussion the big assumption in the comparison with the Euro ICE cars was the use of the NEDC fuel economy ratings, which as everyone knows from VW Gate are a massive exaggeration (in fairness the paper does note this). And as others have said there are considerably more benefits with EVs beyond emissions reduction. Far fewer service items are required (e.g. brake pads/ discs last waaaaay longer because of the regenerative braking, virtually no replacement lubricants), zero particulate emissions, noise pollution reductions etc.
SummitFever
Eats Squid
What could be quite good (esp. in Aust) is to use parked EVs during the day as a store of electricity (eg. charge them up while people at work using our abundant solar energy) and then use them to power the grid when plugged in over night in the garage. A bigger battery pack in each EV could be useful in those circumstances even if the range is not required.
This would a better environmental outcome than building a massive single purpose battery out in the middle of no-where that is a one-trick pony.
Cf. to the completely retarded "every home has a rain water tank" policy that was introduced around here at the last drought. The environmental damage done through making all of these stupid rain water tanks is enormous and thousands of times worse than just making our water storage dams bigger.
This would a better environmental outcome than building a massive single purpose battery out in the middle of no-where that is a one-trick pony.
Cf. to the completely retarded "every home has a rain water tank" policy that was introduced around here at the last drought. The environmental damage done through making all of these stupid rain water tanks is enormous and thousands of times worse than just making our water storage dams bigger.
Scotty T
Walks the walk
This would be just the most awesome MTB transport ever, plenty of room to beef up the vbattery pack too:
https://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=6101
https://forums.aeva.asn.au/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=6101
SummitFever
Eats Squid
Not all of them. Big ship engines are some of the most efficient thermodynamic devices ever made. I think its only recently that Mercedes has managed to make a F1 engine with greater efficiency (but only in the lab, not on the racetrack). If you want to get something from point A to B in the most efficient way, then a big ole bunker oil burning ship is the least environmentally damaging way to do that.Yep we can make all the graphs in the world and they won't change the laws of physics which state combustion engines are dumb
rockmoose
his flabber is totally gastered
Scotty T
Walks the walk
Shipping is different to dissing petrol engines in cars but a massive bit of the problem. I'd have to go study old mate's site to see the breakdown but guessing way bigger than domestic commuting and motoring. It just made me ponder if an environmental effect could happen inadvertently on Trump with tarrifs driving down imports and possibly exports because in the mental world we live in the same things sometimes go in and out of the same countries because of price. Same with the balancing of prices in our mtb market. Fly one whatever from Chain Reaction or 1000 on one of those efficient ships. I'm done with overseas purchases unless it's something I simply can't buy without importing it.
If you can provide enough electricity I'm guessing it still wins every time on pure input/output. Trains for example. If a ship could store lightning bolts in a flux capacitor we'd be laughing. Jokes aside ships are going hybrid too.
The future can have side load containers under a large solar surface. Wind assistance. Algal biofuels one day. We have loads of options that can make super efficient ships more so.
Planes though. We're fucked and that's more of a social problem in my eyes. Make it as expensive as it is to the planet in real terms. An easy fix nobody has the balls to do.
This
Scotty T
Walks the walk
It's pretty awesome. DC direct drive, they use brake pads fairly hard as there's no motor braking. It's probably 10k for a replacement pack, roughly 120km range for that. 10th year probably 90 depending how well you treated it. I really would love conversions to be an option but cars are made so shit these days it's not economical for non enthusiasts.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Planes can be dealt with using synthetic kerosene made from hydrogen made with renewables. You just won’t get $100 special deals to Bali anymore...
At least that’s for big long haul planes. Regional planes look like they might go electric sooner than thought.
At least that’s for big long haul planes. Regional planes look like they might go electric sooner than thought.
Last edited:
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Regional flights are not the big problem.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Which is why synthetic hydrocarbons from hydrogen feedstocks can be used in existing aircraft.
Super exxy to set up and scale up so I don’t see it actually happening any time soon... ICAO is focusing more on biofuels at present - look up CORSIA if you’re interested.
Shipping can knock out 20% of emissions just by sailing slower...
Hydrocarbons synthetic or real cause CO, CO2 etc.
Scotty T
Walks the walk
It used to be the cost of a cheap new small car to fly to the other side of the world and back.
Speaking of cheap cars after my bingle we have a Kia Rio hire. Smaller car and engine than the Golf but about 1.5l/100 worse off. And that's been us both trying to get it down. When we picked it up it was 8.5. It's at 7.5 now.
Golf long term is 6.0 mainly because the missus fangs it a bit. I can get 4.7 on my commute in the Golf if I try really hard. The Kia is rated at 5.5 but that would be really hard to get because it has so little torque.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
No, if the hydrogen is produced appropriately the synthetic fuel is co2 neutral - the C part of the synthetic hydrocarbon comes from the air so is simply returned upon combustion.
It’s why biofuels are also considered co2 neutral - the C comes from the air as the biomass (or algae) is grown and again is simply returned when combusted.
Either your explanation is shit or you are playing with words. Carbon locked inside your penis as coal is good. Burn your cock and the CO2 generated is bad.
Freediver
I can go full Karen
Not everything needs to be delivered quickly and the extra cost in labour would be less than the fuel cost. There is a couple of ships that cross the Atlantic with a giant spinnaker to reduce fuel use.
With the car thing that report talks about how electricity use meets demand and makes the assumption that countries with coal generation will increase output from their coal generators to meet demand. Australia's coal fired plants are already running at near 100% and extra demand is being met by renewables and gas. Buying an EV will mean new generating capacity is needed, I don't think it will be coal.
New renewable cappacity won't be made until there is a demand for more electricity, EVs will create this demand. As more renewables are brought in the % of electricity from coal will become less and the arguments that are used to keep them operating will look even dumber.