Should we penalise those who drive electric cars?

The use of rare earth minerals for batteries is a serious issue. But fossil fuels are also running out.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Blondie987

No

Why? They do more damage, and so they should be taxed more.

Reply 5

OP

Original post by LordMallard

No, instead penalise the energy corporations that produce the electricity, and encourage the building of more nuclear power stations, as well as more solar and wave power.

Solar and wave power, currently, are not worth using. As of now, only nuclear is, however our government is always hindered by green protesters who do not support the idea of going green.

Reply 6

Student403

19

For what? Being too badass?

(Tesla :love:

)

Reply 7

username1560589

20

They're ignoring many of the ways to make them less polluting in the long term eg. using CO2 scrubbers, domestic renewable sources, biofuels, fission, fusion, increases in battery technology, superconductor electricity conduction(if viable), other ways to get energy from fossil fuels(can't remember the details). They also seem to be ignoring fuel transport. It's also very focused on the US, so I'd be interested to see the comparison with other countries, particularly those that rely heavily on methods other than fossil fuels.

Reply 8

OP

Original post by Student403

For what? Being too badass?

(Tesla :love:

)

For being bad for the environment.

Reply 9

Dez

20

Original post by balanced

Solar and wave power, currently, are not worth using. As of now, only nuclear is, however our government is always hindered by green protesters who do not support the idea of going green.

Oh yeah, the government has really been handicapped. It's not like they've just approved a new multimillion nuclear plant construction project and extended the operating life of all our existing plants by half a decade. Yep, clearly the greens have forced their hand.

Reply 10

OP

Original post by morgan8002

They're ignoring many of the ways to make them less polluting in the long term eg. using CO2 scrubbers, domestic renewable sources, biofuels, fission, fusion, increases in battery technology, superconductor electricity conduction(if viable), other ways to get energy from fossil fuels(can't remember the details). They also seem to be ignoring fuel transport. It's also very focused on the US, so I'd be interested to see the comparison with other countries, particularly those that rely heavily on methods other than fossil fuels.

We have a similar usage of renewables, but were closing down nuclear plants and now rely on diesel generators as our renewable resources are not supplying us with enoguh electricity. What we need is nuclear energy, however the opposite is happening. Luckily, however, we are flooded with oil to power greener conventional cars.

Reply 11

LordMallard

2

Original post by balanced

Solar and wave power, currently, are not worth using. As of now, only nuclear is, however our government is always hindered by green protesters who do not support the idea of going green.

Solar panes can be put on the roofs of buildings, as there they don't take up valuable space. I agree that the technologies need to be improved. Build more nuclear, tax coal power stations. Also, more competition is needed in the energy sector.

Reply 12

Gwilym101

The coal powered car argument is flawed because not every country gets the majority of its power from coal. The only legitimate argument aimed at electric car ownership is the tax argument.

Given the today unfathomable charges that happened to the world infrastructure when electricity and the use of cars becamse wide-spread, a shift a way from coal power is comparatively minor.

Reply 13

Rakas21

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

The use of rare earth minerals for batteries is a serious issue. But fossil fuels are also running out.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We should probably make the distinction here between oil and other fossil fuels and even then we should make the distinction between what is recoverable and what will be recoverable in the future.

In essence we are centuries away from actually running out of fossil fuels. Coal reserves globally are huge and oil reserves are conventionally running short but technology has enabled new and much deeper deposits to be found.

The main arguments for moving away from fossil fuels are environmental, cost related and somewhat related to energy independence (though on the other hand you have things like the planned European supergrid).

Reply 14

Rakas21

Original post by LordMallard

Solar panes can be put on the roofs of buildings, as there they don't take up valuable space. I agree that the technologies need to be improved. Build more nuclear, tax coal power stations. Also, more competition is needed in the energy sector.

The problem with saying more competition is needed is that government is almost going out of their way to prevent it, energy is not a free market.

Firstly you have the fact that government has decided it wants nuclear at a cost of billions (instantly taking small business out the equation and so reducing the level of production competition) because it doesn't trust the private sector to meet demand and also because it looks good to voters. Secondly though you have a mirade of environmental regulation increasing the cost of coal which the market has deemed the most efficient fuel source so instead of a small firm being able to produce coal powered energy they have to go for more expensive options to which they may lack the capital.

Unfortunately as things stand we are not going to get cheap energy anytime soon.

Reply 15

LordMallard

2

Original post by Rakas21

The problem with saying more competition is needed is that government is almost going out of their way to prevent it, energy is not a free market.

Firstly you have the fact that government has decided it wants nuclear at a cost of billions (instantly taking small business out the equation and so reducing the level of production competition) because it doesn't trust the private sector to meet demand and also because it looks good to voters. Secondly though you have a mirade of environmental regulation increasing the cost of coal which the market has deemed the most efficient fuel source so instead of a small firm being able to produce coal powered energy they have to go for more expensive options to which they may lack the capital.

Unfortunately as things stand we are not going to get cheap energy anytime soon.

Cheap energy does seem a long way off.

There are some interesting ideas here:

http://www.johnpenrose.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2086:johns-policy-paper-we-deserve-better&catid=58:business-a-enterprise

http://www.johnpenrose.org/images/wedeservebetter.pdf

Reply 16

TheHelpfulMan

2

Original post by balanced

Considering how electric cars cause more air pollution, should we penalise those who drive them?
Pretty much all questions are answered in this video:
[video="youtube;17xh_VRrnMU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU[/video]

Blame their existence on the green police

No

We should be investing in the technology of hydrogen powered cars that have 0% emissions.
Electric cars use electricity which is made by fossil fuels so it doesn't really solve anything. They also tend to have a crap battery life meaning that you have to charge it often. My mate had to charge his roughly every 60 miles and commuting to and from work with stand still time too. Still cheaper than petrol though the price is coming down.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hydrogen-cars.htm

Reply 19

username1148663