Electric or What?

[AlanJ]

Hi Guys,
I have had some difficulty in whether I should post these thoughts or not because they don't relate to MZ's, well, not at the moment.
It concerns me, that our and other governments, auto manufacturers and electrical supply companies etc. are absolutely stuffing our faces
that we should go electric.
I read an article recently that said that manufacturing the batteries for an electric vehicle causes so much pollution, that it would take
eight years for a petrol car, not diesel, to produce the same amount of pollution. If that is correct, and in eight years one might need
a new battery pack, it just doesn't make sense.
I must be honest, I have never driven an electric car or bike, and I would imagine they would be great fun with fast acceleration etc.
but this post is not about the fun side. It's the concern of pollution. So, guys, what are your thoughts?
Wish you well Alan.

[AlanJ]

Hi Guys,
Just before someone mentions the pollution from MZ's being 2Ts's, and their pollution, I would point out that the small
amount of two strokes on our roads are minuscule compared to the replacement of petrol and diesel vehicles.
Stay safe Alan.

[Puffs]

Hi Alan!

A recent thread related to this is viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12235 from Andy_c, an older one your own viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11627 or my viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11210 , there are probably more.

Some more thoughts:
1) CO2-wise, our MZ's aren't so bad. A good indication for CO2 is how much fuel it uses per distance travelled, and while two strokes are rather inefficient, due to their low power the normal 250cc ETZ isn't so bad. Typically 5L/100 km I believe, but I don't really know. Blurredman will know better.
Where our two strokes score poorly is in particulate pollution: microscopic particles of solid or liquid matter suspended in the air. Those come particularly from the oil we add to the fuel, and are thus inherent in the two-stroke lubrication & combustion cycle. Where CO2 is a global issue, particulate pollution is more relevant in densely populated urban areas. So we will be/ are banned there. Of course, in the wider scheme of things, our MZs form quite a negligible contribution, compared to wood burning fire places, steel production, ...

2)I do not know with certainty how much pollution is associated with the production of batteries, and the resources which are required for it. But I too understand it is significant, both of those. No, I do not understand the push to go electric either. I have yet to see an honest comparison, including all lifecycle costs/resources/pollution/other environmental effects. For now I do not think it is a solution. Only maybe for the local particulate pollution issue, which is not an important issue where we live, not at all. Particulate pollution you can see, from the chimneys & exhausts, and I suspect it is a political position to replace that (by pollution you can not see, and which happens in China, and which boosts commerce).

3) Just the plans they have here, in Belgium, to close all nuclear energy plants. A few decades back, it became common knowledge that nuclear fission plants produce waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years, and poses severe risks (Chernobyl, Fukushima, ...). Yes, those are issues & risks. Yet I feel we should be able to manage those, and the alternatives of using fossil fuels give you the certainty of producing CO2, which give you the certainty of climate change. (I know you can inject CO2 in old gas fields, but that makes it extremely costly hence unattractive.) And other alternatives like wind & solar come with issues too, and are insufficient to meet our energy demands. Nevertheless: that is the plan. In Germany too, I believe. While in France & the UK there will be more nuclear plants...
Particularly noteworthy are the nuclear fusion developments in the UK. Very commendable, and one of the few solutions that can postpone mankind's problems a bit. Till the next bottleneck comes.

[DAVID THOMPSON]

i have parts from an electric assisted bicycle me an my father built about 1960..
i could rebuild it but it would have the same problems as back in 1960
the battery's are better now but still the main problem
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a proper battery would cost way tooooo much
and i have access to some fellows that know how to make battery packs
and diy is still tooooo much money

where i live the guys that got all booozed up and lost there drivers license
go the electric pedal assist way

[Guesi]

3) Just the plans they have here, in Belgium, to close all nuclear energy plants. A few decades back, it became common knowledge that nuclear fission plants produce waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years, and poses severe risks (Chernobyl, Fukushima, ...). Yes, those are issues & risks. Yet I feel we should be able to manage those

That´s what the guys in Chernobyl and Fukoshima and three miles island and so on thought.....
But it seems they were wrong....

And the atomic waste is a dangerous gift to our children and grandchildren and grand-grand-grandchildren....

After all, atomic energy is the most expensive way of producing energy (if you count ALL the costs incl. the waste problem).
Someone once said ( concerning the fact that there is no safe End-stock of atomic waste yet) that this is like you fly with an airplane and the runway has still to be built ....

[Puffs]

So the certainty of climate change due to burning gas imported from Russia is better?

From the positions taken by the various countries, it is obvious there are differences in opinion, and it is not very likely we'll resolve those in this thread. But being held over the barrel by the likes of Putin & Lukashenko is another thing that comes into play, and in that sense I appreciate Macron's views. And there's also geo economics: Where does the money go?

It's a very complicated issue with very many angles and considerations, quite typically something that will only be solved by time. Obviously if we wait a little, the Sun will become a red giant, which will solve all our energy needs in a very democratic way.

Electric assisted bicycles are quite a hype here too! I have yet to ride one.
I think they are very expensive, for what you get for your money, and I cycle also for getting the exercise. And I still have a 38cc two stroke engine that I need to get into a bicycle, one way or another...

[Guesi]

I don´t know what is the best, but I think atomic energy is the worst, most expensive and the most dangerous.

We all discuss how we can exchange one "bad" ebergy by onother "bad" energy.

As the engish people say: Bad habits die hard

it is harder to change our way of individual mobility.

But mobility is only ONE small brick in a big house....

So many things must be changed,but it does not help to say:
the others must change, they produce more CO2 etc.

I think every country must change, some can afford it more than others (Europe for example can afford more than India)

[Puffs]

I see.
Allow me to politely point out that the Sun is fuelled by nuclear energy, so maybe that view needs some refinement?

[Guesi]

Allow me to point out that we are not living on the sun

[DAVID THOMPSON]

the real sound of doom is a 2 meter dia old growth tree 15m tall
just standing there and and not falling after the saw handlers say there done

[Puffs]

Yes Dave, it sounds like a chainsaw, doesn't it! But it isn't:
Guesi, on that we agree, but that response suggests it's not quite clear why I mentioned the Sun.

Our Sun is the source of almost all energy we use on Earth. Solar, like in PV panels, that's obvious, but also wind and wave energy come from differential heating by the sun. And fossil fuels are solar energy from a while back, captured by life at the time and stored in the subsurface. So all of that has it's origin in nuclear energy, and consequently a blanket position like 'nuclear energy is the worst, most expensive and the most dangerous' is slightly short-sighted and quite untenable. It is just a matter of harnessing that nuclear energy properly, for instance by growing rape seed and/or sugar beets to generate fuels from, or by fusion reactors, or by another method we still need to find. Hence I suggested that view may need some refinement. A prejudiced blanket view like that will stop us from looking for/finding a better way, and this is exactly why I raised the topic of nuclear. If we want to survive, we need an open mind, find solutions, and adapt. Quickly.

Edit: the only exceptions I can think of, of energy not from our Sun, are
a) Fission. As in our current nuclear reactors, which finds it's feedstock in other stars (so not our Sun), via Supernova's. And I agree, fission has a number of downsides & risks, but if managed properly it is probably the best we have: no CO2. Until fusion becomes available (which has a very abundant fuel source and no problematic emissions).
But both are nuclear, or atomic energy.
b) Tide energy. In the past there have been ideas of generating energy from the tides in places with strong tides (like the Bay of Biscay), but I think these were abandoned. Harvesting tidal energy will increase the rate with which the moon comes closer to earth, very slowly.
c) Geothermal energy. Due to compaction over astronomical times the core of the Earth has acquired a reasonably high temperature, and the energy that represents slowly comes outwards. In some places this is more obvious than others, like Iceland or La Palma at the moment, but a modern way to heat houses is also using that energy by means of a heat pump. It's like a fridge cooling the soil below the house (using piping), and pumping the heat into the house. It becomes less effective when the soil cools down, and still uses a considerable amount of electricity generated by other means. So while it is making effective use of energy that will be wasted anyway, it is hardly generating energy.

[Guesi]

O.k. I precisise it:
The atomic energy that can be produced at the moment is the worst, most expensive and the most dangerous kind of energy that can be produced.


And fusion energy will be available in maybe 50 years, but this is a little bit to late....

[Puffs]

Thank you for your personal opinion on fission.

On fusion: No, I politely suggest that statement is also too negative. See for instance https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586 ... index.html
To quote Mowry: “Fusion is the vaccine for climate change.”

[Guesi]

o.k. let´s talkagain in 10 years

[Puffs]

Indeed, forecasts, expectations & hope do not heat the house on cold winter nights, so let's see what comes. And talk about something else in the mean time.

Going back to Alan's original post, I see a distinction being made between diesel & petrol cars; and indeed pollution-wise they are different. Compared with a petrol car, a diesel produces more particulate pollution (particularly the older types), but less CO2. So for the climate a diesel is less harmful than a petrol car - yet here, in Belgium, they are actively discouraging diesel cars, by increasing the tax on diesel fuel... Any views?