Maybe in your eyes and in your set of circumstances, but not in mine.
Environmental effects of EV`s
- Thread starter hifinutt
- Start date
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Then you're careless with the acquisition of data, and not rigorous in deriving conclusions from it.
I'm talking absolutes here, not opinions.
And the 'theyre all as bad as each other' trope is lazy, and malignant, and does a disservice to those with principles, with snouts not in the trough, and a voting record that bears scrutiny.
Very few of these - I can't think of any - are tory MPs at the present time.
Perhaps it would be more perceptive of you to say all tory MPs are as bad as each other, but even this would be lazy and inaccurate.
Some are worse.
Did you not see my post where I said my MP was brilliant? There is a good reason why the government has not changed in the last 13 years. As I said previously, we have not had a credible alternative that the people would vote for. That's all I've got to say on the matter.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Would somebody kindly give me a nudge if this thread ever gets back on topic?
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Rupert Murdoch?
Bananahead
pfm Member
If you charge an EV battery, by how much will it have discharged after two weeks if the vehicle isn't used?
Pretty much sod all for modern lithium batteries. If you have good battery management you will lose a couple of percent of charge a year based on stuff I’ve used. Lithium batteries have very low self discharge rates.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Myth or Fact: Lithium-ion Batteries Self-Discharge After Being Fully Charged - Lithium ion Battery Manufacturer and Supplier in China-DNK Power
Myth or Fact: Lithium-ion Batteries Self-Discharge After Being Fully Charged Although ithium-ion batteries will discharge itself after being fully charged, it's not as bad as you think. The rate of self-discharge is minimal and won't pose any issues in real-world usage.However, it is something...
www.dnkpower.com
cutting42
Arrived at B4 Hacker Ergo
The car itself uses some power even when not being used. Not much but there will be some drop. I have not left mine more than a day or two in 3years but do notice a drop
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
In addition, the above assumed that you need 'oil' rather than energy from some other source in order to extract/process something.
The point of being an 'engineer' is that you are 'ingenious'. i.e. can think up - and make work - better ways to do things. In this case that means getting your energy and resources from something *other* than fossil fuels, and is renewable, *and* doesn't leave a newer form of 'toxic residue'. (Which marks out 'nuclear fission as a dead end as well.)
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
So do I FWIW. However...
1) Work continues on alternitive forms of battery/fuel cell/etc ways to store energy as a 'battery'.
2) Should we have many millions of cars that contain 'rare elements' then those cars become a resource which those 'elements' can be recovered when the cars are scrapped. We can then recycle those elements.
TBH I wish more people could read the IEEE 'Spectrum' magazine. It often publishes articles on all the kinds of R&D and ways people are looking at engineering that is aimed at dealing with these sorts of issues. Fascinating reading for those curious about engineering developments.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I don’t think it rules out nuclear fission, but it probably rules out the currently used fission technologies, which were, either, designed when waste wasn’t considered in depth, or, designed to produce military by products. I don’t see why a fission process can’t be designed to give a more benign (less toxic, less radioactive, shorter lived, or usable elsewhere) waste product.
Do you mean hybrid or EV? Hybrids generally have a conventional LA battery for starting and running the engine, but I'd imagine that for a pure EV you would just designate part of the lithium battery for ancillaries and manage its charge state so that if the motive battery was utterly flattened the essential lights etc would still run.
No. He means that EVs have a conventional 12V battery fitted to run most of the low voltage (12volt) ancillaries. This battery can be charged either off the main high voltage battery, or off an alternator connected to a drive shaft or some other mechanical drive system.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
If you're alluding to Thorium-based fission, it doesn't generate material which can be used for fission weapons, but it still generates some nasty products with long half-lives that need reprocessing.
Current EVs still have a 12v usually lead acid battery to run the traditional car stuff (lights, wipers, wireless keys, ECUs etc. The large traction battery is isolated from the vehicle when turned off, and requires the small 12v to manage and power it up. This 12v battery is charged from a high to low voltage dc-dc converter/smps. The Renault Zoe uses the same battery as the Clio iirc, the main issue is without doing the high current starting, these 12v batteries fall into poor condition quite quickly (never last as long as in an ice car).
NeilR
pfm Member
it doesn’t work this way because the voltage of the main battery is too high, 400v or so, or 800v in some more recent cars. EVs curently use a conventional 12v battery to power the electronics and ancillary systems which is charged by the main battery as needed.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Basically, the elements/isotopes that naturally fission (or can be poked into doing so via a chain reaction) tend to leave a lot of waste that is radioactive. You can design more 'efficient' reactor designs, but it still treats the input material as a 'consumable' rather than a 'renewable'. And we've had many decades of the industry claiming the 'new designs fix the problems'... but turn out not to *and* throw up new problems.
Fission also needs lots of cooling water. Which means the stations get put near large bodies of water... yet we can expect sea levels to rise as a result of Global Warming. Oh, and all the designs thus far assume a quite modest input cooling water temperature. (cough) But many of the EDF plants have spent time off-line because of the problems will cooling even now.
Dead end in more ways than one. But flogged by big companies who can make a fortune when we fall for it... again.
I've lost count of how many times in my lifetime I've heard the mantra that "the new designs fix the problems" and that turns out to be spheroids. This all also ignores the mining and extraction problems.
Compared to all that, fusion is a doddle. If we're lucky. However in reality solar/wind/tidal offers *huge* amounts of renewable energy. Which given suitable engineering and planning is clearly far more sensible as a way forwards. (And if you're bothered by batteries for cars, then the energy can make fuels. Indeed IIUC some plans are to use H2 generation at wind farms to store up any 'excess' wind power and have it available later if needed 'when the wind doesn't blow'. In fact, in some cases, no need for that storage to be local to the farm. All renewable/recyclable. (Parallel argument for tidal/flow energy generation.)
Ignoring the vested interests and their huge ability to bribe... erm, I mean, support politicians, the above has long been clearly the most sensible approach. And the Uk has a *vast* potential for wind power. The real problem is to prevent our politicians 'selling it off' so we have to pay for it to give big companies an obscene level of profit because that's what 'neoclassical/liberal' (sic) econmics and politics say they should do. cf Mazzucato, Keen, Paul Johnson, et al.