Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AgreedIt's all that, granted, but on the plus side EVs do remove harmful pollution away from city centers, which is where most people live and work. So there's that.
City centres are served very well by something known as public transport. Some forms of public transport have been electrified for over 100 years.It's all that, granted, but on the plus side EVs do remove harmful pollution away from city centers, which is where most people live and work. So there's that.
That's why MJ is in awe of those explorers who sailed......What I find somewhat terrifying is that there are quite a lot of folk who seem to genuinely believe the earth is flat......
Thanks - appreciated. I've wondered for a long time what the relationship is - now I can see the sun is the dominant factor.It is an interesting question isn't it!
Some figures I found the other day, global annual energy use for transportation is about 110 quads (quadrillion BTU) which is about 32237819166666 kWh I think it's a fair assumption that nearly all of it ends up as heat.
Hourly solar energy to the surface of the earth is about 119444444444444 kWh, which gives 1.04 x 10^18 kWh per annum.
So, solar input to the planet is about 32000 x as much as burning the fuel we use ...which suggests the heat input to the 'system' from transportation is probably insignificant.
When EVs become dominant and electricity prices rise, I can see a term that will gain traction!In contrast, the national greed can be fed from coal plants, gas turbines, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear....... as long as the consumer unit gets its electricity, car owners won't care how it's produced.
A not often discussed side of EVs is the strategic overview.
Having lots and lots of vehicles produce their own energy on the run (I.e. ICE cars) provides a level of resilience and independence. All these cars need is some suitable liquid (or gas) to burn. Each ICE carries its own small energy generator / power plant.
With EVs, the energy production is done centrally, away from the consumer units (EV cars). So it's very easy to flick the switch and grind the entire fleet to a halt (bar those owners who have Diesel generators). Not much resilience there.
However, the central energy production has one crucial element: you can change the energy source without the consumer unit even knowing about it.
We see how any change to ICE cars via legislation and regulations takes years, decades even, to complete, because there are millions of owners that will each need to change their cars.
In contrast, the national greed can be fed from coal plants, gas turbines, solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear....... as long as the consumer unit gets its electricity, car owners won't care how it's produced.
And this is a strategic advantage for any country, the ability to centrally plan how energy is generated without having to rely on the good will (and tax incentives) of millions of individual owners.
City centres are served very well by something known as public transport. Some forms of public transport have been electrified for over 100 years.
Why people who live and work in an urban environment at risk of harmful pollution choose not to use the public transport provided is a puzzle.
Maybe people who live and/or work in cities should be forced to use public transport. For the good of the environment.
In China you would get a bonus on your social credit score for such an act of altruism, maybe.
What I find somewhat terrifying is that there are quite a lot of folk who seem to genuinely believe the earth is flat......
It is an interesting question isn't it!
Some figures I found the other day, global annual energy use for transportation is about 110 quads (quadrillion BTU) which is about 32237819166666 kWh I think it's a fair assumption that nearly all of it ends up as heat.
Hourly solar energy to the surface of the earth is about 119444444444444 kWh, which gives 1.04 x 10^18 kWh per annum.
So, solar input to the planet is about 32000 x as much as burning the fuel we use ...which suggests the heat input to the 'system' from transportation is probably insignificant.
What I find somewhat terrifying is that there are quite a lot of folk who seem to genuinely believe the earth is flat......And a percentage of them deny what happened back then.
It is an interesting question isn't it!Interesting question. My gut feeling is that the sun's energy is far more powerful than whatever heat cars generate, and even a tiny increase in the amount that gets through the atmosphere will be far more significant. But I don't know.
Any potential energy gained is on average going to get converted back to kinetic again (unless all our vehicles end up parked on mountain tops and never come back down), and all the kinetic ends up as heat anyway eventually, as none of our vehicles are frictionless nor move in a vacuum. Just entropy at work.In the case of electrical components, e.g. computers electricity is converted to heat, bar fans and hard disk drives where a small amount is converted to kinetic energy.
In the case of vehicles, a significant amount of energy is converted to kinetic energy (vehicle accelerating) and to potential energy (vehicle going uphill).
So the amount of kWh that ends up as heat will only be a proportion of the overall amount if energy consumed by transport.
I agree. As I said, I fully support closing city centres to private vehicles.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.