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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, I was citing an old article I read. 90K Is more than 80k.

15K is less than 1/3 of 80k. Cherry picking data to support your conclusion is your problem here, not mine.

"That could be a problem for the U.S. Electric cars rely on lithium-ion batteries. China produces 76 percent while the U.S. makes only 8 percent.Jan 18, 2022"

https://www.grid.news/story/global/...roblem for the U.S.,U.S. makes only 8 percent.

White libs are so myopic and small minded. They can never see the Big Picture.

Current stats are not evidence of what will happen in the future. You make two false assumptions. First you assume that production will not change then you assume that lithium ion batteries will always be the only possible battery to use in EVs.

And the CO2 all this subsidized energy "saves" is a fart in a hurricane in the Big Picture. The $20 trillion that has spent promoting the hoax would have been better spent buying up pristine habitat and turning it into nature reserves and paying rangers to protect endangered wildlife.

Cutting CO2 production by 25%-50% is hardly a fart in a hurricane in the big picture.

 

[Into the Night]

You can naysay all you want, boy. I think it could be done!

Fine. Go build such a machine and demonstrate that the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

Using boron as an anode in the form of a ligand is an interesting idea.

New boron based salts for lithium-ion batteries using conjugated ligands

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27253752/

Boron is not a conductor nor a ligand.

 

[Jarod]

.
This looks promising, it looks like hydrogen fuel call techology may finally come of age.

VW may have developed a major hydrogen breakthrough…cars could travel 2000 km on a single tank of fuel. VW often rails against hydrogen cars, but the German automaker is reported to have filed a patent that could mean a major breakthrough for hydrogen powered vehicles, reports Patrick Freiwa of the German Kreiszeitung here. Though the latest trend has been electric cars, these have also a number of technical drawbacks like range, cost, mining and weight. Moreover there is also the problem of how to dispose of millions of tons of batteries at the end of their lives.

Files patent
Despite VW having railed against hydrogen technology for cars, the automaker has “filed a patent for a special fuel cell with the Saxon company Kraftwerk Tubes GmbH,” thus making it clear that the auto giant is indeed pushing hydrogen technology. With the new technology from VW, the company looks to set itself apart from the rest of the field, which has focused on fuel cell technology.

According to the Kreiszeitung: “The main difference to the fuel cells of Hyundai and Toyota is that VW has set on a ceramic diaphragm instead of the usual plastic diaphragm and is the only manufacturer of this technology that produces the ceramic membrane in such a way that the fuel cell can be started quickly.” The advantages are lower production costs and the elimination of platinum.

Up to 2000 km range
“The target for the breakthrough of this form of mobility is considered to be the so-called solid-state cell battery,” reports the Kreiszeitung. VW predicts shorter refueling times with the innovative technology. “We can travel up to 2,000 kilometers on a single tank of fuel,” says the VW engineer Sascha Kuhn. If true, electric cars will be left in the dust.

https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/12...-technology-2000-km-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel/

That would be awesome

 

[Into the Night]

Solar can.

Solar power is not creating energy out of nothing, idiot. You have to expose the panels to sunlight. That's energy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I was citing an old article I read. 90K Is more than 80k.


"That could be a problem for the U.S. Electric cars rely on lithium-ion batteries. China produces 76 percent while the U.S. makes only 8 percent.Jan 18, 2022"

https://www.grid.news/story/global/...roblem for the U.S.,U.S. makes only 8 percent.

White libs are so myopic and small minded. They can never see the Big Picture.

And the CO2 all this subsidized energy "saves" is a fart in a hurricane in the Big Picture. The $20 trillion that has spent promoting the hoax would have been better spent buying up pristine habitat and turning it into nature reserves and paying rangers to protect endangered wildlife.

It's not even a 'fart in the big picture'. CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has that capability.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Because they have a terrible pollution problem., they are into solar, wind, and all forms of alternative energy more than we are.https://www.scmp.com/business/china...enewable-energy-leader-strong-capacity-growth People who think like you are spectators in the future energy development and the businesses they create.

Fiction.

 

[Into the Night]

15K is less than 1/3 of 80k. Cherry picking data to support your conclusion is your problem here, not mine.



Current stats are not evidence of what will happen in the future. You make two false assumptions. First you assume that production will not change then you assume that lithium ion batteries will always be the only possible battery to use in EVs.


Cutting CO2 production by 25%-50% is hardly a fart in a hurricane in the big picture.

CO2 paranoia. There is nothing wrong with this gas. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Bigdog]

15K is less than 1/3 of 80k. Cherry picking data to support your conclusion is your problem here, not mine.

You ignore any data that contradicts your cracka brainwashing.

The carbon manufacturing footprint for batteries is highly dependent on location, China being the highest footprint because of it's lack of environmental protection and 60% of its energy comes from coal. At close to 80% of global battery production, 80k miles is closer to the norm, and 15k is the exception.

All you lib crackas do is cherry pick.

Current stats are not evidence of what will happen in the future. You make two false assumptions. First you assume that production will not change then you assume that lithium ion batteries will always be the only possible battery to use in EVs.

You lib crackas can not predict the climate a 100 years from now. Nuclear winter, volcanic winter, or ice age glaciation are much more likely than your fireball Earth manipulated, unfounded predictions, ... where you make a thousand different predictions hoping one will be right.

And we're talking about battery tech as it is right now!

Cutting CO2 production by 25%-50% is hardly a fart in a hurricane in the big picture.

You have zero evidence to support that prediction. EVs do not cut CO2 by 25-50% and never will. Your prediction is contrary to all facts and evidence.

Tell me, by how many degrees will your EV panacea change the global temp?

 

[Bigdog]

Cutting CO2 production by 25%-50% is hardly a fart in a hurricane in the big picture.

And let's not forget that you lib crackas are supporting child labor in the Congo cobalt mines. But you don't care because they are Black children. The average income in the Congo is only $100 per month. You lib crackas exploit the fuck out of Blacks.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

CO2 paranoia. There is nothing wrong with this gas. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.

Thanks for playing "Into the Night makes yet another claim that violates the second law of thermodynamics."

Which one are you claiming is not true?
When energy changes from one form to another some of that energy is lost as heat.
When heat is generated temperature increases.

 

[Nordberg]

Solar power is not creating energy out of nothing, idiot. You have to expose the panels to sunlight. That's energy.

The sun is the energy system involved. You completely stupid dumb fiuck. It is renewable as it gets, you dumb shit. The panels capture and use the energy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The carbon manufacturing footprint for batteries is highly dependent on location, China being the highest footprint because of it's lack of environmental protection and 60% of its energy comes from coal. At close to 80% of global battery production, 80k miles is closer to the norm, and 15k is the exception.

Care to provide your evidence to support your 80k claim? I think you have already forgotten what your claim actually was as you devolve into name calling instead of providing actual support.

Reuters used the Argonne National Labs calculator to create scenarios. (Argonne uses all CO2 produced for production and the life of the vehicle.) They only way they got to 80% was assuming 100% coal electricity. Using the average US electrical production the point at which lifetime CO2 was less when compared to the ICE car was less than 15,000 miles. So clearly your claim that 80k is closer to the norm is complete bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...lectric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

The Argonne GREET model can be found here:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
It includes all emissions for mining, production, use, and recycling.

All you lib crackas do is cherry pick.

Then surely you can provide some actual data to show how my claims are wrong? Or is your only point to name call in that sentence?

And we're talking about battery tech as it is right now!

Are we? If we are then your numbers are clearly wrong since the battery tech we currently have is better than it was in 2013. Once again Argonne has all the emissions that result from making a lithium ion battery updated to 2021. Producing 1kg of lithium ion battery from mining to assembly releases 26 kg of CO2

You have zero evidence to support that prediction. EVs do not cut CO2 by 25-50% and never will. Your prediction is contrary to all facts and evidence.

I didn't realize that EVs were the only subsidized energy. Did you forget about solar and wind? If subsidized energy allows for transportation to be all electric and all electric production to be from non carbon sources than clearly the CO2 production would be cut by 50%. Even if we still rely on CO2 sources for some electricity we would still reduce our emissions by 25% or more because an EV that runs on electricity produced by Natural gas releases less CO2 than an ICE vehicle.

 

[Into the Night]

You ignore any data that contradicts your cracka brainwashing.

The carbon manufacturing footprint for batteries is highly dependent on location, China being the highest footprint because of it's lack of environmental protection and 60% of its energy comes from coal. At close to 80% of global battery production, 80k miles is closer to the norm, and 15k is the exception.

All you lib crackas do is cherry pick.





You lib crackas can not predict the climate a 100 years from now. Nuclear winter, volcanic winter, or ice age glaciation are much more likely than your fireball Earth manipulated, unfounded predictions, ... where you make a thousand different predictions hoping one will be right.

And we're talking about battery tech as it is right now!




You have zero evidence to support that prediction. EVs do not cut CO2 by 25-50% and never will. Your prediction is contrary to all facts and evidence.

Tell me, by how many degrees will your EV panacea change the global temp?

What's to predict? Climate has no value associated with it.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for playing "Into the Night makes yet another claim that violates the second law of thermodynamics."

Which one are you claiming is not true?
When energy changes from one form to another some of that energy is lost as heat.
When heat is generated temperature increases.

Heat is not a form of energy.
Heat has no temperature.
It is not possible to create energy out of nothing or destroy energy into nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

The sun is the energy system involved. You completely stupid dumb fiuck. It is renewable as it gets, you dumb shit. The panels capture and use the energy.

There is no such thing as an 'energy system'. Buzzword fallacy.

Solar panels capture only a small amount of energy from the Sun. They are very expensive for what they do. Solar panels do not use energy. Solar panels only work during the day. They don't work at night.
Renewable sources of energy include sunlight, wind, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric (sun powered), wood, and possibly coal (no one really knows).

Energy doesn't have to be renewable.

You are advocating government manipulation of energy markets. That's fascism, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Care to provide your evidence to support your 80k claim? I think you have already forgotten what your claim actually was as you devolve into name calling instead of providing actual support.

Reuters used the Argonne National Labs calculator to create scenarios. (Argonne uses all CO2 produced for production and the life of the vehicle.) They only way they got to 80% was assuming 100% coal electricity. Using the average US electrical production the point at which lifetime CO2 was less when compared to the ICE car was less than 15,000 miles. So clearly your claim that 80k is closer to the norm is complete bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...lectric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

The Argonne GREET model can be found here:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
It includes all emissions for mining, production, use, and recycling.

Then surely you can provide some actual data to show how my claims are wrong? Or is your only point to name call in that sentence?

Are we? If we are then your numbers are clearly wrong since the battery tech we currently have is better than it was in 2013. Once again Argonne has all the emissions that result from making a lithium ion battery updated to 2021. Producing 1kg of lithium ion battery from mining to assembly releases 26 kg of CO2





I didn't realize that EVs were the only subsidized energy. Did you forget about solar and wind? If subsidized energy allows for transportation to be all electric and all electric production to be from non carbon sources than clearly the CO2 production would be cut by 50%. Even if we still rely on CO2 sources for some electricity we would still reduce our emissions by 25% or more because an EV that runs on electricity produced by Natural gas releases less CO2 than an ICE vehicle.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas', except as a buzzword in a religion. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Bigdog]

What's to predict? Climate has no value associated with it.

Does weather have a value associated with it?

 

[Bigdog]

Care to provide your evidence to support your 80k claim? I think you have already forgotten what your claim actually was as you devolve into name calling instead of providing actual support.

Reuters used the Argonne National Labs calculator to create scenarios. (Argonne uses all CO2 produced for production and the life of the vehicle.) They only way they got to 80% was assuming 100% coal electricity. Using the average US electrical production the point at which lifetime CO2 was less when compared to the ICE car was less than 15,000 miles. So clearly your claim that 80k is closer to the norm is complete bullshit.
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...lectric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

The Argonne GREET model can be found here:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/
It includes all emissions for mining, production, use, and recycling.

Then surely you can provide some actual data to show how my claims are wrong? Or is your only point to name call in that sentence?

Are we? If we are then your numbers are clearly wrong since the battery tech we currently have is better than it was in 2013. Once again Argonne has all the emissions that result from making a lithium ion battery updated to 2021. Producing 1kg of lithium ion battery from mining to assembly releases 26 kg of CO2





I didn't realize that EVs were the only subsidized energy. Did you forget about solar and wind? If subsidized energy allows for transportation to be all electric and all electric production to be from non carbon sources than clearly the CO2 production would be cut by 50%. Even if we still rely on CO2 sources for some electricity we would still reduce our emissions by 25% or more because an EV that runs on electricity produced by Natural gas releases less CO2 than an ICE vehicle.

You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders. Don't be myopic.

I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.

27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.

Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders. Don't be myopic.

Who said the world ended at the borders of the US? Why do you resort to name calling rather than dealing with facts?

I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.

And I already provided you the numbers that show that even with the batteries being made in China with coal , they are still make an EV greener than an ICE car. And the average time for a EV in China to produce less GHG than an ICE car is still less than 80K miles since China is not 100% coal electricity. Using China electrical production and GREET, the average EV in China will produce less GHG at about 40K.

27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

Hmm... SO many lies in so few words.
27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. I'm not sure whether you don't understand English or you don't understand math with that statement.
1. 11% of GHG transportation is not cars. Over half of GHG from transportation in the US comes from passenger vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
The way you wrote your statement, it would mean that 11% of the 27% would be cars which would mean only 2.97% of GHG would come from cars.

2. The left doesn't claim EVs are 100% green. That is your strawman that you keep wanting to beat up on. It is a ridiculous argument on your part since the rest of your argument is an attempt to defeat my claim that they are greener, not that they are 100% green.

3. Your 11% number is made up as is your 5% number.

4. No one has said that all the vehicles in the world will be EV's in the next few years.

Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.

The sun comes up every morning. Easy to predict.
Coal and gas are not reliable sources of energy since the plants can fail at any time or the power grid can go down at any time. It makes as much sense as your argument.
Solar and wind can be predicted with a reasonable accuracy to allow for back up source to be used as needed.you are You are relying on idiotic fallacies to make your arguments. A reduction in GHG production is the goal. If solar and wind can produce 50% or 80% of the electricity that is is better than no solar and wind.

Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?

Idiotic question since the current goal is to prevent predicted future increases in temperature. The real question is how much will the temperature increase if we don't at least try to reduce GHG?

Your argument is that if the brakes won't work well enough to stop us from hitting the brick wall then we shouldn't do anything. My argument is if we at least try to use the brakes so we won't hit the brick wall as hard as doing nothing.