So I'm a car person, and a lot of things with cars fascinate me, and in my lifetime one of the most fascinating developments has been the rise of electric vehicles.
I would like to add a note that I'm not in one camp or the other, as to me in a lot of aspects a car is a car, I'm more interested in the "cool" facets of technology and the "cool" things that certain cars have.
And I'm certainly not the type of person to bang my chest and say that every gas-guzzling vehicle needs to come off the road, because let's face it there is nothing more wonderful than the sound of a big V8, or the absolute scream as a rotary goes past you. Those cars have their own type of cool factor.
Plus the way I see it, is that if the people that don't need to have a combustion car, don't actually have a combustion car, then that means there's more fuel for the rest of us that have a passion with combustion engines.
Now one argument that I constantly see with electric vehicles, is what is known as the "Long Tailpipe Argument"
Namely this means that during an electric vehicles life cycle, you don't factor in just the emissions the electric vehicle produces, but also the emissions produced in the mining of the raw materials, the production of the raw materials into workable materials, the production of the energy, the production of the infrastructure needed to carry that energy to the vehicle, and the end of life impact of the vehicle once it is no longer suitable for use on the road.
However I've never seen this same comparison done for a conventional combustion powered vehicle.
Now maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but aside from the batteries, a conventional car would have the same mining and processing upkeep as an electric vehicle, and the end of life for a regular vehicle with a combustion engine would not be all that different from electric vehicle, especially when you factor in the both types of vehicle are generally recycled into their constituent components.
Therefore the steel for the bodies of the vehicles are melted down and made into new Steel, the aluminium used in construction of the vehicle and the major components are melted down and made into new aluminium, and the lithium in electric vehicles battery pack can be recycled and reclaimed and made into new batteries, there is a lot of stuff on these vehicles which can be recycled and does not contribute to waste.
However I've never seen an analysis of the emissions footprint of the oil extraction
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but, if we start with the following confirmed facts:
-
Fred Murray previously told Maura that "if she had to drive the Saturn, one way to evade harassment by law enforcement might be to put a rag in the tailpipe" as it would prevent clouds of black smoke from exiting the Saturn due to the mechanical problems the car was having. Placing the rag in the tailpipe had no mechanical benefit, but was solely to hopefully hide the smoke.
-
The Oxygen documentary concluded that a rag placed in the Saturn's tailpipe would immediately be blown out of the tail pipe once the car's gas pedal was pressed and the rpm's increased, after they tested it in a mechanic's shop.
-
Knowing that the police found the car at the crash site with a rag in the tailpipe, and knowing #2 above, we conclude that Maura must have placed the rag in the tailpipe after the car had crashed and come to a complete stop. Faith Westman says she saw a "flurry of activity behind the trunk" of the Saturn after it crashed, which is almost certainly when Maura placed the rag in the tailpipe.
-------------------
The question then becomes "why would Maura place a rag in the tailpipe of her disabled vehicle immediately following the crash?"
Based upon 1, 2, and 3 above, my most logical conclusion is that she put the rag in the tailpipe because, either:
A) She was completely disorientated and hoped that placing a rag in the tailpipe would provide some type of mechanical benefit that would make her car start so she could drive away from the crash site.
Or, the more likely:
B) She was afraid that law enforcement or a tow truck driver would see a cloud of black smoke emerge from the back of the tailpipe once if the Saturn was started in front of them, as it may have lead to some combination of a ticket, her car being deemed inoperable by law enforcement and possibly being impounded, stranding her up in NH without a ride.
My question: If B above is true, then wouldn't the logical conclusion be that Maura placed the rag in the tailpipe because she intended to stay with the car until law enforcement, a mechanic, tow truck driver, AAA, etc arrived, and hoped that they would help her get on her way? If her intent was to leave the scene of the crash before being "found", there is no reason to place the rag in the tailpipe - and if this is true, then that would imply that she probably did not run off into the woods near her car, but most likely was me
... keep reading on reddit ➡
So I'm a car person, and a lot of things with cars fascinate me, and in my lifetime one of the most fascinating developments has been the rise of electric vehicles.
Now one argument that I constantly c with electric vehicles, is what is known as the "Long Tailpipe Argument"
Namely this means that during an electric vehicles life cycle, you don't factor in just the emissions the electric vehicle produces, but also the emissions produced in the mining of the raw materials, the production of the raw materials into workable materials, the production of the energy, the production of the infrastructure needed to carry that energy to the vehicle, and the end of life impact of the vehicle once it is no longer suitable for use on the road.
However I've never seen this same comparison done for a conventional combustion powered vehicle.
Now maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but aside from the batteries, a conventional car would have the same mining and processing upkeep as an electric vehicle, and the end of life for a regular vehicle with a combustion engine would not be all that different from electric vehicle, especially when you factor in the both types of vehicle are generally recycled into their constituent components.
Therefore the steel for the bodies of the vehicles are melted down and made into new Steel, the aluminium used in construction of the vehicle and the major components are melted down and made into new aluminium, and the lithium in electric vehicles battery pack can be recycled and reclaimed and made into new batteries, there is a lot of stuff on these vehicles which can be recycled and does not contribute to waste.
However I've never seen an analysis of the emissions footprint of the oil extraction, the oil refining, or the oil transport used to compare the long tail pipe of an electric vehicle against the long tail pipe of a combustion vehicle, that's not counting the footprint of the construction of service stations or the running of said service stations. Nor indeed the footprint of the actual servicing cycle of a combustion vehicle, which is generally higher than the servicing requirements for an electric vehicle.
Now at the moment I will add that I own two combustion vehicles, mainly because at this point I cannot replace my ute with an equivalent electric vehicle to offer the same capability, and the only vehicle to replace my wife's car is the Tesla Model 3 and it starts in Australia at $66,000, which is not a reasonable
... keep reading on reddit ➡