@matthey

Quote:

In my opinion, nuclear war is a far greater risk to earth than man made CO2 pollution and that threat may grow with nuclear fusion technology. Already nuclear powers have nuclear power generation plants as targets for nuclear ICBMs to knock out energy and thus industrial production. There are leaders, terrorists and mentally ill people who would use nuclear weapons if they could yet we have minimal ways to stop them. Eastern flight 5375 of a 737-800 in China was likely an intentional nose dive into the ground which couldn't be stopped and it is not the first. How then can we stop someone from destroying Earth with more and more powerful nuclear weapons?

The only thing Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power Plants have in common is the word "Nuclear".

The worst an attack on a Gen III reactor would yield is taking it off-line. Which can be done with any power plant. In a an inferior security scenario, fuel rods can be dispersed into a population and cause radiation poisoning, and without sufficient decontamination and iodine, some might even die from tumors/cancer sooner than otherwise. Much like they can also do if biological/chemical weapons, toxic waste, or crude oil were spilled into their environment.

Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is a much larger (global) and persistent threat. While the media and science community may resort to alarmist messaging, it can be justified to create immediate action in the face of those who would leave it to the next generation to address, all the while exacerbating the situation.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: New Zealand didn't have any subsidies for electric cars until last year, so I got nothing when I bought my Leaf 3 years ago. The only bone they threw us was no road user charges, since that is built into the price of petrol. But even that was set to go away once more than 1% of the fleet is electric (when the tax collected would be worth the administration costs). The only reason it's changing now is that we have committed to reducing our contribution to global warming, and reducing vehicle emissions is easier than cleaning up the dairy industry (another large polluter which has been getting away with it for decades).

Private citizens transportation takes around 10% of total OC2 emissions. The remaining 90+ % is due to:
- electric energy production;
- heating;
- industry;
- public and companies' transportation (around 6-7% AFAIR).

Let's say that moving the private citizens transportation from combustion engines to EVs you're halving the CO2 emission (it cannot be zero because of the TCO which should considered for producing EV vehicles, maintaining them, producing the electricity for them, distributing it, and decommissioning old batteries & cars).

Do you understand that a 5% reduction is NOTHING comparing to the remaining 90%?

Not even counting that if all vehicles will be EVs, then you should produce MUCH MORE electricity, which will increase the above 90%...

So, forcing private citizens to buy a super expensive EV car in such situation is just governments and politicians green washing.
Quote:

Quote: EVs are good for short range city driving but they aren't for everyone. I agree. That's why in New Zealand we have incentives for hybrids too, and are working on deploying hydrogen for long-haul trucking. But modern electric cars have plenty of range for the vast majority of uses. For most people the only change is that they will be charging overnight and/or at their place of work instead of going to a gas station to fill up. It doesn't take long to get used to it, and as routine as charging your cellphone. I know it's hard to not be afraid of new technology. I'm an old geezer myself who tends to just stick with what he knows, and the Leaf was quite an adventure for me (I bought it online and it was delivered while I was away - no chance to get a driving lesson!). But I'm glad I made the leap rather than settling for another crappy gas car.

You're a lucky one: millions and millions of other people wouldn't have the same possibilities and will be SEVERELY hurt by being forced to buy EV vehicles in some years...
Quote:

So relax, nobody's forcing you to buy an electric car if you don't want one. There may come a day when you can't buy a new gas car, and perhaps even a day when you can't get gas for it (just like the Amiga!). But that is way into the future. In New Zealand, by 2035 all new vehicles (with a few exceptions) will have to be hybrid or electric. By that time most new vehicles probably will be anyway. The majority of people in NZ don't buy new cars, so gas cars are going to be around for long time even after the cutoff date.

Well, you just proved that, yes, people will be forced to buy an electric car. BTW, the same will apply to Europe, unfortunately.

@cdimauro

1990 called and wants its analog cell phones back. They are so much better than 2022 smart phones! Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way.

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 23-May-2022 at 06:06 AM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: The only thing Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power Plants have in common is the word "Nuclear"

That and the fact they derive their energy from the fission of unstable heavy nuclei. Even so called "hydrogen bombs" derive most of their yield from fission.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Private citizens transportation takes around 10% of total OC2 emissions. The remaining 90+ % is due to: - electric energy production - heating; - industry;

It's not only 'private citizens transportation' that is being addressed.

In New Zealand the figure is 17.8% for 'road transport', 1.9% for 'other transport', 9.3% for 'manufacturing and construction', and 5.1% for 'electricity generation'. Note that these are the percentages for all greenhouse gasses. Methane and nitrous oxide are far more powerful warmers, but don't last nearly as long as CO2 (so reducing them has much more immediate effect). In New Zealand nearly 50% comes from farming, of which 22.4% comes from dairy cattle, 11.7% from sheep, and 8.5% from beef cattle. And we are addressing those too.

To get total emissions down we have to trim as much off every area as we can. Motor vehicles are an easy one. Farming is harder - but we will do it.

Quote:

Do you understand that a 5% reduction is NOTHING comparing to the remaining 90%?

If that was the only area being targeted you might have a point, but it isn't. Reductions are planned across the board, which will result in a very significant reduction overall. The global effect of these realizable reductions has been calculated, and it is worthwhile. If current plans are implemented then global warming will be cut in half compared to 'business as usual'.

Quote:

Not even counting that if all vehicles will be EVs, then you should produce MUCH MORE electricity, which will increase the above 90%...

You are wrong. Electricity production is cleaner than burning gas in cars, even if the electricity is produced by gas. As renewable electricity sources increase the benefit of electric cars increases, so they complement each other. Get electric cars on the road now, and they become even cleaner in the future.

Quote:

So, forcing private citizens to buy a super expensive EV car in such situation is just governments and politicians green washing.

You don't know what 'green washing' means. Electric cars are not 'super' expensive (in fact they are cheaper when total cost of ownership is taken into account), and nobody is being forced to buy them.

Quote:

Well, you just proved that, yes, people will be forced to buy an electric car. BTW, the same will apply to Europe, unfortunately.

Nope. If people want to buy a new car then the only choice may be electric or hybrid. But by 2035 most new cars will be electric or hybrid anyway - because it's a better technology.

Last edited by bhabbott on 23-May-2022 at 01:43 PM.

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro 1990 called and wants its analog cell phones back. They are so much better than 2022 smart phones!

This is another common logical fallacy. I don't think there's a specific name for it, but I can call it "Reductio ad Caverniculum", since your clear goal is let me reduce to a caveman AKA I'm against the progress (which is absolutely false).
Quote:

Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way.

Here it's quite evident that you have no clue at all of what you're talking about.

EV vehicles have:
- LESS autonomy. Comparable to my current Mini Cooper (I'm in the 500-600Km range). FAR AWAY from my Honda Civic Tourer 1.6Diesel (around 1100Km in Eco mode. BUT with my peppy driving);
- LONGER charging. I fill the tank of both Mini and Honda in 5 MINs max. Please, let me know how long it takes for the top EV car with ultra fast charging to reach 80% of capacity, and then 100%;
- need to bring the cables if you want to be sure to charge the car, because not all charging stations have them. By comparison, it's like having cars with combustion engines (CE from here on) that need to bring the pipe to fill the tank!
Even worse, there are DIFFERENT cables for different charging modes. I had TWO cables for slow charging (up to 10A) and fast charging (up to 16A) for my previous BMW 530e (which is a PHEV); and they took ALL the space for the spare wheel);
- power on charging stations is limited: the more the car are attached, the less charging is possible -> longer time to charge. - if you want to charge at home you need to change the contract (at least in Italy, where the normal one is 3.3kw) and spend more for the fixed costs (again, at least in Italy). And of course you need at least a box for charging the car. This is something which millions and millions of people could NOT do due to how their houses are;
- you CANNOT push the pedal for long time, because the batteries become too much warm (even with the best cars, which have a builtin cooling system for them), so they cannot sustain high-speeds for long periods. On the exact contrary I can push the pedal of my CE cars how long that I want (IF it's allowed due to speed limits and traffic in the highway). For example with my BMW 530e I was able to cover 100km in around 35mins (from outside Munich to before Ulm, here in Germany);
- for the same reason the maximum speed for EV vehicles is limited. You can compare the top EV car with similar CE cars to see it;
- if you accidentally have consumed all charge then you're lost: you've to call a specific service to charge it and start driving again. On the contrary, even if I'm lost in the middle of the desert it's enough to get a tank of gasoline somewhere to fill my CE vehicle and restart;
- you became a slave of the EV car because you need to care about how much it's charged, and for long trips you need to carefully plan the stops. And you also be lucky, because sometimes the charging station don't work, and then you're lost. Last but not least, stops are MUCH LONGER for EV vehicles, because of charging time (even with super fast charging);
- consequence of the above, if your cannot hasn't enough charge and you've an emergency, then you're lost. Whereas with CE cars you quickly fill the tank;
- EV vehicles are much more expensive because you've to pay in advance 10-20K only for the batteries. Which can amortise only if you drive a lot, which isn't always the case (in Italy people drives for around 11000km per year on average). People also change cars in 11-13 years (again: it's the average in Italy), so you might not have enough time to get into break-even;
- the extraordinary maintenance might be very expensive. Especially for replacing the batteries.

OK, I stop here, but I think that it should be enough to rebut your completely false statement.

But I add the list of pros for EV vehicles:
- the acceleration is very very good;
- they are silent;
- the ordinary maintenance is cheaper.

Now it's really all. Next time avoid speaking of things that you know absolutely nothing about.

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Private citizens transportation takes around 10% of total OC2 emissions. The remaining 90+ % is due to: - electric energy production - heating; - industry; It's not only 'private citizens transportation' that is being addressed. In New Zealand the figure is 17.8% for 'road transport',

Which is more or less the same of what I've reported (10 + 6-7 -> 16-17%) for Europe or US (I don't recall now).
Quote:

1.9% for 'other transport', 9.3% for 'manufacturing and construction', and 5.1% for 'electricity generation'. Note that these are the percentages for all greenhouse gasses. Methane and nitrous oxide are far more powerful warmers, but don't last nearly as long as CO2 (so reducing them has much more immediate effect). In New Zealand nearly 50% comes from farming, of which 22.4% comes from dairy cattle, 11.7% from sheep, and 8.5% from beef cattle. And we are addressing those too.

I want to see if your government put at least proportional plans to address those.

Because what I see on other places (Europe, particularly) is that they're offload most of the costs to the cars and very little for the 90% of the above.
Quote:

To get total emissions down we have to trim as much off every area as we can. Motor vehicles are an easy one. Farming is harder - but we will do it.

If you really care about the emissions that you should first start with the things that cause more of them.

Not bashing the poor people for their cars, which contribute very little to the emissions.
Quote:

Quote: Do you understand that a 5% reduction is NOTHING comparing to the remaining 90%? If that was the only area being targeted you might have a point, but it isn't. Reductions are planned across the board, which will result in a very significant reduction overall. The global effect of these realizable reductions has been calculated, and it is worthwhile. If current plans are implemented then global warming will be cut in half compared to 'business as usual'.

As I've said, I want to see those measure for the above 90% of stuff.
Quote:

Quote: Not even counting that if all vehicles will be EVs, then you should produce MUCH MORE electricity, which will increase the above 90%... You are wrong. Electricity production is cleaner than burning gas in cars, even if the electricity is produced by gas. As renewable electricity sources increase the benefit of electric cars increases, so they complement each other. Get electric cars on the road now, and they become even cleaner in the future.

I'm not wrong. Rather, the contrary.

If you increase the number of electric cars, then you have to increase the electricity production. That's simple math.

And currently a good part (most of it, in most places) is produced with oil, carbon, gas, ecc. -> you're INCREASING the CO2.
Quote:

Quote: So, forcing private citizens to buy a super expensive EV car in such situation is just governments and politicians green washing. You don't know what 'green washing' means.

I know it, and if you carefully read your link then you'll see that my usage is covered.
Quote:

Electric cars are not 'super' expensive (in fact they are cheaper when total cost of ownership is taken into account),

See at the top my reply.
Quote:

and nobody is being forced to buy them.

You're hiding the reality here.
Quote:

Quote: Well, you just proved that, yes, people will be forced to buy an electric car. BTW, the same will apply to Europe, unfortunately. Nope. If people want to buy a new car then the only choice may be electric or hybrid. But by 2035 most new cars will be electric or hybrid anyway - because it's a better technology.

Proved (again): you're forcing people to buy EV vehicles..

P.S. No time to read it again.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/electric-vehicles-tease-new-energy-source-gravity-rcna30116

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@cdimauro

LOL, I’ve been driving an EV since 2012, I think I know a little about them. Some of the points you made shows you don’t have one or know much about them.

FYI,

I charge at night so plugging in takes me 2 seconds tops. I stay home and go to bed so I don’t even think about charging times. I wake up to full range everyday. I have free rapid charges near me if needed so it’s not an issue. Our other vehicle is a plug in hybrid so no issues charging on that vehicle. If people are concerned about charge times a plug in hybrid is a great solution for them. You rarely have to get gas in that car so it’s almost like your driving fully electric.

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 23-May-2022 at 10:49 PM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 23-May-2022 at 10:47 PM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 23-May-2022 at 10:41 PM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: I want to see if your government put at least proportional plans to address those.

Why must it be 'proportional'? Some sectors can easily make deep cuts, while for others it is much more difficult and expensive. Therefore it makes sense to reduce emissions where you can, starting in areas that are easiest and most practicable. But that doesn't mean we are ignoring the others.

Reducing emissions from agricultureQuote:

Nitrous oxide and methane from agriculture make up almost half of Aotearoa New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The Government consulted with the public in 2019 on its proposals to reduce agricultural emissions. Following this, the Government decided to put a price on agricultural emissions from 2025. In the interim, the Government has developed a joint action plan with iwi/Māori and the agriculture sector, and entered into a formal sector agreement based on the Primary Sector Leader Group’s proposal, He Waka Eke Noa. The Government continues to invest in research and development to identify options to reduce agricultural emissions.

Partnership to reduce agricultural emissionsQuote:

16 May 2022 The Government has committed $710 million over four years through the Climate Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to accelerate efforts to lower agricultural emissions, expand the contribution of forestry to reduce carbon, and produce alternative ‘green’ fuels... “We are allocating nearly $339 million to accelerate the development of high-impact technologies and practices to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, including the establishment of the new Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions. “The Centre is about applied research that drives product development. The He Waka Eke Noa partnership has highlighted the demand from farmers and growers for products that will shift the dial on-farm so our sector can hit our emissions reductions targets. The sooner tools are ready for farmers the sooner we move on our goal of biogenic methane reduction of 10 percent by 2030 and 24 to 47 percent by 2050... “This new funding will increase New Zealand’s biomass supply by enabling planting of 10,000ha of forest... Funding of $256.2 million will go towards maximising the contribution of forestry in boosting carbon sequestration to achieve New Zealand's future carbon goals. Damien O’Connor said Budget 2022 initiatives, including just over $6 million to support the implementation of a pricing system for agricultural emissions, and $35.4 million to support farmers, growers and whenua Māori entities to transition, would complement existing initiatives under way. “There’s a tonne of work happening in this field that can be built on, such as low emissions sheep, nitrate inhibitors and methane inhibitors for ruminants. The Government’s commitment includes integrated farm planning, supporting the more than 170 farmer-led catchment groups across the country, and the many industry-led innovation projects enabled through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund,” Damien O’Connor said.

New Zealand is committed to reducing emissions by 50% before 2035 and achieve net 0% emissions by 2050. Even then some industries will still be net producers, which will be offset by others that sequester carbon - such as forests. The result will of course be very non-proportional, but practical.

Quote:

If you really care about the emissions that you should first start with the things that cause more of them.

This is simplistic and impractical advice. If the government tried to slap 50% reductions onto the farming sector that it cannot currently achieve without massive pain, the result would last less than 3 years - when it would be voted out of power.

Quote:

Not bashing the poor people for their cars, which contribute very little to the emissions.

Every sector contributes 'very little', if you consider it separately. The idea that people are being 'bashed for their cars' is laughable. Electrics cars are cheaper to own and run than gas cars, so encouraging their use is the opposite of 'bashing'. However 'bashing' the farming sector will be bashing the poor people who buy food - which right now is suffering massive inflation. And once again, nobody is being forced to buy electric cars - they are merely being subsidized.

Quote:

As I've said, I want to see those measure for the above 90% of stuff.

It's not 90%. Every sector is cutting back as much as economically and politically practicable in the current environment. In the future we will be able to make deeper cuts in areas that we can't do right now. We certainly are not ignoring them.

Quote:

I'm not wrong. Rather, the contrary. If you increase the number of electric cars, then you have to increase the electricity production. That's simple math.

Logic fail. Increased electricity production doesn't increase emissions if it results in proportionally reduced emissions elsewhere. From 'well to wheels' electric cars produce less emissions even if the power source is gas (not with coal, but coal power stations are shuttering in many places because they are not competitive today). And the 'greener' our power sources get, the greener the whole system will be. In New Zealand - with 78% renewable electricity - there is no comparison.

Quote:

if you carefully read your link then you'll see that my usage is covered.

Nope. Electric cars really are 'green' - it's not scam. And you know it.

Quote:

Proved (again): you're forcing people to buy EV vehicles..

let's say I own a store that only sells PCs and not Amigas (yes, at one time I was doing that). Am I 'forcing' people to buy a PC? Of course not. "But they want a new Amiga and you won't sell them one!", you retort. Even after 2035 people in New Zealand will still be able to buy a gas car if they are willing to pay the surcharge. But manufacturers and retailers will probably respond by reducing their inventories and production of gas cars to the point where few models will be available if at all - just like Amigas.

Last edited by bhabbott on 24-May-2022 at 02:18 AM.
Last edited by bhabbott on 24-May-2022 at 02:16 AM.

@Karlos

I see now I have to be extra careful with you around.

One is designed as a weapon. It is set to deliberately achieve critical mass of the unstable heavy nuclei.

The other is not designed as a weapon. It's purpose and function does not rely on achieving critical mass of unstable heavy nuclei. What's more with Gen III rectors and beyond, it is for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve critical mass of the unstable heavy nuclei.

I was originally rebutting the idea that nuclear power plants can be weaponized and be just as dangerous as actual nuclear weapons, because Nuclear.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/electric-vehicles-tease-new-energy-source-gravity-rcna30116

So, your next vehicle will be a truck or a train...

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro LOL, I’ve been driving an EV since 2012, I think I know a little about them.

I think that you don't, since you've written this:

"Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way."

which I've proved to be completely false.
Quote:

Some of the points you made shows you don’t have one or know much about them.

And you were so sure of it, that you haven't took the chance to quote those points and prove that they were wrong. Oh, yeah! I believe you, I believe you...

BTW, I work at BMW Group since more than 5 years, and I'm pretty well informed about all type of cars, and I also had one electric car (530e: do you what the "e" stands for? Guess what...) for more than 2 years.
Quote:

FYI, I charge at night so plugging in takes me 2 seconds tops. I stay home and go to bed so I don’t even think about charging times. I wake up to full range everyday. I have free rapid charges near me if needed so it’s not an issue.

It's evident that you don't read what people is writing. Let me quote myself again:

"And of course you need at least a box for charging the car. This is something which millions and millions of people could NOT do due to how their houses are"

You're lucky: other people cannot do the same.

I, for example, wasn't able to charge my 530e in my old house, even having a garage! Because there was no electricity available there, and bringing it to the garage required too much work and expenses. So, I gave up. On my new house the garage has electricity, but I decided to have no electric car anymore (unless I'll be forced to have one by government).
Quote:

Our other vehicle is a plug in hybrid so no issues charging on that vehicle. If people are concerned about charge times a plug in hybrid is a great solution for them. You rarely have to get gas in that car so it’s almost like your driving fully electric.

Again, wrong: it applies ONLY if you can charge it at home, or at office, etc.. AND/OR the distance from home to office is within the range of the battery AND/OR if you don't need to use the air condition to warm or cool the car.

Here in Germany the battery of my PHEV was NOT enough to go home and then to office in winter time, because warming up the car took a good part of the charge.

For similar reason, the autonomy of EVs is reduced considerably if you need to use the air condition.

So, other FACTs about EVs which rebut your previous statement, which I report here again for your convenience:

"Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way."

Plainly FALSE!

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: I want to see if your government put at least proportional plans to address those. Why must it be 'proportional'? Some sectors can easily make deep cuts, while for others it is much more difficult and expensive. Therefore it makes sense to reduce emissions where you can, starting in areas that are easiest and most practicable. But that doesn't mean we are ignoring the others.

I've already explained the reason: if you care about emissions, you should attack the things which produce most of them. So, where the measures will show a sensible impact.
Quote:

Reducing emissions from agricultureQuote: Nitrous oxide and methane from agriculture make up almost half of Aotearoa New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The Government consulted with the public in 2019 on its proposals to reduce agricultural emissions. Following this, the Government decided to put a price on agricultural emissions from 2025. In the interim, the Government has developed a joint action plan with iwi/Māori and the agriculture sector, and entered into a formal sector agreement based on the Primary Sector Leader Group’s proposal, He Waka Eke Noa. The Government continues to invest in research and development to identify options to reduce agricultural emissions. Partnership to reduce agricultural emissionsQuote: 16 May 2022 The Government has committed $710 million over four years through the Climate Emergency Response Fund (CERF) to accelerate efforts to lower agricultural emissions, expand the contribution of forestry to reduce carbon, and produce alternative ‘green’ fuels... “We are allocating nearly $339 million to accelerate the development of high-impact technologies and practices to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, including the establishment of the new Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions. “The Centre is about applied research that drives product development. The He Waka Eke Noa partnership has highlighted the demand from farmers and growers for products that will shift the dial on-farm so our sector can hit our emissions reductions targets. The sooner tools are ready for farmers the sooner we move on our goal of biogenic methane reduction of 10 percent by 2030 and 24 to 47 percent by 2050... “This new funding will increase New Zealand’s biomass supply by enabling planting of 10,000ha of forest... Funding of $256.2 million will go towards maximising the contribution of forestry in boosting carbon sequestration to achieve New Zealand's future carbon goals. Damien O’Connor said Budget 2022 initiatives, including just over $6 million to support the implementation of a pricing system for agricultural emissions, and $35.4 million to support farmers, growers and whenua Māori entities to transition, would complement existing initiatives under way. “There’s a tonne of work happening in this field that can be built on, such as low emissions sheep, nitrate inhibitors and methane inhibitors for ruminants. The Government’s commitment includes integrated farm planning, supporting the more than 170 farmer-led catchment groups across the country, and the many industry-led innovation projects enabled through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund,” Damien O’Connor said. New Zealand is committed to reducing emissions by 50% before 2035 and achieve net 0% emissions by 2050. Even then some industries will still be net producers, which will be offset by others that sequester carbon - such as forests. The result will of course be very non-proportional, but practical.

I see that emissions will be reduced by at most 47% by 2050. So no 0% emissions...
Quote:

Quote: If you really care about the emissions that you should first start with the things that cause more of them. This is simplistic and impractical advice. If the government tried to slap 50% reductions onto the farming sector that it cannot currently achieve without massive pain, the result would last less than 3 years - when it would be voted out of power.

Well, the current investement are very reduced: the government put on the table only little money. That's the reason: they don't want to spend a lot for reducing the emissions.
Quote:

Quote: Not bashing the poor people for their cars, which contribute very little to the emissions. Every sector contributes 'very little', if you consider it separately. The idea that people are being 'bashed for their cars' is laughable. Electrics cars are cheaper to own and run than gas cars, so encouraging their use is the opposite of 'bashing'. However 'bashing' the farming sector will be bashing the poor people who buy food - which right now is suffering massive inflation. And once again, nobody is being forced to buy electric cars - they are merely being subsidized.

Inflation is on every sector.

And electric cars aren't cheaper than CE cars. Even when with governments bonuses to finance them.

And when I compare cars I mean: with almost exact same configuration and where the only difference stays in the engine.

Actually the burden of emission is on the citizens that want to buy a car...
Quote:

Quote: As I've said, I want to see those measure for the above 90% of stuff. It's not 90%. Every sector is cutting back as much as economically and politically practicable in the current environment. In the future we will be able to make deeper cuts in areas that we can't do right now. We certainly are not ignoring them.

Words. I prefer to see measures. Plans are only good on the paper. I prefer to see the paper from the money effectively allocated to bring down the emissions on all sectors.
Quote:

Quote: I'm not wrong. Rather, the contrary. If you increase the number of electric cars, then you have to increase the electricity production. That's simple math. Logic fail. Increased electricity production doesn't increase emissions if it results in proportionally reduced emissions elsewhere. From 'well to wheels' electric cars produce less emissions even if the power source is gas (not with coal, but coal power stations are shuttering in many places because they are not competitive today). And the 'greener' our power sources get, the greener the whole system will be. In New Zealand - with 78% renewable electricity - there is no comparison.

Again, you're changing the cards on the table. Now you're citing emissions reduced on OTHER sectors.

The topic was EV cars and how to feed them. They need electricity and it's obvious that the production should increase.

What happens to OTHER sectors is orthogonal to the EVs and production of electricity.
Quote:

Quote: if you carefully read your link then you'll see that my usage is covered. Nope. Electric cars really are 'green' - it's not scam. And you know it.

Again, FACTs prove the contrary.

It's a FACT that EV produce emissions in their entire lifecycle.
It's a FACT that EV need to deal with exhausted batteries.
It's a FACT that EV need electricty for charging, which is NOT 100% "green".
It's a FACT that even 100% "green" production of electricy produces emissions.

"Green" is only on the mind of the green zealots...
Quote:

Quote: Proved (again): you're forcing people to buy EV vehicles.. let's say I own a store that only sells PCs and not Amigas (yes, at one time I was doing that). Am I 'forcing' people to buy a PC? Of course not. "But they want a new Amiga and you won't sell them one!", you retort. Even after 2035 people in New Zealand will still be able to buy a gas car if they are willing to pay the surcharge. But manufacturers and retailers will probably respond by reducing their inventories and production of gas cars to the point where few models will be available if at all - just like Amigas.

It's simple logic: if governments are FORCING car vendors to produce CE cars, and citizens will be FORCED to buy electric cars.

If you do NOT force to have only EVs, then people could have the chance to choose even CE cars.

BTW, if EVs are so convenient then why you need to stop the production of CE cars? Nobody should by CE cars anymore, right? Again, it's simple logic...

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @Karlos I see now I have to be extra careful with you around. One is designed as a weapon. It is set to deliberately achieve critical mass of the unstable heavy nuclei. The other is not designed as a weapon. It's purpose and function does not rely on achieving critical mass of unstable heavy nuclei. What's more with Gen III rectors and beyond, it is for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve critical mass of the unstable heavy nuclei.

There's still the possibility, but it's greatly reduced.

However it's bet to go for micro nuclear plants which are WAY more secure, easier to build, and ready in 3-4 years.

And invest also on Torium plants, which have some other nice properties (they can reuse exausted combustion from Uranium and Plutonium plants).

@cdimauro

I bet you love nuclear cars the best. But they require you to buy all new expensive pants with extra pockets to store uranium rocks!

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@cdimauro

Quote:

"Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way." which I've proved to be completely false.

No you haven't.

Your arguments are mostly related to the established infrastructure surrounding cars running on fossil fuels. It's unfair to compare a locomotion technology at the height of its development with one that is in its early phase.

Kilo for kilo, and electric automobile is better than an ICE automobile, in EVERY way.
Today, upstream and downstream it increases nothing over the ICE automobile.
Tomorrow, that's where its true potential is realized. Electrical energy supply will get greener, and EVs of upcoming generations will be cheaper to produce. But we can't wait 'till that tomorrow arrives. In order to get there quicker, it requires people buying these early generations of EVs (distribution of innovation curve).

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro I bet you love nuclear cars the best. But they require you to buy all new expensive pants with extra pockets to store uranium rocks!

Again, you don't read what people is writing.

In fact, my preference goes towards Thorium (10 x more abundant of Uranium -> cheaper; and safer).

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @cdimauro Quote: "Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way." which I've proved to be completely false. No you haven't. Your arguments are mostly related to the established infrastructure surrounding cars running on fossil fuels. It's unfair to compare a locomotion technology at the height of its development with one that is in its early phase.

Friend agami (cit.), you know that I'm not a native speaker, but verbs work more or less the same way in English and Italian, at least for this specific discussion. In fact, I'll report again what friend DiscreetFX (cit.#2) said, but for your convenience now:

Electric cars are better than gas cars in almost every way.

I've highlighted the magic word for your benefit.

In Italian the verb form is called "Presente indicativo". In English it's "Present". But the meaning is exactly the same.

This clarified, you can understand yourself that all my previous sentences aren't questionable because they are FACTs. At least TODAY (AKA Present). Do you agree?
Quote:

Kilo for kilo, and electric automobile is better than an ICE automobile, in EVERY way.

OK, then... PROVE IT!

I've already reported TONs of FACTs which prove the exact contrary.

Now it's turn: report the FACTs that prove your thesis.
Quote:

Today, upstream and downstream it increases nothing over the ICE automobile.

What do you mean with that?
Quote:

Tomorrow, that's where its true potential is realized. Electrical energy supply will get greener, and EVs of upcoming generations will be cheaper to produce.

OK, then let's talk about it... tomorrow! TODAY the situation is VERY different. Do you agree?
Quote:

But we can't wait 'till that tomorrow arrives. In order to get there quicker, it requires people buying these early generations of EVs (distribution of innovation curve).

So, before you were complaining and talking about unfairness, and this all considering that EVs have already BIG benefits compared to CEs:
- there are HUGE bonuses which the state gives to you if you buy one;
- you pay 50% (75% for hybrid vehicles) for leasing (depends on the Country);
- you don't pay the annual taxes on vehicles (depends on the Country);
- insurance policies are much lower;
- parking is free (depends on the Country);
- you can enter all areas on the cities (depends on the Country);
- many shops offer charging stations for free;
- some other stuff which I don't recall now. But you got my point.

But no, this isn't enough! You want to force people to buy EVs to improve their situation.

So, the situation is so highly distorted in favor of EVs, but you are yelling that any comparison with CEs in... unfair! And you want even more benefits for EVs.

Do you read what you say before writing?

If we want to be fair that you should remove ALL benefits of EVs, and only then you can make an onest comparison with CEs.

BTW, and as I've already said, if EVs are so good, WHY do you need so many benefits for buying them? WHY governments are FORCING car vendors to don't sell anymore CEs (so, leaving EVs as the ONLY option in the market)?

But the most important question is WHY citizens cannot decide themselves what to buy (WITHOUT a distorted market)? And if EVs are, as you zealots continue to repeat, better than CEs, then the logical conclusion should be that EVs will be the only choice made by consumers.

However I bet that this wouldn't happen. Guess why...

@cdimauro

You convinced me, I’ll see you on race day with your Thorium powered car! I bet you will be glowing green with envy. Be carful not to hit a Cybertruck with it.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/the-thorium-powered-car-eight-grams-one-million-miles/

https://youtu.be/568iDYn8pjc

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 24-May-2022 at 07:43 PM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro You convinced me, I’ll see you on race day with your Thorium powered car! I bet you will be glowing green with envy. Be carful not to hit a Cybertruck with it. https://www.drive.com.au/news/the-thorium-powered-car-eight-grams-one-million-miles/ https://youtu.be/568iDYn8pjc

Sure. In two more weeks...

The challenge for electric cars today is the same as the challenge they've always faced since being invented prior to internal combustion powered cars: Energy density.

There's no doubting that battery technology has improved but 0.6MJ/kg is pretty terrible compared to petrol (about 49 MJ/kg), no matter how efficient at converting the electrical energy to kinetic energy the motor may be. Typical efficiencies quoted for petrol cars is around 20% (real world compared to manufacturers idealised cycles). You don't need to be an emeritus professor of mathematics to see that current battery technology, even if energy conversion was 100% is lagging behind.

However, for an urban setting with ready access to charging this doesn't need to be a limiting factor.

I do think that despite the engineering challenges, hydrogen has the potential to be a good replacement as a combustion fuel. As a liquid it's about 1/10th the density of petrol, and about 3x the energy density per kg. So a crude estimate would put it at around 30% the energy density of petrol per unit volume (which is a better metric for liquid fuels). That's still better than batteries by a wide margin.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: I do think that despite the engineering challenges, hydrogen has the potential to be a good replacement as a combustion fuel. As a liquid it's about 1/10th the density of petrol, and about 3x the energy density per kg. So a crude estimate would put it at around 30% the energy density of petrol per unit volume (which is a better metric for liquid fuels). That's still better than batteries by a wide margin.

You're forgetting all the stuff required to contain and use the hydrogen.

Theoretical potential is one thing, practical application another. The Hyundai Nexo has a range of 354-380 miles. The Tesla Model X has a range 360 miles.

An electric car can be recharged anywhere there is electricity. With hydrogen, your range is limited to the distance from the nearest hydrogen fueling station. These cost ~$2 million to build, and unlike electricity they only have one purpose and a high maintenance and supply cost. That means they will only be built in places where they get good patronage.

Tesla's superchargers cost ~$50,000 per charger and $290,000 for a typical station, 7 times cheaper than a hydrogen station. That means (for the same infrastructure investment) 7 times more charging stations, so you won't need as much range.

Hydrogen will find a place in long-haul road transport, ships, and aircraft, where battery size and recharge times are more of an issue and the larger (and fewer) fueling stations may be more economic. But electricity is beginning to be used in boats and airplanes too.

Southern hemisphere’s first electric ferry launched in WellingtonQuote:

"Her electric power unit is quieter and smoother with fewer moving parts than a diesel engine. That means less maintenance and less disruption to the sailing schedule." Made from carbon fibre, the light yet durable catamaran can transport up to 132 passengers at a speed of 20 knots. East by West’s existing diesel-powered vessels are slower and carry a third fewer passengers. Meridian chief customer officer Lisa Hannifin said her company was proud to be propelling the maritime innovation. "As a generator of 100% renewable energy, Meridian is delighted to be supporting the first fully electric passenger ferry. It proves the potential for the electrification of transport to disrupt the status quo while reducing the impact of climate change."

Electric ferries coming to Auckland HarbourQuote:

Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods said the current diesel ferries made up about 20 percent of the city's public transport emissions. "These electric ferries promise to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with each electric ferry displacing approximately 1000 tonnes of carbon emissions annually," she said. The electric ferries have a range of 40km, so they will be able to travel the approximately 30km distance to Waiheke. The vessels will be constructed from carbon fibre and have a top speed of 25 knots - on par with the diesel ferries.

Electric seagliders to connect NZ cities by 2025Quote:

Kiwis may be able to travel direct between the centres of many New Zealand coastal cities on low-flying electric “seagliders” for less than the cost of a return taxi to the airport within a few years. Seagliders are a name being given to a new form of passenger transport vehicle that might best be described a cross between a hydrofoil and a battery-powered seaplane. They are being designed to carry up to 100 passengers at speeds of up to 540 kilometres-an-hour, flying just 10 metres above the sea to take advantage of a phenomenon known as “in ground effect” which reduces drag and increases their range... Ocean Flyer’s seagliders would be able to fly people between Wellington and Lyttelton in an hour for $60 a seat, or between Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour and Whangarei in 30 minutes for $30... Other businesses that have placed orders totaling $8b include British cross-Channel ferry operator Brittany Ferries, which hopes to use seagliders on a route between Portsmouth and Cherbourg, and US commuter airline Southern Airways Express.

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @Karlos Quote: Karlos wrote: I do think that despite the engineering challenges, hydrogen has the potential to be a good replacement as a combustion fuel. As a liquid it's about 1/10th the density of petrol, and about 3x the energy density per kg. So a crude estimate would put it at around 30% the energy density of petrol per unit volume (which is a better metric for liquid fuels). That's still better than batteries by a wide margin. You're forgetting all the stuff required to contain and use the hydrogen. Theoretical potential is one thing, practical application another. The Hyundai Nexo has a range of 354-380 miles. The Tesla Model X has a range 360 miles. An electric car can be recharged anywhere there is electricity. With hydrogen, your range is limited to the distance from the nearest hydrogen fueling station. These cost ~$2 million to build, and unlike electricity they only have one purpose and a high maintenance and supply cost. That means they will only be built in places where they get good patronage. Tesla's superchargers cost ~$50,000 per charger and $290,000 for a typical station, 7 times cheaper than a hydrogen station. That means (for the same infrastructure investment) 7 times more charging stations, so you won't need as much range. Hydrogen will find a place in long-haul road transport, ships, and aircraft, where battery size and recharge times are more of an issue and the larger (and fewer) fueling stations may be more economic. But electricity is beginning to be used in boats and airplanes too.

You can fill the tank of an Hydrongen car 10 times faster than a Tesla with the best supercharger. 10 x is > 7 x.

Actually the only problem is about the costs. But economies of scale will reduce them.
Quote:

Southern hemisphere’s first electric ferry launched in WellingtonQuote: "Her electric power unit is quieter and smoother with fewer moving parts than a diesel engine. That means less maintenance and less disruption to the sailing schedule." Made from carbon fibre, the light yet durable catamaran can transport up to 132 passengers at a speed of 20 knots. East by West’s existing diesel-powered vessels are slower and carry a third fewer passengers. Meridian chief customer officer Lisa Hannifin said her company was proud to be propelling the maritime innovation. "As a generator of 100% renewable energy, Meridian is delighted to be supporting the first fully electric passenger ferry. It proves the potential for the electrification of transport to disrupt the status quo while reducing the impact of climate change." Electric ferries coming to Auckland HarbourQuote: Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods said the current diesel ferries made up about 20 percent of the city's public transport emissions. "These electric ferries promise to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with each electric ferry displacing approximately 1000 tonnes of carbon emissions annually," she said. The electric ferries have a range of 40km, so they will be able to travel the approximately 30km distance to Waiheke. The vessels will be constructed from carbon fibre and have a top speed of 25 knots - on par with the diesel ferries. Electric seagliders to connect NZ cities by 2025Quote: Kiwis may be able to travel direct between the centres of many New Zealand coastal cities on low-flying electric “seagliders” for less than the cost of a return taxi to the airport within a few years. Seagliders are a name being given to a new form of passenger transport vehicle that might best be described a cross between a hydrofoil and a battery-powered seaplane. They are being designed to carry up to 100 passengers at speeds of up to 540 kilometres-an-hour, flying just 10 metres above the sea to take advantage of a phenomenon known as “in ground effect” which reduces drag and increases their range... Ocean Flyer’s seagliders would be able to fly people between Wellington and Lyttelton in an hour for $60 a seat, or between Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour and Whangarei in 30 minutes for $30... Other businesses that have placed orders totaling $8b include British cross-Channel ferry operator Brittany Ferries, which hopes to use seagliders on a route between Portsmouth and Cherbourg, and US commuter airline Southern Airways Express.

Are you kidding? Those are vehicles for very SHORT distances.

And you know why? Because here is another big problem with EVs: the batteries' weight (which, BTW, limit cars' stability when they have to turn when traveling at high speed. Have you seen a Tesla video driving at the Nurburing? Take a look and see how difficult was for the driver to turn with the car. So, another point AGAINST EVs here!). This will always severely limit their usage for airplanes.

On boats the weight is not much important, however the big problem there is the charging capacity which, as Karlos pointed out, is a couple of orders of magnitude inferior compared to gasoline or diesel.
Plus you have to add the charging time to fill the big batteries.
Plus you need a nuclear plant (!) to charge big batteries at decent speed.
That's why electricity will be limited here as well.

I don't understand why thje green zealots continue to spread dreams with opened eyes. This is just wishful thinking: reality is way different...

@cdimauro

Millions of EVs have been sold worldwide and customers love them. Many more models are coming out in the coming months so sales will continue to increase at an exponential rate. I will agree with you if customers have no way to charge at home or at work that can be a problem. Since modern electric cars go 200 or 300 hundred miles per full charge most peoples daily driving requirements are met by charging overnight if they can charge at home. Hydrogen cars are still a non starter since there is almost no place to fill up with Hydrogen. And that looks like it’s not changing anytime soon. Also, people have fear of a Hindenburg type accident. Weather or not this could happen is besides the point. People are afraid it could happen.

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 25-May-2022 at 06:16 AM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.