Are electric cars actually the best alternative to fuel when it comes to saving the environment?

Are electric cars actually the best alternative to fuel when it comes to saving the environment?

What do you think?

No one cares about environment.
People want electric because its super cheap compared to gas. Especially in yurop. Isnt it even free with superchargers in us?
I could also use it to steal charge on my neighbours electricity. Thats kinda cool.

Yes, they are. It sucks for me though because now the human race will live for longer. I really wanted to watch everyone on earth die while I was on earth. Nothing would ever make me happier than to see the parasites wither. I can only hope WW3 will happen in my life and I will be privileged enough witness the glorious death of billions.

>best alternative to fuel when saving the environment

realistically they're the only alternative to fuel, so yes that does make them the best.

who hurt u

Biofuel cars also offer a, more immediately, viable alternative. Especially if algae-based biofuels ever hit the mass market.

no one. i just generally despise humans.

why would we try to start up yet another fuel industry when we already have the infrastructure in place for widespread electricity? unless you have millions to throw at investing into a biofuel producer/consumer start-up, electricity is the far more viable option.

For profit.

Your argument is specious in any case. The infrastructure is already in place and, if anything, more developed than electric refueling. It also ignores the critical components of energy density and refuelling times.

No, the environment is one of the worst arguments for EVs unless you spend most of your time in stop start traffic they aren't any better in terms of GWP per unit distance than the equivalent petrol car in the USA and quite a bit worse than a diesel once you take the entire efficacy chain into account. Charging and discharging chemical batteries is not an efficient process, that's why it's not the normal mode of providing backup power for a building.

I have a feeling you just despise yourself and it's exhausting as a result you focus your energy to anonymous boards searching for any reason to project your selfhate onto others. You've been doing it for so long you now fell for the belief that it's others who are the problem rather than you just hating yourself

i don't hate myself. nice projection tho

Next time just say 'ur edgy xD' because you just wasted your life typing out that essay. Much like you waste oxygen.

>energy density
>refueling times

the only people who need to worry about this are those who drive more than 300 miles in a day. so for the layman, that's a moot point.

stop impersonating me. jk. i need someone to cover whilst im gone

>tfw my state gets all their electricity from burning coal
the only positive electric has here is.... oh wait nothing, I'd rather have fun in my shitbox anyway

So most people?

>most people drive 300 miles a day
you are stupid

>What do you think?
read a book

Indeed, no-one ever takes road trips or holidays out of state or travels for business you vacuous moronic waste of space.

The average commute of the USA is 26 minutes, which would roughly be about 20 miles of highway driving. That means you could go a whole week without recharging an electric car.

And with an electric car the whole system is self contained, so fluid leakage risk is minimal at best.

Electric cars just make far more sense than anything that needs liquid fuel.

and people with a brain worry about that too.

>hurr a small group of people do so my point is valid!!! durr

you're so stupid it hurts. believe it or not but nobody wants to hear your liberal arts degree opinion on technology. maybe leave the progress to the companies that spend millions on their R&D per day instead of some californian PR meme.

>In my alternate reality where the only driving anyone ever does is commuting battery-electric cars work great, guess I won, now I can go bacck to fantasizing about that school shooting and jacking off to My Little Pony

>when some nigger on the internet shills for your money laundering scheme for free

>t. republican

ad hominem for daysssss

more people are flying and using rail today than ever before. the automotive industry needs to change to reflect that. less effort put into long distance and more effort put into the realistic commute.

in a perfect world, everyone would have an electric car and we would rent gas/diesel/biofuel cars for road trips.

>People want electric because its super cheap compared to gas
thats a good joke.

any savings incurred in regards to recharging vs refueling, are entirely nullified by the extra cost of the car at purchase, and the cost of replacing the battery

Most people will at some point drive more than 300 miles in a day.

>extra cost of the car at purchase
except you get massive discounts on buying an electric

The best way is to not use energy in the first place, but all around the world societies become even more MUH DRIVING instead of less.

EVs are getting pretty cheap now, so that's not really a good argument anymore.

>he doesen't drive a leaf

Lmaoing at your life

>asking what Veeky Forums thinks about a subject that Veeky Forums is willfully ignorant of
Oh yes, this is surely going to be enlightening. Let me sum up the future of this thread for you: "I hate change and thus I based my entire assessment of this subject on my hatred of change through ad hoc reasoning and have never done research on anything in my life."

>I can't think for myself, so I let billionares do it for me: the post
In a perfect world, we would engineer a microbe that would produce high grade petroleum and aerosol nano tech that absorbs carbon monoxide safely.
Eat shit you fucking caveman

Electric cars are a load of shit meme and here's why:
> Electricity is produced mainly by burning coal, which causes a lot of pollution.
And that's only if your country is lucky. There are many countries burning way worse shit to create power. Only a non-significant amount of the power consumed by the world (around 1%) is made by green electricity. Large countries like the US, already are at their limits, having to re-route power from state to state in order to maintain a sufficient supply for the demands. Imagine how many times the demand will increase with electric cars being recharged daily.

> Battery technology is not 100% efficient.
Every recharge is a waste of energy.

> Building a battery requires expensive and toxic materials.

> Batteries lose performance and need to be replaced over time.
Not even much time, just a few years, if it doesn't malfunction, is enough for a battery to show signs of losing capacity.

I personally, am not convinced that electric cars are doing any good whatsoever for the environment. Contrary, they create even more pollution than petrol or diesel engines.

Maybe Elon Musk will find some way to finance upgrading the power grid? He's a mad lad, he just might do it.

TESLA FAGS BTFO

>Are electric cars actually the best alternative
Lots of people disconnect their catalytic converter to improve their MPG. So forcing those people to switch to electric cars would help the environment out a lot.

>Contrary, they create even more pollution than petrol or diesel engines.

No they dont... Unless all your electric power comes from ancient coal power plants.

Oh and to all you gas guzzler dweebs who compare the emissions of making the batteries... Have you had a look at how much energy it takes to refine crude oil into gasoline (and lets not forget to make the drilling rigs and actually DRILL the fucking oil in the first place).

Many countries have 100 % renewable energy in their powergrid. And long before that threshold electric cars produce WAY less CO2 emissions.

(oh and burning fossil fuel at a modern powerplant is way more efficient than a small ICE).

> (OP)
> Electricity is produced mainly by burning coal, which causes a lot of pollution.

A little over a third of power is coal in the US. But this is being supplanted by natgas (way cleaner) and renewables very quickly. If you look at actual first world countries, the difference is remarkable. France is 75% nuclear.

>And that's only if your country is lucky. There are many countries burning way worse shit to create power. Only a non-significant amount of the power consumed by the world (around 1%) is made by green electricity. Large countries like the US, already are at their limits, having to re-route power from state to state in order to maintain a sufficient supply for the demands. Imagine how many times the demand will increase with electric cars being recharged daily.

So all the energy supporting oil such as extraction, transport, refinement, and delivery will simply continue on existing taking up the same footprint after ICE declines? Yeah, no. And yeah power should be at its limits at all times: there's no capacity for storage and using excess power is pointless.

> Battery technology is not 100% efficient.
>Every recharge is a waste of energy.

And ICE is 100% efficient? What are you smoking.

> Building a battery requires expensive and toxic materials.

Doesn't stop us refining and burning liquid petrochemicals everyday. Your batteries are built once for the life of the car.

>> Batteries lose performance and need to be replaced over time.
>Not even much time, just a few years, if it doesn't malfunction, is enough for a battery to show signs of losing capacity.

At 150k miles, a Tesla loses about 9% of its battery life. Not stark.

>I personally, am not convinced that electric cars are doing any good whatsoever for the environment. Contrary, they create even more pollution than petrol or diesel engines.

I'd like to see a peer reviewed research article that supports this.

Additionally, EV allows flexibility in energy sourcing. ICE is mainly gasoline or diesel so options are pretty limited.

By going electric, you can take power from coal, natgas, nuclear, or renewables in processes WAY more efficient than an automobile ICE ever could.

>WE HAVE TO SAVE LE ENVIRONMENT XD

fuck off with this faggotry

...

>WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I SHIT IN THE STREETS

Fair enough, Virat.

...

...

How much longer until the gas stations shut down and the classic car hobby dies? I like the performance potential of electric motors, but that doesn't subtract from the charm of old cars.

Wow what a novel and unique situation to electric vehicles

In all seriousness it would be relegated to a hobby. "People still have horses. Horses are cool."

The people who have a serious passion for gas cars wouldn't give them up, they'd just get old.

>5 minutes average to fuel up
>line moves at a steady pace
>EV's take 30 minutes to supercharge
>while simultaneously diminishing their battery life

I'm okay with this, as long as I still get to drive them on the roads. We would get to enjoy a niche market for aftermarket parts, at least for a little while. It would mean that the only people buying ICEs are those who are passionate about them, and we can enjoy them in relative obscurity.

Electric cars and self driving AI might get to the point where the emissions and accident contribution from old cars gets so small that it is no longer worth having strict legislation against them. There could be a mild uptick in reproduction parts, kits, and maybe, just maybe, low volume production of whole vehicles.

This is looking like a future where the only people manually driving ICE cars are those who are willing to deal with the relative drawbacks instead of a majority who are forced to and see it as a necessary evil. It sounds like we could carve out a niche that would last until well after we're dead.

Just trying to bring a little optimism to this depressing board

Pretty much. Like every obsolete technology like mechanical watches. They still remain relevant for people who care for them.

>>while simultaneously diminishing their battery life

This TRIGGERS teslafags

There's a small problem with that in that supercharging isn't harmful to the battery. Facts trigger ICEfags.

Do you really think a 3500kg, 700bhp SUV is for saving the environment? You're saving the environment by using less energy, not by emitting no exhaust fumes. You're also saving the environment by conserving resources. Hauling around giant heavy batteries is ridiculously inefficient, and just look at where the electricity is coming from.

I'm putting my money on hybrids with supercapacitors, electrically driven wheels and a small biodiesel generator to supply the electricity, until fuel cells replace them.

>supercharging isn't harmful to the battery.

>EVcucks getting butthurt enough to lie

Small problem is something like tires off few PSI from factory. I don't see how this is considered as small problem

>Do you really think a 3500kg, 700bhp SUV is for saving the environment? You're saving the environment by using less energy, not by emitting no exhaust fumes. ... Hauling around giant heavy batteries is ridiculously inefficient...
Pretty much every EV in existence gets over 100mpge. A performance tesla might dip into the 90s.

>just look at where the electricity is coming from.
Dead meme. Even in the US, BEVs come out ahead of even the lamest of hybrids AFTER accounting for end to end emissions.

Cry more faggot.

Learn to read you stupid nigger.

>EV's take 30 minutes to supercharge
HAHAHAHA good luck driving anywhere with that, ill see you back at the charging station in about... 5-10 minutes?

What are you guys sperging about. By the time you dip under 90% capacity, youll be approaching 300,000km.

>oh and burning fossil fuel at a modern powerplant is way more efficient than a small ICE
>So all the energy supporting oil such as extraction, transport, refinement, and delivery will simply continue on existing taking up the same footprint after ICE declines? Yeah, no. And yeah power should be at its limits at all times: there's no capacity for storage and using excess power is pointless.
An coal electric plant itself might be more efficient than a vehicle's own engine, but it also takes millions of miles of power lines, converters, conductors, inverters etc in order to get this power which might as well be coming from the other side of the continent (depending on the time of day) to get to your car. What are the costs of maintaining this system that takes up across a whole country vs a small oil drill pit?

> What are the costs of maintaining this system that takes up across a whole country vs a small oil drill pit?
Are you seriously suggesting EVs are responsible for the cost of running the entire electrical grid? lmao.
This post is two steps away from crying about how hard the gnomes had to work to truck those electrons down the line on their copper trollies.

>oh and burning fossil fuel at a modern powerplant is way more efficient than a small ICE
>So all the energy supporting oil such as extraction, transport, refinement, and delivery will simply continue on existing taking up the same footprint after ICE declines? Yeah, no. And yeah power should be at its limits at all times: there's no capacity for storage and using excess power is pointless.
An coal electric plant itself might be more efficient than a vehicle's own engine, but it also takes millions of miles of power lines, converters, conductors, inverters etc in order to get this power which might as well be coming from the other side of the continent (depending on the time of day) to get to your car. What are the costs of maintaining this system that takes up across a whole country vs a small oil drill pit, keeping in mind that the capacity needs to be at least quadrupled? Basically it will be necessary to build 3 whole new power grids across the country.

This. Gasoline magically appears at gas stations so extraction, transporting, refining, storing, transporting again, etc. have no environmental impact.

>small oil drill pit

You glanced over that fairly quickly. What about the thousands of miles of pipelines, hundreds of wells, thousands of pump and transport trucks, all the refineries, shipping vessels, all the fuel to keep them going, and delivery stations necessary to support your car. What are the costs of maintaining this system?

Electrical grids are only built to supply for the demands. If the demands grow multiple times because of EVs then yes

>Pretty much every EV in existence gets over 100mpge
Nice justification for 3500kg, 700bhp SUVs. Being better than ICE isn't gonna be good enough to be the future. Light cars will always be more energy efficient (and resource efficient) than heavy cars, and batteries are inherently heavy.

>Dead meme
Are you sure the existing power grid can support to replace every traditional vehicle with an electric vehicle? Do you really think you wouldn't need A LOT more coal and nuclear plants to supply all of that energy?

Even then you're replacing equivalent gas infrastructure with something that's far cheaper and cleaner to run (especially as new generation keeps getting cleaner and cheaper).

We all know that oil is drilled from below ground, and transported with trucks to the petrol stations. What the kids don't know is that power doesn't magically come into the socket and actually requires tons of expensive infrastructure of which you will not see almost any part unless you're driving by a countryside to get to your house. Also routing power from one end of a country to the other doesn't come without a significant loss.

>Nice justification for 3500kg, 700bhp SUVs.
It doesn't need a justification. Why would it? Let's put aside the fact that you're a retarded fascist for demanding a "justification" and explain what exactly the problem is with running a large electric vehicle when it's roughly as efficient as all the other electric vehicles.

> batteries are inherently heavy.
Complete nonsense statement. Model 3 starts at 3500, within its class ballpark. Bolt weighs just a bit more. "Battery" is not a special metaphysical class that requires it to weigh more than anything else.

> Do you really think you wouldn't need A LOT more coal and nuclear plants to supply all of that energy?
Practically no one is building coal plants. Or nuclear plants sadly, but new generation is consistently cleaner.

WHAT GOES INTO MAKING THE BATTERIES IS WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN JUST RUNNING A GAS CAR

> Also routing power from one end of a country to the other doesn't come without a significant loss.
So you have no idea how electrical grids work but you're trying to lecture other people. Who the fuck is drawing power from "across the country"? Of course that would incur ridiculous transmission losses which is why no one does that.

>Light cars will always be more energy efficient (and resource efficient) than heavy cars, and batteries are inherently heavy.

If that was true, Wankel engines' weight would offset the efficiency difference from 4 strokes. It does not.

The lighter weight of NA petrol car doesn't even offset the minor efficiency advantage of turbodiesel. Engine efficiency matters.

You know what else matters? Aerodynamics. Electric cars will always be more aerodynamic than ICE cars, because they don't have to have tall hoods for engines and pedestrians and need hardly any cooling.