Hey kids, I screwed up and published a bad URL for the gift link to WaPo the first time out. Updated with corrected link, which is https://wapo.st/3PIUKRt
The assumption that stuff will get recycled seems a stretch. My city doesn't even recycle glass.
But, this is definitely interesting. Thinking about it, it does seem that all the EV vs ICE comparisons tend to talk about the manufacturing process and ignore the the fuel extraction.
I do still wonder how extractable minerals compare to what would be needed to electrify everything. And I worry that we're focused on the very diffuse car problem vs much more consolidated, and thus arguably easier to address, industry problems, but 🤷🏽♂️
This of course assumes that the idiots who troll every article, ad and meme that even mentions electric cars will argue in good faith. They don't. Some really are shills for the oil industry, but most are just angry geezers that think FOX is soft on thu libs and Greta Van Susteren is really hot.
Well this is timely. I just bought a new Kia Niro Plug-in hybrid last Saturday. So far, I love it. Xcel Energy and the Vehicle Exchange Colorado program are both offering big rebates (that can be used point of sale with some dealers) for buying a PHEV or EV. Then there's state and federal tax credits on some makes/models. Check it out! I replaced my 25 year old little pickup truck.
This joint project between Panasonic and Redwood Materials is going a long way toward recycling batteries, or it will when it goes online in the next couple of years:
people like posting that EV charging stations are powered by coal and think it is a big gotcha!
how dim do you have to be to think trying to clean up the emissions on literally thousands of teeny tiny smokestacks in various states of disrepair is easier than the same on one big giant smokestack that can take advantage of massive industrial scrubbers and the chimney effect?
We're still waiting for a 1997 Honda Accord to die, or Toyota to release their 700 mile range EV Prius they announced last year. No matter which happens first, we're getting a Prius, it's just going to be the difference between a used one a few years old, or a brand new one.
(Mazda also announced a potential EV version of the Miata, and I am eagerly looking forward to an EV convertible. Mmm. So sexy. Until then, I'll keep my 2010 NC MX-5.)
My 2004 Corolla is at 404K miles (the odometer froze at 299999 so I have had to use the trip counter and keep the ten thousands in my head) and won't die (my buddy calls it "the Toyota of Doom"). But yeah, if ever I have to let it rest, an EV is in my future.
when did they announce such a thing? the new Prius is out including the Prius Prime PHEV. none of them get anywhere near 700 miles of EV range. the longest range Prime gets 55 miles (and under 40 real-world it is seeming). the combined hybrid range isn't even over 700 miles. more like 550-600.
The 4 million excess deaths a year compares to the 46 fatalities so far caused by nuclear energy. For all of y’all who are panicked by any mention of nuklear but routinely drive a car. The latter is way more dangerous, just in emissions.
Nuclear will definitely be part of the carbon-free energy mix; how much is hard to say, since with existing nukes and hydropower (about 25% of the US portfolio) wind, solar, & storage should get us to somewhere around 90%-95% of projected needs. That last chunk of "firmed" power could be nukes, could be enhanced geothermal, could maaaybe be gas with direct CO2 capture at generation (looking increasingly unlikely).
Lots of advocates for small modular nukes that're supposed to make the tech cheaper and more easily deployable, but as far as I know the pilots aren't there yet. First pilot of a commercial enhanced geothermal finished stress testing in July and now has power contracts for five years out, with a bigger plant being built, so I'd bet a dollar that in ten years there'll be a lot more operating enhance geothermal plants pumping out energy than new nuclear capacity.
It is not so much a fear of nuclear energy as a realization that they are largely unneeded. A 1000MW wind farm is in the neighborhood of 20% of the cost to build and equivalent nuclear reactor. That is a massive savings even if the wind farm has only half the lifespan. Also, waste management is considerably easier. The fear of catastrophic failure is an issue with nuclear power, but it is not the only issue.
Siting a new nuke plant is damned near impossible anyhow. On top of the NIMBYs, you have the NIABYs (Not in Anyone's Back Yard) who will file lawsuits and tie up the project in Government Approval Hell for a decade.
Hydrogen is an energy *storage* not an energy generator: since we do not have free hydrogen lying around, it must be produced by some other energy generation.
All energy producers are just "energy storage"- what do you think coal is? It takes energy to mine coal, pump oil, convert shale, mine uranium...We don't have any of that "free around" either. Hydrogen could be produced using excess solar and then used in aircraft or shipped to areas to be used in a generation plant for convenience. Then it would be an "energy generator".
The energy required to obtain coal or oil is vastly less than the energy released when you burn it. In the case of hydrogen, the energy required to produce it must always be a little more than you get back by burning it. The "generator" in your scenario is the solar panel, not the hydrogen being used as a (rather inconvenient) battery.
“Inconvenient “… yes, convenience is what’s totally killing our planet. A “hydrogen battery” unlike a coal battery or an oil battery is completely clean.
No harm in efficiency loss for the advantage of this or you use a cheap renewable source to create it.
Coal and oil are not BATTERIES. You do not put energy into them. It does cost some energy to extract them, but this is minute compared to the energy you get out.
Hydrogen cannot give you more energy than you expend to create it. It MUST always give you less, because 100% efficiency is impossible. It is not a SOURCE of energy, it is simply a storage mechanism, and a very awkward one compared to other storage mechanisms. You can use the cheap renewable source to charge a more convenient battery rather than using it to create hydrogen.
Watched this last night. Sounds like under the worst production conditions and electricity production conditions, an EV would take 140miles +/- to break even with a gas car. And the average car is used for about that number of miles.
However, under all other conditions, the break is far sooner and EVs prevail.
There's some mine in Australia where the extraction area is higher elevation than the transport site. They use giant electric trucks that go uphill empty and downhill full, generating enough electricity on the downhill leg to power the uphill return trip
Back when I was moving material around, we had Lectra Haul trucks. Diesel-electric hybrids, made in the 60s. LeTourneau made the wheel motors, and the onboard generators were powered by a Detroit Diesel engine. All-electric is the obvious next move, glad yo hear they're doing just that.
Hey kids, I screwed up and published a bad URL for the gift link to WaPo the first time out. Updated with corrected link, which is https://wapo.st/3PIUKRt
Sorry 'bout that!
> We Dig For Things
> Things To Make Us Go
ISWYDT! 🖖🤓
The assumption that stuff will get recycled seems a stretch. My city doesn't even recycle glass.
But, this is definitely interesting. Thinking about it, it does seem that all the EV vs ICE comparisons tend to talk about the manufacturing process and ignore the the fuel extraction.
I do still wonder how extractable minerals compare to what would be needed to electrify everything. And I worry that we're focused on the very diffuse car problem vs much more consolidated, and thus arguably easier to address, industry problems, but 🤷🏽♂️
This of course assumes that the idiots who troll every article, ad and meme that even mentions electric cars will argue in good faith. They don't. Some really are shills for the oil industry, but most are just angry geezers that think FOX is soft on thu libs and Greta Van Susteren is really hot.
Well this is timely. I just bought a new Kia Niro Plug-in hybrid last Saturday. So far, I love it. Xcel Energy and the Vehicle Exchange Colorado program are both offering big rebates (that can be used point of sale with some dealers) for buying a PHEV or EV. Then there's state and federal tax credits on some makes/models. Check it out! I replaced my 25 year old little pickup truck.
Thanks for the gift link Doc, you're awesome about that...
Perfectly said from the article -
"Mining minerals for the clean-energy economy is in millions of tons a year. For the fossil fuel industry that's a rounding error."
This joint project between Panasonic and Redwood Materials is going a long way toward recycling batteries, or it will when it goes online in the next couple of years:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/15/panasonic-redwood-materials-strike-battery-component-deal.html
That's my baby right there, except all in black. Swoon.
people like posting that EV charging stations are powered by coal and think it is a big gotcha!
how dim do you have to be to think trying to clean up the emissions on literally thousands of teeny tiny smokestacks in various states of disrepair is easier than the same on one big giant smokestack that can take advantage of massive industrial scrubbers and the chimney effect?
We're still waiting for a 1997 Honda Accord to die, or Toyota to release their 700 mile range EV Prius they announced last year. No matter which happens first, we're getting a Prius, it's just going to be the difference between a used one a few years old, or a brand new one.
(Mazda also announced a potential EV version of the Miata, and I am eagerly looking forward to an EV convertible. Mmm. So sexy. Until then, I'll keep my 2010 NC MX-5.)
My 2004 Corolla is at 404K miles (the odometer froze at 299999 so I have had to use the trip counter and keep the ten thousands in my head) and won't die (my buddy calls it "the Toyota of Doom"). But yeah, if ever I have to let it rest, an EV is in my future.
when did they announce such a thing? the new Prius is out including the Prius Prime PHEV. none of them get anywhere near 700 miles of EV range. the longest range Prime gets 55 miles (and under 40 real-world it is seeming). the combined hybrid range isn't even over 700 miles. more like 550-600.
600 is pretty close to 700.
"700 mile range EV Prius" was the claim however. and in this instance the EV range is less than 55 miles. 55 is *not* pretty close to 700.
FYI, burning 19 billion tons of coal and oil can easily generate 33 billion tons of CO2. (It's the "O2" part that adds to the mass.)
Should be a Tab:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a44022888/electric-car-battery-recycling/
Thanks! Passing that along to Rebecca!
The 4 million excess deaths a year compares to the 46 fatalities so far caused by nuclear energy. For all of y’all who are panicked by any mention of nuklear but routinely drive a car. The latter is way more dangerous, just in emissions.
Nuclear will definitely be part of the carbon-free energy mix; how much is hard to say, since with existing nukes and hydropower (about 25% of the US portfolio) wind, solar, & storage should get us to somewhere around 90%-95% of projected needs. That last chunk of "firmed" power could be nukes, could be enhanced geothermal, could maaaybe be gas with direct CO2 capture at generation (looking increasingly unlikely).
Lots of advocates for small modular nukes that're supposed to make the tech cheaper and more easily deployable, but as far as I know the pilots aren't there yet. First pilot of a commercial enhanced geothermal finished stress testing in July and now has power contracts for five years out, with a bigger plant being built, so I'd bet a dollar that in ten years there'll be a lot more operating enhance geothermal plants pumping out energy than new nuclear capacity.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/enhanced-geothermal-power-is-finally
It is not so much a fear of nuclear energy as a realization that they are largely unneeded. A 1000MW wind farm is in the neighborhood of 20% of the cost to build and equivalent nuclear reactor. That is a massive savings even if the wind farm has only half the lifespan. Also, waste management is considerably easier. The fear of catastrophic failure is an issue with nuclear power, but it is not the only issue.
Siting a new nuke plant is damned near impossible anyhow. On top of the NIMBYs, you have the NIABYs (Not in Anyone's Back Yard) who will file lawsuits and tie up the project in Government Approval Hell for a decade.
Perhaps...Maybe better to use hydrogen for generation and maybe trains, though all electric trains could also work perhaps...
Hydrogen is an energy *storage* not an energy generator: since we do not have free hydrogen lying around, it must be produced by some other energy generation.
All energy producers are just "energy storage"- what do you think coal is? It takes energy to mine coal, pump oil, convert shale, mine uranium...We don't have any of that "free around" either. Hydrogen could be produced using excess solar and then used in aircraft or shipped to areas to be used in a generation plant for convenience. Then it would be an "energy generator".
The energy required to obtain coal or oil is vastly less than the energy released when you burn it. In the case of hydrogen, the energy required to produce it must always be a little more than you get back by burning it. The "generator" in your scenario is the solar panel, not the hydrogen being used as a (rather inconvenient) battery.
“Inconvenient “… yes, convenience is what’s totally killing our planet. A “hydrogen battery” unlike a coal battery or an oil battery is completely clean.
No harm in efficiency loss for the advantage of this or you use a cheap renewable source to create it.
Coal and oil are not BATTERIES. You do not put energy into them. It does cost some energy to extract them, but this is minute compared to the energy you get out.
Hydrogen cannot give you more energy than you expend to create it. It MUST always give you less, because 100% efficiency is impossible. It is not a SOURCE of energy, it is simply a storage mechanism, and a very awkward one compared to other storage mechanisms. You can use the cheap renewable source to charge a more convenient battery rather than using it to create hydrogen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frs2Rm0IeKw
Watched this last night. Sounds like under the worst production conditions and electricity production conditions, an EV would take 140miles +/- to break even with a gas car. And the average car is used for about that number of miles.
However, under all other conditions, the break is far sooner and EVs prevail.
But what of all the electrons that get murdered?
It's not like you can tell them apart...
Most of the tingly ones hang out on the tips of a 9-volt. You can taste their tingly spiciness.
There's some mine in Australia where the extraction area is higher elevation than the transport site. They use giant electric trucks that go uphill empty and downhill full, generating enough electricity on the downhill leg to power the uphill return trip
perpetual energy machine?
Back when I was moving material around, we had Lectra Haul trucks. Diesel-electric hybrids, made in the 60s. LeTourneau made the wheel motors, and the onboard generators were powered by a Detroit Diesel engine. All-electric is the obvious next move, glad yo hear they're doing just that.