Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England
Walk down any grocery store aisle or even department store, and you’ll be bombarded with green products. From dish detergent to baby wipes, to organic T-shirts and yoga mats, it seems as if every company is looking to grab a piece of the “green” pie. But not all consumers are buying.

Although the green movement has gained steam over the years, not everyone has gotten on board about reducing their carbon footprint.

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green products is simple: they’re selfish.

If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.

"All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this."

The surge in gas prices in recent years made hybrid vehicles become much more attractive to consumers because they showed buyers their savings instantly when filling up at the pump. They aren’t necessarily making the switch to save the economy, rather to save their wallets.  The savings on something like an LED bulb, which cost between $30-$50 a bulb and last four to five years, don’t really give instant gratification.

Sustainability was often tied to luxury when first marketed about five years ago, according to Seo, and it didn't feel accessible to the general public.

"Things like the Lexus Hybrid or Tiffany's sustainable diamond collection, they were the loudest and got the most attention. Shopping at Whole Foods, people think it costs more. There is a whole misconception out there.”

Amy Todisco, green living expert, points to product confusion as to why more consumers aren’t jumping on the green band wagon. There are so many different messages and products claiming to be green that it’s too over overwhelming to consumers, Todisco argues.

"There is a lot of information, and a lot of it is conflicting. People are not sure what to trust or what to use, it's hard for consumers to figure out."

Already worried about the economy, their job security and their budgets, adding the concern of “going green” can be too much for consumers.

"It's not the highest priority for people," Todisco says. "Unless they connect emotionally with it, or its connected to a personal concern, they may not want to have a greener lifestyle."

Todisco started living a more eco-friendly lifestyle nearly 20 years ago, when she was pregnant with her daughter, because she wanted her baby to be as healthy as possible, proving Seo's "selfish" argument as to why people want to make green choices. Todisco agrees and adds there may be some stubbornness in the public toward this movement.

"If they don't feel like their actions are making a difference, then why bother? In some ways, the advocates of green living have to pick their battles—its promoting things rather than banning them."

Green shouldn't be thrust upon the public through initiatives without incentives, Seo says. If you want people to buy into a program, or convert to green living, they need a reason.

"The problem with that mentality is that it is a medicine approach," Seo says. "You are going green because it is good for you, so you are being forced to take your green medicine. You need to put a big old spoonful of sugar on top of that in order to take it."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fin … z2CVpLsnuM

Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?

They're right up there with the people selling homeopathic remedies that are so diluted that they contain no statistically relevant amount of the 'medicine' on the label. Placebo's all. Most of their arguments seem to revolve around a version of Pascal's Wager: you can't know if the trace chemicals are actually bad for you so you're better off being safe than sorry.

What say you, bf2s?

Last edited by Jay (2012-11-17 12:11:10)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|4627|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Most of their arguments seem to revolve around a version of Pascal's Wager: you can't know if the trace chemicals are actually bad for you so you're better off being safe than sorry.
That's the logic with some of the developments in 'green technology', absolutely, but for a fair number of products it's a little less of a ridiculous wager. I need not list every green product ever so that we can systematically debunk 40 years of scientific study.  Suffice to say, plastic ain't good. We can be pretty sure about it. Less plastic is better, and sometimes cheaper for the corporation as well.

With all of this, I think you also need to realize that the entire world is based on betting you are right. If you can 'prove' anything all you've done is remove reasonable doubt, and for a number of issues I think the doubt has been adequately removed and green products are warranted. For others, you are correct: it's largely bullshit.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|5823|Toronto | Canada

After taking a fuckton of classes on this kind of stuff since my minor is basically based around evergy/sustainability/technology I've definitely come to appreciate the need for us to change our ways of living and be more sustainable.  But I also dont think its going to happen as a 'buy this instead of this at the grocery store', its a lot more complicated than that.  For one, organic has so many flaws - especially those you pointed out, as well that they often produce higher energy per capita on goods.

tl;dr we do need to 'go green', but not in the way's we currently pretend to do
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England
My mother in law had breast cancer a few years ago and has chased every fad imaginable since then in an effort to become healthier and prevent a relapse. I look at a lot of the stuff she buys into and I just have to shake my head. Sugar was bad so she switched to Splenda, then Splenda was bad so she switched to Agave Nectar, then that was bad so she now uses Truvia. She prattles on to my wife about how once we're a year from having kids we need to switch to an all organic diet in order to prevent our kids from having autism. I feel bad for her, I do. She had a big scare in her life and now it's obvious that she's being preyed on by an industry that uses fear as their primary marketing tactic. Homeopathy, green, it's all built on fear. Fear of sickness, fear of 'big business', etc. I've never seen anyone with a scientific background buy into this stuff, for whatever that's worth...

Hell, my old physics professor touted the benefits of hybrid vehicles not for the environmental impact, which is arguably worse than a straight gasoline powered car, but because having an electric motor made acceleration awesome.

Last edited by Jay (2012-11-17 12:51:09)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
rdx-fx
...
+955|5676
Four reasons I avoid many "green" products
  • It doesn't work.  "Green" Windex, "green" dish soap, and "Green" laundry detergent don't work, not even close to their original formulations.
  • Economy of scale. Consumers aren't going to "Save the planet" by using recycled toilet paper , when industrial policy is thousands of times more polluting (radiation from coal plants, coal mining, no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc)
  • Most "green" products are bullshit labeling
  • Forcing "green" on consumers, when industrial policy is "planned obsolescence" and/or "disposable everything"?  Simply insane.  Want to prevent most of the hazardous waste in landfills? Get industry to stop building cheap, disposable crap for automobiles and electronics.
In short, most of the consumer level "green" stuff is feel-good bullshit marketing.If you want real "green", you need;
  • public policy shifts to sustainable energy (solar, geothermal, safe nuclear) 
  • durable consumer goods designed to last (not designed to be in a landfill in 3 years or less)
  • public mindset shift away from an insatiable "more more more" consumerism, to a sane mindset of "enough to live comfortably"
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5237|what

Jay wrote:

Hell, my old physics professor touted the benefits of hybrid vehicles not for the environmental impact, which is arguably worse than a straight gasoline powered car
lol
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Hell, my old physics professor touted the benefits of hybrid vehicles not for the environmental impact, which is arguably worse than a straight gasoline powered car
lol
What happens to the ultra corrosive batteries? Where do all the rare earth minerals come from? If you plug it in where is the electricity generated?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|5777
Afghanistan, to answer all three questions.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5190|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Hell, my old physics professor touted the benefits of hybrid vehicles not for the environmental impact, which is arguably worse than a straight gasoline powered car, but because having an electric motor made acceleration awesome.
Depends how you calculate it. Gasoline cars can't recover braking energy, so there's a massive efficiency difference there.
What happens to the ultra corrosive batteries?
Ultra-corrosive? Where do you get this from? It gets recycled as it does in all car batteries. Even if it doesn't the average acid breaks down into harmless products.
Where do all the rare earth minerals come from?
The earth? 'Rare' earths aren't really used in electric cars in any quantity except the motor -  which can be reprocessed, Lithium in the batteries is not exactly rare.
If you plug it in where is the electricity generated?
A power station? Which if its a modern one can be 50% efficient - which is far more efficient than the average car engine/transmission (electric motors not typically needing a transmission)

Honestly you sound like a typical 'Libertarian' Luddite.
#FreeBritney
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5190|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:

Most "green" products are bullshit labeling
Thats the basic problem, there is no consistent measure of 'green' or any restriction on labelling - a manufacturer could put a 'Green' sticker on barrels of DDT if they wanted.

There are 'green' products though, which really have been developed to use less energy in their manufacture and be less damaging in the waste stream - they're lost in a waist deep sea of bullshit.

no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc
What would be the point?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-17 19:44:56)

#FreeBritney
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5495|'Murka

A Norwegian study that looks at the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles disagrees with Dilbert.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a report that examined how the production, use and the end-of-life dismantling of electric cars affects the environment. It found that electric car factories emitted more toxic waste than conventional car plants, that carbon dioxide emissions increased if coal was used to create the electricity the cars run on, and that disposing of electric cars all caused significant environmental damage.

Co-author of the report, Professor Anders Hammer Stromman, believes the global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.

In addition, the creation of batteries and electric motors contributes enormously to an electric car's toxic footprint, as they require a significant amount of harmful minerals including copper, aluminium and nickel. The cars have already polluted the environment, says the report, before they've even been driven.

“Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, desptie virtually zero emissions during operation,” said the Prof.

The report acknowledges that electric cars could offer the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if their batteries are charged with electricity created using low carbon sources.

It makes it clear, however, that in areas where the majority of electricity is produced using fossil fuels such as coal, electric cars are not of much benefit. “It is counterproductive,” says the report, “to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.”

Europe as a whole, says the report, is relatively well-suited to electric car use. Cars powered on the continent's current energy mix provide a 10 to 24 per cent decrease in their global warming potential compared to diesel or petrol-engined cars. However the suitability of UK energy for electric car use is debatable. As of 2010, more than half of the UK's fuel to produce electricity comes from overseas and much of it is created using coal.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
BVC
Member
+325|5780
Because they cost more, and in a lot of cases calling stuff "green" is just a marketing ploy.

Same goes for so-called "organic" food.

Last edited by BVC (2012-11-17 21:48:55)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5190|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

A Norwegian study that looks at the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles disagrees with Dilbert.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a report that examined how the production, use and the end-of-life dismantling of electric cars affects the environment. It found that electric car factories emitted more toxic waste than conventional car plants, that carbon dioxide emissions increased if coal was used to create the electricity the cars run on, and that disposing of electric cars all caused significant environmental damage.

Co-author of the report, Professor Anders Hammer Stromman, believes the global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.

In addition, the creation of batteries and electric motors contributes enormously to an electric car's toxic footprint, as they require a significant amount of harmful minerals including copper, aluminium and nickel. The cars have already polluted the environment, says the report, before they've even been driven.

“Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, desptie virtually zero emissions during operation,” said the Prof.

The report acknowledges that electric cars could offer the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if their batteries are charged with electricity created using low carbon sources.

It makes it clear, however, that in areas where the majority of electricity is produced using fossil fuels such as coal, electric cars are not of much benefit. “It is counterproductive,” says the report, “to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.”

Europe as a whole, says the report, is relatively well-suited to electric car use. Cars powered on the continent's current energy mix provide a 10 to 24 per cent decrease in their global warming potential compared to diesel or petrol-engined cars. However the suitability of UK energy for electric car use is debatable. As of 2010, more than half of the UK's fuel to produce electricity comes from overseas and much of it is created using coal.
Important bit bolded for clarity.
Yes, if you generate electricity for purely electric cars using only old coal fired power stations then the benefit is arguable.

But if you use hybrids, plug-in hybrids etc using non-coal electrical generation then the benefits are substantial.

Its an infant technology, its not necessarily there yet, compared with dinosaur IC engines - which were on the roads at the same time as steam cars - there's a lot of obvious potential.

But the car and oil companies don't want you to hear it, if you stick your head in the sand you've done their marketing depts job for them.
#FreeBritney
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5495|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A Norwegian study that looks at the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles disagrees with Dilbert.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a report that examined how the production, use and the end-of-life dismantling of electric cars affects the environment. It found that electric car factories emitted more toxic waste than conventional car plants, that carbon dioxide emissions increased if coal was used to create the electricity the cars run on, and that disposing of electric cars all caused significant environmental damage.

Co-author of the report, Professor Anders Hammer Stromman, believes the global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.

In addition, the creation of batteries and electric motors contributes enormously to an electric car's toxic footprint, as they require a significant amount of harmful minerals including copper, aluminium and nickel. The cars have already polluted the environment, says the report, before they've even been driven.

“Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, desptie virtually zero emissions during operation,” said the Prof.

The report acknowledges that electric cars could offer the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if their batteries are charged with electricity created using low carbon sources.

It makes it clear, however, that in areas where the majority of electricity is produced using fossil fuels such as coal, electric cars are not of much benefit. “It is counterproductive,” says the report, “to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.”

Europe as a whole, says the report, is relatively well-suited to electric car use. Cars powered on the continent's current energy mix provide a 10 to 24 per cent decrease in their global warming potential compared to diesel or petrol-engined cars. However the suitability of UK energy for electric car use is debatable. As of 2010, more than half of the UK's fuel to produce electricity comes from overseas and much of it is created using coal.
Important bit bolded for clarity.
Yes, if you generate electricity for purely electric cars using only old coal fired power stations then the benefit is arguable.

But if you use hybrids, plug-in hybrids etc using non-coal electrical generation then the benefits are substantial.

Its an infant technology, its not necessarily there yet, compared with dinosaur IC engines - which were on the roads at the same time as steam cars - there's a lot of obvious potential.

But the car and oil companies don't want you to hear it, if you stick your head in the sand you've done their marketing depts job for them.
Your conclusion is not what the study determined.

The issue involves the entire life cycle of the car, from getting the raw materials to recycling the old beater when it dies. It was not solely focused on how the electricity the car uses is generated. However, since the majority of electricity generated is via coal, so that makes electric vehicles less "environmentally friendly" outside of continental Europe--which is a fairly large chunk of the world.

It points to the need for cleaner electrical generation as a bigger vector of environmental change than vehicle propulsion technology does.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|5275|Roma
Are Copper, Aluminium and Nickel harmful? First I've heard.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5495|'Murka

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Are Copper, Aluminium and Nickel harmful? First I've heard.
So are oxygen and carbon dioxide...just go with it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|5275|Roma
Oh yeah, I remember. H2O falls into that category right?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5190|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Your conclusion is not what the study determined.

The issue involves the entire life cycle of the car, from getting the raw materials to recycling the old beater when it dies. It was not solely focused on how the electricity the car uses is generated. However, since the majority of electricity generated is via coal, so that makes electric vehicles less "environmentally friendly" outside of continental Europe--which is a fairly large chunk of the world.
So? There's a steady move away from coal globally, Europe is a pretty big market in which there would be a net benefit, other markets are already there too.

It points to the need for cleaner electrical generation as a bigger vector of environmental change than vehicle propulsion technology does.
Yup, and assuming that is achieved its a no-brainer to move cars from petrol to electricity. Its already been achieved in Europe so its a no-brainer in Europe. That other countries are technological laggards doesn't mean its a bad idea.
#FreeBritney
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5190|eXtreme to the maX

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Are Copper, Aluminium and Nickel harmful? First I've heard.
The production processes are.
#FreeBritney
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|5275|Roma

Dilbert_X wrote:

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Are Copper, Aluminium and Nickel harmful? First I've heard.
The production processes are.
Stupid wording in the article
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|5275|Roma
My view:
Infant technology, not worth it atm, but needs to get past the teething problems at some point. Greener electricity production is coming, or should be a priority for most countries as it's easier to make millions of people use cleaner energy if you produce it that way, rather than make it come from them.
Most power plants benefit from economies of scale producing energy compared to small combustion engines.
Waste is waste, no matter is you believe in 'going green' or global warming, why should you use more than you have to? Why should you not recycle plastics instead of throwing them into the ground? That's just irresponsible.

Bringing up the topic of jet engines... the airline industry is experimenting with biofuels atm, completed a number of flights using only biofuel on a single engine. The supply just needs to come up to speed to produce the quantities to make it viable and competitive with Kerosene.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5495|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your conclusion is not what the study determined.

The issue involves the entire life cycle of the car, from getting the raw materials to recycling the old beater when it dies. It was not solely focused on how the electricity the car uses is generated. However, since the majority of electricity generated is via coal, so that makes electric vehicles less "environmentally friendly" outside of continental Europe--which is a fairly large chunk of the world.
So? There's a steady move away from coal globally, Europe is a pretty big market in which there would be a net benefit, other markets are already there too.

It points to the need for cleaner electrical generation as a bigger vector of environmental change than vehicle propulsion technology does.
Yup, and assuming that is achieved its a no-brainer to move cars from petrol to electricity. Its already been achieved in Europe so its a no-brainer in Europe. That other countries are technological laggards doesn't mean its a bad idea.
Never said it was a bad idea, nor did the study. What it does imply is that the emphasis should be put on clean energy/electricity production, rather than all this focus on EVs. Clean, abundant electricity will make the EVs more feasible. The opposite is not true.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A Norwegian study that looks at the entire lifecycle of electric vehicles disagrees with Dilbert.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology published a report that examined how the production, use and the end-of-life dismantling of electric cars affects the environment. It found that electric car factories emitted more toxic waste than conventional car plants, that carbon dioxide emissions increased if coal was used to create the electricity the cars run on, and that disposing of electric cars all caused significant environmental damage.

Co-author of the report, Professor Anders Hammer Stromman, believes the global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.

In addition, the creation of batteries and electric motors contributes enormously to an electric car's toxic footprint, as they require a significant amount of harmful minerals including copper, aluminium and nickel. The cars have already polluted the environment, says the report, before they've even been driven.

“Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, desptie virtually zero emissions during operation,” said the Prof.

The report acknowledges that electric cars could offer the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if their batteries are charged with electricity created using low carbon sources.

It makes it clear, however, that in areas where the majority of electricity is produced using fossil fuels such as coal, electric cars are not of much benefit. “It is counterproductive,” says the report, “to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.”

Europe as a whole, says the report, is relatively well-suited to electric car use. Cars powered on the continent's current energy mix provide a 10 to 24 per cent decrease in their global warming potential compared to diesel or petrol-engined cars. However the suitability of UK energy for electric car use is debatable. As of 2010, more than half of the UK's fuel to produce electricity comes from overseas and much of it is created using coal.
Important bit bolded for clarity.
Yes, if you generate electricity for purely electric cars using only old coal fired power stations then the benefit is arguable.

But if you use hybrids, plug-in hybrids etc using non-coal electrical generation then the benefits are substantial.

Its an infant technology, its not necessarily there yet, compared with dinosaur IC engines - which were on the roads at the same time as steam cars - there's a lot of obvious potential.

But the car and oil companies don't want you to hear it, if you stick your head in the sand you've done their marketing depts job for them.
The equation changes completely if someone has a solar panel bank on the roof that they are charging their vehicle with, of course. My argument was based on the fact that most energy is produced here by burning coal. Plugging your electric or hybrid vehicle into our power grid does nothing to reduce your carbon footprint. That's also not going to change for... well, probably ever. We're never going to go majority solar or wind for our power production, at least not in my lifetime. We have too much natural gas to burn which provides reliable energy on demand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your conclusion is not what the study determined.

The issue involves the entire life cycle of the car, from getting the raw materials to recycling the old beater when it dies. It was not solely focused on how the electricity the car uses is generated. However, since the majority of electricity generated is via coal, so that makes electric vehicles less "environmentally friendly" outside of continental Europe--which is a fairly large chunk of the world.
So? There's a steady move away from coal globally, Europe is a pretty big market in which there would be a net benefit, other markets are already there too.

It points to the need for cleaner electrical generation as a bigger vector of environmental change than vehicle propulsion technology does.
Yup, and assuming that is achieved its a no-brainer to move cars from petrol to electricity. Its already been achieved in Europe so its a no-brainer in Europe. That other countries are technological laggards doesn't mean its a bad idea.
Never said it was a bad idea, nor did the study. What it does imply is that the emphasis should be put on clean energy/electricity production, rather than all this focus on EVs. Clean, abundant electricity will make the EVs more feasible. The opposite is not true.
Realistically, unless you plan on carpeting the entire Mojave and Sonoran deserts with solar panels, and hooking it up to a grid filled with superconductors we're never going to get anything more than a very small fraction of our power from solar or wind sources. Nevermind that the cost would be bonkers.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4442|London, England

PrivateVendetta wrote:

My view:
Infant technology, not worth it atm, but needs to get past the teething problems at some point. Greener electricity production is coming, or should be a priority for most countries as it's easier to make millions of people use cleaner energy if you produce it that way, rather than make it come from them.
Most power plants benefit from economies of scale producing energy compared to small combustion engines.
Waste is waste, no matter is you believe in 'going green' or global warming, why should you use more than you have to? Why should you not recycle plastics instead of throwing them into the ground? That's just irresponsible.

Bringing up the topic of jet engines... the airline industry is experimenting with biofuels atm, completed a number of flights using only biofuel on a single engine. The supply just needs to come up to speed to produce the quantities to make it viable and competitive with Kerosene.
That's retarded. Seriously. With how much fuel a jet engine burns on takeoff, if all jets switched over to biofuel it would put a serious hit on our food supplies. Bad, bad idea.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard