Greens BTFO

...

made to be recyclable

thebalance.com/how-are-cars-recycled-2877944

>Almost all the parts of a car or any other auto can be recovered, with a recycling rate of greater than 90 percent of the vehicle. The mostly recycled parts of a car include tires, windshield glass, batteries, steel and iron, wheels, radiators, transmissions, rubber hoses, carpets, car seats, belts, oil filters, and mats.

>someone hasn't been shot today therefore a high murder rate doesn't exist

There, I fixed it for you.

Oil industry propaganda. Fine with ruining the planet even if it only makes $1 extra dollar. Fuck capitalism.

No it isn't.

Research this m8. All of the spent rods in many places are simply underground right at the plant.

They do this in France, which is mostly good, clean nuclear.

Some dudes are also on an autistic march to use those spent rods in molten salts thorium reactors.

Don't take my word on this, look it up.

btw not defending tesla

I just am a huge believer in nuclear power.

This and novel ideas to use water in really awesome ways.

>fuck capitalism

As opposed to what?

I don't completely disagree with you but..
You can't only consider the efficiency of the power plant with electric vehicles. You got to move and store the energy produced.
Also, when people say that electric engines are much more efficient than ICE, they are considering only the electrical->mechanical energy. It isn't that easy.

>disposal isn't a problem
>we just can't get rid of it so we dig a deep hole

It's contained but the longer they go, the more they have to bury and then they have to expand those "caves". What the user meant originally is there is nothing to do with the stuff, you can't run it through a machine and turn it into harmless emissions and pour it down a drain. It is going to be there for the foreseeable future because we don't know how to dispose of it.

My city uses hydroelectric generators and wind farms. Coalfags BTFO

...

Great stuff m8. That means it is even more expensive to run a EV than a ICE.

Everything?

>dig it out of the ground
>use it
>stick it back in the ground

Ask me how I know you are a kid?

Cool argument, how much are you being paid?

I do it for free.

But seriously, you have to be joking, or an idiot, or a child.

capitalism sucks when you're not able to use it to your advantage

Nope. Ours starts at 2.9¢ per kwh, while for example a coal city (Detroit) starts at 6.9¢.

>Capitalism
>doing it for free

Yeah, ok. Still such a nice argument you have there.

I don't need much of one, you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works.

Likely due to lack of experience in the world.

This is basically just you blindly following capitalism, you don't even have any reasons to defend it, you just do.

It's true that capitalism is the most barbaric of all religions. Notice how they bandwagon and throw someone on a stake just for disagreeing. It's like watching tribals, they just do because it's what they know, why question?

Sad.

...

>They can't even defend capitalism for free

Shows how much they really like it, I'm sure if someone waved a dollar in their face they'd have an argument.

Engineering perspective:
While the transformation of energy is more efficient in large scale vs small scale, you greatly reduce your energy in transit. Electricity goes through many transformers and many miles of wire. The average number for energy lose is about 4% in transmission and 4% in distribution.
A coal power plant is about 37% percent efficient anyways and the newest natural gas turbines can run at around 60% efficiency.
Meanwhile a new diesel engine is running at above 54% efficiency. This means that when you account for loses, a diesel engine is still much more viable than a large scale fuel burning power plant.
Now if you throw in solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, then the numbers start to change because that's energy that doesn't require burning fuel. But the point is the arguement for energy being more efficient because it's being made in mass quantities is ridiculous and not true.

Would you rather live in Sweden or USA?

Nuclear power is dying off, and it's a good thing. It really does create dangerous waste that we can't do a fucking thing with. Honestly the best ideas have been to shoot it into the sun but that's just not energy efficient.
With solar, hydro, and geothermal power increasing in efficiency, the need for nuclear power is dying out.
Nuclear power was great when solar panels couldn't do shit, but now they can, and so nuclear is dying.

Tldr; don't go into nuclear engineering kids

Sweden is too cold. They're much more progressive though. USA is still ruled by old white men who only see dollar signs.

if the powerplant wasn't there how was he getting power at his house?

That's where you are proving my point about your fundamental misunderstanding. I'm not, and never have been, arguing for capitalism, so you are wasting your breath. I only asked what you preferred to capitalism because it's funny to me that people think one form of government is better than another when they all have the same root problem.

Real communism doesn't.

>real communism

Where do you think the radioactive matter used for those very same rods comes from?
So what if they're underground?
Firstly: they came from there, secondly: they're encased in concrete and heavy water, they're less harmful than they was when dug up

there are breeder reactors which produce a usable product

also, there's actually a fusion reactor that's being constructed as we speak

> doesn't realize that nobody being shot for one day would be a huge decrease in crime

Correct, efficiency chains are a bugger.

Sweden.

>solar panels
>now they can

Anyone that believes ICE cars are cleaner than electric even when electric is in the worst case scenario and ICE is in best case scenario is a fucking retard enough said

Idiot spotted.

and it was done in new york in 2012
[spoiler]thanks obama ![/spoiler]

Southern Sweden where most of the population is concentrated is actually not that cold at all. The coastal areas roughly line up with Seattle for temperature. Mild summers, damp winters.

Happens almost everyday in most countries across Europe.

ft.com/content/d14b6c8a-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656

theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/01/electric-cars-already-cheaper-to-own-and-run-than-petrol-or-diesel-study

ez game ez life

Now try a scientific report not just press. You won't find it for a good reason.

Yeah, because science has more important things to do than to compare the running costs of cars. That's what consumer media is for.

In diesels can't you modify your fuel consumption for more fuel economy/more power?

Or am I thinking of something else?

ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

ICEhole BTFO again

Waste disposal is easy shit which only remains unsolved due to greenpeace whining and NIMBY retards who want it to remain unsolved so they can complain about it.

You can do that with both ICE and electric, Hydrogen I am not sure about.

Why not just use propane engines?

Don't forget 30% of electricity is lost in power line transmission and another 10-15% in the charging system.

But I remember something about having a leaner mixture in diesels mean a cleaner burn and less emissions overall. But again I might be thinking of something else.

ICE is 30% efficient.

Don't forget at distillation is inefficent probably lower than 30% again.

The tanker that moves the fuel needs 30 tonnes of fuel to even move and the MPG is insanely high.

Then that lorry that moves your fuel again is extremely inefficient and it's engine is again

If you want clean burns using methanol and ethanol is the way forward, aswell as being so much cheaper to buy.

So why couldn't this be a viable alternative? All I ever see is petrol vs electric. Are there big reasons why ethanol wouldn't work?

I just want to drive my monster truck on the street.

Takes a tremendous amount of energy to recycle all that shit. Still wasteful to make vehicles designed to become too expensive to maintain outside of warranty. And some shit like tires aren't truly recycleable. You can't make new tires out of them.

>wahhh old white men
Try living in a country not run by white men, you're going to have a bad time.

>old white men
>White
You have a lot to learn.

>The tanker that moves the fuel needs 30 tonnes of fuel to even move and the MPG is insanely high.
You mean insanely low.
But does the truck delivering fuel to your power plant not also use fossil fuels to deliver it there? Are you being dense on purpose?
>ICE is 30% efficient
Mazdas new technology approaches 60% efficiency for gasoline.

>Induction motor is 90% efficient
What? Where did you begin counting?
>mine fossil fuels
>transport to power plant
>convert to electricity
>step up to 120kv
>step down to 50kv
>step down to 120v
>convert to dc
>charge battery (lose efficiency)
>discharge battery (lose efficiency)
>convert back to ac
You are here:
>power electric motor, lose 10%

I'm not totally against electric cars though. I think if the energy is coming from a renewable and the storage problem is solved they'll be more environmentally friendly.

Big Petroleum companies want you to buy their petrol (gas) because it makes them so much more money.

Brazil has E85 and all cars their are Flexfuel (can burn Ethanol, petrol or methanol fully ie 100% of each or a mix on any) and their fuel is very cheap.

If you haven't seen it 'The Pump' Documentary on youtube give it a watch its a very good informative documentary.

>Try living in a country not run by white men
Asia

Ultimately, our ethanol requires fossil fuels to produce in large quantities. Yeah, out the tailpipe ethanol burns clean (still makes CO2 though!) but it's not a viable alternative.

>asia
>a country
huh?
Except for Japan and a few select cities Asia is dirt poor. Be my guest if you want to spend your days working in a malarial rice swamp while your kids have malnutrition.

Mercedes has just broken 50% efficiency and that is in their F1 cars. Mazda has not got 60% and they are not near it or everyone would be scrambling to work with them.

Yes I did mean extremely low my bad. I live in the UK and we have a good mix of energy sources. 11% of all our power was from wind last year and its growing fast, I would say we're on a great track with wind.

Solar is also doing good believe it or not and is about 10%.

Wave is smaller but still there and our nuclear is decent.

so the electricity that goes into my Volt is quite clean (in comparison to some places) and I know as a fact no ICE only car could come close to it in terms of pollution.

and when I said Induction motor I was only meaning the electricity passing from the battery through the motor like how you were saying ICE is 30% thermal efficieny.

From source to movement in both electric cars are still on the winning front in terms of less pollution and more efficieny and I don't think any rational person could argue differently.

What happens when you run out of rainforest to cut down for growing your ethanol crops? And the process still uses a huge amount of petroleum.
>and their fuel is very cheap.
Don't many South American countries heavily subsidise their fuel? It was like $.02 a gallon in Venezuela last I heard.

Brazil is the place where they do E85. Ven is a communist shit hole.

And growing crops for fuel is a double wammy (in a good way). You get cleaner fuel which is cheaper and all the left of product can be used to feed animals so you're not losing food for fuel contrary to what was pushed a few years ago.

Obviously Brazil isn't as developed as the US or UK but when you see the price of E85 next to Petrol you wouldn't think twice about it.

>I don't think any rational person could argue differently
I'm a rational person and I'm arguing differently. You're still using 80% fossil fuels for your electricity that has many efficiency losses along the way to move a vehicle that weighs 1000lbs more than an ICE car and requires a large amount of finite rare earth metals to build, which must be mined and refined using a massive amount of petroleum.

Yes my boy but Brazil is producing cheap E85 with the help of dirt cheap petroleum.

>An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

> The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.

> Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."

> Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel said. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

It goes on and gets worse from there

>hurr biofuels are a real alternative and aren't just a way to completely ruin our environment with space intensive monoculture farming full of harmful fertilizer and pesticide

Protip: bet on synthetic fuel. The synthetis process (Fischer-Tropsch) is almost a century old. You can take carbon out of carbondioxide (byproduct oxygen) and hydrogen out of water (byproduct oxygen) and power it with renewable energy, creating a clean cycle of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Literally the only hurdle left to master is to engineer efficient large scale production facilities and to make it economically viable (right now it still has to compete with cheaply dug up fossil fuels). The upside is that the engine technology and supply network already exist.

Alternatively bet on hydrogen fuel cells. Simpler process but requires a new vehicle stock and supply network.

Real communism doesn't work. You meant to say?

>U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either
They could, they just don't want to because they want to continue driving everywhere for even the most menial of things, and fill up their V8 SUVs for pennies.

What about the nuclear I said? which is 18% at 2017 in the UK. so that is down to 60% then.

Natural gas is a huge source and releases 50% less emissions that coal and other fossil fuels do.

Making batteries needs a lot of cobalt, Li-ion doesn't need much lithium at all. Cobalt is in readily supply still and all the old batteries used can be recycled and reused, its worth the time and effort.

Lugging around a heavy battery oack is still more efficient than using the average ICE...

Why is petroleum needed to refine metals? Energy yes but why petroleum?

Are you arguing that the only problem with using 2 gallons of petroleum to produce 1 gallon of ethanol is that drivers don't want to pay for it? Like nothing about the math on production efficiency bothers you?

I'm not arguing for anything in relation to biofuels or fossil ethanol because it's all retarded, I'm only arguing that Murrikan drivers crying about "high" prices is fucking entitlement and not a real argument.

Why are you saying you need that to make ethanol?

Where are your sources not just made up figures so you try to make yourself look right.

>so that is down to 60% then.
>Natural gas is a huge source and releases 50% less emissions that coal and other fossil fuels do.
Well good. Like I said I'm not 100% against it we just need to make sure we're being smart and not falling for a meme just because it makes us feel better.

The estimates I've seen give enough lithium suplly for roughly 50 years at current battery production projections. So not a real long term solution.
>www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/is-there-enough-lithium-to-maintain-the-growth-of-the-lithium-ion-battery-m

Why is petroleum needed to refine metals? Energy yes but why petroleum?
It's not absolutely necessary, but show me one piece of heavy equipment that doesn't run on diesel. Loaders, cargo ships, trains, freight trucks, crushers, foundries... all of it.

> Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."

diesel comes from a refinery as well
picture btfo

can we talk about the real problem?

half of yall niggas need to go

Skyactiv X is a game changer because they're the only ones mad enough to put a compression ignition/ spark ignition hybrid engine into actual production.
many other brands have tried it but gave up due to development costs, and the idea has been shelved since they figured out hybrids have great profit margins

>Jews are white

Mazda has the best average fleet economy of any OEM selling cars in the US (30.1mpg and 295g CO2/mile) despite not having any hybrids or EVs. And that's before Skyactiv X is even out.

this is a pretty fair argument, but my counterpoint would be that the consolidation of power generation to the efficiency of the grid is beneficial for a number of reasons. For example, now that the problem isn't a combination of "how do we make cars more efficient" and "how do we make the grid more efficient" and is just the latter of the two, more resources economically and scientifically can be devoted to the problem in a more efficient way. The transmission issue needs to be addressed no matter what, but if all cars were electric, our energy production and consumption problems would all be centered on improving grid efficiency, and if possible, making electric motors more efficient.

does it make loud noises though? this is important

fast breeding reactors are toxic in this way but a LFT reactor aka molten salt reactor (MSR) is less polluting because the coolant can also be the fuel. Not only that but it can be contained better in the event of a breach. water flashes to steam and expands to 1000x by volume which is why they need such huge containment vessels over the fission bays. The water is pressurized to keep it liquid in excess of 350F and this requires great pressures of 4-500psi plus additives. MSRs coolant pressure is barely 15psi so by design it's safer. The main fuel for an MSR or LFTR is thorium based (thorium flouride) and thorium is waaay more abundant in the earths crust which is more sustainable than uranium ceramic pellets encased in platium rods which are considered consumable. this is insane.

yes, it still uses exploding dinosaur juice

>Nuclear power is dying off, and it's a good thing.
Do you write for shitty internet "news" sites?