Forum Discussion
122 Replies
fj12ryder wrote:
Oh, you're just being a hater and naysayer. Those problems will all be worked out, just ask the EV proponents, just don't expect specific answers. Rather, you'll hear "We've faced problems before and got through them", "Technology is progressing faster every year, those issues will be solved too", "If you constantly nitpick, you'll never get anywhere". :)
Not a naysayer or hater, just asking difficult questions. And if my questions have no answers, then that is important to know: EV smart people have no answers.FWC wrote:
I am not sure I understand the logic here. We can also 'follow the money" on fossil fuels, and there isn't the situation 'we know it is bad, we just don't want to change'.
EVs are not perfect by any stretch, but it is at least a step in the right direction and allows flexibility in energy sourcing. If you don't think they are the best solution, what would you suggest?
I think we are all aware of the evils of fossil fuels. What I am challenging are the obvious potential evils of EV (period). BTW, framing the debate by suggesting: "yes EV's are evil, but IC's are worse" is a strawman argument.
As a avid conservationist (as in leave no trace), I am appalled of the official recommendations to combat EV fires: Pour 3,000-32,000 gallons of water or let it burn out.
There are farmlands in central California that sitting idle do to water rationing. Methinks there are better solutions than creating a product that requires massive water usage. But like I said, follow the money--that is the path to the real game.Timmo! wrote:
Moral of the story: Follow the money, as "alternative energy" is a nothing but con game.
Replacing bad with "not so bad, we hope".
I am not sure I understand the logic here. We can also 'follow the money" on fossil fuels, and there isn't the situation 'we know it is bad, we just don't want to change'.
EVs are not perfect by any stretch, but it is at least a step in the right direction and allows flexibility in energy sourcing. If you don't think they are the best solution, what would you suggest?Timmo! wrote:
Oh, you're just being a hater and naysayer. Those problems will all be worked out, just ask the EV proponents, just don't expect specific answers. Rather, you'll hear "We've faced problems before and got through them", "Technology is progressing faster every year, those issues will be solved too", "If you constantly nitpick, you'll never get anywhere". :)
So, it is "green" to...
1. Consume millions of gallons of water to mine lithium via a production processes that my native state, California, would never permit--due to the environmental destruction. (OK to destroy land that is far away?)
2. Mine an element that has an extremely limited supply. Lithium makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth’s crust. Chile produces most of the element for the world market, with Australia coming in second.
3. Consume 3,000 - 32,000 gallons of water to extinguish an EV fire (while at the same time requiring installation low flush toilets in new homes requiring 2-3 flushes).
4. Create an energy cell (lithium battery) that is both a fire hazard and has killed many people (including 34 people that burned alive in the dive boat Conception).
5. To recycle said energy cell at near 100% efficiency, the material must be smelted at 1500°C (over 2700°F).
6. To fire said smelter to over 2700°F, will surely require fossil fuels (transported by those ugly diesel truck tankers, as pipelines are no longer chic, Keystone).
7. When I was young, I remember being told that nuclear power is a great source for alternative energy (it burns no fuel and no greenhouse pollutants are emitted). Problem was what to do with the spent fuel rods, as there was no operational plan to transport and store them.
8. What is the plan to transport, store and recycle the nearly 13 million tons of EV batteries when they are replaced during 2021-2030?
IMO, strategies of "hope" are usually destined to failure; as not everyone will do the right thing, at the right time.- Moral of the story: Follow the money, as "alternative energy" is a nothing but con game.
Replacing bad with "not so bad, we hope".
Yes, let's bring water into the discussion. Second reason why I moved from So Cali to Oregon. Timmo! wrote:
So, it is "green" to...
1. Consume millions of gallons of water to mine lithium via a production processes that my native state, California, would never permit--due to the environmental destruction. (OK to destroy land that is far away?)
2. Mine an element that has an extremely limited supply. Lithium makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth’s crust. Chile produces most of the element for the world market, with Australia coming in second.
3. Consume 3,000 - 32,000 gallons of water to extinguish an EV fire (while at the same time requiring installation low flush toilets in new homes requiring 2-3 flushes).
4. Create an energy cell (lithium battery) that is both a fire hazard and has killed many people (including 34 people that burned alive in the dive boat Conception).
5. To recycle said energy cell at near 100% efficiency, the material must be smelted at 1500°C (over 2700°F).
6. To fire said smelter to over 2700°F, will surely require fossil fuels (transported by those ugly diesel truck tankers, as pipelines are no longer chic, Keystone).
7. When I was young, I remember being told that nuclear power is a great source for alternative energy (it burns no fuel and no greenhouse pollutants are emitted). Problem was what to do with the spent fuel rods, as there was no operational plan to transport and store them.
8. What is the plan to transport, store and recycle the nearly 13 million tons of EV batteries when they are replaced during 2021-2030?
IMO, strategies of "hope" are usually destined to failure; as not everyone will do the right thing, at the right time.
Are you right sure you want to bring water into the discussion?
You mentioned Keystone. The same company has had many leaks in other lines. And the routing of that 1, a leak could contaminate the fresh water source for several states. Fracking has the tap water in some areas burning. And a lot of water is used in the process. Then there have been tanker dumping loads, and wells exploding putting crude in the ocean.- Here's an interesting piece on how un-green solar panel manufacturing was as of 2014...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think Timmo! wrote:
So, it is "green" to...
1. Consume millions of gallons of water to mine lithium via a production processes that my native state, California, would never permit--due to the environmental destruction. (OK to destroy land that is far away?)
2. Mine an element that has an extremely limited supply. Lithium makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth’s crust. Chile produces most of the element for the world market, with Australia coming in second.
3. Consume 3,000 - 32,000 gallons of water to extinguish an EV fire (while at the same time requiring installation low flush toilets in new homes requiring 2-3 flushes).
4. Create an energy cell (lithium battery) that is both a fire hazard and has killed many people (including 34 people that burned alive in the dive boat Conception).
5. To recycle said energy cell at near 100% efficiency, the material must be smelted at 1500°C (over 2700°F).
6. To fire said smelter to over 2700°F, will surely require fossil fuels (transported by those ugly diesel truck tankers, as pipelines are no longer chic, Keystone).
7. When I was young, I remember being told that nuclear power is a great source for alternative energy (it burns no fuel and no greenhouse pollutants are emitted). Problem was what to do with the spent fuel rods, as there was no operational plan to transport and store them.
8. What is the plan to transport, store and recycle the nearly 13 million tons of EV batteries when they are replaced during 2021-2030?
IMO, strategies of "hope" are usually destined to failure; as not everyone will do the right thing, at the right time.
Is it 'green'? No. Is it 'greener' than mining 1,488,000,000,000 gallons of oil every year, using it precisely once, then dumping it all into the atmosphere? Yes.- So, it is "green" to...
1. Consume millions of gallons of water to mine lithium via a production processes that my native state, California, would never permit--due to the environmental destruction. (OK to destroy land that is far away?)
2. Mine an element that has an extremely limited supply. Lithium makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth’s crust. Chile produces most of the element for the world market, with Australia coming in second.
3. Consume 3,000 - 32,000 gallons of water to extinguish an EV fire (while at the same time requiring installation low flush toilets in new homes requiring 2-3 flushes).
4. Create an energy cell (lithium battery) that is both a fire hazard and has killed many people (including 34 people that burned alive in the dive boat Conception).
5. To recycle said energy cell at near 100% efficiency, the material must be smelted at 1500°C (over 2700°F).
6. To fire said smelter to over 2700°F, will surely require fossil fuels (transported by those ugly diesel truck tankers, as pipelines are no longer chic, Keystone).
7. When I was young, I remember being told that nuclear power is a great source for alternative energy (it burns no fuel and no greenhouse pollutants are emitted). Problem was what to do with the spent fuel rods, as there was no operational plan to transport and store them.
8. What is the plan to transport, store and recycle the nearly 13 million tons of EV batteries when they are replaced during 2021-2030?
IMO, strategies of "hope" are usually destined to failure; as not everyone will do the right thing, at the right time. wildtoad wrote:
Yes ICE power comes from refining oil. But then so do tires, plastics, lubricants, medicines, rayon/Dacron and just about all clothing/cloth not made from cotton or wool. Those who want to eliminate oil know not what they will give up. We may not need fossil fuels but we will still need oil and by products. I wonder if they can refine oil to get the valued products without also making gas or diesel and if not, what do they do with it?
As far as coal, can’t make good quality steel without it.
EV’s are the near future for personal transportation. The jury is still out for ocean going vessels, trains in remote areas, big earth movers, and long haul trucks in actual use.
Project much? I will take one guess at your political party. Only a right winger with limited fact exposure would believe claim or refer to the banning of all petroleum products.
No one of normal intelligence has ever claimed or alluded to anything near that idiotic statement
The goal is to reduce burning petroleum products as much as practical, they're use in thousands of other products will continue and more than likely expand.Lantley wrote:
dodge guy wrote:
TurnThePage wrote:
Sorry. I don't get it. According to your apparently all encompassing title, we in the northwest will never own electric cars because we don't have coal power.
Electric IS the future. Quit trying to poopoo it.
Well electricity isn’t provided by ferry dust!
That's the beauty of EV. Electricity can be generated in multiple ways.
However gasoline comes from only one source.- You have to wonder how much better the next generation EVs will be? Will the charge range go to 500 miles? 1000? 10000?
I see the Germans are trying to catch up with Tesla. Teslas are status cars there. Saw my first EV Porsche and Audi recently. Honda plans to go all EV. So are the domestic companies.
I guess it's nice to see America products first in technology for a change. I hope I can find a practical and affordable EV.
