Big brother Tesla

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Tesla are a weird phenomenon. We've gone from thinking "wtf is that?" when first sighting one, to surprise at their ubiquity. From slight envy of their owners, to pity that they've blown so much money on an incipient fireball.

Has anyone ever seen a considerately driven Tesla? No, me neither.

Electric cars are like Starmer. Slightly better than the current way of doing things but a huge missed opportunity to make fundamental and beneficial changes.

Their purpose is to save the car industry and prolong traffic harm, not save the world's population from the effects of climate and pollution chaos.
 

multitool

Shaman
Yep. As it stands, mostly all electric cars do is push the pollution elsewhere
 

icowden

Legendary Member
From slight envy of their owners, to pity that they've blown so much money on an incipient fireball.
Nope - still have slight envy. Have you seen how explosive those petrol and diesel cars are? They catch fire all the time!
 

multitool

Shaman
But by fixing power generation at source, we can make huge gains quickly.
I'd rather be cycling behind an EV than an ICE

You cycling is pretty irrelevant. 67% of UK energy production is polluting.

Electric cars just push the pollution to the pount of energy production, and of course rare earth mines in Africa.

The solution does not involve cars.

Screenshot_20230404_122657_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

icowden

Legendary Member
You cycling is pretty irrelevant. 67% of UK energy production is polluting.
I don't have too much of a problem with Nuclear as that doesn't contribute greenhouse gases, If you factor that in, you are almost at 50%. I agree that we need to do more. Scotland is closer to 80%.

Rare earth mines are also used for computers, mobile phones, pretty much any technological piece of equipment. The push for EVs however means that battery tech will improve quickly and hopefully move away from this sort of mining. There is an R&D race at the moment to improve battery tech. Plus, used batteries can be recycled and / or repurposed.

Once we have self-driving, that will trigger the next revolution which is your second point. We don't need to own cars. Once you can summon a self-driving car quickly, cheaply and easily, you don't to own something that sits on the driveway for 22 hours a day. That means less need for parking spaces, more opportunities for gardens, trees, cycle paths etc. Redesigning cities helps too, obviously - hence the 15 minute town concept.

My own town is quite close to that although I live on the absolute edge which makes it more of a 30 minute town.
 

C R

Über Member
don't have too much of a problem with Nuclear as that doesn't contribute greenhouse gases, If you factor that in, you are almost at 50%. I agree that we need to do more. Scotland is closer to 80%.

Once you factor in the total life cycle emissions, including mining for uranium and long term storage of the waste (for which we don't have a solution) I very much doubt that nuclear can be said to not contribute to greenhouse emissions.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Once you factor in the total life cycle emissions, including mining for uranium and long term storage of the waste (for which we don't have a solution) I very much doubt that nuclear can be said to not contribute to greenhouse emissions.
I didn't say it didn't contribute at all, just that it doesn't contribute a lot. Just like wind turbines and solar panels have to be manufactured so are not 100% emission free. From National Grid:-

Is nuclear energy clean?​

In an emissions sense, nuclear power is considered to be clean. It produces zero carbon emissions and doesn’t produce other noxious greenhouse gases through its operation.
The lifecycle emissions of nuclear energy (emissions resulting from every stage of the production process) are also significantly lower than in fossil fuel-based generation.
Data taken from:-
https://www.world-nuclear.org/uploa...ing_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf
 

multitool

Shaman
I don't have too much of a problem with Nuclear as that doesn't contribute greenhouse gases, If you factor that in, you are almost at 50%. I agree that we need to do more. Scotland is closer to 80%.

Rare earth mines are also used for computers, mobile phones, pretty much any technological piece of equipment. The push for EVs however means that battery tech will improve quickly and hopefully move away from this sort of mining. There is an R&D race at the moment to improve battery tech. Plus, used batteries can be recycled and / or repurposed.

Once we have self-driving, that will trigger the next revolution which is your second point. We don't need to own cars. Once you can summon a self-driving car quickly, cheaply and easily, you don't to own something that sits on the driveway for 22 hours a day. That means less need for parking spaces, more opportunities for gardens, trees, cycle paths etc. Redesigning cities helps too, obviously - hence the 15 minute town concept.

My own town is quite close to that although I live on the absolute edge which makes it more of a 30 minute town.

The reality is likely to be more prosaic....people on bikes ^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Ian H

Guru
Figures I've seen suggest that you need to use an EV for eight years before its lifetime emissions (inc. from manufacture) fall below that of a conventional ICE car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

icowden

Legendary Member
No conflict of interest there.
To be fair, if you read the report it seems to be reasonable and well researched. It uses data from multiple studies, but yes, there is a risk of bias. That said I think the statistical data does speak for itself. We know that Nuclear doesn't release large mounts of CO2 etc, so it is preferable to coal and gas.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Figures I've seen suggest that you need to use an EV for eight years before its lifetime emissions (inc. from manufacture) fall below that of a conventional ICE car.
Figures I've seen suggest that that's nonsense.
https://www.transportenvironment.or...0x_s5gay1mgh7TGO5kBYryoNjBNHVZpYaAgwxEALw_wcB

REUTERS suggests 13,500miles:-
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
But of course the true answer is the same as the length of a piece of string because it depends where you drive the car. If you drive in Norway that figure changes to 8,400 miles.

So by increasing wind and solar we can make huge numbers of cars greener without having to change the car, or develop new fuel additives etc.
 
D

Deleted member 121

Guest
Figures I've seen suggest that that's nonsense.
https://www.transportenvironment.or...0x_s5gay1mgh7TGO5kBYryoNjBNHVZpYaAgwxEALw_wcB

REUTERS suggests 13,500miles:-
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
But of course the true answer is the same as the length of a piece of string because it depends where you drive the car. If you drive in Norway that figure changes to 8,400 miles.

So by increasing wind and solar we can make huge numbers of cars greener without having to change the car, or develop new fuel additives etc.

They are merely estimates. Still, scientists, climatologists and other experts can't seem to agree and there are wildly varying estimates, even recently. There are many variables as pointed out, but there seems to be no clear consensus or standard to measure against.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/

Besides, i don't buy into all this breaking even bullshit. A car is fantastically convenient, jobs and economy rely on this convenience and individual mobility but is a terribly inefficient way to travel, 1-2 tonnes of metal moving about to move and deposit 150 - 200 lbs of human meat and bone around is wasteful no matter what powers it...
 
OP
OP
albion

albion

Guru
If we all owned a 2 ton car doing its standard 3 miles per kw then the certainty of an ending world is troubly doubly certain.

Contrast that to an electric bike doing its normal 100 miles per kw.
 
Top Bottom