It isn't the cars that are bad, and the sentiment is good. The truth is that the batteries aren't efficient, are short-lived, expensive to produce, materials to build them are difficult to acquire and the acquisition is toxic to the environment and people. Then you have to deal with disposal. Maybe the sodium-ion version will help turn a corner in the tech, but I don't foresee EV's being a universal solution.
Are there problems with batteries? Absolutely. Are there problems with solar panels? Absolutely. Are there problems with petroleum pollution? Absolutely. Suggesting that the toxicity of electric cars is worse than petro is not supported by the evidence. Just because the toxicity of electric cars isn't addressed and the toxicity of petro is overblown doesn't mean that petro is the clear winner. Far from it.
I didn't say that EVs were a universal solution. On the contrary, I said the opposite, so I guess we agree on that. But to suggest that EVs are bad, just because they aren't as good as they are pushed is a false narrative, an opposite stance that has nothing to do with reality, or least nothing to do with the evidence I have seen (and I look all the time).
Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start)
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines"
Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well."
Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve."
These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
It isn't the cars that are bad, and the sentiment is good. The truth is that the batteries aren't efficient, are short-lived, expensive to produce, materials to build them are difficult to acquire and the acquisition is toxic to the environment and people. Then you have to deal with disposal. Maybe the sodium-ion version will help turn a corner in the tech, but I don't foresee EV's being a universal solution.
As I have long said, as long as it's batteries supplying the power, electric cars will remain an urban niche market.
Now, if someone comes up with a reliable self-contained power source...
Fuel cells. EM is working to convert Tesla to fuel cells by next year.
They should have been based on fuel cells from the beginning... but... oh well.
Electric cars based on fuel cells should be a viable competitor to combustion engines... we will see.
Are there problems with batteries? Absolutely. Are there problems with solar panels? Absolutely. Are there problems with petroleum pollution? Absolutely. Suggesting that the toxicity of electric cars is worse than petro is not supported by the evidence. Just because the toxicity of electric cars isn't addressed and the toxicity of petro is overblown doesn't mean that petro is the clear winner. Far from it.
I didn't say that EVs were a universal solution. On the contrary, I said the opposite, so I guess we agree on that. But to suggest that EVs are bad, just because they aren't as good as they are pushed is a false narrative, an opposite stance that has nothing to do with reality, or least nothing to do with the evidence I have seen (and I look all the time).
Petroleum is the clear winner. The EROI is simply too high on it to even consider electric batteries.
Even if you dont consider the sourcing and production of electric batteries, you have the losses from charging ba take into account. First, you are generating power via coal (more co2 production plus more actual pollution than gas or diesel to start) then you are generating about 1.3x the power thats being stored in your battery
If you are too hot or too cold, your batteries discharge less efficiently continuous versud just until it stabilzes to an operating temperature.
The use case for them "winning" on co2 and real pollution reduction is if they are in coastal California and hooked to an energy grid powered exclusively by nuclear.
EVs win on torque and power applied to the road. Ironically, if you were to put a small disel generator in instead of a battery, youd come closer to "winning" with an EV.
From what I have seen this is not a true statement. However, even if it is true, it doesn't account for the engineering process.
In engineering you iterate. IF (big "if") the EROI is higher on EVs at the moment, the only way to change that is to produce products that are as good as they can be right now, and iterate the product, and/or the infrastructure (battery recycling e.g.) until it becomes as good as or better. This is exactly how Tesla does business (or at least how they appear to do business. Who knows what is really happening behind the scenes). Even if your assessment is correct now, it may be woefully incorrect in the long term, given the nature of how Tesla is leading this... charge.
A great deal of the energy that goes into electric cars comes from the sun directly. Now, not everyone cares about that, but people that own EVs that I know do (at least the two people I know who own Tesla's, the one person I know with a Prius doesn't, so YMMV).
Regardless, owning electric has the distinct advantage over petro in that you don't have to buy your fuel, you can harvest it yourself, and many people do.
Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines and (fewer) batteries, with the potential for the best of both worlds. I have always thought it a crime that such designs were not used.
As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well. Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve. Having said that, the people who really run the world don't want those issues solved, and that is why they exist. That is not a fundamental problem with EVs, but with "the system."
The same people who keep down battery tech and push pollution are also the same people who keep Cold Fusion tech from being worked on, which would put both petro and our current type of electrical systems (and indeed, the entire power production infrastructure of the world) out of business.
If people have independent power, which cold fusion (or LENR, or whatever you want to call it) would provide for everyone in the world, then the PTB lose a huge piece of their control. It's not about money, it's about control. Money is just one path to it, it is not the only one. That is why we have problems with batteries (most of those problems were solved long ago). That is why we have a world pushing for EVs without talking about the problems, or overamplifying petro problems. Because it's all about control. It's all about creating the illusion, and keeping people stuck within it.
If the lines of communication have been truly made free (which it appears they have), all of these issues will go away very soon. What was once forbidden and taboo (cold fusion) is now almost mainstream, or at least it has been mentioned by those who would have just a couple years ago called it "crackpot nonsense."
We live in exciting times.
"From what I have seen this is not a true statement." It is true.
"In engineering you iterate." In engineering you iterate on the best solution. When a new solution appears, you compare it to whats already in use and you discard what is less effective. You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.
"Yes, a hybrid with a generator running at peak carnot efficiency is an excellent use of electric engines" Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.
"As for your efficiency issues, we could talk about all sorts of such issues with petro vehicles as well." Hand waving. State them. 'My' efficiency issues are well know loss via transmission and conversion. These are not 'engineering' issues.
"Battery degradation and recycling are imo the biggest two problem with EVs. Both of those are engineering issues, with massive pushes to solve." These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology. Next to no battery are easy to dispose of.
All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs. Even if everything you said was 100% true (heres where your 'big IF' goes, btw) why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy? Release the secrets - or better, build a business that exploits them - to make awesome EV tech for everyone.
As for cold fusion, thats a pipe dream. If you want high capacity, widely distributed power, start using LFT.
FACT: The lithium for electric car batteries comes DIRECTLY from child slavery.
EV mfgrs and fanboys and fangirls always try to glide right over this inconvenient non-starter.
EVERYTHING has such issues. Our entire system is FUBAR. Calling it out for EVs exclusively is a strawman.