Gasprices
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
Excuse me mate.
But what are the batteries for your electric cars made from.
Hasn't a study shown that if we all use electric cars then the raw materials for the batteries will be like rocking horse poo.
Plus how do we dispose of all these batteries?
Whats the life of a electric car anyway?
10 years?
20 years?
Upvote
0
I call shenanigans. I want that guy to tell me the chemistry behind it before I'll even consider believing it.
Upvote
0
Ok, how about this?
Burning sea water and using it to power an engine?
Sea water is one of the most abundant resources on earth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/10/tech/main3246430.shtml
Upvote
0
pffffft, it's spelled Nucular nubcakes.
And I propose we generate electricity by burning books. They are obsolete with the internet's now anyway...
Upvote
0
Interesting, however the radio waves will of course have to be generated by something using energy before H2 is released.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
You are excused.
Next time read the articles.
These cars do NOT use batteries, they run on water, nothing more, nothing less.
Hence why I'm flabbergasted
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not to mention the manufacturing process to make the batteries is energy intensive and creates pollution of it's own. Although of course the tree huggers and global warming scare mongers don't tell you this...
Upvote
0
Kind of like compact florescent... saves electricity now, but someday all those bulbs will break and release the mercury held inside.
Upvote
0
You are excused.
Next time read the articles.
These cars do NOT use batteries, they run on water, nothing more, nothing less.
Hence why I'm flabbergasted
Sorry, but the Japanese car most likely uses a reaction between water and metal hydride to form hydrogen gas, or something similar, and would require constant input of the hydride. It's nothing more than a novelty.
As for the manufacture of car batteries and mercury in compact flourescents, yes they cause pollution, but it's of a different nature than the CO2 problems created by the widespread use of fossil fuels. Even an oil fired power plant is far more efficient and cleaner, gallon for gallon, than your car. Burning fossil fuels (or better, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.) at a power plant and using it to power an electric car is much more efficient than burning them in your car.
Upvote
0
You are excused.
Next time read the articles.
These cars do NOT use batteries, they run on water, nothing more, nothing less.
Hence why I'm flabbergasted
I was asking about the above comment.
The Electric cars mean less pollution one.
But if its to difficult to answer just move along
As there is no way electric cars can be called eco friendly.
I agree that hydrogen is the way to go.
Upvote
0
In Morgan Hill some dude found a type of bacteria that creates hydrogen as a byproduct while it consumes organic trash.
Upvote
0
Hydrogen requires either electricity to be created, or fairly noxious chemical reactions.
Why use hydrogen, which is difficult to produce, difficult to ship, and difficult to safely store in cars, when you can just use straight-up electricity which is cheap to produce, ridiculously easy to transport, and very safe to store in cars?
Not to mention the lack of infrastructure for hydrogen cars.
Upvote
0
lol.
Anywho.
I found this to be quite interesting:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf
And this from the USDA's take on Corn Ethanol:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/79/aer-813.pdf (btw is 20mb)
(which comes to the conclusion of 1.34gal ethanol : 1gal petrol)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not a Bush fanantic, just spreadin' the good word of Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp
Upvote
0
Am i missing something here.
What about the pollution from making all the millions of batteries we would need if we all used Electric cars.
What about all the precious metals we don't have to make them anyway.
What about the massive end of life problem.
Do we just dump them or recycle them.Thats if its even doable to recycle them,and i mean correctly not the half arsed why we are going about things at the moment with other items.
How long will they last to start with?
How are we all going to get the power to charge them.
Whats the power in to usable out ratio.
I know that if i charge my AA batteries for my camera they are red hot after charging.So how much power have i put in to get 2000 amps out?
Multiply that times how much for a decent car size battery and its not looking so green now is it.
What about the lack of infrastructure for millions of electric cars.how much more electricery will we need to make available at peak times.
Which will need how many power stations world wide.(So that means nuclear then does it)
What you mean like petrol and oil.
That's difficult to produce,ship and store.
So that's not really an argument is it?
Upvote
0
The pollution created by the manufacture of the batteries would occur at the production facility. Factories are centralized, controlled environments where it is much easier to control pollution. Yes their manufacture involves some pretty noxious processes, but it’s contained and does not pollute the surrounding environment. As for the increased mineral use and mining, I’d wager it’s similar if not significantly cleaner than the current petroleum industry.
I’m not sure if lithium ion batteries involve widespread use of precious minerals any more than we use in a wide variety of products today. These components can also be recycled.
It’s a problem, but through proper engineering, and an increased economic incentive for recycling due to the economy of scale, it’s not a “massive” problem, in my opinion.
Well, we mostly recycle a good deal of modern cars today. Given that there will be recoverable materials from the batteries, and these materials will be in demand, so people will in all likelihood work to recycle them.
Not sure but I know there are still Priuses driving around from 2000 and 2001 with no battery problems. The future would be with lithium-ion batteries, however. These degrade based from the time of manufacture, instead of how often they are charged or how hard they are used. After a battery degrades, you would replace them like at other part of a car, not scrap the whole thing. The old batteries would then be recycled.
Any number of sources, but no matter what, it’s going to be FAR more efficient, unit for unit, to produce the power in an efficient power plant than in a mobile car without the insulation, controls, and scale efficiency offered by a full on plant.
Lithium-ion batteries have a 99.9% charge-to-discharge efficiency when new.
I can’t give you an exact number of how much more electricity we’d have to use worldwide, but whatever it is, it will be the most efficient and practical way of powering the cars. Electricity has no weight, making shipping costs next to zero, over existing power grids which can be easily upgraded. I say easy, because in comparison, creating an entirely new production-transportation-distribution network for hydrogen would be massively more expensive.
Your home’s wiring is strong enough to charge your car as it stands. How do I know this? People are doing it already today with plug-in hybrids. We already have a distribution network inherent to our society. And power stations and networks would expand to meet the growing demand.
So you’re saying we should replace one cumbersome inefficient fuel-shipping system with another?
Here’s the problem with hydrogen: The only feasible way to produce it in quantity is through electrolysis. That means water, and lots of electricity. You’re still burning electricity to make hydrogen, so half of the problems you listed for electric cars exist for hydrogen cars also, but for hydrogen they are exacerbated by the shipping/infrastructure problem and the energy that system would need to maintain.
EDIT: fixed a lot of weid formatting problems
Last edited:
Upvote
0