Car Prices Might Be Unsustainable for Buyers
Car Prices Might Be Unsustainable for Buyers
You're viewing part of a thread.
lithium is not a sustainable storage solution. comment back when sodium batteries are mass produced, not just a discovery in a lab
There is far, far more lithium in the earth's crust than we will ever need for energy storage. We're only just now hurting for it because Tesla showed that electric cars are feasible as daily drivers which caused a huge surge in demand. We'll catch back up in a few more years. And the third world countries that let shitty mining practices take place are what give it a bad name right now. No one wants child slaves in the Congo to mine cobalt for us so we can drive to work. US mines are being built, new processes are being invented, and new battery chemistries that rely less on rare minerals are constantly being invented and implemented.
You're just being a sourpuss.
source: trust me bro ?
a lithium battery require also cobalt as cathode, it cant solely run on an anode
There are lots of lithium battery types that do not contain any cobalt, such as LFP that is used more and more for electric cars.
Also Sodium Ion (Na-Ion) batteries are currently in production and could be a viable alternative as the technology advances and production ramps up.
Right now Na-Ion batteries rival only the LFP type of Li-Ion battery (lithium-iron-phosphate) having a lower energy density than other Lithium chemistries. LFP is used commonly in utility power storage for its much greater safety and longevity, but it carries about 20% less power for size and weight compared to other lithium chemistries.
At present the favored battery type for EVs are Lithium types with the highest energy density. Some combine several advantages of the various Li-Ion chemistries having the highest energy density with somewhat greater safety and longevity.
Na-Ion is a new type of battery chemistry with lots of potential for improvement. They use more sustainable materials being cheaper and more abundant. If they could get the Na-Ion battery type within range of presently used Lithium technologies it would be a hugely better solution, a lot cheaper, a lot safer, and much easier on the environment.
@rm_dash_r_star @notapantsday Is LMFP actually available in quantity? Wikipedia suggests not.
The problem with sodium ion batteries, apart from lower density, is that they have a shorter lifespan. On the upside they're easier to recycle. IIRC there was some recent research that might fix the lifespan problem.
Is LMFP actually available in quantity? Wikipedia suggests not.
I realized that, I put an edit on there to not specify LMFP which has only been used in EVs in a limited fashion. I was confusing NMC which is actually the most common, oops. I changed it to a generic reference.
The problem with sodium ion batteries, apart from lower density, is that they have a shorter lifespan.
I've read differing reports on that. But yeah, cycle life is a big deal. In general it's not great for the common Li-Ion types. LFP has pretty amazing cycle life, about five times greater and rivals the NiMH king. In many cases it's well worth the additional size and weight, but for things sensitive to it like cars and handheld devices it's a problem.
sodium is just tech bro fluff
@rm_dash_r_star @notapantsday Unfortunately batteries with nickel are still pretty widely used. However it's definitely going in the right direction.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-batteries
In any case digging up fossil fuels is also pretty dirty, and has been known to pollute indigenous people's drinking water, steal their land, and on occasion pay for private militias and government troops to put down protests.
Obviously electric buses are preferable to electric cars. Public transport is worth investing in.
Also on batteries, iron-air is promising for grid storage, but not likely to be used for vehicles.
In any case digging up fossil fuels is also pretty dirty, and has been known to pollute indigenous people’s drinking water, steal their land, and on occasion pay for private militias and government troops to put down protests.
There isn't much in industry exempt from that kind of thing, but countries go to war over access to oil. Anything that reduces consumption is good for mankind.
more and more
hopefully. still, evs are quite expensive. also the charging infrastrucutre would require a metric fuckton of copper, and that would raise copper prices to silly levels, and its already pricey.
The charging infrastructure needed for the vast majority of BEV drivers, the vast majority of the time, is a power outlet in their garage.
this is not ur average 10 amp gauge cable.
@zoe @ramenbellic Level 1 charging is exactly that. Just a regular plug in to a regular socket. Level 1 charging overnight will fully charge many EVs (enough charge for a week of commuting). The average car sits idle for almost the entire day so slow charging is all most people need.
Exactly, I charge 120v at 8 amps just using a standard outlet in my garage and it generally provides enough charge for my commute and errands. I’ll usually top up at the free L2 at the grocery store while charging, and rely on DCFC for road trips.
Installing a L2 charger in my garage would be a tremendous waste of money and natural resources. The only reason I would consider it is that my utility company offers very cheap Time of Use (overnight) electricity rates (2¢/kWh, vs our normal 15¢/kWh) if we installed a separate, EV charging only meter for the garage.
So you mean "Lithium is way worse" not EVs?
in a nutshell yea. bring up an ev that isnt dependant on rare earth metals and i would gladly embrace it, cause even the motors use rare neodymium
@mr_washee_washee @suodrazah So do wind farms. Are you opposed to them too?
use solar. silicium is abundant
@mr_washee_washee How do you propose to balance the grid without wind?
Solar panels are indeed mostly silicon, but they're not entirely made of silicon. They also use "minor metals" (indium, gallium etc) in smaller quantities. They certainly use copper, steel and aluminium.
The inverter for a solar panel might contain rare earths. The big ones for long range HVDC interconnectors very likely do.
Whatever we build will involve some amount of mining.
However given the enormous cost of the status quo, renewables are a step forward.
@mr_washee_washee I've seen people argue that nuclear actually has the lowest material requirement overall. I'm not entirely convinced by that argument though!
By all means reduce the number of cars, but some of the things we will need to do to achieve that will take significant time - especially fixing housing and building more rail.
However there will still be vehicles, even if they are only buses.
i am no expert of the subject, but only time will prove what direction of research is sustainable, be it for renewable energy production, or 0 carbon emitting transportation.
also mr_wahsee_washee is me
@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.
.
@mr_washee_washee Either way, the technologies already exist and need to be deployed rapidly.
The alternative is burning more fossil fuels.
Which is both more expensive and *vastly* more dangerous. We need rapid progress towards sustainability, because it's the *total* carbon emitted that matters.
Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest (in fact they must peak as soon as possible). The UK, for instance, has agreed to reduce its emissions by 68% by 2030 (compared to 1990), a target that it will almost certainly miss according to the last CCC report.
alot of countries are going to miss their net 0 emission goal. there's no need to compromise one own life style if governements arent serious about radical change. might as well keep driving ur fossil fuel car; u can't stop private jets from flying or corproates from making extra revenue on the exepnse of the environement
Would you say that burning fossil fuels is a sustainable solution?
When stacked against each other, I find it kind of baffling that you would lean towards the combustion-based variant.
well dont necessarily use diesel, use high octane fuel instead, methanol, biofuel, anything, ice cars are now way efficient than ever..but mining cobalt and lithium is way harmful..also cars arent the most harmful transportation invention in this world: how about airlines? have u ever considered taking a train instead of flying (especially country bound ?) (i always forget that i am commenting in c/fuckcars.. i should consider unsubscribing from here; hating solely on cars is pointless)
A lot to unpack here.
well dont necessarily use diesel, use high octane fuel instead, methanol, biofuel, anything,
They are all pretty bad ways of powering motors, to be honest.
ice cars are now way efficient than ever..
And yet they are far inferior to electric motors. Combustion necessarily comes with the lions share of the energy being wasted as heat.
but mining cobalt and lithium is way harmful..
It's not great, but then again, neither is the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground. From what I can tell, it's actually far worse than the metal extraction we're doing.
Consider that you may have fallen for fossil fuel industry propaganda that is trying their very best to cling on to their last years of high profits.
also cars arent the most harmful transportation invention in this world: how about airlines?
Apples and oranges. I'm not even really sure why you're bringing it up.
have u ever considered taking a train instead of flying (especially country bound ?)
The vast majority of my long-distance traveling is done by train. My last international trip was by train, in fact! If only we invested more in trains, and stopped subsidizing flying. I love traveling by train, and I'm not exactly a fan of flying.
always forget that i am commenting in c/ fuckcars.. i should consider unsubscribing from here; hating solely on cars is pointless)
I don't think most people in here are solely hating on cars. They are bad, though, and that's kind of the topic. There are other communities for hating on other harmful things in our world.
what i am trying to say: evs cant be easily adopted beyond western europe and us:africa, latin america, eastern europe and some parts of asia dont really have solid public transportation or good car infrastructure, let alone afford ev infrastructure and ev loans, so ice cars are a sustainable mean of transport in those countries: which could account for half of the earth population. investing in a more affordable and sustainable form of energy is beneficial for everyone: sure if u guys (rich countries) feel like susbidizing ev instead then go ahead, but u r hurting other countries in the process: especially lithium rich countries. investing in hydrogen would be cool for everyone, but i am no expert. also lithium storage and electric engines aren't fit for aerial or maritime transport, so better think long term for the benefit of everything, it shouldnt be only about cars. how it feels, driving evs to combat pollution: https://imgur.com/a/1vMSrgD . but i salute ur choice of boarding the train instead of airplane in order to get around.
asia isn't solely china ?
No, but it's about a third China
Unfortunately, I say this as a train lover. They require a lot more infrastructure than planes and will always be at a disadvantage because of that. You can set up an airport pretty much anywhere and make it reachable by pretty much anyone. Whereas with the train, you need a dedicated line from point to point that you will commit to maintaining through hell and high water.
There's also the problem that in many countries, we are deliberately neglecting our train infrastructure and not investing in high speed alternatives that could compete with an airline over shorter distances.
All of these factors combine to make individual trips less efficient over train. I had to cross the United States this week. To do so by train would have taken me 4 days. Doing so by plane took me 6 hours. Nobody would choose a 4-day trip over a 6-hour one unless their goal is to look out the window a lot. Which is perfectly valid. But most people don't look at traveling itself as the experience. And in this case, I had a particular event that I had to attend.
4 day trips need to be normalized: our capitalistic lords have made us more accepting of fast living: an average flight consommes about 7 tons of kerosene per flight, and release 3 times as much of co2 in mass, ie 20 tons, per single flight. travel by train albeit slow, but releases way less greenhouse gas. train or airplane infrastrucuture cost comparison: only an expert consultant could wager which one of both is less costly. ever wondered why we retire at 65 on average? u would say with all the efficiencies implemented in transport and the extra work time we put we would retire earlier, yet, we only work more in older age. something is missing in the loop
Do you think refined gasoline just comes straight out of the ground?