Small asia food shop uses electric scooter with trailer

[founder]

A small asian food shop in the center of Bad Reichenhall, Bavaria, Germany uses an electric scooter to transport goods.

It's not only cheaper, it's also far more practicall than a car, because of the congested parking lot situation there.

Bad Reichenhall asia food shop

[Corey]

Cool I like the Idea
But in practicality I wonder what is the pollution vs a gas powered though
it maybe electric but it gets it from burning coal or such which puts mercury and co2+equivalent into the air it just doesn't come out of the tail pipe. If it uses too much electricity it might as well be a gas one.

They have there purpose it just needs to be made sure its actual contributions is less than gas equivalent. They also need to make sure overall it uses less energy to operate than a gas for it will deplete resources faster when we need to reduce the level of depletion. I hope this is making sense and it gets to someone in position to actually check and do something about it if it doesn't..........

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

Cool I like the Idea
But in practicality I wonder what is the pollution vs a gas powered though
it maybe electric but it gets it from burning coal

The electric scooter emits far less CO2, even when powered with a coal power plant.

With the current German power mix of 514 g CO2/kWh,
the indirect CO2 emission is 26 g CO2/km.

This compared to 94 g CO2/km at the typicall 2 stroke engine scooter
and 71g CO2/km at the more efficient 4 stroke engine scooters.

Best is to use renewable energy. The electric scooter is the best proof, that photovoltaic is cheaper than gasoline

[Corey]

Cool, The reason I had brought the total cost issue up to begin with is that there are other areas, that we are finding out being green is worse than the way we did it before. For example the olive oil bio fuel. It turns out to be 10 times worse than straight diesel. Why? The cutting of the rain forest to make way for olive tree for the fuel the need for fertilizers, clean drinking water to process fuel. There is not much improvement in the amount of bio fuel over the fossil fuel that goes into making it. Also we will have all the infrastructure to deal with when the trend is phased out.

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

Cool, The reason I had brought the total cost issue up to begin with is that there are other areas, that we are finding out being green is worse than the way we did it before. For example the olive oil bio fuel. It turns out to be 10 times worse than straight diesel. Why? The cutting of the rain forest to make way for olive tree for the fuel the need for fertilizers, clean drinking water to process fuel. There is not much improvement in the amount of bio fuel over the fossil fuel that goes into making it. Also we will have all the infrastructure to deal with when the trend is phased out.

A main criteria for renewable energy is area efficiency

Something I call "renewable reach"

How much mobility can be produced by one squaremeter?

Renewable reach of cars

The technical development in this area is gigantic.

A horse needs about 2 ha = 20.000 squaremeter grass land
An electric scooter as some sort of modern horse needs only 2 squaremeter photovoltaic with 300 W peak to drive 10.000 km a year in a sunny country,
7000km in Germany.

Photovoltaic cheaper than gasoline

[Corey]

Originally Posted by founder

A main criteria for renewable energy is area efficiency

Something I call "renewable reach"

How much mobility can be produced by one squaremeter?

Renewable reach of cars

The technical development in this area is gigantic.

A horse needs about 2 ha = 20.000 squaremeter grass land
An electric scooter as some sort of modern horse needs only 2 squaremeter photovoltaic with 300 W peak to drive 10.000 km a year in a sunny country,
7000km in Germany.

Photovoltaic cheaper than gasoline

Total cost also involves putting LOCKED away Co2+ equivalent into the air that would other wise never become part of the Earth atmosphere. This has a more damaging effect than any animal derived pollution.

photovoltaic they are now finding out that the total cost of producing the photovoltaic Exceeds the total life out put of the solar panels in real life
tests.

In regards to horse: the horse is always ready to go where the photovoltaic is based entirely on the sun (No sun No charge.)

We currently do not possess the technology to store electricity for long periods of time in large quantities. So the energy source is unreliable for photovoltaic.

Sure the same can be said for grazing land but if the grazing land has trouble growing grass we are screwed anyway.(How will we get our breathable air without plants?)

Maybe we need to find a median where we use both in moderation One to offset the others weakness.

Your "renewable reach of cars" link is "surface area related to bio fuels VS KM traveled." I do see where you are trying to go by saying that the solar panel takes less surface area than Habitat for a horse. But consider the habitat for the horse is also providing breathable air through the plants conversion on co2 to air. Solar panel cannot do this.

We cannot have huge numbers of horses either. this here is demonstrating why mono anything is bad. Diversity is the key to solving our problems.

photovoltaic Is something that is Unsustainable in the long run for once spent it can't be reused.

Plants can be regrown with proper care thus is Sustainable. It becomes unsustainable with over exploitation beyond the natural cycle of life. Work within the natural cycle of life and it should always be sustainable as long as the climate doesn't kill the plant by too much sun, to little sun not enough rain to little rain etc.

Harvesting living plant for bio fuel or bio mass fuel is over exploitation thus unsustainable.

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

Total cost also involves putting LOCKED away Co2+ equivalent into the air that would other wise never become part of the Earth atmosphere. This has a more damaging effect than any animal derived pollution.

photovoltaic they are now finding out that the total cost of producing the photovoltaic Exceeds the total life out put of the solar panels in real life
tests.

This is not true.

The current best crystalline silicone PV production emits 1016 g CO2 / Watt Peak.

Distributed on 25 years in south Europe, this makes 25,4 g CO2/kWh

Photovoltaic production CO2 emission

But there is no reason, why the photovoltaic should not produce 50 years or more.

Originally Posted by Corey

photovoltaic Is something that is Unsustainable in the long run for once spent it can't be reused.

This is death talk in the long run. Photovoltaic and wind energy is the best solution for our energy needs.

Only solutions are acceptabele where humans can survive.

When somebody starts to talk any good solution bad, he denies the right of the humans to survive. That's death talk.

Originally Posted by Corey

Plants can be regrown with proper care thus is Sustainable.

And or how many humans?

And what to do with the rest?

Think, even the greatest mass killers in history had not been able to extinguish more than 70 million humans.

Originally Posted by Corey

Harvesting living plant for bio fuel or bio mass fuel is over exploitation thus unsustainable.

And how do You want to harvest a field without bio fuel?

[Corey]

Blue parts is my response.

Originally Posted by founder

This is not true.

The current best crystalline silicone PV production emits 1016 g CO2 / Watt Peak.

Distributed on 25 years in south Europe, this makes 25,4 g CO2/kWh

Photovoltaic production CO2 emission

But there is no reason, why the photovoltaic should not produce 50 years or more.

The "total cost" involves more than the actual use of the solar panel to produce electricity. It also includes but not limited to the burning of fossil fuels which releases the Co2+equivalents into the air which was Locked into the fossil fuel (while the solar panels are being made before use). I have never heard of solar panels being recyclable when the life is expired or is damaged from severe weather.

Total cost also involves the fact that solar is no good at peak demand for it is evening after dark and During cloudy winters when there is no sun. etc. STOP RELYING ON COMPANY INFO, GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM INDEPENDENTS. Companies will Over hype the energy output and understate the negative facts such as the sun not shining all the time kind of things. Solar only truly effective when facing south from the northern hemisphere.

This is death talk in the long run. Photovoltaic and wind energy is the best solution for our energy needs.

Only solutions are acceptable where humans can survive.

When somebody starts to talk any good solution bad, he denies the right of the humans to survive. That's death talk.

Wind and solar is useless without a long term on demand solution such as a power cell of some kind. Electricity must be maintained at a certain level or you get black outs. Also without a power-cell to store the electrical current as the solar and wind is generating in non peak time it is bleed off as waste and is not used. batteries are not power cells batteries cannot dump its current on demand, that is why there is a race to create large scale power-cells for grid use.

By the way I never said not use it. I was saying we need to be careful for some companies been lying about the energy and resources it takes to build a concrete windmill and it exceeds the actual energy output of the windmill of its entire life.

It is not death talk to err on the side of caution and educated decisions. It is death talk to go with blind faith about a technology without taking in the whole "TOTAL COST OF USE". Especially in regards to the impact on land use and habitat and the ecosystem. We will die without an intact ecosystem. Most people have a hard time realizing this fact. So if a supposed alternative energy harms the environment it is just as bad as burning fossil fuels.

And or how many humans?

And what to do with the rest?

Think, even the greatest mass killers in history had not been able to extinguish more than 70 million humans.

That we know of there may have been more humans at one time in our past we just don't know due to decay. but we do know there were more gene variety of human at one point in history before a big event like super volcano (Yellowstone park In the USA).

If people don't stop breeding for about 10 years voluntarily nature will kill us off or nations will go to nuclear war for the little remaining resources.

What to do with the rest? = Hope they die naturally and quick before they completely use all the resources left.

And how do You want to harvest a field without bio fuel?

Back to the way it was meant a lot of manual labor. You missed the point I was making about plant derived bio fuels Plant derived bio fuels is not sustainable for there are only so much ground nutrients to go around and one of the links that you provided about the space needed to power 17,000,000 cars was unacceptable as an example of how it is unsustainable in one aspect..

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

Back to the way it was meant a lot of manual labor. You missed the point I was making about plant derived bio fuels Plant derived bio fuels is not sustainable for there are only so much ground nutrients to go around and one of the links that you provided about the space needed to power 17,000,000 cars was unacceptable as an example of how it is unsustainable in one aspect..

Great!

Seems You do not know how much fields had been used in earlier times just to power the engines called horse and bull.

25% of the fields had been used to feed this animals

Sunflowers oil: Pack the sun into the tank

With sun flower oil and a tractor, it's only 10% and the press cake

Press cake from sunflowers

can be used by animals.

By most modern biofuel conversion, only 2,5% of the fields for the tractors.

Seems Your ideas of "sustainable" is to bomb humanity back to the stone age.

[Corey]

No I have no intention of going to the stone ages. I am promoting caution with new technology especially if it can't be recycled. Also to be sure the new technology is not more damaging than the old since that is the crux of our dilemma with industrialization harming our environment.

I need technology just to survive I have health problems that need medical equipment.

I was trying to state we need to use technology sparingly in the areas of necessity and get rid of it in the area of luxury. this would make a huge dent in our pollution and excessive consumption since most new technology is geared at luxury these days, especially in the electronic section.

I am also a Science fiction fan which is geared towards technology.

Some of my most fav movies have high technology thought the movie. this is not the mindset of someone who is saying go to the stone ages.

I am promoting balance of technology with the environment and human need.

If that said technology upsets the balance in a negative way then out with said technology.

If it is beneficial and does not upset the balance, then keep said technology:peace: