It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The fallacy of "electric" cars and what they should be called.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Are electric cars really "better for the environment"? Do they help to reduce our "dependency" on "foreign oil"?

Errrr, no.

In order to understand why, we need to consider the sources of electricity.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 67% of electricity comes from fossil fuels: coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

19% of electricity comes from nuclear energy, which generates tons (literally) of nuclear waste...

So 86% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear energy...

Lets call them what they are: fossil fuel/nuclear energy (waste) cars.

But in the defense of the "electric" car, 13% of electricity comes from hydro-power and "other renewables"... Mmm hmm, sure.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere
Depends om where you live. Over here 99.9 of our electricity comes from renewable resources. Maybe it is time you guys living in the past and are addicted to petrol fumes, catches up... But of course, we are idealists and liberals, that you view in disdain....



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
This is why the push for green energy is so forceful. Especially when it comes to the democratic presidential campaigners.

Our goal is to do away with coal, and natural gas (fossil fuels) all together and make the move toward wind, tidal, and solar energy.

Everyone keeps trying to evade this issue saying "We won't have enough power for our cities!"

This happens time and time again. But the real problem is people not willing to enhance, study, or experiment with it. At least not on a scholar scale. A lot of people have lost interest in it since it does not provide them a job as soon as they graduate.

And if you are having trouble believing in these three categories remember. We didn't believe in school that we would ever have smart phones. Everyone who was born in the 1970's til the 1990's knows we did not have smart phones AT ALL. Then all of the sudden we have them.

Stop trying to ignore green energy.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: GiulXainx
This is why the push for green energy is so forceful. Especially when it comes to the democratic presidential campaigners.

Our goal is to do away with coal, and natural gas (fossil fuels) all together and make the move toward wind, tidal, and solar energy.

Everyone keeps trying to evade this issue saying "We won't have enough power for our cities!"

This happens time and time again. But the real problem is people not willing to enhance, study, or experiment with it. At least not on a scholar scale. A lot of people have lost interest in it since it does not provide them a job as soon as they graduate.

And if you are having trouble believing in these three categories remember. We didn't believe in school that we would ever have smart phones. Everyone who was born in the 1970's til the 1990's knows we did not have smart phones AT ALL. Then all of the sudden we have them.

Stop trying to ignore green energy.


If green energy is viable, then the free market will develop it. The reason it hasn't taken off is because the cost relative to the effectiveness is simply not there for the vast majority of folks.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

If green energy is viable, then the free market will develop it. The reason it hasn't taken off is because the cost relative to the effectiveness is simply not there for the vast majority of folks.


But wouldn't you agree that since our "free market" isn't exactly a true "free market" that some industries may be restricting the development of certain green industries as well which make it more difficult for them to gain ground???



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Everything we do for electricity is very expensive. From fracking to boat spills, and nuclear reactors EXPLODING. (remember Fukushima?)

Accidents happen.

But fossil fuel, and nuclear accidents ARE MORE COSTLY.

Can you pull up a massive accident on green energy?

edit on 12232015 by GiulXainx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Digging up the minerals to make those "environmentally friendly" electric cars decimates large areas of land -- just not in the United States.

But as long as the environmental damage and destruction happens somewhere else, we feel fine about it.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Wow. Way to be way to negative and critical. You must work for an oil company and be fearing for your job.

Electric cars, like Tesla save literally tons of gasoline/oil. I've driven and ridden in one. Great cars! They really are-Electric cars.

But it's only a first step. Now that we know there is a demand and that these cars can be fast and sexy, there will be more automakers jumping on the electric car bandwagon. Like Porche is doing. We know that more renewable energy is being used every year. In 5 to 10 years we may be at 60-70 percent of all of our power from Electricity. I know that my house has solar panels and those solar panels create 90-95 percent of all the energy I consume.

By posting the op, you seem to be saying that we should never use electric cars, and why even try at all? LOL



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Living in Seattle they are your best bet. 100 percent of Seattle's grid is hydro.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I've read through the comments after reading your OP and I'm of the mind that as time goes by, there will an ever increasing push to build renewable energy facilities that will come to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels. In some respects that's already happening. But to understand the electric car phenomenon, you have to look at the entire big picture.

What you discover when you look at the bigger picture is that the planners in charge of all this and their political minions are working to build a future where the use of owned, personal transportation is severely reduced. Only the 1% will have Tesla automobiles. The rest will be reduced to public transportation, Uber, Lyft, or totally automated self-driving cars that will come to replace Uber & Lyft, (ironic that).

There are enormous benefits to the Elites in charge in ending personal transportation; it lends them unimaginable control over the commoners and makes the total centralized control of the economy much more feasible.

Of course this is all being facilitated by the Global Climate change agenda, so, yea, I get your OP, but.....you can't fight the future. Invest in Tesla and WIN!



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Are electric cars really "better for the environment"? Do they help to reduce our "dependency" on "foreign oil"?

Errrr, no.


Except "Errrr, yes."

Typical internal combustion engine: 20% efficient

Coal-fired electric power plant: 32-45% efficient
Natural Gas power plants: 32-60% efficient
Electric cars generate power at approximately 60% efficiency.
Hydro, Solar and Wind all clearly reduce our dependency on "foreign oil" and are "better for the environment"

Maybe we should call them "Electricity-powered vehicles which obtain their electricity from sources which clearly generate power more efficiently than internal combustion engines do, resulting in reductions, but not total eliminations in the use of fossil fuels as the ultimate source of power for vehicular motion." We could call the upscale model something like the:

Electricity-powered vehicle which obtains electricity from sources which clearly generate power more efficiently than internal combustion engines do, resulting in a reduction, but not total elimination of the use of fossil fuels as its ultimate source of power for vehicular motion GTS



originally posted by: gladtobehere
So 86% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear energy...

Lets call them what they are: fossil fuel/nuclear energy (waste) cars.


I'm fairly certain everyone is aware where electricity comes from. We all know Zeus doesn't just send a bolt of lightning into electric cars. "Electric-powered" or "Gas-powered" refers to the 'fuel' used to power the motor. Generally, for the sake of brevity, people don't get into details of how the fuel was obtained/extracted/produced in order to describe what type of motor the vehicle uses. Electric cars, if run on electricity produced by "fossil" fuels, still ultimately use LESS "fossil" fuels.


originally posted by: gladtobehere
But in the defense of the "electric" car, 13% of electricity comes from hydro-power and "other renewables"... Mmm hmm, sure.


What does that mean? You don't believe the well-documented numbers regarding "renewable" electric power generation? If only the Eyeroll of Ignorance was powerful enough to change reality, instead of just denying it.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Edumakated

If green energy is viable, then the free market will develop it. The reason it hasn't taken off is because the cost relative to the effectiveness is simply not there for the vast majority of folks.


But wouldn't you agree that since our "free market" isn't exactly a true "free market" that some industries may be restricting the development of certain green industries as well which make it more difficult for them to gain ground???


Our market is free enough that plenty of competitors have tried and failed to bring electric cars mainstream. Tesla has been the most successful to date. Yes, it is a phenomenal car but out of reach for most car buyers.

I have nothing against electric. In fact, I prefer it. I started converting large nitro powered 1/8th scale RC cars to electric way before most people even knew it was possible.

However, I realize that until the costs comes down enough so that the average consumer can afford it, green energy simply is not viable yet for mass consumption.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Las vegas some of calie Arizona all on hydro from the hoover dam we will probly see more hydro in the future why it's profitable when u don't have to pay for the energy



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

So what do you make of Elon Musk's assertion, that a space less than a fifth the size of a central state of the United States, would be all that is required to power the entire USA with solar energy? And when I say Elon Musk, I am not talking about some gormless halfwit of a stock broker, but the man who put together the team that made history by landing the first stage of a rocket, instead of wasting it as every other rocket launch to date has done, and also manufactures electric cars, and recently put to market the infrastructure to make those cars a going concern, not to mention revealing his intention to put together a huge solar energy factory called the gigafactory?

The man makes money like you and I breathe in and out, and did it by thinking it through every time. I recommend you adjust your assumptions.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: gladtobehere

So what do you make of Elon Musk's assertion, that a space less than a fifth the size of a central state of the United States, would be all that is required to power the entire USA with solar energy? And when I say Elon Musk, I am not talking about some gormless halfwit of a stock broker, but the man who put together the team that made history by landing the first stage of a rocket, instead of wasting it as every other rocket launch to date has done, and also manufactures electric cars, and recently put to market the infrastructure to make those cars a going concern, not to mention revealing his intention to put together a huge solar energy factory called the gigafactory?

The man makes money like you and I breathe in and out, and did it by thinking it through every time. I recommend you adjust your assumptions.


Amen. It's all true, and he didn't even talk about any hydroelectric or wind farm energy.

What people fail to realize is that battery and panel technology will increase as well as recycling techniques/technology and manufacturing technology. Also people fail to realize that Elon Musk has made his charging station technology/patents availiable to everyone ...for free and that none of that solar power space you're talking about is concentrated.

Meaning that each country could set up several smaller solar panel and wind farms and it would be a very small space indeed. So easy to do...we just have to want to do it. But with anything, it's the private sector that will take the lead. When the technology gets to the point that people can make money off of it, it will take off.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Where I live, the entire province of Manitoba is powered by hydro electricity.

We sell our surplus power across the border to states like North Dakota and Minnesota, as well as our neighbouring provinces Saskatchewan and parts of Ontario.

The surplus energy is an added bonus for us Manitobans because it keeps our own personal electricity costs as one of the lowest in North America.



Now if only they could come up with a viable technology for cars in -35 celsius temps... we'd be laughing.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Electric cars that are charging off power generated by anything other than solar, hydroelectric, or geothermal sources are significantly more polluting than internal combustion engines. I realized this from the beginning.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
out in Arizona back around 1990-1996... it was not uncommon to see solar powered, electric, vehicles riding around the Phoenix Metro streets

today's electric vehicles still use either sealed or flooded batteries which rely on a 120v AC power source to recharge the batteries (in a decent length of time)


until a cold fusion Fuel Cell is developed... or a hydrogen or plasma fueled, electric generation Fuel Cell is made the 'electric vehicle' will be on a 'short leash' as to existing recharging infrastructure.... or inclemate weather in using mobile solar panels

 


should we call them volt-mobiles instead of electric powered vehicles ?
I sure ain't gonna lose any sleep on calling them electric powered from fossil-/nuclear fuel energy...

the only hydrocarbon my electric vehicle carries is the gas can for my lawn mower
edit on rd31145093472323252015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: plaindoughnut
a reply to: gladtobehere

Living in Seattle they are your best bet. 100 percent of Seattle's grid is hydro.
In 2013, Seattle City Light only produced about 1/2 of its required power itself, granted this was hydro. However, almost 10% of Seattle's power was generated by a combination of petroleum and nuclear, with nuclear being the largest percentage outside of hydro.

www.seattle.gov...



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23



I agree, we now have an international agreement to drop carbon fuels, that means world governments will be going green. This really does mean that its the day of the Lithium battery, and the end of the "Big Game". What this means for oil when the big car production plants are all tooled up. Will be massive change, perhaps we are seeing petrol prices going so cheap to discourage the move to electric cars.
The future will be simply every roof will have solar panels, by law in the building code, the roof will be a solar electric production tool.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join