Bill Gates buys Porsche Taycan, reveals the biggest problem with EVs

The electric car - the biggest BS product available today. Why? Because with such a car, the CO2 emissions are moved from the car's tail pipe to the chimney of the power plant. And if you consider all the efficiencies involved (or the lack thereof), a car equipped with a thrifty modern diesel engine actually emits LESS CO2 per 100 miles than an electric car. Add the high-power nonsense for the electric Porsche to it (I mean, come on - zero to 100 in less than 4 seconds?) and the CO2 contribution of that electric car TRIPLES compared to that modern diesel car. So much for "going green". Wait - I hear you say now, "But soon all our electricity comes from solar fields and wind turbines!". WRONG. I got news for you. At best, that "green" contribution will be 20% of our generated electricity, due to its inherent intermittent nature. 80% of our power will ALWAYS come from fossil-fueled power plants, unless we are willing to replace all those with nuclear power. But even then, the electric car would be nothing more than an inefficient toy for the wealthy. Because with fourth generation nuclear, it is very simple to produce hydrogen, a much better way to fuel our cars of the future, either by producing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels with it (and thus fueling that efficient diesel car with such synthetic fuels, CO2 neutral), or propelling our cars with hydrogen powered fuel cells. I could go on about the danger of lithium batteries in an accident (they are, literally, fire-bombs), and the need to double the capacity of our national electricity infrastructure if we all would drive electric cars, but by now, I think you get the drift. Electric cars? COMPLETE NONSENSE. Perfect product for Elon Musk to con the "green crowd", gullible fools that they are. And guess what - I say all this as a Democrat, I am NOT some die-hard neocon voting for the orange horror clown....
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobertofWells
I would love to buy an electric car, but the price needs to come down. Also, while I could make it work from day to day, I still am concerned about taking an EV on road trips. I live in the midwest where there don't seem to be a plethora of charing options at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

Karlos95

Posts: 104   +32
The electric car - the biggest BS product available today. Why? Because with such a car, the CO2 emissions are moved from the car's tail pipe to the chimney of the power plant. And if you consider all the efficiencies involved (or the lack thereof), a car equipped with a thrifty modern diesel engine actually emits LESS CO2 per 100 miles than an electric car. Add the high-power nonsense for the electric Porsche to it (I mean, come on - zero to 100 in less than 4 seconds?) and the CO2 contribution of that electric car TRIPLES compared to that modern diesel car. So much for "going green". Wait - I hear you say now, "But soon all our electricity comes from solar fields and wind turbines!". WRONG. I got news for you. At best, that "green" contribution will be 20% of our generated electricity, due to its inherent intermittent nature. 80% of our power will ALWAYS come from fossil-fueled power plants, unless we are willing to replace all those with nuclear power. But even then, the electric car would be nothing more than an inefficient toy for the wealthy. Because with fourth generation nuclear, it is very simple to produce hydrogen, a much better way to fuel our cars of the future, either by producing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels with it (and thus fueling that efficient diesel car with such synthetic fuels, CO2 neutral), or propelling our cars with hydrogen powered fuel cells. I could go on about the danger of lithium batteries in an accident (they are, literally, fire-bombs), and the need to double the capacity of our national electricity infrastructure if we all would drive electric cars, but by now, I think you get the drift. Electric cars? COMPLETE NONSENSE. Perfect product for Elon Musk to con the "green crowd", gullible fools that they are. And guess what - I say all this as a Democrat, I am NOT some die-hard neocon voting for the orange horror clown....
It is evident you have not done much research into EVs if that is where you stand... "The CO2 emissions are moved from the car's tail pipe to the chimney of the power plant." completely wrong statement and not a fact at all.

Go read up more and stop digesting fossil fuel propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

CharmsD

Posts: 413   +253
The electric car - the biggest BS product available today. Why? Because with such a car, the CO2 emissions are moved from the car's tail pipe to the chimney of the power plant. And if you consider all the efficiencies involved (or the lack thereof), a car equipped with a thrifty modern diesel engine actually emits LESS CO2 per 100 miles than an electric car. Add the high-power nonsense for the electric Porsche to it (I mean, come on - zero to 100 in less than 4 seconds?) and the CO2 contribution of that electric car TRIPLES compared to that modern diesel car. So much for "going green". Wait - I hear you say now, "But soon all our electricity comes from solar fields and wind turbines!". WRONG. I got news for you. At best, that "green" contribution will be 20% of our generated electricity, due to its inherent intermittent nature. 80% of our power will ALWAYS come from fossil-fueled power plants, unless we are willing to replace all those with nuclear power. But even then, the electric car would be nothing more than an inefficient toy for the wealthy. Because with fourth generation nuclear, it is very simple to produce hydrogen, a much better way to fuel our cars of the future, either by producing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels with it (and thus fueling that efficient diesel car with such synthetic fuels, CO2 neutral), or propelling our cars with hydrogen powered fuel cells. I could go on about the danger of lithium batteries in an accident (they are, literally, fire-bombs), and the need to double the capacity of our national electricity infrastructure if we all would drive electric cars, but by now, I think you get the drift. Electric cars? COMPLETE NONSENSE. Perfect product for Elon Musk to con the "green crowd", gullible fools that they are. And guess what - I say all this as a Democrat, I am NOT some die-hard neocon voting for the orange horror clown....
Someone has forgotten electricity is an energy carrier, it is not a source of energy.

100% of our energy comes from...nevermind that topic is too hot.

I have a picture!!

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?



In 2018, about 4,171 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or 4.17 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.
About 64% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases).
About 19% was from nuclear energy.
About 17% was from renewable energy sources.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that an additional 30 billion kWh of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2018.
 
It is evident you have not done much research into EVs if that is where you stand... "The CO2 emissions are moved from the car's tail pipe to the chimney of the power plant." completely wrong statement and not a fact at all.

Go read up more and stop digesting fossil fuel propaganda.
I know that you have an excuse (our educational system clearly has failed you miserably), but you really need to try reading better before you start venting baseless comments. Had you done that better reading job, you would have understood that I am NOT a proponent of fossil fuel. On the contrary; we DO have a CO2 problem. My point is that as long as we use fossil fuels for our electricity generating, electric cars do not solve a thing. On the contrary; they have in fact a lower stacked-efficiency (from power plant to the electric vehicle's traction) than a modern diesel propelled car. My point was, that the ONLY way to effectively rid the world of CO2 emissions, is to start building nuclear power plants. And YES, the technology is there to have nuclear energy that is intrinsically safe and producing very little waste. It is called fourth-generation nuclear, based on the molten salt reactor. https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/. Electric cars are NOT a solution to our CO2 problems. Nuclear power is; combined with synthetic fuels produced from that nuclear power, so that we can use our existing infrastructure to fuel our cars, and without having to wait half an hour for a charge when fueling up.
 

Karlos95

Posts: 104   +32
I know that you have an excuse (our educational system clearly has failed you miserably), but you really need to try reading better before you start venting baseless comments. Had you done that better reading job, you would have understood that I am NOT a proponent of fossil fuel. On the contrary; we DO have a CO2 problem. My point is that as long as we use fossil fuels for our electricity generating, electric cars do not solve a thing. On the contrary; they have in fact a lower stacked-efficiency (from power plant to the electric vehicle's traction) than a modern diesel propelled car. My point was, that the ONLY way to effectively rid the world of CO2 emissions, is to start building nuclear power plants. And YES, the technology is there to have nuclear energy that is intrinsically safe and producing very little waste. It is called fourth-generation nuclear, based on the molten salt reactor. https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/. Electric cars are NOT a solution to our CO2 problems. Nuclear power is; combined with synthetic fuels produced from that nuclear power, so that we can use our existing infrastructure to fuel our cars, and without having to wait half an hour for a charge when fueling up.
Yes,if everyone went to electric cars today it would have a significant impact.
I wouldn't say OUR, that is presuming I am in your country, I most definitely don't think I am. But all education systems have been set up to keep you as another brick in the wall so to fail the education system is a good thing, means you aren't in that closed box anymore keeping the status quo. But it depends how you fail it of course. Others will fail it just by going off doing drugs every day and not contributing to a better way of life.

Now, back to electric cars. After 3 years of driving an EV (depending on model and size of battery - look at the video I linked for reference) it would have produced less CO2 emissions than an ICE vehicle. Now, batteries are recycled and reused so it continues to get better with time. Fact.

Now we know 1/5th of CO2 comes from plants that smelt and make steel and such. There is a technology breakthrough to use solar instead. (had to put that in there for the people thinking we need to burn coal for other things)

Nuclear would be nice, except, everyone is scared of the tech and no one wants it operating near them. Which we know has to happen since the longer the distance away the more energy you lose.

So basically saying EV are pointless is a baseless comment to start with. It is the stepping stone to convert people into better products for the planet.
To say ICE is still better is ridiculous, ICE produces more CO2 when driving than an EV to charge fully. Even though if they are still using fossil fuels to charge, it is still a lot less. End of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
Now, back to electric cars. After 3 years of driving an EV (depending on model and size of battery - look at the video I linked for reference) it would have produced less CO2 emissions than an ICE vehicle. Now, batteries are recycled and reused so it continues to get better with time. Fact.
(y) (Y)Most people simply refuse to believe this because of all the propaganda out there. When you point them to that research, they simply grumble and cannot provide even the slightest iota of research that supports their POV. This reminds me of when Toyota was introducing the Prius to the US, someone paid a shill to produce a fake report that a Hummer was greener over its lifetime than a Prius.

The simple fact, as I linked to in a prior post to this thread, is that even charging from the dirtiest coal-fired power plant you break even with the emissions of an ice vehicle. There are fewer and fewer of those coal plants every year. And I won't even get into the production to grave pollution comparison because EVs win even there, too.
Bill Gates is correct. Recharging EV's is the main issue.

Gasoline grid is capable. EV grid is not currently, but getting better.

168,000 gas stations in the U.S. (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerQuiz16.shtml) Approximate verage number of pumps is 8 (hard to find data, all the sights I found were assuming this)

168000 * 8 = 1,344,000 cars simultaneously

Teslas take a while to charge. Even on a Supercharger. To charge an empty Tesla it is about an hour on Supercharger, 30 hours at home on 240v and 4 days on 110v.

It takes 5 minutes to refuel a car or truck.

And having at home Superchargers is not currently feasible. Those things can draw up to 140KW. Most homes don't draw more than 4KW. If even 5% of the U.S. 270,000,000 cars were on superchargers, that would draw 1.89 Megawatts for those cars alone. Current capacity is about 1.1 Megawatts for all electrical needs.

TL;DR

It's going to take some time before you see EV adoption en masse.
The thing with this is that this use case would be rare. In the US, most people drive on average 30-miles per day. They would bring their EV home and charge up overnight no problem. In driving 30-miles/day, I highly doubt anyone would drive their car so much that they would run it to empty without charging it.
Perfect product for Elon Musk to con the "green crowd", gullible fools that they are. And guess what - I say all this as a Democrat, I am NOT some die-hard neocon voting for the orange horror clown....
I agree Musk is a charlatan.
Supercapacitors still have poor energy density compared to lithium-ion batteries. They might have a roll, but they are not going to replace batteries.
Instead of blindly commenting after taking the TL;DR approach with that article, you really should read that article.

When you do, note the part where it says that the energy density is an order of magnitude or two orders of magnitude greater that lithium batteries. In case you don't know, an order of magnitude is 10 times the density, and two orders of magnitude is 100 times the density.

Technology is not standing still.