The End For Electric Cars? VW Develops New Hydrogen Tech: 2,000 Km On A Single Tank

Bigdog said:
EVs have a very large manufacturing carbon footprint due to their batteries. Any of the very limited, "green" energy they use, that is taken away from use for powering our homes. EV are heavier producing more tire particles and asphalt wear.
Click to expand...

Your opinion isn't exactly science.

Oil and Gas have a very large carbon footprint but I wouldn't make a claim about how large without having the actual numbers in hand.
Green energy makes up about 20% of our current electrical production. Nuclear produces another 19% of our electricity. Natural gas produces about 38% of our electricity. Gas plants producing electricity for cars produce less green house gases per mile driven than ICE cars do for the same miles. For electricity from combined cycle gas plants the green house gases produces are less than half of what an average ICE car would produce per mile.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php


So where is your actual science that accounts for all carbon costs for the entire life cycle of both kinds of vehicles? Your specious claim is looking only more specious at this point since you can't back it up.

According to this paper, EVs over the life of the car reduce GHGs by 60% or more compared to ICE cars.
https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...ombustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/
So either you are predicting that cars typically last for well over 250,000 miles or your numbers were just the usual made up crap that you spew.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your opinion isn't exactly science.

Oil and Gas have a very large carbon footprint but I wouldn't make a claim about how large without having the actual numbers in hand.
Green energy makes up about 20% of our current electrical production. Nuclear produces another 19% of our electricity. Natural gas produces about 38% of our electricity. Gas plants producing electricity for cars produce less green house gases per mile driven than ICE cars do for the same miles. For electricity from combined cycle gas plants the green house gases produces are less than half of what an average ICE car would produce per mile.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php


So where is your actual science that accounts for all carbon costs for the entire life cycle of both kinds of vehicles? Your specious claim is looking only more specious at this point since you can't back it up.

According to this paper, EVs over the life of the car reduce GHGs by 60% or more compared to ICE cars.
https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...ombustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/
So either you are predicting that cars typically last for well over 250,000 miles or your numbers were just the usual made up crap that you spew.
Click to expand...

"Depending on the country of manufacture of the batteries and their energy mix, studies stipulate, for example, that it would take between 25,000 and 150,000 kilometres before an electric car became less polluting than a diesel or petrolcar... Furthermore, a car battery has an average lifespan of 5 years. "

https://www.greenly.earth/blog-en/carbon-footprint-battery
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your opinion isn't exactly science.

Oil and Gas have a very large carbon footprint but I wouldn't make a claim about how large without having the actual numbers in hand.
Green energy makes up about 20% of our current electrical production. Nuclear produces another 19% of our electricity. Natural gas produces about 38% of our electricity. Gas plants producing electricity for cars produce less green house gases per mile driven than ICE cars do for the same miles. For electricity from combined cycle gas plants the green house gases produces are less than half of what an average ICE car would produce per mile.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php


So where is your actual science that accounts for all carbon costs for the entire life cycle of both kinds of vehicles? Your specious claim is looking only more specious at this point since you can't back it up.

According to this paper, EVs over the life of the car reduce GHGs by 60% or more compared to ICE cars.
https://theicct.org/publication/a-g...ombustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/
So either you are predicting that cars typically last for well over 250,000 miles or your numbers were just the usual made up crap that you spew.
Click to expand...

Hydro dams make up about 8% of "green" energy, but ...

"But a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that, far from being a climate solution, large-scale hydropower generation is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. A 2016 study by Swiss researchers that assessed the emissions of 1500 dams and reservoirs around the world found that Hoover Dam and Lake Mead on the Colorado River near Las Vegas emit as much CO2-equivalent, per kW/hour, as a coal-fired power plant. 1 On average, dams and reservoirs emit twice as much greenhouse gases as they store, according to a German study published in 2021. 2 As a particular concern, the German study highlighted the release of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Why do reservoirs generate so many emissions?
When lands are flooded, vegetation decomposes under water and generates methane, which bubbles up through the water column and into the atmosphere. Initially, scientists thought that emissions would spike for a few years after flooding and then subside. But more recent measurements have shown that reservoirs continue to emit significant amounts of both CO2 and methane throughout their lifecycle."

https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/a-climate-solution-big-hydro-is-anything-but/

Nuclear still has the major problem of transporting and disposing radioactive waste. And then there are the natural disaster caused meltdowns, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl, ... and they make great targets for terrorists.


Wind turbines start off with a massive manufacturing carbon footprint ...

So what’s the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?
4 August 2014

Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/

Then there is the land usage and the wiring to get the electricity where needed. And it all has to be backed up by fossil fuels because the wind is unpredictable. Wind power is an unreliable energy source.
 
Last edited:
__974632239bfe996a926b8fb38946921b_width-600.jpeg
 
TYPICAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY

The batteries are just containers for the real fuel which is electricity. It's like saying your car is run by gas cans. No ! gas cans are just containers for the real fuel.

Most of the UK’s electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, mainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). A very small amount is produced from other fuels (3.1% in 2016). The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power stations changes each year, with some switching between the two depending on fuel prices.

Electricity is produced proportionately by coal 9%, uranium 21%, natural gas-powered plants 42%, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an electric powered vehicle ("EV") is a zero-emission vehicle is a blatant and purposeful lie. Since 42% of the electricity generated in the UK. is from gas fired plants, it follows that 42% of every EV is powered by Natural Gas. These are Fossil Fuel Burning Vehicles (FFBVs), and uranium powered vehicles, etc.

But that doesn't mean that the batteries are neutral to the environment. No, they're also nasty to the environment.

Dry-cell batteries use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. They all contain toxic, heavy metals.
The United States uses three billion batteries a year, and many end up in landfills where their shells break down and they leak their toxic contents. The metals inside eventually ooze out. Many batteries can be recycled but some chemicals contained within cannot.
A typical EV battery contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. All those components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture an EV auto battery FOR JUST ONE CAR, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery. But since it's done out of sight, we pretend it's not happening.

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. They are environmentally hazardous pits which employ children who can and do die from handling this toxic material. This is also done out of sight, so we pretend it's not happening.

EVs are not environmentally clean. The destruction to the environment is right there for all to see. EVs are environmentally dirty vehicles which are significantly destructive to the environment. They certainly are not the "green" vehicles they pretend to be.

For the benefit of the Factcheckers:
• https://www.leasefetcher.co.uk/guides/electric-cars/what-are-electric-car-batteries-made-of

• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1


• .
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
TYPICAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY

The batteries are just containers for the real fuel which is electricity. It's like saying your car is run by gas cans. No ! gas cans are just containers for the real fuel.

Most of the UK’s electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, mainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). A very small amount is produced from other fuels (3.1% in 2016). The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power stations changes each year, with some switching between the two depending on fuel prices.

Electricity is produced proportionately by coal 9%l, uranium 21%, natural gas-powered plants 42%, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an electric powered vehicle ("EV") is a zero-emission vehicle is a blatant and purposeful lie. Since 42% of the electricity generated in the UK. is from gas fired plants, it follows that 42% of every EV is powered by Natural Gas. These are Fossel Fuel Burning Vehicles (FFBVs), and uranium powered vehicles, etc.

But that doesn't mean that the batteries are neutral to the environment. No, they're also nasty to the environment.

Dry-cell batteries use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. They all contain toxic, heavy metals.
The United States uses three billion batteries a year, and many end up in landfills where their shells break down and they leak their toxic contents. The metals inside eventually ooze out. Many batteries can be recycled but some chemicals contained within cannot.
A typical EV battery contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. All those components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture an EV auto battery FOR JUST ONE CAR, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery. But since it's done out of sight, we pretend it's not happening.

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. They are environmentally hazardous pits which employ children who can and do die from handling this toxic material. This is also done out of sight, so we pretend it's not happening.

EVs are not environmentally clean. The destruction to the environment is right there for all to see. EVs are environmentally dirty vehicles which are significantly destructive to the environment. They certainly are not the "green" vehicles they pretend to be.

For the benefit of the Factcheckers:
• https://www.leasefetcher.co.uk/guides/electric-cars/what-are-electric-car-batteries-made-of

• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1


• .
Click to expand...

The price of lithium carbonate has gone through the roof in the last year or so.

https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/membership/lithium-carbonate-prices-break-through-40-kg-barrier-2/
 
Bigdog said:
Hydro dams make up about 8% of "green" energy, but ...

"But a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that, far from being a climate solution, large-scale hydropower generation is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. A 2016 study by Swiss researchers that assessed the emissions of 1500 dams and reservoirs around the world found that Hoover Dam and Lake Mead on the Colorado River near Las Vegas emit as much CO2-equivalent, per kW/hour, as a coal-fired power plant. 1 On average, dams and reservoirs emit twice as much greenhouse gases as they store, according to a German study published in 2021. 2 As a particular concern, the German study highlighted the release of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Why do reservoirs generate so many emissions?
When lands are flooded, vegetation decomposes under water and generates methane, which bubbles up through the water column and into the atmosphere. Initially, scientists thought that emissions would spike for a few years after flooding and then subside. But more recent measurements have shown that reservoirs continue to emit significant amounts of both CO2 and methane throughout their lifecycle."

https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/a-climate-solution-big-hydro-is-anything-but/

Nuclear still has the major problem of transporting and disposing radioactive waste. And then there are the natural disaster caused meltdowns, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl, ... and they make great targets for terrorists.


Wind turbines start off with a massive manufacturing carbon footprint ...

So what’s the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?
4 August 2014

Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/

Then there is the land usage and the wiring to get the electricity where needed. And it all has to be backed up by fossil fuels because the wind is unpredictable. Wind power is an unreliable energy source.
Click to expand...

Poor Dick is dissembling as per usual.
 
Bigdog said:
"Depending on the country of manufacture of the batteries and their energy mix, studies stipulate, for example, that it would take between 25,000 and 150,000 kilometres before an electric car became less polluting than a diesel or petrolcar... Furthermore, a car battery has an average lifespan of 5 years. "

https://www.greenly.earth/blog-en/carbon-footprint-battery
Click to expand...

Two things. First the numbers don't support your claim that an EV has to go over 80,000 miles before it produces less GHG than an ICE vehicle. Your source says it can range from about 15,000 miles to about 90,000 miles. That is a rather large range based on old data from as far back as 2013. You seem to not want to include the lower range in your claims.

Furthermore a lithium ion battery has a minimum life of 5 years of 2,000 charging cycles
Tesla warranties its battery for 8 years. So the average life of a lithium ion battery is not 5 years. The minimum life is.
https://www.fluxpower.com/blog/lithium-ion-vs.-lead-acid-battery-life
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...thium-ion-batteries-in-electric-vehicles.html
 
Billions are invested in the development and manufacture of electric cars. If it didnt promise a future it would not be like this. The efficiency of batteries is the only problem but they think they can solve this problem, maybe they have solved it. We have established a large battery factory in Turkiye and we produce the raw material of these batteries from boron. We have 73% of the detected boron reserves of the World. We are working on a battery technology that is very light and has a high charge capacity, the Chinese already have it but we have the reserves.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Two things. First the numbers don't support your claim that an EV has to go over 80,000 miles before it produces less GHG than an ICE vehicle. Your source says it can range from about 15,000 miles to about 90,000 miles. That is a rather large range based on old data from as far back as 2013. You seem to not want to include the lower range in your claims.

Furthermore a lithium ion battery has a minimum life of 5 years of 2,000 charging cycles
Tesla warranties its battery for 8 years. So the average life of a lithium ion battery is not 5 years. The minimum life is.
https://www.fluxpower.com/blog/lithium-ion-vs.-lead-acid-battery-life
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...thium-ion-batteries-in-electric-vehicles.html
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide.
 
Farah said:
Billions are invested in the development and manufacture of electric cars. If it didnt promise a future it would not be like this. The efficiency of batteries is the only problem but they think they can solve this problem, maybe they have solved it. We have established a large battery factory in Turkiye and we produce the raw material of these batteries from boron. We have 73% of the detected boron reserves of the World. We are working on a battery technology that is very light and has a high charge capacity, the Chinese already have it but we have the reserves.
Click to expand...

It's heavily subsidized by the government, dude. This isn't about the future. It's about mandates and fascism, even communism.

Batteries have NO 'efficiency'. NOTHING is going to change the time it takes to charge a battery to any reasonable length of time. You can refuel an ICE car in a few minutes. It will NEVER be possible to charge a battery that fast.
1) Internal resistance of the battery will prevent it.
2) The wiring required will prevent it.
3) The grid capacity will prevent it.

Ramming that kind of current into any battery will never be possible.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

Greenhouse gas would cause warming the same way a greenhouse is warmed. It locks the heat from the sun in. This is very simple, and completely proven as possible. It only shows Night's ignorance that he would deny it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top