Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    I also read that this was based on a study that has now been largely discredited, although they conceded the point that the plant in Ontario was truly an environmental disaster. And it raises questions very similar to the ones I mentioned in the original post in this thread; namely, do we really KNOW which of our efforts at "going green" are actually likely to have a positive impact? Have we changed the production of those batteries to make them less costly to the environment, for example?
    This doesn't sound especially compelling even to me, but I wonder if you could make a case that keeping the damage localized (around the plant) is better than disbursing it ~evenly around the globe (via emissions). The plant certainly looks/sounds worse at face value, but maybe that environmental damage is easier to remediate, easier to contain, or less impactful to the global ecosystem than the damage it is supposed to replace?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    Can anyone point to a thorough all-in environmental comparison of Electric Vehicle to Combustion Engine vehicle? Along the lines of this thread, I'm wondering when you look at the entire end to end impact of an electric vehicle, including battery production and disposal, what the picture looks like.
    To my first post in this thread, there are a lot of competing life cycle assessments and methodologies so do your own research and come to your own conclusions - there’s big money in this answer so be sure to note funding sources, etc. The below is a recent widely reported study though as a starter.

    https://theicct.org/publications/glo...r-cars-jul2021

    The life time EV versus ICE impact will also vary based on the grid sources of electricity you’re using for your EV.
    Last edited by -jk; 12-07-2021 at 06:36 PM. Reason: link

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    Can anyone point to a thorough all-in environmental comparison of Electric Vehicle to Combustion Engine vehicle? Along the lines of this thread, I'm wondering when you look at the entire end to end impact of an electric vehicle, including battery production and disposal, what the picture looks like.
    This is a pretty comprehensive view. So comprehensive, in fact, that I haven't found time to read the original study (linked at the bottom of that article). Despite the fact that this report is from "electrive.com", which obviously has a vested interest in electric vehicles, it seems fairly balanced. Here are some of the key bits:

    Quote Originally Posted by Electrive Article
    If the converted [vehicle with] 25.9 kWh battery was produced using wind power [and] is charged only with green electricity during its service life, the electric car is “cleaner” than its fossil fuel-powered counterpart after just 17,000 kilometres. A vehicle with a battery twice as large (51.8 kWh) can reach values between 20,000 (battery made from wind power) and 35,000 kilometres (battery made from coal power) until break-even when charged with green electricity. If, however, charging with an electricity mix that roughly corresponds to the current European average, even a car with a small battery will break even only over or under 50,000 kilometres – depending on whether one assumes second-life use or not. An electric vehicle with a 51.8 kWh battery, which is produced using coal-fired electricity and charged using the “dirty” electricity mix, only reaches break-even after 310,000 kilometres.
    In short, it matters both how a vehicle is made and how it is charged. There's also a few interesting tidbits about what in the life-cycle matters, and what doesn't as much.

  4. #44

    DBR rocks! Come for basketball, get a great conversation

    This is why i come to DBR- stumbling into a thoughtful interchange. Props to all who have made this topic an avocation, double props to those for whom this is a vocation and lifelong work. If any conversation should be given special dispensation to delve into the PubPolicy world, this should be the one. I have similar questions and have made decisions based upon back of the napkin calculations. For instance our home is in the woods, to avoid mowing, but the 100 year poplars block my roof from solar energy options. We have two PHEV models and our local utility changed from coal to natural gas. Changing lights to LED kept the energy bill the same. But I have many CFL lights to recycle, and I prescribe inhalers for asthma by the boatload. (Kids gotta breathe). WHo knows where Karma will take me in the next life.

    Given all we try to do, if the goal will be to lower an atmospheric CO2 level ( or lower target for other GHG), what are opinions regarding the best eventual solutions? Conserving/recycling vs technological answers? Will we need eventually to convert CO2/methane back to other stable compounds despite our best individual efforts? Will algae, bacterial engineered photosynthesis, carbon scrubbing and reinjection into the mantle provide the large scale solution that will never be approached by the sum of individual/local efforts? Which model or demonstration projects offer a potential vision for a viable answer? Or presuming all methods are utilized, which approach will make the most impact?
    eg. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...n-iceland-orca

    Personally, and unfortunately, I think it will require technological answers, even though I fill my recycling bin every week
    Last edited by FUBARDoorBuster; 12-09-2021 at 10:25 AM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Respectfully, I find this kind of thinking quite annoying. One time I picked up a piece of trash on the sidewalk and carried it to a garbage can. Some random stranger says to me, "Why'd you bother? You can't pick up all the trash in the world, anyway."

    True, but is the fact that I can't personally pick up the trash a good reason for me to not pick up the trash? I don't think so.

    So maybe my individual efforts don't make much difference, but what if EVERYBODY took individual efforts? Tiny things multiplied billions of times turn into HUGE things.
    Apologies if you found my kind of thinking so annoying that you didn't reach the last paragraph of post, which began, "To a degree, you can do both. And your individual efforts, if visible, could serve as a model for others to follow."

    You ask, "What if EVERYBODY took individual efforts?" Yes, it would turn into a huge benefit. My strong belief - based on empirical observation - is that this is an unrealistic expectation, and as a consequence, an alternative approach is needed to achieve the desired goal. The reason it's not realistic is similar to the logic of the tragedy of the commons. Why should I voluntarily make efforts or sacrifices to help save the planet, if few others will? It's a bit like saying that those who advocate for higher taxes should voluntarily pay more regardless of whether the rates get officially changed. Some problems are so big, and the costs of solving them high enough on an individual basis, that sufficient voluntary effort cannot be assured, and only an imposed societal-wide solution will do.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    I'll cross post this in the EV thread but the global battery price survey from Bloomberg is out. The price and efficiency of batteries has huge implications for uptake in the market in conjunction w/ an overall primary energy transition to renewables and/or nuclear.

    Lithium-ion battery pack prices, which were above $1,200 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, have fallen 89% in real terms to $132/kWh in 2021[1]. This is a 6% drop from $140/kWh in 2020. Continuing cost reductions bode well for the future of electric vehicles, which rely on lithium-ion technology. However, the impact of rising commodity prices and increased costs for key materials such as electrolytes has put pressure on the industry in the second half of the year.

    For any interested, here is some climate-focused analysis of this data that looks out over the next 10 years and offers commentary for when the total cost of ownership for an EV might be at parity or below total cost of ownership for an ICE.

    The more complicated calculation is the “total cost of ownership,” including fuel, insurance, maintenance and depreciation. When looked at this way, EVs often do better than gasoline vehicles, because of savings on fuel and maintenance.

    The federal Department of Energy offers a calculator to help consumers estimate the cost differences, including between gasoline and electricity. This tool shows, for example, that an all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, a subcompact hatchback, costs about $15,000 more to purchase than the Chevrolet Trax, a subcompact SUV that runs on gasoline, not counting tax credits for the EV. But the Bolt costs about $700 less per year to operate.


    One thing to note, for those concerned about the social responsibility of their purchases, is that cobalt and lithium may potentially be sourced from areas of high human rights risk. Cobalt isn't subject to regulation the way conflict minerals are but I could see it happening in the coming years.

  7. #47
    Electric only drivetrains have been around since before the internal combustion engine. Ideally they should be rock solid in dependibility.

    It's all these other fancy gadgets that folks are putting into cars making them expensive. Can someone make me a car with JUST the electric motors and battery pack of a Tesla and put into into a plain Jane Corolla or Civic? I don't want fancy door locks, remote updating software, 17" infotainment displays or any other other fancy stuff.

    I just want an EV that doesn't break. It seems Teslas have some problems on the long term quality side of things. I'm guessing this probably happens with all the EVs since automakers and trying to make them high tech showcases, instead of low tech commuter cars.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    Electric only drivetrains have been around since before the internal combustion engine. Ideally they should be rock solid in dependibility.

    It's all these other fancy gadgets that folks are putting into cars making them expensive. Can someone make me a car with JUST the electric motors and battery pack of a Tesla and put into into a plain Jane Corolla or Civic? I don't want fancy door locks, remote updating software, 17" infotainment displays or any other other fancy stuff.

    I just want an EV that doesn't break. It seems Teslas have some problems on the long term quality side of things. I'm guessing this probably happens with all the EVs since automakers and trying to make them high tech showcases, instead of low tech commuter cars.
    Looking at the car manufacturers' business plan, I think they added a lot of stuff in Phase 2.

    new-car-gnomes-business-plan.jpg
    Last edited by camion; 12-09-2021 at 01:03 PM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    It's all these other fancy gadgets that folks are putting into cars making them expensive. Can someone make me a car with JUST the electric motors and battery pack of a Tesla and put into into a plain Jane Corolla or Civic? I don't want fancy door locks, remote updating software, 17" infotainment displays or any other other fancy stuff.
    Actually, this one you probably want to leave in, at least the updatable part, even if it can't be done remotely. Software is crucial to efficient battery charging, hich in turn significantly prolongs the useful life of the batteries. But I firmly agree for the most part. I don't need the car to drive itself, I don't need heated seats, etc., etc.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    Electric only drivetrains have been around since before the internal combustion engine. Ideally they should be rock solid in dependibility.

    It's all these other fancy gadgets that folks are putting into cars making them expensive. Can someone make me a car with JUST the electric motors and battery pack of a Tesla and put into into a plain Jane Corolla or Civic? I don't want fancy door locks, remote updating software, 17" infotainment displays or any other other fancy stuff.

    I just want an EV that doesn't break. It seems Teslas have some problems on the long term quality side of things. I'm guessing this probably happens with all the EVs since automakers and trying to make them high tech showcases, instead of low tech commuter cars.
    All of those extras really help the margins on these vehicles though. They want to squeeze every penny out of you. They could not care less about the environment when they make these things.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    Actually, this one you probably want to leave in, at least the updatable part, even if it can't be done remotely. Software is crucial to efficient battery charging, hich in turn significantly prolongs the useful life of the batteries. But I firmly agree for the most part. I don't need the car to drive itself, I don't need heated seats, etc., etc.
    I agree and disagree.

    Would still like to have something stripped down.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-05-2019, 08:44 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-05-2012, 03:54 PM
  3. Ryan Kelly, "The Bridge" That Spanned "The Gap"
    By Newton_14 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 12:07 PM
  4. Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 03:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •