reasons why real man don't drive electric cars

[figgypower]

Electric cars aren't even environmentally friendly. The electricity required to charge their batteries produces more pollution then if we were to
drive an average gas-guzzling car. The plants that produce electricity are the cause of this... now, if we could just produce clean electricity

 

[SsZERO]

Cars these days release very little harmful pollutants into the air. The main causes of air pollution are less regulated vehicles such as those large semis and public transport busses. In addition to vehicles, factories and powerplants that still use oil and coal for fuel are big contributors to air pollution. And this is on a local (USA) scale. The rest of the countries in the world really have no strict air pollution guidelines...heck, they still sell leaded gas at the pumps in Mexico!

In the US, personal cars are really not the issue if the goal is to improve air quality. I think the fuel cell idea is pretty good, but as I stated before, I'll be hard pressed to part with my Trans AM. I need to hear that V8 roar when I start it up and get on the accelerator. The wussy, gentle hum of an electric motor just won't cut it...but if they make an engine that sounds like a jet and has the performance to boot, I'll be a very happy camper.

I think people should seriously reconsider the gas turbine engine. Plymouth made a couple of prototype cars in the 60s, and the cool thing was that you could literally put ANY flammable liquid in the fuel tank and run the car off it. There's a lot of flammable liquids, I'm sure they could come up with something to replace gasoline...plus turbines sound cool, like the batmobile.

-= SsZERO =-

 

[element]

<< Methanol is not the fuel, the cars run on ethyl alcohol. Methanol is added to the alcohol to denature it, in other words, make it harmful or fatal for human consumption. It's probably more expensive because it is produced in smaller quantities than gasoline, and it also has less heat energy per volume than gasoline...so you need more of it to make the same power as you do with gas. Same goes for hydrogen. But the point is, I think it'd be best to make a 'synthetic' replacement for gasoline that could be used in existing cars with little or no modifications to the fuel delivery systems.

-= SsZERO =-

>>



Methanol IS the fuel I speak of. Ethanol (what you are refering to) is quite different. Methanol is used at the Indy 500 for example. Where is Ethanol used?

An article on Methanol

One on Ethanol

 

[Ultima]

<< That crap the tree-huggers would have you believe about global warming and excessive pollutants in the air is a load of BS.
-= SsZERO =- >>



So are you being sarcastic or are you really a dumb kid?

 

[Ultima]

<< Electric cars aren't even environmentally friendly. The electricity required to charge their batteries produces more pollution then if we were to
drive an average gas-guzzling car. The plants that produce electricity are the cause of this... now, if we could just produce clean electricity >>



Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something...

 

[SsZERO]

Yeah, GREAT idea. I was waiting for the dumb kid to suggest fusion...even more practical than batteries, not to mention a whole lot safer.

-= SsZERO =-



<< So are you being sarcastic or are you really a dumb kid?

Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something... >>

 

[SsZERO]

Different...huh? They're all alcohol, all hydroxides...different compositions, yes...but all of the same family.

You answered your own question about where ethyl alcohol is used in racing. Read the link you posted. Ethanol is also used as rocket fuel. Both Ethanol and Methanol are used as fuels in racing, and both are rather easy to make...the whole point of even bringing them up in this thread. Plus they are both naturally higher octane than gasoline, around 110-115...so we could then make very high compression engines that are both environmentally friendly AND very powerful.

For cars, going to alcohol power is a bit more practical than say, nuclear fusion.

-= SsZERO =-



<< Methanol IS the fuel I speak of. Ethanol (what you are refering to) is quite different. Methanol is used at the Indy 500 for example. Where is Ethanol used?

An article on Methanol

One on Ethanol >>

 

[Ultima]

<< Yeah, GREAT idea. I was waiting for the dumb kid to suggest fusion...even more practical than batteries, not to mention a whole lot safer.

-= SsZERO =-



<< So are you being sarcastic or are you really a dumb kid?

Nuclear Fusion should be the answer to this in not too long from now (hopefully). Nuclear energy without waste! Now that would be something... >>

>>



You're a real idiot if you thought I meant to have this in a car... but well, you also believe that global warming is a hoax (Winters here seem to be a lot warmer than they used to be, HMM... I suppose that has NOTHING to do with the fact that cars emit a significant amount of greenhouse gases :roll, and you believe that pollution is a hoax too (ever hear of smog). So the fact that you're an idiot has already been proven. Now go do this forum a favor and drive your SUV off a cliff.

 

[element]

<< Different...huh? They're all alcohol, all hydroxides...different compositions, yes...but all of the same family. >>



Actually they are also even made from different sources. For example Methanol is made from natural gas (among other things). And of course they are not interchangeable in their use either.



<< You answered your own question about where ethyl alcohol is used in racing. Read the link you posted. >>



I read both the links. Fact is ethanol is not as popular a racing fuel as methanol. But my original point of them being different still stands. I believe you were confused about their differences seeing as you tried to correct my post about methanol by calling it ethanol instead.

Oh and rocket fuel is usually hydrogen. Not a whole lot of ethanol powered rockets out there are there? Perhaps experimentally very few times, but mainly it's hydrogen.

 

[Ultima]

<< Different...huh? They're all alcohol, all hydroxides...different compositions, yes...but all of the same family.

You answered your own question about where ethyl alcohol is used in racing. Read the link you posted. Ethanol is also used as rocket fuel. Both Ethanol and Methanol are used as fuels in racing, and both are rather easy to make...the whole point of even bringing them up in this thread. Plus they are both naturally higher octane than gasoline, around 110-115...so we could then make very high compression engines that are both environmentally friendly AND very powerful.

For cars, going to alcohol power is a bit more practical than say, nuclear fusion.

-= SsZERO =-



<< Methanol IS the fuel I speak of. Ethanol (what you are refering to) is quite different. Methanol is used at the Indy 500 for example. Where is Ethanol used?

An article on Methanol

One on Ethanol >>

>>



ANY amount of pollution, in significant numbers, is NOT environmentally friendly. As for the nuclear fusion, you sure like quoting things out of context don't you? That was in response to someone else's post about some types of electrical generators not being environmentally friendly themselves. Humans have made lots of short-sighted mistakes in the past 200 years and that we've only begun to realize the consequences of those actions. Skin cancer rates are increasing, the ozone layer is depleting (we don't really know what will happen when it gets depleted but it won't be good...), and then there's carbon dioxide levels which if left unchecked will turn this planet into venus (We're obviously not going to let it get that far, because of some smart people in industry that are working on products that emit less pollution, or even zero pollution).

To solve the problem of electricity generation, there's nuclear fusion. Generates no waste, either. As for cars, electric engines powered by fuel cells should be just as fast as today's cars and initially emit little pollution, and when hydrogen is used will emit no pollution. If you want to hear an engine sound, go bring a CD full of engine sounds in the car

These changes alone should cut a LOT of pollution out from our skies, and make the air more breathable. I've been in Toronto a few times and the smog there isn't pretty. I wouldn't want to live in, say, L.A where its probably 10x worse. If you or anyone else can't see that there's a problem with the internal combustion engine in terms of air quality then you need to put on your glasses cause your vision is short-sighted like hell.

 

[zeon]

yeah... contributing to global warming is real macho... :disgust:

oh, and as for the whole power sources debate... there are alot of viable solutions that dont involve burning or fusing of any depletable resources... ie, photovolteic cells, hydroelectric, wind turbines, tidal and geothermal just to mention a few. all of wich involve zero emmisions and relatively little environmental damage. The only reason there not more widely used is their high/prohibitive costs and societies unwillingness to make sacrifices for future generations...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unfortunately fusion has its problems, summed up by frustrated reserchers "Fusion is only 20 years away, and will always be so" Wave generated power seems a best bet for now.

 

[element]

I vote for hydrogen.

 

[SsZERO]

Gee, I'm an idiot. I guess I didn't read the topic of this thread...good thing it's not ABOUT CARS and POWER SOURCES FOR CARS. Nice attempt at backpedaling, though. You may want to do a little research about your comment regarding cars and greenhouse gasses...you may find that using a gas powered lawnmower for a couple hours would release more harmful pollutants than driving a car all day. I never said air pollution was a hoax, did I? I said this:

"That crap the tree-huggers would have you believe about global warming and excessive pollutants in the air is a load of BS..."

There is no "global warming", and the air in general is not saturated with pollutants as some people would have you believe. Why don't you present some CONCLUSIVE evidence of credible scientific research that clearly illustrates global warming and cars being the #1 cause.

-= SsZERO =-




<< You're a real idiot if you thought I meant to have this in a car... but well, you also believe that global warming is a hoax (Winters here seem to be a lot warmer than they used to be, HMM... I suppose that has NOTHING to do with the fact that cars emit a significant amount of greenhouse gases :roll, and you believe that pollution is a hoax too (ever hear of smog). So the fact that you're an idiot has already been proven. Now go do this forum a favor and drive your SUV off a cliff. >>

 

[yomega]

<< 3. Electric cars suck on acceleration. >>



I don't think so. Check out the Maniac Mazda This is a street legal electric car.

Note: the numbers on this page are 3.5 years old, they have a faster car now, but I don't remember its name, and it is getting too late to look it up.

 

[DrizztDoUrden]

<< reasons why real man don't drive electric cars >>



It doesn't give the "smaller" guys a feeling of being "bigger" like a
Porsche or Corvette does.

And no, I am not refering to height or weight.

 

[DrizztDoUrden]

<< I need to hear that V8 roar when I start it up and get on the accelerator. The wussy, gentle hum of an electric motor just won't cut it...but if they make an engine that sounds like a jet and has the performance to boot, I'll be a very happy camper. >>




Uh huh.

I'm sorry, we are out of stock of Under-Roos sir. May I suggest
trying on the slighlty larger boys briefs?

 

[SsZERO]

<< Actually they are also even made from different sources. For example Methanol is made from natural gas (among other things). And of course they are not interchangeable in their use either. >>



Both ethanol and methanol can be produced in a variety of ways: from the organic compounds of fossil fuels or the sugars of natural plant products. Ethanol is what's found in beer and other alcoholic beverages. Methanol has always been toxic to humans, and is usually added to ethanol to denature it.



<<
I read both the links. Fact is ethanol is not as popular a racing fuel as methanol. But my original point of them being different still stands. I believe you were confused about their differences seeing as you tried to correct my post about methanol by calling it ethanol instead.

Oh and rocket fuel is usually hydrogen. Not a whole lot of ethanol powered rockets out there are there? Perhaps experimentally very few times, but mainly it's hydrogen. >>



Perhaps methanol is more popular than ethanol in racing applications, but I never said that ethanol was more common than hydrogen or any other fuel for rockets. Fact is, both forms of alcohol CAN BE and ARE used for racing, and there are a number of rockets that use ethanol as fuel.

Anyway, the above is irrelevant to this topic.

-= SsZERO =-

 

[SsZERO]

<< ANY amount of pollution, in significant numbers, is NOT environmentally friendly. As for the nuclear fusion, you sure like quoting things out of context don't you? That was in response to someone else's post about some types of electrical generators not being environmentally friendly themselves. Humans have made lots of short-sighted mistakes in the past 200 years and that we've only begun to realize the consequences of those actions. Skin cancer rates are increasing, the ozone layer is depleting (we don't really know what will happen when it gets depleted but it won't be good...), and then there's carbon dioxide levels which if left unchecked will turn this planet into venus (We're obviously not going to let it get that far, because of some smart people in industry that are working on products that emit less pollution, or even zero pollution). >>



Well then you better stop breathing and farting.



<<
To solve the problem of electricity generation, there's nuclear fusion. Generates no waste, either. As for cars, electric engines powered by fuel cells should be just as fast as today's cars and initially emit little pollution, and when hydrogen is used will emit no pollution. If you want to hear an engine sound, go bring a CD full of engine sounds in the car >>



Yeah, it's that simple, huh? Let's go make a bunch of fusion reactors and use hydrogen to power cars. There are no disadvantages here! And we'll just fund all this with our magic money pot that the president stole from a leprechaun.



<<
These changes alone should cut a LOT of pollution out from our skies, and make the air more breathable. I've been in Toronto a few times and the smog there isn't pretty. I wouldn't want to live in, say, L.A where its probably 10x worse. If you or anyone else can't see that there's a problem with the internal combustion engine in terms of air quality then you need to put on your glasses cause your vision is short-sighted like hell. >>



Yeah man, people in Toronto and LA are dropping like flies from all this air pollution. We should just stop industry, stop driving and hold our breath. Do you know what smog is? Solid particulates...aka dust. I suppose you never stopped to think as to why you can SEE smog...and do you know what happens to dust? It settles on the ground. Diesel engines look really dirty, but the black smoke they chug out doesn't stay in the air. Sure it's not good to breath it in, but how many people drive cars that release dust in the exhaust? OH! That means the smog isn't cause by all those evil cars!!

-= SsZERO =-

 

[SsZERO]

Damn pedophiles...dude, I know you wanna post your 'lil boys in briefs' collection, but don't do it here!

-= SsZERO =-



<< Uh huh.

I'm sorry, we are out of stock of Under-Roos sir. May I suggest
trying on the slighlty larger boys briefs? >>

 

[SsZERO]

You're really into guys, aren't you? Only the "bigger" guys do it for you, right? And they all drive electric cars or New Beetles.

-= SsZERO =-



<< It doesn't give the "smaller" guys a feeling of being "bigger" like a
Porsche or Corvette does.

And no, I am not refering to height or weight. tee-hee >>

 

[SsZERO]

Yeah! Global warming sucks man! We need Capt. Planet to fix this mess!

Ok, so these alternate methods of power not only cost a lot, but they require that we lower our standard of living to accomodate them. Gee, I wonder why nobody has jumped on this yet!

-= SsZERO =-



<< yeah... contributing to global warming is real macho... :disgust:

oh, and as for the whole power sources debate... there are alot of viable solutions that dont involve burning or fusing of any depletable resources... ie, photovolteic cells, hydroelectric, wind turbines, tidal and geothermal just to mention a few. all of wich involve zero emmisions and relatively little environmental damage. The only reason there not more widely used is their high/prohibitive costs and societies unwillingness to make sacrifices for future generations... >>

 

[Ultima]

Sure, let's build lots of fusion reactors. Then we can junk the old oil and coal reactors. It'll be worth it in the long run.

Where to get money for hydrogen economy? Easy, tax gas to make it more in line with Europe. Tax the hell out of it and use the money to make hydrogen nice and cheap. Problem solved. Sooner or later we'll have to switch, unless you think that Western civilisation should continue financing terrorist attacks, expensive cars, women and all the money they consume, palaces, jets, etc... for a few spoiled middle-eastern guys....



<<

<< ANY amount of pollution, in significant numbers, is NOT environmentally friendly. As for the nuclear fusion, you sure like quoting things out of context don't you? That was in response to someone else's post about some types of electrical generators not being environmentally friendly themselves. Humans have made lots of short-sighted mistakes in the past 200 years and that we've only begun to realize the consequences of those actions. Skin cancer rates are increasing, the ozone layer is depleting (we don't really know what will happen when it gets depleted but it won't be good...), and then there's carbon dioxide levels which if left unchecked will turn this planet into venus (We're obviously not going to let it get that far, because of some smart people in industry that are working on products that emit less pollution, or even zero pollution). >>



Well then you better stop breathing and farting.



<<
To solve the problem of electricity generation, there's nuclear fusion. Generates no waste, either. As for cars, electric engines powered by fuel cells should be just as fast as today's cars and initially emit little pollution, and when hydrogen is used will emit no pollution. If you want to hear an engine sound, go bring a CD full of engine sounds in the car >>



Yeah, it's that simple, huh? Let's go make a bunch of fusion reactors and use hydrogen to power cars. There are no disadvantages here! And we'll just fund all this with our magic money pot that the president stole from a leprechaun.



<<
These changes alone should cut a LOT of pollution out from our skies, and make the air more breathable. I've been in Toronto a few times and the smog there isn't pretty. I wouldn't want to live in, say, L.A where its probably 10x worse. If you or anyone else can't see that there's a problem with the internal combustion engine in terms of air quality then you need to put on your glasses cause your vision is short-sighted like hell. >>



Yeah man, people in Toronto and LA are dropping like flies from all this air pollution. We should just stop industry, stop driving and hold our breath. Do you know what smog is? Solid particulates...aka dust. I suppose you never stopped to think as to why you can SEE smog...and do you know what happens to dust? It settles on the ground. Diesel engines look really dirty, but the black smoke they chug out doesn't stay in the air. Sure it's not good to breath it in, but how many people drive cars that release dust in the exhaust? OH! That means the smog isn't cause by all those evil cars!!

-= SsZERO =- >>

 

[SsZERO]

As much as I hate to say it, something like this is probably going to happen within a decade. I'll have to start refining my own gasoline.

-= SsZERO =-



<< Sure, let's build lots of fusion reactors. Then we can junk the old oil and coal reactors. It'll be worth it in the long run.

Where to get money for hydrogen economy? Easy, tax gas to make it more in line with Europe. Tax the hell out of it and use the money to make hydrogen nice and cheap. Problem solved. Sooner or later we'll have to switch, unless you think that Western civilisation should continue financing terrorist attacks, expensive cars, women and all the money they consume, palaces, jets, etc... for a few spoiled middle-eastern guys.... >>

 

[Entity]

<< There is no "global warming", and the air in general is not saturated with pollutants as some people would have you believe. Why don't you present some CONCLUSIVE evidence of credible scientific research that clearly illustrates global warming and cars being the #1 cause. >>


SsZERO,

It's easy for you to state that, because, in all honesty, it is impossible - as you, and many others know - to provide a causal link to a phenomenon that could be natural or artificial. It is unfair for any organization (scientific or otherwise) to claim absolutely CONCLUSIVE evidence that provides a causal link, with cars being the number one cause, of global warming; in addition, however, it is neither beneficial nor even moderately intelligent for you to refute a preponderance of evidence by demanding absolute proof.

What I'm getting at is this: an organization cannot, and will not, in good conscience, claim that cars will bring the apocalypse; however, in order to gain some glimmer in the eye of the public, they must make some claims that will allow for an environmental conscience to have some hope in competing with the avaricious nature of the SUV and gas-guzzling car market. It is the nature for a theory (and global warming is exactly that) to have some holes; that is, in fact, the nature of a theory itself. Over time, it will evolve into something that becomes more and more concrete - yet at this time, the fact that it is not "concrete" yet does not make it invalid.

If all you want to do is sit there and spout rhetoric, that's fine. Don't, however, put down the fact - and yes, this is a fact - that humans are impacting our environment in negative ways, both in our direct effects upon the environment, and in the results those effects will have on us. We may not ever have proof that the impact cars have on our environment is catastrophic; yet we have enough understanding that by reducing emissions, we will be doing something that is - on the whole - a "good" thing. Forgive this drastic summation, but it is late, and I am tired.

If you don't want to give up your car, that's fine. If you would rather drive a 10mpg guzzler than a 50mpg fuel-cell protocol vehicle, that's fine. But please, for the sake of progress, don't discourage those who are trying to figure out what is at the root of many of these recent environmental problems, and don't be so dogmatic about the nature of your knowledge. There are many researchers out there who could put your "knowledge" to shame and debate you around the clock - and, I might add, whip your ass at it - in this realm; unfortunately, none of them are here.

http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/0warming.html
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Oh, and to stick to the topic: I agree - electric cars do suck. Hybrids, fuelcells, et. al, however...

Rob