Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Ariana Huffington explains that electric cars are zero-emission. Because we all know that the electricity in electric cars comes from pollution-free Energy Fairies   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

277 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2006 at 7:59 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2006-07-06 12:53:54 AM  
The 5 major sources of electricity are from coal, oil, natural gas and hydro electric followed by Nuke. That is the real power source of your electric car.Please shut the fark up and come up with a real answer. Thank you
 
2006-07-06 1:26:13 AM  
Electric cars are California's scheme to EXPORT pollution to neighboring states.

So, FARK you Oregon and Nevada!
 
2006-07-06 1:37:52 AM  
the electricity doesn't come from electricity fairies, and that in and of itself is a major (and separate) issue. But if you honestly think that putting down a viable answer to a significant reduction in automotive emissions is in any way acceptable now and in the future, simply based on the lame-brained rationalization that electrity in general isn't emission-free, then you deserve to reap all the benefits of petroleum dependence.
 
2006-07-06 1:44:41 AM  
Those big plants can create electricity more efficiently while incorporating pollution controls that are far more effective on a large scale.

While saying zero emission is misleading, this is still a net reduction in overall pollution.
 
2006-07-06 1:49:03 AM  
Oh smitty I forgot to add that we can easily create power plants that burn imported oil instead of using local coal, local natural gas, and local hydro if you still require payoffs to your Saudi puppet masters.
 
2006-07-06 8:11:32 AM  
If only we could harness the atom for our energy needs.
 
2006-07-06 8:13:37 AM  
[image from upload.wikimedia.org too old to be available]
 
2006-07-06 8:14:39 AM  
willywanka:

Reducing emissions from cars would be good, but not at the cost of increasing emissions from something worse, namely coal plants.

If the US would stop the activist-choked madness and build more nuclear power plants, we'd have enough clean energy to make electric cars a truly earth-friendly option.
 
2006-07-06 8:28:25 AM  
Smitty,

ZEV is a term used by the State of California to describe cars that create no emissions at the point of use. The fact that the electricity is generated by coal in Texas is just a happy accident, as rednecks with cancer aren't as likely to breed.

Meanwhile, let me summon the N fairy to go get you the letter you forgot in Mrs. Huffington's name.
 
2006-07-06 8:29:26 AM  
MedicineMan: Reducing emissions from cars would be good, but not at the cost of increasing emissions from something worse, namely coal plants.

Errm, the advantage of electric cars is twofold:

1) It's a lot cheaper to make the factory cleaner and more efficient than to make *every* car cleaner and more efficient.

2) The cars become essentially source-independent - they don't care if the electricity is generate by gas, nuke, or some as yet undiscovered fuel source.
 
2006-07-06 8:32:28 AM  
Medicine Man:
Amount of time for the earth to clean up pollution from coal=???
The half-life of Uranium-238, the byproduct from Uranium enrichment for powerplants=4.5 million years.

/ Caveat 1: Plutonium can be used for nuclear fuel, although I believe the half life is also long enough that you get the point.
// Caveat 2: We don't know how long it takes to clean up coal, but my gut tells me it is quite a bit shorter than 4.5 million years.
 
2006-07-06 8:32:53 AM  
*Ahem*
[image from outatime.it too old to be available]

Problem solved.
 
2006-07-06 8:34:38 AM  
Sloth_DC: Looking good on this issue. I am at once shocked and delighted. :)

/electric cars *are* zero emission
//Submitter's looking for a flamewar
 
2006-07-06 8:38:59 AM  
2006-07-06 08:32:28 AM moxie17

Amount of time for the earth to clean up pollution from coal=???
The half-life of Uranium-238, the byproduct from Uranium enrichment for powerplants=4.5 million years.

/ Caveat 1: Plutonium can be used for nuclear fuel, although I believe the half life is also long enough that you get the point.
// Caveat 2: We don't know how long it takes to clean up coal, but my gut tells me it is quite a bit shorter than 4.5 million years.


Of course, you need to realize that coal fired plants are spreading radioactive particles around on a daily basis. Nukes don't do that (all radioactive material is controlled). It doesn't take any time at all to 'clean up' when it isn't spread all over the place.

Also, the use of breeder plants would make a huge dent in the amount of high level radioactive material left over after it is 'burnt' by conventional nukes.
 
2006-07-06 8:55:16 AM  
Electric cars kill salmon.

/just wanted to start another front on the flames.
 
2006-07-06 8:59:00 AM  
PicoDelSol

Of course, you need to realize that coal fired plants are spreading radioactive particles around on a daily basis. Nukes don't do that (all radioactive material is controlled)

Insightfull peace of information, thanks.

It doesn't take any time at all to 'clean up' when it isn't spread all over the place.

Untrue. While the nuclear leftovers are controlled, they aren't all collected. There are between 350-400 tonnes that are spread out upon the earth. By spread out I mean in the form of dust. U-238 just happens to be a very good armor piercing material.

Three properties lead to this. #1 It is 70% denser than lead. This leads to a projectile that is smaller and has less aerodynamic drag, leading to higher levels of penetration. #2 U-238 is pryophorric. U-238 also shows adiabatic shear band formation. This also the material to fracture along set lines, given enough force, and in essence continually sharpen as it penetrates a target. This is contrary normal munitions that deform and become blunter upon impact.

/ A correction for my earlier post. It should have said 4.5 billion years, not million.
 
2006-07-06 9:00:52 AM  
Shhhh Pico,

People do not want to know why nuke is better than conventional petro/coal plants. Nukes are more complicated than "burn crap and hope it does not harm the planet" and are, therefore, easier to condemn than understand.
 
2006-07-06 9:03:59 AM  
Omni:

I agree that people fear what they don't understand, and that in general, peopel are too lazy to read up on stuff like that. That wasn't what I was trying to say. I was just trying to point out with our current level of technology, I would think coal pollution is easier to clean up than nuclear pollution.

That doesn't mean that I think we should stop research on such a promising technology.
 
2006-07-06 9:08:36 AM  
No shiat, submitter. But if you're trying to control emissions, would you rather have millions of cars putting out varying amounts of emissions all over the country, or would you rather eliminate the emissions from the vehicles, concentrating them at the plants where the electricity is produced, thereby allowing you to more effectively manage said emissions.

\jackass
 
2006-07-06 9:10:29 AM  
mrexcess: Looking good on this issue. I am at once shocked and delighted. :)

I can't help it if you're wrong on other issues :)
 
2006-07-06 9:24:09 AM  
2006-07-06 08:59:00 AMmoxie17

Untrue. While the nuclear leftovers are controlled, they aren't all collected. There are between 350-400 tonnes that are spread out upon the earth. By spread out I mean in the form of dust. U-238 just happens to be a very good armor piercing material.

Three properties lead to this. #1 It is 70% denser than lead. This leads to a projectile that is smaller and has less aerodynamic drag, leading to higher levels of penetration. #2 U-238 is pryophorric. U-238 also shows adiabatic shear band formation. This also the material to fracture along set lines, given enough force, and in essence continually sharpen as it penetrates a target. This is contrary normal munitions that deform and become blunter upon impact.


So your issue is what people do with depleted Uranium, not how it is controlled until it leaves the nuclear units. They are separate issues. The control of radioactive materials at the plant level is superb.
 
2006-07-06 9:37:21 AM  
Even if you don't use nuclear power, and stick to fossil fuels, you reduce the amount of pollution.
Power plants have huge filters, computerized emmision control systems and people whose sole purpose is to regulate all the stuff. Cars do not. In addition, I think it's reasonable to assume that a gallon of fuel burnt in a power plant produces more energy than a gallon of fuel burnt in a car's engine. In the end, you burn less fuel, produce more energy, and do it with less pollution.
 
2006-07-06 9:53:35 AM  
Sloth_DC: Touche!
 
2006-07-06 9:53:59 AM  
Is submitter Dave Mordel? Or just a fan?

Also, more nukes. Eventually, the countrywide soft, green glow will remove the need for street lights, saving even more energy.

/Yes, I know nuke waste doesn't glow and isn't a green, gooey liquid like in Mr. Burns' plant.
//The goggles still do nothing though
 
2006-07-06 10:01:46 AM  
You generally would recharge your car at night during off-peak hours so the electricity could be cheaper. Electric cars are also several times more efficent than normal cars.

link
At 4 miles per kWh, the all-electric plug-in Toyota RAV4-EV travels about 140 miles on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline (at 35 kWh per gallon). More aerodynamic EVs, such as the General Motors EV1, get 6 miles out of each kWh, or about 200 miles per gallon gas equivalent ("mpgge").

It's also easier to control the emmissions from one power plant than it is to do the same thing in thousands of cars. The batteries suck and the range sucks but the idea is very good.
 
2006-07-06 10:17:58 AM  
It's also easier to control the emmissions from one power plant than it is to do the same thing in thousands of cars. The batteries suck and the range sucks but the idea is very good.

Definitely. Build a few parks around your power plans to soak up the polluation, then replace all of your highways with a rail system.

/Wants to play some SimCity now.
 
2006-07-06 10:29:43 AM  
2) The cars become essentially source-independent - they don't care if the electricity is generate by gas, nuke, or some as yet undiscovered fuel source.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Maybe the electricity will come from a coal power plant. But smart recharging stations in sunny areas will install solar panels to boost their supply during peak hours. In Washington state, cars can run off of the abundant energy produced by dams. Other areas will use wind power or nuclear power.

We'll probably still use fossil fuels for power but we'll use less of it, probably less enough that we can extricate ourselves from that Middle Eastern clusterfark.

And the best part is that we'll never again have to worry about replacing every car in the country because its fuel source is unsustainable.
 
2006-07-06 10:35:44 AM  
SlothDC:

1) It's a lot cheaper to make the factory cleaner and more efficient than to make *every* car cleaner and more efficient.

I have to give you that. Holding to my nuke point, though, it's even cheaper to build a power plant that's less-polluting in the first place.

2) The cars become essentially source-independent - they don't care if the electricity is generate by gas, nuke, or some as yet undiscovered fuel source.

Well, yes, and that's my point (and the point of a lot of the other posts here). The environmental impact of the cars is tied directly to where the juice comes from.

Now, another problem with electric cars is this:

An ICE car is full of gasoline, oil, and such. When you wreck it or abandon it, that stuff has a realtively mild impact on the local environment.

An electric car has a massive set of batteries. What's in those? Cadmium, Lithium, or other similarly awful materials. If you wreck an electric, they might have to clean the mess up wearing hazard suits. And I'd rather have gasoline than cadmium drizzling into the storm sewer.

I like the idea of less pollutant cars, but given the above issues, I'm not so sure the tradeoff is a good enough to justify the expenses.
 
2006-07-06 10:40:11 AM  
The cars become essentially source-independent - they don't care if the electricity is generate by gas, nuke, or some as yet undiscovered fuel source.

[image from img80.imageshack.us too old to be available]
 
2006-07-06 10:41:19 AM  
Moxie17:

I suppose, but if you re-process the nuclear fuel and reuse it (which is not out of the question), you can fit all of the nuclear waste to power the entire country for a year on the back of a single 53' semi trailer.

We don't even have to store the waste, we can launch it into the sun or some such.

Point is, the direct environmental impact of a nuclear power plant is far less than that of a coal plant. Compare, for example, the human and environmental hazards of coal mining.
 
2006-07-06 10:47:47 AM  
MedicineMan: Now, another problem with electric cars is this:

An ICE car is full of gasoline, oil, and such. When you wreck it or abandon it, that stuff has a realtively mild impact on the local environment.

An electric car has a massive set of batteries. What's in those? Cadmium, Lithium, or other similarly awful materials. If you wreck an electric, they might have to clean the mess up wearing hazard suits. And I'd rather have gasoline than cadmium drizzling into the storm sewer.


1) The batteries they generally use are lead-acid. No, they are not more hazardous than gas.

2) I hate to break it to you, but you already have a fricking battery in your car.

3) The electric doesn't require coolant, which is what you should *really* be concerned about running down the storm sewer.
 
2006-07-06 10:59:23 AM  
rivetboy: The 5 major sources of electricity are from coal, oil, natural gas and hydro electric followed by Nuke. That is the real power source of your electric car.Please shut the fark up and come up with a real answer. Thank you

found it
 
2006-07-06 11:11:42 AM  
Sloth_DC:

1) The batteries they generally use are lead-acid.

I have to disagree here. The battery in my car now is lead-acid, but the larger, more powerful electric-only batteres are usually Lithium or Nickel-Cadmium. The lead-acids won't cut it for cars that need to be more than golf carts with seatbelts.

Additionally, these batteries only last for a few thousand miles (maybe 30-40k max), and need to be replaced after that.

http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=1485
http://www.hondaev.org/lnk.html
http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=8754
http://www.acpropulsion.com/
http://www.cobasys.com/home/home.htm
http://www.valence.com/
http://www.lithiumtech.com/


2) I hate to break it to you, but you already have a fricking battery in your car.

I do, but it's safe to say the battery in the electric will be a tad larger than the one in my ICE puddle-jumper.

3) The electric doesn't require coolant, which is what you should *really* be concerned about running down the storm sewer.

I'm no chemist, but I'd hazard a guess that cadmium is a bit more hostile that engine coolant.

Again, I like the concept of the electric. I presume in the near future we should have less expensive, safer, more capable models to look at. 'Till then, I'll be a cautious skeptic of the four-wheeled messiahs.
 
2006-07-06 11:33:52 AM  
Sloth_DC: Errm, the advantage of electric cars is twofold:

1) It's a lot cheaper to make the factory cleaner and more efficient than to make *every* car cleaner and more efficient.

2) The cars become essentially source-independent - they don't care if the electricity is generate by gas, nuke, or some as yet undiscovered fuel source.


---

The thing is, cars turn over relatively quickly, so isn't the converting-cars thing irrelevant? People would probably just keep their current obsolete car until it breaks before buying the new technology anyway, whether it's pure electric or biodiesel (or whatever).

/not disagreeing with you, just positing a different theory
 
2006-07-06 11:41:19 AM  
MedicineMan: I'm no chemist, but I'd hazard a guess that cadmium is a bit more hostile that engine coolant.

Depends on your point of view - a highly poisonous liquid is more likely to end up in the water supply as a result of a crash than is a highly poisonous solid.
 
2006-07-06 12:02:43 PM  
Sloth_DC:

I can certainly see the water supply being more threatened by liquid; the immediate area moreso by a solid.

Again, I have no real knowledge of chemistry or toxic cleanup, but I wonder what effects Cadmium has, and just how difficult it is to clean up.

Now, in all honesty, my objections based on safety concerns are only temporary. They're sincere, but temporary. I'm a mechanical engineer by degree; I can see how much safer and cleaner ICE cars are compared to even 50 years ago. I don't doubt that an electric car that's safer and cleaner than an ICE is possible. I just don't see such a vehicle on the current horizon.
 
2006-07-06 12:14:06 PM  
MedicineMan: Again, I have no real knowledge of chemistry or toxic cleanup, but I wonder what effects Cadmium has, and just how difficult it is to clean up.

Liver failure, and not very - it's easy to clean up, just avoid the fumes.
 
2006-07-06 12:43:55 PM  
Sloth_DC:

Liver failure? I forsee a whole new solution to the Cadmium problem: cleanup crews composed entirely of DUI convicts. Repeat offenders eat the loose Cadmium. Their livers are screwed up anyway. >:}

P'raps the safe electric car is not so far away as I might have thought...
 
2006-07-07 2:20:12 AM  
I dont know what the fear is with the fluids in most cars are

petrolium distilates: biodegradable
glycol: only a high percentage is needed for poisoning
battery acid: water with salt added (kindof)

Advanced batteries scare me and if they come up with a capaciter with the power needed to run a car well those explode pretty nicely.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.