BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > E90/E92 M3 Technical Topics > Track / Autocross / Dragstrip / Driving Techniques
 
Alpine HID
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-30-2009, 10:52 PM   #1
jk6672
First Lieutenant
 
jk6672's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 E90 m3 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: El Centro, Ca

Posts: 332
iTrader: (2)

battery car takes M3

check out this video of a battery powered "72 Datsun leaving a vette and M3 behind at the track. It runs 0-60 in 2.95 seconds!

http://gas2.org/2009/03/25/worlds-fa...a-1972-datsun/
jk6672 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-30-2009, 11:15 PM   #2
amgthis
Tire Racks
 
amgthis's Avatar
 
Drives: AW 1M Coupè
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA

Posts: 1,228
iTrader: (0)

Gotta admit, that is sweet. Launches so nicely
__________________
Alpine White 1M Coupè
Gone:2006 Alpine White E46 M3 ZCP RIP
amgthis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 01:25 AM   #3
AMJ_77
Captain
 
AMJ_77's Avatar
 
Drives: AW E92 M3 M-DCT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton

Posts: 667
iTrader: (2)

That was amazing. The thing you have to remember with electrics running on batteries is where the batteries go after they die, they are a huge source of waste and pollution. The hybrid yaris is more harmful to the environment because of this and the nickel mining process. Hydrogen maybe the only real hope...
AMJ_77 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 11:01 AM   #4
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMJ_77 View Post
The thing you have to remember with electrics running on batteries is where the batteries go after they die, they are a huge source of waste and pollution. The hybrid yaris is more harmful to the environment because of this and the nickel mining process. Hydrogen maybe the only real hope...
In the US, I think citizens are legally bound to recycle lead batteries. I believe that is where they go when the die. The Prius NiMH batteries are recyclable too.

My guess is there will never be any technology that doesn't pollute somewhere in the production, usage or disposal cycle. A Prius emits less air pollution than a Yukon or an M3 (along with a host of other cars). Some nickel mining operations are not environmentally friendly just like some oil production/refineries are not environmentally friendly.

Did Toyota ever make a hybrid Yaris?

The car in the video is cool and doesn't pollute. The day they can build one that I can get 200-250 miles per fill up and I can fill up within 5 minutes and give me the performance and comfort of my M3 is the day I'd jump on that car. Having said that, I'd still miss the sound but that's a trade I would make.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 11:43 AM   #5
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Electricity has to be produced (which results in pollution) and transferred to the batteries somehow (there are huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90% I think if you analyze what it takes to produce what you get out of a plug in your home). One can argue an electric car pollutes less overall though. A key attraction of hybrid vehicles is their ability to capture and reuse the energy that would normally be lost during braking. But I doubt this car does that. It should also be noted that this little electric car is really little and stripped. Probably weighs less than 2000lbs. It was going against cars that weighed 3000lb+. The low end torque/power delivery of the electric motor presents a clear advantage though! Wouldn't want to race it!
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 01:40 PM   #6
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Electricity has to be produced (which results in pollution) and transferred to the batteries somehow (there are huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90% I think if you analyze what it takes to produce what you get out of a plug in your home). One can argue an electric car pollutes less overall though. A key attraction of hybrid vehicles is their ability to capture and reuse the energy that would normally be lost during braking. But I doubt this car does that. It should also be noted that this little electric car is really little and stripped. Probably weighs less than 2000lbs. It was going against cars that weighed 3000lb+. The low end torque/power delivery of the electric motor presents a clear advantage though! Wouldn't want to race it!
Yes, you can always go up the chain and find some pollution someplace. That's civilization. There are power sources that you can encapsulate in a 3D space and find no measurable pollution not counting the power collection structure itself as pollution (which some might ).

Transmission line losses run less than 10% (the miracle of I^2R). Car engines run around 20% energy efficiency. Gas turbines do closer to 40%. I think nuclear plants run >90%. I'm not sure you would get up to 90% lost energy if you follow the energy from the source (chemical, nuclear, solar, wind, whatever it's initial form) to the car. That pessimistic.

I think the car weight 2,600 lbs with the first set of batteries and less than 2,000 with the second set. Here are times from a bunch of Miata's with near the same weight and various internal combustion solutions.

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda--Miat...ag-Racing.html

One guy is doing about the same time with a V8 and nitros. Still pretty cool, I think.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 02:24 PM   #7
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
Transmission line losses run less than 10% (the miracle of I^2R). Car engines run around 20% energy efficiency. Gas turbines do closer to 40%. I think nuclear plants run >90%. I'm not sure you would get up to 90% lost energy if you follow the energy from the source (chemical, nuclear, solar, wind, whatever it's initial form) to the car. That pessimistic.
I was surprised to hear someone mention that number as well, but then he showed me where it comes coming from and it made sense. Let me try to find that diagram...
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 03:01 PM   #8
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,844
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
In the US, I think citizens are legally bound to recycle lead batteries. I believe that is where they go when the die. The Prius NiMH batteries are recyclable too.

.
you better check where they really go to be "recycled"- they get shipped to china and third world countries where they can be dismanteled and stripped without any care for the environment or the people doing it.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 04:47 PM   #9
Radiation Joe
Veni Vidi Vici
 
Radiation Joe's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA

Posts: 2,749
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 e90 M3-Sold  [4.25]
2003 RS6 - Sold  [0.00]
2009 e90 M3 - Gone  [0.00]
2003 M3 SOLD  [0.00]
old 2002  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
...
Transmission line losses run less than 10% (the miracle of I^2R). Car engines run around 20% energy efficiency. Gas turbines do closer to 40%. I think nuclear plants run >90%. I'm not sure you would get up to 90% lost energy if you follow the energy from the source (chemical, nuclear, solar, wind, whatever it's initial form) to the car. ...
Nukes are only about 33% efficient. 67% of the radiation is released secretly into the environment.

The plant I'm at now will eventually generate roughly 5,348,000 hp in the core and send about 1,740,000 shaft horsepower between the turbine and the generator. That's the equivelent of 4,200 M3 engines connected together.
Radiation Joe is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-31-2009, 05:19 PM   #10
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radiation Joe View Post
The plant I'm at now will eventually generate roughly 5,348,000 hp in the core and send about 1,740,000 shaft horsepower between the turbine and the generator. That's the equivelent of 4,200 M3 engines connected together.
Yeah, but how much does it weigh? At that hp/lb ratio I can still take on your nuke in my M3. Plus, your nuke will understeer like a pig!

__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-01-2009, 12:33 PM   #11
Dascamel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Dascamel's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 e92 M3, 2010 e91 328i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA

Posts: 1,662
iTrader: (0)

My nuclear submarine can take yours off the line?
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options
2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired)
Dascamel is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-02-2009, 09:27 AM   #12
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

I guess it's a question of what are we talking about? Thermal efficiency or how efficient the plant is operating (as compared to it's theoretical limit)? My bad, and I do apologize for posting misleading numbers. The original point was regarding transfer costs so I should have stuck with that.

I'm sure you can find some batteries that are not properly recycled. I believe the actual problem with pollution from batteries is with batteries purchased and used in third world countries. I think the video was in the US. Many places it's a law lead acid batteries are recycled. Without a good criminal investigation, it's a question of if you think businesses when given half a chance will cheat or if you think most people are mostly honest. US companies make money "recycling" and I don't believe it's legal for them to do so by shipping overseas (even if some do it).

There are some posters that seem intent on pointing out that this car isn't that efficient and/or low polluting or pointing out any perceived deficit with the car or concept. I guess the concern is that American's will go overboard on the "green" stuff in an inefficient manner? Just looking around, I don't get that. The point also seems hypocritical given that this isn't exactly a community built around a low pollution product. Compared to most people (not just us), what this guy is doing is low pollution. Not in an absolute sense, just a relative sense. I'm not saying he's a better person for it. He seems like a nice guy, but maybe he fights dogs and beats his wife (or vice versa). I don't want anyone to think I'm criticizing their life choices (heaven forbid ). I'm not trying to stand on a pedestal, I've got more in common with the people here than battery boy. I'm just saying it's something good. It's like he was morbidly obese and now he's just fat. He might not be Arnold Schwartzenager but it's still better. It's one thing to have a "green" civic, this guy has built something closer to a "green" M3. He probably spent as much as an M3 and maybe it pollutes as much as a regular civic but even so I applaud the results.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 01:04 AM   #13
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,844
iTrader: (0)

its not fair for any energy project unless you look at the process from cradle to grave. so for electric cars that means from mining to electrical production to disposal of the toxic batteries and for Nuclear energy you must include the mining of the ore and processing of waste from that process.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 10:07 AM   #14
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree View Post
its not fair for any energy project unless you look at the process from cradle to grave. so for electric cars that means from mining to electrical production to disposal of the toxic batteries and for Nuclear energy you must include the mining of the ore and processing of waste from that process.
Why should this become a theoretical discussion of undefined issues? Somebody would have to invent a cradle to grave pollution factor before we could calculate such a number for any car. Arbitrarily we could say the electric car has a pollution factor of 100, helpful? We need something to compare the electric car's factor to. Sure, the electric car and the process of creating energy for the electric car and the process of disposing of the used parts of the electric car generates some pollution. Nobody here said it did not. I'd be willing to put money on the electric powered car having a lower pollution factor than the cars it raced against. Of course, I'd bet even more money that we would end up arguing about what type of pollution is the most important and how to measure the various types of pollution, where to draw the boundary around our respective pollution economies, etc...

The first fact was that "batteries are a huge source of waste and pollution"
The second fact was that there are "huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90%"
The third fact was that batteries "get shipped to china and third world countries where they can be dismanteled and stripped without any care for the environment or the people doing it."

I think it would be fair to provide non-anecdotal evidence for any of these facts before we move on trying to prove that superman can beat batman.

I think it's fair to say that at face value the electric dragster is a lot less polluting than what you normally see on a drag strip. I think it's also fair to say that at face value the electric dragster is competitive on the drag strip. I realize that you'all are trying to point out that the electric car is not pollution free and that there are inefficiencies in the electric generation/transmission process. I think those are valid points and it's fair to say just that. But the facts used to make those points are exaggerations of reality and actually make the electric car out to be inefficient and polluting. When you stretch the truth that far, even when trying to make a valid point, what you wind up with isn't the truth.

As always, my apologies in advance for any credible non-anecdotal evidence presentable for the claims made. My quick searches didn't find any but I'm all ears if you guys want to help educate the ignorant.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 11:49 AM   #15
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
The second fact was that there are "huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90%"
I would appreciate it if you were not to misquote me. You cut off the second sentence. The full sentence/quote from my previous post would read:

"(there are huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90% I think if you analyze what it takes to produce what you get out of a plug in your home)"

There is nothing anoctodal about the above sentence. A friend of mine does consulting on sustanibility issues. Sustanable design is core expertise. He used a slide in a presentation that illustrates the <10% overall efficiency. (I will ask for a copy of that image and post it here together with the source). The >90% is the figure I remember for the overall inefficiency in the entire process, not just the losses associated with the tranmission process.

Also, environmental impact metrics and measurement systems have been invented. You can do a complete life cycle analysis on any product. There is an entire industy built around that premise.

I am not saying my M3 pollutes less than a fully electric car or anything. I was responding to the mindset of the person in the video clip, who seems to think that the electricity out of a plug comes at no pollution cost.
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 01:46 PM   #16
Dascamel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Dascamel's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 e92 M3, 2010 e91 328i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA

Posts: 1,662
iTrader: (0)

Here is the bottom line, if we had hydrogen filling stations across the nation, electric cars would already be obsolete.

Are electric cars a step in the right direction, sure. Even if it does pollute more at production sources, at least it doesn't add any more pollution during peak times of a commute.
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options
2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired)
Dascamel is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 07:50 PM   #17
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I would appreciate it if you were not to misquote me. You cut off the second sentence. The full sentence/quote from my previous post would read:

"(there are huge losses in the transfer process that people are not aware of. More than 90% I think if you analyze what it takes to produce what you get out of a plug in your home)"
Sorry, I quoted as much as I thought necessary. Since the rest was ill defined I mistakenly interpreted it as redundant. It's unclear from the original quote if the "transfer process" referred to moving an energy source from something in the environment to the plug or the much more clearly defined process of transferring electricity from a power plant to a plug? I thought you were talking about the later but now it seems like you are talking about something more. When you say "what it takes" in the unquoted text that could mean anything from a simple power line loss analysis all the way up to a business analysis including how efficient the business runs including sub contractors and/or an entire economic model. Given what I now think you are talking about what does that even mean in conjunction with this discussion? The reality is that the car (the thing in the video) doesn't pollute. That guy never talked about the power industry or how efficient it is or anything of that nature. So what's the deal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Also, environmental impact metrics and measurements systems have been invented. You can do a complete life cycle analysis on any product. There is an entire industy built around that premise.
Great, then the other poster was suggesting we do some sort of multi million dollar study and argue over it indefinitely? I've seen these studies debated. They provide estimates based on varying degrees of research of how much waste of this or that or the other thing is produced over the life of the product. They do not compare lead to carbon monoxide nor have a definitive agreement as to the relative "pollution" impact or something that would be helpful like that. I don't think there is any sort of agreement on an apples to apples metric that can be used to study pollution in various formats throughout various industries and encompassing industrial inefficiencies. Sure we can do a study, but given the scope of what you guys are talking about it's a red herring and will not clarify anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I was responding to the mindset of the person in the video clip, who seems to think that the electricity out of a plug comes at no pollution cost.
Now who's misquoting whom? I think this is the root of the problem. The person in the clip makes no such boast, claim or inference except to say that his car, not the electricity out of the plug, doesn't pollute. With the exception of that single quote, the entire 9:48 of video is almost entirely about how fast electric cars can go and/or that electricity can be just as fast as gasoline. Nobody ever talks about the electric industry or recycling. That's something introduced here.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 08:12 PM   #18
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

jm1234, what exactly is your point here? His car causes pollution. His car causes pollution because it uses energy and materials. The exact source of the pollution is irrelavant. How can you deny that? It really is rather pointless to say the source of the pollution is elsewhere, and therefore it doesn't matter.

The metrics do not result in apples to oranges comparison as you claim. You are misinformed, and need to review that literature. They measure the environmental impact of producing various materials, shaping them into components through various manufacturing processes, using energy produced by various methods, and even simply using various natural resources (such as tap water) in terms of common denomators such as associated CO2 emissions or other agreed upon environmental impact variables. Some are composite metrics made up of various such varibles (and, yes, the contributions of invidual variables to the composite metric is somewhat subjective, but it is at least the same composition for whatever it is that you are evaluating). You can indeed compare the environmental of impact of lead vs another material found in a product in that way if you know the processes through which they were produced, transported, shaped, and retired.

The inefficiency figure I referenced has nothing to do with business models. You haven't even seen the details of what I referenced, and are making assumptions in the process. Just give me time to obtain the figure, which will probably take a few days...
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 08:17 PM   #19
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dascamel View Post
Here is the bottom line, if we had hydrogen filling stations across the nation, electric cars would already be obsolete.
Hydrogen is very energy intensive to produce, store and transport. It's a lot less energy intensive to transport, store and produce electricity. Why do people keep talking about hydrogen? There is absolutely no infrastructure to support it, transport it or produce it in addition to it's higher energy cost for all three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dascamel View Post
Are electric cars a step in the right direction, sure. Even if it does pollute more at production sources, at least it doesn't add any more pollution during peak times of a commute.
Now, why would you mention this for electric cars and not hydrogen? The point is equally valid for hydrogen cars.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 08:50 PM   #20
jm1234
Lieutenant
 
jm1234's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3 Jet Black/Tan/SA 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Posts: 431
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
jm1234, what exactly is your point here? His car causes pollution. His car causes pollution because it uses energy and materials. The exact source of the pollution is irrelavant. How can you deny that? It really is rather pointless to say the source of the pollution is elsewhere, and therefore it doesn't matter.
I've acquiesce a thousand times to this trivial point. It seems to be that anything done by man is in some way shape or form associated with pollution. Bravo, keen point, well made.

My point is the exact source of the pollution. I'm not sure how that detail is not getting through? It is both my point and the only point made regarding any of this in the video. The operation of that car is not the source of any pollution. It's that trivial. Engineering 101, define your system and then evaluate it.

The production of the car may or may not pollute. Nobody has tried to explicitly show this point so I'll make it.

The production of the electricity the car runs on may or may not pollute. Likely a fact but pollution levels vary greatly dependent on the source of the electricity and many other factors. You don't have a clue what goes into producing the electricity for this car. For all you know, he (or the track) is plugged into a solar array. Yes, I know pollution is formed during the creation of solar arrays. I also know they are trucked to their destination using diesel powered trucks.

The disposal of the car or car parts may or may not pollute. People have stated that there is a widespread criminal operation violating our recycling laws. No proof though and our legal system doesn't work like that so I'm going to assume it isn't true.

Nobody has stated that any of the above three processes are not polluting. We do not have enough information to say one way or the other. At no point did I say that because the source of any potential pollution is elsewhere that it doesn't matter. I actually think it matters a great deal. Regardless, I did say it is irrelevant to the point made in the video which is that the operation of the car is not the source of any pollution. It's a trivial point, manifestly true and disputed here regardless of that truth. It's entirely relevant because our current solution is very polluting despite it's very high energy efficiency.
jm1234 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-03-2009, 09:19 PM   #21
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
I've acquiesce a thousand times to this trivial point. It seems to be that anything done by man is in some way shape or form associated with pollution. Bravo, keen point, well made.

My point is the exact source of the pollution. I'm not sure how that detail is not getting through? It is both my point and the only point made regarding any of this in the video. The operation of that car is not the source of any pollution. It's that trivial. Engineering 101, define your system and then evaluate it.
If you narrow down your system boundary to the extent that the batteries are fully charged and the guy is simply driving around, of course the operaration of the car does not result in as much pollution as it would if the power input was to taken into consideration. That is an irrelevant formulation of little consequence. It would be of some consequence if the car had a system of solar arrays mounted on its roof that could generate, say, 200kW of power. Right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
The production of the car may or may not pollute. Nobody has tried to explicitly show this point so I'll make it.
You can't possibly claim the production of a product of that size and complexity may not result in pollution. If you do, that is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
The production of the electricity the car runs on may or may not pollute. Likely a fact but pollution levels vary greatly dependent on the source of the electricity and many other factors. You don't have a clue what goes into producing the electricity for this car. For all you know, he (or the track) is plugged into a solar array. Yes, I know pollution is formed during the creation of solar arrays. I also know they are trucked to their destination using diesel powered trucks.
What are the chances of PIR powering its facilities entirely with solar arrays? Regardless, yes, pollution is formed during the manufacturing, transportation, maintenance, and retirement of solar arrays. Nevermind that most people watching that video will naturally think about its implications for plug-in electric vehicles in general, and we have a pretty good sense of how average people would charge their plug-in electrics if they had them and how electricity is currently being produced nationally. (Again, that would still most likely result in less pollution than my M3, so I have no agenda against plug-in electrics or anything.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
The disposal of the car or car parts may or may not pollute. People have stated that there is a widespread criminal operation violating our recycling laws. No proof though and our legal system doesn't work like that so I'm going to assume it isn't true.
Disposal of that car and its batteries results in pollution even if it is done in a legal manner. Claiming it might not is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1234 View Post
Nobody has stated that any of the above three processes are not polluting. We do not have enough information to say one way or the other.
Of course we do. We can say with confidence that those processes result in some degree of net pollution. We can't pinpoint the exact extent based on the information available, but we can say with confidence they result in pollution. That has been my point all along. You can claim that is trivial. It is indeed a trivial point that many people are simply ignorant of. More importantly, it has consequences. Your point about a narrowed down system boundary is also trivial, but inconsequential. So, if you want to argue about an inconsequential point, I'll leave you to it.
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-06-2009, 04:45 PM   #22
Dascamel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Dascamel's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 e92 M3, 2010 e91 328i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA

Posts: 1,662
iTrader: (0)

Exactly, we need infrastructure to support hydrogen and for electric cars also. Electricity in its current form is far from a clean source of energy.

Funny part is, if you really want to go green we should all just stop having kids, live in hut and consume nothing.
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options
2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired)
Dascamel is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST