DawgTalkers.net
Posted By: GMdawg Electric Cars - 09/19/22 10:44 PM
Question about the cost of building batteries for electric cars. I know we have gone around about electric cars in the past here, but it has been a while. Does anybody know just how much it will pollute the environment to produce the millions and millions of batteries that will be needed to run them? Also how much pollution will be produced by going through more tires for the electric cars since the tires will last only about 65 percent as long as tires for gas powered cars. Also China dominates global battery manufacturing and supplies nearly two-thirds of all production. The relevance for the new energy economy vision: 70% of China’s grid is fueled by coal today and will still be at 50% in 2040. This means that, over the life span of the batteries, there would be more carbon-dioxide emissions associated with manufacturing them than would be offset by using those batteries to, say, replace internal combustion engines.
Posted By: bonefish Re: Electric Cars - 09/19/22 11:06 PM
The one thing I do know some about is lithium mining.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/new...ld-know-about-the-contentious-issue.html

It is costly and very damaging to the environment.
Posted By: archbolddawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 12:20 AM
You're not supposed to ask those questions. You are supposed to buy an electric vehicle, and be proud of yourself for "saving the planet."
Posted By: SuperBrown Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 12:22 AM
This is what you libs want and have...

[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 01:01 AM
Oh so now im a lib. Lol
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 01:29 AM
Haha, this seems like a loaded question, bro. I have an EV and also a gas car. The EV is rather nice. We drove to Florida with it and the trip really wasn’t bad. Sure it took longer than the van, but it actually wasn’t all that bad. As far as the pollution and everything else goes, I thought that I read somewhere from the EPA showing the statistics along with a myths listing that shows an EV is actually still more environmentally friendly over its life cycle than the average gas car. I’ll need to find that link because I researched that before I pulled the trigger on buying the car.

As far as the metals, yeah lithium is a problem. I looked to see what the potential solution is. I googled something like “lithium replacement for batteries” and there is some stuff underway. I don’t know how long into the process they are, but there are other alternatives. I think magnesium is being looked into as one of them.

When it all comes down to it, I remember one poster - I won’t say who but the phrase is probably a dead giveaway - who said “Gas forever!” But that’s just the thing. Gas can’t be forever. Plus, even though lithium is a problem, it’s not exactly like the petroleum producing countries are all rock stars. I agree that a lot of the pressure on shutting things down and punishing current industries is dumb, but I also think we have to move forward.
Posted By: jfanent Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 01:42 AM
Originally Posted by bonefish
The one thing I do know some about is lithium mining.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/new...ld-know-about-the-contentious-issue.html

It is costly and very damaging to the environment.

Wow. I followed up on that, and the lithium mining in SA is really a danger to the environment and to the indigenous people.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithiu...enous-communities-high-and-dry-literally
Posted By: archbolddawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 01:45 AM
We had 2 power outages today, here in N.W. Ohio.

Why? Too much usage of power. Do the math.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 01:59 AM
Originally Posted by jfanent
Originally Posted by bonefish
The one thing I do know some about is lithium mining.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/new...ld-know-about-the-contentious-issue.html

It is costly and very damaging to the environment.

Wow. I followed up on that, and the lithium mining in SA is really a danger to the environment and to the indigenous people.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithiu...enous-communities-high-and-dry-literally

Another very good article here...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...al-fueling-evs?leadSource=uverify%20wall

Moderate forecasts are that we will need 5 times more lithium by the end of this decade. This is not a problem that will go away on it's own. Nor is the extra stress it will put on electric infrastructure. Nor is electric (in most places) clean energy.

The bigger question (in my mind) is when will we realize that electric cars are merely a transitory solution?
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 02:22 AM
Okay?
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 02:25 AM
EPA myths list

This is what I referenced earlier.
Posted By: WooferDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 02:50 AM
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Question about [color:#CC33CC][/color]the cost of building batteries for electric cars. I know we have gone around about electric cars in the past here, but it has been a while. Does anybody know just how much it will pollute the environment to produce the millions and millions of batteries that will be needed to run them? Also how much pollution will be produced by going through more tires for the electric cars since the tires will last only about 65 percent as long as tires for gas powered cars. Also China dominates global battery manufacturing and supplies nearly two-thirds of all production. The relevance for the new energy economy vision: 70% of China’s grid is fueled by coal today and will still be at 50% in 2040. This means that, over the life span of the batteries, there would be more carbon-dioxide emissions associated with manufacturing them than would be offset by using those batteries to, say, replace internal combustion engines.

About a hundred years ago people were wondering that the pollution from cars was greater than the cost of removing manure and building roads….those people sold horses.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 07:04 AM
Not sure if you are looking for a serious answer or not.

Here are the total life-cycle (from mining to manufacture to running, to recycling, etc.) costs for an electric vehicle (listed as BEV) compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle (here listed as ICEV):

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-fig1-jul2021_0.png

From this report:

https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...tion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/

The ICCT is an energy think-tank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_on_Clean_Transportation

Main Results: Battery production is a relatively small carbon footprint. The major footprint for both electric and gas vehicles is driving them. The Carbon footprint of this depends pretty strongly on where you are getting your electricity from. In places like the US and Europe, the total carbon footprint is about a factor of 4 smaller than for gas powered cars -- but in India (where almost all electricity comes from coal in less efficient power plants), the carbon savings is only 30-40%.
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 07:35 AM
Thanks for bringing facts.
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 08:45 AM
Yes I am being serious. I want to get the fasts straight since I have seen articles that contradict each other.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 12:46 PM
Those are good reports. In fairness, I think that one thing that those findings don't really discuss is the impact on the actual lithium mining aspect and what it does to land and whatnot, but, on the flip side, you'd have to account for similar things like shale oil production, drilling and whatnot. I'm not sure how they differ from each other, but those types of reports on the carbon are really helpful and did put me more at ease when I made my purchase.

In the grand scheme of things, we have to move forward. If electricity resourcing is the problem, that's another area of opportunity. I think we need to both improve the master grids and keep pushing toward innovation to make it more cheaper and common place for consumer-produced energy. If only politicians on both sides, prior to 2021, could have actually gotten over themselves and tried to pass a legitimate infrastructure bill, maybe this aspect wouldn't have been a problem.

The fact of the matter is that we have to move on from gas. It appears that electric is the chosen alternative. Is it perfect? Not at all, but there are a ton of areas where improvement can be made. Gas cannot last forever and there has to be an alternative.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 03:25 PM
People seem not to realize all of the money built into the infrastructure bill to help increase and modernize our electric grid. I guess you're not supposed to address those things on here. Just find every excuse not to buy an electric vehicle and be proud of it.
Posted By: bonefish Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 03:43 PM
I lived near Reno, NV. for five years.

Nevada holds some lithium mining claims. I was going to invest in lithium mining companies until I did the research and found out all the issues with mining.

Disposal of batteries is also a problem.

There are no clear cut answers. Gas, coal, fossil fuels, all have issues.

Improvements will come. Where there is a market people will find solutions.
Posted By: Jester Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 03:56 PM
I was reading about some companies that are getting into recycling electric car batteries
Makes batteries for the next car significantly cheaper and is better for the environment.
I don't have details or links becausse this was a couple months ago. I was considering investing in them but made the decision to not put more money in the market at this time.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 04:55 PM
Originally Posted by Jester
I was reading about some companies that are getting into recycling electric car batteries
Makes batteries for the next car significantly cheaper and is better for the environment.
I don't have details or links becausse this was a couple months ago. I was considering investing in them but made the decision to not put more money in the market at this time.

I believe that the majority of Car batteries are recycled (though of course, this also generates waste, and fossil fuels).

Certainly the lithium itself can be repurposed, it is just an element.

News stories I see are a little mixed. Tesla claims a 92% recycling rate on its batteries: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/05/08/teslas-recycled-batteries-almost-92-reuse-of-raw-materials/

Others claim less: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgx...100-of-its-batteries-what-does-that-mean (though this Vice article mostly just argues that "100% recycled" is propaganda - more than claiming there isn't significant recycling going on.

Will look for something better.
Posted By: FloridaFan Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 04:57 PM
There like 3 main recycling companies right now, and more being started every year.

The biggest misconception is that the batteries only have a life of like 100k miles, but that is not accurate. Tesla owners are noticing <5% drop in battery over the first 50k, then about another 5% over the next 100k. There is a mandate that the battery must have a 8 year warranty, not mileage, just time. An EV battery should last at least 10 years, but most experts figure it's closer to 20 years at > 60% efficiency. For most people that is still enough for their daily driving.

The End of Life for an EV battery pack is usually a second life, where the individual cells are removed, and repurposed in less critical devices with lower power needs, the rest are often recycled for their raw materials.

In the end, the choice to go EV or ICE is up to the individual and their needs and usage. No different than those that choose small compact cars versus large SUVs/Trucks, or Gasoline vs Diesel.

Different people have different needs, and have their own reasons for choice.

For me an EV would make sense, I typically drive <50 miles a day, have solar on my house. And I have been considering a Ford Lightning, my hold back is that I don't need a full size truck. If they release the Ranger or something in an EV I'd probably jump on it.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 07:24 PM
As has been discussed on this board here and there, we have two types of cars. One is an EV, which I mentioned, and one is a gas car. The EV is great for our daily commutes and getting around town. The gas car is good to have for the bigger road trips and long distances. I've often wondered if improvements can be made both to the capacity of the battery itself, as well as perhaps implementing some type of charge-as-you-drive technology. I'm sure the latter would be decades away, but it would be kind of cool to have a stretch of highway be able to recharge the car wirelessly as it is driving. Also, perhaps implementing some type of solar technology onto the car itself at some point that could assist in wirelessly charging the car while it's parked. Those are just dreamer thoughts, admittedly.

One thing they also tell you to do with the car is only charge it to 90% unless you're about to drive it on a long trip. This helps preserve the life of the battery. You can set the app to limit the % that you want the car to charge to. It's also really nice to be able to charge from home. Every night we just plug it in and it's charged and ready to go the next day.

As far as lithium goes, this article discusses potential alternatives. It appears everything is very much still in the conceptual stage, but who knows where it'll eventually go...

https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1538
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 07:39 PM
You mentioned one thing most of the "anti EV" people either do not know, haven't thought of or refuse to mention. It's quite easy to set your EV to charge overnight before you go to bed. That means you would be using electricity during low demand, off peak hours which does not stress the electrical grid. Sometimes people wish to make points that actually do not exist.

I do understand how people that travel long distances on a regular basis, that only have one vehicle may find that an EV really doesn't meet all of their needs. But for anyone having two vehicles that uses one of them mainly for local travel it would be smart to have one EV. Which seems to be your situation. Even at that, we have family that has a hybrid Jeep which he uses for travel from Illinois to Nashville quite often. He loves it and his costs per mile are very affordable.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 08:26 PM
I've already touched on these topics...

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.


www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=304070

What to do with all these retired electric vehicle batteries is going to be a huge issue," said Fengqi You, one of the authors of the study. The research team considered environmental and economic tradeoffs in how batteries are built, used and recycled.


"Lithium-ion batteries are designed today for performance and not for recycling or second life," said You. Lithium-ion batteries usually last 12 years or less before losing the capacity to power a vehicle. "There's very little discussion right now about the environmental dimensions of improving battery design for recycling or reuse."


https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries

But when the battery comes to the end of its life, its green benefits fade. If it ends up in a landfill, its cells can release problematic toxins, including heavy metals. And recycling the battery can be a hazardous business, warns materials scientist Dana Thompson of the University of Leicester. Cut too deep into a Tesla cell, or in the wrong place, and it can short-circuit, combust, and release toxic fumes.

Current EV batteries "are really not designed to be recycled," says Thompson, a research fellow at the Faraday Institution, a research center focused on battery issues in the United Kingdom.

To extract those needles, recyclers rely on two techniques, known as pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy. The more common is pyrometallurgy, in which recyclers first mechanically shred the cell and then burn it, leaving a charred mass of plastic, metals, and glues. At that point, they can use several methods to extract the metals, including further burning. "Pyromet is essentially treating the battery as if it were an ore" straight from a mine, Gaines says. Hydrometallurgy, in contrast, involves dunking battery materials in pools of acid, producing a metal-laden soup. Sometimes the two methods are combined.

Both processes produce extensive waste and emit greenhouse gases, studies have found. And the business model can be shaky: Most operations depend on selling recovered cobalt to stay in business, but batterymakers are trying to shift away from that relatively expensive metal. If that happens, recyclers could be left trying to sell piles of "dirt," says materials scientist Rebecca Ciez of Purdue University.

Engineers might be able to build robots that could speed battery disassembly, but sticky issues remain even after you get inside the cell, researchers note. That's because more glues are used to hold the anodes, cathodes, and other components in place. One solvent that recyclers use to dissolve cathode binders is so toxic that the European Union has introduced restrictions on its use, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined last year that it poses an "unreasonable risk" to workers.


https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7633
Advanced LIB technologies with high specific energy density do not necessarily demonstrate better potentials for mitigating climate change and energy demand, especially when the material and energy inputs for the LIB production and recycling are highly carbon and energy intensive. The development of green recycling processes with higher material recovery rates, lower energy requirement, and utilization of less environmentally expensive materials is critical to improving the potential of mitigating environmental impacts. Moreover, their potentials for mitigating climate change and energy demand are confined by the penetration of renewable electricity. Therefore, it is essential to increase the share of renewable energy in the local power grid.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 08:35 PM
Politicians are trying to leverage solar to close the gap on the massive electricity consumption issue that electric cars are starting to cause.

the massive downside of solar...

Solar farms raise the ambient temperature by 1-3 degrees (causing more global warming)
They are causing higher levels of water evaporation (which helps keep the planet cooler)
There is some concern that the topsoil will strip away because nothing is growing below the solar panels and this will collapse the surrounding ecosystem.
We have not really figured out what to do with the used batteries (same as with electric cars)

Here is the scientific study about heat island (PVHI):

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070


Additional Perspective:

it will take 11.22 square miles of nothing but solar fields starting at I-90 (from w 117th to just past Crocker Park by Manco tape) all the way to the lake with an increase of 5-7 degrees in temperature (according to the study above) lastly, that entire area and ecosystem will be completely useless and destroyed to power just the households inside the city of Cleveland (no businesses) let alone their electric cars.

The ice Age was a measly 11 degrees cooler than our current temps

Math, Science, and supporting articles below:
179 solar farms are needed that are about 40 acres in size to power just the houses in Cleveland let alone their electric cars
179 x 40 acres = 7181 acres = 11.22 square miles


https://oyasolar.com/blog/solar-farm-requirements-everything-you-need-to-know/ 40 acres for 5kw solar field
https://news.umich.edu/how-cold-was-the-ice-age-researchers-now-know/ the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/clevelandcityohio 170,549 households in Cleveland without powering 1 single business.
640 acres = 1 square mile (math)



Electric cars and solar are not clean technoligies at scale. We should abandon them to be used at scale before they destroy everything.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 08:41 PM
here is what happens when one of htem catches on fire..



https://batteriesnews.com/fully-inv...r-minute-help-suppress-challenging-fire/

Fully Involved Tesla Car Fire Takes 42 Minutes to Extinguish, 600 Gallons of Water Per Minute Help Suppress Challenging Fire
September 20, 2022Add comment3 min read
tesla car fire
batteries news
Fully involved Tesla car fire takes 42 minutes to extinguish, 600 gallons of water per minute help suppress challenging fire.

600 Gallons of Water Per Minute Help Suppress Challenging Fire.

the Stamford Combined 911 Dispatch Center began receiving calls of a car fire behind the Blue Ginger Restaurant at 1132 E Main Street. Additional calls reported the car to be a Tesla. Two engines, a truck company, and an incident commander were initially dispatched to the incident bringing 14 firefighters to the scene as part of the initial assignment in just a few minutes.

battery jobs
Engine Company 4 arrived on the scene at 11:24 and reported a car fire in a parking lot, heavily involved in flames. It was quickly confirmed that the vehicle on fire was a battery-powered Tesla. The vehicle was several car lengths away from other vehicles and posed no immediate danger to them.

Electric vehicle fires have been in the news frequently due to the difficulty many departments are having extinguishing them.

An initial 1-3/4″ hose line was stretched by the crew of Engine 4, who began pouring 200 gallons of water per minute onto and into the vehicle. As soon as Engine 4 was hooked up to a hydrant, two additional 1-3/4 lines were put into action by other fire companies on the scene, delivering a total of 600 gallons per minute to the fire.

Firefighters continued pouring water onto the fire for 40 minutes before they were able to declare the fire extinguished.

Eric Lorenz, Deputy Chief said:

A normal car fire usually requires no more than a single hose line.

“But we know from other Fire Departments’ experiences that large amounts of water are the only solution when compared to a traditional vehicle fire.” he continued.

According to Fire Officers on the scene, this fire may have been relatively easy to put out compared to some others across the nation because the entire bank of batteries dropped on the ground underneath the vehicle, where firefighters were focusing their fire attack.

The Stamford Fire Haz Mat Team, Fairfield County Haz Mat Team, Stamford EMS, Stamford Police, and several additional divisions of the Fire Department all responded and assisted with various aspects of the incident.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Stamford Fire Haz Mat Team, and a hazardous waste cleanup company are all still on the scene at of 4:30 PM, preparing to remove the vehicle to a safe and secure location. “This is no routine car fire,” Chief Lorenz said. “It requires special handling.”

No civilian or firefighter injuries were reported. The cause of the fire is currently under investigation by the Stamford Fire Marshals Office.

Fully Involved Tesla Car Fire Takes 42 Minutes to Extinguish, September 15, 2022
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 08:45 PM
... and to my point this just happened


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fi...wn-part-highway-1-california-2022-09-20/

PG&E's Tesla battery facility catches fire in California
Reuters



Sept 20 (Reuters) - A fire outbreak at PG&E Corp's (PCG.N) energy storage facility on Tuesday that uses battery packs made by Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) has shut down part of Highway 1 in California.

This came about a year after another fire broke out in a Tesla's "Megapack" battery unit in Australia during testing of one of the world's biggest energy storage projects. read more

Power producer PG&E said it was working with firefighters to stop the fire from spreading at the California facility, which is one of the biggest utility-owned, lithium-ion battery energy storage systems in the world. The incident has caused no electrical outage for customers, it added.


The electric utilities company said upon detecting the issue the safety systems automatically disconnected the battery storage facility from the electrical grid and that no onsite personnel was injured due to the fire.

Tesla was not immediately available for comment.

Tesla generates most of its revenue from its electric car business, but CEO Elon Musk pledged to grow its solar energy and battery storage business to roughly same size as its car business for the long-term. Tesla last year broke ground on its factory in Lathrop, California, to produce its large-scale, utility storage battery unit Megapack.



California's Department of Transportation said a part of the highway was closed due to the battery fire and advised motorists to take an alternate route.

PG&E in April announced the commissioning of its 182.5-megawatt (MW) Tesla Megapack battery energy storage system (BESS) – known as the Elkhorn Battery – located at its Moss Landing electric substation in Monterey County.

PG&E said batteries are charged when energy demand is low or when solar production is high and then provide additional capacity by sending that reserved power to the grid as demand grows.


It was not immediately known who is the battery cell supplier for Tesla's battery products.



This same thing happened a few months ago.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...amed-undetected-coolant-leak-2021-09-28/
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 09:03 PM
I read through your articles -- since those are all pretty legit sources, but I think the quotes you are using are out of context (though I couldn't open the second at all).

The first just says that manufacturers build EV batteries to optimize performance today instead of recyclability -- that is sort of ... well duh...

I read quite a bit of the science article - and the paragraph you quote "Advanced LIB technologies with high specific energy density..." - is contrasting Advanced LIB approaches to standard LIB approaches. It is basically saying that (from a Carbon Emission standpoint) higher capacity batteries are not necessarily better, because the benefits (longer lasting even if capacity drains) is offset by the additional material needed for their construction.

The science article itself is just a comparison of the environmental benefits of second life applications (e.g., repurposing a tesla battery to store solar power for the grid -- where a battery can run at lower capacity) vs. immediately recycling the lithium and making a new battery. Their conclusion (in the actual conclusions instead of randomly in the middle of the article) is:

"Moreover, the second life application of LIBs hinders the environmental benefits of recycling, as it contributes to a larger portion of life cycle environmental impacts and requires additional resources for repurposing. Sensitivity analysis results on use parameters suggest a great potential to further reduce carbon footprint and CED of reused LIBs. Even with a rather conservative transition toward more than 50% penetration of renewable energy sources into the power grid, the carbon footprint of second life LIBs can be reduced by 20% in the United States and by 28.5% in China. As the power grid transitions to all-renewable energy sources, substantial environmental impacts can be further reduced for LIBs. For the sake of climate change and energy demand, direct cathode recycling should be the fate of waste LIBs, although it has less ideal recovery rates of materials, as shown in figs. S21 to S23."

Basically:

1.) At present, it is almost as good to recycle battery components into new batteries, compared to second-life applications of batteries.
2.) This will change in the future as renewable energy becomes a larger percentage of the grid, and the need for energy storage increases.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 10:08 PM
Can't wait to buy one... I just don't know which I want.. Tesla, Lyric... We'll see.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/20/22 10:16 PM
here is the second article

https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries


side note... you made a false assumption about 1 and 2. (which will be explained in the link above)
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 01:38 AM
You could have cars that ran on air, and people who never want anything to change would find a reason to dislike them. FACT.

I don't have a dog in this fight, except for not wanting to destroy the planet for future generations (probably too late for that now). But I would like to add that if you removed profits from the equation and based what we drive on what is best for the planet, the answer would be bicycles.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 11:22 AM
I am all for EV's. I'll buy one when I can get a range of about 450 miles and can stop on pretty much any interstate exit or street corner and recharge in the same amount of time as it takes to fill up the car.
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Question about the cost of building batteries for electric cars. I know we have gone around about electric cars in the past here, but it has been a while. Does anybody know just how much it will pollute the environment to produce the millions and millions of batteries that will be needed to run them? Also how much pollution will be produced by going through more tires for the electric cars since the tires will last only about 65 percent as long as tires for gas powered cars. Also China dominates global battery manufacturing and supplies nearly two-thirds of all production. The relevance for the new energy economy vision: 70% of China’s grid is fueled by coal today and will still be at 50% in 2040. This means that, over the life span of the batteries, there would be more carbon-dioxide emissions associated with manufacturing them than would be offset by using those batteries to, say, replace internal combustion engines.


bro you know how awesome it'd be if we invested in companies to really build the infrastructure to build those batteries, and not rely on china? it would be a no brainer, especially because the materials needed would come from doing trade deals with some African countries who are sitting on resources needed to make the materials.

but we don't have real businessmen in America anymore. we got lawyers who consolidate assets and nothing else. EVs would take off in this country if we actually showed any amount of effort. but long term strategy and trade deals are too hard for the US now. we rather just whine about what china is or isn't doing while continuing to do nothing about it.
Posted By: FloridaFan Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 02:22 PM
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
You could have cars that ran on air, and people who never want anything to change would find a reason to dislike them. FACT.

I don't have a dog in this fight, except for not wanting to destroy the planet for future generations (probably too late for that now). But I would like to add that if you removed profits from the equation and based what we drive on what is best for the planet, the answer would be bicycles.

OH yeah, great idea, use the air we breathe to power cars, so then there isn't any left for us and the human race suffocates itself. naughtydevil
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 02:30 PM
Agreed 100 percent Swish.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
here is the second article

https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries


side note... you made a false assumption about 1 and 2. (which will be explained in the link above)


Which false assumption is that?

The articles you are quoting just say "recycling batteries is difficult and we are working to develop better methods".... that's a far cry from "the environmental cost of making batteries is worse than fossil fuels" -- literally nothing in any of your articles says anything like that.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
here is the second article

https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries


side note... you made a false assumption about 1 and 2. (which will be explained in the link above)


Which false assumption is that?

The articles you are quoting just say "recycling batteries is difficult and we are working to develop better methods".... that's a far cry from "the environmental cost of making batteries is worse than fossil fuels" -- literally nothing in any of your articles says anything like that.

Lol…Dude, these GOPers don’t care about the environment. that’s been obvious for years. Now all of a sudden it’s bad for the environment! Lol…We can’t have that! Let’s go mine some coal boys.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 07:35 PM
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 07:37 PM
We have plenty of coal. We don't have much lithium. Available supply has something to do with what you use.

No matter what we do it won't matter all that much. I am of the belief that the planet can only sustain maybe a billion people. We are now around 8 billion. Until the planet culls about 6-7 billion of us, which it will, I don't worry about the environment because it will take care of itself.

It is estimated the planet reached 1 billion people around 1800. It was a short 150 years before we really started to impact the planet from an environmental standpoint.

Face it, people are the environmental hazard, not coal, oil, lithium, or anything else.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 07:40 PM
Yeah, doing nothing to try and prevent it and allowing nature to cull the heard seems like the proper response.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Yeah, doing nothing to try and prevent it and allowing nature to cull the heard seems like the proper response.

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.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/21/22 08:14 PM
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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
here is the second article

https://www.science.org/content/art...e-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries


side note... you made a false assumption about 1 and 2. (which will be explained in the link above)


Which false assumption is that?

The articles you are quoting just say "recycling batteries is difficult and we are working to develop better methods".... that's a far cry from "the environmental cost of making batteries is worse than fossil fuels" -- literally nothing in any of your articles says anything like that.

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.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
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.

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.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
I am all for EV's. I'll buy one when I can get a range of about 450 miles and can stop on pretty much any interstate exit or street corner and recharge in the same amount of time as it takes to fill up the car.


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.
Posted By: Jester Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 02:20 PM
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
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 03:26 PM
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.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
We have plenty of coal. We don't have much lithium. Available supply has something to do with what you use.

No matter what we do it won't matter all that much. I am of the belief that the planet can only sustain maybe a billion people. We are now around 8 billion. Until the planet culls about 6-7 billion of us, which it will, I don't worry about the environment because it will take care of itself.

It is estimated the planet reached 1 billion people around 1800. It was a short 150 years before we really started to impact the planet from an environmental standpoint.

Face it, people are the environmental hazard, not coal, oil, lithium, or anything else.

Alright so? It’s been known people by nature are problem solvers. Face it, we shall overcome and endure. Deniers will die off eventually.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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."


Yes - that statement is even dumber than the one I mis-attributed to you.... my apologies.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by Jester
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

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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by Jester
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

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).
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by Jester
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

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.

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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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."


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


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)
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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."


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

Oh-snap!
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/22/22 11:48 PM
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by Jester
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

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.

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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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)

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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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)

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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 07:25 PM
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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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)

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.

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

Quote
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)

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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 08:38 PM
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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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)

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.

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

Quote
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)

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.


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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/23/22 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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.
Posted By: Ballpeen Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
Originally Posted by Ballpeen
Originally Posted by Jester
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

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.

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.

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.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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 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.
Posted By: Squires Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 01:44 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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 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.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by Squires
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.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by Squires
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
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 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.

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. 🤨
Posted By: THROW LONG Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 03:39 PM
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. frown
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 04:04 PM
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.
Posted By: jaybird Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by Squires
We need Mr.Fusion.

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

But how else do you propose to power the flux capacitor?
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/24/22 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by jaybird
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by Squires
We need Mr.Fusion.

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

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

I guess I would try to store the power in .... the capacitor?
Posted By: jfanent Re: Electric Cars - 09/28/22 09:56 PM
Fill'er up, Sparky!

[Linked Image from 149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com]
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/28/22 10:06 PM
That looks safe lol
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 12:17 AM
That's a back-to-the-future pic. Just drag your electrical pigtail thru the water at 88 mph.

[Linked Image from moan.imgix.net]
Posted By: BpG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:22 PM
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.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:36 PM
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".
Posted By: BpG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
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.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:47 PM
You obviously have the words science and partisan mixed up.
Posted By: BpG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
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.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 02:55 PM
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.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by BpG
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
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.

Amen! lol


Paper, scissors, rock... science! "Science" trumps all. Just mention the word and people better shut up and sit on their hands. Game over!
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 03:32 PM
Once again, the pollution created in the manufacturing of different types of vehicles including savings on fuel and emissions are measurable. It isn't a theory. Why people have trouble with that concept is beyond recognition.

I do understand that when science is based on theories and conjecture it can often times turn out to be wrong. But none of this in terms of polluting our environment is based on any of that.

It's like you're looking at a measured quart of milk in a measuring cup and claiming it's actually a pint.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 04:11 PM
It's like you're staring at the entire wall of dairy in a Wal-Mart and claiming there is only milk. There is much more to the argument than whether electric cars have lower emissions.

There are many facets to the "electric car" argument. We don't make it partisan, our elected officials do. Take electric cars... Biden, while running for office... "There's not a single solitary scientist that thinks [Bernie's climate plan] can work." (Funny how when "green" helped get him elected, his tune changed.)

Yet 57 renowned scientists endorsed "The Deal" as workable science. Ending fossil fuels in ten years flat in the name of saving the climate. It took me .5 seconds to understand that was the most absurd statement I had ever read in my life... not to mention impossible.

Electric cars are gooood. Yet we're raping the environment for the reward. [Don't worry, this never hits close to home]

"Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla have been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The lawsuit, which is the result of field research conducted by anti-slavery economist Siddharth Kara, accuses the companies of aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain."

But that's okay if it's all for the greater good, right??

Cobalt (crucial ingredient in batteries) is rising to record prices. Demand is exploding. MIT estimates that demand will outpace current capacity to mine by nearly double by 2030. Build more mining machines, rape more earth, right??


NOW... that I sound like a bleeding heart. All of the above are facts. And here is another... All of this chicanery is taking place in during a time when electric cars represent 1% of our cars on the road. We should be able to make the transition in 8 more years, right?


But instead of people having the common sense to look out over a 50 year horizon and make intelligent decisions, we get mud-slinging over "saving the planet". Say anything negative about electric cars and you're a science denier and terrible human being. One side goes to bed at night and frightfully pulls the covers over their heads in fear... and it's sold as being caused by the other side, which gives not one f*%$ about the planet.

As the world turns...
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 04:25 PM
So your contention is that "mud slinging" is only coming from one side? Sure, sure. Do you know how crazy people thought it was in Dec. of 1962 when Kennedy said the U.S. would have a man on the moon by the end of the decade? You see, setting an aggressive goal is possibly and most likely the best tool to push things forward and speed them up. I agree with you that it's too aggressive and can't be achieved. But I have no idea when setting aggressive goals became a bad thing.

And I really have no idea how a lawsuit in The Dominican Republic of the Congo changes anything in regards to lessening pollution. Supply and demand are an ever present part of the economy. So I still fail to see your point there. It seems you have shifted the discussion away from the very real facts of the discussion. Electric cars lessen pollution. Maybe you could concentrate on the actual topic?

You seem to ignore how much we are already raping the environment in regards to fossil fuels. Not only do we rape it in obtaining fossil fuels, we rape it when we burn them. You've gone completely off the rails here.
Posted By: MemphisBrownie Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 04:25 PM
Quote
It's like you're staring at the entire wall of dairy in a Wal-Mart and claiming there is only milk. There is much more to the argument than whether electric cars have lower emissions.

There are many facets to the "electric car" argument. We don't make it partisan, our elected officials do. Take electric cars... Biden, while running for office... "There's not a single solitary scientist that thinks [Bernie's climate plan] can work." (Funny how when "green" helped get him elected, his tune changed.)

Yet 57 renowned scientists endorsed "The Deal" as workable science. Ending fossil fuels in ten years flat in the name of saving the climate. It took me .5 seconds to understand that was the most absurd statement I had ever read in my life... not to mention impossible.

Electric cars are gooood. Yet we're raping the environment for the reward. [Don't worry, this never hits close to home]

"Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla have been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The lawsuit, which is the result of field research conducted by anti-slavery economist Siddharth Kara, accuses the companies of aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain."

But that's okay if it's all for the greater good, right??

Cobalt (crucial ingredient in batteries) is rising to record prices. Demand is exploding. MIT estimates that demand will outpace current capacity to mine by nearly double by 2030. Build more mining machines, rape more earth, right??


NOW... that I sound like a bleeding heart. All of the above are facts. And here is another... All of this chicanery is taking place in during a time when electric cars represent 1% of our cars on the road. We should be able to make the transition in 8 more years, right?


But instead of people having the common sense to look out over a 50 year horizon and make intelligent decisions, we get mud-slinging over "saving the planet". Say anything negative about electric cars and you're a science denier and terrible human being. One side goes to bed at night and frightfully pulls the covers over their heads in fear... and it's sold as being caused by the other side, which gives not one f*%$ about the planet.

As the world turns...


[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 04:48 PM
jc

why are americans so scared of innovation? im trying to convince my wife RIGHT NOW to let me jack my credit up, dip into the savings and go get that Audi RS E-Tron or Porsche Taycan.

if yall are talking about EVs because of the entry point price, i COMPLETELY understand that and support the hesitation.

but if yall dont want to get into EVs cause you're scared of new tech and such....i mean damn thats pathetic. but some of yall who are scared also do 60 mph in the left lane anyway so...
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 04:58 PM
Americans used to claim we could create solutions and advance innovation no matter the obstacles. Now they're coming up with excuses why we can't. Meanwhile China is kicking our asses at it yet again....

China's demand for electric vehicles doubles, making it the biggest and fastest growing EV market

A new study shows that 57% of electric vehicles were sold in China.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/china...e-biggest-and-fastest-growing-ev-market/

China led world with 500,000 electric car exports in 2021

Shipments jumped 160% with EU-bound EVs growing fivefold to 230,000

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/E...ith-500-000-electric-car-exports-in-2021

The U.S. is falling further behind China and Europe in electric-vehicle production

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/the...d-china-and-europe-in-ev-production.html

Some nations move forward while many Americans claim we should stick to the past.
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 05:02 PM
yep. and this is what i was trying to say in the other thread, but you nailed it because you're in saying we agree far more than disagree.

im so sick and tired of being told what we CANT do as americans.

well damn, what CAN we do then? just sit on our ass and complain? thats all we're capable of as a society now?
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Yet 57 renowned scientists endorsed "The Deal" as workable science. Ending fossil fuels in ten years flat in the name of saving the climate. It took me .5 seconds to understand that was the most absurd statement I had ever read in my life... not to mention impossible.
.

Regardless of the topic - I'm always shocked that adult people are capable of this degree of self-rationalization.

"57 experts -- who spent their whole lives studying this -- say it is possible, but I knew in 0.5 seconds that they were all wrong...."
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by FATE
Yet 57 renowned scientists endorsed "The Deal" as workable science. Ending fossil fuels in ten years flat in the name of saving the climate. It took me .5 seconds to understand that was the most absurd statement I had ever read in my life... not to mention impossible.
.

Regardless of the topic - I'm always shocked that adult people are capable of this degree of self-rationalization.

"57 experts who spent their whole lives studying this say it is possible, but I knew in 0.5 seconds that they were all wrong...."

Well, that's because they're wrong. Can't end fossil fuels and be at 100% electric cars in 10 years. If you think we can, you're not that smart. 57 "experts" were partisan hacks jumping on board with the impossible, because either... A. They had painted themselves into a corner with previous statements or support given. B. They were okay with supporting "impossible"... for the "greater good". C. (most likely) They had something to gain by supporting such nonsense. Use your head.
Posted By: Lyuokdea Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Well, that's because they're wrong. Can't end fossil fuels and be at 100% electric cars in 10 years. If you think we can, you're not that smart. 57 "experts" were partisan hacks jumping on board with the impossible, because either... A. They had painted themselves into a corner with previous statements or support given. B. They were okay with supporting "impossible"... for the "greater good". C. (most likely) They had something to gain by supporting such nonsense. Use your head.

Right - that's the type of rationalization I was referring to.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by Lyuokdea
Originally Posted by FATE
Well, that's because they're wrong. Can't end fossil fuels and be at 100% electric cars in 10 years. If you think we can, you're not that smart. 57 "experts" were partisan hacks jumping on board with the impossible, because either... A. They had painted themselves into a corner with previous statements or support given. B. They were okay with supporting "impossible"... for the "greater good". C. (most likely) They had something to gain by supporting such nonsense. Use your head.

Right - that's the type of rationalization I was referring to.

Yeah, well, "got me".

ra·tion·al·i·za·tion
/ˌraSH(ə)n(ə)ləˈzāSH(ə)n,ˌraSH(ə)n(ə)līˈzāSH(ə)n/

noun
1.
the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.


Anything outside of "lockstep" is met with faux outrage and marks the end of intelligent conversation. That's why nothing intelligent comes to pass in this country. Me raising any counter-argument is inappropriate.

And, as your statements bear witness, the conversation then shifts far away from the subject and ends as this one does... With me being painted as smug and unintelligent for raising an eyebrow. Have a nice day.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 07:26 PM
Car software just updated while it was sitting in the garage to improve its self-driving capabilities. Pretty cool. Had a recall on it. Also taken care of through software updates, because there aren't a ton of moving parts. Haven't been to a gas station since May.

But, yeah, I should be driving a gas car. EV technology is not currently perfected, so we should just stick with the old ways. I mean, gas car design and infrastructure pretty much piqued with the Model T.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Car software just updated while it was sitting in the garage to improve its self-driving capabilities. Pretty cool. Had a recall on it. Also taken care of through software updates, because there aren't a ton of moving parts. Haven't been to a gas station since May.

But, yeah, I should be driving a gas car. EV technology is not currently perfected, so we should just stick with the old ways. I mean, gas car design and infrastructure pretty much piqued with the Model T.

My gas powered car can do OTA updates too. I understood there to a change from DOT on wireless updates recently that now allows them.

A plug in car does not work in our situation. I could drag an extension cord down to the street where we have to park, and of course, donate them to the people who walk by looking for things to steal.

They work for some people, not for others. EV is not a one size fits all solution, no matter how often we are told otherwise.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Car software just updated while it was sitting in the garage to improve its self-driving capabilities. Pretty cool. Had a recall on it. Also taken care of through software updates, because there aren't a ton of moving parts. Haven't been to a gas station since May.

But, yeah, I should be driving a gas car. EV technology is not currently perfected, so we should just stick with the old ways. I mean, gas car design and infrastructure pretty much piqued with the Model T.

Yeah, well you better be careful, you're bound to download a virus! And when the industry puts expiration dates on software updates, your cute little car will be about as useful as last year's chromebook! You let me know how "plug it in, plug it in" works out for you then!
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 07:40 PM
If you could take a second to move away from your smugness and unintelligence to let me get a word in... wink laugh

I actually understand your line of thought that things should be questioned. Science should absolutely be questioned. That's how valid conclusions are made to hypotheses. I think the problem comes from both ends, though. Some people may blindly follow conclusions without questioning them, and that's a problem. On the other hand, some people may blindly rail against conclusions without knowing what they're talking about. Those groups are often the loudest in the room.

As far as EV's go, I think there seems to be enough science out there from what Lyuok has discussed and what the EPA has listed which demonstrates that so far it looks to be a step in the right direction. Does that mean it's perfect? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't also explore other alternative energy sources? Of course not. I think we need to keep the gas pedal on improving what will eventually become dire straits, if it isn't already. Some people on this board have said "gas forever!" (direct quote), but that's just the problem. It can't be. Add into that the environmental concerns and sustainability is a problem. We've tried to go the fuel cell route already with hydrogen, but that didn't take and obviously had its own problems. EVs, for better or worse, seem to be obtaining considerable and sustainable momentum into being the alternative, or at least the most viable one currently. Not just here, but the world over. Do we have a lot of concerns with that route? Oh flip yeah, we do. But I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve those, from replacing lithium, to improving infrastructure, to moving energy production down to the consumer level (whereas with gas, we can't just drill out in our own back yards).

I think the fact that they represent a significant step, while also preserving room for improvement should galvanize our efforts as the most innovative country in the world. The problem is we spend too much time making every GD thing political to where it comes down to "This is the only way and everyone must accept it no matter what" vs "We cannot go this route no matter what" that we get to the point where we start treading water. Then others swoop in and leap frog us. That's a point that Swish made, which I agree with. We could 100% innovate and improve much better than China, because we allow improvement through independent, individual thoughts and innovation, or at least we used to. Now, we're too focused on figuring out why we can't do something.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Car software just updated while it was sitting in the garage to improve its self-driving capabilities. Pretty cool. Had a recall on it. Also taken care of through software updates, because there aren't a ton of moving parts. Haven't been to a gas station since May.

But, yeah, I should be driving a gas car. EV technology is not currently perfected, so we should just stick with the old ways. I mean, gas car design and infrastructure pretty much piqued with the Model T.

My gas powered car can do OTA updates too. I understood there to a change from DOT on wireless updates recently that now allows them.

A plug in car does not work in our situation. I could drag an extension cord down to the street where we have to park, and of course, donate them to the people who walk by looking for things to steal.

They work for some people, not for others. EV is not a one size fits all solution, no matter how often we are told otherwise.

Same here. Can't throw a cord out the window at my apartment. Home is four hours away. Drive there often, 520 mile round trip. Feasibility for me would mean occasionally parking at a ChargePoint ten minutes away and getting a ride to my apartment. I haven't run out of gas and thumbed for a ride in about 35 years, so I don't see that happening.

Excited to buy one once the time is right. One thing that has definitely been understated is the crazy rate at which the tech has evolved.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Car software just updated while it was sitting in the garage to improve its self-driving capabilities. Pretty cool. Had a recall on it. Also taken care of through software updates, because there aren't a ton of moving parts. Haven't been to a gas station since May.

But, yeah, I should be driving a gas car. EV technology is not currently perfected, so we should just stick with the old ways. I mean, gas car design and infrastructure pretty much piqued with the Model T.

My gas powered car can do OTA updates too. I understood there to a change from DOT on wireless updates recently that now allows them.

A plug in car does not work in our situation. I could drag an extension cord down to the street where we have to park, and of course, donate them to the people who walk by looking for things to steal.

They work for some people, not for others. EV is not a one size fits all solution, no matter how often we are told otherwise.

It definitely doesn't work for everyone...yet, at least. That's actually the reason we have both cars (gas and electric).

The difference with the OTA updates is that, if you have a gas engine, transmission, etc. there are a lot of other mechanical things that can't be touched OTA, hence you need to take it to your service center. In the case of an EV, the OTA can actually effect the actual performance parts of the car to a much greater extent, as I understand it, and have experienced. We've had legitimate safety recalls take place OTA.

When it comes to the EV companies, like Tesla and whatnot, I think their biggest problem is that they may have the innovative edge, but they don't have the production edge. You can see that with the spare parts and whatnot. If the traditional car companies catch up in innovation, they could really change the game.
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by Swish
jc

why are americans so scared of innovation? im trying to convince my wife RIGHT NOW to let me jack my credit up, dip into the savings and go get that Audi RS E-Tron or Porsche Taycan.

if yall are talking about EVs because of the entry point price, i COMPLETELY understand that and support the hesitation.

but if yall dont want to get into EVs cause you're scared of new tech and such....i mean damn thats pathetic. but some of yall who are scared also do 60 mph in the left lane anyway so...

Americans in general are not afraid, conservative-minded people are always skeptical of any advancements, and the "do/say as you're ordered" talking points crown are just political drones. The best interest of big oil is what they are protecting, most unknowingly.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 09:40 PM
Originally Posted by dawglover05
If you could take a second to move away from your smugness and unintelligence to let me get a word in... wink laugh

I actually understand your line of thought that things should be questioned. Science should absolutely be questioned. That's how valid conclusions are made to hypotheses. I think the problem comes from both ends, though. Some people may blindly follow conclusions without questioning them, and that's a problem. On the other hand, some people may blindly rail against conclusions without knowing what they're talking about. Those groups are often the loudest in the room.

As far as EV's go, I think there seems to be enough science out there from what Lyuok has discussed and what the EPA has listed which demonstrates that so far it looks to be a step in the right direction. Does that mean it's perfect? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't also explore other alternative energy sources? Of course not. I think we need to keep the gas pedal on improving what will eventually become dire straits, if it isn't already. Some people on this board have said "gas forever!" (direct quote), but that's just the problem. It can't be. Add into that the environmental concerns and sustainability is a problem. We've tried to go the fuel cell route already with hydrogen, but that didn't take and obviously had its own problems. EVs, for better or worse, seem to be obtaining considerable and sustainable momentum into being the alternative, or at least the most viable one currently. Not just here, but the world over. Do we have a lot of concerns with that route? Oh flip yeah, we do. But I think there are a lot of opportunities to improve those, from replacing lithium, to improving infrastructure, to moving energy production down to the consumer level (whereas with gas, we can't just drill out in our own back yards).

I think the fact that they represent a significant step, while also preserving room for improvement should galvanize our efforts as the most innovative country in the world. The problem is we spend too much time making every GD thing political to where it comes down to "This is the only way and everyone must accept it no matter what" vs "We cannot go this route no matter what" that we get to the point where we start treading water. Then others swoop in and leap frog us. That's a point that Swish made, which I agree with. We could 100% innovate and improve much better than China, because we allow improvement through independent, individual thoughts and innovation, or at least we used to. Now, we're too focused on figuring out why we can't do something.

QFT

Great post. I agree with it 100%

EVs are the only path to the future. They don't need to reach some far-fetched, short term critical mass to blaze that path. Trying to push for that in the short term definitely has it's own set of problems. And imo, is a little foolish. There is a whole lot of "fleshing out" that needs to take place within the infrastructure and the tech. I'm in favor of moving forward in a sensible manner without demonizing or cancelling other parts of the menu mix.

My whole entry into this conversation is based on the all too common chant of "science!" which usually, conveniently, ignores part of the actual science. Also, when a "plan" calls for impossible benchmarks, I can't help but question the plan. Unfortunately, to most people reading, the assumption would be that I'm against change, innovation, and electric cars. I'm surprised someone hasn't posted something like "so, you think doing nothing at all is a better option?", or a question equally as silly.

The middle of your post paints a perfect, common sense approach to the future. We've accelerated that path, and that's a good thing. Competition among EV companies is also helping make it a win for consumers, at least those in position to participate.

I can't help but think there is some valuable content missing from the conversation if we're all just going to scream "electric" though. The ICE will not be extinct for at least a few decades, and I really don't think there is anything wrong with that timetable. If I were czar, and I were running this like a business, I'd throw the industry a serious curve ball and require that starting in 2025, all new ICE vehicles must be dual-fuel and capable of running on CNG, while also giving all consumers 100% tax credit on installing a fueling station in their garage. We hedge our bet against petroleum while taking an axe to our dependence... with a cleaner, cheaper resource that is abundant on our own turf. We flatten the curve of "electric by necessity" by riding out both resources on the other end. That also helps keep competition as the consumer's best friend along the way.

Next steps: Figure out how to maximize efficiency and minimize dependance on the other 60% of a barrel of oil.

Figure out where all this electric will come from. Your electric car runs on coal, so there is still a very large part of the "issue" that needs to be addressed.

I'm hoping Musk can figure out a way to beam down endless supplies of electricity from outer space. In the meantime, rest assured -- when I see you stranded by the road after a pulse bomb -- I'll pick you up in my gas-guzzling '72 Nova.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 09:56 PM
Great post.

I guess my only question to you is why do you think doing nothing at all is a better option?

laugh
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 10:06 PM
Because I'm not just going to stand by and watch my all freedoms get taken away.

[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 10:32 PM
What happens when everyone loses power like what's happening in Florida right now?
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 10:42 PM
Well, I don’t think too many people are driving around in any cars right now, gas or electric. Can’t imagine too many gas stations are faring well either. Other than that, I think it’s a huge opportunity for improvement to infrastructure as well.

Let me ask you, what do you think they should do?
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 11:05 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
What happens when everyone loses power like what's happening in Florida right now?

How does it matter? All of the stores are closed. At least you can plug your cell phone into your electric car and see if the local Mickey Ds is serving up some kibbles. Smart money in FL has a whole house generator. If and when I buy an electric car, that will probably be the straw that makes this camel invest in one.
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 11:41 PM
jc

i guess im just oblivious or something, but i never understand why we talk about energy as if it's an "either or" scenario.

isn't having a diversified energy grid a good thing? wouldn't having a diversified grid allow us to be less susceptible to geopolitical crisis, as well as enabling us to tap into different sectors in times of natural disaster for a more efficient response?

i swear this is what the 50's and 60's must have been like, just without social media. damn near half the country talking about why trying to get a rocket into outer space and land on the moon is a waste of time. or worse, acting like they can tell the scientist that somehow, they aren't doing it correctly.

the same kind of dudes who were trashing automobiles when they first dropped. the horse and buggy is tried and true!!

why cant we just do both?
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/29/22 11:53 PM
Who's saying any of that, bro? I feel like there has been a lot of decent back and forth on this subject once people get past the politics. I can't say I know a single soul that represents the above mindset. Personally, I'm all about the diversified approach.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 12:54 AM
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Well, I don’t think too many people are driving around in any cars right now, gas or electric. Can’t imagine too many gas stations are faring well either. Other than that, I think it’s a huge opportunity for improvement to infrastructure as well.

Let me ask you, what do you think they should do?


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.
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:27 AM
We would all be driving hydrogen cars powered by water if politics and greed would get out of the way of innovation, science, and doing what's best for the planet. As I said, I have no dog in this race but the way we are going right now the 2030 models will probably look like this:


[Linked Image from i.ytimg.com]
Posted By: Squires Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:45 AM
Why would I buy a car that doesn't meet my needs?
Posted By: EveDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:50 AM
Because the sky is falling.
Posted By: SuperBrown Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:54 AM
Give me a gas guzzling V8 all day long! thumbsup
Posted By: WooferDawg Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 02:53 AM
America used to be the country built on a can do attitude and embracing the innovations of the future.

This thread is the perfect example of a can’t do attitude and fundamental questioning of our ability to embrace change.

Sadness is all I feel. Next time someone mentions MAGA, they should be given this thread to explain.
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Who's saying any of that, bro? I feel like there has been a lot of decent back and forth on this subject once people get past the politics. I can't say I know a single soul that represents the above mindset. Personally, I'm all about the diversified approach.

The same kind of people who think we can’t do anything in this country and trash EVs for no other reason than some misplaced loyalty to petrol cars.

Originally Posted by Squires
Why would I buy a car that doesn't meet my needs?

Nobody is telling you too. But the increase in different styles of EVs is making “meet my needs” an irrelevant comment.

I need a pickup truck that can tow - that Rivian has your back
I need a point A to B car for city driving - pick an EV
I need a road trip car - pick an EV
I need a SUV that can carry a large family - pick an EV SUV
I need a ride that I can torch clowns on the highway or at the light: pick an EV

The amount of “reasons” people are coming up with as to why EVs don’t fit their needs is shrinking by the month. The main issue for not getting an EV is price point. And as I’ve said before, I completely understand that. But eventually, not even that will be a reason. The 2nd biggest reason is EV charging points. And again, eventually that won’t be a good reason.

The reality is that a lot of the anti EV crowd don’t even have good excuses. Y’all just hating. Why? Because y’all make excuses as to why you won’t even get a hybrid. I remember people around the country trashing those too.

I wish some of y’all would just be honest and say you’re stuck in your ways and hate change in any aspect of life, never mind technology.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 01:46 PM
Remember when all the good ole cowboys said their horses would prove to be more efficient then the motorcar would ever be? Standing there, stuck in the mud watching the world pass them by.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by SuperBrown
Give me a gas guzzling V8 all day long! thumbsup

We’ll wave at you with both hands as we pass you at light speed in the self driving and recharging EV lane.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Because I'm not just going to stand by and watch “my all” freedoms get taken away.

[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]

Lol … “my all” …and that truck ain’t licensed boy. Keep it on the farm and you won’t loose “ur all” lol… freedoms son.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by FATE
Because I'm not just going to stand by and watch “my all” freedoms get taken away.

[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]

Lol … “my all” …and that truck ain’t licensed boy. Keep it on the farm and you won’t loose “ur all” lol… freedoms son.

The hell you say. I get popped, I just tell them I'm on the way to pick up a load of hay! That there PBR will sit upright in the glove box if you stuff 'er in there real careful.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 03:39 PM
Originally Posted by superbowldogg
Originally Posted by dawglover05
Well, I don’t think too many people are driving around in any cars right now, gas or electric. Can’t imagine too many gas stations are faring well either. Other than that, I think it’s a huge opportunity for improvement to infrastructure as well.

Let me ask you, what do you think they should do?


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.

Sorry, you said that earlier and I forgot. So, the fuel cell is hydrogen powered, but it obviously didn't take, compared to EVs. Here is an article as to why:

https://theconversation.com/hydroge...e-hampered-by-the-laws-of-science-139899

On top of that, like anything else, we still have to figure out a way to source our hydrogen, and store it. With it being the smallest of the elements, as I understand it, storage becomes an issue - along with volatility. You mentioned fires with EVs - which has a 0.3% chance compared to gas cars 1.05% chance - hydrogen - as we all know from a major historical event doesn't exactly alleviate qualms when it comes to flammability.

I honestly don't know much about the nitrogen gas source. Nitrogen has abundance in our atmosphere, obviously, but it still needs to be separated and captured as well. Anything you have on this front that might be a good read, I'd be interested.

Oxygen, I don't understand at all. Oxygen is what you add to something when you burn it. That's why we have the concern with the CO2 in our atmosphere - because we're taking a bunch of carbon based products out of the ground, adding oxygen to it, and sending it up into the air. Oxygen is also added to the hydrogen fuel source in a fuel cell (making water). So, I don't get how you can utilize oxygen as a fuel basis in and of itself. Not saying it can't be done, but I just don't see it myself.

As far as the turbine engine goes, I don't know much, but I imagine, again we have the same fuel sourcing issue, let alone the costs of the fuel. I read about it on Wikipedia and saw that a variant of it was used on the Abrams, which is kind of cool.

None of this is to say that any of those can't be a viable alternative. Perhaps they could be. If there can be a legitimate, scientific and financial comparison of them all, then I think markets should be set up for any of those alternatives. As it stands right now, EVs are getting a lot of the momentum, because there is a known alternative infrastructure already in place to fuel those vehicles, which can - and should - be improved upon. Overall, I think the scientific margin for EVs to improve is pretty wide. I'm not a scientist, but it seems that transferring the sun's energy (from whatever source, wind, natural resources, etc.) into electricity is one of the easier and more sustainable known forms of energy transfer and storage.

Like FATE and I were discussing, whatever means of future advancement that makes sense - and can move us away from unsustainable oil and fossil fuel consumption - should be explored. I think what I don't get - much like Swish - is the EV naysayers that seem to arbitrarily not want EV to be a viable alternative, despite the fact it's already blazing in that direction and there is a TON of room for improvement across the platform and its infrastructural fuel sourcing.

We have pretty much been the cutting edge country for cool stuff - especially when it comes to transportation - for over a century now. Whatever the best alternative is, we need to make sure we take and keep the lead on it.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by WooferDawg
America used to be the country built on a can do attitude and embracing the innovations of the future.

This thread is the perfect example of a can’t do attitude and fundamental questioning of our ability to embrace change.

Sadness is all I feel. Next time someone mentions MAGA, they should be given this thread to explain.

Elon said something mean about Trump, so now a bunch of people with their "gas guzzling V8s" and wind blowing flags attached have to spend half their paychecks in gas to ride around town to pwn Musk now.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 03:43 PM
Haha, torching clowns at the light. I will say, I don't have the "performance pack" on mine, but my buddy who does almost broke my damn neck when he hit the "gas" on his car. The electric torque is something else...
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 04:38 PM
That’s the spirt of the party of law and order. Lol
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 04:43 PM
Not to mention there is no loss of acceleration or more electric consumption at altitude. Making electric motors for flying commercial airlines even more attractive.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Not to mention there is no loss of acceleration or more electric consumption at altitude. Making electric motors for flying commercial airlines even more attractive.

A lot of talk, but Airbus is definitely pushing the hydrogen envelope.

[Linked Image from airbus.com]
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by Squires
Why would I buy a car that doesn't meet my needs?

They certainly won't meet the needs of everyone at the present time and I understand that. The hybrid option is also available that will. What I will say is with the fast charge option you can now fully charge an EV in ten minutes. I don't believe that a lot of people will see that as a huge obstacle.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by SuperBrown
Give me a gas guzzling V8 all day long! thumbsup

Saudi Arabia, Iran and the entire middle eastern OPEC nations thank you for your support.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 05:44 PM
While looking at the fuel cell stuff, I came across an article that said it might make more sense for airlines to go the fuel cell route vs electrical. If so, I'm all for it. Too bad that Airbus is kicking Boeing's bus across the board right now, but Boeing made that bed and has to sleep in it through their own selfishness, recklessness and greed.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 05:44 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by FATE
Because I'm not just going to stand by and watch “my all” freedoms get taken away.

[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]

Lol … “my all” …and that truck ain’t licensed boy. Keep it on the farm and you won’t loose “ur all” lol… freedoms son.

The hell you say. I get popped, I just tell them I'm on the way to pick up a load of hay! That there PBR will sit upright in the glove box if you stuff 'er in there real careful.

You could always try to play the sovereign citizen card.

naughtydevil
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by dawglover05
While looking at the fuel cell stuff, I came across an article that said it might make more sense for airlines to go the fuel cell route vs electrical. If so, I'm all for it. Too bad that Airbus is kicking Boeing's bus across the board right now, but Boeing made that bed and has to sleep in it through their own selfishness, recklessness and greed.

That's funny, I recently ran across this:

Boeing puts $450M into company building electric, autonomous, passenger-carrying planes

And thought, hmmm... not sure I would willingly jump on one of those. But hey, what's a half-billion, right? lol
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 09/30/22 08:02 PM
Oh goodness...as long as it's the other company that does it, and hopefully they stay independent of Boeing.

Before Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, you had two companies that could build decent planes. Now, you have one company that cannot, either commercially or for the military.

I treat it like the neighbor, Lawrence, from Office Space:

Boeing: "Hey Wisk, you wanna come over and hang out?"

Wisk: "No thanks, man....don't want you effin' up my life, too..."
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 10/01/22 12:42 PM
Quote
What I will say is with the fast charge option you can now fully charge an EV in ten minutes.

I wonder if there is any truth to a few articles I have seen that says fast charging wears out the batteries a lot faster?
Posted By: Swish Re: Electric Cars - 10/01/22 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Quote
What I will say is with the fast charge option you can now fully charge an EV in ten minutes.

I wonder if there is any truth to a few articles I have seen that says fast charging wears out the batteries a lot faster?

some of the message boards with the EV guys are torn on that. what IS known is you dont want to charge the battery to 100% all the time. but there's settings in some of the EV cars that allows you to set a limit by % on how much it gets charged.

so typically out in the streets, you dont charge it past 85-90%, but when you park it at home and such, top it off.
Posted By: dawglover05 Re: Electric Cars - 10/01/22 02:02 PM
I always have mine set to charge to 90% unless I’m about to go on a big road trip. It’s extremely easy to do on the app.

If you go on a long road trip and use the car’s map function, it routes you to all the super chargers you need along the way. Before you get there, you see a prompt that the car is “preparing the battery for fast charging” so I’m not exactly sure what all that entails, but I’m guessing it’s a good thing for the battery’s longevity.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 10/01/22 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Originally Posted by dawglover05
While looking at the fuel cell stuff, I came across an article that said it might make more sense for airlines to go the fuel cell route vs electrical. If so, I'm all for it. Too bad that Airbus is kicking Boeing's bus across the board right now, but Boeing made that bed and has to sleep in it through their own selfishness, recklessness and greed.

That's funny, I recently ran across this:

Boeing puts $450M into company building electric, autonomous, passenger-carrying planes

And thought, hmmm... not sure I would willingly jump on one of those. But hey, what's a half-billion, right? lol

They are about 20-30 years from electric planes.
Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 10/07/22 02:43 AM



curious to see how this goes...

https://topelectricsuv.com/news/tesla/tesla-semi-all-we-know-feb-2022/

Without the payload, the Semi quad-motor could accelerate like a mid-range sports car with a 0-60 mph time of just around 5 seconds.


4680 Cells
The Tesla Semi should use 4680 cells, at least in one version. The new type of cell measures 80 mm in length and around 46 mm in diameter, hence the 4680 name. At the Tesla Battery Day 2020, Andrew Baglino, the company’s Senior Vice President for Powertrain and Energy Engineering, said that 4680 cells give five times the energy, six times the power, and a 16% higher range as compared to the current cells.


Automatic Tire Inflation System
Tesla could offer the Semi with an Automatic Tire Inflation System (ATIS), as per a report from electrek. The company has received USPTO’s grant for the patent for this technology, which could automatically revise the tire pressure and keep it at the optimum level. electrek has seen the patent application and says that it mentioned John Furtado as the inventor of the technology. Furtado has worked on the Semi’s brake controls, brakes, pneumatics, tires, wheel ends, and wheels.
An ATIS is not new technology, but Tesla is improving it. Its version of the ATIS substantially reduces contamination in the air stream. As the air stream is purer, the ATIS’ life increases, and it requires maintenance less frequently.
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 10/07/22 05:13 AM
I can't wait for the Zombie movie that has people running around risking life and limb for batteries.
Posted By: mac Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 07:07 PM
JC...

Whether we like it or not...times are a changing..! The American people either change with the times and embrace the new technological advances that are coming or they can fear what they do not understand.

As with any new technology, there are going to be challenges to overcome but it appears that the auto industry has done a decent job of doing what they can to make the roll-out of the EV a success. First of all, it looks as though American car companies (Ford/GM) have produced some good vehicles that work well and provide the quality and performance the consumers expected.

I had my first experience with EVs yesterday, as my son brought the family (of 4) and the dog down for our Thanksgiving Day celebration in his recently purchased EV, a Chevy Bolt. The trip was 125 miles plus all the test drives given to those of us who had never experienced a drive or ride in an EV. The charge meter showed that he still had about 2/3 of a charge remaining once he got home last night, after a round trip of 155 miles. I have no idea how that translates into mpg or should I say mpc (charge).

It's nearly impossible to calculate miles per charge because during braking, the Chevy Bolt actually charges its own batteries. Because of this re-charge capability, the Bolt actually gets it's best mileage in stop and go traffic.

You get in, the driver pushes the ON button and lights for the various sensors and electronic systems come on...but you hear nothing, unless the volume for the radio was left on..'turned up' by the previous driver...lol. But really, you hear nothing when the ON button is pushed. Once all the systems are powered up, you are ready to roll...still you hear "nothing", once you select 'reverse' and back up. There was no gear shift..just push buttons to select reverse or drive.

Once you select drive, there is no shifting noise or engine rev as the car is shifted from reverse to drive (forward) and accelerates...it does not shift but remains in 'forward' gear, but I could not hear any electric motor rev as we accelerated. As other EV drivers have experienced, the acceleration and performance of the Bolt was outstanding and not lacking for any situation a driver might experience in freeway driving. The engine package for this model of the Chevy Bolt is rated at 200 HP according to the vehicle manual.

This Bolt was equipped an automatic braking, single pedal mode that allows the car to brake itself when the driver takes their foot off of the accelerator. The car will stop itself to a "complete stop" without the driver doing anything but removing their foot from the accelerator. Also, while driving in this "single pedal mode", the Chevy Bolt is recharging its own batteries.

The Chevy Bolt my son selected was "loaded" with all the bells and whistles a driver could imagine (imo).

...automatic heated and cooled seats with an automatic or manually controlled option.
...visual camera assist video cameras everywhere...-Front and back cameras...-blindside driver and passenger cameras...-plus a 360% overhead camera.
...There may have been more video cameras that I was not aware of...but what else could a driver need to see..?

Also, concerning the noise factor of the Chevy Bolt... it is so quiet that Chevy had to add something to make noise so the Bolt could be recognized "by sound", to assist those who are blind..so they could recognize that a EV vehicle was coming via the road.

I'm sure there were some features that I missed in my short 1/2 hr introduction to the Chevy Bolt...but I must admit, I WAS IMPRESSED..!

Posted By: superbowldogg Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 07:31 PM
"during braking, the Chevy Bolt actually charges its own batteries. Because of this re-charge capability, the Bolt actually gets it's best mileage in stop and go traffic."


fun fact... BMW started down this path in 2005/06 with their intelligent alternator control with regenerative braking. It helped reduce fuel consumption by about 4%. I think they introduced this to their f01/n63 platform in 2008. It was overshadowed by all of the issues they had with the n63 grenading itself from oil consumption issues in the Hot V.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 07:38 PM
It's a good thing technology doesn't sand still.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
It's a good thing technology doesn't sand still.


[Linked Image from thumbs.gfycat.com]
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 08:03 PM
You got me.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 08:09 PM
Just pokin'. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. wink
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 08:13 PM
I did. I hope you did as well.
Posted By: SuperBrown Re: Electric Cars - 11/25/22 09:40 PM
The Biden Energy Plan:

[Linked Image from media0.giphy.com]
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 01:22 AM
Who needs electric cars. There's a better plan.

Make them suffer for their climate sins!!

Less Anesthesia in Surgeries Could Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Hospitals, Experts Suggest

#science
Posted By: Pdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 01:46 AM
Something I never thought of.. The distance you can travel on a charge is severely affected by temperature. Over Christmas my nephew, who owns a Chevy Bolt, couldn’t make it from Cleveland to Youngstown on a charge. He stopped in Streetsboro for an hour to charge, then In Girard. Girard was out of the way but he couldn’t make it driving straight to New Middletown. He said the chargers were working slow as well.

Now Christmas it was frigid. I’m not sure how much his distance per charge is affected by normal winter weather. I do know he likes the car.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 03:50 AM
A Chevy bolt… rofl Sorry but absolutely the worst vehicle ever. I believe GM (no not you GM dawg poke) put out this pos to make EV’s look bad.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
A Chevy bolt… rofl Sorry but absolutely the worst vehicle ever. I believe GM (no not you GM dawg poke) put out this pos to make EV’s look bad.

Do they use some different battery type than every other EV?
Posted By: Pdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
A Chevy bolt… rofl Sorry but absolutely the worst vehicle ever. I believe GM (no not you GM dawg poke) put out this pos to make EV’s look bad.
I never said he had good taste
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 03:30 PM
If you want to simplify it to "same type of battery" you could say that about a Duracell and a cheap ass of brand battery. All gas cars use combustion engines too. But as per usual, you get what you pay for.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 03:32 PM
Not sure but the Bolt only had a 200 mile range I believe. Turn on the heater and lights in the cold and you may get 50. And the braking was horrid, you have to stomp on ‘em.. The dashboard is nice but the interior is cheap. You get what you pay for. And in this case not even that.

I do know Tesla uses a fuse of sort on each battery cell. There are hundreds of roughly AA size lithium battery cells in the battery pack. When one battery fails the link is broken to remove that battery from the elec system. If this link maintains, that would cause the entire system to drain and fail much faster.
Posted By: Versatile Dog Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by FATE
Who needs electric cars. There's a better plan.

Make them suffer for their climate sins!!

Less Anesthesia in Surgeries Could Reduce the Carbon Footprint of Hospitals, Experts Suggest

#science

I don't like to post in this forum, but that article is crazy. My wife is out shopping w/our daughter, but I can't wait to tell her about this proposal. I don't think she is going to react favorably to the thought of giving her patients less anesthesia. The whole idea is pretty whacked because most people know that giving a patient too much anesthesia is a huge no-no. It's not like hitting someone on the head w/a hammer to keep them knocked out "longer."
Posted By: THROW LONG Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 05:30 PM
Noboby wants to hit school kids in school zones 20mph right? of course.
I mean, I think people are missing the point of letting the overlorts control every waking split>second of your conscious life,

so, OF Course, unless anyone wants to be called a MON STER that wants to endanger school kids in 20mph crosswalks , and what the heck would be wrong with those people, hmm

then, of course NOBODY could object to the gov't overlorts if they would one day plan to install
engine governors that reduce cars speeds to whatever speeds the overlorts demand, and for whatever reason they demand,

on the technology that every car sold in the kingdom be fitted with a receiver for the broadcasted /narrow>casted speed limit.
Many trucks already have engine governors that don't let them drive over 60++ mph.

Why not just let the government decide by whatever street you are on that none of the cars passing by have the physical ability to drive any faster than the government sets, for any reason, emergency or whatever,
I mean, b/c you aren't a monster that wants to endanger the school kids in the crosswalks right?
That is what the evil controlling nature of the anti Christ government will get to if we're around long enough to witness it.

electric cars are just another step down that road.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 06:20 PM
So are you trying to say that government overlords are forcing car manufacturers to produce electric vehicles?
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
If you want to simplify it to "same type of battery" you could say that about a Duracell and a cheap ass of brand battery. All gas cars use combustion engines too. But as per usual, you get what you pay for.

Yes, if you want to dumb it down so you can understand it.

The batteries used in ALL EVs are not cold friendly due to the chemistry. It doesn't matter if it is a Tesla or a Chevy. It is in the chemistry.
Posted By: Versatile Dog Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 10:17 PM
I doubt anyone cares, but I did talk to my wife about the anesthesia being released from hospitals. She had a couple of things to say.

One is that it is indeed being released straight into the air by hospitals and she thinks it could be damaging to humans because of how anesthesia affects our bodies. Decreases blood pressure, the nervous system, etc. She believes that new ways should be developed to capture the gasses instead of releasing them directly into the air. Of course, money is probably the reason why that has not happened yet.

Secondly, she said let the people who are promoting the idea of less anesthesia be the first to participate in receiving less during surgeries. She said it's a very exact science of how much anesthesia to administer. You can't not administer too little or too much. For us layman, I reckon it isn't something like us going to the deli and say "give me a 1/2 lb of salami. No wait, make that 3/4 of a pound." Anesthesia is very precise and intricate in how much to apply given a huge amount of factors in regards to the particular patient.

One last thing for folks who might not know much about anesthesia. Here is one thing you never want to do, but yet, many patients still ask for it. If your anesthesiologist or anesthetist offer you a "local," take it. Don't say you want to be knocked out because you don't want to see the procedure. Too many things can go wrong while you are anesthetized.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 10:45 PM
This is pretty interesting:

https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ttery-plant-michigan-sources-2023-02-10/
Posted By: Versatile Dog Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 11:04 PM
Quote
You can't not...

Sorry for all the mistakes. I probably should proofread my posts.
Posted By: EveDawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 11:11 PM
I woke up in the middle of oral surgery once. That was no fun.
Posted By: Versatile Dog Re: Electric Cars - 02/11/23 11:15 PM
Damn. That would be awful.
Posted By: Pdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 12:54 AM
I woke up during one of my ECTs. That was a bit scary.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 01:13 AM
Yeah. No. I wake up during lithotripsy, someone's getting punched in the face.

Yes, anesthesia is a very exact science. Have a couple anesthesiologists in the family.

Thinking it would be better to cut a patient's dose, rather than figure out a more efficient means of administering, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard... and these people are serious.

And thinking this would even move the needle in respect to global warming is like thinking you could treat an amputation with a box of band-aids.
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 12:41 PM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
A Chevy bolt… rofl Sorry but absolutely the worst vehicle ever. I believe GM (no not you GM dawg poke) put out this pos to make EV’s look bad.


Chevy Volt batteries can run you close to 30,000 bucks.
Posted By: Jester Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 01:26 PM
Autoblog
To tap U.S. government billions, Tesla must unlock EV chargers
171
Reuters
Fri, February 10, 2023 at 4:00 PM EST·4 min read




Tesla CEO Elon Musk has often talked about opening his Supercharging network to competitors, but has never actually done so in the United States, where the company dominates the electric vehicle market.

Now, the brash CEO may have 7.5 billion reasons to accelerate those plans.

The Department of Transportation next week is expected to finalize a requirement that will pressure Tesla to expand beyond its proprietary charging equipment in the U.S. and add the charger used by its competitors, administration officials tell Reuters.


Otherwise, the carmaker will be left out of the $7.5 billion in subsidies flowing out of Washington, part of President Joe Biden’s plan to blanket the nation with 500,000 EV chargers in the coming years, up from 100,000 in 2021.

The network is a central part of Biden's plan to tackle climate change by converting 50% of all new U.S. vehicle sales to electric by 2030. A dearth of chargers on U.S. roads has slowed the growth of EV sales and the positive environmental impact, advocates say.

As the U.S. pressure builds, there are plenty of signs that Tesla is on the brink of democratizing its network, even though Musk has denounced the federal government's involvement before.

In January of last year, Tesla wrote the Federal Highway Administration, offering the Biden administration suggestions on how to shape the charging program. In Ohio, the company responded to a recent request that companies submit charging proposals, state officials told Reuters. In Arizona, the company told the state it was open to upgrading its chargers or building new ones to meet the federal requirements, although a final decision was not made.

Musk met with White House officials last month in Washington D.C. Among the items discussed was EV charging program, White House infrastructure czar Mitch Landrieu told reporters.

Musk, for his part, said in a July 2021 earnings call that the point of Tesla's charging network was "not to create a walled garden and use that to bludgeon our competitors," but has not publicly discussed plans for U.S. market changes. The company has opened up some Superchargers in Europe and Australia.

An email to Tesla and Musk was not returned.

State officials are optimistic.

"We do understand that Tesla is looking to tweak their system to be more open access. So, if they do reach that point and meet those eligibility requirements, they certainly will be eligible for funding," said Stuart Anderson, the state of Iowa's Transportation Development Division Director.

SUPERCHARGER DOMINANCE

Tesla’s U.S. Supercharger network is often held up as the gold standard: fast, reliable, and plentiful, with about 40,000 chargers worldwide.

But for years, the network has been exclusive to Tesla owners, thanks to a plug that connects only to Tesla cars, meaning someone driving a Volkswagen, Ford, or Chevy vehicle wouldn’t be able to use it.

Tesla drivers can purchase an adapter to connect with the U.S. standard "Combined Charging System" or CCS chargers but people who don't own a Tesla can't do the same with Superchargers.

Opening up its networks could grow a funding and revenue stream for Tesla, but could erode the brand's exclusivity and make it challenging for the automaker to manage the network, analysts say.

"It's definitely a balance for them: how much potential federal subsidies for expanding their network versus maintaining that competitive advantage on charging," Chris Harto, a Senior Policy Analyst at Consumer Reports said.

The Department of Transportation next week will detail final requirements that all electric vehicle chargers must meet to be eligible for funding under the $7.5 billion effort to electrify highways and interstates across the nation. Those requirements will also touch on cybersecurity and how much and what parts of the charger must be made in America.

Chargers seeking to become part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program must utilize a combined charging system, or CCS, the standard in the U.S. on nearly all charging stations except Tesla’s popular Superchargers.

The move to finalize so-called 'minimum standards' by the administration is expected to unlock the first wave of funding and set off fierce competition among companies like ChargePoint Holdings and (CHPT.N) and EVgo Inc (EVGO.O). For these small companies, it represents a generational opportunity.

Any charger that wants to be eligible for federal dollars will have to meet the CCS standard once the rules are finalized next week, administration officials told Reuters.

Last year, Tesla offered up another idea. In its letter to the FHA, the company proposed that its Superchargers should qualify for rebates if they are co-located with CCS chargers that work with competitors.

An administration official told Reuters that request was not seriously considered.



https://autos.yahoo.com/tap-u-government-billions-tesla-210000073.html
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 01:47 PM
On December 30th of last year, I had a stint put in my heart (80% blockage of the Widow Maker) ... I was awake but really groggy the whole time. I guess it's because during the procedure, they need the patient to breathe in and out a few times. They talk to you while your under... Honestly, that was kinda fun. They cracked me up with their banter.
Posted By: Versatile Dog Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 03:01 PM
Quote
Thinking it would be better to cut a patient's dose, rather than figure out a more efficient means of administering, is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard... and these people are serious.

Exactly. Hospitals using vacuums to carry the anesthetic gases out into the air is not something most of us even think about. Perhaps there are already ways to safely capture the gasses but they are far too expensive? What I do know is that it's crazy to think they can just lower the amount of anesthesia they give to their patients.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
If you want to simplify it to "same type of battery" you could say that about a Duracell and a cheap ass of brand battery. All gas cars use combustion engines too. But as per usual, you get what you pay for.

Yes, if you want to dumb it down so you can understand it.

The batteries used in ALL EVs are not cold friendly due to the chemistry. It doesn't matter if it is a Tesla or a Chevy. It is in the chemistry.

The quality of the battery makes how long the range on a single charge will take you even in the cold. And you wonder why I feel the need to dumb things down.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 04:53 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
If you want to simplify it to "same type of battery" you could say that about a Duracell and a cheap ass of brand battery. All gas cars use combustion engines too. But as per usual, you get what you pay for.

Yes, if you want to dumb it down so you can understand it.

The batteries used in ALL EVs are not cold friendly due to the chemistry. It doesn't matter if it is a Tesla or a Chevy. It is in the chemistry.

The quality of the battery makes how long the range on a single charge will take you even in the cold. And you wonder why I feel the need to dumb things down.

The chemistry in the battery has a lot to do with how it works, since batteries use those chemical reactions to produce electricity. This is simple science (like actual science not political science). Since there are like maybe a couple of places these are made they are all really close in quality. I will agree there are things in a Tesla that make it nicer than a Volt, and some of the technology allows more effiecent usage of the batteries, but they chemistry is what the chemistry is.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 05:15 PM
We're talking about battery range and how higher quality batteries deliver a much longer range in mileage per charge.

I'll give you an example. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 150 miles on a full charge. A GMC Hummer EV1 is rated at 329 miles on a charge. And the Tesla Model S is rated at 405 miles on a full charge. You do understand that manufactures often build everything from cars to appliances with a wide range of quality and the price often reflects the quality built into each individual product the manufacturer produces, right?

Just like not all combustion engines are equal , neither are EV batteries.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/12/23 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
We're talking about battery range and how higher quality batteries deliver a much longer range in mileage per charge.

I'll give you an example. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 150 miles on a full charge. A GMC Hummer EV1 is rated at 329 miles on a charge. And the Tesla Model S is rated at 405 miles on a full charge. You do understand that manufactures often build everything from cars to appliances with a wide range of quality and the price often reflects the quality built into each individual product the manufacturer produces, right?

Just like not all combustion engines are equal , neither are EV batteries.

Batteries really boil down to amount of chemical reaction available. More battery more range. Simple enough?

The chemistry is stil laffected by temperature. Colder is worse. As it gets colder the output of the chemical reaction goes down. That's what science looks like.

So.... longer range more battery. But you can't break the laws of physics (chemistry really is just physics anyway).

Do we get the idea now or do I need to say it a 15th different way for you to ignore?
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/13/23 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
A Chevy bolt… rofl Sorry but absolutely the worst vehicle ever. I believe GM (no not you GM dawg poke) put out this pos to make EV’s look bad.


Chevy Volt batteries can run you close to 30,000 bucks.

How long do they generally last?
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/13/23 11:33 AM
Most of the ones we sold only lasted 75 to 100 K miles. We had a guy buy one drive it 3 years and put 80 K miles on it. He wanted to trade it in because he said the charge wasn't lasting as long. He paid over 40 grand new, and three years later we didn't even want it back on trade and offered him 10 bucks for it.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/13/23 03:40 PM
So the quality of the batteries makes a difference in how many miles one will get per charge in all types of weather. Thanks.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 02/13/23 05:50 PM
https://insideevs.com/news/337246/gm-versus-tesla-bolt-ev-and-model-3-battery-packs-compared/

https://insideevs.com/photo/3986021/gm-versus-tesla-bolt-ev-and-model-3-battery-packs-compared/
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/13/23 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So the quality of the batteries makes a difference in how many miles one will get per charge in all types of weather. Thanks.

And the quality of battery doesn't make a difference in whether they are affected by weather or not.

The difference in quality in batteries is usually more about sturdiness,the packaging being able to withstand physical abuse such as vibration. The overall rated capacity for a chemistry and size doesn't really change all that much.

Thanks. You continue to try move goal posts.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by GMdawg
Most of the ones we sold only lasted 75 to 100 K miles. We had a guy buy one drive it 3 years and put 80 K miles on it. He wanted to trade it in because he said the charge wasn't lasting as long. He paid over 40 grand new, and three years later we didn't even want it back on trade and offered him 10 bucks for it.


When a part cost more or close to the initial price of the car, I have to believe there is a case to be made against the maker. Most new Tech costs more initially.. Then it gets real.

But, the one for three years, that's 36 months, are batteries excluded from warranties?

Like most new tech, they will improve over time which is why most makers aren't switching to all EV for at least another 10 years. In that time I expect to see big advances in battery technology., I also expect an every expanding base of charging stations and quicker charging times. I also expect fast mobile chargers. Today, if we run out of gas, we call AAA and they come with a can of gas. I can see in the future a quick charger on a truck that comes to your rescue.,

How many of you have driven an EV? I have now driven a Tesla model S... DAMN is that thing fast. Handled like a dream, cornered like it was on rails. I'm not sure of the sticker price.. it was a friends car and I didn't want to be rude and ask...But I expect it was pretty high. maybe $70 to 90K.. I'm not ready to spend that on a car yet. They gotta come down.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by Damanshot
How many of you have driven an EV? I have now driven a Tesla model S... DAMN is that thing fast. Handled like a dream, cornered like it was on rails. I'm not sure of the sticker price.. it was a friends car and I didn't want to be rude and ask...But I expect it was pretty high. maybe $70 to 90K.. I'm not ready to spend that on a car yet. They gotta come down.

I've not driven one but I wouldn't mind. Charging at home is near impossible for me and they don't have charging at work for us either.

You might be a little low on cost, especially if you got to drive the Plaid. I expect them to come down slowly, but until I can solve the charging issues here we won't get one.
Posted By: FATE Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 12:54 AM
Don't worry, there will be hook-ups on the side of your newly-mandated electric stove. Just run an extension cord to the garage.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by FATE
Don't worry, there will be hook-ups on the side of your newly-mandated electric stove. Just run an extension cord to the garage.

We are in a city with on street parking. If I run a cord I will have to baby sit it, though I suspect most politicians don't care how my time is wasted.
Posted By: OldColdDawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 01:56 AM
With Elon suddenly showing his GOPEr stripes after years of thinking he was uber progressive... I hope his entire fleet of vehicles, including spaceships, gets parked in his ass when he goes broke. I admired him as a brilliant mind early on, and often over the years. But I could care less about the whole damn industry while the fascists are still in government because any positive action on this front will be bastardized by MAGAts.
Posted By: FloridaFan Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
With Elon suddenly showing his GOPEr stripes after years of thinking he was uber progressive... I hope his entire fleet of vehicles, including spaceships, gets parked in his ass when he goes broke. I admired him as a brilliant mind early on, and often over the years. But I could care less about the whole damn industry while the fascists are still in government because any positive action on this front will be bastardized by MAGAts.


I agree on Elon. Appreciate his out of the box thinking, ingenuity and drive to make it happen. But at this point, I just wish he would shut up and go back to just innovating, and stay out of the spotlight.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So the quality of the batteries makes a difference in how many miles one will get per charge in all types of weather. Thanks.

And the quality of battery doesn't make a difference in whether they are affected by weather or not.

The difference in quality in batteries is usually more about sturdiness,the packaging being able to withstand physical abuse such as vibration. The overall rated capacity for a chemistry and size doesn't really change all that much.

Thanks. You continue to try move goal posts.

No, it's you who is moving the goal post as per usual. All you have to do is look at what these responses were predicated on. A poster said he knew someone who couldn't make a short trip in cold weather with a Chevy Volt. Afterwords the point was made that they have a very low mileage rating per charge to begin with. Thus cold weather would make them have a VERY short mileage per charge in such conditions. That EV's with batteries rated for many more miles per charge would get you more miles per charge than what that Volt would even in cold weather.

At first you tried to fight about how none of those batteries were of any higher quality than any others. Now you've abandoned that approach and switched over to how cold weather effects all EV batteries. You're now trying to argue a point nobody tried to make in the first place.
Posted By: hitt Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 07:17 PM
Like your yellow brand- we all need to use it- Electric cars- lots of folks on that bandwagon, reality sure points to a mix- gas ain't going away anytime soon, electric is being pushed. I like clean hydrogen- it seems doable without huge changes to engines- some cities using on busses today- I'd use a couple billion of taxpayer money on it rather than feeding Ukraine our tax dollars.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by Damanshot
How many of you have driven an EV? I have now driven a Tesla model S... DAMN is that thing fast. Handled like a dream, cornered like it was on rails. I'm not sure of the sticker price.. it was a friends car and I didn't want to be rude and ask...But I expect it was pretty high. maybe $70 to 90K.. I'm not ready to spend that on a car yet. They gotta come down.

I've not driven one but I wouldn't mind. Charging at home is near impossible for me and they don't have charging at work for us either.

You might be a little low on cost, especially if you got to drive the Plaid. I expect them to come down slowly, but until I can solve the charging issues here we won't get one.

Oh Geez, the plaid is about 140K or thereabouts.

No, this was what I think is the base Model S.. Like I said, that thing was fast and fun to drive.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
So the quality of the batteries makes a difference in how many miles one will get per charge in all types of weather. Thanks.

And the quality of battery doesn't make a difference in whether they are affected by weather or not.

The difference in quality in batteries is usually more about sturdiness,the packaging being able to withstand physical abuse such as vibration. The overall rated capacity for a chemistry and size doesn't really change all that much.

Thanks. You continue to try move goal posts.

No, it's you who is moving the goal post as per usual. All you have to do is look at what these responses were predicated on. A poster said he knew someone who couldn't make a short trip in cold weather with a Chevy Volt. Afterwords the point was made that they have a very low mileage rating per charge to begin with. Thus cold weather would make them have a VERY short mileage per charge in such conditions. That EV's with batteries rated for many more miles per charge would get you more miles per charge than what that Volt would even in cold weather.

At first you tried to fight about how none of those batteries were of any higher quality than any others. Now you've abandoned that approach and switched over to how cold weather effects all EV batteries. You're now trying to argue a point nobody tried to make in the first place.

You said it was all battery quality. It is not. Battery capacity is about chemistry, type and size. Quality doesn't really play into any of that, at least not in any meaningful way. You will see longevity increase with a better quality battery. (Defining longevity as overall usable life. I mention that so you won't say I said something I didn't as you are want to do).

I have said several times that battery chemistry is temperature dependant. Some chemistries are more resilient than others, but they all suffer when you get cold. Type of battery can affect this as well, but to a far less degree for low temperature. For instance gel batteries perform in cold weather about like AGM but they do not like heat.

I don't know what the quantity of battery Volts vs Teslas have, but I would expect anything that has vastly superior capacity to have a vastly larger quantity of battery. That does not change it's ability to withstand cold, especially extreme cold.

.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 09:14 PM
Refer back to the difference in how Tesla batteries are made. So some batteries have better cold weather performance than others but it has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Got it.
Posted By: Pdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 09:19 PM
I just want to clarify that I was talking about a Chevy Bolt, not a Volt. Two different cars and two different generations.

Production EVs with lead-acid batteries are capable of up to 130 km (81 mi) per charge. NiMH batteries have higher specific energy than lead-acid; prototype EVs deliver up to 200 km (120 mi) of range. New lithium-ion battery-equipped EVs provide 320–480 km (200–300 mi) of range per charge.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 09:22 PM
Sorry about that.
Posted By: Pdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 09:24 PM
It was GM that needs to apologize. He screwed up lol. I updated my post with the difference in batteries for EV’s. I believe all cars are now using the lithium batteries
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/14/23 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Refer back to the difference in how Tesla batteries are made. So some batteries have better cold weather performance than others but it has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Got it.

I am glad you are finally getting it.

It isn't a quality thing. It is a composition thing. Some batteries take a charge faster than others. Some can handle deep discharge where others cannot. It isn't isn't a quality thing. It may be a fit for purpose thing.

When I bought batteries for my boat I spent about $2K. I chose AGM 8D times 2 for the house bank. I needed slow discharge with deep cycles. AGM gives me a maintenance free approach (I don't add electrolyte). The 8D means they are big and each is rated at 255AH. I could have squeezed out more capacity with gel batteries but I would have to consider overheating being really bad for those, and frankly it would have been almost twice the cost. I did not want cheaper wet cells because I did not want the maintenance of them, and sealed wet seals are just silly on a boat. All three types were built rock solid, but there were factors that made me choose the batteries I did, it wasn't "quality".

For starting batteries I went AGM but not deep cycle. Starting batteries need to deliver lots of current now, especially when starting a cold diesel.

I could have gone with less quality of battery (cheaper) and they wouldn't last as long meaning they would, over time hold less a charge but do it sooner. They would be more subject to the stresses a boat puts on them.

A quality battery and a lessor battery both are subject to the same physics when it comes to temperature performance. They will both lose the ability to deliver full capacity. Usually the capacity of batteries is rated at 70F and a 20A load. Colder batteries don't deliver as much, higher loads mean less realized capacity.

Now Tesla may use a different chemistry and presentation of battery, but that is not quality. It is like saying an NFL football is more quality than a college. They are different and are different for purpose.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 12:19 AM
Dude, you do realize quality is part of composition? Quality control during design and fabrication. Geez Symantecs, you win. rolleyes lol
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Dude, you do realize quality is part of composition? Quality control during design and fabrication. Geez Symantecs, you win. rolleyes lol

Dude do you realize there are several different types of battery chemistry? That has nothing to do with quality. But thanks for trying.
Posted By: GMdawg Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 11:11 AM
Quote
t was GM that needs to apologize. He screwed up lol


Your sounding like my wife again bro.
Posted By: PerfectSpiral Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 01:50 PM
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Dude, you do realize quality is part of composition? Quality control during design and fabrication. Geez Symantecs, you win. rolleyes lol

Dude do you realize there are several different types of battery chemistry?

Duh. get back in the kitchen and cook something that doesn’t kill anyone. The chemistry an engineer uses is part of the composition. Hence it’s added or lost value in the quality of the product. You loose but thanks for trying.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PerfectSpiral
Dude, you do realize quality is part of composition? Quality control during design and fabrication. Geez Symantecs, you win. rolleyes lol

Dude do you realize there are several different types of battery chemistry?

Duh. get back in the kitchen and cook something that doesn’t kill anyone. The chemistry an engineer uses is part of the composition. Hence it’s added or lost value in the quality of the product. You loose but thanks for trying.

Do you even have a clue as to the word salad you are trying to serve?

Go back to simply raging because someone thought something not on agenda.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 03:18 PM
Good luck with that. When you're trying to argue with someone who is using a poor example of semantics it's futile.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Good luck with that. When you're trying to argue with someone who is using a poor example of semantics it's futile.

At least I am not someone that makes assertions then can't do anything but try to find a way to not defend them.

You have yet to even try and explain how "quality" batteries resist losing capacity in cold. Maybe it is just magic.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 08:17 PM
The problem is I never said that to begin with. Making things up doesn't help you. Higher quality batteries perform better in all conditions than batteries of a lower quality. That doesn't mean that weather doesn't effect them all to some degree. You're going to have to do better than that.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
The problem is I never said that to begin with. Making things up doesn't help you. Higher quality batteries perform better in all conditions than batteries of a lower quality. That doesn't mean that weather doesn't effect them all to some degree. You're going to have to do better than that.

And yet you continue to argue it. I am not sure you really ever know what you post. I think you say words to argue then move on.

So again, define "higher quality batteries". What do you think makes them better quality and how does that overcome chemical reaction?
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 08:42 PM
I did not argue it. I'm done showing you why higher quality batteries get more range in all weather conditions. The way Tesla batteries are designed was posted as the perfect example. You yourself are the one that posted this............

Quote
Dude do you realize there are several different types of battery chemistry? That has nothing to do with quality. But thanks for trying.


So the battery chemistry used does not make a difference in how the batteries perform? Or a battery that performs better is not of higher quality because it was assembled using battery chemistry that makes them a better performing battery?

I'm not sure you even hear yourself but you've become tiring and boring at this juncture.

Quality; the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

The very word quality is used to describe how one thing performs better than others of a similar kind.

So yes, you're basing your argument on nothing more than semantics. And not doing a very good job of it at that.
Posted By: Damanshot Re: Electric Cars - 02/15/23 11:21 PM
You may not have ever said that, but Frankz thinks you did, so you lose:)
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
I did not argue it. I'm done showing you why higher quality batteries get more range in all weather conditions. .

You've only said that. You have not, in fact shown anything. Higher quality batteries in a like for like comparison will not get more range in the same weather conditions. They will get similar range in the same weather conditions. They will, however, do so longer, over a period of time. Buying cheap batteries means they perform like more expensive ones, but they don't continue to do it. They break down faster. They don't have the same lifetime.

I'd also suspect with government oversights and regulations there isn't much real difference in the "quality" of the batteries. Cheap batteries have more things that can go wrong easier. Like fire.

Dong a quick look it looks like the Tesla 3, for instance, has way more cells than the Bolt. It isn't quality of the battery, it is having more. Hint, the word here is really "quantity". They sound the same but they are different words.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
If you want to simplify it to "same type of battery" you could say that about a Duracell and a cheap ass of brand battery. All gas cars use combustion engines too. But as per usual, you get what you pay for.

Yes, if you want to dumb it down so you can understand it.

The batteries used in ALL EVs are not cold friendly due to the chemistry. It doesn't matter if it is a Tesla or a Chevy. It is in the chemistry.

The quality of the battery makes how long the range on a single charge will take you even in the cold. And you wonder why I feel the need to dumb things down.

Duh.. Pit never said "quality". Clearly anothe rflat lie by him to continue create and argument.

This should produce his response #4 I believe, along with more stupid spin.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 04:32 PM
rofl
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
rofl

So you lied about it and you take the coward's way out.

Yeah, figures.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 06:02 PM
Arguing with an idiot is something I'm tired of doing with you. Everyone knows when a product lasts longer and gives you better results it's a higher quality product. All of your white noise to the contrary is just that. You've become a waste of time.
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Arguing with an idiot is something I'm tired of doing with you. Everyone knows when a product lasts longer and gives you better results it's a higher quality product. All of your white noise to the contrary is just that. You've become a waste of time.


In the end you can't even admit to lying.

"Everyone knows" is a fallacious argument and here it is meant to distract for you being a lair. You lied, you got called and you went to insults and old #4.

Go seek the help you need.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:13 PM
rofl
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:22 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
rofl

The pathetic need last word Pittrope.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:36 PM
As opposed to you?

rofl
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
As opposed to you?

rofl


I'm just here to point out you lying hypocrisy.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:47 PM
rofl

#stalker
Posted By: FrankZ Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:50 PM
2 PitTtopes for the price of one.
Posted By: PitDAWG Re: Electric Cars - 02/16/23 07:51 PM
I'll send you the bill.
© DawgTalkers.net