Why doesn't /pol/ support the electic car?
>>73418017
>no extra content or input of your own
???
Uhh I support electric cars. I'd buy one and use it as my daily driver if they were affordable.
>>73418017
because the electricity to power and produce them comes from fossil fuels. They're just adding a step
>>73418090
>1. No Gas Required: Electric cars are entirely charged by the electricity you provide, meaning you don’t need to buy any gas ever again. Driving fuel based cars can burn a hole in your pocket as prices of fuel have gone all time high. With electric cars, this cost can be avoided as an average American spends $2000 – $4000 on gas each year. Though electricity isn’t free, an electric car is far cheaper to run.
>2. Savings: These cars can be fuelled for very cheap prices, and many new cars will offer great incentives for you to get money back from the government for going green. Electric cars can also be a great way to save money in your own life.
>3. No Emissions: Electric cars are 100 percent eco-friendly as they run on electrically powered engines. It does not emit toxic gases or smoke in the environment as it runs on clean energy source. They are even better than hybrid cars as hybrids running on gas produce emissions. You’ll be contributing to a healthy and green climate.
Most have a distance limit of 300 miles, I routinely drive more in one sitting to visit family.
I do support anything related to renewable energy. As a woodsman I fully understand the need to be self-sufficient. The Earth being more aesthetically pleasing is just a very nice side effect. If you disagree with this you have a double digit IQ.
>>73418017
IF battery technology and can be improved, and nuclear gets off the ground, they're honestly not a bad idea. I'll miss gas-powered engines a lot, but bankrupting OPEC would be choice.
>>73418017
The driving dynamics of electric cars are superior, as well, offering the best of both internal combustion and steam.
>>73418017
Too expensive. I've seen a few Teslas here and strangely they had American numbers.
>>73418365
>t.Koch Brothers & House of Saudi
>>73418365
>what is nuclear energy
Electric cars are moot unless the electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/"hydrogen plants.
They're just offloading issues onto someone else, but it's expected from liberals since they;re the primary consumer.
Do remind me what the batteries are made of and where said materials are extracted and how they are processed.
>>73418365
it is still missing the battery factory
>>73418179
Nigger, that's all a big fat lie.
No one cares, because you're living in the last days.
Lithium runs out globally in the next 5 years.
The solar minimum and the volcanic activity will push the Earth in to an ice age again and make your "green energy" shit obsolete.
The global financial collapse comes by the end of this year and Tesla goes bankrupt.
Civil unrest and and war will push the expensive sedans out of the markets.
In the 2020s there will be a higher chance of riding a dinosaur, than an electric car.
>>73418555
>what is coal
>>73418649
>>73418555
Nuclear has been losing popularity due to the brainwashing of the public into thinking it's dangerous because retarded soviets fucked up once and retarded japs built a plant on a fault line. There needs to be a massive transformation of public opinion plus the increase of oil & natural gas prices
>>73418555
US hasn't opened a new nuclear plant in about 35 years. We've even finished building plants and did not open them. If the point of electric cars is that nuclear energy can be used for them (or other renewable) we have plenty of coal plants that can already be replaced. It also isn't like the US is unique with regards to not building nuclear plants.
>>73419026
Look it up. Every point is confirmed. Even Trump spoke about the coming collapse yesterday and said that he will default on US debt.
>>73418947
I really don't get why they don't build more nuclear plants in boring areas. There's fuck-all going on in the middle of the desert, etc.
>>73418893
Coal is for retards
>>73418017
>Benefits on environment
>runs on electricity
>most of it is produced by nuclear, gas, coal or oil
>lithium needed for batteries is usually obtained by destructive exploitation
>rare earth metals are usually conflict resources
>>73419143
You lose power during transmission so it is better to have them near where it is used. They also need water sources for cooling, but cities are typically built around good water sources.
>>73419143
>I really don't get why they don't build more nuclear plants in boring areas.
Because resistance is a thing.
Longer power lines = more power lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance_and_conductance
but we do need to move to nuclear. anti-nuclear shills need to die.
>>73419143
Environmentalists will bitch about the waste regardless of how desolate an area the plants are located in. Regardless of the fact that we have a great place to store the waste which is literally in the middle of a desert.
>>73418017
You can only draw so much current from lithium batteries.
Sure 0-60 is impressive but it tops out a lot sooner than a conventional gasoline engine.
Plus all that weight from copper windings and batteries.
Once an electric car beats the Nuremburg ring record on one charge, well talk.
>>73419432
But if we have more nuclear plants the burden on each individual plant would be reduced, making the resistance more negligible no?
>>73419627
>Once an electric beats the Nuremburg ring record on one charge, we'll talk.
This has nothing to do with consumer vehicles apart from marketing bullshit. The best selling vehicles are midsize sedans and trucks.
>>73419627
If you're gonna spell it wrong, just say burgerking or hurrdurrring
>>73418017
I do support electric cars. They are a viable technology for the vast majority of passenger vehicles.
>>73418365
Well Chevy is also making a "Bolt" which is 100% electric. So i guess General Motors must know that their hybrid bullshit isn't going to compete with the reliability of a Tesla.
But brand loyalty is also important, and I say fuck 'em for self-sabotaged the EV1. I'll never buy GM shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Program_cancellation
>>73419823
Again, current draw limits its potential speeds and thus why most electric cars have a conventional gasoline motor take over.
Or we could change the national speed limit to 55mph.
Yeaaaa that'll go over well.
>>73419342
>conflict resources
That doesn't mean much when the places they're mined in are always in tribal conflict for dumb shit.
>>73420128
We actually have driver data on hand of people who own and have been driving Tesla cars for several years now.
We know how they perform -- and that is exceptionally well for a passenger car. Get the fuck out of the thread.
>>73419293
You are retard, coal is awesome. Countries blessed with open coal mines could enjoy minimal energy prices and develop industry.
Are electrics really that good?
I drive a CNG 1.6l car and a 2.0l gas car, the CNG is cheap as fuck to drive but it accelerates like a 1.1l engine.
I'm pretty sure the emissions and cost to drive are the same for CNG than they are for electric cars. Why spend so much money developing electrics then? Is it because they are faster? Or is it because of the cool factor?
>>73420375
Those fires from current over draw included in your "research"?
Cars are crap full stop. They certainly need to be restricted in cities. They're too atomising and take up too much space.
>>73420046
Anyone own one of these and want to share their thoughts?
I'm thinking of getting one for around-town piddly shit so I don't have to fire up the Ford Freedom mobile every time I get eggs.
Lots of ball-washing reviews online because muh so green. Need a cynical take.
>>73420672
Only Tesla produces the fast ones. Although it's for short-range travels only.
Realistically it eats up the battery in 250km, then needs to be charged for a pretty long time.
Also the transmission is retarded and it feels like driving a retarded version of Prius.
>>73418017
>Lithium-Ion powered batteries
>Having a car that uses a heavy toxic metal as it's largest component that cannot be recycled as anything other than toxic waste
Yeah sounds fucking great.
>>73420803
My nephew has a Nissan Leaf. The range is short and the air-con and heaters arserape the range. The range calculator things are bollocks as soon as you drive up a hill, ignore them. The interior components are light, thus a bit cheap.
I imagine it is little different with the GM car. If you commute to one place of work within 25 miles you are fine, otherwise you are in bomb disposal territory.
>>73418017
>Why doesn't /pol/ support the electic car?
-The cold kills both the battery and all the fancy displays.
- I don't see and 4 wheel drive electric1/2 tons that can act as a backup generator all day in -20 and still drive 45 mins on an unplowed road home.
-no ability to extend range if you are in the middle of nowhere (aka 99% of Canada) Alternately a spare 50km of fuel weights <10kg, and will fit in the back seat/truck etc
-they don't even have a spare for weight reasons
-zero customer replaceable parts, the dealer has you by the balls
-at the mercy of real time SW updates and monitoring
-initial cost, most people can't afford 50-60k for a second vehicle, which is all they are good for right now.
l'eccy Cars for the nu-male only
>>73419627
>Sure 0-60 is impressive but it tops out a lot sooner than a conventional gasoline engine.
Almost as if a transmission of some sort would've been useful.
>>73421188
First, checked Hitler digits.
Second, thanks. Your nephew's experience leads me to think it would be a fine car for the five-mile round trip to the store and back.
Just makes more sense to me because I have a hybrid solar setup in my house already so the juice for the car will be "free" most of the time.
>>73421277
>/pol/ is one person in Canada
Got my Chevy Spark EV for free (thanks California) and I get to charge it for free (at work) as well. I don't drive a whole lot.
Don't give a shit about the environmental impacts.
>>73421344
The weight would limit a taller gear and increase the current draw to dangerous levels.
>>73421110
>lithium
>heavy metal
>>73421344
>transmission
>on an electric car
>>73418145
power plants are far more efficient and can be replaced with nuclear without needing to change the way cars work
>>73421478
>/pol/ is one person in Canada
Some of my points obviously aren't universal, but for the 50% of canadians that still live in rural areas, all points will probably apply
>>73418145
>what are hydro plants
>what is nuclear energy
>what is solar energy
the list goes on...
>>73418793
>Lithium runs out globally in the next 5 years.
Norway will litterally be sitting on a goldmine harvesting the litium from all their Teslas
>>73421522
The fuck are you talking about? If the motor is capable of overcoming static friction (car at stand still) that is your maximum current draw. Kinetic friction is ALWAYS less than static friction.
The reason they didn't put a transmission in was for weight concerns (would affect range for city driving) and the fact they couldn't figure out how to stuff a light-weight transmission that could take the 700 ft-lbs of torque that monster pumps out.
Tesla made a gamble that most driving would not be long distance, high speed, highway driving.
>>73418365
>Implying my electric car isn't recharged with nuclear and hydro at night
>implying ye old fossil fuel jews, and retarded Bernie supporting greencucks who think we can power civilization with windmills and fairy dust aren't both wrong
don't be a dumbass, electric cars + nuclear is the future
its still too early for electric cars, for myself to buy one, but i can see myself getting one in ten years or less
>>73419721
No.
>>73419939
The American problem is that their range is fine for daily commuting but not much else. Americans will need a gas vehicle if they are going to go anywhere outside of roughly their hometown, pic is of 150 mile radii on some North Eastern cities which would get the Tesla there and back if it were in a straight line. You stop helping the environment when each family adds on another environmentally costly vehicle.
If most people are going to have a gas vehicle anyway, then their environmentally conscious commuter/daily vehicle is probably not an electric car and is instead a bus/bike/scooter/rideshare.
>>73421727
>Doesn't know that electric motors actually have a max RPM.
>>73421583
http://chemistry.about.com/od/metalsalloys/f/What-Is-A-Heavy-Metal.htm
>>73421810
electric cars are still a new idea
they are at the same stage a fossil fuel car was in the 1920s
give it 25 years or so
>>73421849
>what are hydro plants
good, very local
>what is nuclear energy
good, not used enough
>what is solar energy
a joke
what's your point?
>>73422040
>gas powered engines have transmissions because of max RPM
>>73421887
>drag coefficient
>>73422167
>hydro plants
>local
m8 they are all over my country
all you need is a fucking river with a strong enough current (even thats optional)
>solar is a joke
it is now yeah
but give it time for the technology to catch up
>Nuclear not used enough
true
but it has great potential seeing how even my shitty country has 2 nuclear plants (not sure if only 1 or 2 but you get the point)
give electric cars 25-50 years and it wont even be similar to what it is now
/pol/ supports the electric car 100%. We are all against Saudi Arabia and the Muslims oil mafia.
>>73418017
>Sardine noises.
Because we are not cucked faggots.
Kill yourself.
>>73422263
I can't tell if you're retarded or not. I typed out a long post explaining how gas engines need transmissions and why an electric motor could benefit from one, but I'm fairly certain you're too stupid to catch on to any of it.
>>73422445
Again, the fuck are you talking about? Most modern sedans have a drag coefficient less than 1.
Are you seriously arguing that driving at 80mph creates more force from drag than would be seen from 0-25mph when dealing with force from static friction?
Have you not wondered why you get better gas mileage on the freeway than on city streets? How fucking dense are you?
>>73418017
1. Driving range is too low. I know tesla "can" go 500 km in the best conditions but on finnish winters maybe 200 km. And also all the extra weight you input to car range goes down.
2. They are expensive at the moment and I think that new batteries are expensive as shit when it breaks down.
3. Storing solar energy is not sufficient enough so your car would still be powered bu fossile fuels or nuclear energy.
4. The cost is just too damn high for the average consumer. I understand that Norwegian oil sheik can pull 100 k from their ass but not everyone else.
>>73422850
I don't think you understand the nature of current draw or when too much of it is drawn to turn an engine to overcome friction, especially for long periods of time.
>>73420659
How much does indoor plumbing cost in India?
>>73421887
That's why you don't make a car before participating in any kind of racing competition.
They could've at least tried NASCAR.
Ferraris are horribly shitty overall, but they sell, because they are extremely fun to drive. Because Ferrais grew out of racing.
Evey car manufacturer that tried to do shit Tesla does went bankrupt.
>>73422529
Your entire "country" is smaller than most of our states. Even if your whole population was powered by hydroelectric that's barely 1% of the US. I don't know where you think all the great water sources are that no one is using.
Because you're better off buying a diesel car. Lithium mining is hugely environmentally damaging.
>>73422529
They're all over your country because they're local you fucking pleb.
>>73423283
why do americans always feel the need to compare dick sizes?
its the first argument against any country
>U IZ SMALER THEN 1 OUR STATE LOL
anyway back on topic
1 hydroplant is enough to provide power to 1 smaller town
and again we need time for technology to work its magic and make it easier to produce electricity from turbines.
>>73422589
>>73421887
Didn't see this post.
>Kinetic friction is ALWAYS less than static friction.
Cars don't drag along the ground. The use of wheels bypasses static friction. The main sources of high current draw come from poor road conditions and driving up hills.
>The reason they didn't put a transmission in was for weight concerns (would affect range for city driving) and the fact they couldn't figure out how to stuff a light-weight transmission that could take the 700 ft-lbs of torque that monster pumps out.
The reason there is no transmission is because electric engines work differently from gas powered engines. Gas powered engines have transmissions because power output of gas engines maps directly to RPM. Multi-speed transmissions keep the engine RPM within an acceptable range for better fuel efficiency and power. Electric engines draw power based on resistance, not RPM. Transmissions are almost useless because electric engines function at near full power at very low RPM.
>>73423128
Ugh.. Just stop.. No matter what system you look at (internal to the motor), external (the wheels on the ground), or the gears in the transmission. Static Friction > Kinetic Friction. If the current draw that is required to move the vehicle from a standstill can be withstood, then the current draw required to shift can DEFINITELY be withstood.
>>73421849
>what are hydro plants
Shittier on the environment than you would think.
>what is nuclear energy
Also shitty on the environment because the waste has to go somewhere and also the rare chance of a meltdown.
>what is solar energy
Only thing that isn't shitty on the environment but doesn't yield nearly enough power to be used exclusively.
Go on with your list.
>>73423842
>>Kinetic friction is ALWAYS less than static friction.
>Cars don't drag along the ground. The use of wheels bypasses static friction. The main sources of high current draw come from poor road conditions and driving up hills
American schools at work. Good god.. you'd be embarrassed if you knew how dumb you sound.
Go look up a textbook example of kinetic friction vs. static friction using a car if you want.. shit. I take it you're just googling this crap on the fly anyway.
>>73423876
>Also shitty on the environment because the waste has to go somewhere and also the rare chance of a meltdown.
educate yourself on where the waste goes
and a meltdown is extremely rare and in CURRENT YEAR is far less dangerous
>Shittier on the environment than you would think.
please elaborate
>>73420803
Take a look into the Nissan Leaf. EngineeringExplained gives a good review and explains the cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysHpmrwsEsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCdLFhUmubc
>>73418017
They are fine as toys, but we really don't have a way to store electricity at anywhere near the energy density of fossil fuels. For now, having a gas or diesel car is 100x more practical.
If you really wanted a good solution to both power generation and automotive fuel, look into thorium reactors that produce H2 as a byproduct.
>>73423694
I was just stating a fact? No duh hydroelectric plants are all over your country. It's small. It's not reasonable to compare a Croatia to the US since the US is over 175x larger and has completely different geography and natural resources.
>>73424383
But there was no reason for you to state that fact
other than to feel better about yourself and boost your pride
>>73424228
Hydro fucks up aquatic wildlife pretty badly.
Just because you throw the radioactive shit down a deep hole, doesn't mean it isn't shitting up the environment. Unless you're going to spend billions trying to send it all into space, it's still going to effect the planet in one way or another. Also, meltdowns do happen, even if rare. And when they do, they fuck up the environment for a large portion of the planet. Take Fukushima for intense. We still don't know just how bad the damage to the Pacific it caused but it's pretty bad.
>>73423851
Then there is little to no resistance on the windings and the batteries wont charge, limiting its range.
Its a stupid design.
>>73424383
>It's not reasonable to compare a Croatia to the US since the US is over 175x larger and has completely different geography and natural resources.
Are you trying to say that America doesn't have rivers because it's big?
>>73421896
I like this graphs, they just show how naive this people are who create them.
Guess why there is a peak in the afternoon/evening, well yeah right people come at home.
Now guess what happens when all this people plug in their car when they come home.
Yep right, the load increases even further.
You can't satisfy the increased demand from e-cars with base load power plants, they all have to be peak or medium load ones, meaning the ones that everyone is so asshurt about aka fossil.
>>73424858
>every river should/can be dammed for power
stupid leaf
>>73424089
>American schools at work.
This is what I should be saying.
Cars use wheels with bearings which means cars are affected far more by rolling friction than static/kinetic friction.
In addition, power draw is most needed in going up hills and accelerating (which I forgot to mention). There's a reason cars have trouble climbing the hills in San Francisco.
>doesn't respond to the main point about transmissions
>I bet you're just googling all this!
>>73424885
The guy you responded to said in his post that he charges while he sleeps. It would be very easy to implement that into home charging stations: charge now, for a certain cost, or set the system to charge overnight automatically for some savings.
NB I am not so much in favor of electric cars yet, most people buy them because they're a meme, used cars should be used much longer, not discarded for new toys. But we can at least be honest about the situation.
>>73425310
here cars from theyear 1999 are still very common and populate the streets
seeing a new audi is a head turner and lets not even talk about a tuned up sports car
>>73418017
I like electric cars.
>>73422021
Tesla could make a 400 miles car nw, but the price would be too high to sell, something like 200K,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ho9bSdeoA
Charging stations are not a big deal. See a light pole in a parking lot? It can be converted to a charging station with little fuss.
>>73418017
Because /pol/ is filled with anti-science degenerates
No wonder we are the laughingstock of /sci/
>>73426039
>/sci/
literally who?
>>73425993
It's like the manufacturer-reported car mileage no one is ever able to achieve.
400 miles with climate, headlight, radio and assistance systems turned off a extremely careful with acceleration.
In reality it's 250-300 in best case.
>>73425310
>The guy you responded to said in his post that he charges while he sleeps. It would be very easy to implement that into home charging stations: charge now, for a certain cost, or set the system to charge overnight automatically for some savings.
So basically you give away control to someone else. read the energy companies or the state.
You can't decide when you charge your car, other do. Can't wait for the premium quick charge service planes they come up with :^)
>>73426594
where the fuck can you even drive at that speed?
>>73424250
>Not a regular car review
ehhh...
>>73426814
It's not about speed, it's about range. The batter lasts only for that many miles.
By the way you can drive as fast as you can in Germany. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbLfyB1ug8
>>73427113
>By the way you can drive as fast as you can in Germany.
thats not just a meme?
thank you my german friend
>>73424250
Can't watch the whole thing because of the annoying bowl-cut.
I see in the beginning he is doing a cost/mile comparison. At some point, if you travel enough miles per month, electricity is cheaper than gas. Does he address the point that higher-mileage travelers should prefer gas because of electric vehicles' limit range?
>>73426671
If you are buying electricity from a power company, they already have control. You can make the circuitry yourself for a timed-charger without approval from anyone, or I'm sure you could buy one. Either way, it is absurd to claim that all EV charging will happen at peak hours. People who purchase EVs will be more likely to be informed about electricity usage, power companies will encourage off-hours charging, etc. etc.
There are plenty of valid criticisms about EVs, so using weak criticisms is worse for everyone.
>>73426969
That guy sucks. Do you also enjoy john oliver's show?
>silly voice
>shitty metaphor
>LEL SO RANDUM
yuck.
