[Plantagenet]

China orders all EV sellers in China to do safety checks on their li battery systems

electric-car-fires-spur-china-to-order-safety-checks

This order from the Chinese government indicates that runaway thermal events in EV battery systems are starting to raise concerns and trigger more governmental oversight.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

What happens when a NY Times reporter drives an EV from LA to Las Vegas? HINT: The reporter isn't impressed.

nytimes/electric-cars-charging

The NY TIMES reporter spends 8 hours driving.....and another 5 hours charging and/or waiting in line to charge the Chevy Bolt.

The NY TIMES wonders why anyone would want to drive an EV when it takes almost twice as long to do a simple trip?

And then the NYTIMES reporter calculated how much was spent on electricity for the EV.....and it was only $10 less then would've spent on gas for an ICE vehicle. But the EV took 5 hours longer, so who in their right mind would waste five hours of time charging the EV just to save 10 bucks?

I was surprised to see an article critical of EVs in the NY TIMES, normally a bastion of PC thought and liberal pretension. Perhaps this signals that some in the mainstream media are beginning to doubt all the wonderful claims and promises that have been made by the EV industry.

-----------------------

When you combine the NY Times report that EVs take much more time to travel from point A to B because they have to stop and charge for hours enroute with the fact the EVs cost more then ICE cars and the fact that EVs have much larger carbon footprints because the LI battery has a carbon footprint as large as a car, essentially doubling the carbon footprint of all EVs coming out of the factory door, I don't see any real advantages to EVs over ICE vehicles. Perhaps the lower tailpipe emissions, but then you need more power plants to make the electricity, and you need LI mines in pristine areas, so EVs are basically shifting pollution to other areas rather then eliminating it.

CHEERS!

[asg70]

The NY TIMES reporter spends 8 hours driving.....and another 5 hours charging and/or waiting in line to charge the Chevy Bolt.

That's not surprising. The Bolt isn't really designed for long-distance road-trips. It has a maximum of 50kW charging speed. When the VW MEB platform comes out they will have Tesla-grade ~125kW charging and the fast-charge network will be further along.

do you have some kind of obsessive/aggressive disorder

Not going for that bait.

[GHung]

...snopes who debunk the claim!

If you actually read the scopes article it doesn't debunk the claim, which is that mining lithium causes environmental damage.

There is no doubt that mining lithium is environmentally destructive. Your suggestion the problem has been "debunked" is just silly. How exactly do you imagine you can do industrial scale mining of lithium in very remote and pristine places without producing environmental damage?

... troll.

In post after post you attack other posters and call them names. Thats really about all you do here.

You've been banned twice before for your behavior and now you are back doing it again. I think its time for you to level with us....do you have some kind of obsessive/aggressive disorder or some other mental problem that makes you act out like this? Pray tell.......

Cheers!

Let me recap:

Planty submits a post about how lithium mining is bad for the environment
The post has a big picture of a huge mine; a scar upon the Earth.
Plant clearly wants people who see the picture to think that huge scar upon the Earth is a lithium mine (doesn't say anything about it actually being a copper mine).
Planty gets called on this clear attempt at DECEPTION.
Planty doesn't have the character to admit to the attempted deception. Planty, instead, makes this post to try and pretend all is well and instead attacks those who exposed this attempt at deception.
I'm betting Planty expects people to believe what he/she posts in the future.

[asg70]

I just find it laughable that Plant of all people is trying to raise alarm bells about "environmental impact" when he gleefully flies around the globe. I know he enjoys being an agent provocateur more than actually making a point. In other words...a troll. Get people riled up, then do the equivalent of saying "U MAD BRO?"

[Plantagenet]

The lithium batteries used in EVs have a dirty little secret.....manufacturing them releases huge amounts of carbon

lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint

manufacturing an electric car pumps out "significantly" more climate-warming gases than a conventional car, which releases only 20% of its lifetime C02 at this stage, according to estimates of Mercedes-Benz's electric-drive system integration department.

"The topic of CO2 lifetime evaluations is starting to get more traction," said Radics at Berylls. "Carmakers need to be transparent in this discussion to avoid unsettling buyers."

---------------------

The facts are clear---- when a new EV rolls out of the manufacturing plant, much more CO2 has been released then when an ICE car is manufactured.

Most EV manufacturers have successfully tried to keep this dirty little secret from the public, but the facts will out as they always do. EVs will eventually have a carbon footprint smaller then ICE cars, but it will take years of use to overcome the much higher initial carbon footprint of the EV car and battery and reach the "cross-over" point.....and then when the battery needs to be replaced in an EV another huge aliquot of CO2 must be released to manufacture the second battery, and once again the EV might actually be responsible for more CO2 emissions then the ICE car due to the large carbon footprint of LI batteries----and the bigger the Li battery the bigger its carbon footprint.

CHEERS!

[AdamB]

VWs coming EVs, and where hard core peak oil doomers now discredited by reality can buy them!

https://www.motor1.com/features/346407/ ... e/4058199/

[eclipse]

and once again the EV might actually be responsible for more CO2 emissions then the ICE car due to the large carbon footprint of LI batteries----and the bigger the Li battery the bigger its carbon footprint.
CHEERS!

Just not factually correct.

"Executive Summary
The City of Vancouver has an extensive fleet of vehicles. Due to the significant impact of transportation on total greenhouse gas emissionsfrom a region, the City wants to reduce this impact by replacing more internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) in its fleet with electric vehicles (EVs). This study uses life cycle analysis (LCA) to comparatively analyze two vehicle modelsof similar size of each type (ICEV and EV) currently used in the City’s fleet. Ford Focus is chosen for the ICEV and Mitsubishi i-MiEV for the EV, both with avehicle life of 150,000km. Carbon emissions and energy consumption are analyzed for each phase from cradle-to-gravefor both vehicles: raw material production, vehicle manufacture, transportation, operation, and decommissioning. The analysis shows that the electric vehicle has notably lower carbon emissions and lower energy consumption per kilometer. After considering all phases, the Ford Focusemits392.4gCO2-eq/kmand Mitsubishi i-MiEV emits 203.0gCO2-eq/kmover the vehicle life. Corresponding energy consumption is 4.2MJ/kmfor Ford Focus and 2.0MJ/kmfor Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Sensitivity analysis with a vehicle life of 100,000km and 250,000 km is also conducted, with the longer vehicle life further shifting the efficiency balance toward the electric vehicle."
https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/fi ... ukreja.pdf

Besides: environmentalists don't want the mining process itself to stay the same, do we?

There is strong interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat.
This interest in small and medium nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce the impact of capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.
The technologies involved are numerous and very diverse.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ctors.aspx

Oh, and if they hit an oil crisis, there's always this alternative they could rig up...

[AdamB]

Range anxiety with EV,s a thing of the past.

I've had 2 EVs now with what are interestingly called "range extenders", for just this reason. Plus on the second one, I did want a dual use vehicle, in one mode it is always used as an EV around town, and in the other it is a continent crossing ICE powered machine, with a direct ICE connection to the wheels, and not just as a generator to produce electricity. Has worked out great, but the wife is now eyeing cross continental trips refueling at Supercharging stations along the way. The instant that happens, the cord will be cut to ever needing nasty liquid fuels in the main family transport ever again.

[Plantagenet]

"Executive Summary
The City of Vancouver has an extensive fleet of vehicles. Due to the significant impact of transportation on total greenhouse gas emissionsfrom a region, the City wants to reduce this impact by replacing more internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) in its fleet with electric vehicles (EVs). This study uses life cycle analysis (LCA) to comparatively analyze two vehicle modelsof similar size of each type (ICEV and EV) currently used in the City’s fleet. Ford Focus is chosen for the ICEV and Mitsubishi i-MiEV for the EV, both with avehicle life of 150,000km. Carbon emissions and energy consumption are analyzed for each phase from cradle-to-gravefor both vehicles: raw material production, vehicle manufacture, transportation, operation, and decommissioning. The analysis shows that the electric vehicle has notably lower carbon emissions and lower energy consumption per kilometer. After considering all phases, the Ford Focusemits392.4gCO2-eq/kmand Mitsubishi i-MiEV emits 203.0gCO2-eq/kmover the vehicle life. Corresponding energy consumption is 4.2MJ/kmfor Ford Focus and 2.0MJ/kmfor Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Sensitivity analysis with a vehicle life of 100,000km and 250,000 km is also conducted, with the longer vehicle life further shifting the efficiency balance toward the electric vehicle."
https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/fi ... ukreja.pdf

Thats an interesting report but Its mainly interesting because of how bad it is. Parts of that report aren't factually correct.

If you actually read the report you'll see that it has three fatal flaws.

(1) At the start of the report the authors say that their projections for emissions etc. are based on an earlier study done in the year 2000, i.e. work that is almost 20 years old!!! I know its hard to believe, but the science and engineering needed to determine CO2 emissions have advanced substantially in the last 20 years. The fact that the report is based on an outdated model doesn't automatically mean its wrong, but it does mean its out of date and not up to modern standards.

(2) The second fatal flaw in that report is even more fatal. THEY DON"T DISCUSS THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF THE LI BATTERY. If you go through the report again and actually read it, check out the tables and data comparing the EV and ICE cars....they claim to do an energy analysis for each component going into each car. But look closely...LITHIUM isn't even on the list of materials they looked at for the EV.

(3) The author evaluates tailpipe emissions over a very long period of time, but he fails to consider the carbon footprint of the replacement Li battery that will be needed when the first one fails. The second Li battery will have yet another huge carbon footprint, and will tend to reduce or even eliminate the advantage of the EV over the ICE car in terms of total carbon released over the life of the car.

The author does mention at one point that the carbon footprint of the new EV is over 60% GREATER then the new ICE car, but then attributes the greater carbon footprint of the EV to the use of nickel. Its really quite bizarre that even in a direct discussion of the Li battery he doesn't acknowledge the importance of Lithium in the lithium battery.

How can you evaluate the energy flow and carbon footprint of an EV without including the lithium in the Lithium battery? Its crazy!!!! Its intellectually dishonest!!!! IT ISN'T FACTUALLY ACCURATE!

AND how could he not consider the carbon footprint of the replacement li-battery that will be needed to keep the car in service for the period of time he is considering? Again, IT ISN'T FACTUALLY ACCURATE!

----------------------------

I'm not criticizing you for missing this. Most people don't read things very closely. But its been part of my job as a scientist to review scientific reports for scientific journals, and you'd be surprised how many times people who write these kind of things make very basic mistakes in their studies and reports. Thats just whats happened in the report you cite. They didn't include an analysis for the Li battery in their study of the impacts of EVs vs. ICE cars. AND they they didn't include the carbon footprint of the replacement Li battery. Obviously that invalidates all their findings and conclusions.

We know now that the carbon footprint of LI batteries is huge. Its almost as large as the car itself. Many studies comparing EVs and ICE car simply ignore the carbon footprint of the LI battery and this is intellectually dishonest and wrong.

AND this effect is also larger in cars with larger Li batteries. This study compares two tiny cars and the EV has a tiny battery. But in larger EVs the extra carbon needed to manufacture the larger Li battery has a concomitantly larger carbon footprint.

The bottom line here is that Li batteries have a huge carbon footprint. You can't ignore this when evaluating life cycle carbon emissions from EVs.

CHEERS!

[asg70]

he fails to consider the carbon footprint of the replacement Li battery

You fail to consider recycling and repurposing.

https://waste-management-world.com/a/in ... y-clean-up
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... hey-retire
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... igafactory
https://www.powermag.com/ev-batteries-r ... y-storage/

IT ISN'T FACTUALLY ACCURATE!

It's awfully strange that you're going all caps on an issue you clearly don't care about due to your frivolous frequent flying. What agenda could you possibly have other than to take the heat off of your CO2-belching lifestyle by saying all green lifestyles are just as polluting?

[Plantagenet]

.....

This thread is about EVs and right now we're getting into the interesting topic of the large carbon footprint of the Li-ion batteries used in EVs.

I know its hard for you to follow the technical content in these discussions but please try to stay on topic. If you don't understand what we're talking about then you might hold off until the thread moves back to a discussion of something you can actually contribute to. Thanks!

PS: I'm sure you're carbon footprint is much larger then mine is right now. After all you just bought a new EV with a Li-Ion battery in it. As we're discussing above, the carbon footprint of new cars is huge, and since you bought an EV your carbon footprint is almost twice that because the Li-battery in your car has its own huge carbon footprint..... That makes your own personal carbon footprint something like huge squared.

Cheers!

[asg70]

This thread is about EVs

Why don't you leave the moderating for the moderators?

a discussion of something you can actually contribute to.

Translation: you ignored my links.

the carbon footprint of new cars is huge

How far do you want to go down the rabbit hole of comparing carbon footprint, Plant? Do you really want to put everything on a spreadsheet side by side? Do you think the rest of the readership cares?

The problem with the flying thing for me is that you have a style of posting where you get off on spotting hypocrisy (or the appearance of hypocrisy) while expecting us to ignore your own. As far as I'm concerned it's a defense-mechanism. If you want to just own up to being a raging hypocrite I'd give you a pass, but as long as you keep going round-robin and finger-pointing then I'm going to hold up a mirror in front of your face. If you really want to see green lifestyles take hold, WALK THE TALK. Be the change you want to see in this world, and for chrissake, stop voting R thinking you're doing the planet a favor. Until then, STFU because this just comes across like a litany of excuses why we might as well throw up our hands in futility and just drive F-150s and roll-coal on Prius drivers.

[AdamB]

.....

This thread is about EVs and right now we're getting into the interesting topic of the large carbon footprint of the Li-ion batteries used in EVs.

And apparently people who pretend to care about the topic while frivolously flying...proving that their "caring" is a sham.

You can blame this on the post-traumatic stress of Guy's grief counseling if you'd like?

[AdamB]

Look at this! Apparently EVs are safer than their highly volatile predecessors. No surprise to those of us who test drive them and own them and stuff.

[Plantagenet]

E-scooters are bad for the environment

electric-scooters-not-so-eco-friendly

Suddenly every city on earth is infested with hundreds of electric scooters. This would seem to be a boon for the environment because they are electric and electric is portrayed as being "good" for the environment. But when you do the math, e-scooters actually have important drawbacks that make them not so eco-friendly.

1. Studies show that the e-scooters are largely used by tourists. Rather then replacing cars used by locals, the e-scooters are facilitating EXTRA trips by tourists. This means there is little to no displacement of CO2 emissions from locals switching from their cars to the e-scooters.

2. The e-scooters only last a few weeks to a couple of months before they have to be junked and replaced. This means there is a tremendous waste of natural resources going to produce what are essentially disposable e-scooters.

3. There is a carbon footprint generating by building the e-scooters, and another carbon footprint for the lithium ion battery in the e-scooters. This carbon footprint is so large that it seems to overwhelm any saving due to the use of the e-scooters, especially when you consider the e-scooters wear out so quickly they have to be replaced 4-12 times per year.

But all is not lost!!!! The e-scooters will also let you buy a "carbon offset" to offset all the carbon released by the disposable e-scooters.


Disposable e-scooters are not so great for the environment

[dolanbaker]

E-scooters are bad for the environment

electric-scooters-not-so-eco-friendly

This story about the e-scooters is nothing really to do with electric vehicles, but is is everything to do with wasteful consumerism.
Simply another disposable product for the mass market, it could easily be bicycles or junk toys like the ones you get with kids burgers, it's all consumer waste, made specifically to be used and thrown away.

Saying that EVs are bad for the environment because of this nonsense is really trying to scrape the barrel to look for stories that put them in a bad light.

[Plantagenet]

This story about the e-scooters is nothing really to do with electric vehicles, but is is everything to do with wasteful consumerism.

Wasteful consumerism of EV scooters you mean. The e-scooters are EVs, in case you didn't know.

it could easily be bicycles or junk toys like the ones you get with kids burgers, it's all consumer waste, made specifically to be used and thrown away.

But it isn't. The story is about the new e-scooter business spreading rapidly around the world, and its negative effects on the environment.

Saying that EVs are bad for the environment because of this nonsense is really trying to scrape the barrel to look for stories that put them in a bad light.

Your reading comprehension is really quite poor. Thats the third thing in one short post that you didn't understand. I suggest you go back and re-read my post and try to understand what it actually says. For instance, I never said "EVs are bad for the environment", as you falsely claim. I said the e-scooter biz, which is based on cheap, disposable EV scooters, is bad for the environment.

Go back and look at my post and re-read the very first sentence. In constitutes an introduction to what I will discuss in the rest of the post. Once you get it, It will make the meaning of everything else in that post much more comprehensible for you, I promise. At the end of the post is a final sentence that summarizes the content of the post. Please note that in both my intro and my summary I made it clear I was specifically discussing "e-scooters".....and not all EVs.

CHEERS!

[asg70]

Wasteful consumerism of EV scooters you mean.

Wasteful? Like flying around the world for fun?

new e-scooter business spreading rapidly around the world, and its negative effects on the environment.

See above.

the e-scooter biz, which is based on cheap, disposable EV scooters, is bad for the environment.

As is your frivolous air travel. When will you be giving that up?

[GHung]

Since Planty lives in the state that, by a large margin, has the highest per capita oil consumption of all US States, and loves to brag about his/her worldwide jaunts by air, Planty is obsessed with belittling any options that may or may not offer a more sustainable path. If Plant really gave a damn about these things Plant would stop flying and move somewhere where per capita oil consumption is far lower. Then again, I've never seen Planty take personal responsibility for anything. Clearly doesn't have the character for that.