24 Mar 22
@moonbus saidNo but I have now, interesting but it also points out that you can have Sf6 free switch gears and newer systems are a lot less leaky but still represents a dirty secret and shows the complexity of tackling global warming but the status quo is still not an option.
@kevcvs57
Did you read the article to which I linked? SF6 is orders of magnitude more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon.
As an urban dweller I still prefer the streets to be clear of carbon monoxide but clearly this Sf6 issue needs to be addressed and the fact I’ve never heard of them is a worry.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
24 Mar 22
@jimmac saidYou mean, ''Electric CHAIR, DON'T YOU?''
https://www.americaoutloud.com/the-electric-vehicle-scam/
But watch the greenie oligarchs get rich of it, I mean, even richer, while climate nutters go running of to " fact check " it. yeah right.
It is simple common sense, but common sense is a lot less common than it was.
This seems like a strawman argument at best. I'm struggling to find a single example of a contemporary environmentalist who says "electric vehicles will save us." Other than corporations of course.
Most say they won't. They're potentially better but of course you need to get electricity from somewhere. I think a vision of a long term future in which many objects (e.g. cars, furniture) can store electricity generated via wind or solar and utilized when the sun went down. Cars are good because they move, so you can charge at work and run your A/C unit off the charge at home.
But there's a lot of acknowledgement among environmentalists that this can't be the end all solution. Many people understand this. Trading out your old Civic for a brand new Prius is harmful for the environment.
25 Mar 22
@moonbus saidIt is strange that you get thumbs up when you are proving me correct for what I get thumbs down for.
Electric cars are cleaner than infernal-combustion-engine cars, if you look at each vehicle through a microscope; but if you look at the whole system, it looks rather different. The whole system is cleaner only if the electricity is cleanly produced and cleanly transported from the point of generation to the point of consumption.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
From your link:
{ Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.
But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road. }
While not directly related to electric cars it is related to the green energy they claim is needed to run them.
Wind and solar require vastly more connections to run ( being so multi sourced: i.e many, many smaller generation points ) and I believe that each of those connections require SF6.
Mandating ev's ( and some are talking the talk.) only worsens the problem.
If we had nuclear power, that would go someway towards a true green future.
25 Mar 22
@jimmac saidThe most obvious solution, use less energy, never gets any air time, does it? Because it’s political suicide.
It is strange that you get thumbs up when you are proving me correct for what I get thumbs down for.
From your link:
{ Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.
But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the ro ...[text shortened]... y worsens the problem.
If we had nuclear power, that would go someway towards a true green future.
Personally, I think electricity rationing cannot be far off. 50 years at most, and we’ll see draconian reductions in availability. 24/7 hot water is simply not a necessity, and neither is a privately owned/operated vehicle (however powered) for every household.
25 Mar 22
@moonbus saidWe could use less energy. There are inefficiencies all over the place that could be eliminated for the most part. It is a doable solution that does not require a tax and that is the problem. A tax is what they want.
The most obvious solution, use less energy, never gets any air time, does it? Because it’s political suicide.
Personally, I think electricity rationing cannot be far off. 50 years at most, and we’ll see draconian reductions in availability. 24/7 hot water is simply not a necessity, and neither is a privately owned/operated vehicle (however powered) for every household.
They don't want the stated solution. That is not the real goal, the goal is a tax.