EV are the worst polluters over time?

I agree completely it is a horrible place for humans.
Frankly though, I don't see humans doing what is necessary (as a whole) to prevent our civilization from falling apart due to conditions on Earth being so screwed up.
So I for one, will strongly oppose any suggestions to ship our garbage to the second best place for humans in this solar system. Even if it is meant as a joke.

 

Another pipe dream. We need to treasure and preserve our lives on This Planet. When this planet is no longer suited to human habitation, due to our activities, the planet's/cosmos whims or both, then it's time to go. Nothing lasts forever. Not even human race. If we play our cards right we can have a beautiful planet to live on. The one we evolved to inhabit and therefore the one that provides everything we need to survive as we have for millennia.

All we need to do is throw 1/10 of the money we throw at ruining our habitat into preserving and improving it and we'll be all set for many generations to come. That too may be a pipe dream as we are simply too stupid, greedy and shortsighted (as a species) to make it happen.

Earth will be fine, humans, not sure....

 

Even if that strategy preserves our lives on THIS planet? Living on Mars is not a good way out. Staying here is better and if it means using Mars as a garbage dump, so be it. It's better than going to live there.

 

If you mean just die off, then I must very strongly disagree.

Whether or not we (or whatever species we become) will be able to survive here long enough to even be able to migrate somewhere else, is quite uncertain. It will be a very difficult challenge. But is does mean taking seriously good care of what we have here for a very long time.

 

That is what got us into the problem we currently have.
Throw our garbage somewhere we can't see it.

Too much CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem, as it is an invisible gas and the results aren't immediately obvious.
Too much garbage? Bury it!
Too much radioactive toxins from burning Coal? Bury it and give lip service about how 'safe' it is.

Sweeping s#%$ under the rug got us into this problem. Continuing to do so isn't going to get us out of it.

 

Well, if we are to live, thrive and multiply, better get ready for lots of trash. Humans create trash as part of their existence. Sorry to state the obvious, but what do you expect if we are to grow as a species? Already we are at population levels that are dangerous and are growing fast. That means more garbage, even if we all become vegans or solar farmers or use just the wind for our energy needs, we will still produce garbage. It's part of our civilized lives. So instead of trying to go live on a planet that can not support our lives, why not put our garbage there? I would put my garbage on Mars before I would put my grandchildren there. Living on mars is akin to a life sentence in an underground prison where your life is hanging by a thread every moment, if it's possible at all (very doubtful).

I am pretty sure taking our trash to Mars is also very impractical. But taking our brothers and sisters there is down right cruel and unusual.

If ever a human goes to Mars and lives to talk about it publicly, I am certain that upon hearing their accounts only some sort of conscription will be necessary to get humans to populate that place. Wake up, guys. We are not in a sci-fi movie. Earth is all we got and we better make sure we can live here. The alternative is to perish.

 

I once read a science fiction short story where another space traveling race visited an early, prelife earth and one took a dump. The joke was the character stirred the pile to the right which explains why today’s life has so many right-twisted organic molecules.

Bob Wilson

 

There's a lot of weak chemistry in science fiction, for sure.

Earthly amino acids are L stereoisomers, but sugars are D. Some neurotoxins contain D amino acids. Overall it's pretty weird.

 

There are minerals that interact preferentially with L amino acids, which may represent an abiotic 'agency' to get that selectivity started. However there are other minerals that do likewise for D isomers. Weirdness persists...

 

you folks is all crazy

 

Naw, he is correct, it was a left stir.

Bob Wilson

 

To even detect optical isomers you need to send polarized into an aqueous solution and measure its angle change upon exiting. When your molecule contains two or more chiral centers, whoa Nelly, it's a mess.

Can separate isomers by chromatography if your 'stationary phase' contains magical minerals. This hints at an abiotic source, but as often the case, N answers lead to N^2 new questions.

This is all quite tricky stuff and stirring a pile of poo one way or the other is just not gonna cut it.

In other words, yes, we is all crazy.

 

too much acid ...... the amino kind
.

 

It depends. Europeans always thought diesel was wimpy power compared to gasoline, not the other way around. Till 20 years ago, before high-pressure pumps (common-rail and such) were introduced, a 2L diesel engine produced between 60 and 90 (with turbo) hp, with a considerable lag between the moment you hit the gas pedal and that when the car starts to accelerate. My 1.9D Corolla had 69hp and made 0-100 (kmh) in around 19s. The reasons for diesel success in the last 20 years in Europe are less expensive fuel, better fuel economy, and good performance, while maying refuel anywhere quickly. Here in IT, gasoline is now ~1.6€/L (~6.7$/gallon), while diesel ~1.5€/L (~6€/gallon), but the difference was wider in the past.

Very efficient diesel engines do exist, especially the newest ones. I would bet that a new Mercedes A-Class 180d, which has comparable power to my Gen2 and an efficient engine, would consume less than my Gen2, in highways, at 130 km/h (~80 mph). Smaller and less powerful diesel engines would even do better in suburban drives. With respect to EVs, in some cases even gasoline (hybrids) can do better than EVs as long as the energy sources for the latter are very dirty (
New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner - Union of Concerned Scientists
). I'm confident that similar figures would apply to some diesels too. But regardless of that, the CO2 in the German paper is only part of the issue. Diesels emit also other stuff, like PM10, NOx, and so on. I'm not sure about gasoline, but diesel exhaust has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr213_E.pdf). Good luck in zeroing those.

 

As far as new gasoline vehciles, I believe they are quite clean. The 3-way catalytic converter combined with ultra low sulfur gasoline (which allows the catalyst to achieve max performance) pretty much eliminates most tailpipe contaminants. My Prius I cannot measure any CO comng out, unless I try to get a reading when cold just starting up, and even then it is quite low CO ppms. These days California is saying BEV is needed for climate change, and not smog reduction.

 

Happy to hear. Even something relatively simple as putting a regen-like braking system would at least spare us the majority of particulate coming from brakes. As a side note, I read somewhere that Daimler did an F1 engine with a thermal efficiency of 50%. There is surely margin to improve combustion engines with the will to work and invest in them. It's probably even more the case for batteries, hybrids, and EVs.

 

We could actually recycle much of the nuclear waste back into fuel if we weren't paranoid. Other countries might start doing that.

The waste is already sequestered. It is bad, nasty stuff, but there is comparatively little of it. CO2 sequestering needs to address millions of metric tons a year.

 

Primary criteria pollutant emissions from diesels have been mostly taken care of.

- 100% of 270 European diesel passenger vehicles type-approved at Euro 6d-temp have real-world-driving NOx emissions below RDE regulated levels (0.168 g/km), and many have near-zero NOx emissions, based on ACEA testing. In another test (ADAC - German Auto Club), one Euro 6d-Temp diesel car (Mercedes C220d) had no measurable NOx emissions during the testing (
Diesel car SHOCK - New diesel emit almost no NOX claims research | Express.co.uk ).

- Particulate (PN) emissions from modern diesel passenger vehicles on the FTP test duty cycle have been shown to be virtually indistinguishable from HEPA-filtered background air based on a CARB study.

- All 2018+ diesel passenger vehicles real-world tested by Emissions Analytics have CO emissions <0.125 g/km. That's >75% below the diesel Euro 6 standard (0.5 g/km), and almost 90% below the petrol Euro 6 standard (1.0 g/km). None of the 500+ diesels tested have failed to meet the Euro 6 diesel standard, regardless of model year. Meanwhile, several Euro 6 petrol vehicles failed to meet the 1.0 g/km petrol standard.

- The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES), Phase 2, measured zero NMHC (VOC) emissions from U.S. 2010-compliant diesel truck engines under various test cycles.

- a European Environmental Agency report released this month (April 2019) concludes that passenger vehicles' GHG emissions in 2017 in Europe increased for the first time since monitoring started in 2010, thanks in part to the increased market share of petrol vehicles at the expense of decreased market share of diesel passenger vehicles. Petrol passenger vehicles produce 10% to 40% more GHG emissions than comparable diesel vehicles according to that report.

 

I didn't have a lot luck finding this report. Do you have a URL or other index to find and read a copy?

The reason I ask is "since monitoring started in 2010" yet I remember the diesel scandal was revealed in September 2015. I'm curious about how they missed the years 2010-2015.

Bob Wilson