The electric car you feel is creating no emissions...

[francoHFW]

Fantastic car. A Mercedes stud car that gets the equivalent of 100 mpg, shyttehead hater dupes lol- at 2/3 the cost...the hater dupes can't get past the fact it's environmentally fantastic, thus anti- ugly American Rushbot...SO gd dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

This just in... The electric car you feel is creating no emissions is actually powered by coal in the most inefficient way humanly possible... Movie at 11.



peace...

"FEEL", is the most appropriate word to use here, liberdummies can not THINK

Even hater dupes should be able to figure out that EVEN the few coal plants left are a helluva lot more efficient than the tiny gas plant in your CAR. Teslas get the equivalent of 100 mpg, IDIOT.

 

[Bush92]

I guess you must equate "queer" with a luxury car that can do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds?

Here is what Car & Driver said about the Tesla:

"We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of  134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.

The figures, however, don’t reveal the Tesla’s instantaneous response. When you floor the accelerator on a conventional car, the airflow has to increase, the turbos must spool up, and the transmission unlocks its torque converter and usually downshifts. In the Model S, you’re shoved into your seat right now, with an immediacy that no Corvette, Ferrari, or Porsche can match. "
Tesla Model S Reviews - Tesla Model S Price, Photos, and Specs - CARandDRIVER

or even better.....

Watch a Tesla Model S drag-race a 2014 Corvette Stingray | Autoweek

I guess holding your own with a 2014 Corvette is queer too?

lol

No I equate queer with buying a car based on environmental concerns so I can be the narcissistic prick on the block to drive around and say "look at me, I'm special" Kind of like your own private gay pride parade.

Then you are clueless. But you keep on thinking that the car you drive means something where your sexuality is concerned. That sort of delusion is mostly harmless.

If I bought a Tesla, it would be because I wanted to save a pile of money, wanted to do something to conserve energy, and because I like driving a fast car. I don't buy based on what others will think of me.

Pickup truck.

 

[Wildman]

"It's not powered by Coal! It runs on batteries that get recharged by plugging into a wall socket!"

it's not powered by coal, it runs on batteries that get recharged by plugging into a wall socket, that get it's electricity via power lines that go back to a generating station that BURNS COAL to produce steam to spin those turbines, thus making electricty to send over the power lines to the wall socket that libercrazies plug into their over priced pile of shit!! ............

you are NOT a mad scientist, you are just plain stupid or crazy or both !!

 

[Wildman]

Speak for yourself. I live in California, we get almost none of our power from coal.

You get it from Magic Fairies like Howey in Hollywood?...

Electricity is a PAINFULLY Inefficient Source for Power for moving something that weighs as much as a car.

So if it's Nuclear that is the source for your plug or whatever it is, it's still a REALLY Stoo-pit use of Power.

And for the Record... Cali's Energy Sources for Electricity:

Natural Gas 46.5%
Nuclear 14.9%
Large Hydro 9.6%
Coal 15.5%
Renewables 13.5%

Again... Plug in Cars are Stoo-pit.



peace...

As far as I've read, electric engines are actually significantly more efficient in every measurable way than internal combustion engines. Do you have a source for your claims?

Electric engines don't lose all that heat energy lost in internal combustion.

stop reading those liberliar publications and you just might learn something..... , like the truh.

 

[Wildman]

Car and Driver: Tested : 2013 Tesla Model S - Review - CAR and DRIVER - YouTube

i wonder how they will do in a NASCAR race.

 

[Wildman]

First of all, an electric motor is a MORE efficient one than an internal combustion engine.

Also, many places use electricity generated by hydro-electric plants.


Also, unless you have a means of comparing the pollution from a coal powered electric plant to the pollution from the number of internal combustion engines equal to the number of electric engine powered, you have no claim.

In other words, if a coal plant can provide power for 5,000 electric cars while putting out X amount of pollution, how many individual combustion engines can you run without creating more than X amount of pollution.



Electric cars are the future.

is X the Roman numeral for 10 ?

 

[francoHFW]

So gd dumb. How do explain that it costs $4 to fill a Tesla then, SHYTTEHEAD?

 

[Pogo]

You get it from Magic Fairies like Howey in Hollywood?...

Electricity is a PAINFULLY Inefficient Source for Power for moving something that weighs as much as a car.

So if it's Nuclear that is the source for your plug or whatever it is, it's still a REALLY Stoo-pit use of Power.

And for the Record... Cali's Energy Sources for Electricity:

Natural Gas 46.5%
Nuclear 14.9%
Large Hydro 9.6%
Coal 15.5%
Renewables 13.5%

Again... Plug in Cars are Stoo-pit.



peace...

As far as I've read, electric engines are actually significantly more efficient in every measurable way than internal combustion engines. Do you have a source for your claims?

Electric engines don't lose all that heat energy lost in internal combustion.

stop reading those liberliar publications and you just might learn something..... , like the truh.

He's right, stupid. ICEs lose 60% of their own energy in the form of heat. I've known that since I was a kid.

In other words, since I was your age.

 

[francoHFW]

Tesla would do fine at NASCAR, SHYTTEHEAD- It could take 10 seconds to change the battery.Right now it takes about a minute at one of their stations. Ain't total ignorance great, MORON? lol

They'd kick ASS on those STOOPID cars lol...

 

[WinterBorn]

You get it from Magic Fairies like Howey in Hollywood?...

Electricity is a PAINFULLY Inefficient Source for Power for moving something that weighs as much as a car.

So if it's Nuclear that is the source for your plug or whatever it is, it's still a REALLY Stoo-pit use of Power.

And for the Record... Cali's Energy Sources for Electricity:

Natural Gas 46.5%
Nuclear 14.9%
Large Hydro 9.6%
Coal 15.5%
Renewables 13.5%

Again... Plug in Cars are Stoo-pit.



peace...

As far as I've read, electric engines are actually significantly more efficient in every measurable way than internal combustion engines. Do you have a source for your claims?

Electric engines don't lose all that heat energy lost in internal combustion.

stop reading those liberliar publications and you just might learn something..... , like the truh.

I provided links showing electric motors are more efficient than gas motors.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[francoHFW]

He's got nothing but idiotic, ignorant, brainwashed bs , like all hater dupes...

 

[bripat9643]

Speak for yourself. I live in California, we get almost none of our power from coal.

No, you just import power from out of state, which is generated by burning coal.

 

[WinterBorn]

No I equate queer with buying a car based on environmental concerns so I can be the narcissistic prick on the block to drive around and say "look at me, I'm special" Kind of like your own private gay pride parade.

Then you are clueless. But you keep on thinking that the car you drive means something where your sexuality is concerned. That sort of delusion is mostly harmless.

If I bought a Tesla, it would be because I wanted to save a pile of money, wanted to do something to conserve energy, and because I like driving a fast car. I don't buy based on what others will think of me.

Pickup truck.

Yep, that is exactly what I drive now. But I drive it because of what IT can do. Not for what people think of me when I drive it. And damn sure not because I think the vehicle I drive has anything to do with my sexuality.

 

[bripat9643]

As far as I've read, electric engines are actually significantly more efficient in every measurable way than internal combustion engines. Do you have a source for your claims?

Electric engines don't lose all that heat energy lost in internal combustion.

stop reading those liberliar publications and you just might learn something..... , like the truh.

I provided links showing electric motors are more efficient than gas motors.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And how efficient are the power plants that generate the electricity? Make sure you include transmission losses.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This just in... The electric car you feel is creating no emissions is actually powered by coal in the most inefficient way humanly possible... Movie at 11.



peace...

Ya, the electricity is coming from coal plants or nuclear, neither of which is objectively better than petroleum alternatives.

Until electric powered vehicles get their energy entirely by solar panels on their roofs, or similar clean generating methods at discrete plants, they're really not so much better except locally. But while air might be cleaner where they're driven, somewhere some place is uffering because of a local coal plant, or from radiation from fission-based nuclear plants.

If you measure the pollution from a coal powered electrical plant, and divide it by the number of EVs it can charge, I bet it will come out a great deal better than the emissions from that many gasoline engines.

For example, TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant generates 10 billion kilowatt hrs per year. That equals out to around 27.4 million kWh per day.

A Tesla's charge is 85 kWh. So the plant can charge around 320,000 Teslas in a single day.

Do you suppose the plant puts out more pollution in a single day than 320,000 gas powered cars?

Fair point. I hadn't considered the math.

 

[Wildman]

Mobile Site Preview



peace...

Your link states that, when you add in all the manufacturing, fueling, and materials for EVs, they are only marginally better. But marginally is better than just accepting what we have now.

Also, it is a new industry. It will become more efficient as time goes on.

And what you said was "Electricity is not as effective as gas to propell a car... Not even close. Transferring energy from Natural Gas to Electricity to a car is stoo-pit.".

And THAT was absolutely wrong, as the links I posted showed.

ahh-rite!! ever since i saw the "Jetsons" on TV i have always wanted a vehicle like theirs.., actually Barney Flintstone's stone car is 1000% more efficient than any electric car.

 

[WinterBorn]

stop reading those liberliar publications and you just might learn something..... , like the truh.

I provided links showing electric motors are more efficient than gas motors.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And how efficient are the power plants that generate the electricity? Make sure you include transmission losses.

In post #21 I shared this link & info:
from: All-Electric Vehicles
"Energy efficient. Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels."

I think the difference between 59-62% and 17-21% allows for quite a bit of transmission losses. And I am fairly certain that a large coal generating plant is far more efficient that hundreds of thousands of tiny combustion plants with questionable maintenance.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ya, the electricity is coming from coal plants or nuclear, neither of which is objectively better than petroleum alternatives.

Until electric powered vehicles get their energy entirely by solar panels on their roofs, or similar clean generating methods at discrete plants, they're really not so much better except locally. But while air might be cleaner where they're driven, somewhere some place is uffering because of a local coal plant, or from radiation from fission-based nuclear plants.

If you measure the pollution from a coal powered electrical plant, and divide it by the number of EVs it can charge, I bet it will come out a great deal better than the emissions from that many gasoline engines.

For example, TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant generates 10 billion kilowatt hrs per year. That equals out to around 27.4 million kWh per day.

A Tesla's charge is 85 kWh. So the plant can charge around 320,000 Teslas in a single day.

Do you suppose the plant puts out more pollution in a single day than 320,000 gas powered cars?

Fair point. I hadn't considered the math.

Thanks. I have a lot of respect for someone who acknowledges that in a debate.

 

[bripat9643]

This just in... The electric car you feel is creating no emissions is actually powered by coal in the most inefficient way humanly possible... Movie at 11.



peace...

Ya, the electricity is coming from coal plants or nuclear, neither of which is objectively better than petroleum alternatives.

Until electric powered vehicles get their energy entirely by solar panels on their roofs, or similar clean generating methods at discrete plants, they're really not so much better except locally. But while air might be cleaner where they're driven, somewhere some place is uffering because of a local coal plant, or from radiation from fission-based nuclear plants.

If you measure the pollution from a coal powered electrical plant, and divide it by the number of EVs it can charge, I bet it will come out a great deal better than the emissions from that many gasoline engines.

For example, TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant generates 10 billion kilowatt hrs per year. That equals out to around 27.4 million kWh per day.

A Tesla's charge is 85 kWh. So the plant can charge around 320,000 Teslas in a single day.

Do you suppose the plant puts out more pollution in a single day than 320,000 gas powered cars?

If, by "pollution," you mean CO2, then it very well might:

TVA: Coal-Fired Power Plant

The Kingston plant generates about 10 billion kilowatt-hours a year, or enough electricity to supply 700,000 homes. To meet this demand, Kingston burns about 14,000 tons of coal a day, an amount that would fill 140 railroad cars.

How much CO2 do 320,000 gas powered cars produce in a day? I'll bet it's less than 14,000 tons.