Electric car thread

[old man emu]

Getting back to powering vehicles with electricity, it seems amazing that those "Save the Planet" zealots conveniently ignore the environmental damage caused by those ungodly rush towards "zero emissions". Kilo for kilo, you could say that manufacturing an EV and an ICE create equally as much environmental damage as each other, until it gets to the power supply system.

 

There is no doubt, in fact it is inarguable, that generating power for an ICE results in the release of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. However, has anyone really provided figures on the percentage contribution of ICE use compared to the contribution of all other sources? Getting that sequestered carbon out of the ground and into a vehicle's fuel tank does damage the environment, but because we know that crude oil can make a mess (Exxon Valdez)  precautions are taken.

 

But what about the environmental damage caused by mining the minerals used to make the power storage devices for EVs? We have multiple examples of the damage caused to the environment for the extraction of coal, iron ore and other minerals Mankind has used over the ages. Now we are seeing a new reason for destroying the environment - the mining of lithium  and cobalt ores. The very visible effects of mining these ores are easily recognised. One might not need to stand at the edge of a mine to see the damage, but we have had access to images to assist us in gaining that knowledge. But what about the hidden damage associated with mining - damage to that rare resource - underground water systems.

 

This video speaks of the serious damage to an underground water system in the USA resulting from the mining company's extraction of underground water for use in the extraction of lithium ore.

 

For me this lemming-like rush towards replacing ICEs with EVs by those "Save the Planet" zealots implies that they have no knowledge of the Carbon Cycle.

When one uses an ICE for whatever task, one taps into Earth’s carbon reserves deposited hundreds of million years ago. These fossil fuels are released into the air as carbon dioxide and water vapor. The carbon dioxide may stay in the atmosphere for a while, but eventually, plants consume it during photosynthesis. So that same weight from the tank of petrol gets converted into plant material by photosynthesis. The formation of fossil fuels takes millions of years, but we can short circuit that slow process by applying our knowledge of plant genetics and agronomy to produce the combustible oils that can give us the power source for an ICE. Using fuels derived from plants is the ultimate way to have renewable energy for this application.

 

The  "Save the Planet" zealots would gain more support from the apathetic masses if they turned their attention to the development of fuels made by plants.

[octave]

50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Getting back to powering vehicles with electricity, it seems amazing that those "Save the Planet" zealots conveniently ignore the environmental damage caused by those ungodly rush towards "zero emissions". Kilo for kilo, you could say that manufacturing an EV and an ICE create equally as much environmental damage as each other, until it gets to the power supply system.

Again I don't think the rush towards zero emissions is at an ungodly pace. Certainly, the adoption of EV of IC is much slower than the adoption of IC over the horse. Kilo for Kilo I would actually argue that the EV is more energy-intensive than an equivalent IC.   The important thing is the lfetime energy usage.

 

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

 

EV vs combustion engine: which car has fewer lifetime emissions?

 

50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

 However, has anyone really provided figures on the percentage contribution of ICE use compared to the contribution of all other sources?

 

Of course, they have.  According to CSIRO transport produces 21.1%.   

Australia's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions  

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 

Suggesting that no one has ever thought to quantify these things suggests a lack of curiosity.

50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

the mining of lithium  and cobalt ores. The very visible effects of mining these ores are easily recognised.

Every mineral we mine comes with some cost.  It amazes me that people are happy to forget that oil is drilled for, mostly on the other side of the world, and transported by a tanker also powered by oil. Once in Australia, this oil is refined which is another energy-hungry process and then a diesel-powered truck distributes this across the country, another energy-hungry system.

 

Examples of lithium mining often focus on the worst cases of mining.    Australia is the biggest producer of lithium at 49%.  Lithium is also available, but I think not yet economically viable, from seawater. As for cobalt, it is being used less and less.  

 

http://Is cobalt the 'blood diamond of electric cars'?

 

50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

This video speaks of the serious damage to an underground water system in the USA resulting from the mining company's extraction of underground water for use in the extraction of lithium ore.

 

According to this source the US is a very small miner of lithium.

 

E

 

 

 

 

Australia and Chile: Dominating Global Lithium Supply

Australia and Chile stand out as the top producers of lithium, accounting for almost 77% of the global production in 2022.

Rank	Country	Mine production 2022E (tonnes)	Share (%)
	🌐 World Total	130,000	100.0%
1	Australia	61,000	46.9%
2	Chile	39,000	30.0%
3	China	19,000	14.6%
4	Argentina	6,200	4.8%
5	Brazil	2,200	1.7%
6	Zimbabwe	800	0.6%
7	Portugal	600	0.5%
8	Canada	500	0.4%
	🌎 Other countries*	700	0.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9 by octave

[facthunter]

A lot of that stuff is recyclable.  You could never have enough trees to absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere that we unleash at the rate we do. IC engines are around 30% efficient. Electric is above 90%. and IS regenerative when slowing down or going down hills. Transmission losses would be less also and when not needed that energy making them  and the IC .  engine is non existent. Nev

Edited February 9 by facthunter

[octave]

53 minutes ago, old man emu said:

For me this lemming-like rush towards replacing ICEs with EVs by those "Save the Planet" zealots implies that they have no knowledge of the Carbon Cycle.

 

Lemming like is a gross exaggeration.   The rate of growth of EV adoption is grindingly slow.  I would suggest that few on this forum will ever be forced to purchase an EV against their will.  The adoption of EVs at this stage is glacially slow compared to the adoption of the petrol-driven car back in the day.    Anyone who has done high school science knows what the carbon cycle is.    The point is if some CO2 is good this does not mean that releasing CO2 formed over millions of years in 200 years is a good thing. Plants love fertilizer but not too much.                                                                        I do not have a fundamental problem with biofuel other than perhaps land usage issues.   People often like to characterize people concerned about climate change as ignorant and also radical.    My view is not radical but in many ways conservative. My sources are not whacky and way out.   

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

[facthunter]

You lose the legitimacy of the argument when you need to use disparaging words about the people of opposite persuasion. .Keep to the facts  They are OUT there if you try hard enough to find them. Its submersed in deliberate confusion and Lies by those who benefit from the status Quo. continuing to make them money.   Nev

[octave]

27 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You could never have enough trees to absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere that we unleash at the rate we do.

 

That is a good point.  In 1950 average atmospheric CO2 was 310ppm. In 2023 it was 425ppm. Whilst trees and plants etc utilize CO2 it seems clear by the rapid increase that either there is too much CO2 being added to the atmosphere or we don't have enough plants and trees to ustilize it.  The sea is of course absorbing a lot but this has limits and also bad effects in terms of acidificationj.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, octave said:

The important thing is the lfetime energy usage.

What is the "lifetime" of an EV? Even the manufacturers are mentioning 10 years. 

 

Quote: Australia is the world's 14th highest emitter, contributing just over 1 per cent of global emissions.

Of that 1 percent, 21.1%  was attributed to all forms of transport. That's one fifth of one percent. How much carbon dioxide does the vegetation on the continent absorb? 

 

According to the June 2023 update, Australia emitted 465.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. I wonder how much carbon went into grains, plant and animal fibres, and meat. WEould the ins and outs balance?

1 hour ago, octave said:

Lemming like is a gross exaggeration.   The rate of growth of EV adoption is grindingly slow.

It doesn't seem that way from the attention the adoption of EVs is getting and the way that governments seem to be incentivising it.

 

1 hour ago, octave said:

According to this source the US is a very small miner of lithium.

That may be so, but what would you be saying if you were a Nevada cattle producer and your previously consistent ground water supply disappeared? It's the same story as for coal seam gas extraction.

 

1 hour ago, octave said:

People often like to characterize people concerned about climate change as ignorant and also radical. 

I don't. I'd call them evangelical if I wanted to insult them.

[octave]

33 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Of that 1 percent, 21.1%  was attributed to all forms of transport. That's one fifth of one percent.

 

The argument that as a country we contribute a small percentage of the overall is not persuasive to me.    If you add up all of the countries that let's say produce less than 5% of the problem, together they make a substantial amount.   If all of the countries that contribute larger portions such as China, the USA, and European countries move to cleaner technology are we really going to be like Grandpa who refuses to get rid of his EH Holden? 

 

Purely from the point of view of self-sufficiency we are capable of producing the "fuel" to drive our cars without importing it from the Middle East with all the problems that this brings.

 

43 minutes ago, old man emu said:

How much carbon dioxide does the vegetation on the continent absorb? 

 

Are you asking me to answer that?  I am not knowledgeable enough to calculate a figure. I can (and so can you) look at the research.  The answer seems to be estimated at 150 million tonnes per year. If you are suggesting that the amount produced is less than the trees absorb we could say it doesn't matter however those trees can't be counted twice. We can't offset the carbon produced by cars and also claim that it offsets carbon from energy production.

 

56 minutes ago, old man emu said:

It doesn't seem that way from the attention the adoption of EVs is getting and the way that governments seem to be incentivising it.

 

Yes, there are incentives. It seems to be around 3 to 3.5 k but they are also introducing road user charges to take account of the fuel taxes avoided.  EVs are more efficient and even if you don't accept the science around climate change you surely understand that car exhaust is not healthy and is thought to cause health problems.

 

 

59 minutes ago, old man emu said:

That may be so, but what would you be saying if you were a Nevada cattle producer and your previously consistent ground water supply disappeared? It's the same story as for coal seam gas extraction.

 

Yes,

this is true. My question to you is do you have the same environmental concerns over fracking? 

 

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I don't. I'd call them evangelical if I wanted to insult them.

 

I am sure there are evangelical EV advocates out there but there are also many many evangelicals out there scouring the net looking for anything negative that they can find to bolster their argument.   People who by and large are not worried about the environment suddenly become "evangelical" when it comes to cobalt mining (but only when used for EVs.)   Those who post a link to a car fire and when it turns out not to have been an EV suddenly lose interest.   There are some valid concerns about progressing to the next way of powering our transport but so often people go around the same issue and when their concerns are debunked they move on to the next issue and eventually end up back to the first issue to begin the cycle again.

 

I don't particularly see myself as an evangelist in fact I hardly ever post EV-related content except in answer to postings of the same tired old myths.  I don't even particularly have any interest in swaying someone's opinion.   I do dislike posting of old myths and someone's gut feeling. If anyone wants to sway my opinion the way to do it is with verifiable facts. 

 

If in fact EVs turn out to be no better environmentally than IC there are still in my opinion compelling reasons to move to EV when the time for me is right. As I have said before on this forum my experience of driving several EVs is on my yearly holiday to stay with my son in NZ. I get the use of his EV.   The time we were stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic because of an accident was a much better experience. Whilst all the other cars around us were idling going nowhere and some deciding to switch off we just sat using almost no energy.   When we went to the zoo it was a hot day so we turned on the aircon 30 minutes before we got back to the car. Not, getting into a boiling car and impatiently waiting for the aircon to cool us down.   On a cold morning, the car's heater will warm up the car before you get in.  The almost silent smooth driving is fantastic.  Whenever we get home and drive home from the airport I feel like I can feel/hear each cylinder detonation.

 

All of this may not be of interest to you and I will often say to people who present lists of objections "Well clearly you should not buy one then."  The present roadmap is for the end of new IC sales by I think 2035.  It is simply not an issue for you or me.    This makes me think that those who knock every aspect EVs are possibly motivated by either concern for income if they work in that industry or perhaps just conservatism and anxiety over change.   Personally, I am excited by new technology.  The idea of nothing changing seems boring and depressing.   

 

If in fact the doubters are correct with their many criticisms of EVs then the adoption will stall.   I often argue that Norway is way way ahead of us with EV adoption. Norway has over 500 000 EVs on the road.  The knockers should be looking to real-world evidence.  Are cars bursting into flames all over the place? Are landfill sites full of EV batteries?  Is their grid melting?

 

 

 

[facthunter]

You can't eat the fish from Lake Macquarie because of the run off from coal ASH. from "retired" power stations .  It used to cop the residue from Sulphide Corp in Cockle creek at the other end. Now it's from the south.

 Solar and wind get cheaper and everything else is heading dearer.  You are much more Patient than I am Octave. FACTS are the only thing to deal with. .Insurance people military forces and Oil company memo's SHOW they do too. Nev

[spacesailor]

I love " bio- fuel " ! .

But it's no-longer available. 

WHY

such an incredible resource.  Has no market ? .

spacesailor

 

[octave]

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

I love " bio- fuel " ! .

But it's no-longer available. 

WHY

such an incredible resource.  Has no market ? .

spacesailor

 

 You can buy biofuel in Australia biodiesel and bioethanol. Generally blended with conventional fuel. 

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/petrol-and-fuel/ethanol-and-other-biofuels

[onetrack]

EV's are yet to overcome the problems they develop in extremely cold conditions. While it's of little concern to us here, it's of great concern in many Northern Hemisphere countries that have bitter Winter conditions.

The Norwegians just did a cold weather test on EV's, and Teslas and many other "name brands" came out of it poorly - but a relatively unknown Chinese brand (the oddly named Human Horizons HoPhI-Z came out on top in the tests, with minimal power losses.

This was apparently due to the manufacturer designing a system that ensured the battery kept warm in cold ambient conditions.

Many American EV owners are complaining about poor EV performance in their Winter weather.

 

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/02/chinas-human-horizons-hiphi-z-leads-ev-winter-driving-test-with-324-miles-of-cold-weather-range/

 

Edited February 9 by onetrack

[spacesailor]

I do search for " Bio-Diesel ☆but have never found a servo selling it for 6 or more years .

My last tankful was in Victoria,  and my L.P.100 was the best ever .

spacesailor

[kgwilson]

I haven't been here for a while but a few things need comment.

 

FACT. EVs are 3000 times less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles. You don't have to believe me. Look it up. It is sensationalist media & social media that comes up with the EV fire stories that cannot be verified.

 

Lithium batteries are everywhere and how many catch fire? There are about 17 billion mobile devices on the planet & nearly all have lithium batteries. Most reported fires are in scooters & bicycles that have poor charging systems or are charged with the wrong charger. EVs of course have battery management software. They cannot be overcharged or abused in modern EVs. Some will even refuse to charge when put on a charger if the software considers that the battery is being micro charged. This is when you leave the car on charge then drive to the shops & back & put it back on charge.

 

There have been 6 EV fires in Australia in our entire history. 1 was arson, 3 were in garages that burned down so the EVs went with it, 1 hit a tree at high speed & the other the tailshaft of a truck at high speed. None have ever caught fire from chargers. For real information check out EVfiresafe.com

 

The price of Lithium has plummeted. The supply is way more than the industry needs at present. Also Sodium batteries now have energy density rivalling NMC lithium batteries. Several Chinese EVs are now using sodium batteries. As well all of the minerals like lithium, manganese and cobalt are recyclable and fully recoverable from old batteries. It is just that not many EV batteries have got to that stage yet. Once below 80% of original capacity almost all are repurposed for household or industrial energy storage. It is only smashed up batteries that get ground down in to black mass & then the minerals extracted from that.

 

The difference in carbon footprint of an EV compared to ICE in the manufacture process is miniscule compared to the fuel used in an ICE vehicle over its lifespan. A lot of the original studies forgot about the extraction, refining and transport costs of ICE fuel which is crazily high.

 

My EV like many has a battery heater. When in sub zero temperature the car is kept plugged in & the battery kept warm. They have been doing this with ICE cars & trucks in Canada for decades. Diesel has to be pre heated when cold as it turns to gel & won't flow. ICE engines freeze solid if not kept above freezing. Some places have plug in points at parking meters so you don't come back to a car that is now frozen solid & can't be used till Spring.

 

Most modern EV batteries will outlast the car. You may not like it but China now produces the best batteries in the world surpassing the US & Europe. China is the worlds largest EV manufacturer and also the worlds largest car exporter. They are building battery and EV factories in Europe right now. Some Chinese EV manufacturers are providing a 1 million km warranty with the battery. In Australia I only got 7 years as that seems to be the industry standard but CATL state the battery should last 1 million km before it degrades to 80%. If that is the case I'll be dead before the car is.

 

I've just added another 6.6kW solar system to my roof. I've had a 2kW system since 2013. Now I can charge the car 100% from solar energy unless I am on a trip away further than my range. It will be paid off within 3 years at my expected EV use, maybe even sooner & that does not include household benefits as well. It is inevitable though that EV owners will have to pay road user charges as there is no excise tax on electricity.

 

I won't be going back to ICE. Environmental is only 1 issue. Octave mentioned a number of others all of which are great. There are many more though, like instant torque power, low C of G, low maintenance & feeling fresh after a long drive among many others.

[spacesailor]

Feeling fresh after a long drive .

I get that same feeling in my Old Delica ,

Drive till needing fuel . go to the servo fill up the fuel .

Empty my tank . Have meal . Back to the Delica , have a sleep .

Then drive on refreshed. 

Sydney to Cairns,  in 5 days , 

spacesailor

[Litespeed]

It's hard to argue with a dinosaur , all they can think of is dinosaur juice.

 

 

It must hurt knowing extinction is their future.

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, Litespeed said:

It's hard to argue with a dinosaur , all they can think of is dinosaur juice. It must hurt knowing extinction is their future.

We accept that the dominant animal life form at the end of the Cretaceous Period suffered a rapid extinction which opened the door to the proto-mammals to evolve into the placental mammals 60-odd million years later. The evolution of EV transport vehicles is analogous to that evolutionary process. I don't see my son or daughter changing from an ICE to an EV. That's not because they are ignorant, but because they are not satisfied with the technology. However, I think that by the time my grandsons reach mature adulthood (25 years old), the EV will have evolved technologically for them to consider an ICE an interesting relic of a bygone age.

 

Let's face it. All the discussion about EVs has centred on the Li-ion battery technology. Nothing has been said about the rest of the vehicle since all the engineering problems involved in making a safe, wheeled carriage were solved long ago. The only things that have been developed this Century seem to be bells and whistles of dubious value to the operation of the vehicle.

 

The evolution of EV power systems is the key. I see the Li-ion battery as equivalent to the monotremes - platypus and echidna. The sodium battery is probably the marsupial. Who knows what the placental mammal of batteries will be.

[red750]

A few years ago there was talk about a promising Australian industry in the manufacture of graphene batteries.

[onetrack]

The CSIRO was going great guns on super and hyper-capacitors a few years ago, and they were going to be the answer to a maidens prayer, when it came to electrification of transport.

But all that died without even a decent funeral, no-one envisaged that battery development would make supercapacitors a dead-end road as regards their development and general use.

 

Edited February 10 by onetrack

[kgwilson]

There are a multitude of new battery technologies in various stages of development. Whether they get past the prototype or development stage is the $64 question. There are some that have huge capacity and a 100kW battery can be charged from 0 to 100% in under 5 minutes. These are still under development. Others have even more amazing specs. The big but is how long will they last. Until they resolve the high failure rate due to super fast charging, problems will continue. The heat generated is huge and that is all lost energy so there is a penalty to pay. They have been experimenting with liquid nitrogen to cool the charging equipment so that indicate the amount of heat generated.

 

MY EVSE equipment consumes 7-7.1 kW when charging my car at it's maximum of 6.6kW. That is the maximum capacity of the on board inverter to convert AC to DC. The process of delivery through the heavy duty cable produces some heat and the cars inverter converts the AC to DC and there are kVArh (kilovolt Ampere reactive hour) losses as well.

 

The high speed Superchargers charge in DC direct so they can be very fast. The Hyundai iOniq 5 can DC charge at 350kW so 5 minutes on one of these DC chargers will provide 100km of range. Maximum DC charge for my car is 140kW.

 

I was aware of all this before I made my decision to buy the car. Now with 8.6kW of solar panels my home charging costs have dropped to zero (once the cost of the system is paid off).

[red750]

                                    

 

[facthunter]

Bl@@dy ridiculous. You can  preheat the seats.  Nev

[old man emu]

Without being sarcastic, but trying to make a realistic observation, EVs will not approach universality until there is developed a light-weight, high storage capacity, rapidly rechargeable battery which whose chemical composition is resistant to rapid exothermic decomposition. The latter requirement is the one that will be most difficult to meet as by its very nature a battery has to be able to readily release electrons in order to produce sufficient amperage (power). The ready ability to shed electrons is a sign of a high level of reactivity.

 

 

[octave]

30 minutes ago, red750 said:

                                    

 

 

To me, the humor in this is the lack of knowledge of the author of the meme. It is only funny because it is so dumb. I only have direct experience with the heater and aircon in a Tesla Model 3. It is a heat pump and is very efficient. 

[facthunter]

It's done deliberately. Not so subtle persuasion, bereft of facts Propaganda.   Nev