DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Electric Cars

It's not the popular response.

I am not saying do nothing. I have even said in this thread I am in favor of EV,s. In another I support solar. I had them installed on a home I owned. I will admit I did it more to cut my utility bill and add resale value over anything it would do to reduce strain on the grid or power production. This was at a home I owned in Florida.

I am just saying that it isn't going to do any good. Population growth has outpaced the planets ability to sustain human life at such numbers. Everybody has some sort of environmental impact on the planet, even if it is just flushing a toilet.

I wonder how big the pile of poop is that has to be processed worldwide in just one day? How many gallons of fresh drinking water have to be used just to get it in to the the sewer and septic systems?

World population is growing much faster than we can sustain. I think we need to be talking about that on a global basis because that is what is going to kill us....or at least a very large number of us.

I believe that we need to do everything within our power to extend that timeline. I certainly agree with you that man is his own worst enemy in all of this.

I didn't say that. maybe you misunderstood what I was saying?? I said "The stupidity of these ideas by politicians and pushing technology on America hasn't even been completely flushed out yet.... We may as well go back to filling cans full of CFC's and start spraying into the air. We don't even know how to recycle these things at scale yet. Right now, they are basically being stored in hopes that we can figure it out."


Here are my issues with EV

1. Current EV batteries "are really not designed to be recycled"
2. Batteries differ widely in chemistry and construction, which makes it difficult to create efficient recycling systems.
3. The cells are often held together with tough glues that make them difficult to take apart.
4. It's often cheaper for battery makers to buy freshly mined metals than to use recycled materials.
5. They are hoping to find a way to recycle these things more efficiently. But, they don't have one.
6. Both processes of EV battery recycling produce extensive toxic waste and emit greenhouse gases that outweigh the benefits of EV.
7. Most recycling operations depend on selling recovered cobalt to stay in business, but battery makers are trying to shift away from it. This means it is highly likely no one will recycle EV batteries because they are worthless.
8. Each time an EV bursts into flames (happening pretty frequently), it pollutes about 30,000 gallons of water that it takes to put them out.... let alone all of the toxins it releases into the air.
9. Most used EV batteries are being stored in hopes they can figure out what to do with them later. SNT’s main warehouse in Oklahoma City holds hundreds of electric car batteries, stacked on shelves that are 30 feet into the air.
10. We don't have a way to produce the electricity in our grid to charge EV's and solar is not going to help close that gap. If we attempt solar at scale, we will really send the earth into complete global warming chaos.

Extend what timeline? Technology only goes so fast. I know we like to think we are wiz bang and can fix anything, but history shows long periods when human advancement has remained somewhat stagnant. I don't know that it is realistic that we will continue to advance at the same pace that we advanced last century. We might, but we might not.

I don't think it realistic to think we will stop glaciers from melting seeing as they have melted before. I guess my point is we could reduce population a great deal over the next 25-75 years.

How we go about that, well, that is the issue. I just know that it has to happen or it will happen, and that won't be pretty if we wait for nature to make it happen. We are kind of nearing the point we can't provide enough food and water to all points in the world.

Human population is the global crisis. If we take care of that, all the other stuff will work out. We just won't be using as much "stuff" as fast.

That is how you extend things. If you have food for six people and 16 show up, you have some mighty slim pickings on each plate. If only 2 show up, you have a feast of good fortune.

WE are at least 10 years from all of that. But that kinda goes along with the timeline that many car makers are saying they'll go all EV.. As a nation, we have to build up the grid as well... We should have been doing that for years, perhaps this will force the issue.

This is my biggest issue with the EV movement. At present, we don't have the infrastructure to handle a huge changeover from gas to electric cars.

My understanding is that this was attempted to be addressed by the build back better bill that the republicans squashed.
I think it is in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act but to a much lesser extent - This statement by me is unclear on exactly how true it is

Well if we don't wait for that to happen someone will have to make that happen. Sounds like a pretty ominous note you're sending. And this is not a "stagnant period" of advance.

Alright so? It’s been known people by nature are problem solvers. Face it, we shall overcome and endure. Deniers will die off eventually.

Yes - that statement is even dumber than the one I mis-attributed to you.... my apologies.

I don't think it should be the government at all. It needs to be private business. And they will when the incentive and profits are there.

The government should give the incentive to business by way of tax breaks for investing in the change over. They already have the locations drivers need. All the government will do is screw things up if they are running the show.

I'm not sure how these things are different? Most of the spending in BBB aimed at infrastructure change was aimed at incentives to private businesses, including tax breaks and loan programs.

Some things (like the power grid itself) - have traditionally been handled by the government, or by government-regulated businesses.

I can't think of anything in BBB that involved taking over a private business venture and replacing it with government run businesses (I'm sure there is some example, it was a huge bill -- but that definitely wasn't the majority of it).

Have you heard of Boeing? I'm just jokingly jabbing you there, but the honest problem is that the private sector is a shell of what it was at its prime level. I'm a huge advocate of the use of capitalism to enable ambition and competition, but many of the companies have consumed each other and lost their innovative and competitive edges (like Boeing). If the Government tries to enable incentives or projects for many companies to do - the companies rake the Government over the coals and provide poor qality products.

If we do go that route, I hope it's set for new or up-and-coming businesses.

Each time they recycle one of the EV batteries it produces more greenhouse gasses than EV helped the environment (hence the spraying CFC's into the air comment)

Oh-snap!

That's a fantastic idea Peen. Then the investment class can get in the game with 'charging lots' and add a ton of (NOT VALUE) expense to the whole operation thereby generating checks to people who don't work for the money but get paid anyway. BRILLIANT! You Sir, are GOPer "finds a way to take care of the elite" to the core. Using this logic, all roads, fire departments, libraries, or any other common good social program should be privatized for profit too.

The government is doing it because they have to prove it out before the bailout ELITE AND CORPS crowd will pounce... Just like everything else.

Where - in any of the articles that you posted - does it say that?

Also, that is the exact statement that I originally attributed to you - so now we are full circle it seems.

https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries
Both processes produce extensive waste and emit greenhouse gases, studies have found.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827119300058
The Life Cycle of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Critical Minerals Recycling: Case of Lithium-ion Batteries (you can read the study)

We provide an environmental analysis of recycling of critical minerals from spent LIBs including LMO, lithium manganese oxide; LCO, lithium cobalt oxide; LFP, lithium iron phosphate; NMC, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide; and LiNCA, Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide. The results show that recycling of LIBs helps to prevent the shortage of critical minerals from a mass flow perspective. However, from an environmental perspective, the current technology is not recommended to recover lithium from LIBs which leads 38-45% more consumption of energy and 16-20% higher air emissions than its primary production.

Also, I don't want you to think I'm not an advocate for getting more environmentally responsible vehicles. I just don't think we can get there with EV and the costs to upgrade/maintain/power the grid are going to be outrageous. Plus, they catch on fire often, they release tons of toxins in the air when they do and when they are recycled.

I really hope we push the boundaries with electrolysis/water/hydrogen.

So... not sure how to break this down more -- but neither of those quotes say anything close to the thing you said. You said:


Neither of the two articles you quoted even has the word "gasoline powered vehicles" or anything like it in the article... there's literally no discussion of, or comparison to, driving a gas powered vehicle anywhere in either of those articles.

To take a calmer approach - and assume that maybe you are just honestly misinterpreting the articles.

First, I applaud you for going to Science, or other very legit professional websites for info. It's way better to get things from peer-reviewed journal articles than to look at a random site on the internet.

But, it's also easy to get yourself tripped up on articles like that. Because, in order to read the article, you have to know what the authors are assuming that everybody already knows before reading the article (which, is generally quite a lot).

Now - I am not an expert in battery technology, or automobiles. But I do read science articles professionally -- and probably read (or at least glance through) thousands of similar articles per year.

You should know that there is an extremely strict word limit on articles in Science. It's one of the hardest journals to get into, and your results have to be very important, and also you have to fight for every single word that you want to put in the article.

Moreover, the article is going to be about a very specific thing. I'm confident that there are 10s of thousands of articles on Electric Cars, and none of them are "A Complete Study of every aspect into Whether Electric Vehicles are Better than Gas Powered Vehicles" -- nobody would ever attempt to do something that broad. This article is:

"The Life Cycle of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Critical Minerals Recycling: Case of Lithium-ion Batteries"

This article is a study of greenhouse gas emissions from Lithium recycling (compared to mining new lithium)- nothing more, nothing less. It is not going to compare the greenhouse gas emissions from lithium recycling against the efficiency gains while the lithium battery is being used (that is going to be a different article), it is not going to be a comparison of driving an EV to driving a gas powered automobile (that is probably an entirely different field with a different set of authors), it is not going to focus on other aspects of lithium mining (again, a whole different field).

And the authors of this article would never even waste words citing authors in those fields - because again -- words are valuable, and the reader will already know the basic results of those fields. If they had tried to put it in, i guarantee the editor would strike it for length.

Articles like this have a nugget of truth - but you're not going to read a single article and get a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on "Are electric vehicles better than gas powered cars" -- that's not the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to inform existing experts about a totally new result in a very very small portion of the broader field.

FWIW: I hope you understand that I'm not trying to compare EV to gas-powered vehicles.

I am simply saying that I have issues with EV's and I listed off a bunch of reasons & concerns based on the data and information that scientists are sharing in their studies.

So -- is your argument that you release more greenhouse gases by driving a car than by staying home?

Cause - I agree with you there... but I don't think that is a good policy plan.

I guess if you aren't in favor of private business bring the ones to make it work, you are in favor of a state run agency running the show.

Sorry, I disagree.

I think we should be looking at hydrogen, nitrogen gas, oxygen, or upgrading the turbine engine Chrysler had in the mid 60's... It ran on peanut oil, purfune, tequila, and many other fuels that don't put out as much greenhouse gasses. *The goverment made Chrysler stop efforts on the turbine engine when they bailed them out.

We need Mr.Fusion.

Probably not the best idea to have a portion of the car be radioactive and 100 million degrees celsius.

Of course, if you mean fusion power in a power plant (and then electric vehicles) - i'm all for that.

To add another layer though, we've ignored many possible solutions over the years... until everyone was brainwashed into believing electric cars run on fairy dust.

This crazy shift to "ending oil" and going electric is very much like drafting a rookie quarterback without a bridge QB.

And the bridge was right there all along (still is). CNG burns cleaner, is better for your car, performs better. It's much cheaper, safer, provides lower maintenance, and is much better for the environment.

It made way too much sense, thus it never came to pass. It would still make sense... get away from dirty oil at a $2 per gallon (equivalent) with existing ICE engines... easily converted or built for dual fuel at the factory. Incentivize gas stations for fueling stations. Incentivize "compressors" in every home garage as everyone already has a gas line.

Having one solution brought us to where we are today. Now we want to kick that single solution to the curb in favor of another single solution. Rape the earth of lithium at breakneck speed. Trust a "grid" that is already fragile (and when I say grid, I include the billionaires that "run" it, the ones that are so much more trustworthy than their dirty oil counterparts *scratches head*).

If we were really concerned about the future FUTURE we would have more of a pronged attack. Compressed Natural Gas was a prefect bridge, all along; and it was kicked to the curb because there wasn't enough room for our politicians, and the scum they are funded by, to get their dirty fingers in the pie.

But I'm confident the idea they're selling now is the right solution. 🤨

One of the problem with electric cars is the affordability for people with not the highest incomes.
If you imagine ahead a number of years, and no gas cars remain, then a
bunch of people who barely own cars now won't be able to own a car at all because of the cost.

So in that way, the electric car facilitates the evildoers' dream/nightmare of making American life more like Cuban life.

With technology the price always comes down over time. Even EV's now have more affordable options than just a few years ago. Look at the price of flat screen TV's when they came out compared to now. EV's are already headed in that direction.

But how else do you propose to power the flux capacitor?

I guess I would try to store the power in .... the capacitor?

Fill'er up, Sparky!

That looks safe lol

That's a back-to-the-future pic. Just drag your electrical pigtail thru the water at 88 mph.

Electric cars are like the Covid Vaccine....I'll wait and see, if it's worth it, I'll get it.

But if you want to run out and buy one on some weird partisan agenda please by all means go for it. I'll learn from your failures or triumphs, I'll keep my full paid off vehicle as long as possible.

It's sad that doing all you can to help save the environment has been degraded and labeled by calling it "some weird partisan agenda".

Certainly a partisan agenda to decisively conclude you're saving the environment already.

You obviously have the words science and partisan mixed up.

LOL using science as a deflecting word has become status quo for leftist partisans.

TRUST THE SCIENCE!

Is new the "HAVE FAITH IN GOD"

It's garbage. Science isn't finite, it's virtually never concrete, it's always changing and often incorrect. But yeah man, I have it mixed up.

There's that word partisan again. Yes it must be all those left wing scientists. Carbon emissions and total pollution in manufacturing can and is measured. It's a constant and not a theory. This is like talking to a partisan wall.