• nitrolife@rekabu.ru
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where should the energy for electric vehicles come from? of course, I understand that living somewhere in Europe, you can talk about wind turbines, solar panels and everything green. But if you live in a region where, if the heating is turned off, you can freeze to death in less than a day, you start looking at wind turbines and solar panels with irony.

    And I don’t really understand, besides, how exactly replacing some energy emissions in random places with other emissions in random places will greatly help to cool the planet.

    • dcat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      in norway all the power is hydroelectric, and it’s been that way for the past 100 years.

      and i don’t understand how wind turbines, solar panels, or “everything green” is somehow exclusive to europe.

      • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I really don’t understand the topic well, but I searched the Internet and indeed wind generation is possible. but there is still no solar generation due to too short daylight hours. as for hydroelectric power plants, they are already around. I did not think that they are considered green, given that they require flooding of huge territories.

        UPD: also, for any large wind generation, forests will most likely have to be cut down.

        • dcat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          whaaat?! we have to flood areas for hydroelectric? and cut down forests for wind generation?! oh well, then that’s it, it’s settled.

          guess we should just go back to burning coal then.

          • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why you? I was talking about my geographical area. And we don’t build any wind turbines, we just use nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. although, of course, we mainly use thermal power plants.

            Climate is a planetary-scale problem, so it is impossible to build environmentally friendly energy production on one side of the earth in the hope of overcoming warming. Maybe my English is not good enough. This is my third language, so I’m really sorry.

    • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear energy is the solution, even though it’s the boogeyman thanks to smear campaigns. Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      replacing some energy emissions in random places with other emissions in random places will greatly help to cool the planet.

      We’re not talking a 1:1 moving emissions around with electrifying everything. Even if the local grid is 100% fossil fuels a large stationary fossil fuel powered plant running 24/7 can be more efficient per unit of fuel than thousands of tiny little poorly maintained gasoline engines in vehicles, especially when the car’s engine spends so much of its time far outside of it’s most efficient ranges (idling, speeding, going up hills, etc.) Not to mention how capturing polutants at the plant is far more doable than capturing polutants from every single car.

      And even if you don’t believe the green arguments, electric cars are just plain cool! They cost a few dollars per full recharge to charge compared to $30-50 per gas tank, they often regulate their internal temperature while charging so no waiting ages for the car to warm up first thing in the morning while you scrap ice off the windows, and who doesn’t love the instant insane torque that an electric motor provides? Lower maintenance costs, longer lifetimes of individual vehicles (especially as battery technologies continue to improve by leaps and bounds) plus idling is basically free so drive-thrus, listening to music while parked and stop go traffic wastes way less gas. Regenerative breaking not only provides some free charge to the motors but also spares your breaks so they last way longer. The list of benefits goes on and on

      • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They cost a few dollars per full recharge to charge compared to $30-50 per gas tank

        In my region full car fuel by gasoline cost 20$ and full electrocar recharge cost 14$. Not so much economy.

        they often regulate their internal temperature while charging so no waiting ages for the car to warm up first thing in the morning while you scrap ice off the windows

        If I drop electric car as my usual car on a field on nowhere I can’t go anywhere in the morning. If I drop my electric car on parking that costs recharge more than gasoline for usial car.

        Warming up the cabin also exists in my anti-theft system, just press the button while drinking tea before leaving.

        and who doesn’t love the instant insane torque that an electric motor provides?

        The moment to achieve which you need to warm the battery in advance for as much as 2 minutes and return to recharge in half an hour? In normal mode, this is no different from the average gasoline car, like Honda for example. I have a motorcycle for speed.

        Lower maintenance costs, longer lifetimes of individual vehicles

        I have 15 years old Honda Accord, and I payed nearly 16 000 $ on maintenance for all 15 years. Tesla model S cost me 85 000 $ for new car if I want by it and nearly 70% of that every 5 years because battery capacity will degrade and need replace. This not look like an lower maintenance cost.

        plus idling is basically free so drive-thrus, listening to music while parked and stop go traffic wastes way less gas. Regenerative breaking not only provides some free charge to the motors but also spares your breaks so they last way longer.

        The average mileage for me is 200 kilometers. In one day. And if I want to visit my parents, then 800 kilometers in one direction along the highways without recharge stations. ,Saving on idling, but the need to buy a generator for $ 1,500 just to visit your parents? I’d rather overpay for not to stand in the middle of nothing at -35 degrees for a few hours without working conditioner just to be able to drive on.

        All change by regions. I can buy 95 gasoline per 0.6$ for liter. Electric cars will extreme hard try for enter to market.

        UPD:

        Not to mention how capturing pollutants at the plant is far more doable than capturing pollutants from every single car.

        The irony is that transport throws out more factories, only if you count cars, ships and all other transport. If we count only private cars, then factories still emit more, even despite all the tricks of filtration. This, of course, does not mean that you should not try to reduce emissions. The main thing is that such dirty gasoline cars should not be replaced by a new conglomerate of factories.

    • TommySalami@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And I don’t really understand, besides, how exactly replacing some energy emissions in random places with other emissions in random places will greatly help to cool the planet.

      There’s some truth to this, but it’s hard to argue electric cars aren’t a marginal improvement (especially as “green” energy becomes more prevalent). The key is also using this time to improve public transportation, and making adjustments that eliminate unnecessary travel (e.g. work from home). If nothing else it’s a step in the right direction considering the massive cultural shift that’s already underway.

      • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wrote a little bit about something else.

        The law of conservation of energy always applies. If the wind rotates the windmill, then the energy of the wind force is converted into the energy of rotation of the windmill, and the wind energy reserve decreases.

        I have not found a single study on the impact of the global installation of wind turbines on wind roses around the world. Accordingly, I just can’t understand why this energy is considered “green”. Then the gasoline generator is quite environmentally friendly until the number of generators reaches a critical level.

        Moreover, the consequences of even a slight change in the wind rose are much more catastrophic than the pollution of the planet with carbon dioxide. For example, such as you see in the picture in the post.

    • lemmychatwitpeeps@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear, but the climate people are too big of pussies to push for it. Can’t have the peasents enjoying cheap energy!

      • thisNotMyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear has always been expensive af. It’s just “cheap” because all the real costs are not carried by the providers, but the states. Try getting an insurance for a nuclear power plant, have to find a solution for the waste. Besides that just take a look at the French: having to shut down mamy of their nuclear power plants, because the rivers don’t have enough water to cool them down these days. On the other hand renewables, that are much faster build and way cheaper, are amortized after a few years.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, I’m at the point now that I believe that if you follow the money and memes, you’ll find the oil industry pushing the anti nuclear ideas. The anti nuclear environmentalists being useful idiots to them.

        That being said, even if you can’t use green energy everywhere isn’t an excuse to use it everywhere it could be used. At the very least, it would buy use more time to figure out more solutions. The people who are saying that EVs don’t help because our electricity is primarily from gas and coal are deliberately leaving out the fact that the demand and infrastructure of solar and wind are also rising. Not having EVs would only lessen the demand and makes me suspicious about the origin of that meme as well.