Clean. .. First the electric engine is simply better than internal combustion engine. Second, the electric companies know how to handle their fumes, also it is not compul Clean First the electric engine is simply better than internal combustion Second companies know how to handle their fumes also it not compul
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (268)
[ 268 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#7 - sisupisici
Reply +111 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
First the electric engine is simply better than internal combustion engine. Second, the electric companies know how to handle their fumes, also it is not compulsory that they make electricity with fossil fuels. they can use water, solar, nuclear energy etc.
User avatar #8 to #7 - djpharaoh
Reply -29 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
The energy expended and fossil fuels burned to create that electric engine and its battery outweigh the energy saving benefits. These cars are useless, except for saving on gas.
#10 to #8 - sisupisici
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
It was burned more to create that internal combustion engine with 100 moving parts. Also the electric engine has only 2 parts of which one moves, and is very quiet. The only problem of electric cars is the battery...for now.
#39 to #10 - awesomefacepalm **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#20 to #10 - anon id: 70aa8212
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
i want to agree with you . but that pic just pisses me off
#267 to #20 - sisupisici
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
#9 to #7 - gameoverlord
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#30 to #7 - anon id: 156ccdd7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
"First, the electric engine is simply better than the internal combustion engine."
Care to elaborate? Its very easy to look smart, but its harder to prove it.
User avatar #172 to #30 - jacobroan
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Electric motors lose very little power from friction, they also make more torque at a lower rpm than gas engines, they also require little maintenance.
User avatar #233 to #172 - flutterdoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
true however the batteries in an electric car have far shorter life spans than a combustion engine and are much more difficult to dispose of because of the acids used in them.
User avatar #263 to #233 - jacobroan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Valid point, pros and cons mate.
#266 to #30 - sisupisici
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
In other comments I explained that. Electric engine are more reliable, having only 2 parts rather than hundreds, are more efficient and also easier to use. Think about all the auxiliary systems of internal combustion cars, the transmission, cooling, pumps. An electric car can have an engine for each wheel, and no mechanical transmission to fail.
#185 to #30 - anon id: 39ed8032
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
1. The initial torque in an electric engine is substantially larger than that of a combustion engine.
2. Electric engines have fewer moving parts, therefore mechanically simpler. The fact that they last longer follows from this.
3. Consolidating the location of where pollution is coming from makes handling pollution easier.
4. Physics is bringing forth newer technologies to make pure electric vehicles even more worthwhile. Look up graphene and/or supercapcitors.
5. Smart Grid technology: en (dot )wikipedia (dot) org/ wiki /Smartgrid#Flexibilityinnetworktopology
#159 to #30 - anon id: 42bd5525
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
If I remember correctly, power plants turn coal/nuclear power into electricity much better than a combustion engine turns fossil fuels into energy. Add to that, electrical engines make use of more energy than a combustion engine; meaning their is less "wasted" energy.
User avatar #79 to #30 - dafunkad
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
well i think what he meant was that electric engine like the toyota prius even if you don't plug it ( erf I'm not english, I can't find the word i'm looking for, I hope you understand) it charges itself when you're using your brakes, so you're producing less CO2 with an hybrid.

but he is wrong ,nuclear energy is a fossil energy (for now) even if it doesn't produce CO2.
User avatar #155 to #79 - ickalanda
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Nuclear energy isn't fossil energy.

Fossil energy is called such because it is the fossilized remains of an organic material.

Nuclear energy uses a pure element that was formed in a supernova billions of years ago.

I think what you meant to say is nonrenewable. But a lot of Nuclear Power Plants actually use what is called a breeder reactor, which when the fuel is first used it actually comes out as more fuel that can be used.

We have enough nuclear material on our planet, and even more in our solar system, to run the Earth for a very, very, long time and it would be without CO2 emissions.
User avatar #235 to #155 - flutterdoc
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
especially if breeder reactors are used as they are self sustainable and only produce waste in the form of Plutonium which can be reused in the process; however this plutonium is weapons grade and can be used to make bombs and that's why the U.S. took apart all of their breeder reactors. (to please the hippies)
User avatar #110 to #7 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
A Hybrid produces significantly less waste than either Electric or Combustion Engines for exactly the reasons portrayed in this image.
#121 to #7 - jjssgg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
actually most electricity today is still produced by burning coal, really all of the alternative sources of energy produce a TINY fraction of the electricity that we use. Here is an article, so the statistics may have changed a little bit, but not by much [url deleted]
#207 to #7 - hitlerswingman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Electric companies pretty much never burn fossil fuels for electricity, they use coal, which is equally damaging, but a great deal cheaper. Also, they don't know how to "handle their fumes", no state has passed a carbon capture and sequestration law, meaning that the companies can just burn coal to their hearts content and not have to worry about Co2 emissions.
#90 to #7 - pillarkin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Yes now these new electric engines are very clean for the environment. But the fact is that the electric engine will never be practical. The range for those things is pathetic and then it takes half a day to charge them back up. If you add more batteries then the weight becomes too much for the small engine to bear. It is a nice idea but in the end hybrids is really where the future is at
#210 to #7 - deltadeltadelta
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
How is an electric engine more efficient? The most modern cars can only go at a leisurely pace for 4-6 hours, and then they require a 12 hour recharge.

Battery technology has a long way to go. If they were practical they would have already replaced fossil fuels.

The combustion engine is far more efficient than the electric engine. It can go faster for longer while requiring much less power. Gas is still cheaper than bottled water.

The only thing that would be more efficient are fuel cells (hydrogen). The problem however is that they're too expensive and it would require a trillion dollars in a massive infrastructure overhaul.
#264 to #210 - sisupisici
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
I said the electric engine is more efficient, not the batteries. The highest efficiency a petrol engine can achieve is about 22%, whilst the diesel engine 44%. However, the electric engine can go to about 90%. Also, if electric energy is made with fossil fuels running a electric car produces about 100g of CO2/km, while an internal combustion engine produces 300g of CO2/km. Also, in the 80s an engine running on oil replacement was developed (not LPG), but the oil companies paid a lot of money to have it ditched. And about those hydrogen cells, yes, they are efficient almost as an electric engine, however hydrogen is hard to produce (requires vast amounts of electricity) and cannot be stored enough without transforming the car into an airship. These are facts said by people with big brains and bigger salaries, so stop arguing.
User avatar #49 to #7 - AsTeth
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
I don't understand why car companies are focusing on Electric cars through. We already have the technology that can completely replace the internal combustion engine.

Hydrogen fuel cell engines

As James May put it from top gear "if we are using a car that goes 10 miles then needs to recharge for an entire day (not exact example I know), then we have gone backwards. Hydrogen fuel cells can replace hydrogen fuel cells and still keep up with out daily lifestyles" (roughly the quote)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AUurBnLbJw
#65 to #49 - bensho
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
"Hydrogen fuel cells can replace hydrogen fuel cells..."

Wat.
User avatar #68 to #65 - AsTeth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Dammit didn't see that >.<
I meant combustion engines

Watch the youtube link it explains what I'm trying to say
User avatar #238 to #68 - flutterdoc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Hydrogen fuel cells capable of propelling a car are incredibly heavy not to mention extremely dangerous.
User avatar #270 to #238 - AsTeth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Not that much more dangerous than fossil fuel cars, the hydrogen used in these cars is a diluted mixture which is as about as likely to catch light as gasiline. and with the weight, it can be done and it has been done on multiple occasions look at the youtube link that's an example. there have been other manufacturers such as General Motors who have made their own hydrogen fuel cell powered cars
#265 to #49 - sisupisici
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Coal is a fossil fuel.
User avatar #269 to #265 - AsTeth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Read this again. I'm not talking about coal
#273 to #269 - sisupisici
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Sorry, the ********* is so large I don't know which comment is which. Also, you may want to read my other comments.
User avatar #15 to #7 - downstrait
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Agreed, it is better for the environment. But i think the point of the comic is that, it's still pretty much like going to McDonalds for a salad.
#37 - magicgiraffe
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Fixed.
#78 to #37 - anon id: acc41833
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
too bad you need abut a football field sized panel to get that done in a reasonable amount of time. and it would cost more then 3 cars
#91 to #37 - anon id: 85ea8474
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Too bad the energy required to make that solar panel requires more to make than it would save in energizing you're car.
User avatar #40 to #37 - dedaluminus
Reply +49 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
-17 hours later- Hey look, I'm half done!
User avatar #217 to #40 - paintmered
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Just charge it at night then.
User avatar #259 to #217 - TheEmpire
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
solar powered
night
...
User avatar #276 to #259 - paintmered
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Twas a joke, laddie.
#228 to #217 - kotess
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
half done, 17 hours, multiply that by 2 for a full charge... so the night lasts 34 hours? Wut?
#255 to #228 - dedaluminus
-2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #257 to #255 - kotess
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Woah wtf man, I'm not the one saying to charge it at night. You meant to reply to paintmered right? I'm on your side...
#12 - frodothetroll **User deleted account**
-16 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#16 to #12 - epicbaconfist
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Global warming is a natural process that stops us from freezing, yet the human output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is accelerating the heating effect to the point it's more damaging than beneficial. Anybody with a secondary school education knows that.
#25 to #16 - frodothetroll **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28 to #25 - bgbba
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Wait, what? The media and the government in America are the LEAST supportive of the theory. Not to mention the fact that even if it weren't real, then the pollution would still **** **** up. Either way, cutting emissions is good.
#31 to #28 - frodothetroll **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#156 - jedisquirrel
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
User avatar #189 to #156 - ecowolfrb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
solar/geothermal FTW....especially with no drafts.
User avatar #157 to #156 - Biebz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
That seems incredibly biased
User avatar #19 - jcbiddulph
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
you do realise that due to the amount of emissions released in the manufacturing of hybrid cars, something like a Toyota prius is worse than a 4.0 Jeep wrangler for the first 40 thousand miles?
User avatar #72 to #19 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
I doubt you'll drive a car for less than 40,000 miles. That's about 5 years.

Unless you get into a crash
User avatar #122 to #72 - failtolawl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
40k miles each year is average for an everyday commuter.
User avatar #124 to #122 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
That's about 130 miles a day.

Unless you live in a very rural area I don't think that's accurate...

Example: my dad's commuted to work every day in the same car for the past fourteen years. It's also used every day for local errands and vacations. Total mileage: 150.
User avatar #129 to #124 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
150k i mean
User avatar #272 to #72 - jcbiddulph
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
its more the point that if a car as bad as a jeep is better for 40k miles, then a newer small diesel car would probably be about 200k
User avatar #275 to #272 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
I don't think that a jeep (say, average 15mpg) is 5X less fuel efficient than a small desiel car (which would make it 75 mpg)...

lolwhat no car is 75mgp
User avatar #281 to #275 - jcbiddulph
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/07/2012) [-]
Damn well, I know a gallon is a different size here in England but I know the most efficient one here is a Kia Rio at 84MPG, I think that's 70MPG in American gallons, so pretty damn close.
User avatar #282 to #281 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/07/2012) [-]
Most efficient car here (a hybrid) is 53 miles per gallon, to put it into comparison. Europe has stricter standards for cars (mainly, I think, because it's more urban than America in proportion to acreage). That, and better architecture.
#223 - twatmissile
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
ohhhh, i didnt know we get our electricity from electric cars.
#239 to #223 - mjdjoy
-3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#67 - radioactivemilk
Reply -21 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Am I the only one who thinks global warming/ Climate change etc. Is a load of ********!?
User avatar #83 to #67 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Yes.
User avatar #71 to #67 - kuchikirukia
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
No, you are not the only ignorant person in the world.
#76 to #71 - radioactivemilk
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Oh, thank God! I can tell by the amount of red thumbs I have that there are several ignorant people on FJ. Makes me sad ....
User avatar #80 to #76 - kuchikirukia
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
I know. I saw you go from -5 to -4.
But I'm sure that's going to be in the minority.
User avatar #84 to #80 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
let's hope.
#206 - usedtobeemo
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
This was explained in a Bill Nye video, I know what I'm talking about


When thousands of people drive a regular gas powered car, their pollution is spread across the area that those cars are used. But if people use electric cars, the pollution can be released in one area, and have a chance to be semi filtered before being put into the atmosphere.
#224 to #206 - anon id: f9be2b4a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
Im pretty sure this is just common sense. You dont nee bill nye to know this.
User avatar #225 to #224 - flemsdfer
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
But we want Bill Nye. ಠ_ಠ
User avatar #226 to #206 - someoneison
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/06/2012) [-]
And not all energy is from power plants they can come from wind energy also hydro....
User avatar #205 - slowbrowen
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Cell phones batteries are made from Rhodium, which is obtained via deforestation and child slave labor in Africa

Forests in Asia are being cut down to provide KFC with Chicken Buckets and Napkins.

People ******* suck.
User avatar #202 - baditch
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(06/05/2012) [-]
Most people who drive electric cars don't know where the electricity comes from.