Reducing emissions from human activity requires a lot of effort in many other sectors. When it comes to ground transportation, the idea is to regularly eliminate combustion engine cars and upgrade them with electric cars. At first glance, things are simple. We know how to build electric cars, and the generation is getting to the point where they can upgrade classic cars in many applications.
Of course, the truth is not so simple. To understand the challenge of the great conversion of shipping to electric propulsion, we will have to take a look at the large numbers. Focus on copper measurements and find that the story is troubling.
Switching to electric cars is not as undeniable as drawing up plans for new models and generating them. Unfortunately, the world’s trade infrastructure has been built and perfected over the past century to build enough cars, trucks, and buses to meet global demands. more or less unstable with the chains of origin in recent years. There are giant factories located all over the world, dedicated solely to the production of engines, fuel systems and chassis for those cars, which number in the millions a year.
At the moment, there aren’t enough plants to produce engines, batteries and auxiliary devices to upgrade all those combustion transmissions. This means that the existing frame around the world can build enough EV-ready chassis in the first place. To make matters worse, we simply don’t exploit enough raw fabrics to force those nonexistent factories.
At the spearhead of the fabrics we lack copper. As a fair driver, he is a staple in everything electrical and electronic. When it comes to electric vehicles, where power is paramount, it’s impractical to upgrade it with other drivers who like aluminum.
In fact, a trendy electric vehicle requires about twice as much copper as a classic combustion engine vehicle. So if we need the entire automotive industry to build only electric vehicles, this will increase the automotive industry’s demand for copper through 150%.
It’s not just electric cars that are increasing demand for copper. Electric vehicle chargers also require a large amount of copper. Add to that requests from the renewables sector, for things like solar panels and wind turbines to run those chargers, and the figure becomes important.
Research company S
According to the U. S. Geological Survey, the total amount of copper found on Earth is on the order of 2. 8 billion metric tons. Estimates suggest there are still 3. 5 billion metric tons of copper somewhere waiting for us to locate them. That’s a lot to serve us in the future, but first it wants to be extracted from the ground and turned into usable material.
Currently, the world’s largest copper manufacturer is Chile, which generated 5. 7 million tonnes in 2020, with this figure largely solid over the last few years of reporting. The country is home to most of the largest copper mines in the world. Peru and China occupy the moment and 3rd place, generating 2. 2 million tons and 1. 7 million tons respectively. With 40% of copper production coming from Chile and Peru alone, copper resources are highly concentrated compared to other fabrics on the market.
To increase production, new mines will have to be created and existing ones expanded. Of course, for mining corporations to act, those other copper resources will have to succeed at first glance on paper. As things stand, discoveries of new deposits have been sparse and spaced out lately, and have been of lower grades that are less hot for the mine, financially speaking. Depending on how the global commodity market tends to operate, we will most likely see an increase in copper costs as shortages are felt. , before miners rush to expand new copper deposits that are now successful for painting.
As things stand, laws have been passed in several jurisdictions to ban combustion engine cars and force the transfer to electric cars. Similarly, there is a massive pent-up call for new renewable energy projects, especially after this year’s spikes in the value of fossil fuels amid disruptions. supply. The demand for copper is not going anywhere, so sooner or later, the world will have to dig, and fast. If you owned a mining company, you would have to be one step ahead.
Is it about “reducing emissions” to transfer from ICE engines to electric vehicles or is it more about “changing emissions”?
A fashionable power plant can have a potency of 98 or 99%. Your car’s engine will never succeed at that.
Except that the power plant power is not the same as the power of the EV. There are losses every step of the way. Moreover, the inputs of force in production are not the same
Except that even taking all those inefficiencies into account, EVs are more than twice as effective as ECIs.
Twice is not enough. But an electric motorcycle (which is also an electric vehicle) is much more effective and fixes many of the problems that prevent other people from traveling more often.
Only the production of electrical energy can be polluting. The manufacture and disposal of electric vehicles is more polluting.
The battery/charge power is around 90%. However, at the end of the day, if we want to correct emissions, we must do so at the network level. Electric cars will only allow us to make innovations in the network and transfer them to transport.
EVs in France are more effective than EVs in Germany because the French grid has 20% of Germany’s emissions (and that’s with the whole newer renewable energy structure in Germany; it was 10% a few years ago).
If we quadrupled or even doubled our nuclear fleet, our electric cars would be emission-free, as most people qualify at dusk and the electric power output of nuclear power plants at dusk is the same as generating hours of sunlight with much lower demand. .
France deserves to be excluded from any grid emissions equation because a HUGE amount of its strength comes from nuclear power. Of course, fission power plants are CO2 neutral, but uranium mining is lousy for the environment and workers, reserves are limited, we will have to take into account the huge loss of force enrichment. But the worst component is where all the depleted radioactive waste produced over millennia is kept.
@Enegmon: Uranium is on planet Earth.
Which power plant is 99% efficient?
In my opinion, it meant that it was effective in filtering pollution.
This is not the case in South Africa and many other Third World countries.
“A modern power plant can have a capacity of 98 or 99 percent. Your car’s engine will never succeed at that.
Hahahaha! You’re kidding, right? I mean, it’s obviously a joke: the only kind of power plant that can hit in the ’90s is a hydroelectric plant.
Large-scale oil and coal plants are at 30%; There are some that are in the (very low) 40%. Commercial car engines *now* achieve thermal braking power of 40% or more.
I agree with you in your comment that provoked intelligent laughter, but you are also with your statement:
Toyota has the most effective ICE engine with a thermal brake efficiency of around 40%.
Mitsubishi now sells IGCC coal plants targeting ~48% HVV.
GE has already deployed MANY of its Class H combined-cycle herbal fuel turbines and operate in the 60-63% range. Force consistent with the turbine. For reference, the 2 reactors at the Susquehanna power plant shed around 1. 26 GW of usable force.
Most importantly, the contaminant control systems that exist. A catalytic converter can’t do much, it’s just not economically viable to try to rub a car exhaust. Modern power plants, on the other hand, operate on such a scale that it is economically mandatory to install a serious air filter at the outlet of the power plant, so watt for watt, a fashionable ICE motor is not even at the same stage.
The grid loss is between 3 and 13% over the transmission distance and is aggravated to account for distributed renewable transmission on a continental scale.
Pressure and conversion losses are 10 to 15%
Battery production prices account for 10-30% of energy consumption over the life of the car due to suboptimal battery use in a car (low number of life cycles, worsens the larger the battery)
The systemic inefficiencies of an EV constitute a loss of approximately 20-60% of the energy source, depending on the circumstances. If you rate your car temporarily regularly, but usually short distances in an electric vehicle with a giant battery, and you live in a position that you want to import energy over long distances, your losses can be 50% successful without problems and all this is meaningless.
That is, a loss of 50% of the already deficient power of the generator. Even if you have a modern CCG plant that offers power, you struggle to reach the power of an ICE because of all the small main points and side effects of the electric vehicle. as a system
Meanwhile, the fuel transmission is very efficient. About 20% of the energy is lost at the refinery, but the truck transporting the subtle fuel to the station consumes only a fraction of a percentage point of what goes into the tank.
It’s the same kind of non-intuitive result as thinking of donkeys loaded with DVDs beating the speed of their data supply.
The manufacture of the battery and its power of use are misleading, because it is easy to forget about the realities here:
The battery’s production charge is approximately 10% of its lifetime energy storage capacity (ESOEI), which for modern batteries is approximately three hundred speed cycles. miles and if you have a diversity of two hundred miles, the battery will only complete 800 cycles, you can do about 3,000 before being thrown away. It just ages and breaks down this way.
That means it retails 800 power cycles for a load of three hundred cycles, and let’s say 15% or 120 cycles for all wall outlet rate conversion losses, meaning the actual battery, as used in the EV, is only 65. 6% effective as a system.
And that doesn’t even count things like the vampire’s energy input while the car is sitting, and all the rest of the transmission and loss generation. All of those effects aren’t accounted for in studies that only treat electric vehicles as a summary, only showing that EVs are better than ICEs if other people use them perfectly.
“Toyota has the most effective ICE engine with a thermal braking efficiency of around 40 percent. “
This is the *existing* efficiency. Of course, there are concept engines and plans to push this further, and there are diesel engines that exceed 50% of the braking temperature. It is also *brake*, thermal.
“Mitsubishi is now promoting IGCC coal power plants targeting around 48 HVVs. “
I’m talking about plants that exist *now*. Replacing an existing coal plant with a new, more effective coal plant is pretty much the worst I can believe for carbon emissions. And I said, obviously, oil and coal. Yes, herbal fuel is higher. Again, replacing coal/oil with herbal fuel is a special kind of stupidity.
“The most important thing is the pollutant systems that are in place. “
I don’t see existing pollutant levels as a challenge on the same scale as carbon emissions. You’re right, and I don’t want to downplay it, but the levels of pollutants that exist are just as bad on a giant scale.
“. . . It’s just not economically viable to go out and rub exhaust fumes from a car. “
It’s not just the escape. It has been found that electric cars emit more garbage than gasoline cars because they are heavier and tires have to paint harder. And no, it is that “the industry wants to produce tires that wear less” – we already have it, they are the metal ‘tires’ of the trains. Who can take care of earrings up to 35 ‰. You can’t climb as well as with rubber tires.
Regardless, BMW is investigating lately how to catch and “rub” “tire exhaust. “
Oh, and since I’m already talking about trains. . . The Deutsch Bahn (German train) has committed coal-fired power plants (which are said to reach “up to 45% efficiency”) to power its electric trains. Since Germany needs to avoid the use of coal, it is planned that the coal-fired power plants (recently installed!) will be replaced by the modern “65% efficient” fuel-fueled power plants he discussed, within the next 20 years. Well, let’s see how the existing fuel scenario between Germany and Russia works. . .
Don’t look to start a fight. . . Power plants cannot reach 98% efficiency. It’s much lower. Maybe closer to 50%, but a passionate engineer can determine that number. In his opinion, car engines will never succeed in this brand anyway.
Electricity works, as far as I know, if we use solar/wind/nuclear/geothermal energy or some other source other than fossil fuels. Justify switching all electric cars to bigger pollutants or abandoning fossil fuels altogether.
Haven’t you heard of force-generating technologies that don’t produce much CO2?
I guess one of the lucky 10,000 today.
Oh, you’re nuclear, right?
“No, new-cue-ler. ” -George W. Bush
It followed the pronunciation of Jimmy Carter. Carter, you may remember, a nuclear engineer.
It was mispronounced for a long time, for example through Eisenhower.
Not exclusively. But I’m aware of the comments here and I’m about to waste time.
A valid concern, however, has been covered in weather reports as well as independent studies on the subject. A fashionable fuel plant can reach a thermal power of more than 55%. Electrical losses in the grid are on average 5%. The battery rate drop can be 6%. Therefore, we will say 45% thermal power for the electric vehicle. At this point, mpg and mpge can be used for comparison.
Model Tesla 3 Mpge 131. Conversion for losses in a combustion plant, ~59 mpg. Better than my 2015 Prius with 20% natural fuel burned.
But this is not the end, it is the worst fashion case in which we burn fuel to produce electricity. I saw an article that said that, so far this year, the U. S. has not been able to do so. The U. S. has 25% of its electricity coming from renewable sources. There is very little cleaning you can do in car exhaust, while chimneys offer an economy of scale without worrying about the weight of CO2 and other washes.
These are today’s emissions and will be even more so as the electric power generation ratio continues to change.
Thanks for the analysis. I would like supporters of electric vehicles, politicians, etc. had the honesty to say something like (more or less according to their numbers) “Electric cars produce only a portion of the CO2 of combustion engine cars!”Instead, they call them “zero emissions,” which most people know is a lie, and they just don’t lead us to everything they say.
But that’s dishonest, right? It’s like saying, “Because we’ve blocked the adoption of renewables, your electric vehicle is blank, so let’s keep driving fossil fuel cars. “In the fossil fuel industry, it is the duty of the energy industry to go blank, given that electric vehicles have done their part.
Electric cars themselves may not be cleaner: they emit nothing (except debris from tires or brakes, which are higher due to the extra weight of an electric vehicle, but decrease due to the region). But the production and energy industry will and they deserve to do it. Over time, this means that electric cars will be cleaner to run or build and combustion cars will be too, even if they disappear. But combustion cars probably won’t be cleaner to run.
But also in other countries, other regulations apply. In the UK, for example, we can be a renewable energy provider. This means that if I use x kWh of electricity, I pay them for the production of x kWh of renewable electricity. In this case, an electric vehicle can go blind in all directions.
A handful of energy suppliers in the UK** supply one hundred percent renewable energy. Most promote it as one hundred percent renewable energy through the distinctive feature of REGO’s acquisition, which is a rather dishonest, but permissible means of marketing. TLDR; Very few derive advantages from one hundred percent renewable energy, so they literally cannot be enough for the driving concept of an environmentally friendly electric vehicle.
In fact, it’s fair to say that electric cars powered entirely through a fossil fuel grid look like more than 1/4 of the emissions per mile identically, as the existing crop of EV models has nearly shrunk to upgrade the type of ICE vehicle that discovers five. mpg acceptable, 20 mpg smart and reaches 30 wow!
While some more general electric cars of the family/home economy type are now starting to arrive, they don’t come close enough in number to shift the average EV toward the same balance between compensatory, vanity, and functional penis-sized applications cars to a more economical economy. -Focused, reasonable family “general”. The ICE car benefits lately.
Next, you need to take into account the amount of renewable energy on the grid, which in more than a few countries is reliable and about 50%, and the quality of power plant exhaust fuel scrubbers compared to small catalytic converters in the cell car. So, your mpge deserves to be moved to take into account if all you want to examine are greenhouse gas emissions in a real environment anyway.
So while I agree that 0 emissions is actually a misnomer, even if it’s strictly greenhouse fuel emissions consistent with mile, that’s not so far from the truth, and some days, in some countries with a giant renewable supply, that’s true!having to count all wear elements such as brake pads and tires, creation, shipping, and any consistent percentage of fossil or bioderived energy provided to the grid. So, actually, it deserves to be “Zero* Show**” with a lot of fine print because you get the most out of the other curves the full fact in the ads. . .
Car “emissions” depend on where the city comes from. If it comes from the wind? That’s zero.
https://carbuzz. com/news/ev-tires-peor-para-el-medio environment-that-tail-tube-emissions
Now, I know that the original report was “debunked” by incorrectly quoting it and proving that the exaggerated and incorrectly quoted claims are false, however, the previous article summarizes the facts and probabilities quite accurately.
—
Keep in mind that wind farms also cause structure and recycling emissions. . . what can be recycled; The potentially carcinogenic fibrous curtains of shovels are not yet recyclable. The existing “solution” is to sell used wind turbines for €1 (but you have to disassemble them and ship them yourself).
“A trendy fuel plant can have a thermal power of more than 55%. “
Not whether they are oil or coal plants, which is a giant component of them. These guys work more in the 30s. Do the math with this thermal power and say ‘huh. Wait a second. Why are we doing it again?»
There are jobs in the world where the shift to electric cars will help. A little bit. It’s still a poor return on investment (see below).
“I saw an article that said that, this year, the U. S. was not in the U. S. The U. S. has 25 percent of its electricity coming from renewable sources. “
Yes, but those energy resources *can’t increase*!If we move electric power generation from gas transportation (in cars) to the grid, there are only 2 options: burn more fuel in oil/coal plants (so that the percentage * decreases!*) or build more renewable energy resources in the same proportion.
Or you can simply *not* waste money on valuable electric vehicles, take the *same* money and request renewable resources for your electricity, and get more carbon reduction for precisely the same money.
It’s a chicken-and-egg economic challenge, because when you have a lot of electric cars, even on a largely fossil fuel grid, you save money, but I agree that this is not a massive investment. . But by shifting demand to electric power, it creates the market forces that mean renewables become much more successful to build and the NIBMY crowd is less likely to make as much noise because they can’t beat higher electric power prices either. The point is that it also changes the return on investment of electric cars and you may end up getting more carbon relief and a lower price, as renewables have become much more successful when the total demand for electric power has increased!
And it’s worth noting that electric cars have many other benefits on the pollutant front, as giant power plants are much larger and lock in their exhaust gases. Moreover, even with a small amount of renewable energy and many more electric cars, you Don’t accumulate fuel consumption in giant 1:1 power plants with building electric car demands, as long as EV charging is not super fast 100 percent of the time, but smart charging to some extent. As when renewables accumulate and/or request drops quickly, it is not unusual for a large amount of deceleration to be connected to maintain grid stability, as it is less expensive (and potentially more efficient) to “waste” the deceleration force of fuel rather than scare away load fluctuations. In giant power plants, many electric cars that can regulate their rate of change do so immediately for you.
That’s a horrible rollback in investment!
And ask yourself: which lasts longer, a new electric vehicle or a new power plant?Switching to electric cars not only slightly reduces carbon emissions, but is a constant cost. If you only tax gasoline, the money can be invested in decarbonizing the grid and it only gets worse.
And replacing enough of the fleet to do so will take *an eternity*. Greening the grid is much, much faster.
The contaminant challenge is a red herring. He’s right, but the threat is completely secondary to the challenge of carbon emissions. Never mind. Carbon is everything right now.
I don’t know why you say “1/4 of the emissions”. It’s not 1/4. In some parts of the U. S. , driving an electric vehicle produces *more* carbon than a small hybrid. The leaves are about 37 mpg or more in the Midwest. First, you want to fix the network. It’s quick, reasonable, and can be done alone.
Do you want to reduce carbon emissions? Buy panels for your house. Have you already done it and need to do more? Buy symptoms for your neighbor.
This is a complicated calculation. You get about 10 times the carbon relief consistent with the dollar.
If your network is terribly dirty, of course you want to be consistent, however, many other people throw panels on their roofs when something smart doesn’t solve anything at grid scale, it can even make the grid less carbon-efficient, as high-power stations can’t and charge too much to cycle and temporarily scare away adjustments in source and demand. Therefore, they are likely to overproduce more: there must be a more complete grid technique with dynamic but useful storage and energy, not just throwing panels on their own (at least a very, very large number of panels would be needed for this to be quite autonomous).
And I said 1/4 because comparing as for VEHICLE TYPE, as right now almost all EVs are still luxury sports cars/SUVs, the stuff that really gets lousy miles per gallon on ICE, and even on the grill more imaginable dirty for an evolved country makes the mpg equivalent to an economy focused ICE car. . . Or put some other relief of about 1/4 in emissions than the same type of style would do on ICE even in a rather worse case but with a healthy network situation for a country rich enough for masses of new cars and that only increases as networks become greener which will fully account for market forces if more are sold electric cars, so the demand for electrical energy increases, which makes the FINANCIAL investment really very smart in green energy. resources for what a big investment is worth: anything ‘no individual can’t do BUT you can, if you want, buy an EV, install your small scale solar home, maybe a ‘powerwall’ and help create the market place where economically viable to at least start to clean up the mess…
I don’t care much about the infrastructure situation in the United States or I don’t keep up, it’s transparent that it’s pretty terrible for such a wealthy nation. But if the Midwest is actually turned upside down, I’m even more disappointed. with the U. S. I was in the U. S. as a whole, and I didn’t think it was really possible. . .
“But other people are throwing symptoms on their roofs while something smart doesn’t solve anything on the scale of the network alone. “
Not many other people buy electric cars right now instead of smaller, high-efficiency hybrid cars!Both require a network overhaul, as the return on carbon investment in the roof panels is much higher.
“But if the Midwest is upside down”
This is an “upside down” problem. Coal is ridiculously abundant in the eastern United States, as Appalachia is incredibly old. You do the cheapest, the smartest. You know, kind of like buying all your energy/fuel from a neighboring kleptocratic nation.
So I guess that’s where we forget about the lifetime charging savings of an EV and claim that the only advantages for consumers are reduced emissions.
Have you noticed the value of fuel lately?
Supercharging costs are generally around $0. 25/kWh, or about $0. 08/mile. At $4/gallon, that’s 50 miles/gallon, which is a price available for a plug-in hybrid. Fossil fuel and electric power costs will remain roughly maintained until the grid decarbonizes, at which point a transition to electric cars will make more sense.
Maintenance is in the noise when you think about battery depreciation.
Okay, now repeat this calculation with rooftop solar panels that generate an excessive load of electrical power at home with fuel costs in California. live in the Arctic?)
“Well, now repeat this calculation with rooftop solar panels that generate an excessive load of electrical energy in a fueled home in California. “
Plug-in hybrids are priced at home with solar panels like an electric vehicle.
And, of course, I’ll do California: consistent charging costs are $0. 58/kWh a day, and $5. 24/gal, that’s 27 consistent miles per gallon. I don’t think it’s going in the direction you want.
Yes, if you make trips of less than about two hundred miles and can quote loose at either end, you will save money. If your maximum trips are less than, say, 50 miles with occasional very long trips (500 miles), a mid-range plug-in hybrid is at most actually a better choice considering battery degradation.
Well, you are indeed an expert in deviations and misrepresentations. Going straight to maximum fan costs when I was talking in particular about solar house installations is a bit clunky, isn’t it?In this use case, you use it. . . like an EV. And it taxes the battery much more by discharging it much more. Sure, it’s less expensive to upgrade, but it also does it much faster than an EV battery. So again, their calculations to make EVs look bad only make EVs look like EVs.
Keep trying, you can possibly convince someone!
“Go straight to the maximum costs of superchargers when I talk in particular about solar house installations”
Unless long trips are made in the middle of the night, maximum supercharging is quite the correct analogy. Not much fuel fills up at 2 am.
“You’re offering plug-in hybrids as an option for an EV, but in this use case, you use it. . . like an EV. “
Yes. Except on long trips. That’s when you’d be superchargers. They also destroy the battery (more expensive). And do it faster!
I mention plug-in hybrids because they are the long-term vehicles with the highest effective charge on the market. They are by far the best. You will notice that the estimates of the general property charge come from new vehicles, and the dominant charge of the general property charge is the financing charge.
You keep confusing “EV” with “Tesla” and claim that the only way to get electrical power outside of peak hours is to go to a power station at 2 a. m. If you buy an electric vehicle to travel around the country, you’re in trouble. If all you’re doing is driving 10 miles, employing a hybrid as an electric vehicle is an option. Vehicle loaded at home is by far the most profitable game in town if you’re making plans to buy a new car. Electric vehicles* can* have incredible success in much of the country if you are not looking for the maximum estimated energy source and you can the initial investment.
And obviously, the equation fits when comparing used vehicles, but that only muddies the waters when the original topic is primarily the benefits of an electric vehicle over a gasoline vehicle.
Supercharging prices rarely apply to electric vehicle owners. You think that loading is like refueling, where you have to go to a stall with specialized devices to do it.
But the only “specialized equipment” you want is a 220v outlet. Unless you’re running from home, in which case even 110v will give you enough strength to drive around 75 miles per day, however, that’s a corner case.
My wife and I have had a vehicle for almost a year and so far we have used a compressor 3 times.
But I will say that if you don’t have simple access to the 220v where you park at night (e. g. your garage), then electric vehicles are not for you. That’s why I don’t think legislation banning the sale of new ICE cars is going to stop. Charging while you sleep is key to the total EV problem, and there are plenty of other people for whom it’s not an option.
“And obviously, the equation fits when comparing used vehicles, but that only muddies the waters when the original issue is primarily the benefits of an electric vehicle over a gasoline vehicle. “
How the hell does that muddy the waters?!? New cars you’ve only owned for five to 10 years charge ridiculously more than used cars or a vehicle you’ve owned for more than 20 years. shorter periods of time than new ICE cars,” sure, but it’s like saying “burning $20 is less than burning $100. “I mean. . . Don’t burn money.
And also, to be fair, this fact (EVs have short-term charging advantages) is *purely* similar to the fact that the market for *used* electric vehicles is much, much warmer than it is because nobody takes battery degradation into account. Therefore, it is a threat: buy the vehicle, in 3 years the market may have decreased drastically and you are literally thousands. The TCO estimates that there is garbage in general: they cite things like “15 years of planned use,” such as whether you can sell an electric vehicle with less than 50% battery life with a 15-year battery that is no longer manufactured.
You can’t faint and tout an EV’s load savings. They literally don’t save money. These are just beloved toys with lower operating costs. Other people like to have new cars for some reason. That’s great. But it doesn’t save money. You’ll pay more in the insurance difference than you would save on gas.
“But the only ‘specialized equipment’ you want is a 220V outlet. Unless you’re running from home, in which case even 110V will give you enough strength to drive about 75 miles per day, however, that’s an emergency.
Again, if you’re only traveling short distances, a PHEV gives you the same thing without the excessive cost, plus the longevity, as the battery is much more convenient to replace, plus it has no battery life issues.
Also, if you think electric cars are long-term for the environment, PHEVs are better anyway because lately you’re limited by battery production and you get more cars/cells with PHEVs.
That is, it can be seen immediately with existing hybrids. Many other people still drive Priuses from the early 2000s, still consume a lot of gas, the battery costs about $ 1500 at the brokerage agency. People come by and buy used Leafs and the runner says “it would be 10,000 if we could only get the battery, but we can’t. “
Here’s how I heard it. 55% – 5% of 55% and – 6% of that or 49%.
Adjust profit margins 🙂 They didn’t care about emissions before and they don’t care now. The other people who buy the alibi are the kind of people who think that those who want to rule the world do so out of honest fear. for ourselves and for a preference for our lives and our future. This is not the case.
Oh, and copper is rarely the only bottleneck here. By the time this is over, we’ll probably be briefed on a dozen pollutants and environmental effects that are wiping out the biosphere, and then listen to the drums of the retrofit industry to fix it. They with. . . You guessed it, more and more industry. It will be the same solution that is presented through other people who are heavily invested in the industry.
Or do you want a global police team to check and confiscate?Drones that smell hydrocarbon gases? Humans and animals produce the same vapors because they burn the same thing (but much more efficiently).
Relief consistent with per capita energy consumption would be a smart thing, even a smart thing, especially for the worst offenders. But calculations show that everyone on Earth right now can consume about the same energy as the average European in an absolutely sustainable way. if, as if by magic, all the infrastructure to do so emerged.
Obviously, this will not happen, and when the power potency of a “Western” way of life can be particularly intensified in a sufficiently trivial way, it deserves to be. if not all readers of HAD, surely it is the right thing to do. But I’m not convinced it’s necessary, for many rather miserable reasons, like global human tragedy.
I would also say that keeping old cars on the road is not a challenge at all, as long as you have legal requirements on the road that imply there are no oil leaks everywhere, etc. Those who have the old crop only as a hobby and those who still cannot buy a new electric vehicle, is another trap of “poverty” without which it is difficult to live . . .
Moreover, the initial energy charge of building a car is stupidly huge. For some people, the energy embodied in their new car will be greater than what they will ever put into the car: my grandparents, for example, had to buy a new car. Some time ago after yours was canceled through pillocks. Being or soon to retire with a bus pass almost didn’t help overall and has diminished us in recent years, so it’s almost like new now something like 20 years later!But a car is, at least for now, quite useful for them, it would be very difficult to do without it and it is in good working order, so I do not really value any other replacement, I hope it lasts much longer than its protection to drive.
“Remove road grime permanently. ” Totally disagree. I am totally biased and live in California however anything built after 1976 is still subject to emissions and smog testing every 2 years so you can rate this one. Pre-1976s can still fall into your “dirty clunkers” category, unless they’re such a small component of the total number of cars that they’re relatively insignificant. If you’re arguing that taking a sweet, gorgeously restored 1965 Mustang off the road, or a 1950 Austin Healey in a museum forever, I guess we’ll have to disagree. A quick google shows my dad’s 1931 Model A will get about 14 MPG, driven to club meetings and the occasional hamburger stand. Maybe 500 miles a year. A 1965 Beetle (completely hypocritical comparison) gets at least 22 MPG. A new F-150 V8 (a car I totally chose) gets about 18 MPG in the city, but gets driven a million times as much by other people who don’t need it. I believe that power can be oriented in much more productive directions.
The generational tendency to need to govern people’s lives is endemic. It sneaks in all the time and we think that’s objective. What if, for me, being productive meant earning enough to do what I prefer, driving a truck?
But I saw that the “cloud” now uses as much energy as the whole of Japan. Perhaps converting the cloud to Apple’s M-series chips is better to start?
“From what I’ve heard, we just want to restrict our constant energy consumption with the capita. “
Oh, FFS, each and every damn thing electric cars are mentioned. . . No, they’re not perfect, but yes, they’re much bigger than burning fossil fuels and will only get bigger as energy production gets greener (which happens at the pace).
Yes, by converting emissions. It’s still complicated. Because large-scale power plants are so effective and electric cars so effective, even in the worst-case scenario, an electric car forced through a coal-fired power plant emits less CO2 than direct fuel combustion. Even with all losses accounted for. So, yes, it’s the “long exhaust pipe,” but an internal combustion engine absorbs so much in the power branch that it’s pretty easy to beat.
So, if we run out of it, let’s use aluminum and settle for less efficiency. If we ever run out of aluminum, we will have bigger problems.
Have you tried buying aluminum lately? You have a shock. Russia has the keys!
Temporal geopolitical events aside, there is aluminum on earth.
Very true! Nevada has a lot of copper, however, with the transfer to EV, they seem very slow to get it out of the ground. You’d think they’d first take a look at their own garden.
Easier and less expensive to send mining-related issues to a country with fewer regulatory/environmental considerations as usual. Of course, this value will be paid, and probably in a much more expensive way, but as usual, we forget about the long term. for-profit
The transformation of ore into aluminum consumes a lot of electricity. More than any metal. This is one of the reasons why today we recycle so much aluminum.
Ha, temporary. . . It’s going to last a lot longer than anyone lately. It’s amazing how this happens with almost every single war, but each and every time, other people buy it when their leaders say so. It ends in a month. Twenty years later, we will be in the same position and we will STILL talk about another war zone that has just opened. That’s crazy. The way things are now (or worse) is going to be general for a generation or more.
It is based on war and the definition of when it ends. As far as I know, technically, the Koreans are still at war, but in practice that hasn’t been true for a long time: it’s more of a bloodless war than a real shooting war.
As long as this “special army operation” does not generate the threat of Putin’s friends being hanged among the mafia at home, it is unlikely to stop. Worry about antagonizing the Russians, it will be difficult for them to win against a much larger but rather incompetent, probably incompetent force.
So yes, I don’t see it ending anytime soon either, I think at the current rate, Ukraine will start to gain enough to scare the United States and they won’t end up with enough ammunition to continue the assault, probably early next year. if not this year. . . Most of Europe’s major powers already have too much half-hearted support and seem to belong to Putin, would rather be informed Russian and maintain their positions of “power” rather than interfere for ideological reasons when they are not embarrassed. Who knows who will guide the UK until then: the only remaining country that possibly has the resources and balls to fill the void if the US is to fill the void. UU. se reduced. The rest of the former Soviet states will give everything. , because they know what orcs look like. But they are not able to do enough, being themselves largely obsolete equipment.
However, I don’t think it can become generational and return to the Cold War mentality if China doesn’t actively jump to Russia’s side: the Russian military has already become quite paralyzed in the face of the noticeably superior resistance that Ukraine has established. Even in an unlikely victory, they may not even be able to take any further action against anyone for quite some time, and assuming the maximum penalties are temporarily removed when the fights are over, they will. Desperate to find a functioning economy and factor resources with which to rearm. . . In this case the global economy deserves to stabilize and above all recover temporarily, because in reality nothing has been destroyed or damaged, although it is accepted as true with Russia and part of Ukraine. As unhappy as it is for them that their cities become rubble, they care little economically, agricultural production and export infrastructure, which is Ukraine’s main world export, will not take long to reach pre-invasion levels if there is the slightest preference for doing so. , that there will be. . .
Moreover, the fact that Ukrainian defense was so inflexible despite vastly inferior weaponry also demonstrated what happens when you suddenly get a wake-up call (Crimea) and set the highest levels of professionalism and education, anything Russia may have forgotten. , now strongly remembered. . . Thus, however, the war puts an end to Russia, and all the other more belligerent powers will be a little cautious in continuing the fight, making it unlikely that more generational conflicts will return.
Well, I recycle each and every aluminum I use or find. 47 cents per can is what I get.
If you pay for the local waste company’s “recycling” service, they simply throw it in the landfill, as plastic waste doesn’t have a viable market.
Efficiency is a higher-level measure because it affects many features at once. Therefore, a little “lower efficiency” would result in very bad weight/power/maneuverability/cost/durability/heat/cooling/safety. now a $100,000 Nissan Leaf.
I know which one I should drive!
At least Nissan. Au, it probably wouldn’t try to kill you, and the paint probably wouldn’t peel. . .
You can also get aluminum/copper graphene hybrid wiring. Graphene is now adjusted at a very reasonable price (cost of herbal gas) to manufacture and hybrid fabrics like this can be a way to upgrade copper wires in electric vehicles.
It’s appealing, I don’t forget to learn that electrons across the surface of a conductor, it would seem that having a thin layer of copper in a more common (cheap) curtain for the nucleus would be a more effective use of the copper we use. have. Also, I wonder how many copper hoarders there are, like me.
Not quite: https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Skin_effect?wprov=sfla1
And then we’ll use money. . . Oh, wait. . .
That’s what the Manhattan Project used!
Even if all this is resolved, it will do almost nothing for the pollutants, as China pumps tons and boxes and other transoceanic vessels sell tons of pollutants.
People asking to get rid of ICE are signs of distinctive or helpless features.
Shut up. . . . Affirming the fact is frowned upon here. . . .
It would possibly be frowned upon, but at least it is allowed.
So. . . don’t you take a look at doing something bigger because someone is worse?
How about tackling a pollutant challenge that would make a difference?Shouting into the void is useless.
Have you ever heard the expression “Perfection is the enemy of progress”?
There is no single silver bullet for our environmental challenges. Let’s try to eliminate them all at once as well as perfect one challenge before moving on to the next.
it’s not all or nothing, and EV proponents are creating policies to make them ONLY electric vehicles in the future, with ambitious goals that forget what was discussed above. Electric cars are a smart idea, it’s not discussed, but mass adoption IS a bad idea. .
We invest in hybrids, but they are too expensive for helmets that are OEMs, so we allow everyone to queue up and cut our noses, not despite our faces but in the future.
It’s like saying, “I want to go around the world, so I’m walking in circles down my driveway. . . At least I’m doing something. . . It’s progressing. “
Except it doesn’t matter.
More appropriately, “the best is the enemy of the good. “The speed of replacement demanded by uninformed government officials is the enemy of quality progress through demand. This dream of long-term electric and global leadership through Krell Machines has many obstacles. Design is not there to achieve any of the goals or even partial goals. Look at Californians’ high-speed choochoo prices and programming excesses.
Today, the cloud consumes more energy than all of Japan. The long-term electric car demanded until 2035 is literally impossible, but the legislation will ruin entire sectors of the economy and promote useful ideas.
The all-electric fleet enthusiasts they need in the U. S. The U. S. economy will require more strength than the overall production capacity existing in the country. This means that the infrastructure will have to more than double in production capacity and quadruple or more in distribution. High-force distribution is required for station adjustments along all major roads. Rural electric power distribution capacity wants to be higher for U. S. , and commercial charging stations. What kind of power endpoint do you have on a modern farm with trucks, tractors and combines?How do you load a tractor that can pull a wide plow through the earth?Charge it overnight AND in the field. Because you can’t take them home at night.
Is all this a component of copper calculation? I think it is not up to par, like all plans and pink plans. And sun and wind are not a solution. to be, and that means uranium. There’s a lot of uranium out there, but getting and refining it isn’t easy. This is a monumental design and can be smart for a 2080 or 2100 target. Don’t let the environment and shopping complex shake you.
I recommend relaxing and disconnecting. Let it be done as others choose. Movements in Europe and North America won’t matter enough to justify forcing other people to replace what they drive. You have to offer them something better, not restrictions or punishments.
What do you suggest?
Eliminating most ECIs would make all the difference. Deciding to do nothing instead of doing anything because the choice to do more than anything is misleading is a ridiculous abdication of responsibility.
People who ask to leave ECIs are simply afraid to replace them or have no idea.
There is no single source that can claim that it would make a significant difference.
Keep going around in circles thinking you’re going around the world.
Unless it is nuclear power and it is not, there is no effective replacement for fossil fuels, one or even all green alternatives. Unless it doesn’t kill the brains of millions of people in the first year and send millions more into starvation in the years that follow. .
Is it really that all the electrical energy that will be needed to recharge everything will be generated only through wind, sun, etc. , without adding nuclear?
“Eliminating most JITs would make all the difference. “
Ok great! It will be the U. S. Right now because I know where the numbers are.
Let’s get rid of all passenger cars. Everyone walks. It would bear fruit. . . about 1300 million tons of carbon consistent with the year. Exit. . . 4665 Mmt at izquierda. no is great Now, electric cars *at best* reduce emissions in part because our power plants are zero. Therefore. . . is rather 650 Mmt. Departure. . . 5315 Mmt. Anyone. . . a reduction of 12%.
Let’s be generous and say the difference in value between an EV and a typical ICE is just the battery, as well as $10,000. Now we got a 12% reduction (not really, but okay) for how much, $1. 5 trillion?
The power grid EE. UU. es about 470 million kilowatts (yes, mixing prefixes, shhh). Replacing 12% of this with nuclear power would amount to 56 million kilowatts. Nuclear plants charge about $2500/kW, so they would literally charge *ten times less* for the same effect. And again, I’m stupidly generous with the number of electric cars that cut things down.
Electric cars are simply not a cost-effective mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Put a 10% tax on fuel and sell it directly in power plants without greenhouse fuel and it will almost indeed be better.
No. 100% of the time, it’s better to make what you have more effective than building something new. True for power plants (ignoring nuclear power), true for automobiles. The untested generation is a crazy ride. Forgive my anger.
The same thing happened with aviation, more efficient, cheaper, everyone needs to use it, it’s a bummer.
If we followed this attitude, we would still be on horseback, steam engines and vacuum tubes.
The purpose of progress is to revise to make things better. However, we have a tendency to get it wrong. Some other people think that “progress” just means making more money.
I don’t see that we run out of copper. It’s easy to recycle and valuable enough to do. In case of shortage, aluminum is a smart substitute. And car brands don’t even try to maintain it (have you noticed the amount of wire in a modern car)?
Also, keep in mind that electric cars existed before ICEs.
Totally agree. Technology is iterative.
So, does it do anything useless to show its change?
There are a lot of problems with this trying to force markets to switch from fossil fuel to fuel to run out of fabrics and what will have an impact on sourcing those fabrics on the planet. Switching to EV is not so undeniable and far from that convenient. as promoted by the Green movement Energy. La society is forced to do this because some other people with the money and strength to effect change force it and have deceived some of the younger generations into settling for the lie that it can be done; which is convenient. Unless nuclear force is a key component of this shift, and it isn’t (it’s shrinking in many countries), any green force plan is little more than a sign of a distinctive feature that will only kill millions of people. other people for lack of reliable and profitable means.
But keep acting as if all we had to do was drive electric cars and the world would be saved.
Going back to electric cars and green energy, we already produce a lot of green energy (wind and photovoltaics), and production is only expanding as it becomes less expensive to make things like solar panels and wind turbines. Perhaps nuclear power is a component of the new energy infrastructure of the future, however, the switch to electric cars will reduce greenhouse fuel emissions in particular ways. By themselves, other people may not have wanted to walk to public transportation, but those reasonable portable electric vehicles make it easier to use public transportation, which would otherwise be too far to get around.
Other techniques that would also help lessen the climate crisis are carbon sequestration in agriculture (e. g. , canopy of land with crops to absorb and store more carbon as biological matter in the soil). Remember, the climate crisis requires means of attack.
These are manageable problems. Reinvesting in rail has made long-term economic sense in roads and trucks for long journeys, I think that’s still true or at least it’s a closed game as opposed to driverless semi-electric if we avoid pretending we don’t heavily subsidize roads.
Infrastructure is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. But in the publication it is assumed that the existing infrastructure will be the one that will bring this burden. We are coming to renewables at an impressive rate. In addition, charging electric vehicles for a significant portion of mileage can be done outside of peak hours when additional demand can be really useful to grid planners by matching base load rather than peak demand.
Alternatively, other people have an added incentive to install their own renewable energy generation to qualify those vehicles, leading to a more distributed and, if done correctly, resilient grid. (My Final Plan)
Why do we deserve to leave when someone else isn’t?If no one starts, the end result is that nothing changes. That’s not an argument. Pure fatalism.
It could have been just sloppy wording, but the last piece turns out to be an intentional insult. It’s a justified position to say that other people who need to switch to a renewable transit formula have no idea. Are you a multidisciplinary expert who has dedicated your life to understanding supply chains, biology, ecology, electronics, electrical formulas and transit infrastructure?
Are electric cars the most productive way to achieve this?Certainly not, but they are the fastest, most maximally effective, and culturally appropriate way in countries that, for better or worse, have been built around everyone owning a car.
For my part, I believe that not slowly cooking the planet and having to breathe the exhaust gases from combustion are goals worth pursuing, even if we do it imperfectly.
U. S. rail miles The U. S. population in 2022 is only 40% of what it was in 1922. The relief is due to the fact that maximum railways are economically unviable. The roads have to be there anyway; I’m not moving from space to city on one track. The structure of the new railways is practical only in very specialized cases, much of which is mining.
They broke/abandoned most of the timelines on the double rail lines when signage and fashion change were invented. This happened almost overnight because the charge of maintaining the rail is higher and there were few benefits to the timeline.
Rail freight transport of EE. UU. es greater than that of Europe in each and every way. Largely because the network is optimized for freight transport. When it works, trucks can’t compete. It is vital to know where the formula is today.
“Reinvesting in rail has made long-term economic sense in roads and trucks for long trips, I think it’s still true or at least a closed game versus driverless semi-electric if we avoid pretending we don’t heavily subsidize roads. “
If this were true, the collective “we” would not have to reinvest in the railway. Large investment corporations would pounce on those very long-term divisions of successful rail transport. They did at the time part of the nineteenth century and the railway inventory a gold mine and anything other people bought for their retirement. True, I think until the 1950s, I think. The end of World War II and the advent of the interstate highway system.
“The End of World War II and the Advent of the Interstate Highway System. “You can’t approve “free markets have killed the railroad” when the market is so ridiculously distorted by a political choice.
There are even fewer personal interstate highways than private railroads, if that’s your benchmark. But it creates entering this market. The contest releases them for free.
The lack of electrical capacity is not limited to California. Several months ago, there was a hackaday article dealing with the scenario in a Canadian province (Quebec?). The research was that despite the very gigantic production capacity, neither production nor distribution can simply deal with off-peak loading if part of the cars in the jurisdiction switched from ICE to EV.
Yes, I only took CA as an example with its recent law banning the sale of combustion cars until 2023.
Typo: 2035
It’s easy. There is no money or strength to acquire in addressing a genuine environmental problem. I mean there is money to be made, however, there is much more to be gained in carbon futures markets, which can only take place if society is forced to settle for green force opportunities and since they (those who do) know that the majority would not voluntarily stick to, they have to force other people to do so.
There is no need to appeal to Big Money or force other people to comply. There are bigger problems. Just like a U. S. fleet. Fully electric in the U. S. , it requires more power than the total existing capacity. This means more than doubling electric power generation and all similar distribution infrastructure and much more. What type of electrical substation do you want in a New York City parking lot?Or an apartment complex or a hotel?
The challenge is overwhelming and the politicians who need to impose substitution until 2035 are crazy. It’s an 80-year project.
“The challenge is overwhelming and the politicians who need to impose substitution until 2035 are crazy. It’s an 80-year project.
That’s not exactly a forced upgrade until 2035: California’s mandate is for *new* vehicles and plug-in hybrids still count as electric vehicles. Lately 50 miles) will be reduced to a minimum to reflect the fact that battery costs decrease as quickly as they expected. Oh, and almost in fact there will be exclusions for other types of cars as well.
I would like them to announce it more as a ban on ‘non-hybrid ICE vehicles’ than an ECI ban. But I.
Or. . . . .
Or, they intend to have 100% electric vehicles, and you may not be able to buy a car or be allowed to buy one. Instead, you will be allowed to call a UBER without EV. I think we assume intentions Instead of doing this, ask direct questions. The answers can be surprising.
“At that time there were no gas stations and the only place where you could buy fuel was a pharmacy. If by chance the pharmacist had a gallon, we were happy. Rarely had we been able to buy in such giant quantities and we had to settle for a pint or a liter.
https://www. saturdayeveningpost. com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/
He also argued in the HaD article about Ms. Benz.
It’s not about the environment. It is a question of liquidating the kulaks again. This is the thrust of so many recent policy decisions. They have done it before and will do it again. People who continue to accept as true with them after the twentieth century is complete nonsense.
The truth of weather science means we want to avoid burning fossil fuels. This is a requirement of planet Earth, or at least for our survival. It’s a choice between not having cars of any kind (because society has collapsed due to global warming) or not having combustion cars at all. Getting rid of ICE cars is a matter of physics, not virtual signage.
Climate scientists don’t lie about CO2 and its effect and that’s where the duty ends. These are the possible options we have: electric cars or nothing.
So, either we drive electric vehicles: let’s solve the infrastructure challenge (hey, Hackaday is for engineers, it’s our thing!); solve the copper challenge (and a host of other technical challenges); aim not to destroy the planet by seeking to solve those challenges; solve the shipping challenge (more local production/trains/better batteries/Tesla Semi, etc. ); boost the world with renewables and/or nuclear if we can scale it up fast enough; reduce energy consumption (teleworking, small vehicles, public transport, walking, cycling, e-scooter if possible); Improve passive air conditioning.
There are another 50 million people in the Americas who are not allowed to be here, consume and broadcast. Limiting your emissions by sending them correctly to your home country is the right resolution for any serious user about a climate cataclysm.
Displacing other people does not affect their emissions.
From what I’ve seen, it’s the lifestyles of the average American that contribute disproportionately to the planet’s demise: you’re guilty of far more emissions in line with the capita than almost anything else, so consistent with you may not cast the first stone. Correct?
I have to answer myself because there is no answer under JohnU yet. Just get straight to the point. “Climate science” is a social science. The reason is purely political, and the final game prepares China for global domination (making you a literal slave). You absolutely rule out an invasion of my country and go straight to blame average elegance because it has the maximum effect in terms of destabilizing the country. Everyone who leaves the rat nests goes through the Democrats is evicted so that all that urban heritage can be saved by nothing, and then super-dense living situations and miles of factories become the norm. You didn’t even mention China or India, but you controlled swiping a “per capita” so you can get out of the truth we share.
Beethoven’s Sonata No. 25 in G principal is applicable to his message.
Power outages in California occur in the summer because the sun generates heat and heat generates alternating current.
Electric vehicle owners charge at night, while they sleep, when the sun is shining and the demand for air conditioning is much lower. And demand from commercial/industrial consumers is also much lower.
I don’t think it affects EV owners.
Sure, there will be spaces with absolutely dysfunctional force networks, like ERCOT in Texas, but that’s a problem of mismanagement, not basic.
Electric cars don’t have their problems, adding that many run quietly or have more raw power.
But when it comes to pollutants from urban centers, it’s a step forward.
Or we can simply avoid replacing cars so regularly and settle for them to be a long-term investment to be taken care of, not a prestige accessory to be replaced as occasionally as you can imagine for the biggest and most recent.
Good point, with less driving. I still drive 20-year-old vehicles.
Also, take a look at lithium and copper. On the contrary, lithium is a more exotic detail on the old planet Earth.
And lately operated in the Andes and China.
and Australia.
Make a law to abolish rust. We legislate so that it no longer exists.
And let’s also put a massive tax on new cars, say 50% or so, that will keep other people in their old cars.
Do you have other tactics for your goals?
“Make one to abolish rust”
You don’t want to remove rust (ha), you want to find a better defrosting technique. Or simply, you know. Wash that damn car.
Do you have any genuine evidence that spending thousands of dollars on car washes is worth it?If you spend $5,000 on a car wash and increase the price of your car by $500, it’s obviously a bad deal.
As Click and Clack said, “Remove the wheels, then put them back and even more!”
$5000? ? What do you wash with, liquid gold or what?
Who cars about the price of the car?It is an asset that depreciates: the only thing that matters is how long it is able to continue providing transportation. Can a car necessarily indefinitely be less than the price of a new vehicle?Yes, absolutely.
20-year-old cars at least lack things like more modern loan zones and portion availability. Lower fuel consumption is also typical.
The merit of owning a car in recent years is that some things are standard. Rearview or GPS cameras or airbags, etc.
A broader question, besides cameras “that lately drive legally automatically” or electric vehicles, what hardware innovations will there be for passenger cars in the next decade?This is like the difference of virtual assets for games or a new cell phone. . Before there were big differences.
Now, the upcoming 10. 22 edition of Lara Croft is very similar to the 10. 21 edition.
Uhhh, there has been no significant law of destiny turn since the 90s with an implementation in the past 90s. My 2007, who is 15 years old, has everything you communicate when you think about security. Heck, even my vintage car from 1976 has yield zones.
I hate to tell you, but 20 years ago, it was 2002, when cars came with almost every single protection feature they had now. Also, the last time I reviewed, the last major improvement in fuel power was the hybrid engine, which was introduced commercially 25 years ago.
You’re about 10 years behind with those comments.
Germans in particular have perfected the “endless monetary abyss. “It is less expensive to upgrade this middle-aged Benz and then maintain it. Expensive devices of marginal application from front to back. Planned obsolescence, with German precision. Assistance cars with low resale values must be totaled on time.
Alternate battery chemistry is approaching (look for graphene aluminum battery)
With fusion and flying cars
Stay tuned for Tokamak’s merger demonstration for 2024
“In those experiments, we have reached, for the first time in a fusion studies facility, a state of fiery plasma where more fusion energy is emitted through the fuel than is needed to initiate fusion reactions, or the number of paints done on the fuel,” said Annie Kritcher, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). where NIF is located.
His LLNL colleague Alex Zylstra added: “Decades of experiments have produced fusion reactions with gigantic amounts of ‘external’ heat to heat plasma; Now, for the first time, we have a formula in which fusion itself provides maximum heat.
“This is a key step in the upper levels of fusion performance. “
Previous attempts to succeed at this level have been limited by demanding situations in plasma shape control. But the NIF researchers proposed an advanced experimental design involving the use of pills that can hold more fuel and more energy while containing plasma.
Even when plasma combustion is achieved, the force is still lost in the process. But this is one of the last remaining steps before NIF’s broader purpose of “igniting” and autonomous force generation.
During ignition, the power released through fusion reactions exceeds that delivered to the fuel via laser.
In August 2021, the NIF reported that they had reached close to 70% ignition.
However, even with those advances, they only assume that we won’t see any genuine commercialization until the middle of the century. Who knows, it will be a breakthrough that will speed up the timeline.
Popular clinical articles drive me crazy. They are incredibly poorly communicated. Yes, we’re closer to fusion than we were in the twentieth century, but that’s because, well. . . People were complete liars in the twentieth century.
NIF is a *physical* fusion experiment: they need to examine plasmas that burn hydrogen. They don’t try to generate electrical power because the energy production is pathetic compared to the actual electrical energy input (lasers are super inefficient).
Tokamaks are plasma physics experiments right now: none of them can generate fusion energy frequently because they don’t have the fuel: if they tried, the world would run out of tritium in about a month. To be a suitable plant, they want the progression of a canopy variety (which, according to this discussion, requires lithium). No one has demonstrated a continuous generation of tritium at this point.
It is not fair of me that the organization merges with “mythical long-term technologies”, because it is more advanced, but. . . It’s not much more advanced.
And if my years of reading HaD (Popular Mechanics before that) are anything to say, they will be!
The chassis might be sold in various styles and sizes, but it would have axle mounts and popular accessories for the motor, battery, HVAC unit, and plates. Glove box would be added.
With everything unlockable and removable without problems, even repainting the chassis would be undeniable and much cheaper (may require anti-theft locking mechanisms).
The stainless metal chassis would be one thing, and although expensive, even the non-rich would save and buy one, as it would necessarily be a once-in-a-lifetime acquisition, which would save a lot of money over time.
Cars that other people buy once and stay their entire lives replacing only parts on the road can be a reality.
It would be a lot for the planet.
The only reasons this happens are social.
People stink!
>Far fewer moving parts and systems are required to make it feasible.
Although that’s not true.
Unless you are able to do without vacuum assisted brakes, ABS, forced steering, air conditioning. . . etc. In addition, you want other fast systems for electric cars, such as cooling pumps for battery thermal control and air-to-air heat pumps because you no longer have hot water to heat the cabin.
And since the battery still costs as much as a full small car to replace, the car becomes disposable anyway. This is already the case for car wrecks, as some minor battery damage means you have to pay more than the car total to repair it. that.
Yes, I don’t know why other people think that a battery over 1,000 pounds filled with rare metals and confusing chemistry will be less expensive to upgrade than an engine part with a third of its weight made of metal or aluminum. Motors are worth replace, they probably wouldn’t think batteries are.
From now on, car thieves will look for borrowed car batteries to obtain lithium or catalytic converters for their turntable.
In addition, Chile holds 54% of the world’s lithium reserves.
Chile will soon vote on a new charter (September 4, IIRC) that has 268 articles and is complete with rules on the environment and climate change, and if approved, will send shockwaves to the economy.
Putting a letter into position is not a bad thing, however, it is many articles, the complexity can be understood through many other people, and it is written with weasel words through lawyers. It is controversial, ambiguous in the sense that any passage can be read badly or intelligently, leading many other people to wonder whether it will be smart or bad for Chile.
It is expected that if the charter is approved, maximum mining activities will be nationalized, which will result in fewer resources to acquire in the global economy.
There is a possibility that, if Chile’s charter is adopted, it will halt attempts to transition to electric vehicles for at least several years.
(Note: I’m not opposed to Chile getting a new constitution, and that’s their business anyway. I’m just pointing out the existing scenario related to mining in Chile. )
I bet those are “proven reserves. ” The explanation for why they need to exploit them there is because of environmental laws. Peru will settle for taking the industry/money.
As a Chilean, well, the new charter had nothing to do with the nationalization of anything (the worst thing like it would allow the “restitution” of lands to indigenous peoples without the right to return to existing legal owners), but anyway, on Sunday 61. 9% of the population (voting was compulsory this time, Before all elections were voluntary) made the decision that the new charter was the cadres of a gang of clowns and we stayed, for now, in the existing one.
Now, as someone who works for a mining industry supplier, I can say that the biggest challenge we face is the lack of water, which is imperative for copper and lithium mining. And in the case of copper, the article is surely right that ore concentrations are decreasing, with sulphide deposits above 1% having virtually disappeared.
When I was a child (in the 90s), they said that with a value of 1 dollar a pound, the wonderful country (receiving budget of the “surpluses” of CODELCO, the state mining group). Today, some of the largest mines charge upwards of $2 per pound of cargo, and not far from $3, meaning the pandemic’s record price of nearly $5 didn’t leave much revenue, let alone the existing price. See daylight, with decreasing ore grades, water desalination plants, most beloved electric power, and combined oxide/sulfur minerals.
More than enough copper in the world. It is hung from poles and buried under each and every street and courtyard. Most people have abandoned the classic landlines to communicate, but the infrastructure is there. It’s time to start shooting or digging up.
It is still used for fireplace alarms, do you accept as truth with a fiber optic cable for this?Copper pairs do not need amplification and are much more reliable in case of a power cut (which accompanies the chimneys).
What is the economics of tearing sidewalks and disrupting fuel lines into copper in twisted pair?Do you paint for free?
Having worked in telecommunications, yes, I accept as true with fiber optics more than copper, it is not affected by the maximum of elements that degrade or interfere with copper connections to the maximum without exception.
Things like alarms/backup service are a problem, however, they resolve seamlessly with minimal generation, such as a battery-powered modem or just an extra pair of copper to inject power.
Industry in the UK is (very late) upgrading much of the network to fibre (normally FTTC), an operation that largely requires it not to be interrupted or excavated, as large packets of copper cables are removed from the conduits and new thin fibre is installed. The optical cables are put in place, and the scrap price of a few million kilometers of copper is smart the last time they looked at me. . .
Telecommunications cables are tiny. Digging buried telecommunications cables costs more than the cable is worth.
Absurdité. La maximum of those copper lines are used for the Internet than telephone services.
Oof this comes home, I live in Arizona and was very interested in the Oak Flats/Resolution Copper mining controversy. There are many reasons why this is a bad idea, adding the high use of water (during a drought no less), the prospect of ecological crisis of stored mining tailings, the low advantages for the local economy, the destruction of sacred sites on indigenous lands and the circumvention of the democratic procedure that allowed the allocation to go ahead in the first place. . .
Anyway, the only advantages of this allocation (for the global market, whether for the state or the United States, let’s talk about promoting our herbal resources to foreign corporations for a pittance), is the accumulation at the source of copper for the largest deposit left in the United States.
Knowing the higher collateral prices of copper mining and the difficulty of gathering global demand, how could copper recovery/recycling potentially help?
You know, is there a piece of land that is not “sacred” through indigenous peoples?
I mean, does it matter if no one in the force cares anyway?I think this consultation is useful for assuaging national guilt if it can justify a cynical enough, but probably dead, response otherwise.
I’m not indigenous and I don’t know the answer, but Oak Flats is still used for coming-of-age ceremonies, it no longer belongs to the tribe. At one point, he got rid of probably the same explanation for why the federal government got rid of land from any reservations.
In a way, I don’t think electric cars are very present in this discussion.
I was surprised when a recent [Lewin Day] article didn’t get a “heaven falls!” perspective.
1
Not to mention all the copper miles of the average exchange: distribution boards, contacts, all the relays and electronic devices that can be greatly reduced when only transferred to send information on a piece of glass to the visitor or cabinet.
Then there is the relief of force requirements, you can determine the length of all your copper wires and giant 48V busbars, the length of your backup battery and generator, etc.
This might be true for Norway, but it’s not true for most Western countries. Most of the web is based on copper, FTTH is very rare.
And for countries where very thin copper lines are very well installed in the earth, they don’t value them.
Electric cars look great until you consider:
It takes much longer to “refuel” ICE (yes, overnight charging at home can alleviate this challenge in some cases)
A line to “fill” at a fast-charging station can result in hours of waiting just to have a place to qualify if it becomes a normal day (I saw a video of this in China, the line went down the street and around the block)
The grid infrastructure and power generation required for electric vehicles will want to be large enough if all/nearly everyone changes
Higher demand for electric power will lead to higher rates
In bloodless weather, the usable decreases a little.
When the battery reaches the end of its useful life, the cost of replacing the battery will most likely charge much more than the vehicle, and as a result, the vehicle will almost be thrown away, making it difficult to acquire viable used electric vehicles.
Many parts of electric cars (batteries in particular) are manufactured in countries like China, which are hesitant to generate a lot of pollutants to make so-called “clean” cars.
As it stands, it turns out that this benefits car brands, charging station appliance brands and network infrastructure appliance brands, much more than end users.
I’ll stick with my old ICE cars for now, until authoritarian governments start banning gasoline and diesel in the call to “save the planet. “
Aceptar. De done, I will get permanent plates on my truck to maintain it. I can buy a lot of fuel for the purchase value of a new truck. . . or charging electric vehicle battery replacements. . . Matriz. La economy just isn’t there.
Wind power is less expensive than any other energy source. The main challenge is the energy garage when there is a surplus of energy and there is not enough space to install wind power.
We have a first-generation electric vehicle: a Renault Zoe with a 22 kWh battery. He traveled 50,000 kilometers in 5. 5 years. The fitness of the batteries was measured last week and is 98%.
When would you expect the battery to succeed at the end of its useful life?
The car originally had a value of £19,000. By the time the battery arrives at EOL for driving (and converts to a battery at base charge); the charge for a replacement battery will be approximately $80/kWh or less. $80 x 22 = $1760, or about 10% of the car charge (as $1 < £1).
Those are numbers.
Ironically, it’s states like Texas that are the true authoritarians, because they don’t even allow other people to buy a Tesla EV within the state, even if the Tesla EVs are made in Texas!Even California will allow you to buy an ICE until 2035.
Here’s the irony: The faster the U. S. adopts electric vehicles, the more the more electric vehicles are. In the U. S. (and the world), the longer it can remain its smog monster. In fact, it will decrease the leakage from the U. S. carbon budget. Scrapped. Sure, there may not be any fuel stations left until 2040, but I’m sure it can also produce enough biofuel for an occasional trip ;-)Array
It sounds like an illusion :). An “equivalent” truck with the mandatory shipping force and distance is not yet planned (well, Ford and others are on it). But I bet it’s not $19,000 :). Nor the charging of a spare battery on the road. Also, you can’t throw a jerry can in the back to get yourself off the mountain (a backup battery??? no). . . . Electricity has room for “some” limited applications, but not all. Electric cars are not the answer. The energy has to come from somewhere to feed them. . . . And the inference design isn’t there yet to allow “everyone” to connect.
As for his Zoé, it competes with the mini and the Fiat 500. . . so it’s a small car. According to a quick analysis, the charge starts at $32,000 for the small vehicle today, which is almost with the current charges for this class.
As for the life of the battery, of course it will depend on its use and years of service and the environment in which it is used. And it works. . . until it no longer works. Only Florida’s circle of relatives buys a used electric vehicle for their child with only 60,000 miles (it must come with the few miles). The battery is depleted. $ 14,000 for the battery. But it was interrupted. Now, what do you do?. . . The charge of the spare battery was higher than the price of the Ford Focus, even if you could get it. I guess that would be an explanation for why keep buying new cars and landfills. . . The battery runs out, get a new vehicle. . . Winning for :)Array dealers
As for Texas: https://texasaz. com/how-to-buy-a-tesla-in-texas/Array Do it however you can.
As for Kalifornia (and the coast), an explanation of why other people are leaving this state. . .
Electric cars come out of the mountains loose thanks to regenerative braking.
Even the U. S. network is a major contributor. The U. S. can handle the transfer to electric vehicles, and offer the capability is possible; I mean, it’s possible for the UK, only five GW/year, so it’s possible for the US. U. S. It’s worth remembering that oil refineries use as much electrical energy to refine 1 liter of oil as an electric vehicle does to drive as far as an ICE does with 1 liter (there’s a fully charged episode that explains this).
Yes, the Zoe is a small car, a super mini. When we bought it, in 2017, it cost £19,000 new (with government funding), but for us it only cost £7,500, because we had bought a 6-month showroom-style and the new Zoe 40 had just come out (with twice the battery).
Again, choosing an anecdote about a faulty EV battery is rarely very representative, right?It’s not just about how much you drive it, but how you drive it and the underlying battery control system. For example, early Nissan Leafs had no battery cooling. ; and in Florida, this can be especially vital for maintaining battery life. In fact, the first Leaf have a relatively immediate battery degradation.
“The charge of the replacement battery is higher than what the Ford Focus is worth” I had not heard of an electric Ford Focus, but in fact they existed. To make electric vehicles, is it rarely much that?And this is your first example of an EV?
Still, why do you think EV batteries go to landfill?It should be noted that Nissan and Tesla have already launched battery recycling channels.
And no, you can’t buy a Tesla in Texas: “Currently, Tesla has to build their cars in Texas and then ship them out of state to sell to Texans, after which they will return to the state as owners of their new owner. Here’s how it’s done. From InsideEVs, June 2022:
https://insideevs. com/news/590606/tesla-excluded-from-texas-extensive-rebate-program/
Anyway, thanks for the conversation! Bravo de Julz
I have my doubts about Zoe’s SOH measurements: in particular, they had a magical BMS upgrade that improved everyone’s fitness until the mid-90s, which made me wonder if they switched to measuring it instead of the advertised overall capacity. Which, well, just lies: it means your SOH possibly won’t degrade at all for several years, and then start temporarily declining once it’s below advertised capacity.
Lithium-ion batteries have an aging schedule, just like any other battery: you can’t use them at all and the capacity fades away. After five years, it just can’t be at 98% of the original capacity, chemistry completely prevents it. .
The original design capability through this measures 118%, so if it’s at 98%, that means it’s at a “true” SOH of 83%, which is much more consistent. It’s quite conceivable that the battery is actually “bigger” than the design too (margins over margins).
“The cost of a replacement battery will be around $80/kWh or less. $80 x 22 = $1760, or about 10% of the cost of the car (since $1 < £1). "
Oh, seriously, I wish you the best in this effort. There is a strong *deterrent* for automakers to supply replacement batteries at any *closed* market price, which means that if you need batteries at a reasonable price, you will depend on rebuilding third-party packages, which are going to be very reasonable because they have no scale for them.
That said, comparing cars for Europe and cars for the US. UU. es just silly, geography and demographics are too different. Given the infrastructure in Europe, the fact that cars are as widespread as they are is insane. In cities, period.
Urban spaces have public transport, but other than that, no. And other people also have to take cars to pass by. So you will also have to enter the city.
The United States wants cars in the city even if you live there, that’s the difference. Banning cars will put other people at a disadvantage in non-urban areas.
I said ban cars *in* cities. Out-of-town cars are parked right on the edge and transferred to public transport inside. Locals keep their cars parked at the border if they so choose.
In addition, it makes Array Start downtown, start by the streets to public traffic, do more. In Europe, it is very simple, many urban centers are already closed to cars.
Yes, shipping complicates things, but shipping to a city is a crisis anyway: start hiring a business to internally source and distribute only electric vehicles, and turn it into a functional mail route.
Start with fusion power, then abundant and reliable electricity, stock your cities with desalinated water, and use concentrated saline waste streams to extract the minerals you need. While doing so, it can also extract dissolved CO2 to hydrogenate it with H2 from the water as well, as there are many uses for hydrocarbons that have no viable alternative. Minerals that cannot be extracted from seawater can be discovered on the moon or on asteroids. What other people are looking to do right now, and the order in which they do it, doesn’t make much sense, you can’t build a sustainable economy from the sensible down, you have to perceive the basics first, so that everyone can have their flying robot cars, or whatever.
There’s a lot of copper to get – right in front of us – all those old phone lines snaking through all the telephone poles that at this point are not used thanks to fiber and mobile telephony. They will have to fall faster or later and I hope that PVC and copper can be separated in an environmentally friendly way. I guess the amount tied to the telephone poles alone is large.
I would have no idea that copper would be a restrictive element in the production of electric vehicles. Nickel and lithium are major problems.
When CA announced it would ban the sale of new ICEs until 2035, I did a calculation on the back of the envelope:
To me, that’s the biggest bottleneck. Those who advocate the large conversion from ICE to BEV (leaving our car usage behavior unchanged) will have to settle for this requiring a large accumulation (several orders of magnitude) in mining activity, for Li in particular, but also for Ni, Co and some other metals. This in itself will have a huge environmental impact and won’t come cheap. (Ni’s value has doubled in the past two years. )
Battery recycling will help, and progress is being made, but it will be enough to meet the global demand for Li, Ni and Co for electrification.
There is a significant amount of GHGs incorporated into the structure of a BEV, largely due to those battery fabrics, much more than with ICE vehicles. With a typical force network, it can take four to 6 years of BEV driving before total GHGs are generated. emissions from production and use begin to fall below the price of an ICE driven the same distance. The equilibrium point occurs first in regions of low-GHG electrical energy sources and then in systems with high GHG emissions.
This online page is very useful for examining the effect of GHGs on your electrical power supply: https://app. electrical energymaps. com/map
The source of electricity in most of the United States (with the exception of the state of WA and MT parts) is namely, “green. “New York State (which has a blank grid, by U. S. standards)UU. ).
It can be argued that many more daily trips can be electrified by switching en masse to PHEVs with an electrical diversity of about 70 km, where the same 10 kg of Li can electrify five daily trips than just one in a natural BEV.
It can be further argued that what we want to do is make big investments and prioritize public transport, to get other people out of their cars for regime travel. An electric bus seats about six Teslas of Li: this steel does much more. Smarter electrifying thousands of passenger trips than sitting under the hood of a car that’s parked most of the day.
Air travel is another Pandora’s box, with its own superior carbon effect (a circular NYC-LA vacation is worth about 5,500 miles of driving, which is several months of travel for most people).
I expect that with California (and probably the nation) only requiring the sale of new electric vehicles, the price of gasoline will go down as will demand. Gasoline will be difficult to throw away. Therefore, my already paid cars will have virtually no operating charges. I also didn’t hear anything about regulating the purchase and sale of gasoline-powered cars prior to 2035, or how smog and emissions will be regulated at that time either. Currently, nothing before the 1976 style year wants to be polluted, but that’s such a small portion of cars on the road that it’s irrelevant.
Also, I even thought about replacing some fault-prone parts in my existing car and was surprised to learn that California has legislation that opposes converting anything to do with intake or exhaust, even though it makes the car cleaner and more efficient. It’s just stupid. So I can’t wait to see how this stupid state solves the smog challenge after the 2035 ban on the sale of new ICE cars. Maybe it’s as effective as all the California gun control measures they’ve had, well, they have had virtually no measurable measures. an effect on gun violence in the state.
I’m sure they’ll take fuel through a combination of regulations and rooftop taxes, and perhaps in all likelihood a total ban. Don’t think for a minute if they force everyone to replace their electric vehicle, they will rejoice and be at peace. Then the electrical energy used to tax electric cars will be rationed.
Quote from the article:
“The concept is to phase out cars powered by combustion engines and upgrade them with electric cars instead. “
And that’s a bad concept. The right concept would be to replace the way we move. More public transport. More on foot, passing by motorcycle and small vehicles. Vehicles adapted to the type of navigation they are going to perform.
Fewer vehicles.
This all-out discussion about power is absolutely unnecessary if I have to drive 25km in my SUV to get some races.
For those who remain, copper will suffice.
I know, hard to swallow. But we will be forced, in a (painful) way or (a little later, much more painful).
It’s already getting started.
Wholeheartedly agree. I think the whole argument of “BEV for all” is a distraction from a serious verbal exchange about urban planning, transit and road use.
In fact, with some other lifestyle adjustments, such as not sending new fruit to the other side of the world, fewer “disposable” products, etc.
This will not be done because public transport in rural areas is very bad, think a couple of times a day and do not pass by.
There have been long-standing efforts to replace it, which has happened, because it is economically viable.
In addition, you will have to bring what you have bought, and many things cannot be done with a motorcycle alone. The others who say this are all other guys with cars, who don’t know what it’s like not to have one. a car.
“This is not going to happen because public transport in rural areas is very bad, think a couple of times a day and do not pass by. “
People in rural areas do want to change. There are enough to count. Wyoming travels about 18 000 kilometers depending on the user according to the year, and New York travels about 6000 kilometers according to the user according to the year. Thus, Wyoming citizens drive 3 times more than New York citizens, but New York has *40 times* the population.
Rural spaces don’t matter. Urban and suburban spaces are important. The metropolitan spaces of Los Angeles and New York account for 7% of miles traveled nationwide. It’s possible that the entire state of Wyoming will prevent driving and probably wouldn’t even be measurable in terms of emissions.
“In fact, a fashionable electric vehicle requires about twice as much copper as a classic combustion engine vehicle. So if we need the entire automotive industry to build electric vehicles, this will increase the automotive industry’s demand for copper through 150%. “
You say electric cars use twice as much copper, so if we move to making just electric cars, ICE cars, the demand for copper would increase up to 200% and 150%, unless you mean 150% more in most cases. What we have now would correspond to 250% of the existing call, but where do you get that 150%?
PHEV!Why do we continually forget about the steps for BEV?When battery generation improves, full BEV shipping will make sense. As it stands, this is the case.
But if we all had plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, most of our transportation would be electric, with some fossils when needed. I have a 2022 Ford Escape Hybrid. With the market, I may get the PHEV in a period of time that met my needs. It needed the hybrid or PHEV edition to allow flat towing.
I constantly get more than a portion of my miles from the battery. If I had only secured the PHEV version, you wouldn’t need fuel for weeks. My battery capacity also wouldn’t be large enough to overload weight or tax network charging cycles. . If we want the adoption of cleaner private vehicles and forget about hybrid and plug-in hybrid generation, we are not looking to solve ANY problems. We seek to make sure that those who have invested heavily in BEV generation do so. A benefit based on legislation!
From the point of view of natural vehicles, PHEVs are really attractive. There is a more advantageous value for money in the electrification of the first 70 kilometers of driving between five and six families compared to the electrification of the first 350 kilometers. of driving through a family (in terms of where lithium, nickel, and electric power goes). When our ICE car breaks down, I hope to transfer to PHEV as well.
But I would still say that a serious overhaul of “car culture” is necessary.
I’m not saying that. I would gladly bring exercise to paintings every day if it made sense. This is not the case here. My travels in the UK and France. . . It was eye-opening. My local would take twice as long in an uncomfortable and crowded exercise, and will most likely face delays and local freight routes in the summer.
If the DC subway extended the red line to Laurel MD, I would use it in paintings. But then they need you to pay to park, which increases expenses. They make the grounds too small, so you’ll be looking for an area for a while. of time. I live in a rural area. It is not imaginable to walk or bike to the station or the extended red line station. So the moment I leave home, find and locate a parking area (paid or not), do the exercise and walk to squares of the destination subway station, spending about the same amount of cash as me to buy and maintain a car and a significant loss of time compared to getting into my hybrid and enjoying a comfortable round trip. It also allows me to run errands while traveling and keep my home life stable.
There are no simple answers. But BEV isn’t even an answer at this point. It’s a “feel smart with your choices” mentality that humans value when we pretend to be smart people. Even when math and science don’t work out.
“But I would still say that a serious overhaul of ‘car culture’ is needed. “
Personal cars contribute 15% of greenhouse fuel emissions in the United States. And the average fleet economy in the U. S. The U. S. economy is well below the mileage of new cars (about 1. 67 times worse in terms of fuel consumption). Which means that with the right incentives for fleet economy (subsidizing the sale of new highly effective used cars), you can gently decrease that fraction to less than 10%. Maybe even go further than that if you tax giant cars to force American cars back to a 1970s distribution (if I had said rethink SUV culture, I’d buy it).
At this point. . . Why are you so concerned about less than 10% of emissions?Electricity production is 25%, commercial emissions are 25%, agricultural emissions are 11%.
People say ‘car culture’ is challenging because it’s the simplest thing to point out, but the electrification of cars has a terrible setback in investment in terms of carbon emissions. It’s better to throw money away, god, almost anything else.
Here we lack the maximum: we have met the enemy and that is us.
We don’t have a pollutant challenge or a carbon challenge or an electric vehicle challenge, we have a other people’s challenge. There are too many of us, and as a species, we stink. Get rid of other people, we get rid of the challenge.
Nature tried the COVID-19 pandemic but we prevailed, we “won” this skirmish. The next step is. . . (see Universal Existential Almanac). . . It looks like a giant meteor. Fingers crossed. I don’t need to go any further and have to revel in a global nuclear conflagration, that would be bad for everything. Better to spend quietly thinking seriously about what we have done.
Interesting. Do you have any knowledge about that?
“[A] trendy EV requires about twice as much copper as a classic combustion engine vehicle. So if we need the entire automotive industry to manufacture electric vehicles, this will increase the automotive industry’s copper demand by 150%. »
You don’t combine and combine too much, that’s not how math works.
Make your numbers consistent internally before publicly expressing math-based feedback. Otherwise, other people who perceive fundamental mathematics might start thinking about making things up.
Timely UK Sign Headline: “California Asks Others Not to Rate Electric Car Heatwave”
So sometime between the time you can recharge your battery before you get home from work and the time you get home and plug in your car to charge it overnight. . . You can’t. Because it’s hot. It is obviously a technology of global economy, in a position to use.
I think I get your point but:
How does “night” charging work from 16:00 to 21:00?
EV will raise more pollution. Where does the energy come from to recharge them?
Copper? There is plenty of copper at CERN near Geneva. All the copper you need. Thousands of tons of stuff.
I wonder if it would be economical to restart one of the huge copper mines in northern Michigan soon. There are tons of them here, and you would get them locally instead of China.
I find it unfortunate and unexpected that the author and readers do not know that aluminum has a lower strength than copper by weight. Copper has a lower strength by volume.
It seems to people that there would be less efficiency, when there would not be. To have the same strength and efficiency, the engine would be slightly larger, but weigh less.
You assume that the comparative motors are composed entirely of copper or aluminum and that the weights are replaced linearly. There is little explanation for why to think that. In addition, aluminum has other properties that differ from copper, which prevents it from being a declining replacement.
If aluminum were a convenient and less expensive replacement for copper wires, everyone would use them. Since strength is a service of surface domain rather than density, aluminum is and never will be a viable replacement for high-power copper in use.
Perhaps electrostatic motors can help? Without the need for coils, there is no real need for copper. I don’t know if giant stacks of interlocking thin plates can be in a car.
The fact that Tesla hasn’t started providing a swappable battery that you can simply swap out at each and every fuel station switched to a battery charging station is evidence that it’s not about cutting emissions. This is the only effective way to address all of the factors discussed, adding the least discussed factor which is the end of life waste that the battery creates, the maximum vital component is the short time those batteries last and the reduced charge capacity is degrades. and power well before any end of life scenario. There are still 50 years of battery progression and SUPPLY OF MATERIALS and FUEL FOR POWER PLANTS before we can start restricting combustion engine cars. I can’t believe you all fell in love with Elon’s games. As adults, they deserve to be ashamed of their blinding ignorance focused on the price of inventory. You are the ones pushing the button on the economy and pushing us headlong into the subscription economy, shoddy goods, and slavery. And it IS bondage when you are kept in the hedonic customer rut to buy yet another man-made masterpiece of obsolescence so you can work harder each year to update the commons each and every year instead. to pass on forged family assets that last at least two generations. You and your neutered (or furry) sons with finishocrine disorders get what you deserve. If only you could catch up with the science and realize you need lots of small local fail-safe nuclear reactors to decrease line losses, avoid the need for a HUGE amount of raw fabrics to expand infrastructure to take car from all new EV cars (not to mention the economy will never be booming enough to financially justify this in enough parts of the US) and lock up uranium resources to even START floating your car dreams completely electric, and even that might not allow for individual ownership, just a bus/taxi network operating in an increasingly constrained hyper-dense urban environment with only corporate cars allowed out of doors to get around. occupy nu-agri garbage fields to be dumped into the pit of the morons of the entertainment economy. Fewer paintings, more free time, “more artists” living in coffin-sized rooms where 2-4 lumps are pumped, creating love and dust at a shrinking age of access. You know it’s your fantasy, don’t deny it. However, it is not mine. Let us hope that the deepest human sensibilities will triumph and end the slide into this unimaginable EV cellular suicide utopia as soon as imaginable and take charge of our own insecure long term through the moralizing of PlaySkool Plastic Food and Convenience powered by ultra energy. ” green”: wasteful. In fact, I can’t believe how many of you are blown away and fall from the sky. We even have buffoons who believe that overnight charging cost declines will stick around after everyone charges their cars, millions of cars, and you expect that to stick around? Huh…it’s like the variables and dynamics of the formula are stuck forever…try to THINK.
Be friendly and respectful so that the comment segment is excellent. (Feedback Policy)
This uses Akismet to reduce spam. Find out how your feedback knowledge is handled.