No but they also don't release carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or nitrogen oxides during regular operation. Between them: death causing fume, greenhouse gas (btw, I know you're not a believer, but science has now achieved a 99.99% certainty on it being real, so a this point you might as well not believe that the sun emits light), cancer inducing fume. So lovely. That and electric cars current fire rates are lower than gasoline cars per unit. Just a lot of media likes to scare monger. Like the two Tesla hacks recently. One hack literally requires soldering new electronics into the vehicle. The other requires replacing road markings to confuse the driving assistant thing, I'm sure I can alter road markings/signs to confuse human drivers too.
What will happen to petrol cars when the seemingly inevitable electric vehicle takeover happens. What will happen to classic vehicles? Will we be forced to switch?
Who knows? Obviously it will vary by country. Some may ban them, some may not. Imo a ban would be pointless, if less than 10% of cars are fossil fuelled, there's no point in banning them. Because its not an issue at that point. Especially since the lack of fuel stations will probably put the nail in the coffin for practical useability. So it would likely only be hobbiests anyway. Some car companies are offering to do fully reversible conversions of their classics*. So perhaps Aston Martin sees little future in ICE? Since they are claiming this as a way to ensure that your assets remain valuable going forward. Also toting the benefits to a cars "provenance", by providing more certified history to your vehicle. They did make mention of putting the old engine system in a show case for the owners, so you can roll it out and start it up as a show piece for parties etc. I don't know how much of that was joking though. Since the host is a fairly die hard car guy who appreciates classic cars. Its also entirely possible that AM are trying to use fear mongering to get owners to give them money for a new drivetrain. So its hard to say. Regardless, the EV version will at least "start" every time you want to take it for a drive, but of course many will argue that isn't very characterful for a British car *The original car is not cut or changed in any way, old stuff gets removed, new stuff bolts into existing mounting points.
I don't believe in electric cars for myself. I need ICE sounds and vibrations. Other people? Eh, they believe the car is an appliance anyway, so fuck em. Say their lungs melt after a crash; that's the reality of potentially puncturing a battery. Guaranteed? No. It's exactly like puncturing a modern fuel tank. It's a scary thought, but a reality. The largest cause of pollution in general is shipping and aviation. Jet fuel is incredibly dirty. Also, according to the EPA modern vehicles are 75-90% less emmissive than vehicles from the 70's. There's still much in the way of ICE technology to go, and electric cars are still much in the way of battery technology to go before an electric car can match the range, flexibility, speed of recharge, etc. of an ancient plant burner.
So I come back and nothing has changed. Same arguments on the same topic, using the same points with much more emotions than proof behind them. I initially wanted to join, but gave up. It's exhausting and doesn't change anything. Smug alt-centrism for the win. Now about my personal future...I hope at least some fuel stations will remain during my lifetime to power my old cars. Or I'll have to build a wood gas generator/biofuel refinery. Because the new ones, no matter what they're powered by, are all hard garbage and they get worse every year. Well, maybe except the very top notch ones. Hello, is this a Rollce Royce dealership? May I get an, uh, Cullinan with an, uh, manual? What? No? Oh shi-
Uh, I'm going to need a source on that 99.9% thing. Even the oft-repeated "97% of scientists" claim turned out to be based on hilariously faulty data. I'd respond to the rest but my break is over. Ciao.
Do you not think that's a little petty and pedantic? We can all point at face values without attempting to understand the underlying meaning if you like? (Assuming we can be bothered, your posts are usually vast, rebuking every single inaccurate point you make in them would be a full time job) And Nigeria and Saudy Arabia are great bastions of the free world with exemplary human rights records? Lithium can be mined in the US (its a very small part of a lithium battery though), meaning an EV doesn't require that ingredient from china. Nickel is a big portion of the batteries, that can come from many places (predominately mined in Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Russia and the Philippines). Another major ingredient, Graphite is predominantly mined in China, but you can get it from plenty of other places too (Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and Madagascar). Sources: Google Images wikipedia https://www.charlotteobserver.com/n...u9G7UpIII9seLf10SYAkEWapaISWAuQgN2J_qq2_b4DSk
Let's not forget that the mining process for both lithium and nickel is absolutely horrible for the environment. It's common knowledge that acid rain is rampant in the parts of China known for nickel mining. No source of energy is without its faults. The creation of batteries is just as, if not more, detrimental than burning fossil fuel at a personal vehicle level (power generation and aforementioned aviation and shipping industries not withstanding).
Use nuclear and renewable energy to turn CO2 in the air into pure carbon, then use chemical processes to convert that into usable gasoline. Problem solved. We have the technology. All this excess CO2 in the atmosphere, concerning as it is at the moment, may be a valuable resource in the future.
Nuclear is struggling in the US though. Most intended new plants are in jeapordy because they have became unprofitable before they are even completed. Some of the operators are throwing in the towel and building solar arrays on the land that they bought for nuclear power stations, because its more profitable. And at the end of the day, money is what the private companies who operate these facilities are trying to maximise. So there isn't much incentive to do something super financially risky and expensive, when there are more profitable solutions available. The idea of capturing carbon to convert to petrol would be an improvement, since it would allow reuse of carbon emissions. However, the vehicles would still be emitting them eventually. So it's still not an ideal solution, despite being an improvement. And it also doesn't tackle the issue of cars emmiting toxic fumes, which is a major public health issue.
Okay bud, let's lock you in a sealed room with a running car for a while, and lock me in a SEALED room with a running Tesla. Whoever dies is wrong.
I have some juicy oxygen sensor wavelengths for everyone's viewing pleasure. Shown in these graphs, from top to bottom, are bank 1&2 long term fuel trims, bank 1&2 short term fuel trims, then the o2 data. O2S11 is oxygen sensor bank 1 sensor 1. O2S12 is bank 1 sensor 2, etc. This data was recorded at a warm idle, after I'd been driving it around for over an hour. I revved it up to 2 or 3k rpm at around 30 seconds in. The upstream and downstream o2 sensor wavelengths match almost exactly for both banks. I've read that the downstream sensor is supposed to have a more steady reading, instead of a varying wavelength. If this is true I'm wondering why I'm only getting a catalyst inefficiency code for bank one. I'm also getting pretty bad gas mileage. It's rated 15 city/21 highway, but it has trouble approaching even 14mpg on the highway. It's closer to 10 or 11 around town.
none of those bottom 4 look like remotely typical operation though on Tuesday I'll be back at work with better people to ask. Also interested in how this was obtained as this might influence why the data looks so bizarre
okay so oscillation is likely due to the sensors being zirconia sensors rather than titania sensors I am more used to. You're running rich according to all 4 sensors, more so on bank 1 than bank 2
