[hkric88]

ok, enough's enough. Electric powered cars are no more 'ecofriendly' than any other modern car. Just because you're not producing emissions out your tailpipe doesn't make it ecofriendly. You're still consuming the same amount of energy, and producing that energy comes at the cost of emissions somewhere. Not only that, now instead of taking stored chemical energy, converting it into heat, and converting that heat into kinetic motion, as is done with a traditional car, you're instead getting chemical energy converted into heat, converted into kinetic, converted into electric, voltage stepped up, voltage stepped down, converted into chemical again in your car (batteries), converted back into electricity and then finally into kinetic. Every time you introduce conversions of energy, there will be energy loss. The result is an overall abysmal efficiency. So the truth is, by driving one of these things you're probably going to produce more emissions than if you just bought yourself a civic.

That however, only addresses the energy concerns directly, you have to also look at the ecological impacts of a car-oriented urban environment and lifestyle. Truly that is the most damaging issue. Being mentally challenged enough to believe that we can all live in single family houses with our electric, or god forbid 'hydrogen', cars in the future is truly the bane of the ignorant majority. We need the land (farming) and even if we didn't, who's decision is it to claim that all available land on this planet is for our consumption.

Finally, and glaringly, remember that car travel is the most energetically inefficient transportation system possible. Few straight lines, high rolling resistance, frequent acceleration/deceleration, inefficient drive-trains, and a passenger-vehicle weight ratio that we should be concerned about. Take your average car, with even a heavy passenger, or even two heavy passengers, and still the car itself is going to account for more weight than the passengers. Therefore the majority of energy is used to move the vehicle, not the people within it. If you take your average aluminum subway train (yes including everything not aluminum such as the trucks, etc.), and put a reasonable amount of passengers, not even a crush load, and quickly it becomes a situation where the people weigh more than the vehicle, and thus the energy consumed goes towards moving people primarily.

Moving into the future, we are going to be more energetically contained. If you dream about alternative fuels, wake up, because they're never going to be able to sustain our current levels of consumption. In the future it comes to a hard decision that many people are not about to make, especially those of you who are going to die fairly soon from old-age.

It's like this: get a metropass, if you don't like it be a farmer.

 

[Glen]

ok, enough's enough. Electric powered cars are no more 'ecofriendly' than any other modern car. Just because you're not producing emissions out your tailpipe doesn't make it ecofriendly. You're still consuming the same amount of energy, and producing that energy comes at the cost of emissions somewhere. Not only that, now instead of taking stored chemical energy, converting it into heat, and converting that heat into kinetic motion, as is done with a traditional car, you're instead getting chemical energy converted into heat, converted into kinetic, converted into electric, voltage stepped up, voltage stepped down, converted into chemical again in your car (batteries), converted back into electricity and then finally into kinetic. Every time you introduce conversions of energy, there will be energy loss. The result is an overall abysmal efficiency. So the truth is, by driving one of these things you're probably going to produce more emissions than if you just bought yourself a civic.

You missed the fact that gas is not pumped from the ground. Crude oil, is then cracked, vast amounts of hydrogen are used (guess the source), and gas is produced. You also seem to ignore hydroelectric and nuclear sources. And finally you miss the point that during off peak times vast amounts of potential (in the case of hydro), or actual, in the case of nuclear, production is wasted.

 

[hkric88]

you seemed to miss my point sir, which is: forget about trying to make cars more 'ecofriendly' just get out of them. period.

 

[Hydrogen]

You've missed the point that this ain't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[EnviroTO]

Where does electricity come from? Hydro/coal/nuclear/wind is not environmentally friendly.

Eventually, the goal is compressed air cars that are safe to drive.

How are you going to compress the air without using the same energy source which could create electricity? I have a hard time believing that compressed air is the ultimate energy storage. Electric cars are the way to go. Any energy source can be made into electricity and there is an existing distribution system for it. Hydrogen might work if the process to create hydrogen using electricity is efficient.

ok, enough's enough. Electric powered cars are no more 'ecofriendly' than any other modern car.

Creating a car that creates no emissions or hazardous waste and which can use electricity to charge its battery or create its fuel is environmentally friendly. Wind and solar can create electricity. The fact that a hydro utility might create electricity uncleanly does not alter the environmentally friendliness of the car. Saying the car is at fault for the choices electricity producers make if like saying "plants" aren't environmentally friendly because farmers spray chemicals on them. Energy efficiency is a totally different measure... you can create a method of transport which is very energy efficient yet not environmentally friendly. A diesel bus carrying 30 might be more energy efficient than 30 hydrogen cars with hydrogen produced by energy harnessed by tidal generation for example, but it wouldn't automatically be more environmentally friendly. Greater efficiency is more environmentally friendly when you are comparing apples to apples, but not necessarily so when comparing two totally different methods energy sources, energy storage, and propulsion.

 

[hkric88]

Right, keep dreaming people. This is becoming down-right comedic.

 

[TKTKTK]

you seemed to miss my point sir, which is: forget about trying to make cars more 'ecofriendly' just get out of them. period.

That's not a realistic stance. The way we administer our car-related infrastructure needs to change, but that change won't be the abolishment of cars.

Cars took off because they allowed a freedom of mobility that was unheard of before. That, as an ideal, is still relevant - we just need to figure out how best to satisfy that urge without also killing ourselves in the process.

 

[Hydrogen]

ok, enough's enough. Electric powered cars are no more 'ecofriendly' than any other modern car. Just because you're not producing emissions out your tailpipe doesn't make it ecofriendly. You're still consuming the same amount of energy, and producing that energy comes at the cost of emissions somewhere.

That however, only addresses the energy concerns directly, you have to also look at the ecological impacts of a car-oriented urban environment and lifestyle. Truly that is the most damaging issue. Being mentally challenged enough to believe that we can all live in single family houses with our electric, or god forbid 'hydrogen', cars in the future is truly the bane of the ignorant majority. We need the land (farming) and even if we didn't, who's decision is it to claim that all available land on this planet is for our consumption.

Moving into the future, we are going to be more energetically contained. If you dream about alternative fuels, wake up, because they're never going to be able to sustain our current levels of consumption. In the future it comes to a hard decision that many people are not about to make, especially those of you who are going to die fairly soon from old-age.

It's like this: get a metropass, if you don't like it be a farmer.

I read your earlier posts and get a bit of an impression that you think the use of any energy is in itself is a bad thing. You then go on about "ecofriendly" but neglect to provide what your definition of this term is. Hopefully you can clarify this a little.

As an earlier post noted, energy efficiency is a specific kind of measurement. Also, you don't provide a reason as to why people should be "energy contained." What does that mean? If anything, you've outlined a problem of land use wherein automobile usage is a somewhat secondary problem. With respect to energy production, we produce are own energy from sources we have devised, and we can produce whatever amounts of energy we want. The limitations are, more often than not, economic rather than technical. Going beyond economics, even minor improvements in technology can result in considerable increases in energy efficiency. Potential major improvements, such as high temperature superconductors, will present radical jumps in efficiency with respect to the transmission of electricity.

As for the noted pessimism of your post, remember that oil was first pumped in order to provide fuel for lighting. At that time, no one foresaw the automobile. And using naphtha for indoor lighting was one of the best things to happen for whales, which were being hunted to extinction for their oils.

 

[Cancerous]

Cars took off because they allowed a freedom of mobility that was unheard of before. That, as an ideal, is still relevant

North Americans (especially Americans) were always fascinated with the closely-knit concepts of freedom, autonomy, exclusivity, privacy, as well as mobility. These constitute extremely crucial pillars of the American Dream, and are deeply ingrained in the American psyche and lifestyle.
The cowboy, roaming around the Wild West, has always been an admired ideal of the American freedom and autonomy. The house on top of a hill was and is always regarded as prime real estate, especially if it was at a distance from the nearest neighbours. The suburbs and their escape–from–the–city objective captivated the American masses by providing them with the very ideals upon which their country was founded. The car provided exactly that premise. That’s why the Ford Model T was indispensable to Americans and an exemplification of that American Dream. The fact that you can go anywhere you like, with nothing stopping you, was very tempting and helped propel its sales, usage, and popularity among the public.

However, now we realize that this vision of the world is not the way to go about it, especially in the 21st century. We are not meant to run away from each other and exclusively cocoon ourselves in monstrous detached houses in the suburbs. Instead, more emphasis should be placed on neighbour relations, public transit, verticality, and density, to mention just a few. So, the fact that we still choose to cling on to cars will not be the answer in the distant future. We should aspire to utilize more railways than trucks, to transport goods, and more bikes and subways than cars, to transport ourselves. The car stands in direct opposition and disagreement with our urban future.

From an environmental perspective, if owning a Civic is better than owning a Hummer, and if owning a Zenn is better than owning a Civic, then why not owning a bike not better than owning a Zenn? Impractical?
Sooner or later, you’ll have to abandon it anyways, so why not start now on your own rather than suffer the consequences of its unsustainability and be forced to give it up later.

This is my philosophical opinion; it's not just about how sustainable or fuel efficient the car is, it's about how anti-social and egocentric it is.

 

[casaguy]

^Wonderfully stated.

And hkric88, I ultimately agree with you too. Ideally, none of us would own cars and everyone would be using an incredibly reliable and efficient mass transportation system.

However, as Hydrogen stated, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

So, when weighing the pros and cons of all arguments, I still can't see why it wouldn't be much, much better if we were all driving an electric car.

As for the source of energy, would it be possible to have "charging stations" either in your driveway, parking garage or at work that were powered by solar energy? I'm curious if this would be feasible and if this would alleviate even more emmissions from the equation.

 

[Cancerous]

^ Thanks very much indeed.

I still can't see why it wouldn't be much, much better if we were all driving an electric car.

It would indeed be much better to drive an EV; if I was forced to buy a car, the Zenn would be my choice without any second of hesitation. Your idea of solar-powered fueling stations is great if they could implemented in a feasible way, it would render the Zenn truly emission free.

 

[Cancerous]

Electric powered cars are no more 'ecofriendly' than any other modern car

Well, the Zenn doesn't produce any noise so it would still be more ecofriendly than any other modern car because it helps minimize noise pollution, which could be detrimental to Mother Nature.

 

[TKTKTK]

This is my philosophical opinion; it's not just about how sustainable or fuel efficient the car is, it's about how anti-social and egocentric it is.

My car is waaayy social. Especially in the summer with the roof and windows open.

 

[Redroom Studios]

we have detected a resistor^^^^

maybe advances in genetic research can breed arrogance out of the human species?

 

[Hydrogen]

Uh oh, a social engineer.


Maybe the attraction of cars appeals to the ancient hunter-gatherer instincts: seasonal movement, move where the food is and so on.