Memes

45726 readers

1059 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

1398

Enjoy it while it lasts. (startrek.website)

submitted 1 year ago by electriccars@startrek.website to c/memes@lemmy.ml

186 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You want to take out that CO2, you need to spend the same amount of energy to take it back.

Non sequitur. Nobody said we had to turn atmospheric carbon back into the same fuel it originally came out of.

Electrical trucks are not worth it because of battery weight.

This is only an issue for long-haul trucks, so, obvious solution: electric trains. No battery required.

Also, battery fires are a BITCH and are almost impossible to put out. All it takes is one electrical fire from a car in a tunnel that will kill a few hundred people to make people reconsider battery cars. Now imagine trucks.

There are plenty of EVs on the road already. If that was as likely as you're trying to make it sound, it would have happened many times already.

Yeah, lithium-ion batteries are volatile, but they aren't that volatile. Solid-state batteries are even less so.

retards (yes, that is the acceptable word for people that have a good brain but refuse to use it)

I won't comment on whether it's acceptable, but it definitely isn't correct. The R word refers to people whose brains are impaired, not merely underused.

Call me cynical all you like but I see a humanity ending problem in front of us and it can be solved but share holders and the rich must be kept happy before that!

That's the real problem, not the technology. We can solve this problem. We don't even have to sacrifice our modern civilization and creature comforts to do it. But we won't, because some very lucrative businesses would become obsolete in the process, and their owners would sooner burn down the world and rule over the ashes than tolerate the loss of their wealth.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

non sequitur

No it's not. If you want to lower the CO2 in the atmosphere then you need to break up the carbon bonds, that leaves you with carbon. For all I care you make diamonds out of it, it's irrelevant. If you want to break CO2 in O2 you need to spend that same energy. That was my point. If them youale fuel or whatever out of it that is a wholly different story that too will require yet more energy.

Trains indeed resolve the long haul truck issue but they're hardly anywhere in the US. Good luck with building new train tracks there.

We haven't had an electrical fire in a tunnel yet. Fires in tunnels are bad but can be controlled. Electrical battery fed fires are a nightmare as they have all the ingredients to keep going all by themselves. This is why fire departments see these cars as a problem as they require more water to put out than they can carry.

Li-ion batteries are indeed volatile and no they won't explode by the thousands but if you have hundreds of millions of them, then statistically yes, you will get thousands of fires world wide every day. Tunnel fires are just a waiting to happen. I'm not saying there is no solution, but it IS a huge problem.