Colocado por: BricoleiroAs doenças respiratórias não são causadas por CO2.
Colocado por: NTORIONAlguem sabe dar um feedback disto (260€):
https://www.showroomprive.pt/categorie.aspx?categorie=909014
ou disto (350€):
https://pt.gearbest.com/skateboard/pp_596618.html?wid=1433363¤cy=EUR
Colocado por: NTORIONCarga máxima... apenas 100kg.... não é para mim ;-)
- Potência da bateria: 280Wh
- Carga máxima: 100kg
- Potência nominal do carregador: 71W
- Tempo de carregamento: 5,5 horas
Colocado por: mafgodEste Hyundai, só importado ;-)
Colocado por: RCFImportado sempre sairá um pouco menos caro... mas é mais pelo nome diferente do de cá ;-)
Porquê?
Por ser caro?
Colocado por: mafgodImportado sempre sairá um pouco menos caro... mas é mais pelo nome diferente do de cá ;-)
Colocado por: JoelMPor que valor ficava? tem ideia?
Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoTelsa roubado sem chave...
https://youtu.be/odG2GX4_cUQ
Faltou o PIN TO DRIVE..
Colocado por: NTORIONAs minhas desculpas.... não vi que o preço na gearbest.pt NÃO INCLUI TAXAS/IMPOSTOS.
Cancelei a encomenda, é o que dá comprar por impulso.
Segundo um estudo divulgado pelo jornal espanhol ”El Economista”, um veículo elétrico poupa, anualmente, na emissão de CO2 até 2 mil toneladas líquidas, em relação às emissões poluidoras emitidas por um carro convencional. Este valor inclui as emissões associadas ao fabrico das baterias
Colocado por: mafgodTem um carro elétrico? Saiba quanto vai emitir de CO2
Battery life. For this analysis we expected the midsize and full-size BEV to need only one lithium-ion battery pack over its lifetime.
Our assessment included recycling of vehicle components at levels that are typical today, but it did not include any recycling of the lithion battery (due to limited data).
Landfill. The battery can go directly to a landfill, where it is neither reused nor recycled. This scenario is the least expected by experts; they cite concerns about localized pollution beyond global warming emissions), resource scarcity, and the market for batteries even in second use (Dunn et al. 2014).
Disposal toxicity. Beyond global warming emissions, cars—electric and gasoline vehicles alike—produce air pollut- ants (such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter) and contribute to other environmental impacts (for example, water pollution such as eutrophication and acidification) that can be toxic to humans and other species.
With BEVs, these degradations can occur throughout the car’s life cycle—directly during its manufacture and disposal (in particular, disposal of the battery) and indirectly through electricity generation to charge the vehicle during its service life.
In the United States, virtually all of the associated production, disposal, and generation processes are subject to air and water quality regulations. Quantifying these impacts is outside the scope of this report, which focuses on global warming emissions.
Excluded from the life cycle assessments are the global warming emissions from building the infrastructure (such as factories and industrial equipment) required to do all of the processing and assembling, and the emissions from transportation of raw materials for manufacturing. We not only expect Gasoline these emissions to be small on a per-vehicle basis but also that they are likely to be about the same in gasoline and electric cars.
Although today’s market for recycling large lithium-ion batteries is limited, given that most of the first-generation EVs have not reached the end of their service lives, it is important to ensure there will be a ready market for used batteries when their time comes.
This can be done, in part, by designing batteries to be easily recycled, thus requiring little extra energy and resulting in modest levels of additional global warming emissions.
Currently there are only two companies, Retriev Technolo- gies and Umicore, that can recycle lithium-ion batteries from EVs, and they have entered partnerships with EV manufacturers to achieve that end. But the recycling—and reuse—of used lithium-ion batteries are in their infancies; they would benefit from more research and development, including public-private collaborations and pilot projects, to help them be-come more efficient and broader in scale.
It’s about a new report issued by a left-leaning activist organization that goes by the highly misleading name of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). One need not be a scientist to be considered a member of this group. Indeed, as blogger Anthony Watts has demonstrated, so long as you provide the UCS with a credit card it’ll sign you up. Even if you are a dog. See here, here, here, and here.
This, ladies and gentleman, is a textbook case of how cavalier climate activists can be with the truth. The UCS report smears General Electric for committing the unpardonable sin of matching trivial donations made by its employees.
The fact that the UCS itself benefited from this exact same mechanism during those same two years at a ratio of 21 to 1 apparently caused them no concern. No one at the UCS, it seems, worried that the organization might be being a little unfair.
Want to talk about hypocrisy ? The Union of Concerned Scientists are masters of it.
Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoDiariamente somos bombardeados com machetes propagandistas para "consumir" pelo meio estes artigos e estudos pagos pelos lobbys para influenciar as massas, países, economias forums e redes sociais....