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: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Fossil fuels aren't exactly operating in a free market.

www.theguardian.com...




posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

And 2012 was 90 percent hydro.

Wonder why I don't see newer than that for data.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
So the UK and France will ban Diesel and Petrol cars by 2040! They will have newly designed, coal powered cars.

No joke!



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 09:38 AM
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.


Electric cars are much worse than gasoline cars.

Nobody is thinking about the pollution caused by extracting the special "rare earth" ores required for the batteries used in electric vehicles. As long as there are just "a few" electric cars on the road, it's not much of a problem. But, when electric vehicles become as ubiquitous as gasoline vehicles are today, then you'll see a big change in the pollution effect. Just ask those countries where "rare earths" are being mined today, about the pollution caused from mining. And then there's the "disposal" of all those batteries with rare earth pollutants into the landfills.

The only solution for automobiles, is to have "hydrogen" as a fuel. Extract the hydrogen using free solar energy, and burn hydrogen with oxygen to make water.

Even cars that run on hydrogen, and only produce H2O for exhaust, will cause a problem, eventually. Once the volume of the water vapor being produced by all those cars driving on the road reaches the critical point, the cities and towns will become "so humid" as to be unbearable to walk around.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
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

that won't last long though, the rate at which the water level in the lake is getting lower. With Vegas the fasting growing city in the country (or at least it was, ten years ago...) - I can't see the water level rising much any time soon.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Electric cars are much worse than gasoline cars.

Nobody is thinking about the pollution caused by extracting the special "rare earth" ores required for the batteries used in electric vehicles. As long as there are just "a few" electric cars on the road, it's not much of a problem. But, when electric vehicles become as ubiquitous as gasoline vehicles are today, then you'll see a big change in the pollution effect. Just ask those countries where "rare earths" are being mined today, about the pollution caused from mining. And then there's the "disposal" of all those batteries with rare earth pollutants into the landfills.

.....


Why are batteries ending up in landfill?! they should be recycled, reused etc. The technology for that is already here.
as with all things, battery power will increase, size will decrease, rare earth elements will decrease, etc.
edit on 26-7-2017 by CrastneyJPR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The idea behind electric cars autopilot or self-driving cars is to have the government exert full control over your movement and your traveling with the car. Also to track your exact location at any time.

The idea that self-driving cars improve safety is the real fallacy. Human drivers are not the greatest cause of accidents and most of the accidents that are listed for statistics as car severe injuries and death from car accidents are a Military NATO fraud.

Basically the EU/NATO misreport or do not report about war casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq or elsewhere, later on the deaths and severe injuries are contained among the statistics for car accidents, in order to cover up the actual amount of losses that te EU had in foreign wars. For example the Italian government claims around 450 deaths in the afghan occupation.
In reality that number is more likely 10.000 if not more. The rest of them is not reported by the media and the statistics agency "ISTAT" receives those numbers from the intelligence and are set as "deaths from car accidents"

Therefore the actual revolution with electric cars has been basically turned into a conduit for police state legislation. The actual technicalities for having batteries and electric motors in a car instead of an internal combustion engine have been proven in the past. Since about the 1920s

A better way to reduce car accidents is actually to fix roads in certain underdeveloped third world countries in the EU.

edit on 16-8-2017 by Flanker86 because: c



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I think the answer to all western orchestrated problems created by EU elitists and oligarchists, with respect to electric cars and other vehicles, can only be solved, and will be solved as soon as Asia starts building cheap EVs for export to the EU.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere
If they are not emitting fumes from exhaust pipes, they will at least be improving local environments.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.





I would agree all except for that one word.......replace folks with business and we are in agreement.

The simple fact that 100 times less parts are needed for electric cars to run as compared to combustion vehicles should be enough for anyone with an inkling of math to see where this is headed.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
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!


Tell me. Why would I spend 30K Euro to own something that sits idle in a garage for 22h/day? In my opinion a waste of resources.

I see society moving toward a future where people will no longer own their own car, but, just like uber now, order a car via an app when they actually need one, have them driven to where they need to go (via automation, much safer if one takes out the least reliable factor of driving, the human being), and then the car drives to its next customer. A much better use of resources. Moreover, i don't think my kids will know what it is like to actually drive a car by themselves.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: whismermill

Go with it. Be dependent.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If the west wanted to render transportation more leaning towards electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, why didn't they develop serious high-speed railroad interconnections.
We are very good at generating electricity and transporting electricity through wires, but not very good at storing electricity inside batteries.
So why not to exploit what we are good at, before going around babbling about electric cars for which the Chinese will soon present cheaper alternative to the economically unsustainable western made electric cars that we have right now.
The reason is that this is an attempt at oligarchical takeover of human mobility in the west, to actually do what they always preached around: REDUCE the amount of cars and the mobility of people to the levels it was back in the 19th century.
This is being attempted through an articulated and opportunistic trick, which they call electric car revolution.
As a positive note, this could lead to an unpredicted result. Maximization of efficiency for regular Diesel or Gasoline cars engines through technological advance.
One such thing could be the introduction of a revolutionary rotating engine that could replace all reciprocating engines, and work with Gasoline or Diesel. That would suddenly cut the price/HP of an engine by a large amount and also achieve higher efficiency and energy density with an internal combustion engine.

Regarding electric vehicles, their best application is still railroad 250Km/h for cargo. MagLev 700 Km/h for people.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
One thing people don't understand is for every KW of power from the grid you put into batteries of the electric car you only get around 1/2 KW to the wheels.

You have a power loss of around 50% in charging and running the motors of a electric car.

And its even more if you turn on the car heater or AC.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
One thing people don't understand is for every KW of power from the grid you put into batteries of the electric car you only get around 1/2 KW to the wheels.

You have a power loss of around 50% in charging and running the motors of a electric car.

And its even more if you turn on the car heater or AC.


Which is still far more efficient than a petrol engine.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I have a rechargeable hybrid car.

My house has solar panels for electricity

When I charge at my house it is energy from the sun

Did you take that into account? How many households that have plug in cars have solar panels? My friend down the block does as well as me.

Just saying



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
all of our electronics rely on fossil fuels and toxic rare earth metals to exist and function..

people need to understand that we will never escape fossil fuels, toxic chemicals and rare earth metals/minerals, it's everywhere and in everything and as long as we have technology we have to accept it, that all technology is destructive towards nature no matter how green you think it is.

rather than trying to runaway from our responsibility as a technological civilization by created "green" technologies that aren't any less destructive but makes people feel good about "protecting" the environment as if they are less guilty than before, how about we focus on making older technologies cleaner, more efficient, less consuming and more reliable.

we should also put a major focus on clean coal technology or it's proper non-environmentalist created pc propaganda name, carbon capture technology so the oil, gas and coal can be recycled, reused and repurposed while never being able to escape into the air, it can also be used to remove pollutants out of the air too.

until we reach the level of a type o civilization and become as if part of nature, we will never escape dangerous and destructive technology, it is something we need to face up to and quit trying to hide away from, we should start being responsible rather than constantly creating new "alternatives" that just add to the problem and could possibly even make it worse one day when it scales up to future growing needs.

if we don't stop running away and hiding behind pc words that shelter people from the inherent truth of technology; one day we will do something very foolish in the name the environment that we can never take back which will ruin the world.

that whole building a shield in orbit to cool the earth is one idea i have in mind as an example of this irresponsible thinking.

green is not green at all so embrace the consequences, live with it and adapt to it.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Just a quick estimate or two here:
Assume the average electric car in daily use consumes 50kWh of energy per day so, if the proposal is to supply that from individual household solar installations, the roof of each house needs to generate at least 50kWh each day with a reliable 8 hours of strong sunlight. That means a minimum 6kW+ solar installation and the car needs to be plugged in all day, only driven at night otherwise the solar installation needs to be much larger than that (larger than the average roof can accommodate).

So the reality is that a mass uptake of electric vehicles to replace IC vehicle represents a huge increase in demand on energy from the grid and 'green' sources like wind and solar are only a small token contribution with the bulk being additional demand on fossil and nuclear sources.

How many vehicles in regular daily use in your local city?
multiply that number by 50kWh to get an idea of how much extra daily generation is required to 'fuel' them all.
Even getting the individual demand down to 50% ( less than 25kWh) results in a huge increase.

The electric vehicle only 'feels green' because you don't immediately see the pollution they produce.

edit on 4/9/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
Just a quick estimate or two here:
Assume the average electric car in daily use consumes 50kWh of energy per day so, if the proposal is to supply that from individual household solar installations, the roof of each house needs to generate at least 50kWh each day with a reliable 8 hours of strong sunlight. That means a minimum 6kW+ solar installation and the car needs to be plugged in all day, only driven at night otherwise the solar installation needs to be much larger than that (larger than the average roof can accommodate).

So the reality is that a mass uptake of electric vehicles to replace IC vehicle represents a huge increase in demand on energy from the grid and 'green' sources like wind and solar are only a small token contribution with the bulk being additional demand on fossil and nuclear sources.

How many vehicles in regular daily use in your local city?
multiply that number by 50kWh to get an idea of how much extra daily generation is required to 'fuel' them all.
Even getting the individual demand down to 50% ( less than 25kWh) results in a huge increase.

The electric vehicle only 'feels green' because you don't immediately see the pollution they produce.


Electric cars are considerably more efficient than petrol ones.

The claim isn't that they are completely clean but that they are cleaner than petrol cars.

Realistically we are not going to significantly reduce the amounts people travel. It therefore makes sense to adopt technology that minimises the impact even if not perfect.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

Yes all forms of technology probably do have some environmental impact. Surely that just strengthens the case that we should use cleaner less damaging technology whenever practical?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource with a huge range of uses. Using them in a wastefull inefficient manner when there are practical alternatives is incredibly short sighted.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join