Current Tesla 3 batteries are 50-75 kwh....not 40 as that article states and moving into heavier vehicles with greater range just increases per vehicle requirement.
There are already 2 million EVs
2 Million Electric Cars on the World's Roads | Fortune
fortune.com › Autos › Electric Cars
7 Jun 2017 - The number of electric vehicles on roads worldwide rose to a record high of 2 million last year, but has a long way to go to reach levels needed to help limit an increase in global temperatures, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday. In 2015, the number of electric cars, including ...
Lithium is currently produced through a grueling 24-month solar evaporation process that entails slowly extracting all other elements from the brine until only lithium remains.
I work in a business sector that has a healthy dependency on the auto sector -- we have armies of economists, financiers, lobbyists and business planners that look at issues like the one you started this thread over. I have yet to find a single recognized scholarly, business, or market research paper that offers a shred of support your initial claim.
Your statement is... well... nonsense. Completely removing ICEs from the planet could marginally impact our carbon footprint, replacing them with EV or Hydrogen technology as it exists and is forecast to exist will not. With modern renewable fuel technologies, it's unlikely that the price of a oil will ever again conjure up thoughts of extinction.
Musk seems like a bright, forward thinking guy. In discussions of lithium supply, his answer was to chuckle and say that the cost of lithium to the battery pack, even at greatly increased prices, is like the salt on the salad. No story here.
that do a ***** job of forecasting the future ......or have the best interests of civilization as a whole in mind with regardless to sustainability.
They are the same ones that perpetuate a predatory approach the environment,( think Exxon et al ). Don't expect an undocumented argument from authority to shift any viewpoints.
EV, autonomous vehicles and hydrogen are disruptive technologies coming your way regardless.
••••
JF
BTW ....Musk is correct on the cost of lithium versus over all vehicle cost....that's not the point - the point is availability not price.
With 24 months between start of new production and harvestable product ......that's a real issue.
OP .... as I said in the very beginning, this will just become 100 pages of BS thread with no reasonable consensus on anything. Simply not a topic debatable in today's world. We all google the **** out of everything. Some of us read a lot, and some us form an opinion. Most of us choose a side and go from there ....
I work in a business sector that has a healthy dependency on the auto sector -- we have armies of economists, financiers, lobbyists and business planners
Anyone remember how many economists predicted 2008? Yeah, not many.
Financiers? Their outlook is often the next 12-36 months, not the next 10 or 20 years.
Lobbyists? Had to laugh at that one. Their opinions change depending on what name is on their paycheques that week. One week they could be big on fossil fuels if they're on the payroll of big oil, and the next week they could flip flop to the complete opposite side when they suddenly find themselves on the payroll of, say, Tesla.
Business planners? The automotive sector tends to be very adverse to change. If the automotive companies tell their business planners that "everything is fine, ICE it is for the next 100 years!", the business planners are going to act accordingly.
actually many do have a handle on what is happening and acting accordingly
Fossil fuel divestment funds double to $5tn in a year | Environment ... https://www.theguardian.com/.../12/fossil-fuel-divestment-funds-double-5tn-in-a-year
Dec 12, 2016 - Institutions worth $2.6 trillion have now pulled investments out of fossil fuels. Coalition of 2,000 individuals and 400 institutions are shifting assets from coal, oil and gas companies to tackle climate change. Read more. “I commend today's announcement that a growing number of investors are backing a shift .
Why New York City Is Getting Its Money Out of Fossil Fuels - CityLab https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/01/fossil-fuel-divestment.../550217/
Jan 11, 2018 - On Tuesday, New York City announced it would divest pension funds from fossil fuel interests, joining New York State, a cadre of other U.S. cities, and some private universities who say they will pull investments from companies that extract coal, gas, and oil. De Blasio also announced the city's plans to sue ...
even the family that started it all in Pennsylvania is leaving the arena for renewable investments.
Rockefeller Family Announces Divestment of Charity From Fossil Fuels
time.com/.../rockefellers-family-divestment-fossil-fuels-rockefeller-brothers-fund/
Sep 22, 2014 - The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has already replaced its investments in coal and tar sands, while investing in alternative energy sources.
There is lots of useful information in the thread and who gives a **** about consensus. The OP asked about views and got views. I learned things and so did others...
what exactly did you contribute??
I work in a business sector that has a healthy dependency on the auto sector -- we have armies of economists, financiers, lobbyists and business planners that look at issues like the one you started this thread over. I have yet to find a single recognized scholarly, business, or market research paper that offers a shred of support your initial claim.
Your statement is... well... nonsense. Completely removing ICEs from the planet could marginally impact our carbon footprint, replacing them with EV or Hydrogen technology as it exists and is forecast to exist will not. With modern renewable fuel technologies, it's unlikely that the price of a oil will ever again conjure up thoughts of extinction.
OP .... as I said in the very beginning, this will just become 100 pages of BS thread with no reasonable consensus on anything. Simply not a topic debatable in today's world. We all google the **** out of everything. Some of us read a lot, and some us form an opinion. Most of us choose a side and go from there ....
I highly disagree with the "we all google" part. I already knew there'd be a conflict of interest between "what's good for planet earth" versus "what gives Mr. CEO more money", but I under estimated how many people are completely ignorant with regards to the visible effects of us dumping more green house gasses in the last 10 years than we have in the last 1000+ years. I mean just look at Mad Mike's post; the entire reason why the Chinese want to wipe out ICE, the implementation of carbon taxes, and global leaders meeting up to come up with policies has nothing to do with oil prices.....but the guy I quoted thinks it does.
I am, however, really curious about the absolute worst side effects of our little "**** the planet, lets speed up global warming!" experiment because some of the papers I've read agree with the hollywood movies like "The Day After Tomorrow." **** shows are always fun to watch....from a distance. But we'll (as in Southern Ontario) be submerged in water in the event that we actually break Earth's homeostatic properties.
I can get a quick charge using the "opportunity chargers" on my forklift in 15 mins. That will give me at least 2hours. Plug in every break and lunch and even a last leg battery can get my machine through the better part of a day.
I'm just waiting for a flux capacitor for my DeLorean
Yes petrol is dying and within 25 years everything will be electric including motorcycles. Gone will be shifting but the bigger issue id, will motorcycles actually survive?
Everything will be like an Uber but no human driving it, and in the city we no longer need to own cars. Everything will be on-demand and just-in-time by self driving cars. Unless motorcycles can be self driving (I doubt it) the automated computer traffic network will not be able to factor in a rogue vehicle like motorcycle which is not linked in such as a computerized self driving car and which will also be linked into a traffic master brain.
Yes petrol is dying and within 25 years everything will be electric including motorcycles. Gone will be shifting but the bigger issue id, will motorcycles actually survive?
Everything will be like an Uber but no human driving it, and in the city we no longer need to own cars. Everything will be on-demand and just-in-time by self driving cars. Unless motorcycles can be self driving (I doubt it) the automated computer traffic network will not be able to factor in a rogue vehicle like motorcycle which is not linked in such as a computerized self driving car and which will also be linked into a traffic master brain.
Yes petrol is dying and within 25 years everything will be electric including motorcycles. Gone will be shifting but the bigger issue id, will motorcycles actually survive?
Everything will be like an Uber but no human driving it, and in the city we no longer need to own cars. Everything will be on-demand and just-in-time by self driving cars. Unless motorcycles can be self driving (I doubt it) the automated computer traffic network will not be able to factor in a rogue vehicle like motorcycle which is not linked in such as a computerized self driving car and which will also be linked into a traffic master brain.
There will always be motorcycles. I'm sure people had this same argument about horses 100 years ago. Back then we had 3 million horses... we managed to keep about 1 million today.
....
I am, however, really curious about the absolute worst side effects of our little "**** the planet, lets speed up global warming!" experiment because some of the papers I've read agree with the hollywood movies like "The Day After Tomorrow." **** shows are always fun to watch....from a distance. But we'll (as in Southern Ontario) be submerged in water in the event that we actually break Earth's homeostatic properties.
If you're really concerned and want to make a difference, the first step is educating yourself. Do some basic research on what warms the earth, then do the math on cars and motorcycles. Personal transportation makes up about 7% of the world's greenhouse gasses and falling - shifting any percentage that to EV and Hydrogen does absolutely nothing to reduce that today because producing electricity and carbon on a global basis has a simpler carbon footprint to petro fuels.
When you're done understanding cars, look at livestock. They make about 2.5x more greenhouse gas, almost 19% of the global load and growing -- it will be 30% in another 20 years. To make matters worse, livestock make about 1/3 methane, which warms the earth 20x faster than automobile emissions.
What's my point? If you're going to be a crusader, find a crusade that matters. There is no path to reducing global warming by reducing ICE useage. Changign the mix in favor of existing EV or H2 technology does not achieve that end. A shift to other renewable resources (hydro, solar) might improve it a little, but not as much as killing off a single cow.
If you're really concerned and want to make a difference, the first step is educating yourself. Do some basic research on what warms the earth, then do the math on cars and motorcycles. Personal transportation makes up about 7% of the world's greenhouse gasses and falling - shifting any percentage that to EV and Hydrogen does absolutely nothing to reduce that today because producing electricity and carbon on a global basis has a simpler carbon footprint to petro fuels.
When you're done understanding cars, look at livestock. They make about 2.5x more greenhouse gas, almost 19% of the global load and growing -- it will be 30% in another 20 years. To make matters worse, livestock make about 1/3 methane, which warms the earth 20x faster than automobile emissions.
What's my point? If you're going to be a crusader, find a crusade that matters. There is no path to reducing global warming by reducing ICE useage. Changign the mix in favor of existing EV or H2 technology does not achieve that end. A shift to other renewable resources (hydro, solar) might improve it a little, but not as much as killing off a single cow.
While i agree with the livestock problem...once you can get people conscious about it with their cars, they might be able to go up the chain easier and make it more of a priority. The more money is put into R&D for it, the better the tech will get for renewables making it eventually more accessible for bigger scale projects.
It's hopefully going to be a snowball effect, tackling the smaller issue and using that experience and knowledge to help tackle the bigger ones. Sadly tackling the bigger issue at hand seems to be a lot more difficult to handle as people tend to be a lot closer to their food than to their vehicles, it's a whole culture change at a deeper level.
You have none. Because you haven't realized this is a collective effort and ICE are not the only things being talked about. They are, however, the only relevant thing on this forum.
While i agree with the livestock problem...once you can get people conscious about it with their cars, they might be able to go up the chain easier and make it more of a priority. The more money is put into R&D for it, the better the tech will get for renewables making it eventually more accessible for bigger scale projects.
It's hopefully going to be a snowball effect, tackling the smaller issue and using that experience and knowledge to help tackle the bigger ones. Sadly tackling the bigger issue at hand seems to be a lot more difficult to handle as people tend to be a lot closer to their food than to their vehicles, it's a whole culture change at a deeper level.
You have none. Because you haven't realized this is a collective effort and ICE are not the only things being talked about. They are, however, the only relevant thing on this forum.
Isn't there a cricket movement? lol I didn't want to bring it up as I'm sure some poor guy is going to throw their lunch up reading about it.
How do you figure?? ... Maybe you misunderstood or I didn't put it as clearly as I could.
Most people (obviously not you assuming it's true when you said you work for energy company and you perhaps studied something along those lines as well, so you "get" it ...) get their facts from Google (Internet) or TV, some read books, some have friends who make living in the field and some of us have friends who happen to do science work in this field. But the Google and TV it is where majority of folks get their "facts". So my point was, that it doesn't take a lot of effort to get the wrong facts (facts you find ignorant and hard to believe) and therefore to discuss something as serious as this subject, here in this environment, had zero chance to lead to anything positive. That's all what I meant by it.
At any rate, at some point we have to make choice who and what we believe. Yes, some of us make the wrong choices in regards to what theory or fact we believe in .... but such is life. It used to be that you had to go to school to study something for long time before you could claim knowledge of anything. Then, you had to know that someone to pass that information on to you .... it was much harder to spread the wrong news so to speak (unless it was a state propaganda of course). Impossible today. If some "news" site says today that ICE will not be dead in 100 years from now (because Mazda says so ... LOL), you bet there are people believing it ....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
