Carbon Credits

No, they were not couched in logic, or engineering, or economics. ...
Thus they were "COUCHED" in them.

Disprove my theory that electric-only cars are, in the time between starting to be manufactured and through the end of the consumer life-cycle, less damaging to the environment than the same class of gas-only cars. Provide all the necessary data sets with your proof, along with the 5 bazillion variables involved in calculating it.

When you can come to grips with ideas like logic and high-fallutin' concepts like high school Newtonian physics (and all the troubling little notions like thermodynamics with which the rest of us (in a land called Reality) have to deal), then maybe you can come around to the fact that while citing your new "theory" that electric cars are the shit, your first effort at flinging your intellectual feces against the wall to see what would stick, involved HYBRIDS.

Ferchrisakes.

I doubt you will have anything constructive to write from here, so "B'bye."
 
When you can come to grips with ideas like logic and high-fallutin' concepts like high school Newtonian physics (and all the troubling little notions like thermodynamics with which the rest of us (in a land called Reality) have to deal), then maybe you can come around to the fact that while citing your new "theory" that electric cars are the shit, your first effort at flinging your intellectual feces against the wall to see what would stick, involved HYBRIDS.

Ferchrisakes.

I doubt you will have anything constructive to write from here, so "B'bye."

Sorry, I meant to type "aren't" less damaging, not "are". I was tired. I think electric cars are shit, not "are the shit".
 
I acquiesce to the fact that there is a fuckton of pollution generated by manufacturing all those batteries to put in the car in the first place.
So maybe everyone is correct. Electric only for the win. I dunno', I'm not an engineer. But then again, how many others here are? My intuition says hybrid is the least-impactful to the environment.

Lead acid batteries are mostly recycled. I don't know the percentage , but it's high....80-90 percent of an old battery is recycled into new ones.

What about the Lithium Ion batteries.....? I honestly don't know but I am going to suggest that it will be equally high.
 
Prove it. Show me all the data that proves that electric cars, from start of manufacturing process to end of the car's consumer life-cycle, produced less pollution than a gas-only vehicle.

Prove it. Very simple question, with a very large data set and a VERY large number of variables to sift through.
Well here's a pretty comprehensive two year study that shows exactly that:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WKMfrfkrKiM

"Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner."

I'll be the first to admit that Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about climate change and there will be an inherent bias to anything they put out, but that said this is a pretty in-depth study and I don't see any actual flaws in their data and methodology. Nor do I see Brietbart et al. putting out anything of remotely similar rigor to show the opposite, so at this point I'm going to go with the scientists.
 
Yeah, Sig, the UCS have a certain left-handed friendliness, but too, they know they face a hostile crowd, so they structure their work (from their inception) with a fair degree of rigor.

One of the concepts that whuzhizname used correctly in a sentence was "lifecycle costs" so, kudos to him on that, at least.
 
Last edited:
Well here's a pretty comprehensive two year study that shows exactly that:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WKMfrfkrKiM

"Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner."

I'll be the first to admit that Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about climate change and there will be an inherent bias to anything they put out, but that said this is a pretty in-depth study and I don't see any actual flaws in their data and methodology. Nor do I see Brietbart et al. putting out anything of remotely similar rigor to show the opposite, so at this point I'm going to go with the scientists.

Thank you for the link. Briefing through it, it looks chock-full of information in what appears to be an in-depth analysis. Will study it when able and provide feedback if appropriate.
 
"Tesla's results were lifted by $139 million in sales of California zero emission vehicle credits. Rival automakers can buy the credits rather than sell electric cars of their own. That was comparable to what the company booked from sales of so-called ZEV credits for all of 2014, said Cowen analyst Jeffrey Osborne."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-idUSKCN12Q2QW

I emailed Tesla about the quarterly report but I never got a reply.
Well.........I received 2 messages about pre-ordering a new Tesla S and how amazing their charging system is for the garage.

But nothing about ZEV credits.

I don't blame them though, the clerk that opened the email probably thinks a ZEV credit is something you get at a casino in Vegas.
 
Unfortunately they failed to mention one of the huge reasons why compressed air storage never caught on. When you compress air it get's hot. A bunch of the energy you use to compress it goes into that heat. Which get's dissipated into the surrounding rock overnight as it sits. Then when you decompress it, the air get's really cold. So you have to burn natural gas to heat the air back up as you decompress it. Not terribly efficient, not to mention the paucity of giant airproof caves in the places where you need them
 
Back
Top