Plus exactly, why do we need a top speed of 150 km/h+ ... what is the sense of having that .. even if a car is able to do?! They should block that per default.
It's time to stop seeing such idiot people
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/47
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/44
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/77
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/101
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/102
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/104
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/107
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/109
& rich people
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/178
Not just related to the topic pollution, but even for the safety of other people, for the safety of animals and because there is NO REASON you need to go 150 km/h!
150 km/h for 2 hours = 300 km
120 km/h for 2 hours = 240 km —> 2.5h trip ... seriously do you have not 30 minutes more for the safety and the love of our planet?
100 km/h for 2 hours = 200 km —> 3 h trip
Let we say for example 140 g/km with 100 km/h, 150 g/km with 120 km/h and 190 g/km with 150 km/h
this means for 300 km 42k vs 45k vs 57k
so 1.07x with 120 km/h and 1.35x with 150 km/h if we consider 100 km/h as default = 1 hour more of trip
If we consider 120 km/h as default —> 1.26x with 150 km/h! now if everyone is doing that ...
https://t.me/PollutionFacts/1186
Several studies have found that the carbon intensity of the electricity in the operation phase determines the advantage – or disadvantage – of adopting BEVs over ICEVs with regard to GHG emissions. While relatively similar lifecycle emissions are achieved by charging BEVs with electricity from natural gas, wind-based electricity results in significantly lower lifecycle emissions compared to ICEVs. By contrast, coal-based electricity yields higher lifecycle emissions for BEVs than ICEVs. Hence, in areas where electricity is primarily produced from thermal power plants fired by lignite, coal or heavy oil, BEVs serve as a means of improving urban air quality and shifting emissions away from the densely populated urban centres, rather than reducing emissions.
It's time to stop seeing such idiot people
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/47
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/44
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/77
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/101
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/102
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/104
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/107
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/109
& rich people
https://t.me/CarAccidentsFacts/178
Not just related to the topic pollution, but even for the safety of other people, for the safety of animals and because there is NO REASON you need to go 150 km/h!
150 km/h for 2 hours = 300 km
120 km/h for 2 hours = 240 km —> 2.5h trip ... seriously do you have not 30 minutes more for the safety and the love of our planet?
100 km/h for 2 hours = 200 km —> 3 h trip
Let we say for example 140 g/km with 100 km/h, 150 g/km with 120 km/h and 190 g/km with 150 km/h
this means for 300 km 42k vs 45k vs 57k
so 1.07x with 120 km/h and 1.35x with 150 km/h if we consider 100 km/h as default = 1 hour more of trip
If we consider 120 km/h as default —> 1.26x with 150 km/h! now if everyone is doing that ...
https://t.me/PollutionFacts/1186
Several studies have found that the carbon intensity of the electricity in the operation phase determines the advantage – or disadvantage – of adopting BEVs over ICEVs with regard to GHG emissions. While relatively similar lifecycle emissions are achieved by charging BEVs with electricity from natural gas, wind-based electricity results in significantly lower lifecycle emissions compared to ICEVs. By contrast, coal-based electricity yields higher lifecycle emissions for BEVs than ICEVs. Hence, in areas where electricity is primarily produced from thermal power plants fired by lignite, coal or heavy oil, BEVs serve as a means of improving urban air quality and shifting emissions away from the densely populated urban centres, rather than reducing emissions.