It doesn't have to be that way - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about sports cars, aeroplanes, ships, rockets etc.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#15056835
Stormsmith wrote:
But I don't think cars will go away. They'll just become battery operated.

Producing batteries pollutes to the extent that it takes years to break even with those from efficient IC engines. Then there is the question of where the energy comes from to charge the batteries. And the beefing up of the infrastructure if/when EVs go mainstream.
#15056936
Besoeker2 wrote:
Producing batteries pollutes to the extent that it takes years to break even with those from efficient IC engines.

Then there is the question of where the energy comes from to charge the batteries.

And the beefing up of the infrastructure if/when EVs go mainstream.



You moved the goalposts. Let's move them back and point to the 90%+ reduction in GHG...

Of course, that is changing, although we should speed that up.

It's when, not if, 5 to 10 years.
#15057072
Besoeker2 wrote:
Nope.

You can't simply ignore facts to suit your POV.



You said pollution, I was talking GHG.

That's BS.

For one thing, we don't know what we're going to be using in the future, there is some very promising work being done on batteries.

For another, it ignores the potential for recycling.

But the worst thing, is that takes what is perhaps the biggest crisis in human history, and pretends a little pollution is it's equivalent.
#15057077
Besoeker2 wrote:You can't simply ignore facts to suit your POV.


That's what he does. It's a well-honed debate style common among those who don't have a clue about how to debate...
#15057811
Besoeker2 wrote:Producing batteries pollutes to the extent that it takes years to break even with those from efficient IC engines. Then there is the question of where the energy comes from to charge the batteries. And the beefing up of the infrastructure if/when EVs go mainstream.


There is a little debate on this topic, but it's not very convincing. Moreover, the production, and wider use of batteries will lead to improvements. I don't know where you live, but I'm Canadian. Whatever form of energy you'd propose, we can produce.


[u]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/26/yes-electric-vehicles-really-are-better-than-fossil-fuel-burner[/url]
#15057812
Rancid wrote:Driverless cars will save the environment.

THe efficiency gains by completely automated cars will be astronomical compared to today.

No traffic lights would even exist!


Now this one worries me. Handsome Jock has been on at me to get one for years now.
#15172272
Rancid wrote:Driverless cars will save the environment.

So it was the Driver who was causing all the pollution all along, and not those poor, little SUVs? :*(

All those wasted catalytic converters that should have been attached to the human driver's backside....
#15172278
QatzelOk wrote:So it was the Driver who was causing all the pollution all along, and not those poor, little SUVs? :*(

All those wasted catalytic converters that should have been attached to the human driver's backside....


You should have read the rest of my post. The level of optimization that can occur once you remove the driver will go through the roof. Absolutely through the roof. Levels of efficiency that rival the way CPUs are designed to "push" numerous instructions simultaneously. Traffic, be it cars, computer data processing, or waiting in line at a grocery store are all queuing theory problems. The problem with cars is the human element. Once you remove the human, the problem becomes way more simplified and thus, more efficiency. Basic tried and true queuing theory techniques can be applied to an automated car network.
#15172293
@QatzelOk , If you're living in a city, where they need to transport all that food, fuel, etc., then you are part of the problem. Your sanctimony is the epitome of hypocrisy. :lol:
#15172504
Godstud wrote:@QatzelOk , If you're living in a city, where they need to transport all that food, fuel, etc., then you are part of the problem. Your sanctimony is the epitome of hypocrisy. :lol:

So people who eat food should love cars?

Is that what you're saying, not-yet-extinct species? :lol:
#15172508
QatzelOk wrote:So people who eat food should love cars?



Foodies are indirectly exploiting illegal immigrant farm workers.
#15172527
QatzelOk wrote:So people who eat food should love cars?
Dumb. I guess I should expect that from you.
#15172913
Godstud wrote:Dumb. I guess I should expect that from you.

Once we've removed the driver, efficiency will hit the roof, Godstud.

Aren't you excited about this? Aren't you overjoyed to be here for this moment in history when automotive efficiency is set to launch through the stratosphere?

Soon, delicious vegetarian ingredients will be able to drive themselves to your kitchen, cook themselves, and then jump into a designer plate and serve themselves to you while singing your favorite songs to you.

And if I complain about the energy consumption that this kind of "miracle" would involve, you can call me a hypocrite for eating vegetables and then not wanting them to have self-driving cars.

I agree with you on what he's doing, but I also t[…]

I've offered no definition of the word slavery. […]

CRT

Then show that this is actually happening. OH, P[…]

Sure, if you like, though I'd say that it's *ongo[…]