As we delve further into the realm of impossibility, What would be the equivalent MPG of a Nuclear Reactor?
I would assume Kilowatt hours per 100km or something like that. For the US maybe Kilowatt hours per 100miles? Since a Nuclear vehicle would be an EV minus batteries (with nuclear power station taking its place). However the US seems to have chosen MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) for electric vehicles because screw logical units of measurement am I right... So perhaps the US would use MPGe for nuclear cars too? EDIT: I guess I should clarify why I think MPGe is stupid. While it is convenient for comparing EV efficiency to ICE efficiency. I doubt anyone actually cares. What they would be far more interested in is knowing how much power is used per given distance, since they can use that to figure out how much their electricity bill will be given their yearly mileage. Then they can compare cost of Electric vs cost of ICE rather than efficiency. Since at the end of the day cost will be the deciding factor for a large number of people.
I guess MPGe is to compare to normal vehicles. To most Uneducated non-car people, They will only use/think of MPG, so we convert EVs Energy Usage into MPG so people can say "wow that tesla gets 90 MPGe" and whatnot.
Yeah, but if EV's do become basically universal in 20-30 years time what use will MPGe be, it will be the de-facto way of measuring EV efficiency within the US, but no one will understand what it means or be able to do any useful calculations with it. It will simply be "a number". Alternatively you can give people a useful measurement that can be used for doing worthwhile calculations. People who are inept will simply treat it as "a number" (bigger number = less spending), and everyone who is capable of multiplication and division can use it to make properly informed decisions.
There are ways to minimize damage caused to bird populations by wind turbines, but there is another, bigger problem. Turbines generate infrasound, which, according to a number of studies, damages human health in case of constant exposure. It is still debatable if infrasound really damages human health, but I'd stay away from using turbines until we come to conclusion. Too bad "environmentalists" are always like "monkey see a way to generate energy without burning anything, monkey do". The only fully safe energy sources are in my opinion solar panels and hydroelectric generators (if the latter are engineered not to stop fish from migrating, of course). Out of curiosity, I'd like to know how exactly thermal power stations kill loads of birds? All the "environmentalists" on the Internet are constantly talking about it, and I've never seen birds die from lung failure due to air pollution.
Done some digging through my universities library, since I have free access to scientific papers etc. Now obviously I can't just upload or post screen shots of them here, cause they are from behind a paywall and I would get destroyed by publishers if I did. However, here are a couple papers that I have glanced at on the topic since reading your post (aka, read the conclusions of): (Article abstracts are publicly available, screenshots is the easiest way to properly credit the articles with correct titles, authors etc) The paper on the left did a double blind experiment and suggests that the phenomena may be caused by a "nocebo" effect, however their sample size was 72 people tested. The one on the right is based upon computer simulations, they suggest that during "strong winds" it would cause disturbances for nearby occupants. Noting that seismic sensors can detect wind turbines during strong winds from 15km away, since the majority of the noise is conducted through the ground, however the airborne distance that the sound can travel is shorter. Not gonna lie though, I have no intention of reading the papers in full. They are very technical with a lot of complex maths and graphs and I am not studying in that field of research, so it would require a lot of effort from me to fully understand them. --- Post updated --- I will add this article into the fray too (especially since everyone can look at it): https://www.theguardian.com/environ...y-sound-emitted-by-wind-turbines-inquiry-told
Its been planned for a long time, Australia has lost all of its car manufacturers. Mitsubishi Australia closed March, 2008 Ford Australia closed October, 2016 Toyota Au closed today and Holden closes on the 20th of October.
You now probably have quite high unemployment thanks to that your government really has made a mistake in not trying to keep the car firms in australia
Mpge isn't really that dumb. 1 gallon of fuel gas a basic energy content in joules. A car battery has a basic energy content in joules. Both of these are calculable, very easily in fact. 1 watt hour is 3600 joules. 46.4 megajoules in a kg of gasoline. 75kWhr pack arbitrarily has about 270 megajoules. That's about 5.8kg worth of gasoline. Some digging reveals an approximate weight of a gallon of gasoline as 2.8kg (recall it's less dense than water). So a tad over 2 gallons of gasoline --- Post updated --- The number of people the industry hires is barely significant compared to the Australian workforce. It likely won't dent national statistics at all
But how many people are there that are going to be able to do those sorts of conversions and why make them do those sorts of conversions? And how many people actually care about those values, as opposed to electricity usage which is what they are billed for. The battery sizes are also measured in WattHours, so basing your units of efficiency around that also allows people to do some napkin maths in relation to distances. If you have 10kwh left in the battery and your car does 3kw/100[units of distance] how far can you drive? is far easier than If you have 10kwh left in the battery and your car does 105MPGe how far can you drive? One of those can be done in your head with a basic understanding of maths, the other one requires multiple conversions and the car buyer to remember what those conversions are. And its not as though the average person is going to be able to remember that 1kwh = 36 megaJoules, multiply by ten to get 10kwh = 360megaJoules then convert that into gallons of fuel, then use miles per gallon to calculate distance.
I dont have anything against that as i like the leaf but its conceptwise the same as the nissan juke RS nismo theyre somewhat unneccessery
At least they are trying. It's more than can be said for many manufacturers. However the recent resurgence of the hot hatch (even if it is intended for an older audience than it used to be [bigger and more expensive] ) has been really nice to see.
Versus the size of the Australian workforce as a whole it's not a drop in the water --- Post updated --- Besides, this is crapitalist society. The companies don't care about the little man, they care about their income, and if that involves leaving 2500 people (of a 12.5 million person workforce) out of a job then so be it
So, I have now been in (the passenger seat of) a Tesla Model S, Tesla Model X and a BMW I8. Today being the I8. Personally, I think the I8 wins it out for me (however if you need more than 2 seats the answer is obviously different). Its an absolutely fantastic car, pretty damn quick too considering how incredibly civilised it is when cruising. Also got to see some other vehicles while I was out... I tried to do a Photoshop photomerge on them, however I think my computer made "an art" in the process. I have never seen PS screw up a photomerge this badly
The BMW I8 isnt as fast as you maybe thiking round the norschleife for excample its round 30 seconds slower than a honda civic type r wich isnt what i was expecting from a car wich costs more than twice as much
I don't think they intend to (or even try to) full environmental with the EV cars. If that were the case, I feel that we'd be hearing alot from the oil and gas companies around, seeing as they'd be at some sort of threat. But seeing as they can just go from powering the cars to powering the stations which charge the cars, they're not bothered. If it were the case of the government actually trying to be environmentally friendly, instead of just using the changing times to make more money, then they'd be more interested in hydrogen cars, which have a fair few advantages over electric. The thing they don't have is the ability to keep the oil and gas buissnesses happy
