Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
No! As everyone is saying, the solution to "the problem" of the car isn't another car.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Everyone accepted that yonks ago and moved on, what point are you trying to raise?
GT9 said:
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
For how long though?Once we have enough battery material in-country, we could in theory recycle it for the foreseeable future and top up the tiny % lost each time, either by import of from our own natural resources.
The same goes for the renewable energy to charge them.
I appreciate that this requires a long term view that neither our modern society nor our political system is renowned for.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 30th April 10:22
P.Griffin said:
GT9 said:
I appreciate that this requires a long term view that neither our modern society nor our political system is renowned for.
Yeah, you may be right. I just don't trust governments and legislators to make the right decisions for the long term. P.Griffin said:
TheDeuce said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Why would you think that something not being perfect, means it's not the best solution? And as such, 'the answer'?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
Surely the problem you're pointing at is one of battery tech anyway, not EV.
Battery tech is essentially what we are talking about when discussing EVs.
EV's are dependent on China to an extent, but we can't asses the pros and cons of a new type of car based on the global political situation in China, that's akin to saying that we can't have any form or modern technology, including petrol cars, 'because China'.
Taking your concerns about China out of the equation, the simple fact is that a battery electric car is head and shoulders above any other technology on the table in terms of lifetime efficiency and cleanliness. Going down the EV route, selling millions of them, is the thing most likely to also deliver us new battery tech that is far less reliant on lithium, or at least lasts so long that whatever rare materials are used become less relevant than today.
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
But China doesn't in this scenario. Nor to they have total control over the future materials that will replace cobalt and lithium. We do however live wholly beholden to another nation controlling oil and even our gas market. The price of which not only governs our economic growth but BoE rate policy as we must maintain parity to the USD and our foreign policy where we must cowtow to producer nations.
And consider this, if the U.K. were 100% lithium ion EV today we would not be beholden to any nation at all for lithium as we would have become self sufficient because each vehicle scrapped would be supplying the lithium required for each produced.
So today we are in the nightmare scenario that you posit due to oil but 100% EV would release us from such a prison.
What you can see, quite clearly, is that EVs represent freedom for us in the U.K. They empower a freedom from the USD, freedom from US foreign policy, freedom from bad across such as Russia and freedom from the likes of China who currently hold significant control over key raw materials. All while being an integral part of our drive for freedom of energy self sufficiency.
They represent such a massive gain to the U.K. and competitive advantage that allowing people to just switch when they want to over the next thirty years is actually phenomenally cavalier to the point of being stupid and dangerous. But to do otherwise would not represent our core British values of freedom of choice and supporting the weak.
stavers said:
TheDeuce said:
stavers said:
TheDeuce said:
DonkeyApple said:
Bulbs aside, the poster merely said they worked in the field and didn't see much for private cars, which seems logical.
The attempt to undermine EV for personal transport by trying to undermine the obvious benefits and advance of energy saving lighting was laughable.Having worked for 3 OEMs on hybrid and electric vehicle development, as well as other in standard & H2 ICE development, I have my own opinions on it all.
The main point I was trying to make is that things like bulbs (which have made F all difference to global CO2 levels) should not be forced upon people. If it truly is a better technology then it will become the leader on its own merit.
A gradual transition to a "better" technology results in less people on soapboxes rather than being forced which people will always push back on.
Some changes require political influence, we do live in a world of political control - like it or not.
bigothunter said:
TheDeuce said:
bigothunter said:
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
To say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
Your entire stance revolves around us accepting that there has not been a significant battery breakthrough since 1880, but there has. Cars with a real world range of 300 miles are driving around right now, that sort of range covers almost all personal transport needs - it's not perfect but it's good enough to make sense Vs the alternative. How is getting to that stage with batteries not a breakthrough compared to what the earliest electric cars had as battery technology?
Li-ion was a huge breakthrough.
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-...
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1182/e...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22/brazil-lula-a...
TheDeuce said:
bigothunter said:
TheDeuce said:
bigothunter said:
tamore said:
bigothunter said:
Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable. But that breakthrough has been a long time coming, since around 1888.
but the real push for it has been since around 2019.lithium ion battery costs….. 2013 - $780 kWh to 2023 $139 kWh
CATL reckon they will have LFP batteries ay $56 kWh this year.
if you're not impressed or at least interested in such stats, then you never will be.
meanwhile 700+ Wh/kg cells are being piloted. to give context, a model 3 will be using cells at 250ish. again,. same statement as above.
To say such a thing suggests a lack of knowledge and an interest only in terms of being provocative.
Your entire stance revolves around us accepting that there has not been a significant battery breakthrough since 1880, but there has. Cars with a real world range of 300 miles are driving around right now, that sort of range covers almost all personal transport needs - it's not perfect but it's good enough to make sense Vs the alternative. How is getting to that stage with batteries not a breakthrough compared to what the earliest electric cars had as battery technology?
Li-ion was a huge breakthrough.
"Get over the shortcomings of batteries and EV domination would be unstoppable."
Where does that statement suggest no significant battery technology progress since 1880? Or are you just being pedantic?
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
This may be true, but private buyers are not buying EVs, and they won't until charging and range are addressed. If the government want mass uptake, they need to encourage the solution of these 2 key shortcomings. Instead, we seem to see a steady stream of massive horse power cars that can do 0-60 in 2 seconds, and they call that progress...really useful that.
It's top down. That's the key. In order for the market to develop the products needed by the less affluent over the next thirty years all the incentives are focussed on getting those who can afford to switch now to do so. Ergo, the bulk of EVs in the West are aimed at those affluent people. The less well off and those for whole an EV or the current infrastructure genuinely can't work for their usage case aren't being asked to switch.
It's genuinely a very logical path but for some reason many lower income earners are confused that they are somehow being told to switch now.
The key is to step back from all the marketing and hype and simply look at the reality. EVs comprise a very small proportion of the U.K. fleet still and even under ZEV the majority of new cars will remain ICE for years to come. Even in 2035 only about a third of the entire U.K. fleet will have switched.
You're supposed to consider switching when the EV product that fits your finances and usage comes into existence, not before.
The fact that there are £200k EVs for sale today is no more relevant than it was in the 1985 when a mobile phone cost £2k or when CD players cost £1k.
National legislation has zero impact or relevance on anyone who isn't yet in a position to switch. It is merely targeting those who can and incentivising them to pay money to create the market, environment and infrastructure that will allow more and more to switch as they wish to.
We can even see who the legislation is aimed at today, higher income earners who can utilise BIK and who have a driveway for home charging and whose car usage fits the capabilities of an EV.
If a person's personal criteria doesn't fit the above then they have to wait. They can't have an EV today and nor are they supposed to be so daft as to try.
There will be early adopters who don't fit those core criteria but must inconvenience themselves in order to keep up with the Jones' but who cares about such childish behaviour and they're only inconveniencing themselves while still benefitting everyone else through their need for infrastructure growth and their supply of used cars into the fleet for those of us who don't want new.
People just need to chill and go and enjoy their ICE while other people spend all the money, do all the work and incur any inconveniences to create the market that allows you to switch at some point over the next 25 years.
J4CKO said:
DA, not blowing smoke up your behind, but your last couple of posts nail it for me, its like a lot have their fight//flight reaction kick in when EVs are mentioned.
I think a lot of people have been deliberately wound up by the media while some even see having use of a particular object as something that bafflingly marks them out as a superior person. And of course the marketing teams of car manufacturers spend very heavily to over promote EVs in the hope that people don't see through the facade to a bunch of s who don't give a flying fk. Politicians see reward in aligning with one product or another and the West gets to rant about China, a nation it created by farming out all its base manufacturing to take advantage of cheap labour and lax regulations. Meanwhile, in the U.K. we have 35m+ private cars, only about 2m of which are EVs and no national policy telling anyone to buy one, merely offering incentives to those with the means to do so to consider it. Driveways are slowly adding plug sockets for them. Car parks are slowly adding plug sockets for them, businesses are adding plug sockets where it is advantageous for them to do so and more cheap EVs are being offered and the usability of them steadily increases. Each one of us will eventually reach the moment in time when switching is the smarter financial choice but sadly, many will die of old age before that opportunity arrives
For me, the real issue is local policy which has a tendency to not be too down or rational but instead can err towards extremism and malicious targeting of the more vulnerable. Local governments are at risk of being third world in their nature and we can already see within some of these locations there have been policies or attempts to target the least well off motorist while wholly absolving those who have the means to change. But I feel that many people are not making the distinction between logical national policy and prejudice local extremism and zealotry.
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
But China doesn't in this scenario. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlantic...
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 12:36
P.Griffin said:
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
But China doesn't in this scenario. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlantic...
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 12:36
So what we are actually talking about is the transition period to that point. Well, we are currently 100% reliant on the US and OPEC for the oil and our economic security so firstly, transitioning away from the current imprisonment is a huge gain. Secondly, during this period we can simply change our demand requirements between the two energy stores as geopolitics necessitates, which means the transition period offers greater national security than the current status quo.
So then we have to consider who supplies the U.K. with its cars? Well again here we win massively. Having disposed of our native car manufacturing industry we have no meaningful exposure risk and being affluent we are a primary export market for all global manufacturers of cars, whether they are imported to the U.K. while or as parts for subsidised assembly. So, unlike our economic peers we simply don't give a flying fk where the cars come from any more than we do our fridges or TVs. It's their responsibility to come to us with terms that we are willing to accept.
China doesn't give two hoots about the U.K. in this regard. Their competitors are the US and India. Mainland Europe is not going to be a key competitor for long as we can see by the European manufacturers having to move more factories to China in order to compete.
None of these things are risks to the U.K. because of the rather unique position we actually find ourselves in having de-industrialised 30 years ago and having a geology and global geography that permits an actual freedom from the oppressive yoke of the USD and global oil market which we have been trapped under for effectively nearly 70 years.
Where people should be focussing their attention and where a true risk lies is actually with all cars, regardless of drivetrain as they become more and more IoT objects but with far less security than wife enabled kettles and even our phones. Modern cars are transitioning rapidly into massive data harvesting objects that send this data to the four corners and which is far less regulated and protected than other devices. For example, if you are the user of a new car today how do you stop it from collecting data from other devices, from inside the cabin and from outside? And how do we stop it sending what it collects? Where are the buttons in the car that cede data control to the user? That is the interesting question we should be asking ourselves as our cars connect more and more to our homes, our phones and to third party companies? And as they're fitted with more and more external data collection equipment what questions are we asking as a society as to whether the recipients of this data are suitable actors, let alone whether these companies have ever once in any of their histories ever displayed the slightest inkling that they may be honest let alone have their users' best interests at heart?
The simple fact is that whether ICE or EV, whether VW, Tesla or MG, these devices are capable of harvesting huge amounts of data on a society or nation and handing it direct to individuals and entities are are proven, cast iron s incapable of honesty without enforcement.
If someone wishes to concern themselves over national security then I'd suggest they ponder how they can currently switch off data harvesting on a new car or at least start questioning why, as a nation, we would benefit from all this data being in the hands of nefarious third parties?
P.Griffin said:
DonkeyApple said:
P.Griffin said:
So in a 100% EV world, you don't see an issue with one country controlling the raw materials needed for their production?
But China doesn't in this scenario. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlantic...
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 12:36
Ref Germany, a reminder that it's still there and it's doing fine, it's still building huge numbers of cars, the Russian gas episode will be just a minor blip in their history.
I think you make valid points re China, worth remembering though that Lithium lasts for ever or certainly a very long time, so once we've got it we can keep it, whereas of course petrol/diesel can only be used once, and while we still have North sea oil still, it is diminishing.
Also, EVs don't require lubricating oil, the world probably disposes and burns vast quantities of engine oil each year.
P.Griffin said:
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-...
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1182/e...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22/brazil-lula-a...
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-...
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1182/e...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22/brazil-lula-a...
"The raw nickel dug out of the ground here ends up in the lithium batteries of plug-in vehicles manufactured by Tesla, Toyota and other automakers. The move to expand the mine comes as the destruction of the world’s rainforests and with the demand for nickel expected to grow to at least 10 times what it is now by 2030, experts say companies will have no choice but to expand their mining operations
And for what it's worth, yes, I am concerned about over exploitation of the earth's resources, a situation exacerbated, specifically and massively by battery production.
I'm in no way defending the use of fossil fuels, and know that has to be reduced, but EVs don't come guilt free as some on here like to think.
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 13:48
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-...
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1182/e...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22/brazil-lula-a...
The EV represents the very latest in consumer technology, in what way is it supposed to change the long standing order of things? It could and should improve local air quality, they could be much cheaper to run for many people, meaning they have the potential to increase the wealth of those already wealthy.
heebeegeetee said:
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
otolith said:
P.Griffin said:
Little morning reading for the EVangelists. I wonder how much more pristine rainforest needs to be cleared to get at the lithium? Are BEVs really the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
None. Look on a map. It's the Atacama desert. And they don't dig it up, they pump it out of underground brines into lagoons, and let the water evaporate off.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68896707
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/rise-of-electric-...
https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1182/e...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/22/brazil-lula-a...
The EV represents the very latest in consumer technology, in what way is it supposed to change the long standing order of things? It could and should improve local air quality, they could be much cheaper to run for many people, meaning they have the potential to increase the wealth of those already wealthy.
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 14:58
P.Griffin said:
Did you even bother to open a link and read what was written...in case you didn't, here's a couple of snippets ..."EVs are not as green as they are portrayed: their production consumes vast amounts of cobalt, nickel, manganese and rare earths that are mined in the rainforests of Africa, Southeast Asia and South America."
"The raw nickel dug out of the ground here ends up in the lithium batteries of plug-in vehicles manufactured by Tesla, Toyota and other automakers. The move to expand the mine comes as the destruction of the world’s rainforests and with the demand for nickel expected to grow to at least 10 times what it is now by 2030, experts say companies will have no choice but to expand their mining operations
And for what it's worth, yes, I am concerned about over exploitation of the earth's resources, a situation exacerbated, specifically and massively by battery production.
I'm in no way defending the use of fossil fuels, and know that has to be reduced, but EVs don't come guilt free as some on here like to think.
Yes, I looked at them. The "Electric vehicles are stealth rainforest killers!" article contained the claim about "vast amounts of cobalt, nickel, manganese and rare earths that are mined in the rainforests of Africa, Southeast Asia and South America" - in the case of lithium, that's bks. You can easily google where the mines are and look them up on Google Maps - they're not in rainforests, for good geological reasons. It is possible, by the way, to extract lithium in harmful ways, and it's possible not to, one of the Chinese plants has been accused of polluting the local river. The other minerals are sometimes mined in sensitive areas, and that's a problem, but it's not just an EV problem. It points to iron for steelmaking. It could equally well point to bauxite mining for aluminium. The point the petition is making is that what we need to do is get rid of cars, not just get rid of ICE cars. Is that something you want to get behind?"The raw nickel dug out of the ground here ends up in the lithium batteries of plug-in vehicles manufactured by Tesla, Toyota and other automakers. The move to expand the mine comes as the destruction of the world’s rainforests and with the demand for nickel expected to grow to at least 10 times what it is now by 2030, experts say companies will have no choice but to expand their mining operations
And for what it's worth, yes, I am concerned about over exploitation of the earth's resources, a situation exacerbated, specifically and massively by battery production.
I'm in no way defending the use of fossil fuels, and know that has to be reduced, but EVs don't come guilt free as some on here like to think.
Edited by P.Griffin on Tuesday 30th April 13:48
The NBC one points to nickel, and its use in batteries. That mine may be selling its nickel to Panasonic, which is a matter for Panasonic's ESG credentials, but nickel is globally traded and mostly used for alloys and plating.
The foreign policy one is a general one about the impact of mineral extraction in Brazil. There does have to be a debate around how minerals essential to technologies needed for moving away from burning fossil fuels can be obtained responsibly, but the "just keep burning stuff" option isn't viable. The deep green alternative of sitting in the cold and dark eating locally grown turnips and foraged hedgerow weeds and never travelling further than you can walk doesn't work in democracies, so we need to find technological solutions which don't significantly erode the quality of life. Electric cars are low hanging fruit in this respect, we just need to hold the producers to account on their materials sourcing.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff