What happens to all the dead electric-car batteries?(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
What happens to all the dead electric-car batteries?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/millions-electric-cars-are-coming-what-happens-all-dead-batteries
328 comments
> has set up a company to solve this problem.
It's not a problem, it's in fact a huge business.
The negative tone of the comments feels like a an old car salesman trying to sell you a diesel engine instead of an EV.
An old EV battery pack is still incredibly valuable both for second hand usage in renewables (An old EV battery is not 'dead' just not performant enough for vehicle use) and recycling materials (Lithium is incredibly difficult to mine).
It's not a problem, it's in fact a huge business.
The negative tone of the comments feels like a an old car salesman trying to sell you a diesel engine instead of an EV.
An old EV battery pack is still incredibly valuable both for second hand usage in renewables (An old EV battery is not 'dead' just not performant enough for vehicle use) and recycling materials (Lithium is incredibly difficult to mine).
> The negative tone of the comments feels like a an old car salesman trying to sell you a diesel engine instead of an EV.
Considering the top comment when I got here was almost exactly that, I'm not surprised one bit. There's a lot of money to be lost by the FF and ICE industries.
Considering the top comment when I got here was almost exactly that, I'm not surprised one bit. There's a lot of money to be lost by the FF and ICE industries.
> Lithium is incredibly difficult to mine
Do you have any source for that? My impression was that it is relatively easy to mine but not economical enoguh
Do you have any source for that? My impression was that it is relatively easy to mine but not economical enoguh
It is not difficult in the sense of being technically challenging but in the sense that it has very low yields.
It doesn't exist naturally in huge concentrations (you can't just get a chunk of Lithium) you either extract it from a huge volume of evaporated salt brine, or you filter through huge amounts of ore to yield something rich in lithium.
It doesn't exist naturally in huge concentrations (you can't just get a chunk of Lithium) you either extract it from a huge volume of evaporated salt brine, or you filter through huge amounts of ore to yield something rich in lithium.
>It's not a problem, it's in fact a huge business
Thanks for pointing this out. Pretty important point!
Thanks for pointing this out. Pretty important point!
npsimons(2)
Bloomberg did a great QuickTake on electric car battery recycling: https://youtu.be/xtVE1I1SoRw
1. Use them for energy storage 2. Automated battery recycling 3. Use recovered materials to make new batteries
1. Use them for energy storage 2. Automated battery recycling 3. Use recovered materials to make new batteries
No1 seems to be a good solution, although it just postpones the recycling phase.
If a Tesla Model S battery dips below 70% capacity, you can easily remove it from the car and reuse the individual battery packs in 2 or 3 home battery solutions. People don't need a super performant battery that holds 100kWh for their homes, 15kWh will probably do.
If a Tesla Model S battery dips below 70% capacity, you can easily remove it from the car and reuse the individual battery packs in 2 or 3 home battery solutions. People don't need a super performant battery that holds 100kWh for their homes, 15kWh will probably do.
It's a huge fire hazard, isn't it? Would require a Class III extinguisher to put out IIRC.
The batteries do not tend to spontaneously combust. In vehicles there is much greater danger of physical damage causing a fire, and even there the incidence rate is a fraction of ICE fires. In a proper housing in a commercial/residential installation the risk should be far less than, say, having a car in your garage.
Seems manageable? I mean there's lots of people who already use home battery system by LG, Tesla or others.
Yes, it would be.
So?
So?
Without charging the creators of products the total cost to create and dispose of the product the incentives are always wrong.
Charge oil companies for the cost of removing their product from the atmosphere after it's been burnt, and charge battery companies the cost of mining pollution and recycling
Charge oil companies for the cost of removing their product from the atmosphere after it's been burnt, and charge battery companies the cost of mining pollution and recycling
I am actually very much in favor of this, mostly because I believe the true cost of FF is orders of magnitude higher than the lifetime cost of batteries. Just the cost of deaths from burning FFs alone would make using them as fuel unfeasible.
Also, it'd be nice to do this all the way down the line, then maybe we'd finally see the legislation implemented for disposable packaging that the "Keep America Beautiful" propaganda was designed to counter[0].
[0] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
Also, it'd be nice to do this all the way down the line, then maybe we'd finally see the legislation implemented for disposable packaging that the "Keep America Beautiful" propaganda was designed to counter[0].
[0] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
Not only that: the fossil fuel industry should also shoulder the burden it creates to the healthcare systems. We can’t just ignore the externalities.
How much does it cost to get one year of life from an average citizen? How would one estimate that? Healthcare system does not heal an ill person to 100% of health, it just tries to prevent death or most ill conditions.
I would even argue that it's possible to increase pollutions so more people would die and burden on healthcare systems would be reduced because of that. Weird argument, but still.
I would even argue that it's possible to increase pollutions so more people would die and burden on healthcare systems would be reduced because of that. Weird argument, but still.
Does the logic go both ways? Should the fossil fuel industry be rewarded for the benefits it creates for the healthcare system?
It is already rewarded for those benefits, that's what the money is for.
So there are no positive externalities to good health, transportation, manufacturing, climate control, or the millions of other uses for fossil fuels?
Those are benefits that are explicitly paid for, that's why we are using them. We don't buy them for other reasons then just get climate control by accident.
An externality is a cost or a benefit that is not accounted for in the trade.
The massive number of COPD cases are not paid for when fossil fuels are burned. The good things we get from fossil fuels is why we pay for them, that's their value and it is accounted for.
An externality is a cost or a benefit that is not accounted for in the trade.
The massive number of COPD cases are not paid for when fossil fuels are burned. The good things we get from fossil fuels is why we pay for them, that's their value and it is accounted for.
Aren’t there unaccounted for benefits to 3rd parties from me being able to get to work or the grocery store, heat my house, or the million other things I use fossil fuels for? Just as there unaccounted for costs?
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that I really have no clue what you're suggesting here as a potential external benefit. The external costs are well documented, but I don't understand what you are trying to say is the unaccounted for benefit.
If you think that those things are more valuable than what fossil fuels charge you right now, shouldn't you call up your utility and offer to pay more?
What sense of "value" are you using here? I like to live, so I find food to be a great thing, so perhaps in one sense the value of food is infinite, but in a much more useful sens of value I pay something that it much closer to the cost to provide it than how much I would theoretically pay if my choice were to go without.
If you think that those things are more valuable than what fossil fuels charge you right now, shouldn't you call up your utility and offer to pay more?
What sense of "value" are you using here? I like to live, so I find food to be a great thing, so perhaps in one sense the value of food is infinite, but in a much more useful sens of value I pay something that it much closer to the cost to provide it than how much I would theoretically pay if my choice were to go without.
In the case of food, what happens when the manufacturer uses a new additive in their food that happens to decrease your lifespan by 1 day every time you eat one serving. It just happens that this additive is cheaper than the previous ingredient that was used for the same purpose (as happens so often color / texture / ...) The manufacturer receives a benefit (decreased cost) while pushing the cost (decreased lifespan) on you, the consumer.
Now recognize that this happens across all industries in the world every single day. New things are discovered that displace old things. We don't know all of the consequences for the new shiny product when we start producing and selling it to mass markets. Sometimes the new things have major disadvantages that we just don't know at the time we start using them. Look at historical problems with CFCs (which lead to ozone holes in the atmosphere) PCBs (which cause birth defects and can cause cancer), or how neonicotinoids impact insects (which can lead to the deaths of beehives). If the vendor pushing these products had to bear the full cost of the consequences of their use, they might never have been widely accepted. Capitalism is and always will be imperfect in this regard.
Now recognize that this happens across all industries in the world every single day. New things are discovered that displace old things. We don't know all of the consequences for the new shiny product when we start producing and selling it to mass markets. Sometimes the new things have major disadvantages that we just don't know at the time we start using them. Look at historical problems with CFCs (which lead to ozone holes in the atmosphere) PCBs (which cause birth defects and can cause cancer), or how neonicotinoids impact insects (which can lead to the deaths of beehives). If the vendor pushing these products had to bear the full cost of the consequences of their use, they might never have been widely accepted. Capitalism is and always will be imperfect in this regard.
Though externalities are a well-studied phenomenon and failure mode of capitalism, I think that it will be a problem for nearly any conceivable economic system. Any economic system will have to deal both with unintended and unknown consequences, as well as with any harm/benefit to society that is not accounted for in a trade.
presumably the benefits are priced in.
This. Externalities need to become accounted for when we want to completely evaluate the cost of an activity.
Just because those companies or us as individuals don't need to pay for the future damage, doesn't mean that cost doesn't exist, and by not accounting the externalities, the consumption of said products is incentivised since they become "cheaper" than alternatives that are presented to the end user with a higher cost.
Just because those companies or us as individuals don't need to pay for the future damage, doesn't mean that cost doesn't exist, and by not accounting the externalities, the consumption of said products is incentivised since they become "cheaper" than alternatives that are presented to the end user with a higher cost.
In Norway the producer or importer must pay an environmental fee (miljøgebyr) that finances the infrastructure for recycling of things like batteries, tyres, etc.
THIS. In many legal systems companies are required to pay to recycle their waste. And recycling is expensive.
This created huge incentives for criminal organizations. Sketchy recycling companies that dodge regulations, bury toxic waste into building foundations, and make huge profits.
Also, most companies in developed countries simply offshore polluting industrial processes to less rich countries.
This created huge incentives for criminal organizations. Sketchy recycling companies that dodge regulations, bury toxic waste into building foundations, and make huge profits.
Also, most companies in developed countries simply offshore polluting industrial processes to less rich countries.
> Also, most companies in developed countries simply offshore polluting industrial processes to less rich countries.
Exactly what shocked me when I heard about all the plastic rubbish shipped to Malaysia. Shocked, because I was kinda proud how much rubbish we sort (Germany) only to be put into a container and sent around the globe...
Not that I wasn't aware of all the electronic waste shipped to Africa to be burnt and scavenged. It just made me a bit more cynical. Our politicians really couldn't care less, if it wasn't for the votes.
Exactly what shocked me when I heard about all the plastic rubbish shipped to Malaysia. Shocked, because I was kinda proud how much rubbish we sort (Germany) only to be put into a container and sent around the globe...
Not that I wasn't aware of all the electronic waste shipped to Africa to be burnt and scavenged. It just made me a bit more cynical. Our politicians really couldn't care less, if it wasn't for the votes.
When will we know the cost of recycling batteries at scale?
At some point you still need to make someone responsible for disposal. And they may act improperly whatever the economic model adopted. Ultimately we need well run countries with laws and enforcement. And a culture that supports that.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just tax imported metals and miners in the US - for the externalities of mining metals - than to tax battery makers specifically?
Tax everyone for making anything. And if a country doesn't sign up, tax their imports.
Also means they're all incentivised to invent cheaper ways of cleaning the planet.
Also means they're all incentivised to invent cheaper ways of cleaning the planet.
The only "issue" is the cost will passed down to consumers.
So long as recycling is cheaper than creating new products, this problem should take care of itself.
The environmental problem seems worse for products that are cheaper and easier to produce from scratch, than to recycle.
The gigafactories that pop up around the world right now contain recycling lines to feed the battery production.
The environmental problem seems worse for products that are cheaper and easier to produce from scratch, than to recycle.
The gigafactories that pop up around the world right now contain recycling lines to feed the battery production.
Edit: I meant to say “in winter”, usually the fraction of exotic fuels in diesel is smaller in winter.
Is lithium valuable?
Is Cobalt valuable?
Is Nickel valuable?
Can a car battery be repackaged/refurbished to home energy storage?
Can a car battery be repackaged/refurbished to appliances like lawnmowers and snowblowers and power tools?
This is almost as dumb a headline as "what will we do with all the windmill blades?"
Meanwhile, there exists something called "mountaintop removal" in coal.
Is Cobalt valuable?
Is Nickel valuable?
Can a car battery be repackaged/refurbished to home energy storage?
Can a car battery be repackaged/refurbished to appliances like lawnmowers and snowblowers and power tools?
This is almost as dumb a headline as "what will we do with all the windmill blades?"
Meanwhile, there exists something called "mountaintop removal" in coal.
At Tesla's battery day they said they plan to recycle their own batteries, claiming it's a lot easier if you're only recycling one kind of battery.
That seems to fit well with what the article described as ideal: "direct recycling, which would keep the cathode mixture intact." I guess Tesla would have to remove their "indestructible polyurethane cement that holds [the cells] together."
That seems to fit well with what the article described as ideal: "direct recycling, which would keep the cathode mixture intact." I guess Tesla would have to remove their "indestructible polyurethane cement that holds [the cells] together."
Tesla has a track record of achieving the impossible ;)
If they ever get to it and if it's economically feasible. Meanwhile, people are trying to buy old Tesla's and repair their batteries on their own (see numerous youtube videos), which seems very dangerous, or they just go to the junkyard.
What I mean is, they'd probably change the cell design to use a different cement for the sake of recycling :)
EVs have been around since the 1890s. What exactly was impossible about what Tesla accomplished?
According to northvolt 50 procent of the cathode material is going to be reused to make new cells and the bigger issue is that there isn't going to be enough spent batteries to recycle.
https://northvolt.com/newsroom/Announcing-Revolt
https://northvolt.com/newsroom/Announcing-Revolt
Is the view that this is a problem from memories of lead acid batteries in combustion vehicles? I might be ignorant but I can't see lithium batteries being a big problem
Lead acid batteries are highly recyclable. People just are unable to think rationally about certain toxic substances and assume that they just have to be stored away from everything Yucca Mountain style.
The article talks about lithium batteries and says that they are not economocially efficient to recycle so they are not recycled. Given the scale of lithium batteries needed for electric cars (particuarly if they are going to replace internal combustion cars) is going to be probelmatic.
If Mine safety was effectively regulated Lithium battery recycling would probably be economical.
The scaling up that is coming should improve the efficiency. Economies of scale.
Yes, most of the oldest EV batteries are still on the road. In general EV batteries have been remaining in "first use" (as car batteries) for longer than early estimates and it will take a few years more before the world sees enough EV batteries that EV battery recycling starts to have a scale that looks economical (compared to just sifting through salt brines of salt lakes).
~40x more mass per car is one factor.
I think this is a viewed as a problem due to the sheer amount of batteries neccessary to equip all those cars.
Maybe think less in terms of used lead acid batteries but used car tires instead?
though even those are refurbished nowadays.. :shrug:
Maybe think less in terms of used lead acid batteries but used car tires instead?
though even those are refurbished nowadays.. :shrug:
The point is, the lithium will be recycled NOT that lithium batteries are less toxic than lead batteries.
Worrying about "dead" lithium batteries is like worrying about "dead" aluminum cans ...
Worrying about "dead" lithium batteries is like worrying about "dead" aluminum cans ...
But the article mentions that lithium is not economically viable to recycle.
Right. We disagree with the article.
Tell that to https://li-cycle.com/ and https://northvolt.com/revolt/
Eventually, demand and technological changes will make that not true anymore.
Currently, at current scale. I don’t think JB Straubel is an idiot who knows nothing about this.
Also there’s that thing about don’t believe everything you read. Ask: Who benefits by the publication of this article?
Also there’s that thing about don’t believe everything you read. Ask: Who benefits by the publication of this article?
Lead acid batteries are heavily recycled, with around 80% of lead used in the US coming from a recycled source, which is surely more than tires many of which end up in landfills or ground into a secondary use not as useful as a tire.
Lead acid battery recycling is not always done as a relatively clean, industrial process in other parts of the world.
Lead acid battery recycling is not always done as a relatively clean, industrial process in other parts of the world.
They should be plugged into the grid to reduce our risk of an EMP (more likely from the sun) killing 90% of us.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-em...
Nature is periodic, take it seriously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-em...
Nature is periodic, take it seriously: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event
Washington Examiner looks like the landing spot for an ad you would get on Facebook. I strongly doubt 90% of the world would die from that. It would be bad sure, but humans are resourceful.
A more reasonable article-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-warn-...
A more reasonable article-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-warn-...
“ In seven days, the over 100 nuclear power reactors run out of emergency power and go Fukushima, spreading radioactive plumes over the most populous half of the United States. ”
I didn’t see in the article, but why can’t the nuclear power plants shut down well before they ‘go Fukushima’?
I didn’t see in the article, but why can’t the nuclear power plants shut down well before they ‘go Fukushima’?
I tell you what happens, like other electrical components:
1. Batteries ripped out of cars
2. Sold to "unscrupulous" scrap dealers
3. Put on boats to Phillipines or West Africa
4. Crushed and pounded with a rock by a 10 year old child, then burned in a rudimentary smelter to separate metals from plastics.
5. Extracted metals bought by middlemen
6. Metals certified as being safely mined/sourced
7. Re-manufactured into a car battery
Battery powered cars are going to be the next disaster, after the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms.
I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
1. Batteries ripped out of cars
2. Sold to "unscrupulous" scrap dealers
3. Put on boats to Phillipines or West Africa
4. Crushed and pounded with a rock by a 10 year old child, then burned in a rudimentary smelter to separate metals from plastics.
5. Extracted metals bought by middlemen
6. Metals certified as being safely mined/sourced
7. Re-manufactured into a car battery
Battery powered cars are going to be the next disaster, after the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms.
I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
While I agree this scenario is representative to what is likely to happen if nobody reacts, I don't agree that it must necessarily happen or that is a reason to stay on petrol cars.
The difference between batteries and petrol is that batteries can be reprocessed. The problem is unless we do something (set up regulation) it is likely the unregulated way in which it is going to happen will cost a huge pollution and suffering.
Think in terms of lead and lead-acid batteries specifically. There is a mandated system (at least here in EU) that tries to prevent the components of lead acid batteries to get back into environment. For example, when I want to buy a replacement battery I can't throw the old one in the trash and I am expected to exchange the old one for the new one and pay extra if I want to only buy new one without giving away the old.
Is it too hard to think we can do something like that for the huge card batteries which are much less disposable than the lead acid ones?
The difference between batteries and petrol is that batteries can be reprocessed. The problem is unless we do something (set up regulation) it is likely the unregulated way in which it is going to happen will cost a huge pollution and suffering.
Think in terms of lead and lead-acid batteries specifically. There is a mandated system (at least here in EU) that tries to prevent the components of lead acid batteries to get back into environment. For example, when I want to buy a replacement battery I can't throw the old one in the trash and I am expected to exchange the old one for the new one and pay extra if I want to only buy new one without giving away the old.
Is it too hard to think we can do something like that for the huge card batteries which are much less disposable than the lead acid ones?
I think the issue with this is that politicians have a tendency to think about problems only long after the fact.
For example, in the EU, they've banned some plastic single-use food containers, like straws, etc. The other day I was reading an article in a local French paper about how some organization did a study on the replacement products used and found them to be pretty terrible. Both for the environment and for the human body.
The kicker was that some of those containers were sold as being "bio-degradable" but it turned out they weren't.
Now batteries and similar are a "new" thing, so they probably didn't have enough time to think about this, but selling something as something that it's not, even if we leave aside the whole ecology thing, sounds pretty much like fraud to me. But apparently they're looking into ways of banning these, not taking up the suppliers for fraud.
For example, in the EU, they've banned some plastic single-use food containers, like straws, etc. The other day I was reading an article in a local French paper about how some organization did a study on the replacement products used and found them to be pretty terrible. Both for the environment and for the human body.
The kicker was that some of those containers were sold as being "bio-degradable" but it turned out they weren't.
Now batteries and similar are a "new" thing, so they probably didn't have enough time to think about this, but selling something as something that it's not, even if we leave aside the whole ecology thing, sounds pretty much like fraud to me. But apparently they're looking into ways of banning these, not taking up the suppliers for fraud.
I think there are roughly three types of legislation: legislation that acts on existing things (and thus is by definition "late"), legislation that anticipates things (and thus "restricts the market") and legislation that tries to cause something to exist (and thus fails if it anticipates improvements that don't materialize).
I would argue banning plastic single-use food containers is a bit of category one and a bit of category three. Of course the replacements are terrible, if the replacements were great then people would already prefer them and we wouldn't need the law. But banning single-use containers creates demand for better alternatives, which incentivizes innovation and the creation of actually good alternatives.
Batteries are very much an old thing. We solved it for walkmans. Non-replaceable batteries are a somewhat new thing that is in need of some legislation to close the gaps.
I would argue banning plastic single-use food containers is a bit of category one and a bit of category three. Of course the replacements are terrible, if the replacements were great then people would already prefer them and we wouldn't need the law. But banning single-use containers creates demand for better alternatives, which incentivizes innovation and the creation of actually good alternatives.
Batteries are very much an old thing. We solved it for walkmans. Non-replaceable batteries are a somewhat new thing that is in need of some legislation to close the gaps.
IMHO, the problem is that the incentives are not aligned towards improvements but merely to follow the letter of the law without considering its spirit. For example, there's a ban on plastic straws here in California, and the workaround Starbucks found for cold drinks was to provide a sippy plastic lid. So the plastic is still very much there (and never mind that the cup itself is still made of plastic). Paper containers aren't necessarily much better either if they're plastic coated (for example pringles canisters are basically unrecyclable even though they are "made with recyclable materials").
By targeting specific low hanging fruits, legislation ensures that the industry finds workarounds that continue to be cheap and environment-unfriendly, but in ways that have too complex details for an average joe to understand _why_ something that is labeled environment-friendly isn't quite so in practice. It's the environment equivalent of overprescribing antibiotics (shortsighted legislations) only to find years later you've inadvertently created superbugs (industries that produce things whose unrecyclability is extremely misleading and resilient to the level of understanding legislators have).
By targeting specific low hanging fruits, legislation ensures that the industry finds workarounds that continue to be cheap and environment-unfriendly, but in ways that have too complex details for an average joe to understand _why_ something that is labeled environment-friendly isn't quite so in practice. It's the environment equivalent of overprescribing antibiotics (shortsighted legislations) only to find years later you've inadvertently created superbugs (industries that produce things whose unrecyclability is extremely misleading and resilient to the level of understanding legislators have).
[deleted]
Straws were banned more for their impact on marine life than because of their plastic use.
I think only people who never been to a beach think that plastic straws are in any way a significant part of plastic pollution problem.
It's always mostly plastic containers like bottles, plastic bags, fish nets and some random broken pieces of something bigger. Almost never straws.
https://i.wpimg.pl/3500x0/d.wpimg.pl/355768210-77880789/zani...
https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_lossy,ret_img,w_7...
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/garbage-on-the-sand-bea...
It's always mostly plastic containers like bottles, plastic bags, fish nets and some random broken pieces of something bigger. Almost never straws.
https://i.wpimg.pl/3500x0/d.wpimg.pl/355768210-77880789/zani...
https://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_lossy,ret_img,w_7...
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/garbage-on-the-sand-bea...
Straws aren't truly banned per se in CA. McDonalds still provide the cardboard ones. Only plastic straws specifically are banned, and only at retail establishments; you can still buy them in packs at the dollar store.
IMHO, a lot of environmental legislation is mostly out-of-touch theatrics with no real impact. See realities of recent recycling center shutdowns and what sort of stuff gets picked up on beach cleanup days.
IMHO, a lot of environmental legislation is mostly out-of-touch theatrics with no real impact. See realities of recent recycling center shutdowns and what sort of stuff gets picked up on beach cleanup days.
Which Seaspiracy told me is basically eyewash.
The other day at Costco (a big box store) I saw some bio-degradable dog bags - advertised as having no plastic!! But, you could only buy them as a pack that included two plastic dispensers to put the bags in..
> so they probably didn't have enough time to think about this
How can they not have time to do their job? What are they busy with, getting away with bribes?
How can they not have time to do their job? What are they busy with, getting away with bribes?
In the US, members of Congress spend a truly unfathomable amount of time fundraising---as much as six hours a day. There's also just the fact that the issues before Congress are numerous and complicated, and staffing hasn't kept up. In fact research staff were cut significantly back in the 90s.
And the real trouble is that once everyone's gotten (understandably!) cynical about the institution, most of the stuff that would help (more staffing, public financing of campaigns) feels like giving more money to crooks. So we go on this way despite everybody knowing the problem and the solutions being not that complicated, or even very expensive in the grand scheme.
And the real trouble is that once everyone's gotten (understandably!) cynical about the institution, most of the stuff that would help (more staffing, public financing of campaigns) feels like giving more money to crooks. So we go on this way despite everybody knowing the problem and the solutions being not that complicated, or even very expensive in the grand scheme.
Can you share source?
I have mainly French sources:
1. The article was in Le Figaro: https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/des-substances-nocives-r...
2. It talks about a study by Generation Future (not familiar with them). The actual paper is in French, but a bunch of references have English titles and seem to be in English: https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/0...
3. In particular, there's a reference to a Danish law enacted last year (in English): https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/SiteCollectionDocu...
4. UFC Que Choisir (French consummer-watchdog-like organization): https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-test-sur-l...
1. The article was in Le Figaro: https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/des-substances-nocives-r...
2. It talks about a study by Generation Future (not familiar with them). The actual paper is in French, but a bunch of references have English titles and seem to be in English: https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/0...
3. In particular, there's a reference to a Danish law enacted last year (in English): https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/english/SiteCollectionDocu...
4. UFC Que Choisir (French consummer-watchdog-like organization): https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-test-sur-l...
Reminds me of the push in the USA to paint anyone who didn't want to use CFL bulbs as someone who hates the environment, even though the bulbs require special disposal because they release toxic fumes when they break. Now a few years later, they're telling everyone to start using LED bulbs since the CFL bulbs are bad for the environment as well.
CFL bulbs are fine; put the dead ones in a box then take the box to the hardware store once every 3 years when it fills up.
CFL bulbs are fine; they last years and they don't heat up your house like crazy.
LED bulbs are better in every way, but didn't exist 20 years ago and CFL did.
Perhaps you like to kvetch and grouse about small inconveniences; the world is not and never was a perfect place. Most of us just take the pebbles out of our shoes and move on rather than whinge on about how shoes back in the day didn't have rocks in them.
CFL bulbs are fine; they last years and they don't heat up your house like crazy.
LED bulbs are better in every way, but didn't exist 20 years ago and CFL did.
Perhaps you like to kvetch and grouse about small inconveniences; the world is not and never was a perfect place. Most of us just take the pebbles out of our shoes and move on rather than whinge on about how shoes back in the day didn't have rocks in them.
>CFL bulbs are fine; they last years and they don't heat up your house like crazy.
>LED bulbs are better in every way, but didn't exist 20 years ago and CFL did.
Correct from political and marketing perspective, but not from consumer perspective.
Integrated CFLs contain the tube and ballast in a single unit. The tubes will last very long time, the ballasts will fail quite frequently, more often than incandescent.
Same with LED bulbs. The LED itself will last very long time, but the electronics driving it will fail much sooner than CFL ballasts.
So, yes, CFL and LED will last longer if we want to be pedantic on naming, but to the consumer it means nothing. Will the new CFL or LED bulbs that I screw in last longer than my old light-bulbs?
I will even take it a step further, LEDs are constructed to fail sooner in some countries - https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-li...
>LED bulbs are better in every way, but didn't exist 20 years ago and CFL did.
Correct from political and marketing perspective, but not from consumer perspective.
Integrated CFLs contain the tube and ballast in a single unit. The tubes will last very long time, the ballasts will fail quite frequently, more often than incandescent.
Same with LED bulbs. The LED itself will last very long time, but the electronics driving it will fail much sooner than CFL ballasts.
So, yes, CFL and LED will last longer if we want to be pedantic on naming, but to the consumer it means nothing. Will the new CFL or LED bulbs that I screw in last longer than my old light-bulbs?
I will even take it a step further, LEDs are constructed to fail sooner in some countries - https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-li...
Absolutely not my experience. CFL bulbs suck. They take time to reach full brightness so they are unsuitable for bathrooms and closets or anywhere you normally don't have the light on for very long.
They cost orders of magnitude more than incandescent bulbs. I used to get incandescents 4/$1.00 on sale.
They don't last a lot longer. I haven't kept stats, but it feels like I am still replacing bulbs about as often as I ever did.
They contain mercury and need to be disposed of as hazardous waste. And if you break one, now you have mercury in your house.
LED bulbs don't seem to have the "warm up" period that CFSs need to achieve maximum brightness, but you have to be carful about buying the right color temperature because most of them are very harsh bright blue/white. Again I am replacing them routinely. Maybe in theory they should last a lot longer but in practice they seem to be made of minimally adequate components that don't hold up. And they cost even more than CFLs. I just paid $16 for four LED bulbs for the bathroom. Incandescents would have cost me a few dollars.
The only advantage of these bulbs is the reduced electrical usage. But how long will it take to save $16 on my bathroom bulbs? $16 at KWh/$0.15 buys me 106KWh. Assuming the old incandescents would draw 240W, thats 440 hours of operation. My bathroom lights are on maybe 30 minutes/day? So roughly 2.5 years later the LEDs come out ahead, and by then I am needing to replace at least one or two of them in my experience.
They cost orders of magnitude more than incandescent bulbs. I used to get incandescents 4/$1.00 on sale.
They don't last a lot longer. I haven't kept stats, but it feels like I am still replacing bulbs about as often as I ever did.
They contain mercury and need to be disposed of as hazardous waste. And if you break one, now you have mercury in your house.
LED bulbs don't seem to have the "warm up" period that CFSs need to achieve maximum brightness, but you have to be carful about buying the right color temperature because most of them are very harsh bright blue/white. Again I am replacing them routinely. Maybe in theory they should last a lot longer but in practice they seem to be made of minimally adequate components that don't hold up. And they cost even more than CFLs. I just paid $16 for four LED bulbs for the bathroom. Incandescents would have cost me a few dollars.
The only advantage of these bulbs is the reduced electrical usage. But how long will it take to save $16 on my bathroom bulbs? $16 at KWh/$0.15 buys me 106KWh. Assuming the old incandescents would draw 240W, thats 440 hours of operation. My bathroom lights are on maybe 30 minutes/day? So roughly 2.5 years later the LEDs come out ahead, and by then I am needing to replace at least one or two of them in my experience.
Well, first of all, CFL bulbs are as dead as Prince. You probably shouldn't be buying them unless you've got a very specific kind of nostalgia. It's also been almost 30 years since I could buy a cup of coffee for $0.05.
It's been my experience that in general LED bulbs last way longer than the CFL / Incandescent bulbs they're replacing. There have been some cheapo CFL / LED bulbs that didn't last very long, but that was also the case for incandescent bulbs as well (cough $0.25 bulbs). There's always been cheap junk in the world, some of it is packaged to look the same as quality products.
Yes, it is slightly tedious to match color temperatures, but that was the case with incandescent bulbs as well. It is also slightly tedious to find bulbs that are compatible with dimmers.
On the whole, though, these new bulbs are far better than the things they're replacing, and eventually even you will come to use them without noticing.
It's been my experience that in general LED bulbs last way longer than the CFL / Incandescent bulbs they're replacing. There have been some cheapo CFL / LED bulbs that didn't last very long, but that was also the case for incandescent bulbs as well (cough $0.25 bulbs). There's always been cheap junk in the world, some of it is packaged to look the same as quality products.
Yes, it is slightly tedious to match color temperatures, but that was the case with incandescent bulbs as well. It is also slightly tedious to find bulbs that are compatible with dimmers.
On the whole, though, these new bulbs are far better than the things they're replacing, and eventually even you will come to use them without noticing.
I’ve used hue bulbs for 5+ years now and haven’t had a single one burn out yet. Granted I got them for the smart capabilities but they sure seem to last a very long time.
Someone once made the comparison that CFLs are BEVs, in the sense that they're weird compared to what we're use to and have major disposal problems.
LED might a similar relationship to fuel cell cars since they work like the old kind and don't have huge disposal problems.
LED might a similar relationship to fuel cell cars since they work like the old kind and don't have huge disposal problems.
Fuel cell cars are not a reasonable proposition for automobiles.
Any way to get hydrogen can generate electricity, usually more efficiently.
Electricity is easier to generate, distribute, and store than hydrogen.
Fuel cell cars also need batteries because they're not able to deliver large bursts of energy.
Maybe hydrogen / fuel cells might be better for very large mobile applications (ships / trucks / trains) but that's an open question.
They're no a reasonable alternative to BEVs. If anything, hybrid cars are the CFL, having all the drawbacks of both modes and few of the advantages of either (the ability to refuel quickly from anywhere with gas stations is the sole selling point, and it is a big one).
Any way to get hydrogen can generate electricity, usually more efficiently.
Electricity is easier to generate, distribute, and store than hydrogen.
Fuel cell cars also need batteries because they're not able to deliver large bursts of energy.
Maybe hydrogen / fuel cells might be better for very large mobile applications (ships / trucks / trains) but that's an open question.
They're no a reasonable alternative to BEVs. If anything, hybrid cars are the CFL, having all the drawbacks of both modes and few of the advantages of either (the ability to refuel quickly from anywhere with gas stations is the sole selling point, and it is a big one).
That's just pure delusion. Hydrogen is much easier to distribute and store than electricity. So much so we're talking about creating hydrogen as a way to generate electricity.
Unless you think BEVs are the "final car," and there are no fundamental future advancements to ever be made, something like fuel cell cars are going to happen.
Unless you think BEVs are the "final car," and there are no fundamental future advancements to ever be made, something like fuel cell cars are going to happen.
> CFL bulbs are fine; put the dead ones in a box then take the box to the hardware store once every 3 years when it fills up.
So you live with a box filled with fragile glass tubes with mercury in them that you keep putting more glass tubes with mercury in for three years? When you take them to the hardware store, do you double bag them to keep the mercury from leaking when the tubes inevitably shatter against all of the other bulbs? Is that mercury ever recovered in "recycling", or does it just poison a land fill for the next thousand years?
> CFL bulbs are fine; they last years and they don't heat up your house like crazy.
Please tell that to my IKEA and other CFLs that were lucky to last one year. And a properly made incandescent can last many years as well. In fact, when I was a kid, my family restored a 200+ year old home that had a very, very old bulb in it (it was large and looked like an old Edison bulb -- it was bigger than my fist) that still worked great -- it was nice and bright and probably on the order of 150 watts. It was probably from the 1940's, because there were old magazines from the 1940's stacked underneath it. (Great old mags like Popular Mechanics that had ads for "Buy U.S. War Bonds" in them).
CFL's used to (and still) cost a lot more than incandescents. Four to ten times as much when the mandate was introduced, and they were almost as unreliable as cheap incandescents, and produced a horribly cold blue light.
For incandescent bulbs, yes, the heat issue is an issue, and the fact that they're much, much less efficient, but they didn't contain dangerous metals or present a serious environmental hazard when they were disposed of.
LED bulbs did actually exist 20 years ago; in 2000, a friend gave me one (I tried it out and was decidedly not impressed), and I saw them in Fry's for $25+ dollars in 2000 dollars. They were not very bright and had some real issues (and big heat sinks, interestingly enough).
But I miss incandescent bulbs, and believe that the market would have moved us over to LED's soon enough. I would have chosen LED's now over most incandescents, but I'd still prefer incandescents for a few types of uses.
The irony is that the really inefficient incandescent bulbs -- bright and hot halogens -- were not banned; only the run of the mill $1 bulbs (in fact, literally, you could buy a 4 pack of Sylvanias in the dollar store, because that's how I bought bulbs in college).
That's the problem with these mandates: they just harm the poor people, because people who create these mandates are definitely not poor and don't really care -- but these technocrats know better, because of some future energy emergency that never materialized. The CA blackouts wouldn't have been close to mitigated by everyone switching over to CFLs, but it probably helped corporate interests and whoever manufactured all those CFLs clogging up landfills.
And now we have at least a century's worth of oil just in shale that wasn't even accessible 25 years ago, and the sea levels never rose in 2014 as Al Gore so confidently predicted. (I wonder if he bought property in Miami after the prices dropped!) Is this push toward electric cars just another greenhouse warming, ozone depleting, nuclear winter, DDT-thins-bird-eggs proto-catastrophe? We don't know, but it seems clear that the science on macro-events is settled only in hind-sight. Personally, I think we should ban volcanic emissions.
So you live with a box filled with fragile glass tubes with mercury in them that you keep putting more glass tubes with mercury in for three years? When you take them to the hardware store, do you double bag them to keep the mercury from leaking when the tubes inevitably shatter against all of the other bulbs? Is that mercury ever recovered in "recycling", or does it just poison a land fill for the next thousand years?
> CFL bulbs are fine; they last years and they don't heat up your house like crazy.
Please tell that to my IKEA and other CFLs that were lucky to last one year. And a properly made incandescent can last many years as well. In fact, when I was a kid, my family restored a 200+ year old home that had a very, very old bulb in it (it was large and looked like an old Edison bulb -- it was bigger than my fist) that still worked great -- it was nice and bright and probably on the order of 150 watts. It was probably from the 1940's, because there were old magazines from the 1940's stacked underneath it. (Great old mags like Popular Mechanics that had ads for "Buy U.S. War Bonds" in them).
CFL's used to (and still) cost a lot more than incandescents. Four to ten times as much when the mandate was introduced, and they were almost as unreliable as cheap incandescents, and produced a horribly cold blue light.
For incandescent bulbs, yes, the heat issue is an issue, and the fact that they're much, much less efficient, but they didn't contain dangerous metals or present a serious environmental hazard when they were disposed of.
LED bulbs did actually exist 20 years ago; in 2000, a friend gave me one (I tried it out and was decidedly not impressed), and I saw them in Fry's for $25+ dollars in 2000 dollars. They were not very bright and had some real issues (and big heat sinks, interestingly enough).
But I miss incandescent bulbs, and believe that the market would have moved us over to LED's soon enough. I would have chosen LED's now over most incandescents, but I'd still prefer incandescents for a few types of uses.
The irony is that the really inefficient incandescent bulbs -- bright and hot halogens -- were not banned; only the run of the mill $1 bulbs (in fact, literally, you could buy a 4 pack of Sylvanias in the dollar store, because that's how I bought bulbs in college).
That's the problem with these mandates: they just harm the poor people, because people who create these mandates are definitely not poor and don't really care -- but these technocrats know better, because of some future energy emergency that never materialized. The CA blackouts wouldn't have been close to mitigated by everyone switching over to CFLs, but it probably helped corporate interests and whoever manufactured all those CFLs clogging up landfills.
And now we have at least a century's worth of oil just in shale that wasn't even accessible 25 years ago, and the sea levels never rose in 2014 as Al Gore so confidently predicted. (I wonder if he bought property in Miami after the prices dropped!) Is this push toward electric cars just another greenhouse warming, ozone depleting, nuclear winter, DDT-thins-bird-eggs proto-catastrophe? We don't know, but it seems clear that the science on macro-events is settled only in hind-sight. Personally, I think we should ban volcanic emissions.
Regarding the box of dead CFL tubes:
Put them into the box and put the box back on a shelf. Do so with some care, and don't store a hammer on top of them. Perhaps you put the dead CFL into the container with the replacement blulb came with. Don't sit on the box. Maybe take a piece of paper and put that between this bulb and the next. Again, don't store rocks or hammers with the old bulbs. When taking it to the hardware store, put it in a paper bag and put it in the trunk. Don't sit on it, put an empty propane tank on it, or put it under your kid's car seat. Use common sense.
I agree, some CFL bulbs, and some LED bubls, and some incandescent bulbs fail well before their rated lifespan. Some companies put sawdust or melamine in baby formula. The world isn't a perfect place. There are some incandescent bulbs that have lasted 100 years. Regardless, in general, LEDs and CFL last longer. Whataboutism isn't really a good faith argument.
CFLs (and hey, why are we talking about CFL? You should be buying LED) are somewhat more expensive, but I've been able to buy replacements (that have lasted years at this point) for roughly the same price as quality incandescent.
I agree, some CFL bulbs, and some LED bubls, and some incandescent bulbs fail well before their rated lifespan. Some companies put sawdust or melamine in baby formula. The world isn't a perfect place. There are some incandescent bulbs that have lasted 100 years. Regardless, in general, LEDs and CFL last longer. Whataboutism isn't really a good faith argument.
CFLs (and hey, why are we talking about CFL? You should be buying LED) are somewhat more expensive, but I've been able to buy replacements (that have lasted years at this point) for roughly the same price as quality incandescent.
There was more mercury in watch batteries than there was in CFLs, so "special disposal" instructions would have applied to watch batteries as well.
On balance, CFLs were lower energy and safe enough for general use. They were much better than their contemporaries for the environment.
Incandescent < CFL < LED. I don't see a problem with recommending new solutions as they are found, nor recommending LEDs over CFLs.
On balance, CFLs were lower energy and safe enough for general use. They were much better than their contemporaries for the environment.
Incandescent < CFL < LED. I don't see a problem with recommending new solutions as they are found, nor recommending LEDs over CFLs.
The mercury didn't leak out when you dropped a watch battery on the floor.
problem is in the US the people would still be talking about this old stuff as proof that you cannot trust whomever (similar to how the example of Fauci having "lied" about masks is STILL brought up 1 year later) instead of using nuance and arguing in good faith. The only way forward is through an iterative process with good-faith actors where the interests of the collective are put forward instead of the profitability of the few. But it's a long way to get there.
For personal use yes, for professional use the "tax" is either absent or doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Considering I have plenty of "disposed" used UPS batteries laying around I'm pretty sure companies don't care. (This is in the EU)
The existing system with lead-acid batteries is based on the fact that they are easy to recycle, and the lead has significant value.
If that was the case, the regulation would not be needed. But before regulation a lot of car batteries would end up in land fill and are now leeching into water veins.
I'm not sure of the numbers on that, but even if so, it's much easier to mandate the recycling of a product that has net value at the end of its life. Currently, lithium batteries do not. If you are waiting on a rising cost in raw materials to make it viable, then battery packs will become correspondingly even more expensive.
Edit: It might also be an effect, that recycling mandates had to be introduced, becase lead-handling mandates had dissuaded anyone from recycling them. Not that I'm aruging against lead-handling mandates, it's a pretty nasty material.
Edit: It might also be an effect, that recycling mandates had to be introduced, becase lead-handling mandates had dissuaded anyone from recycling them. Not that I'm aruging against lead-handling mandates, it's a pretty nasty material.
Even before a lot regulations around car batteries had a pretty high recycling rate. It's a lot metal to just throw away. However, even being the minority of occurrences one battery is a lot lead (a heavy metal) so it does not take very much to start being a concern.
>Is it too hard to think we can do something like that for the huge card batteries which are much less disposable than the lead acid ones?
Who is we? I don't remember being able to vote for any politicians that are interested in this sort of thing.
Hydrogen cell cars are probably the best option for the future. It's very abundant naturally and its byproduct is H2O. We have to figure out how to mass produce it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzuuLpYFVg
Who is we? I don't remember being able to vote for any politicians that are interested in this sort of thing.
Hydrogen cell cars are probably the best option for the future. It's very abundant naturally and its byproduct is H2O. We have to figure out how to mass produce it though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzuuLpYFVg
Hydrogen still has highly corroded less than recyclable cryo tanks AND either a combustion engine or fuel cell (highly corroded, less than recyclable)
Carbon fiber tanks are much less of a disposal/recycling problem than batteries.
> Hydrogen
> We have to figure out how to mass produce it though.
Many renewable sources (mainly solar, wind) are only intermittently producing, therefore we need to store energy produced during over-producing periods.
Many renewable sources (mainly solar, wind) are only intermittently producing, therefore we need to store energy produced during over-producing periods.
> Who is we?
We, the People?
Isn't that the whole point of democracy?
We, the People?
Isn't that the whole point of democracy?
Lol. Yes, yes. And cops are the good guys and drug users are evil. I remember all this from elementary school too.
Democracy is very slow and inefficient system. It's just that up until now we haven't figured out any better solution.
Democracy works on fixing the problems over time. It means usually there is a delay between a problem and a fix. At any point in time you will see a lot of problem, but that doesn't mean that democracy doesn't work.
Think about Jira. If every project has a lot of issues in Jira, does it means they are all shit and need to be scrapped? Do you think whining about the number of issues is going to help?
Democracy works on fixing the problems over time. It means usually there is a delay between a problem and a fix. At any point in time you will see a lot of problem, but that doesn't mean that democracy doesn't work.
Think about Jira. If every project has a lot of issues in Jira, does it means they are all shit and need to be scrapped? Do you think whining about the number of issues is going to help?
A hammer is a tool. A democratic process is a tool.
It's always weird to me to hear people talk about "democracy" as an abstract moral philosophy or a system of government. It sounds to me like people talking about "hammerism" or something, like the Builder faction from the Thief series.
There are many, many faults of democratic methods. But, let it be succinctly said: human beings are easily manipulated on short time scales. Anything left to a decision of the "majority of the people" is easily influenced by propogandists. In a system that is based entirely on the tool of democracy, power is accumulated by those most adept at manipulation.
A robust system of government that protects liberty, dignity, and enables people to improve their quality of life, will include democratic processes, which are useful, but will also need to employ a variety of other governmental and moral decision making tools.
It's always weird to me to hear people talk about "democracy" as an abstract moral philosophy or a system of government. It sounds to me like people talking about "hammerism" or something, like the Builder faction from the Thief series.
There are many, many faults of democratic methods. But, let it be succinctly said: human beings are easily manipulated on short time scales. Anything left to a decision of the "majority of the people" is easily influenced by propogandists. In a system that is based entirely on the tool of democracy, power is accumulated by those most adept at manipulation.
A robust system of government that protects liberty, dignity, and enables people to improve their quality of life, will include democratic processes, which are useful, but will also need to employ a variety of other governmental and moral decision making tools.
People love to roll out this popular criticism of democracy but there is very little actual evidence to support it. It can be quite a bit more expensive and much more visible when you have to influence a large number of people than to influence a small group of stakeholders. There's a reason why lobbying is such a huge part of american politics.
Even more to the point both historical and contemporary evidence indicates that power and influence spread more evenly across a countries citizens is strongly correlated to overall quality of life.
Even more to the point both historical and contemporary evidence indicates that power and influence spread more evenly across a countries citizens is strongly correlated to overall quality of life.
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
-Boss Tweed
Think today is much different?
-Boss Tweed
Think today is much different?
>I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
I bet that's the exact reason why you drive that exact car. Because of course the coolant, oil, acid batteries, etc. your car uses is disposed of correctly, or one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE. Never mind the waste that oil production itself causes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/01/fossil-fuel...
New modes of transportation and energy generation will not be 100% clean and waste free, I think it would be naive to think we could actually do that. But they can be steps in the right direction.
If your cynical assumption is that we can't do it right anyway, why do you even pretend that driving your old car is somehow better? If we won't dispose of lithium batteries properly, we won't dispose of all the things your old car produces either.
I bet that's the exact reason why you drive that exact car. Because of course the coolant, oil, acid batteries, etc. your car uses is disposed of correctly, or one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE. Never mind the waste that oil production itself causes.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/01/fossil-fuel...
New modes of transportation and energy generation will not be 100% clean and waste free, I think it would be naive to think we could actually do that. But they can be steps in the right direction.
If your cynical assumption is that we can't do it right anyway, why do you even pretend that driving your old car is somehow better? If we won't dispose of lithium batteries properly, we won't dispose of all the things your old car produces either.
Old oil is processed and re-used (as cheaper oil, or for heating). Lead-acid batteries have practically all of the lead re-used. I'm not sure where the acid itself, nor coolant, goes, but they're not the most damaging of pollutants.
>one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE
Yep, it's usually one of the electronic parts, which is why I have no faith that EVs will be significantly more reliable.
>one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE
Yep, it's usually one of the electronic parts, which is why I have no faith that EVs will be significantly more reliable.
> Old oil is processed and re-used (as cheaper oil, or for heating)
Or illegally dumped if we follow OPs cynical reasoning.
> it's usually one of the electronic parts
I didn't know tubes, gaskets, seals, clutches, oil filters, spark plugs, fuel pumps, radiators, alternators were electronic parts.
I am not claiming EVs are perfect but to propose classical ICE vehicles are somehow much better simply does not make any sense. To exist as a modern human is to have an impact on your environment.
Or illegally dumped if we follow OPs cynical reasoning.
> it's usually one of the electronic parts
I didn't know tubes, gaskets, seals, clutches, oil filters, spark plugs, fuel pumps, radiators, alternators were electronic parts.
I am not claiming EVs are perfect but to propose classical ICE vehicles are somehow much better simply does not make any sense. To exist as a modern human is to have an impact on your environment.
Those are all relatively inert parts, and scrap steel and aluminium is relatively easily extracted.
I didn't set out to argue that ICE vehicles are much better (although, honestly, I think it might be a defensible position), but the waste products from an end-of-life EV are significantly more damaging than those from an ICE.
I didn't set out to argue that ICE vehicles are much better (although, honestly, I think it might be a defensible position), but the waste products from an end-of-life EV are significantly more damaging than those from an ICE.
On what evidence are you basing that last assertion?
An end-of-life EV = an end-of-life ICE - a block of metal + a large lithium battery pack.
I think you are resting your argument on the assumption that a large lithium battery pack is a damaging thing then. I would then ask if there is any evidence behind this assumption.
The contents of said battery pack? I suppose they are relatively inert, if you just dumped it into landfill. But then that's still much worse than ICE engines, which can be very easily recycled.
I know lots of people with EVs, and never heard of a problem related to the EV drivetrain. It does happen, but most problems by far seem to be related to things other than the drivetrain.
I've had a problem with 12V lead acid battery going dead too soon due to the ECU causing vampire drain, replaced on warranty though. Not related to EV drivetrain of course.
For the particular EV I have, I've heard of problems with the gearbox, due to the parking break being implemented in the gearbox. That's a design left over from ICE version of the car, most (all?) new EV models don't have that.
All indications I've seen so far is that EVs drivetrains are more reliable. And we have 10 year old EVs on the road now. Cars are getting more complex in general, so there may be lots of other things that can break. But it's the same with ICE cars, you just get all the extra parts needed for an ICE engine in addition. If I look up most commonly replaced car parts, around half are ICE-only. And break pads needs more frequent replacement on ICE cars.
I've had a problem with 12V lead acid battery going dead too soon due to the ECU causing vampire drain, replaced on warranty though. Not related to EV drivetrain of course.
For the particular EV I have, I've heard of problems with the gearbox, due to the parking break being implemented in the gearbox. That's a design left over from ICE version of the car, most (all?) new EV models don't have that.
All indications I've seen so far is that EVs drivetrains are more reliable. And we have 10 year old EVs on the road now. Cars are getting more complex in general, so there may be lots of other things that can break. But it's the same with ICE cars, you just get all the extra parts needed for an ICE engine in addition. If I look up most commonly replaced car parts, around half are ICE-only. And break pads needs more frequent replacement on ICE cars.
The ECU is an integral part of the drivetrain.
>>we won't dispose of all the things your old car produces either.
Which is exactly the point - we are already not properly disposing of things in the proper way (the 10 year old with a rock example), so what makes anyone think that it will be any different going forward? Why would anyone assume that corporations or government will do any better disposing of these 'new' things, when we have had 50-75 years to figure out how to safely dispose of the 'old' things and have so far failed; they end up being shipped overseas, so we pollute someone else's backyard, not our own.
Which is exactly the point - we are already not properly disposing of things in the proper way (the 10 year old with a rock example), so what makes anyone think that it will be any different going forward? Why would anyone assume that corporations or government will do any better disposing of these 'new' things, when we have had 50-75 years to figure out how to safely dispose of the 'old' things and have so far failed; they end up being shipped overseas, so we pollute someone else's backyard, not our own.
We each have a choice about whether to try solving these problems or whether to assume the status quo cannot be improved.
What's the incentive to improve on the status quo? The infrastructure is established, the costs are low. Improving requires quite a few up-front investments and overall higher operating costs.
It's hard to convince modern companies (i.e. those who focus on profit above all else) to take such hits against their market value.
It's hard to convince modern companies (i.e. those who focus on profit above all else) to take such hits against their market value.
>> or one of the hundreds of parts that needs replacing every X amount of time in an ICE
Have you owned a modern ICE engine? I can count on one hand the number of parts that my three Honda engines have needed in the last 15 years (1 car, 1 motorcycle, 1 generator). Electric engines in realworld cars need replacement at basically the same or greater rates. Those parts are made out of the same materials (rubber+metal+plastic+ceramics+lubricants) as in electric cars. As for batteries, my three hondas have very recyclable lead-acid batteries that people will pay me good money for once they die. They will never see a landfill.
Have you owned a modern ICE engine? I can count on one hand the number of parts that my three Honda engines have needed in the last 15 years (1 car, 1 motorcycle, 1 generator). Electric engines in realworld cars need replacement at basically the same or greater rates. Those parts are made out of the same materials (rubber+metal+plastic+ceramics+lubricants) as in electric cars. As for batteries, my three hondas have very recyclable lead-acid batteries that people will pay me good money for once they die. They will never see a landfill.
> Those parts are made out of the same materials (rubber+metal+plastic+ceramics+lubricants) as in electric cars.
Most electric motors have none of those materials except metal. Most are induction motors with few to no moving parts internally, and those that do have moving parts don't need them lubricated because they are in naturally low friction arrangements. (Versus pistons that have to be as tightly fitted to chamber walls as possible for the most power in an ICE.) Most EVs you can expect the motors may outlast the plastics in the dashboards.
As for batteries, Lithium is easily recycled today. We don't have a lot of Lithium Ion battery recycling plants today because of economies of scale. There haven't been enough EVs for long enough today to have big needs to recycle their batteries. Most of the oldest EV batteries are still on the road. So far EV battery life has well exceeded expectations, across the board.
Most electric motors have none of those materials except metal. Most are induction motors with few to no moving parts internally, and those that do have moving parts don't need them lubricated because they are in naturally low friction arrangements. (Versus pistons that have to be as tightly fitted to chamber walls as possible for the most power in an ICE.) Most EVs you can expect the motors may outlast the plastics in the dashboards.
As for batteries, Lithium is easily recycled today. We don't have a lot of Lithium Ion battery recycling plants today because of economies of scale. There haven't been enough EVs for long enough today to have big needs to recycle their batteries. Most of the oldest EV batteries are still on the road. So far EV battery life has well exceeded expectations, across the board.
>> motors may outlast the plastics in the dashboards.
Go to any automotive recycling facility. The cylinders are fine. IC engines regularly outlast dashboards. Modern cars get recycled when their electrical systems fail in a manner that is more expensive to fix than the car is worth. Those electrical systems (alternators, rectifiers, engine control systems) are not very much different than those in electric cars.
Take a look at any tesla teardown. The difference in part number/complexity between them and an IC car are superficial at best. They even have similar liquid coolant loops, with pumps that seem to fail more often than nearly identical pumps on IC cars.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90209541/meet-the-renegade-whos-...
Go to any automotive recycling facility. The cylinders are fine. IC engines regularly outlast dashboards. Modern cars get recycled when their electrical systems fail in a manner that is more expensive to fix than the car is worth. Those electrical systems (alternators, rectifiers, engine control systems) are not very much different than those in electric cars.
Take a look at any tesla teardown. The difference in part number/complexity between them and an IC car are superficial at best. They even have similar liquid coolant loops, with pumps that seem to fail more often than nearly identical pumps on IC cars.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90209541/meet-the-renegade-whos-...
Also, IC cars leak chemicals like oil and gasoline into the environment. If the diesel engine is out of tune it may also not be burning as efficiently as expected.
Not really. Batteries like AAA are already being recycled because it makes economical sense. In fact thieves steal it and need vigilance.
You are confused with "electrical components" that are mostly plastic, very hard to disassemble and not worth it economically.
A Tesla battery cost over $6000. Materials like Cobalt or Lithium are worth a lot in a concentrated form, much easier than extracting it from the mine. As technology improves, the metals in those batteries are worth more.
So what is going to happen is:
Short term: people will use their old car batteries for electrical network support.
Medium term: Governments are going to require recycling protocols like they already do with ICEs cars.
Long term: Companies will develop protocols to recycle it. A battery is the same thing repeated hundreds of times. The individual cells are standardized,and platforms will be shared between different manufacturers, that makes it way easier to recycle.
You are confused with "electrical components" that are mostly plastic, very hard to disassemble and not worth it economically.
A Tesla battery cost over $6000. Materials like Cobalt or Lithium are worth a lot in a concentrated form, much easier than extracting it from the mine. As technology improves, the metals in those batteries are worth more.
So what is going to happen is:
Short term: people will use their old car batteries for electrical network support.
Medium term: Governments are going to require recycling protocols like they already do with ICEs cars.
Long term: Companies will develop protocols to recycle it. A battery is the same thing repeated hundreds of times. The individual cells are standardized,and platforms will be shared between different manufacturers, that makes it way easier to recycle.
> Batteries like AAA are already being recycled because it makes economical sense.
Are they? My depleted AAA alkalines go straight in the trash (which is the direction of our fairly green-friendly city of Cambridge, MA).
* - https://www.cambridgema.gov/Services/householdhazardouswaste...
Are they? My depleted AAA alkalines go straight in the trash (which is the direction of our fairly green-friendly city of Cambridge, MA).
* - https://www.cambridgema.gov/Services/householdhazardouswaste...
> our fairly green-friendly city of Cambridge, MA
Everything is relative, they don't go in the trash anywhere I know in Europe.
Everything is relative, they don't go in the trash anywhere I know in Europe.
> anywhere I know
I was recently quite disillusioned about that by the series "The Vuilnisman" (The Garbage Man) in The Netherlands, where point for point the entire responsible waste disposal and recycling was shown to be mostly a paper reality. For instance numerous tricks exist to label trash as building material and it can be dumped anywhere for a good profit. If only we knew.
I was recently quite disillusioned about that by the series "The Vuilnisman" (The Garbage Man) in The Netherlands, where point for point the entire responsible waste disposal and recycling was shown to be mostly a paper reality. For instance numerous tricks exist to label trash as building material and it can be dumped anywhere for a good profit. If only we knew.
Is the fibre glass thing actually a disaster? According to this Bloomberg article https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb... it sounds more like something that would be nice to reduce but is pretty far from a disaster:
“Wind turbine blades at the end of their operational life are landfill-safe, unlike the waste from some other energy sources, and represent a small fraction of overall U.S. municipal solid waste,” according to an emailed statement from the group. It pointed to an Electric Power Research Institute study that estimates all blade waste through 2050 would equal roughly .015% of all the municipal solid waste going to landfills in 2015 alone.
“Wind turbine blades at the end of their operational life are landfill-safe, unlike the waste from some other energy sources, and represent a small fraction of overall U.S. municipal solid waste,” according to an emailed statement from the group. It pointed to an Electric Power Research Institute study that estimates all blade waste through 2050 would equal roughly .015% of all the municipal solid waste going to landfills in 2015 alone.
The idea that wind turbine blades need to be recycled is more of a fetish than a requirement.
It does appear there is a solution for this on the way.
https://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-science/wind-turbine-mak...
TL;DR: It appears Vestas is partnering up with another company to bring to market a process to break down the epoxy resins that bind the fiberglass in the blades. The resulting base chemicals are useful for the production of further resins and new windmill blades. This process could be useful in other industries.
TL;DR: It appears Vestas is partnering up with another company to bring to market a process to break down the epoxy resins that bind the fiberglass in the blades. The resulting base chemicals are useful for the production of further resins and new windmill blades. This process could be useful in other industries.
Yes, this is considered a problem, but not a disaster.
As wind blades multiply and start to age out, this is already being worked on very strongly in the composites industry, and there are major breakthroughs[e.g., 1,2]. This should not be a disaster in the future
[1] https://electrek.co/2021/04/26/a-scottish-university-finds-n...
[2] https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1716110/vestas-deve...
As wind blades multiply and start to age out, this is already being worked on very strongly in the composites industry, and there are major breakthroughs[e.g., 1,2]. This should not be a disaster in the future
[1] https://electrek.co/2021/04/26/a-scottish-university-finds-n...
[2] https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1716110/vestas-deve...
Can turbine blades be used as sunken fake reefs? They're big and hollow, could be a good place to nuture nature?
> Battery powered cars are going to be the next disaster
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
"Battery powered cars are a small disaster, so I'll keep my big disaster instead".
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
"Battery powered cars are a small disaster, so I'll keep my big disaster instead".
It uses waste vegetable oil.
This is a laudable and reasonable small scale approach to personal transportation.
There are certainly enough old diesels out there and enough people willing to go around collecting old oil to keep a small number of people occupied and mobile.
It is also not really a viable large scale solution to "how do you move people around?"
There are lots of really good answers (walking, public transit, electric bicycles) but one obvious answer is "cars" and electrifying those is probably a good solution.
Electricity can be generated from fossil fuels more efficiently at large scales than small (a power plant produces less CO2 than a car for a given amount of work). Electricity can also be generated by extracting "free" energy from the environment (wind / solar / hydro / dogs on treadmills). The distribution system for electricity is already quite robust and is already everywhere, and people like cars. There's even lots of inexpensive electricity available at night, when most people aren't driving their cars. All we need is a way to get the power to the cars that park where people don't own the parking space.
Disposing of the waste stream of parts of the cars has always been a problem. Hopefully people come up with a way to solve it; there's enough valuable metal in a car battery that it is likely they will.
There are already all sorts of terrifying industrial processes which I can't imagine are possibly cost effective and yet they're the foundation of modern society. There are also all sorts of hideous "farm out the cost to someone else" processes relying on destroying somewhere else / poisoning someone else.
People refine gasoline by boiling crude oil in a rusting metal tank; people refine gasoline in trillion dollar oil refineries. Why and where and for who answers how it gets done.
Can one cost-effectively convert refined materials in a battery (cobalt / nickle / lithium) back into raw inputs for a new battery? Can it be done profitably by a child in a toxic fire pit or can it be done profitably by a chilled shredder in inert gas?
Not a simple problem, but probably one that can partially be solved with market incentives and partially solved by laws and partially it won't get solved. But we should probably try, right?
There are certainly enough old diesels out there and enough people willing to go around collecting old oil to keep a small number of people occupied and mobile.
It is also not really a viable large scale solution to "how do you move people around?"
There are lots of really good answers (walking, public transit, electric bicycles) but one obvious answer is "cars" and electrifying those is probably a good solution.
Electricity can be generated from fossil fuels more efficiently at large scales than small (a power plant produces less CO2 than a car for a given amount of work). Electricity can also be generated by extracting "free" energy from the environment (wind / solar / hydro / dogs on treadmills). The distribution system for electricity is already quite robust and is already everywhere, and people like cars. There's even lots of inexpensive electricity available at night, when most people aren't driving their cars. All we need is a way to get the power to the cars that park where people don't own the parking space.
Disposing of the waste stream of parts of the cars has always been a problem. Hopefully people come up with a way to solve it; there's enough valuable metal in a car battery that it is likely they will.
There are already all sorts of terrifying industrial processes which I can't imagine are possibly cost effective and yet they're the foundation of modern society. There are also all sorts of hideous "farm out the cost to someone else" processes relying on destroying somewhere else / poisoning someone else.
People refine gasoline by boiling crude oil in a rusting metal tank; people refine gasoline in trillion dollar oil refineries. Why and where and for who answers how it gets done.
Can one cost-effectively convert refined materials in a battery (cobalt / nickle / lithium) back into raw inputs for a new battery? Can it be done profitably by a child in a toxic fire pit or can it be done profitably by a chilled shredder in inert gas?
Not a simple problem, but probably one that can partially be solved with market incentives and partially solved by laws and partially it won't get solved. But we should probably try, right?
> It is also not really a viable large scale solution to "how do you move people around?"
Not every solution needs to be large scale to be usefull. I think biofuels should be promoted and used as much as possible (obviously within the limits where it makes sense ecologically speaking, e.g. not destroying ecosystems to plant more biofuel crops or burning coal to synthetize (m)ethanol). Both the idea that EVs are suited for every purpose and that they'll quickly take over the entire ICE car pool are ludicrous. Where EVs can not / not yet be used it makes perfect sense to use alternative fuel sources.
Not every solution needs to be large scale to be usefull. I think biofuels should be promoted and used as much as possible (obviously within the limits where it makes sense ecologically speaking, e.g. not destroying ecosystems to plant more biofuel crops or burning coal to synthetize (m)ethanol). Both the idea that EVs are suited for every purpose and that they'll quickly take over the entire ICE car pool are ludicrous. Where EVs can not / not yet be used it makes perfect sense to use alternative fuel sources.
Unless I drive to a specific gas station to get 100% recycled fuel, the normal diesel only has 10-20% such products, and likely less in summer.
It's not nothing and certainly better than just a few years ago, but it's still not exactly like a significant fraction of diesels use a significant fraction of vegetable oil.
It's not nothing and certainly better than just a few years ago, but it's still not exactly like a significant fraction of diesels use a significant fraction of vegetable oil.
When you're mixing in chip-shop oil, you're waaaaay off the constructor Co2 emissions (which themselves are way off the real world Co2 emissions)
Are they the small disaster ? What do you think is going to happen with all the lithium after being bounded by a 10 year old with a rock?
Probably just going to land in the river, and then the sea.
Probably just going to land in the river, and then the sea.
Whereas extra CO2 in the atmosphere is fine? Or do you mean that it's easier to sequester the CO2 than to get children to stop pounding things containing lithium?
Sounds reasonable. Plants absorb carbon. I'm not aware of anything organic that absorbs lithium.
If nothing organic absorbs lithium, what's the problem?
absorbs lithium naturally.
Go ahead and try drinking a glass of lithium, or try growing vegetables with lithium instead of water.
Go ahead and try drinking a glass of lithium, or try growing vegetables with lithium instead of water.
> Or do you mean that it's easier to sequester the CO2 than to get children to stop pounding things containing lithium?
The claim that electric cars are good for the environment is a lie. They are not "good", they are not even "neutral". They are "bad".
People that really care about the environment ride a bike. They don't buy an electric car and try to justify the currently unknown long term environmental consequences of their purchase as somehow being better than the known consequences of gasoline and diesel cars.
Today we just ship car batteries oversees to be scrapped for parts in the cheapest possible way by children. That doesn't sound good to me at all.
The claim that electric cars are good for the environment is a lie. They are not "good", they are not even "neutral". They are "bad".
People that really care about the environment ride a bike. They don't buy an electric car and try to justify the currently unknown long term environmental consequences of their purchase as somehow being better than the known consequences of gasoline and diesel cars.
Today we just ship car batteries oversees to be scrapped for parts in the cheapest possible way by children. That doesn't sound good to me at all.
>>The claim that electric cars are good for the environment is a lie. They are not "good", they are not even "neutral". They are "bad".
So....exactly like normal cars then? Buying a brand new car is bad for the environment, full stop, ICE or EV.
The statement above makes sense if taken in isolation - take an existing ICE car and an existing EV car - the EV car is undoubtedly better for the environment, there is no discussion. But it would also be a lot better if neither existed, as manufacturing new cars is EXTREMELY wasteful and produces incredible amounts of CO2 debt, again, EV or not.
>>oday we just ship car batteries oversees to be scrapped for parts in the cheapest possible way by children.
As opposed to stripping out electronics and precious metals from ICE cars, which is only ever done by well regulated workers in rich western countries, right? /s
Like, come on - I get your point. Shitty "recycling" practices exist. That doesn't mean that's the standard or the default, and it definitely can be fixed going forward. We aren't destined or doomed to only recycle our lithium batteries with 10 year old children with rocks, and for some reason you're framing it as if that's the only available method.
So....exactly like normal cars then? Buying a brand new car is bad for the environment, full stop, ICE or EV.
The statement above makes sense if taken in isolation - take an existing ICE car and an existing EV car - the EV car is undoubtedly better for the environment, there is no discussion. But it would also be a lot better if neither existed, as manufacturing new cars is EXTREMELY wasteful and produces incredible amounts of CO2 debt, again, EV or not.
>>oday we just ship car batteries oversees to be scrapped for parts in the cheapest possible way by children.
As opposed to stripping out electronics and precious metals from ICE cars, which is only ever done by well regulated workers in rich western countries, right? /s
Like, come on - I get your point. Shitty "recycling" practices exist. That doesn't mean that's the standard or the default, and it definitely can be fixed going forward. We aren't destined or doomed to only recycle our lithium batteries with 10 year old children with rocks, and for some reason you're framing it as if that's the only available method.
Its been claimed that riding a bike is the worst thing you can do for the environment. The fuel for a human is the most ecologically disastrous fuel we make. Billions of acres clearcut; chemicals in the soil and air; CO2 by the gigaton. No, increasing human output has the largest impact on CO2 we could create.
Assuming ~1 kgCO2e/kJ food and ~0.2 kJ/km riding a bike, well that's just about 200 g CO2e / km. Pretty bad actually.
Weird how in your scenario only people riding bikes need food.
Now that's deliberately being dense. Riding a bike means you'll eat more to fuel that effort.
This is wrong and stupid
Look into it before posting insult, perhaps? Its reasonable, arguable, and probably right.
Your argument boils down to "people are bad for the environment." True, but not helpful.
Boils down to "Riding a bike instead of driving a car is a net negative for the environment". Reframing or changing the subject doesn't affect that.
I think it's a clever point, but it falls flat for me on closer inspection because:
#1: The whole point of preserving the environment is to keep it inhabitable for humans. Fueling humans is non-negotiable up to at least a baseline level of survival, and still desirable beyond that level because we like being well fed.
and
#2: Due to that whole "we like being well fed" thing, most humans in the first world -- the part of the world where people worry about things like whether biking to work is good or bad for the environment -- are already overfueled. We have a surplus of human fuel that we're consuming anyway because it feels good. Might as well burn some of it off on transportation.
#1: The whole point of preserving the environment is to keep it inhabitable for humans. Fueling humans is non-negotiable up to at least a baseline level of survival, and still desirable beyond that level because we like being well fed.
and
#2: Due to that whole "we like being well fed" thing, most humans in the first world -- the part of the world where people worry about things like whether biking to work is good or bad for the environment -- are already overfueled. We have a surplus of human fuel that we're consuming anyway because it feels good. Might as well burn some of it off on transportation.
Want to reduce the ecological impact of food? Go vegan.
Buying a car or riding a bike isn't a choice. It's something forced upon residents by the local zoning plan.
In many places people can make the choice to bicycle. That they don't choose it is why so few places have infrastructure for bicycling.
I live in one of the few places in the US that has the geography and density to make bike commuting one of the fastest and most efficient ways to get around. I would gladly ride a bike almost everywhere if it were safer.
I don't, because I don't feel like putting my life at risk on a regular basis just to get where I need to go.
There's a reason that bike ridership skyrockets when useful protected bike infrastructure gets installed. The demand is there.
I don't, because I don't feel like putting my life at risk on a regular basis just to get where I need to go.
There's a reason that bike ridership skyrockets when useful protected bike infrastructure gets installed. The demand is there.
Is the energy required to ride a bike somehow free? How do you ride a bike for hundreds of kilometers?
> People that really care about the environment ride a bike. They don't buy an electric car and try to justify the currently unknown long term environmental consequences of their purchase as somehow being better than the known consequences of gasoline and diesel cars.
This is so much false dichotomy that I'm having trouble assuming good faith.
> People that really care about the environment ride a bike. They don't buy an electric car and try to justify the currently unknown long term environmental consequences of their purchase as somehow being better than the known consequences of gasoline and diesel cars.
This is so much false dichotomy that I'm having trouble assuming good faith.
Humans require exercise to maintain good health. The energy required to ride a bike replaces energy that would otherwise be wasted on exercise equipment in a gym.
So you'd only ride for an hour a day, and you'd stop where you were and take a taxi the rest of the way, or what?
If it's too far to ride then a taxi (ideally, an electric vehicle) is a reasonable option. It's even reasonable to stop where you are and switch to a taxi. I don't know if it's possible with Uber or similar, but with traditional taxi operators you can call them and arrange for them to carry the bicycle too. The front wheel will have a quick release mechanism, and you can put down some sheeting to protect the interior of the taxi from grease/oil, or they might have an exterior bicycle carrier frame. But this will only be a minority of journeys.
Myself, I ride my bike to work and back (about 25 mins each way) and around the local area, otherwise I use the excellent public transport in my city (mostly electric-powered trains and occasionally electric/hybrid buses). If I need to go out-of-city, I use mostly-electric trains.
>How do you ride a bike for hundreds of kilometers?
In many parts of the world, you would take a train or other forms of public transport to travel distances too far to ride by bike. Those often have last-mile problems when the train doesn't go quite where you need it to, but given sufficient density at the source/destination bikes are an effective solution to the last-mile problem.
Of course, in the US, we typically have sprawl at the source/destination, unsafe infrastructure for bicycling, and often not-very-useful public transport, which does rather limit this option.
In many parts of the world, you would take a train or other forms of public transport to travel distances too far to ride by bike. Those often have last-mile problems when the train doesn't go quite where you need it to, but given sufficient density at the source/destination bikes are an effective solution to the last-mile problem.
Of course, in the US, we typically have sprawl at the source/destination, unsafe infrastructure for bicycling, and often not-very-useful public transport, which does rather limit this option.
Lithium mining is an issue and can be improved. Lithium on its own ending up in the rivers and sea when it is a valuable commodity? How is that going to happen?
Mining lithium is cheaper than recycling
Really? Where are the numbers for that assertion?
Right now it's a fact that does not need numbers to prove.
Hopefully by 2030 there will be a robust network of recycling facilities around the world, for the majority of exhausted lithium batteries.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/lithiumio...
Hopefully by 2030 there will be a robust network of recycling facilities around the world, for the majority of exhausted lithium batteries.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/lithiumio...
The part where we mine lithium instead of recycle it is a good indicator.
Only if there were waste streams of lithium of comparable scale, which there are not.
We are enormously expanding our use of lithium, and the biggest problem for the places that are currently trying to recycle lithium batteries is that there aren't enough of them to recycle. A big source of their current batteries are just the defects from the current manufacturing process.
We are enormously expanding our use of lithium, and the biggest problem for the places that are currently trying to recycle lithium batteries is that there aren't enough of them to recycle. A big source of their current batteries are just the defects from the current manufacturing process.
Well let’s change it, things evolve, markets and regulations are set up
How much Lithium needs to end up in the sea to be a comparable problem to even one broken oil tanker? Lithium salts are not terribly toxic.
I wonder too. The sea is the world's largest store of Lithium already.
> Battery powered cars are going to be the next disaster, after the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms.
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
Why are you framing this as being a particular problem for electric cars and wind farms? It sounds like a problem that encompasses all of global trade, manufacturing and modern technology.
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
Why are you framing this as being a particular problem for electric cars and wind farms? It sounds like a problem that encompasses all of global trade, manufacturing and modern technology.
>It sounds like a problem that encompasses all of global trade, manufacturing and modern technology.
It is, which is why it is absurd on its face that supposedly more "sustainable" solutions to transport and electricity generation increase all three of those.
It is, which is why it is absurd on its face that supposedly more "sustainable" solutions to transport and electricity generation increase all three of those.
It's not facially absurd,maybe the math won't pan out but humanity needs to get off fossil fuels or face an uninhabitable earth.
It is absurd on its face to have developing countries burn oil and (usually low-grade) coal to manufacture huge battery packs (and all the other electronic items that our Western lives dictate), all so we can claim we live CO2-neutral lives.
You might be right, but EVs are not the solution. The solution is realising that we just can't use so much energy.
You might be right, but EVs are not the solution. The solution is realising that we just can't use so much energy.
Actually, EVs are (at least part of) a solution. Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines, and even more efficient if you also count all the oil extraction, processing and transport.
Of course we need to move from burning coal too, but EVs are absolutely part of that.
Of course we need to move from burning coal too, but EVs are absolutely part of that.
From a well-to-wheels standpoint, EVs are barely more efficient when you take into account power generation, transmission, and storage losses.
Obviously, we want our EVs powered from renewable energy. In that case, unless we go nuclear, in my opinion energy will become that much more expensive that using it to transport ourselves in massive, heavy wheeled metal boxes will be out of the question.
I'm sure you'll object to this, so I'll start by pointing out that most of our "renewable" energy sources are made in China using brown coal and awful working conditions.
Obviously, we want our EVs powered from renewable energy. In that case, unless we go nuclear, in my opinion energy will become that much more expensive that using it to transport ourselves in massive, heavy wheeled metal boxes will be out of the question.
I'm sure you'll object to this, so I'll start by pointing out that most of our "renewable" energy sources are made in China using brown coal and awful working conditions.
I will object to it: https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles...
I'm not sure which part of my previous comment you are actually objecting to. Your article also ignores the manufacturing energy cost of an EV, which is considerable.
88 mpg equivalent for an EV, that requires a huge amount of extra mineral resources and manufacturing energy, is not good enough when the average clapped-out diesel family car here in the UK gets around 60mpg. As I said, they are barely more efficient overall.
88 mpg equivalent for an EV, that requires a huge amount of extra mineral resources and manufacturing energy, is not good enough when the average clapped-out diesel family car here in the UK gets around 60mpg. As I said, they are barely more efficient overall.
> fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms
What's the problem with burying blades in a landfill? They don't degrade, OK, but rocks also don't degrade.
- They're too big to drift to the ocean and be ingested by animals, which is the problem with plastic objects.
- They don't leak nasty stuff into the groundwater, because landfills are lined properly to prevent that. Also fibreglass is pretty much inert.
What's the problem with burying blades in a landfill? They don't degrade, OK, but rocks also don't degrade.
- They're too big to drift to the ocean and be ingested by animals, which is the problem with plastic objects.
- They don't leak nasty stuff into the groundwater, because landfills are lined properly to prevent that. Also fibreglass is pretty much inert.
Do fiberglass degrade to a point it can't be recycled? We already use it for multiple things, from boats to PCBs, so there would be quite a big market. Any reasons why it shouldn't or couldn't be recycled?
It shouldn't be recycled if it's a net economic loss to do so.
This line of thought got us global warming, micro plastic contamination of all of earth's water, pfas, a hole in the ozone, etc.
Perhaps a better maxim is: wind turbine blades should be recycled if and only if it is better for the environment to do so.
It is not clear why it would be better to recycle them. Breaking things down for recycling costs a lot of energy, sometimes more than obtaining new materials and making the thing from scratch.
For example, plastic recycling is a bad idea from an energy standpoint. As far as I understand, it was publicized by plastic companies so plastic sales would not risk being regulated (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-...).
Some things (like metals) should be recycled though.
It is not clear why it would be better to recycle them. Breaking things down for recycling costs a lot of energy, sometimes more than obtaining new materials and making the thing from scratch.
For example, plastic recycling is a bad idea from an energy standpoint. As far as I understand, it was publicized by plastic companies so plastic sales would not risk being regulated (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-...).
Some things (like metals) should be recycled though.
I wonder if these turbine blades would make for good artificial reef material?
No, we got those problems because we didn't evaluate the environmental costs of these technologies, or ignored the people who did evaluate them.
What is the environmental cost of burying fiberglass wind turbine blades versus recycling them?
What is the environmental cost of not building these wind turbines right now, as fast as we possible can, and stopping the extraction of fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can? Extremely real, the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species, massive disruption to all habitats, including those of us humans.
We have a narrow path to averting the worst effects of climate change. The worst threat to actually enacting change is the sort of false concern that keeps us on our present course driving off the cliff.
What is the environmental cost of burying fiberglass wind turbine blades versus recycling them?
What is the environmental cost of not building these wind turbines right now, as fast as we possible can, and stopping the extraction of fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can? Extremely real, the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species, massive disruption to all habitats, including those of us humans.
We have a narrow path to averting the worst effects of climate change. The worst threat to actually enacting change is the sort of false concern that keeps us on our present course driving off the cliff.
Sending plastic waste overseas was an idea of the recycling zealots (people who recycle even in situations where it is worse).
I am assuming the negative externalities are included in the cost. What is the negative externality of not recycling turbine blades?
Not in the EU. The Batteries Regulation signed the December 10th 2020 aims to ensure that batteries placed in the EU market are sustainable and safe throughout their entire life cycle.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/...
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/...
kybernetyk(1)
> 4. Crushed and pounded with a rock by a 10 year old child, then burned in a rudimentary smelter to separate metals from plastics.
https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y?t=2317, cue children at https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y?t=2364
https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y?t=2317, cue children at https://youtu.be/wzJI8gfpu5Y?t=2364
exactly that. politicians and visionaries with big ideas about green future are one side of the story the other is the implementation and how it works in practice.
thrash tends to conveniently vanish into the 3rd world or east europe, where it gets burned or poisons the environment.
thrash tends to conveniently vanish into the 3rd world or east europe, where it gets burned or poisons the environment.
People are aware of this bit it doesn't fit in the narrative for ev Akkus.
Those are not broke after 5-10 year of usage. Small cells might be broken but replaceable and if not used for cars we still can and will use them for power storage.
And then we can recycle them.
Those are not broke after 5-10 year of usage. Small cells might be broken but replaceable and if not used for cars we still can and will use them for power storage.
And then we can recycle them.
> Small cells might be broken but replaceable
You think this is the kind of thing people will do in reality? Will there be economic incentive for this activity?
> And then we can recycle them.
What will the recycling look like? Any idea if it’ll be a net carbon negative?
You think this is the kind of thing people will do in reality? Will there be economic incentive for this activity?
> And then we can recycle them.
What will the recycling look like? Any idea if it’ll be a net carbon negative?
> Will there be economic incentive for this activity?
Pay several thousand to replace the entire battery pack, or pay some fraction to replace the bad cells? Seems pretty clear to me.
> Any idea if it’ll be a net carbon negative?
Doesn't need to be carbon negative, it just needs to be less bad than what we're doing currently with ICE.
Pay several thousand to replace the entire battery pack, or pay some fraction to replace the bad cells? Seems pretty clear to me.
> Any idea if it’ll be a net carbon negative?
Doesn't need to be carbon negative, it just needs to be less bad than what we're doing currently with ICE.
> Doesn't need to be carbon negative, it just needs to be less bad than what we're doing currently with ICE.
That’s what I meant. I guess all in, EVs have to be better than ICEs?
That’s what I meant. I guess all in, EVs have to be better than ICEs?
I'm surprised they have not built a permanent fire pit at least or a furnace with a chimney so the harmful fumes aren't at ground level.
I don’t think your carbon footprint math is right. Every liter of diesel burnt produces about 2.35Kg (a gallon produces about 20lbs) of CO2. This would imply your diesel gets 30km/liter or 70mpg which seems awfully high. Audi’s current, most efficient (US) models are less than half that. You might also care about NOx, SOx, and particulates as well. The diesel is an utter failure as far as particulates go.
It could be an A2 3L, which shares the drivetrain etc. with the VW Lupo 3L, so named because it used just 3L of diesel per 100km (under ideal conditions, of course).
I don't know of any current Audis with similar repeatable fuel economy.
I don't know of any current Audis with similar repeatable fuel economy.
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
I did not have a point of reference to see in what sense this is efficient or not, so I checked how much CO2 humans exhale. It turns out your car emits about as much as 2 humans exhale.
Here's the math:
[2] https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/waiting-exhale
I did not have a point of reference to see in what sense this is efficient or not, so I checked how much CO2 humans exhale. It turns out your car emits about as much as 2 humans exhale.
Here's the math:
- car: on average people drive about 10000 kilometers/year in the UK [1], so if you drive like an average person in the UK, your car puts out 790 kg of CO2 in a year
- humans: on average people exhale about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day [2]. That makes about 762 kg/year for 2 people
[2] https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/waiting-exhale
Not necessarily comparable for purposes of global heating effect (not sure if that's what you're doing or not).
The CO2 that a human exhales is from the carbon in the food they consume. That carbon ultimately comes (whether indirectly via animals or not) from plants, which drew that CO2 out of the air directly, typically at most a few years prior. The net change in CO2 concentration is zero.
Contrast this to burning fossil fuels which moves carbon from places where it is not enhancing the greenhouse effect (e.g. it's in coal, gas wells or crude oil) into the atmosphere where it will cause global heating - a net increase in CO2 concentration.
As a side note, methane produced by livestock or food waste does still have a global heating effect as CH4 is a more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, so there is a net increase in heating potential due to this conversion.
The CO2 that a human exhales is from the carbon in the food they consume. That carbon ultimately comes (whether indirectly via animals or not) from plants, which drew that CO2 out of the air directly, typically at most a few years prior. The net change in CO2 concentration is zero.
Contrast this to burning fossil fuels which moves carbon from places where it is not enhancing the greenhouse effect (e.g. it's in coal, gas wells or crude oil) into the atmosphere where it will cause global heating - a net increase in CO2 concentration.
As a side note, methane produced by livestock or food waste does still have a global heating effect as CH4 is a more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, so there is a net increase in heating potential due to this conversion.
What you should not forget is, that CO2 isn't the only gas emitted by diesel cars.
Gases and dust, that are a serious health hazard en masse in cities.
Also I doubt that the 79g/100km is the full number, that includes drilling for, refining and transporting that diesel to your car, before you can burn it there.
And btw., those kids in africa are poisening themself with ICE car parts too.
So I don't think anyone said, we should all wreck our ice cars today and go all electric immediately. That clearly makes no sense ressource wise.
But in the long run, yes. I want noise, smoke, fumes and dust free cities as soon as possible, along with a somewhat stable and intact environment. You have to start somewhere.
Gases and dust, that are a serious health hazard en masse in cities.
Also I doubt that the 79g/100km is the full number, that includes drilling for, refining and transporting that diesel to your car, before you can burn it there.
And btw., those kids in africa are poisening themself with ICE car parts too.
So I don't think anyone said, we should all wreck our ice cars today and go all electric immediately. That clearly makes no sense ressource wise.
But in the long run, yes. I want noise, smoke, fumes and dust free cities as soon as possible, along with a somewhat stable and intact environment. You have to start somewhere.
In cities we should be encouraging e-bikes more in my opinion. They take up much less space than cars, are quieter, cheaper, and healthier. Even electric cars make almost the same amount of noise at speed as ICE cars and still emit dust from breaking down tires.
For humans to breathe out CO2, they must eat animals or plants. Animals also eat plants. Plants obtain carbon from the atmosphere by capturing CO2.
Of course I am ignoring CO2 emissions caused by industrial agriculture and those should not be understated but breathing alone doesn't contribute any net CO2, it's the industrial process that does it.
Of course I am ignoring CO2 emissions caused by industrial agriculture and those should not be understated but breathing alone doesn't contribute any net CO2, it's the industrial process that does it.
Humans emit recycled CO2
Cars emit new CO2
Cars emit new CO2
> I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
Diesel exhaust is a concentrated source of sub-micron teratogenic particles.
You're increasing your family members' cancer risk. Against this you have a made-up fantasy.
There is every reason to believe Li-ion vehicle batteries will be recycled as effectively and safely as lead-acid vehicle batteries.
Diesel exhaust is a concentrated source of sub-micron teratogenic particles.
You're increasing your family members' cancer risk. Against this you have a made-up fantasy.
There is every reason to believe Li-ion vehicle batteries will be recycled as effectively and safely as lead-acid vehicle batteries.
>>I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2)
The thing is, we realized some time ago that CO2 emissions are not all that matters in a car, and your diesel is spewing very harmful NOx emissions whever you drive, plus if you haven't got a DPF(I don't know how old your car is) the amount of fine particulate matter that is proven to be dangerous to health is quite high as well.
The thing is, we realized some time ago that CO2 emissions are not all that matters in a car, and your diesel is spewing very harmful NOx emissions whever you drive, plus if you haven't got a DPF(I don't know how old your car is) the amount of fine particulate matter that is proven to be dangerous to health is quite high as well.
> Battery powered cars are going to be the next disaster, after the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms.
Serious question: What is the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms? I googled for it and I didn't find it.
There's currently no way to recycle these, ok. They usually end up in landfills or incinerators. It's not ideal and we can hope that better technologies will come up in the future. But that's not really what I'd call a scandal.
Serious question: What is the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms? I googled for it and I didn't find it.
There's currently no way to recycle these, ok. They usually end up in landfills or incinerators. It's not ideal and we can hope that better technologies will come up in the future. But that's not really what I'd call a scandal.
Surely it would be as bad that there are countless boat hulls, kayaks, canoes, surf boards, childrens playgrounds, car aero, outdoor furniture ... you get the picture. Windfarms are hardly the source of the most fibreglass and it is at least relatively inert as waste.
No green energy is truly green or perfect, but we aren't aiming for perfect we just want better.
No green energy is truly green or perfect, but we aren't aiming for perfect we just want better.
You might want to call it a scandal, if you want to find reasons of being opossed to regenerative energies in general.
Otherwise it is a mere technical problem calling for a better solution than what is avaiable right now.
Otherwise it is a mere technical problem calling for a better solution than what is avaiable right now.
Its not a scandal yet!
Because we are approaching a cliff when a lot of 1st and 2nd generation wind turbines are about to be decommissioned or refurbished.
Note: this is for Scotland.
Its bad enough a single wind turbine blade requiring a convoy escort along small winding roads for installation. Now they have to do the same and dispose them.
The cost is going to have to be paid somewhere, most likely by consumers.
Or they will be disposed off cheaply in a bad way.
Because we are approaching a cliff when a lot of 1st and 2nd generation wind turbines are about to be decommissioned or refurbished.
Note: this is for Scotland.
Its bad enough a single wind turbine blade requiring a convoy escort along small winding roads for installation. Now they have to do the same and dispose them.
The cost is going to have to be paid somewhere, most likely by consumers.
Or they will be disposed off cheaply in a bad way.
Why wouldn't they cut the blade up in situ for transportation at the end of its working life? Seems better than having huge convoys to take them away for recycling.
>I'll keep my very efficient Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks.
Diesel vehicles emit a lot more NO2, as well as particulates that damage the lungs. Sure, it's less CO2 than gasoline cars, but is it worth it for urban air quality?
Diesel vehicles emit a lot more NO2, as well as particulates that damage the lungs. Sure, it's less CO2 than gasoline cars, but is it worth it for urban air quality?
> 4. Crushed and pounded with a rock by a 10 year old child, then burned in a rudimentary smelter to separate metals from plastics.
I'm certainly no mechanical engineering or robotics expert, but based on watching a bazillion episodes of "How It's Made", "Modern Marvels", and similar shows, I'm 99.9% sure a machine could be designed and built that can do this step cheaper and faster than a 10 year old child can.
The machine would have a higher up front cost than getting a kid from a poor country to do it so might not be economical if the amount of waste is below a certain amount but that's only a temporary situation.
I'm certainly no mechanical engineering or robotics expert, but based on watching a bazillion episodes of "How It's Made", "Modern Marvels", and similar shows, I'm 99.9% sure a machine could be designed and built that can do this step cheaper and faster than a 10 year old child can.
The machine would have a higher up front cost than getting a kid from a poor country to do it so might not be economical if the amount of waste is below a certain amount but that's only a temporary situation.
They will increasingly go to Li-Cycle [1] and similar. The tech is still not perfect, but it's much better than the historical norm.
[1] https://li-cycle.com/
[1] https://li-cycle.com/
Similar company in this space, very promising, saw it in action and it's quite simple in essence but very scalable because of that. https://www.relectrify.com/
If you actually want to see what these places look like, read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie
I get that this is a problem, but comparing it to oil as being the better alternative is not convincing: oil have been at the center of terrible wars, corruptions and ecological disasters for decades. Entire populations have been displaced, robbed, poisoned, conned and/or killed for oil. Let's not pretend it comes with less suffering attached, not to mention we had almost a century to improve the process, and we are comparing it to electrical cars, something that had been barely marketable to the public for 10 years.
And this is why we need a carbon tax. This “very efficient Audi” driver is also freely polluting without paying for it. There’s no reason why we should allow people to freely dump stuff into the air any more than dumping stuff on the ground should be freely allowed.
It seems rather inefficient for the batteries to be shipped overseas and for their materials to be extracted by 10 year olds, rather than to just have the batteries be recycled in the country where they are used.
There aren't any 10 year olds in Western countries who are available to do the work.
More seriously, global shipping at scale is ridiculously cheap. This site currently shows a rate of $987 to ship a 20' container from NYC to Jakarta: https://www.icontainers.com/ship-container/indonesia/
More seriously, global shipping at scale is ridiculously cheap. This site currently shows a rate of $987 to ship a 20' container from NYC to Jakarta: https://www.icontainers.com/ship-container/indonesia/
I would think older children would be better for the work. 10 year olds should be used for task where their smaller size is an asset.
Perhaps, but you have to feed older ones more.
but it's cheaper
Because it's cheaper to have them shipped to a third world country, where there is little to no environmental regulation and worker protection, then the alternative.
Cars aren't consumer electronics. Ordinary people don't just throw them away—they are usually traded-in to dealers—and most companies don't have big fleets that get replaced every few years, like companies replace their computer systems and other devices.
Car parts are overall more expensive, and installation, replacement and even disposal happens through specialized entities, typically. Most maintenance work is done by manufacturers or dealers themselves.
In other words, it's not inevitable that car battery systems would necessarily be sent overseas the same way that consumer electronics are when they reach end of life. With lower volume and more centralization, regulation will be easier to implement and enforce. And the economics may also make it cheaper for initial recycling to be situated in the originating country as well, given that the parts are more valuable and given the economies of scale that emerge from centralized reclamation networks.
Already in the US there is a healthy industry of third-party businesses that will replace hybrid car batteries and reclaim the old systems for refurbishment. Most of the reclaimed systems are refurbished and re-used.
There's no reason to think that with proper regulation and standardization an efficient & environmentally-safe reclamation market cannot emerge in first-world countries, preventing car battery waste from spilling over to third-world countries.
Car parts are overall more expensive, and installation, replacement and even disposal happens through specialized entities, typically. Most maintenance work is done by manufacturers or dealers themselves.
In other words, it's not inevitable that car battery systems would necessarily be sent overseas the same way that consumer electronics are when they reach end of life. With lower volume and more centralization, regulation will be easier to implement and enforce. And the economics may also make it cheaper for initial recycling to be situated in the originating country as well, given that the parts are more valuable and given the economies of scale that emerge from centralized reclamation networks.
Already in the US there is a healthy industry of third-party businesses that will replace hybrid car batteries and reclaim the old systems for refurbishment. Most of the reclaimed systems are refurbished and re-used.
There's no reason to think that with proper regulation and standardization an efficient & environmentally-safe reclamation market cannot emerge in first-world countries, preventing car battery waste from spilling over to third-world countries.
Yet, https://www.redwoodmaterials.com wants to build their factories as close as EV ones'. Wonder why?
> Audi diesel car (79g/km CO2) for now thanks
If CO2 was the problem, diesels would be fine. We would recapture CO2 in the future. The bigger problem is particulates and NOx
If CO2 was the problem, diesels would be fine. We would recapture CO2 in the future. The bigger problem is particulates and NOx
You mean that right?
Like you really think a big Akku from a ev is economically so irrelevant that we will ship it to Africa?
Fixing them (if a cell is broken) is easy and we can use them for 10 years more.
No one will just give it away and I bet that in Africa they would fix cells and use it for energy storage as well.
Your car is not just shitty for our climate your exhaust is also polluting the air we breathe
Like you really think a big Akku from a ev is economically so irrelevant that we will ship it to Africa?
Fixing them (if a cell is broken) is easy and we can use them for 10 years more.
No one will just give it away and I bet that in Africa they would fix cells and use it for energy storage as well.
Your car is not just shitty for our climate your exhaust is also polluting the air we breathe
And how do similar components of your car get disposed of? What do you think is going to happen to its catalytic converter, for instance?
That you mention wind turbine blades leads me to think that this is less about being ethically conscious, and more about having a ciltural axe to grind against 'green' tech.
That you mention wind turbine blades leads me to think that this is less about being ethically conscious, and more about having a ciltural axe to grind against 'green' tech.
...which will go through a similar disassembly process and also pollute the environment for as long as it lives.
> Crushed and pounded with a rock by a 10 year old child, then burned in a rudimentary smelter to separate metals from plastics.
Yep - e-cycling all our old iPads'/iPhones/PC's with the entire village inhaling all those toxic fumes and polluting the groundwater.
Yep - e-cycling all our old iPads'/iPhones/PC's with the entire village inhaling all those toxic fumes and polluting the groundwater.
Keeping your car much longer is actually a good idea : the more you keep it the less likely you'll buy another one. Not buying a car looks like the best solution to me.
I was right there with you until this:
> diesel car
Just a little reminder, the planet's gonna be on fire if we don't reach carbon neutrality ASAP.
> diesel car
Just a little reminder, the planet's gonna be on fire if we don't reach carbon neutrality ASAP.
Fibre glass is far more widely spread than in windfarms. Is there a particularly troubling aspect in the way windfarms use it?
You would be right if diesel would be growing on trees and be sold in every organic food.
The real question is how much work is it to recondition the cells.
Does it need re-smelting at all?
Does it need re-smelting at all?
The good thing is that there are going to be so many disasters that the car battery disposal disaster will likely get lost in the shuffle.
Full disclosure: I am long TSLA.
Full disclosure: I am long TSLA.
Which Audi do you have?
What's wrong about it? As long as materials are not wasted.
Exactly what I was going to say.
Also the pollution that is created to make the batteries and also to generate the additional electricity demand on coal power plants to charge all the cars.
Auto makers are just selling the feeling of doing something good for the environment to consumers because that’s what is in vogue.
Auto makers are just selling the feeling of doing something good for the environment to consumers because that’s what is in vogue.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people know about the fibre glass disposal scandal of wind farms. And even fewer people will know about batteries.
I did some napkin math with a friend of mine over coffee and we concluded that just by being brough into existence and to the showroom floor a BMW i3 is equivalent from a pollution point of view to my diesel Ford having done 200.000 miles (I'm nowhere near that).
But people buy electric vehicles in droves since they're government subsidized and what not - albeit this is another bait and switch, it's not forever and charging isn't free either, plus quality overall is quite lacking, not to mention the OTA updates and potential data mining coming from these cars being oversized smartphones with wheels.
I dread the moment governments will up and force everybody to give up their old but reliable and not really hardcore polluting cars - a petrol/diesel vehicle doesn't do anything when it's off even if it's been like that for 20-30 years, an electric car may require to be always plugged in, trickle charging to keep the battery fed so in the winter you don't go to your garage and find out your range is actually 1/2 of what was expected. Not to mention nobody actually knows how long electric vehicles really last, whilst it's not uncommon for people having had the same ICE car for 30+ years.
I did some napkin math with a friend of mine over coffee and we concluded that just by being brough into existence and to the showroom floor a BMW i3 is equivalent from a pollution point of view to my diesel Ford having done 200.000 miles (I'm nowhere near that).
But people buy electric vehicles in droves since they're government subsidized and what not - albeit this is another bait and switch, it's not forever and charging isn't free either, plus quality overall is quite lacking, not to mention the OTA updates and potential data mining coming from these cars being oversized smartphones with wheels.
I dread the moment governments will up and force everybody to give up their old but reliable and not really hardcore polluting cars - a petrol/diesel vehicle doesn't do anything when it's off even if it's been like that for 20-30 years, an electric car may require to be always plugged in, trickle charging to keep the battery fed so in the winter you don't go to your garage and find out your range is actually 1/2 of what was expected. Not to mention nobody actually knows how long electric vehicles really last, whilst it's not uncommon for people having had the same ICE car for 30+ years.
> ... we concluded that just by being brough into existence and to the showroom floor a BMW i3 is equivalent from a pollution point of view to my diesel Ford having done 200.000 miles (I'm nowhere near that).
Did it ever occur to you that maybe someone had looked into this before? Actually, lots of someones with PHDs have and find the opposite of you. Not only that companies are staking $10Bs on developing EVs, do you think they haven't looked at this either? Does that make you curious enough to read what they have written and see if perhaps your napkin model might not be accurate or are you content to be secure in your conclusion?
Here's a few if you are interested
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/download...
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave
Did it ever occur to you that maybe someone had looked into this before? Actually, lots of someones with PHDs have and find the opposite of you. Not only that companies are staking $10Bs on developing EVs, do you think they haven't looked at this either? Does that make you curious enough to read what they have written and see if perhaps your napkin model might not be accurate or are you content to be secure in your conclusion?
Here's a few if you are interested
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/download...
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave
No, it hasn't occured to me. As I said, it was napkin math. At the same time the dude I had coffee with is an engineer at a rather respectable motor vehicle company so I assumed he has enough insider knowledge beyond what is generally available. Perhaps my mistake.
I am sure it's all fun and games and saving the planet until shit really hits the fan regarding what happens with batteries after they're disposed of but I suppose we're at least 20 years away from that and the comment I replied to will have a completely different meaning for people who don't gobble up the general sentiment that EV cars are the next best thing since sliced bread.
Edit: please understand we used numbers from the manufacturer, not made-up stuff. I understand and respect people with PhDs who look into this, but I have zero respect for car companies in general (random e.g. the VW scandal exposing most manufacturers do the same thing).
I am sure it's all fun and games and saving the planet until shit really hits the fan regarding what happens with batteries after they're disposed of but I suppose we're at least 20 years away from that and the comment I replied to will have a completely different meaning for people who don't gobble up the general sentiment that EV cars are the next best thing since sliced bread.
Edit: please understand we used numbers from the manufacturer, not made-up stuff. I understand and respect people with PhDs who look into this, but I have zero respect for car companies in general (random e.g. the VW scandal exposing most manufacturers do the same thing).
I gave you sources that discuss their models in detail and you apparently don't have anything to back up your contention. Provide it or let's end our discussion.
I am unsure where in my initial or follow up comment did I exhibit my desire to discuss this with anybody. I just wished to contribute to the discussion, but I am not keen on a back and forth on something that is still highly debatable.
If you truly believe that EVs are the right way to go towards unfucking our planet then allow me to be of the contrary opinion (i.e. it's simply a publicity stunt and a way to make people part with their money in chasing the next best thing that isn't actually the next best thing whilst fucking up our planet even further).
Peace and love >:D<
If you truly believe that EVs are the right way to go towards unfucking our planet then allow me to be of the contrary opinion (i.e. it's simply a publicity stunt and a way to make people part with their money in chasing the next best thing that isn't actually the next best thing whilst fucking up our planet even further).
Peace and love >:D<
I think there is money in using modern robotics for automatic recycling of batteries. There are millions of cars but probably only hundreds of battery module types in the coming decades. So certifying a recycling algorithm for a new module type shouldn't be a difficult task, and wouldn't require retooling.
I wonder what happens to the used car market. When the battery is pretty much borked a used car is of no use. And replacing the battery would be way too expensive for many people who rely on used cars.
I haven't heard of batteries dying on old EVs being a problem. Usually battery pack replacement is due to faulty cells from production, which manifests during the warranty period most of the time. I know degradation was a problem with old Nissan Leafs, since they had no proper cooling, compounded by the fact that they started with a tiny battery to begin with. I've heard of replacements being done there, but a lot are still driving around with the original battery 10 years later.
I'm pretty sure we could still use our EV for daily driving with 70% degradation (of 30kWh), since we can charge in our garage. Probably more reliable than an old ICE car too.
The bigger the original battery, the higher the degradation can be tolerated without the car being useless. So the problem will decrease over time. There is also a big focus on long-lasting batteries in battery R&D for EVs. Ref Teslas million mile battery/drivetrain.
Some EVs also make it possible to replace individual cells or submodules of the battery. Though I haven't heard of that being done in the real world yet.
Remember that if you DO replace the battery, you can get a car that's pretty much as good as new with regards to the drivetrain. The inverter and motor is likely to outlast the car anyway. It may even be better than new, in terms of range, if the replacement battery has a higher capacity, which could be possible if replacements are made with a next-generation battery technology.
I'm pretty sure we could still use our EV for daily driving with 70% degradation (of 30kWh), since we can charge in our garage. Probably more reliable than an old ICE car too.
The bigger the original battery, the higher the degradation can be tolerated without the car being useless. So the problem will decrease over time. There is also a big focus on long-lasting batteries in battery R&D for EVs. Ref Teslas million mile battery/drivetrain.
Some EVs also make it possible to replace individual cells or submodules of the battery. Though I haven't heard of that being done in the real world yet.
Remember that if you DO replace the battery, you can get a car that's pretty much as good as new with regards to the drivetrain. The inverter and motor is likely to outlast the car anyway. It may even be better than new, in terms of range, if the replacement battery has a higher capacity, which could be possible if replacements are made with a next-generation battery technology.
>I know degradation was a problem with old Nissan Leafs
It's still a problem, the current model still has no active battery temperature management. Strangely their vans do so I'm not sure why the cars don't.
It's still a problem, the current model still has no active battery temperature management. Strangely their vans do so I'm not sure why the cars don't.
One option used currently is battery leasing. When you buy an electric Renault Zoe, they don't sell you the battery.
So what happens with that leasing contract when you sell your car?
You can't sell the whole car because the battery doesn't belong to you. The new owner has to take on the lease agreement or buy it out.
In reality Renault seem to be moving away from that model.
In reality Renault seem to be moving away from that model.
You will have to contact Renault to transfer the lease. Yes, you can't sell your car without permission from the manufacturer.
It sounds like you can sell the car, but not the battery, because you never owned the battery, you leased it.
So far the used car market for EVs is fascinating. Right now the mean "first owner" life of an EV still seems to be triple that of an ICE vehicle. An average EV owner is keeping the car for closer to 9 years compared to the 3 year average turnover of ICE vehicles that has been a used car market staple for decades. (A lot of used car dealers would hope this statistic would decline as we have moved past the earliest of early adopters to more "mainstream" buyers, but so far there are no indications of this shifting.) Because of that EVs are holding their market prices more stable over time than ICE vehicles as they age and there's a lot fewer EVs on the used car market to judge any clear statistics just yet.
The market prices may seem to be reflecting that overall reliability of an EV is much higher than comparable ICE vehicles as they age and that so far battery degradation hasn't been a market issue. Though again, that may still be some bias from much, much smaller sample sizes to date.
What we do know is that of the EVs entering the used market, very few show noticeable signs of battery degradation (again, at 9 years on average!). Most of the ones with very noticeable battery degradation are Nissan Leafs. Most of those are still getting resold at decent prices (compared to equivalently aged ICE vehicles) and as cars to new owners (often as a second commuter car for a household some of these statistics suggest) and expected to still be on the roads a surprising number of years even after "noticeable degradation".
Some of the earliest of these degraded batteries were still under lease from Nissan, as Nissan for the first few years of Leaf sales had a battery lease model, and Nissan hasn't released statistics but admitted "surprise" that very few of the leases have been called in and most people still prefer to drive the Leafs as-is "degraded battery" or not rather than release the batteries to secondary usage. Nissan had plans for a project like Tesla's PowerWall for secondary life batteries (only; Tesla sells PowerWalls built from entirely newly sourced batteries), but claims so far they've yet to receive back enough batteries to build a single one even given how notably "degraded" their batteries have as a reputation in the used market.
All of which is to say that current indicators are that EVs seem to be on the road with their original batteries right now statistically for 15+ years even most of the "most degraded" ones the used market has seen to date. Replacing the batteries hasn't seemed to be an issue that has manifested yet in the used market. Though that extra reliability currently seems to come at a cost in the used market for the people who rely on cheap used cars because the cars seem likely to remain more expensive than ICE vehicles as that first owner statistic alone likely keeps the prices compared to age higher, but the overall reliability also may be keeping the prices high.
The market prices may seem to be reflecting that overall reliability of an EV is much higher than comparable ICE vehicles as they age and that so far battery degradation hasn't been a market issue. Though again, that may still be some bias from much, much smaller sample sizes to date.
What we do know is that of the EVs entering the used market, very few show noticeable signs of battery degradation (again, at 9 years on average!). Most of the ones with very noticeable battery degradation are Nissan Leafs. Most of those are still getting resold at decent prices (compared to equivalently aged ICE vehicles) and as cars to new owners (often as a second commuter car for a household some of these statistics suggest) and expected to still be on the roads a surprising number of years even after "noticeable degradation".
Some of the earliest of these degraded batteries were still under lease from Nissan, as Nissan for the first few years of Leaf sales had a battery lease model, and Nissan hasn't released statistics but admitted "surprise" that very few of the leases have been called in and most people still prefer to drive the Leafs as-is "degraded battery" or not rather than release the batteries to secondary usage. Nissan had plans for a project like Tesla's PowerWall for secondary life batteries (only; Tesla sells PowerWalls built from entirely newly sourced batteries), but claims so far they've yet to receive back enough batteries to build a single one even given how notably "degraded" their batteries have as a reputation in the used market.
All of which is to say that current indicators are that EVs seem to be on the road with their original batteries right now statistically for 15+ years even most of the "most degraded" ones the used market has seen to date. Replacing the batteries hasn't seemed to be an issue that has manifested yet in the used market. Though that extra reliability currently seems to come at a cost in the used market for the people who rely on cheap used cars because the cars seem likely to remain more expensive than ICE vehicles as that first owner statistic alone likely keeps the prices compared to age higher, but the overall reliability also may be keeping the prices high.
Just require manufacturers to recycle their own batteries. Quickly their designs will change to make it easier/cheaper for them, and you won’t need a 1-size-fits-all design via legislation.
These batteries are lasting longer than thought.
Sure, the wealthy boys will swap out for the best cells, but most of us will ride until it dies.
I have a feeling this might not be the problem we are expecting.
Sure, the wealthy boys will swap out for the best cells, but most of us will ride until it dies.
I have a feeling this might not be the problem we are expecting.
The batteries will have a second life even after they're completely useless for cars. They can be used as grid storage for solar power. The Duck Curve makes such batteries valuable even when they're not very efficient. Poor capacity/weight ratio doesn't matter when they are sitting on the ground.
Is there a good scientific/safety reason for which Tesla's batteries are held together by polyurethane cement, as opposed to something easier to deal with?
Also what happens to the millions of petrol cars? They won't just disappear, and won't be usable for many spare parts.
They are relatively easy to recycle, and valuable enough that "metal theft" is a thing. Remember all the rusted-out cars that folks had in their yards? They're mostly gone now.
See "Junkyard Planet; Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade" by Adam Minter, fascinating book IMO.
See "Junkyard Planet; Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade" by Adam Minter, fascinating book IMO.
The same place they send those all those unused cruise ships to.
Fascinating how they beach it and then those poor Bangladeshi's/Indians descend on it like a bunch of ants armed with only the most rudimentary tools like acetylene torches and front end loaders.
Stripping it like a dead animal until nothing remains.
Fascinating how they beach it and then those poor Bangladeshi's/Indians descend on it like a bunch of ants armed with only the most rudimentary tools like acetylene torches and front end loaders.
Stripping it like a dead animal until nothing remains.
Hydrovolt is establishing a ((...)) battery recycling hub in Norway, laying the foundations for a circular supply chain for electric car batteries in Europe.
https://hydrovolt.com/
https://hydrovolt.com/
They get recycled. Next question, and thanks for the scaremongering of a technology that irrefutably is better for the environment than the way we're currently collectively shitting all over it (ICE vehicles).
Hopefully more companies like https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/lithiumio... will get a big boost and recycling will take over a good portion of the source for battery materials.
And of course, reduction: investments in public infrastructure and pedestrian-based city design to reduce the need for individual ownership and the total number of cars overall.
And of course, reduction: investments in public infrastructure and pedestrian-based city design to reduce the need for individual ownership and the total number of cars overall.
Why not simply plant more trees while work from home for the majority? Indeed, a similar question was asked to Elon Musk a few weeks ago, he did not have a good answer to it to promote EV.
There's an upside though: millions of combustion engine powered cars are also going, and enclosing depleted batteries remains in leak proof tanks after recycling materials seems a lot easier than doing the same with combustion engines byproducts.
I don't want to sound too optimistic, as there always will be shady figures trying to profit from illegal dumps, but with proper regulation and enforcement it doesn't look like a bad deal to me.
Tbh I didn't read the article. There are operations running in Germany with recycling pods crushing batteries (powered by remain charge on other to be recycled batteries) and separating material. It was on YouTube one or two years ago. I don't know how things are evolving but it's pretty smooth already (even if scaling issue occur, its already running).
Could not a lot of these degraded batteries be moved into stationary power applications?
Yes. I've heard this in so many places, it's kind of disappointing that a crowed normally better informed (HN) is being so reactionary about EV batteries. Oh well, guess I can toss EVs as another collective HN Dunning-Kruger domain along with diet and psychology.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Where are the articles asking these questions about ICE engines? Ever driven by a scrap yard?
They get recycled? So much negativity here it's unreal, almost like there is an agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0GStrnwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0GStrnwQ
[deleted]
Batteries are, thankfully, a longer time horizon problem. In my opinion the real question is about power generation. Unless we get serious about fast-tracking next-generation nuclear, I don't think we can support a massive deployment of electric vehicles. Or, put a different way, the electricity will have to be generated by burning even more coal than the baseline. Wind and hydro are not an option, as there's a strong limit function on expanding capacity. While solar sounds great it has its own set of issues, including a narrow generation region (both geographical and time-of-day) that would require a massive deployment of batteries to even out. This, in turn, would also require a hard look at the environmental effects caused by the manufacturing of these technologies at scale.
And then there's the question of energy conversion efficiency. Let's start from the principle that all conversion of energy happens at < 100% efficiency. A switching power supply of automotive class is likely in the 85% efficient, maybe less. Power generation itself is less than 100% efficient. And, finally, charging isn't 100% efficient.
Efficiency math for a chain of devices is simple, just multiply the efficiencies of each device in the chain to obtain the system efficiency.
If power generation efficiency is 80%; charger station another 80% and battery charging (the battery stores less than 100% of the energy that goes into it) 80%, the total system efficiency is 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.5 or 50%. Yikes!
In other words, HALF the energy used to charge an electric vehicle is wasted, likely as heat. That's assuming it is a three step process.
The truth is there are additional links in the chain. For example, the transmission of electricity though power lines and transformers isn't 100% efficient. In California we are at about 90% [0]. This would bring my prior estimate down to about 45%.
I would not be surprised if a full accounting of losses, from generation to energy stored in a battery, is in the 30% range. From that to energy-in-battery to energy delivered to the wheels is a different matter. Maybe 90%?
I haven't seen a study analyzing the realities of mass electric vehicle deployment from an energy efficiency perspective. Does such a study exist?
EDIT: The real question needs to look at deployment at scale. We have about 300 million vehicles in the US. Assuming all of them are replaced with electrics and accounting for generation-to-wheel losses, how much new energy generation would we require? Other than burning coal and natural gas, how do we get there? I suspect electrics are not even close to being as "green" as people think they are. They sure feel good because, locally, in front of your own eyes, they feel clean. However, the real evaluation has to take into account the entire system.
[0] http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...
And then there's the question of energy conversion efficiency. Let's start from the principle that all conversion of energy happens at < 100% efficiency. A switching power supply of automotive class is likely in the 85% efficient, maybe less. Power generation itself is less than 100% efficient. And, finally, charging isn't 100% efficient.
Efficiency math for a chain of devices is simple, just multiply the efficiencies of each device in the chain to obtain the system efficiency.
If power generation efficiency is 80%; charger station another 80% and battery charging (the battery stores less than 100% of the energy that goes into it) 80%, the total system efficiency is 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.5 or 50%. Yikes!
In other words, HALF the energy used to charge an electric vehicle is wasted, likely as heat. That's assuming it is a three step process.
The truth is there are additional links in the chain. For example, the transmission of electricity though power lines and transformers isn't 100% efficient. In California we are at about 90% [0]. This would bring my prior estimate down to about 45%.
I would not be surprised if a full accounting of losses, from generation to energy stored in a battery, is in the 30% range. From that to energy-in-battery to energy delivered to the wheels is a different matter. Maybe 90%?
I haven't seen a study analyzing the realities of mass electric vehicle deployment from an energy efficiency perspective. Does such a study exist?
EDIT: The real question needs to look at deployment at scale. We have about 300 million vehicles in the US. Assuming all of them are replaced with electrics and accounting for generation-to-wheel losses, how much new energy generation would we require? Other than burning coal and natural gas, how do we get there? I suspect electrics are not even close to being as "green" as people think they are. They sure feel good because, locally, in front of your own eyes, they feel clean. However, the real evaluation has to take into account the entire system.
[0] http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-...
>Wind and hydro are not an option, as there's a strong limit function on expanding capacity.
Yeah, because we need batteries to charge our car batteries...
>EDIT: The real question needs to look at deployment at scale. We have about 300 million vehicles in the US. Assuming all of them are replaced with electrics and accounting for generation-to-wheel losses, how much new energy generation would we require?
You said energy generation, not electricity generation. It would require negative new primary energy generation because efficiency gains alone will reduce the amount of primary energy you have to waste on waste heat production.
Yeah, because we need batteries to charge our car batteries...
>EDIT: The real question needs to look at deployment at scale. We have about 300 million vehicles in the US. Assuming all of them are replaced with electrics and accounting for generation-to-wheel losses, how much new energy generation would we require?
You said energy generation, not electricity generation. It would require negative new primary energy generation because efficiency gains alone will reduce the amount of primary energy you have to waste on waste heat production.
Not sure I understand your second comment. While I did say “energy generation” I think it is well understood the intent was to speak about electricity generation. Besides, we cant actually generate energy, only convert it from one form to another, always wasting some in the process.
The big advantage of solar compared to next-generation nuclear is that it actually exists.
We have known how to build better, safer nuclear for quite some time. That’s what “next generation” means to me.
We have numerous designs that claim to be better and safer.
They haven't been built. You can blame "NIMBY", but the nuclear industry hasn't exactly done what it can to fix its current reputation for continually costing multiples of initial estimates, taking multiple times longer to build, and failing multiple safety and other regulatory requirements.
We have a really good, efficient, nuclear fusion supply, guaranteed to work for at least the forseeable billions of years, safely located 8 light-minutes away from the ecosystem that we're trying to protect.
We also have a thermal side effect from that fusion supply, combined with the rotational energy of our planet, that provides atmospheric fluid energy transfer capabilities that can also be used to generate power.
They haven't been built. You can blame "NIMBY", but the nuclear industry hasn't exactly done what it can to fix its current reputation for continually costing multiples of initial estimates, taking multiple times longer to build, and failing multiple safety and other regulatory requirements.
We have a really good, efficient, nuclear fusion supply, guaranteed to work for at least the forseeable billions of years, safely located 8 light-minutes away from the ecosystem that we're trying to protect.
We also have a thermal side effect from that fusion supply, combined with the rotational energy of our planet, that provides atmospheric fluid energy transfer capabilities that can also be used to generate power.
That sounds great, yet the realities of solar are very different from the dream of solar.
I say this as someone who purchased and installed his own 20 kW array on a custom- built structure (not on the roof). To put it in simple terms, the system will likely never be profitable. The overall cost and ten to fifteen year lifetime of the components is such that I can’t see or predict when it will break even. My assumption is that all the panels will need replacement in 15 to 20 years, possibly less for the electronics.
Note that this does not include a battery system. This, given the short and long terms economics of the system would be a ridiculous purchase today.
And this is at a reasonably favorable latitude. Start going north and solar becomes far less attractive.
I genuinely wish we had not gone solar. This was likely the single dumbest and worst investment of my life. Anyone thinking otherwise likely doesn’t have solar or never truly analyzed the real economics of their systems.
I also have lots of neighbors with solar, most of which were installed by companies. In nearly every case they are worse off than they were before. The only ones who are not are those who did not pay for their systems directly.
Theory vs. reality are very different things. I am not even going to analyze the cost of such installations when government agencies are the builders. I’ll just guess the number us somewhere between 5x and 10x “civilian” costs. I say this as someone with experience selling technology to government agencies. Simple example: The California high speed train. We were told it would cost ten billion. We are at a hundred billion and I don’t think we have completed ten miles of slow speed train yet.
I say this as someone who purchased and installed his own 20 kW array on a custom- built structure (not on the roof). To put it in simple terms, the system will likely never be profitable. The overall cost and ten to fifteen year lifetime of the components is such that I can’t see or predict when it will break even. My assumption is that all the panels will need replacement in 15 to 20 years, possibly less for the electronics.
Note that this does not include a battery system. This, given the short and long terms economics of the system would be a ridiculous purchase today.
And this is at a reasonably favorable latitude. Start going north and solar becomes far less attractive.
I genuinely wish we had not gone solar. This was likely the single dumbest and worst investment of my life. Anyone thinking otherwise likely doesn’t have solar or never truly analyzed the real economics of their systems.
I also have lots of neighbors with solar, most of which were installed by companies. In nearly every case they are worse off than they were before. The only ones who are not are those who did not pay for their systems directly.
Theory vs. reality are very different things. I am not even going to analyze the cost of such installations when government agencies are the builders. I’ll just guess the number us somewhere between 5x and 10x “civilian” costs. I say this as someone with experience selling technology to government agencies. Simple example: The California high speed train. We were told it would cost ten billion. We are at a hundred billion and I don’t think we have completed ten miles of slow speed train yet.
Efficiency is a pointless exercise when your inputs are free and infinite, as is the case for solar power.
Solar is far from being free to harvest and it is definitely finite at the local level. We are not talking about the universe, to someone living in Alaska solar is very finite, in fact, it's useless.
By that way of thinking petroleum, nuclear, natural gas, wind, etc., are free and infinite at a human scale. They are not. Each of this has finite costs, direct and indirect consequences of deployment at scale. And because no energy conversion process is 100% efficient, each of them has consequences related to the fact that waste --most often in the form of heat-- will be generated as an unavoidable part of the conversion process.
We can't look at electric cars with innocent idealistic eyes and think they are the solution to all of our problems just because they don't have a tail pipe. They do, in fact, have an exhaust pipe, it just happens to be distributed across the entire energy and materials supply chain.
I am very much pro electric transportation. I simply don't like the idea of not being honest about what it is and what it is not. Utopia it is not.
By that way of thinking petroleum, nuclear, natural gas, wind, etc., are free and infinite at a human scale. They are not. Each of this has finite costs, direct and indirect consequences of deployment at scale. And because no energy conversion process is 100% efficient, each of them has consequences related to the fact that waste --most often in the form of heat-- will be generated as an unavoidable part of the conversion process.
We can't look at electric cars with innocent idealistic eyes and think they are the solution to all of our problems just because they don't have a tail pipe. They do, in fact, have an exhaust pipe, it just happens to be distributed across the entire energy and materials supply chain.
I am very much pro electric transportation. I simply don't like the idea of not being honest about what it is and what it is not. Utopia it is not.
[deleted]
I heard someone say that to run all the cars in the US on electricity would require building a new nuclear power plant something like every week for the next 10 or 15 years. Is this true? I think this is completely unacceptable. The risks of nuclear accident are too great. The competence required to safely operate nuclear power plants is a limited and possibly dwindling resource.
>Is this true?
No. In the UK the National Grid says we only need to go back to 2002 levels of power generation to support the whole fleet moving to electric.
No. In the UK the National Grid says we only need to go back to 2002 levels of power generation to support the whole fleet moving to electric.
Let's send them to mars
Who cares? It's GREEN($)!
Please people, it is just another industry within consumer capitalism. They externalize all the nasty bits so all the dopes can feel good about driving a Tesla.
Please people, it is just another industry within consumer capitalism. They externalize all the nasty bits so all the dopes can feel good about driving a Tesla.
Isn't the scarcity of Lithium also a major problem? It's already an expensive commodity, how could it possibly scale to replace all the internal combustion engines even in the US for example?
Lithium is not scarce. It is more abundant than lead.
"At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust,[45] lithium is the 25th most abundant element." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium)
" lead's relatively high crustal abundance of 14 ppm; it is the 38th most abundant element in the crust." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead)
The problem is that easily mined high concentration deposits of lithium are rare so it is expensive to extract.
Some of the high price can be simply attributed to high demand occurring after a period of demand low enough that mines were closed in North America. Now that demand is high there is pressure to develop new mines in the US; see, for instance, https://qz.com/1975325/electric-cars-are-fueling-the-uss-lit....
In theory we can extract vast amounts from seawater we just need enough energy.
See, for instance, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/seawater-could-provi..., https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.0c00385, https://www.samcotech.com/is-it-possible-to-extract-lithium-....
"At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust,[45] lithium is the 25th most abundant element." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium)
" lead's relatively high crustal abundance of 14 ppm; it is the 38th most abundant element in the crust." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead)
The problem is that easily mined high concentration deposits of lithium are rare so it is expensive to extract.
Some of the high price can be simply attributed to high demand occurring after a period of demand low enough that mines were closed in North America. Now that demand is high there is pressure to develop new mines in the US; see, for instance, https://qz.com/1975325/electric-cars-are-fueling-the-uss-lit....
In theory we can extract vast amounts from seawater we just need enough energy.
See, for instance, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/seawater-could-provi..., https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.0c00385, https://www.samcotech.com/is-it-possible-to-extract-lithium-....
As for the scale of replacement, I think there are many who don't realise how major the shift from ICE to electrical will be. We're talking about large changes in everything from critical national infrastructure, the job market, long-term plans for national defense, the environment, public transport, voter approval ratings, food production, and the list just keeps on going. There's a large number of ifs, buts and maybes involved, and lithium availability is just a small piece of that.
All this is supposed to happen within the next 15 years, at least according to quite a few politicians.
Increased lithium prices is a good thing since it means that recycling will be financially viable once prices of freshly mined-lithium increases.
All this is supposed to happen within the next 15 years, at least according to quite a few politicians.
Increased lithium prices is a good thing since it means that recycling will be financially viable once prices of freshly mined-lithium increases.
> I think there are many who don't realise how major the shift from ICE to electrical will be
Could not agree more. With all the things we're talking about using batteries for (electrifying almost all wheeled transport and some aviation, huge amounts of grid storage to smooth out rough solar & wind inputs, grid-independent installations), this is going to be an absolutely massive, sprawling industry.
Batteries are likely to be a bottleneck for a long time. We will find ways to reuse and recycle the ones from old cars because there will be enormous incentives to do so.
The downside to this is that I'm not expecting battery prices to really drop much for quite a while. They may even go up. These aren't microchips after all; the laws of physics prohibit any significant miniaturization.
Could not agree more. With all the things we're talking about using batteries for (electrifying almost all wheeled transport and some aviation, huge amounts of grid storage to smooth out rough solar & wind inputs, grid-independent installations), this is going to be an absolutely massive, sprawling industry.
Batteries are likely to be a bottleneck for a long time. We will find ways to reuse and recycle the ones from old cars because there will be enormous incentives to do so.
The downside to this is that I'm not expecting battery prices to really drop much for quite a while. They may even go up. These aren't microchips after all; the laws of physics prohibit any significant miniaturization.
The Lithium scarcity scare reminds me of all the peak oil hysteria (which I'll admit I succumbed to as a teenager.. 2009 being doomsday back around 2004 I think). You can't use existing reserves as an indicator. If there's a higher need for lithium, more companies will look for it, more will be discovered and more mines will open. Probably prices will go down eventually due to economies of scale and new mining techniques (see Teslas battery day presentation for example)
Cobalt is probably a bigger problem.
Shh. Don't tell anyone.
Hydrogen Fuel-cell cars would the best of both worlds and range wouldn't be an issue: https://in.pcmag.com/cars-auto/142675/hydrogen-powered-hyund... ... IE: No CO2 pollution, no battery pollution and no charging time issue.
Except that hydrogen production requires energy, so needs either an integrated renewable power source plus water supply or uses grid power.
There's also the impact of that water supply being diverted to hydrogen production, as well as the shipping of hydrogen.
All of that is solvable, but so is battery technology and recycling of the battery ingredients.
There's also the impact of that water supply being diverted to hydrogen production, as well as the shipping of hydrogen.
All of that is solvable, but so is battery technology and recycling of the battery ingredients.
> Except that hydrogen production requires energy
and battery charging doesn't require energy?
> as well as the shipping of hydrogen
It's not very complicated to produce hydrogen where it's needed since there is usually both water and energy everywhere
and battery charging doesn't require energy?
> as well as the shipping of hydrogen
It's not very complicated to produce hydrogen where it's needed since there is usually both water and energy everywhere
I know; the magic fairys who normally 'sort out' our rubbish will magically make the batteries disappear! It really is that simple, and we can all continue living a life of peace and tranquility.
Not just researchers, wrecking yards are dealing with this problem today. I've read that wrecked EVs have to be isolated because they can catch fire or even explode days after a crash!
Speaking as an environmentalist, this is a huge smack in the face. Electric cars are supposed to be "green" but in fact it's the same old story. It just seems so short-sighted!
- - - -
Anyway...
There's got to be a better way!
And there is: alcohol fuel.
It burns clean and is carbon-neutral. Anyone can make it from anything that has starch or sugar. It's non-toxic(-ish).
Speaking as an environmentalist, this is a huge smack in the face. Electric cars are supposed to be "green" but in fact it's the same old story. It just seems so short-sighted!
- - - -
Anyway...
There's got to be a better way!
And there is: alcohol fuel.
It burns clean and is carbon-neutral. Anyone can make it from anything that has starch or sugar. It's non-toxic(-ish).
(Lotta downvotes but y'all don't have anything to say?)
Alcohol has greater energy density than batteries; the by-products of alcohol production are organic and can be e.g. fed to animals; the exhaust of burning alcohol is non-toxic; the energy is from the sun, the molecules are from the air and water, burning the fuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon came from the atmosphere (not underground); you don't need lithium or other rare chemicals.
C'mon y'all, think it through.
Alcohol has greater energy density than batteries; the by-products of alcohol production are organic and can be e.g. fed to animals; the exhaust of burning alcohol is non-toxic; the energy is from the sun, the molecules are from the air and water, burning the fuel is carbon-neutral because the carbon came from the atmosphere (not underground); you don't need lithium or other rare chemicals.
C'mon y'all, think it through.
Unfortunately I’m not surprised the article fails to mention him.