Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reality check, the way I see it: There isn't an infinity amount of minerals available to built batteries, nor an infinite amount of oil to extract from the ground. These aren't renewable resources.
The Volt, and all other electric automobiles dependent upon rare earth elements for batteries and motors, are not going to become cost effective, even with mass production.
The reason?
Scarcity of vital elements. https://web.archive.org/web/20120315..._corpse_1.html
"It's an Iron Law of Nature – things that can't happen won't happen. The world does not and cannot produce enough metals to permit the deployment of electric drive at a rate that approaches relevant scale. Chinese wind turbine producers are reeling from skyrocketing rare earth metal prices that are scuttling wind power deployment plans. Beijing is backing away from its aggressive vehicle electrification policies. If China can't make the numbers work in a command economy that produces over 95% of the world's rare earth metals, nobody can. The inescapable conclusion for investors is that resource dependent alternative energy and vehicle electrification schemes must fail.
Let's face it folks, it's time to kill the electric car, drive a stake through its heart and burn the corpse."
Unless a technological breakthrough occurs, that eliminates the necessity for those rare elements, the future of ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES is not good.
You are getting carried away. There are any number of motor designs that use little or no rare earth stuff. Some simply do not use magnets where the rare earth metals are utilized. And some of the new solid state batteries utilize no rare earth metals.
Also China produces over half the rare earths but no where near all.
And various combinations of EV vans and busses can well approximate a train with the ability to split up and go local along the main route. Solves both the mass transit and local distribution in one system. Trains cannot do that.
Reality check, the way I see it: There isn't an infinity amount of minerals available to built batteries, nor an infinite amount of oil to extract from the ground. These aren't renewable resources.
Right, both aren't renewable in any real way, so there's no advantage in ICE vehicles in that sense. However, these batteries should be good for a decade if not longer and after that there is some possibility of reusing batteries for grid storage use that doesn't require the same amount of energy density and then after that they can be recycled. Meanwhile, you're unlikely to economically reuse or recycle the oil you burn in an internal combustion engine. This is a pretty solid argument for moving to BEVs.
Right, both aren't renewable in any real way, so there's no advantage in ICE vehicles in that sense. However, these batteries should be good for a decade if not longer and after that there is some possibility of reusing batteries for grid storage use that doesn't require the same amount of energy density and then after that they can be recycled. Meanwhile, you're unlikely to economically reuse or recycle the oil you burn in an internal combustion engine. This is a pretty solid argument for moving to BEVs.
The advantage of ICE over EV is that the majority of automobile motors around the world are ICE. But since both minerals and oil aren't in finite quantities, the only advantage left for EV is the lack of tailpipe emission.
It just doesn't make any sense to replace one limited resource with another that is also limited, except that an ICE can run with the use of a variety fuels: propane, natural gas, biofuels, and possibly hydrogen). The EV motor can only run on electricity.
The advantage of ICE over EV is that the majority of automobile motors around the world are ICE. But since both minerals and oil aren't in finite quantities, the only advantage left for EV is the lack of tailpipe emission.
It just doesn't make any sense to replace one limited resource with another that is also limited, except that an ICE can run with the use of a variety fuels: propane, natural gas, biofuels, and possibly hydrogen). The EV motor can only run on electricity.
It's more than lack of tailpipe emissions which by itself is pretty good especially towards people who live in higher traffic areas. It's also greater overall fuel efficiency all things considered, a larger spectrum of energy sources that can be used, quieter and smoother operation, a greater variety of layouts possible due to how modular the components can be, generally lower maintenance and operation costs, and the ability for a large chunk of people to charge at home or at work when the vehicle is parked.
This is an odd track you've decided to go on--because one thing is also constrained then you shouldn't go for the other? I think we both understand that the oil in your car is hard to economically recover as fuel after you burn it. This is not the case with the materials found in a battery and you're hopefully not burning a few thousand pounds of battery materials in your EV every year, as you would gas in an ICE vehicle, because then you really are doing it very, very wrong.
And no, your ICE vehicle generally cannot run on a large variety of fuels. Try putting in propane and natural gas into your ICE vehicle and see how well that works. Try even putting diesel in your gas car and see how that works out*--tell me how many times you've put in diesel, natural gas or propane in the gas tank of your gas vehicle and how that went. Modern engines are pretty marvelous, but they are tuned towards specific fuels in order to run efficiently or at al. Natural gas does have some pathways to conversion upstream, but thus far it's been pretty inefficient and expensive processes when there is are pretty direct and well-known processes for using natural gas to yield electricity. Regardless, all of these sources and more can be and have been used to generate electricity.
Oil and internal combustion engines have their uses. BEVs seem to be on track to be better suited for the majority of consumer vehicle uses which leaves those limited oil reserves for other uses.
*that was rhetoric--do NOT actually put diesel in your gas vehicle! Do NOT try putting propane or natural gas in your gas vehicle.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-21-2021 at 06:29 PM..
It's more than lack of tailpipe emissions which by itself is pretty good especially towards people who live in higher traffic areas. It's greater overall fuel efficiency all things considered, a larger spectrum of energy sources that can be used, quieter and smoother operation, a greater variety of layouts possible due to how modular the components can be, generally lower maintenance and operation costs, and the ability for a large chunk of people to charge at home or at work when the vehicle is parked.
This is an odd track you've decided to go on--because one thing is also constrained then you shouldn't go for the other? I think we both understand that the oil in your car is hard to economically recover as fuel after you burn it. This is not the case with the materials found in a battery and you're hopefully not burning a few thousand pounds of battery materials in your EV every year, as you would gas in an ICE vehicle, because then you really are doing it very, very wrong.
And no, your ICE vehicle generally cannot run on a large variety of fuels. Try putting in propane and natural gas into your ICE vehicle and see how well that works. Try even putting diesel in your gas car and see how that works out*--tell me how many times you've put in diesel, natural gas or propane in the gas tank of your gas vehicle and how that went. Modern engines are pretty marvelous, but they are tuned towards specific fuels in order to run efficiently or at al. Natural gas does have some pathways to conversion upstream, but thus far it's been pretty inefficient and expensive processes when there is are pretty direct and well-known processes for using natural gas to yield electricity. Regardless, all of these sources and more can be and have been used to generate electricity.
Oil and internal combustion engines have their uses. BEVs seem to be on track to be better suited for the majority of consumer vehicle uses which leaves those limited oil reserves for other uses.
*that was rhetoric--do NOT actually put diesel in your gas vehicle! Do NOT try putting propane or natural gas in your gas vehicle.
Of course you shouldn't put the wrong fuel in the tank of an ICE vehicle
But internal combustion engines can be modified to run on the fuels I referred to above. Look at the fuel mixes used in F1 and Indi cars, and also at the vehicles running on biofuels all over the US. And yes, several of those fuels are and can be used to generate electricity using a generator that is operated by an ICE. Even the USDA automobile fleets run on biodiesel.
But the main point I was trying to make in relation to EV and ICE is as follows: we are switching from one non-renewable and limited resource (petroleum) to another non-renwable and limited resource (minerals). From an environmental point of view, tailpipe emissions is the only advantage EV has over ICE, and that is only after the battery has been installed on the vehicle and this vehicle is being driven.
Of course you shouldn't put the wrong fuel in the tank of an ICE vehicle
But internal combustion engines can be modified to run on the fuels I referred to above. Look at the fuel mixes used in F1 and Indi cars, and also at the vehicles running on biofuels all over the US. And yes, several of those fuels are and can be used to generate electricity using a generator that is operated by an ICE. Even the USDA automobile fleets run on biodiesel.
But the main point I was trying to make in relation to EV and ICE is as follows: we are switching from one non-renewable and limited resource (petroleum) to another non-renwable and limited resource (minerals). From an environmental point of view, tailpipe emissions is the only advantage EV has over ICE, and that is only after the battery has been installed on the vehicle and this vehicle is being driven.
Will they build out a parallel fuels infrastructure and engine swaps for these? That doesn't make much sense in terms of resources or convenience and the fact of the matter is the combustion engines produced for mass market use do not have that level of flexibility.
From an environmental point of view, tailpipe emissions are one advantage and that is something, but the larger one is overall emissions from well to wheel including both production of the vehicles and operations. However, it's not just environmental advantages here which I understand a good number of people don't care that much about, but also larger economic advantages in terms of resource use in general. Even then, that doesn't matter that much. It's going to come down to what people get the most utility out of for the cost, and a $100/kWh or cheaper battery has pretty good odds of both enabling it and happening within the next few years.
And how nebulous does the argument get when you have to add "only after the battery has been installed on the vehicle and this vehicle is being driven"? Who is proposing making EVs and then not allowing anyone to use them? It seems like a pretty ridiculous setup.
The advantage of ICE over EV is that the majority of automobile motors around the world are ICE. But since both minerals and oil aren't in finite quantities, the only advantage left for EV is the lack of tailpipe emission.
It just doesn't make any sense to replace one limited resource with another that is also limited, except that an ICE can run with the use of a variety fuels: propane, natural gas, biofuels, and possibly hydrogen). The EV motor can only run on electricity.
You should take an economics class. Two thing being finite do not make them equal.
You should take an economics class. Two thing being finite do not make them equal.
I agree. In this case we have lots of petroleum, including large national reserves. But the minerals needed to build batteries are mined mostly overseas. Do you think it makes any economic sense to switch from one non-renewable resource to another non-renewable resource that is not any more plentiful than the first?
Lest wait and see which one of the most powerful nations in the world switches its military from ICE to EV. I mean...EV is cheaper. Right?
Will they build out a parallel fuels infrastructure and engine swaps for these? That doesn't make much sense in terms of resources or convenience and the fact of the matter is the combustion engines produced for mass market use do not have that level of flexibility.
Why would you need an engine swap?
Quote:
From an environmental point of view, tailpipe emissions are one advantage and that is something, but the larger one is overall emissions from well to wheel including both production of the vehicles and operations. However, it's not just environmental advantages here which I understand a good number of people don't care that much about, but also larger economic advantages in terms of resource use in general. Even then, that doesn't matter that much. It's going to come down to what people get the most utility out of for the cost, and a $100/kWh or cheaper battery has pretty good odds of both enabling it and happening within the next few years.
Which economic advantages one has over the other? The carbon footprint for building both EV and ICE vehicles is similar, except that for the building of a battery for an electric vehicle, an additional carbon footprint is added. The metals needed to build a battery have to be mined.
Also as the minerals needed to build batteries, and even automobiles, become more scarce, would both batteries and vehicles be cheaper? Lest say that we run out of oil in the next five years, would the price of oil drop?
Quote:
And how nebulous does the argument get when you have to add "only after the battery has been installed on the vehicle and this vehicle is being driven"? Who is proposing making EVs and then not allowing anyone to use them? It seems like a pretty ridiculous setup.
That is not nebulous at all. It takes about the same to build both an ICE and EV vehicle. But the EV's battery requires more minerals and plastics to be built than the fuel tank in an ICE vehicle. It is only after the ICE vehicle is driven that tailpipe emissions are emitted, and this is the point where an EV has an environmental advantage over an ICE vehicle, since it does not emit fumes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
