4 ms·

Won't really make any environmental difference since they'll have to produce more energy. Since germany utilizes gas and coal you will basically shift to that f

Won't really make any environmental difference since they'll have to produce more energy. Since germany utilizes gas and coal you will basically shift to that from petrol since they shutdown their nuclear power plant

geff82 7y ago
Last time I looked we are gradually shifting to completely renewable energies. It might yet take some time, but we will get there (hoping that we do not elect dumb politicians).
- Mrdarknezz 7y ago
  Well this wouldn't be a problem if you didn't shutdown your nuclear power plants. Now Germany is polluting more than ever.
  - arpa 7y ago
    But but but atomkraft, nein, danke. I swear, these people are exactly like PETA, exept they are dealing real damage to the planet.
    - vk23 7y ago
      Radioactive waste is doing real damage to the planet. After decades of evaluation storage facilities germany has no option that is considered safe. We have a responsibility towards the following generations. This includes not warming the planet beyond no return and not polluting it with deadly waste. Both can be achieved with a shift towards renewable energy sources.
      - Mrdarknezz 7y ago
        Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. The only clean option is nuclear and hydro. Sweden has developed a safe storage which is used to stored used fuel.
        vk23 7y ago
        > Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. Do you have a source for that claim? Keep in mind that there are also renewable energy sources that do not rely on weather events (water and biomass). In combination with energy storing and a reduction of the total energy needed it is afaik considered possible to go fully renewable [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy EDIT: I misread your comment. I thought you were arguing that "unclean" power plants are nessecary. However my point about not needing nuclear still stands.
        cygx 7y ago
        > Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. Varying power sources need to be combined with adjustable power sources. So do constant sources, unless you want to force consumption to correspond to availability. Shutting off nuclear plants and going fully renewable would require bringing more adjustable sources online, though. Hence the quest for better storage technologies.
  - vixen99 7y ago
    Really? No problem in providing massive sums to build solar and wind power stations alongside the fossil fuel stations that already exist and will have to be maintained 24/7? As an example, difficult to see how huge swathes of EU country Romania would survive as habitable zones. Who will inject the cash needed? Moreover six months of winter conditions are not exactly conducive to energy production via solar and wind. What the heck do people do?
  - cygx 7y ago
    > Now Germany is polluting more than ever. That's incorrect. While Germany failed to make its reduction goals, it still reduced emissions while simultaneously increasing production.
wongarsu 7y ago
The climate impact would be limited in Germany because of the large amount of electricity produced from coal. But it would still make an environmental difference: German cities have a big problem with particulate matter, which seems to be a major cause of lung cancer and other resparatory diseases. Moving pollution out of the cities into electricity plants would be very beneficial, even if there was no climate effect at all (which there will be because the power mix is consistently changing for the better, with coal becoming uneconomical).
- StreamBright 7y ago
  There is still a problem with electric cars, the tires also produce particles that are carcinogenic. "Electric vehicles emit no NO2 but do produce small particle pollution from the wear on brake discs and tyres and by throwing up dust from roads. A recent European commission research paper found that about half of all particulate matter comes from these sources."
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    EVs use their brakes less because of regenerative breaking. The particulate matter of tires is for the most part comparatively big an heavy, so a larger part of it stays near the ground and gets swept away by rain, and could be cleared in problematic locations by wetting the street (also bigger particles seem somewhat less problematic for health). You're right that EVs don't fully solve the problem, but they are a giant step in the right direction.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      EVs are also generally concerned about overall weight and have smaller tires on average than non-EVs in their respective categories.
  - de_watcher 7y ago
    Normally they use break discs only at speeds of about 0-10 km/h.
- 7y ago
thomasfortes 7y ago
Power plants are much more efficient in converting fuel to energy than the combustion engines in vehicles, so, even if we use fossil fuel to generate the power that electric vehicles need, we will be in a better spot than the one we are right now. (And I'm not even considering the energy that we need to expend to refine the oil to make fuel that vehicles can use).
- gambiting 7y ago
  And also - even with a coal power plant you are producing electricity outside of major cities, so areas where people live are less polluted by cars driving through them. Everyone who has ever had a taxi driver idling their shitty diesel outside of your window at 2am should immediately understand how energy production moving to outside of cities is a good thing no matter how that energy is produced.
  - miskin 7y ago
    Yes, but you can turn it around and tell that people that use cars mostly in cities would have little to no incentive to be more efficient, because this externalizes harm to areas far away from them.

geff82 7y ago

Last time I looked we are gradually shifting to completely renewable energies. It might yet take some time, but we will get there (hoping that we do not elect dumb politicians).

Mrdarknezz 7y ago
Well this wouldn't be a problem if you didn't shutdown your nuclear power plants. Now Germany is polluting more than ever.
- arpa 7y ago
  But but but atomkraft, nein, danke. I swear, these people are exactly like PETA, exept they are dealing real damage to the planet.
  - vk23 7y ago
    Radioactive waste is doing real damage to the planet. After decades of evaluation storage facilities germany has no option that is considered safe. We have a responsibility towards the following generations. This includes not warming the planet beyond no return and not polluting it with deadly waste. Both can be achieved with a shift towards renewable energy sources.
    - Mrdarknezz 7y ago
      Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. The only clean option is nuclear and hydro. Sweden has developed a safe storage which is used to stored used fuel.
      - vk23 7y ago
        > Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. Do you have a source for that claim? Keep in mind that there are also renewable energy sources that do not rely on weather events (water and biomass). In combination with energy storing and a reduction of the total energy needed it is afaik considered possible to go fully renewable [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy EDIT: I misread your comment. I thought you were arguing that "unclean" power plants are nessecary. However my point about not needing nuclear still stands.
      - cygx 7y ago
        > Renewable energy sources needs to be supported by power plants that can produce constantly. Varying power sources need to be combined with adjustable power sources. So do constant sources, unless you want to force consumption to correspond to availability. Shutting off nuclear plants and going fully renewable would require bringing more adjustable sources online, though. Hence the quest for better storage technologies.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Really? No problem in providing massive sums to build solar and wind power stations alongside the fossil fuel stations that already exist and will have to be maintained 24/7? As an example, difficult to see how huge swathes of EU country Romania would survive as habitable zones. Who will inject the cash needed? Moreover six months of winter conditions are not exactly conducive to energy production via solar and wind. What the heck do people do?
- cygx 7y ago
  > Now Germany is polluting more than ever. That's incorrect. While Germany failed to make its reduction goals, it still reduced emissions while simultaneously increasing production.

wongarsu 7y ago

The climate impact would be limited in Germany because of the large amount of electricity produced from coal. But it would still make an environmental difference: German cities have a big problem with particulate matter, which seems to be a major cause of lung cancer and other resparatory diseases. Moving pollution out of the cities into electricity plants would be very beneficial, even if there was no climate effect at all (which there will be because the power mix is consistently changing for the better, with coal becoming uneconomical).

StreamBright 7y ago
There is still a problem with electric cars, the tires also produce particles that are carcinogenic. "Electric vehicles emit no NO2 but do produce small particle pollution from the wear on brake discs and tyres and by throwing up dust from roads. A recent European commission research paper found that about half of all particulate matter comes from these sources."
- wongarsu 7y ago
  EVs use their brakes less because of regenerative breaking. The particulate matter of tires is for the most part comparatively big an heavy, so a larger part of it stays near the ground and gets swept away by rain, and could be cleared in problematic locations by wetting the street (also bigger particles seem somewhat less problematic for health). You're right that EVs don't fully solve the problem, but they are a giant step in the right direction.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    EVs are also generally concerned about overall weight and have smaller tires on average than non-EVs in their respective categories.
- de_watcher 7y ago
  Normally they use break discs only at speeds of about 0-10 km/h.
7y ago

thomasfortes 7y ago

Power plants are much more efficient in converting fuel to energy than the combustion engines in vehicles, so, even if we use fossil fuel to generate the power that electric vehicles need, we will be in a better spot than the one we are right now. (And I'm not even considering the energy that we need to expend to refine the oil to make fuel that vehicles can use).

gambiting 7y ago
And also - even with a coal power plant you are producing electricity outside of major cities, so areas where people live are less polluted by cars driving through them. Everyone who has ever had a taxi driver idling their shitty diesel outside of your window at 2am should immediately understand how energy production moving to outside of cities is a good thing no matter how that energy is produced.
- miskin 7y ago
  Yes, but you can turn it around and tell that people that use cars mostly in cities would have little to no incentive to be more efficient, because this externalizes harm to areas far away from them.