Tesla battery : 100 kWh CO₂ per kWh for Li-ion battery manufacturing (estimate) : 73 kg CO₂ released when make battery : 7300 kg
CO₂ per litre petrol : 2.4 kg
Litres petrol equivalent per Tesla battery : 3041 litres
Fuel consumption Toyota Yaris Hybrid : 3.3 l per 100 km
Total distance for a Yaris to release the same CO₂ from petrol as it costs to make a Tesla battery : 92,000 km or 57,000 miles.
Of course that doesn't take into account the CO₂ equivalent costs of making the rest of the car, making the charging infrastructure, generating the electricity, or any of the many other factors involved. And there are many other environmental factors about mining Lithium. Any attempt attempt at finding the "cost to the environment" for something is always more complicated than you think, even when taking into account that it is more complicated than you think. And of course these are estimates, and of course there are other factors - other kinds of pollution, comfort, convenience, personal preferences, etc., that affect suitability of particular types of car.
But it /does/ show the ridiculously high environmental cost of lithium batteries - and the price of the batteries should reflect that, just as the price of petrol (in most countries) is artificially high to discourage CO₂ emissions.
(Roll on sodium, aluminium or carbon based batteries - the sooner we stop using lithium, the better.)
I don't think it shows any such thing. You compared the impact of making the lithium battery (in the largest car, not the model that sells well). Even then your basis is an estimate you give no basis for. Then you ignore the impact of building the alternative, an ICE vehicle or any other battery.
So your analysis is completely bogus. Did you create this yourself or did you pull it off the web?
Did you miss the other threads about links? Or the smiley?
Brackets around URLs are not required - but they are a good habit, and they /are/ required if the URL is long enough to be mangled by line breaks (and you want people to bother to click on the link).
If you read my post, you'd have answers to most of these points. My intention - very clearly stated, I thought - was to point out that making large lithium-ion batteries has a CO₂ equivalent cost that matches a very significant driving distance in a modern efficient petrol car. My analysis is no more and no less than that - since the discussion was about the battery. Yes, I ignored the cost of making the petrol car - I also ignored the cost of making the rest of the large electric car. (It might have been worth getting figures for these too, as it would probably surprise a lot of people.)
And yes, fairly obviously I got the key figures from the web - that's how you get data in the modern world. You can do some googling of your own if you like. The 73 kg CO₂ per kWh for the lithium ion battery is, as I said, an estimate - and you'll easily find others ranging from about 50 kg to about 200 kg, depending on many factors such as the source of the lithium salts.
Popularity and sustainability are two entirely independent concepts. A lightweight electric vehicle could offer the same services in a more sustainable way. I saw somebody zooming along our footpath on what looked like a motorised unicycle yesterday. Put an transparent egg-shell around the rider, and he'd have stayed dry. Warm isn't usually a problem in Sydney.
On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:39:47 +0100) it happened David Brown snipped-for-privacy@hesbynett.no wrote in <spt00j$i6b$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Usenet rfc does not specify a maximum line length.
It does not specify a lot of things. The RFC's are starting points, giving the basic protocol information for clients and servers. They don't cover the the way people /use/ Usenet - the "human protocol", if you like. That includes things like line length, quoting, snipping, topic, language, politeness, and countless other things. There are no RFC's here, no written specification - just a collection of common usage and expectations. No one forces you or anyone else to put brackets around URL's (especially long ones). No one forces people to snip appropriately, follow standard Usenet line lengths, or write as though they were human beings and not pond scum that has learned to type. Equally no one forces people to pay attention to your posts, click on your links, or answer your questions.
Following communication standards for a given medium is basic politeness, and costs nothing. The standards for Usenet are not written or well-specified, but neither are they hard to grasp or use. Much of this group, unfortunately, seems to view politeness or respect as a sign of weakness.
On a sunny day (Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:43:05 +0100) it happened David Brown snipped-for-privacy@hesbynett.no wrote in <spuoeq$271$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
It all depends, a good usenet news reader (I mean the program) should be prepared to handle some things.. This is your posting on my screen:
formatting link
you can see plenty of horizontal character space. But I can set fontsize (+ and - button bottom left), so smaller font more on one line. But if somebody does a super long line I can press the 'H' button top right and the posting is then reformatted to fit the screen ('H' is actually html mode from the times people liked to post html to usenet). (char 127)
formatting link
see top right for row and column cursor position I actually have NewsFlex working on raspberry pi 4 now too.. But you are right, I try not to do very strange things when posting but my text editor is set to 128 chars per line, same one I use for programming. These days with all those big monitors and 'latest browser jive' that should be no problem.
One could argue older screens were a bout 24x40 (like ceefax / videotext) or 40x80 or whatever was in those days.
The tesla battery is good for over 400 000 miles, so it seems about 4 times better. (not including resources recovered from recycled batteries, or saved by their reuse)
finding, drilling, pumping, transporting and refining the oil, transporting the gasoline, manufacture of the toyota, building the refineries, pipelines, and tankers, spillages...
yeah, partial comparison like above is going to give incomplete results.
Indeed if they can reduce emissions by a factor of 4 as your figures suggest they should be subsidised.
Meanwhile lithium batteries are good motivation for deploying charging infrastructure, if there's something better that's good. but curretly they seem least bad.
Lithium batteries are have barely any recycling at the moment. (And it does not seem reasonable to count the lifetime of the battery until it is "dead", and also count reuse.)
I do think large battery electric cars can work out as environmentally positive if they are drive a lot. Average commutes in the USA are often long, and so you can potentially get good overall millege from the battery - /if/ you can keep the car and its battery working and damage free long enough. The practice we see over here is that it takes extremely little damage to an electric car battery before it is considered a safety risk and the battery is replaced.
We also see entire electric cars being scraped because even minor fixes are often too costly to repair, based on insurance company standards (using new manufacturer parts, particular repair shops, etc., rather than mashing together something from scrap parts that is cheaper and more environmentally friendly). The trend exists for non-electric cars too, but not quite as badly.
Electricity generation is not CO₂ free, in most countries. Even if you can say "I'm getting /my/ electricity from a windmill", every kWh you take from the windmill and put in your car is a kWh less on your national grid, which means a kWh more of average CO₂ generated power needed by someone else. In the EU, each kWh generated produces an average of about 300 g CO₂. (As always, there are always more factors that could be considered.) Let's guess that the USA is similar.
A litre of petrol produces 2.4 kg CO₂, and is equivalent to about 8.7 kWh. So with petrol, each kWh of energy equivalent produces 275 g CO₂.
Now, I will happily agree that the figures for electricity generation are estimates and approximate - all we can see here is some ballpark figures. But it's quite telling that the figures here are quite close - driving your car produces a similar amount of CO₂ whether it is petrol or electric.
As I see it, electric cars of today, taken alone, would be a significant step backwards for the climate. But I believe they are a necessary evil in order to push the technology, economy, politics, infrastructure and society forwards towards a point where they become a positive thing. The key point for the cars themselves is to get rid of the lithium - that will happen, but the research needed to make sodium, aluminium or carbon alternatives (or hydrogen, ethanol fuel cells, or whatever) would not happen without there first being a large fleet and market of lithium-based electric cars. And the key point overall is to generate electricity from sources that don't emit CO₂ - nuclear is really the only good, scalable global solution here.
As far as I can see, they are currently worse than petrol - but those steps are the only way to get to something better.
Is this unreasonable because it destroys your argument, or for some other reason?
There's not much recycling because they are mostly still new. once, or if, the stockpiles build to an ecconomical scale they will be reprocessed. There are already people re-using cells from old EV batteries.
I think that's probably true of all private automobiles.
Do you mean something other than "turned into scrap parts" when you say "scrapped" above? Because of unreliable supply, scrap parts are not well suited to mass production. but work well in bespoke products.
Not yet. Plan and prepare for the future, not the past.
[snipped figures]
Nuclear would be good if the numbers made sense long term to the bean counters, but currently it seems mostly to appeal to zealots.
Looking at density and bond energy I can't see sodium or aluminium outperforming lithium in traction batteries. Fuel ethanol seems to reauire constant corporate welfare. Due to production costs electrolytic hydrogen will continue to underperform as a fuel, except in density measures. Biomass hydrogen? sure by why not biomass methane instead?.
Would you argue against plugging in a PHEV on these grounds?
Yes, apples and oranges! What meaning is there to such a comparison? None!
Compare life cycle CO2 emissions if you want. That would be valid. But why compare driving emissions of one car to construction emissions of another car??? That makes no sense and is invalid.
So what would a valid comparison be? Battery vs. gas tank? Do the whole enchilada or nothing at all.
"The web" is not a source. I'm not going to google anything. Your comparison is pointless. Do something useful like comparing life cycle CO2 emissions perhaps, instead of bogus comparisons that may be emotionally satisfying, but mean nothing.
Uh, that's bogus. As more renewable energy is utilized, it results in installation of more renewable generation. You can get incorrect results if you consider the wrong scale of the problem.
So I guess all that nuclear power in France is being wasted somehow. Better get more renewable and fix your carbon problem.
In the EU. The EU needs to address their carbon problem soon! EVs allow the use of renewable power for transportation. That doesn't happen if you keep fueling with gasoline and diesel.
Your numbers are all self-admittedly "estimates" and not accurate. The analysis of CO2 released from battery manufacture is totally bogus. So not much to support your conclusion.
Again, a bogus conclusion from a flawed analysis.
That remains to be seen since you didn't provide an analysis of other battery construction.
Here you are right on the mark (except for the nuclear part)! But without EVs, there's a huge segment of CO2 emissions that is hard to otherwise mitigate. With EVs, renewables are not only usable, but EVs complement the use of non-dispatchable energy sources like wind and solar by essentially providing storage for the periods of poor availability. They are a GREAT combination.
But you failed to actually analyze the issue properly. Do you proper research and return when you have a correct analysis.
Oh, and it would be nice if you trimmed a post once in a while.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.