electric cars

>>8549509
because it's feel-good shit like recycling anything but metal that has no real effect on the problems they're trying to combat

Because most people just want to feel like they're making a difference.

A handful of retards buying electric cars made from fossil fuels isn't going to do shit. The only way for change (it's too late anyway) is for governments of the world to overhaul their infrastructure to force a lot of people to ditch using cars. At least when we're strictly talking about the carbon footprint of automobiles.

>>8549509
Because they want to keep driving cars, even though giving up personal transport is currently the only viable long term solution.

>>8549509
Because the emissions don't end up in the cities.

>>8549509
Because my electricity comes from nuclear power. And yours will eventually, there's no avoiding the superiority of nuclear power in the long term.

>>8549528
i see, but it still affects climate change

>>8549606
but you can change how you produce electricity.

>>8549606
>it still affects climate change
it does, but how much? No one dares to quantify the effect of a realistic co2 reduction (barely noticeable) while a reduction of *toxic* emissions directly affects the quality of life.

From a technical angle of view the e-motor is optimal for cars. It's quiet, has its max torque at stand-still and you can regenerate the kinetic energy of the car. What's needed is better storage.

>>8549509
What the fuck is leccy?

>>8549509
Still a more efficient use of fossil fuels, lots of electricity doesn't come from fossil fuels anyway. Also no NOx/sulfur/particulate emissions in already polluted cities.

File: Fresh-Leccy-Stock-Photo.jpg (114KB, 1300x876px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1300x876px

>>8550037

>>8549509
I'm more interested in them from the view motion is a byproduct of an internal combustion engine, plus the Model S is sexy. If I really gave a huge fuck about the environment I'd just get a bicycle

>>8549509
>Total mass of atmosphere is 5,1 * 10^18 kg
>There's 7 mrd people on Earth
>Car produces about 300 g gases per km
>To add 1% mass to atmosphere would require every single person on Earth to drive 2'420'000 km, or about 66 km per day for 100 years

You are delusional if you think driving has any effect on anything.

>>8549509
Cause Elon Musk has 11 billion dollaz, and we gots alots of leccy and gaz.

File: 1452355521922.jpg (47KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 499x499px

>>8550095
>>To add 1% mass to atmosphere
bait spotted

where did you take from that we need to add 1% mass to the atmosphere

>>8550095
Adding 10000 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere would kill us all.

>>8549509
Look up: Tesla and Solar City merge.

Elon will it!

>>8550129
Possibly, workplace safety regulations limit is 5000 ppm.

Even if we assume that there's no net reduction in use of fossil fuels, the ability to reduce smog in the cities alone would be great for public health.

>>8549509
Because we could generate "Leccy" with other means like nuclear.

Nuclear cars however is not the best idea.

Electricity isn't locked to fossil fuel. Gasolene is. As solar, wind and thorium gets more common, more and more cars will be ~100% clean

>>8549509
Because you can use hydro nuke solar tidal wind instead.
And as a battery it doesn't require a constant supply.
And get enough and they can act as local power storage.

Stationary power sources can implement better emission controls and more efficiently create energy than any automobile can implement and still be mobile.

burning fuel in one big power plant is more efficient than burning it in thousands of small engines

>He lives in a place where the vast majority of the electricity supply is not from renewable sources.

I thought you said you were smart /sci/?

>>8549509
So solar panels can go on the roof

>>8549509
So we can give OPEC the finger.

>>8549509
Because it's more efficient producing power in a power plant than a car engine. Therefore less CO2 emissions.