Hydrogen is just as dangerous and Lithium which is just as dangerous as petrol. There are studies on it.
⌠also thereâs many different kind of lithium batteriesâŚ
With all of them, if you puncture them, and expose the Li+ ions in the solvent between layers of the battery to air or water, a reaction happens, but at least the batteries are not pressurized. They donât really massively explode in one big boom.
Tesla uses LiCoO2 (Lithium Cobalt Oxide on Aluminum) for a cathode and graphite and copper on the anode.
These are considered very dangerous in comparison to less energy dense, more abuse tolerant LiFePO4 batteries (e.g. in Chevy Volt). But LiCoO2 is also whatâs used in all the cell phones and laptops, and can totally burn a house down, people still buy these devices and take them on planes, fly them in drones.
I donât think name calling is very professional. He spit out a bunch of numbers, but he is using Australia for power calculations which (IIRC) has the least clean means of making power. On the other hand, I live in a place that gets over 50% of our power from Hydro Dams, wind, and solar, also I didnât hear anything about the energy used to drill for oil, process the oil, or to ship the oil. Not to mention oil is mostly imported (at least in the USA) which means weâre giving our money to other countries.
I have even more to defend EVs, but thereâs always agreements/studies to defend, and to criticize electric vehicles.
TL;DR Theseâs studies (both for and against EVs) are bogus.
I also like this alternative and it looks promising.
Funny thing is I think it works beast with electric.
It sounds like youâve never driven an EV. Give it a try.
Oh and welcome to the Level1 community!
Sorry if Iâm being dense here, but how do electric cars solve any of our problems, again?
Think about it. In the USA 65% of our electricity is made by coal and natural gas, split almost evenly, and are both fossil fuels. To provide electrical energy the incoming fleet of electrical cars were going to have to use some fuel to generate it.
Realistically speaking, itâs not going to be wind, water, or any other âgreenâ source. Itâs going to be coal, natural gas, or nuclear. My guess one of the first two I mentioned. Therefore, we are going have to burn more coal or natural gas to keep up with the increasing demand for the electricity needed for all the new electric cars.
Bad news people - coal is dirtier than gas and I donât know if anyone is familiar on how they source natural gas or whatâs going on in Oklahoma, but there are consequences to gathering natural gas - even though it has less carbon emissions than gas.
So, would someone be able to explain to me like Iâm a 3 year old how itâs better to expend more carbon emissions making the vehicles that expend no emissions to go zoom zoom than if we just ran vehicles on gasoline. Because, it seems to me we are just shifting how we screw up the earth, rather than actually fixing the issue by becoming less dependent on transportation.
Thank you in advance.
I believe the premise is that large scale conversion of carbon [oil] based energy is more efficient than local in your car conversion.
I understand what youâre saying, butâŚ
Honestly, I mean no disrespect and I have no expertise in this field, but my gut says that and the âelectric car is our saviorâ is a load of garbage.
Iâm sure a PhD has done a study to prove otherwise and that Iâm an asshole, but thats my 0.02 cents.
I understand your feelings, I share them. There is a lot to be considered when looking at the subject, including what is done at battery EOL.
Ideally we need an external source of limitless energy, and the sun is the only one that comes to mind. Reduce, re-use, re-cycle is something I wish would be out there more.
Electric cars are not a solution, but a step into the right direction. Gasoline powered cars can never be clean so they are at a dead end. With electric vehicles on the other hand the emissions are shifted to the power plants, which can still be improved. Countries are boosting solar, wind and other âgreenâ technologies, China is working on thorium reactors iirc and long term we might get practically infinite energy from nuclear fusion.
Well we can hope, but I still have my doubts.
the production of electric vehicles however has a greater carbon footprint compared to gasoline vehicles. Thatâs why I strongly support Hydrogen. First many gasoline vehicles can be converted to run on hydrogen. need better tolerances and you wonât get nearly as much power as you do with gasoline but that cuts the carbon footprint on manufacturing replacement vehicles when there are perfectly good vehicles already running.
Next hydrogen fuel cells require much smaller battery banks. reducing the cost of production and carbon footprint due to how environmentally expensive it is to produce lithium batteries.
Now yes hydrogen isnât a perfect solution. Obviously hydrogen is highly reactive with oxygen, but this notion of a hydrogen tank being a bomb lacks any scientific bases. Anyone who has done chemistry knows that for hydrogen to burn, it needs oxygen. A tank full of hydrogen is not oxygen rich. And if there is a puncture, hydrogen is the lightest gas in existence. If it escapes, it goes strait up. And the off chance that puncture occurs with an ignition source, you get a jet of fire for a few seconds then itâs over. Hydrogen fires are much easier to handle.
Now there are the people who say hydrogen is just a less efficient method of storing energy and theyâre right. But itâs a lot easier than people realize to produce and migrate towards cleaner alternatives. Currently, most hydrogen production comes from oil mining anyway. When you have hydrocarbons, you generally have a lot of hydrogen gas mixed in too. Obviously itâs not the cleanest method of producing hydrogen but it offers a stepping stone. Now hydrogen can be produced cleanly using electricity though this is an extra step for convenience sake and we will be wasting energy but if the energy source is renewable, itâs not a significant issue.
With hydrogen comes the convenience of refilling cars in a matter of minutes while also being a viable option for trucks where having tons worth of batteries just for the range would make them useless for inter state freight in countries like Australia, itâs not the perfect solution. Hydrogen combustion options is not a 100% clean burn. With standard atmospheric flow into a hydrogen engine, a small proportion of oxygen will be reacted with Nitrogen to produce nitrogen oxides. This is significantly worse than carbon oxides on a 1 to 1 comparison though the nitrogen oxides produce is far smaller. Similar to whatâs produced already in gasoline engines.
Fact is the best option for the environment if youâre buying a car is not to buy a new electric car, itâs to either keep your current car running or buy a used car, whether itâs electric or not depends on your nations power grid and how power is generated. Electric vehicles will improve the air quality in cities but itâs not a fix, itâs a bandaid with itâs own side effects.
Hydrogen matched with Thorium or other renewable energy sources is the best method forward. I know when I have the time and money, Iâll be converting my vehicle to run on hydrogen and producing hydrogen at home through solar panels.
Fact is, people generally have a confirmation bias. Tesla is no exception and itâs dangerous. Driving an old vehicle is better for the environment and even if you donât like this guys style of reporting, it doesnât make his points any less valid. Heâs made two other recent videoâs on Tesla and why at least for Australia, Tesla is a big fat lie. Not that theyâre bad cars. Just the idea that they will save the world is not valid.
Yup, Hydrogen fuel cells are great. steady power generation on the fly into a battery bank to be used by electric engines. That doesnât negate the advantage hydrogen has of being able to be burnt in a conventional petrol engine.
Driven a Previa Hybrid and and Honda Fit/Jazz EV. Theyâre nice to drive. good torque for slow speeds but nothing to phone home to. Plus being limited to the city where I live is not something Iâm a fan of. I do a lot of out of city travel and need to be able to do 6 hour drives without having to wait a few hours for a recharge. A hybrid is an option but for a lot of hybrids, youâre better off buying a small hatch with a 1L engine. Better fuel efficiency unless you go full EV.
And thank you
True, but he still left out a lot of info that should of been included. I want to see a study or video from someone who is completely neutral. He seems too close minded for this subject IMO.
Youâd need a Volt, or 1st gen Honda Insight (1L hybrid).
I have a 2013 Nissan Leaf. I got it because it was cheap ($7,000), reliable, and cost me nothing to drive ($6.90 every 300 miles).
On another note, I was talking to someone about powering a generator with a turbine since theyâre supposed to be more efficient then a combustion engine, though from what I was reading they get less efficient the smaller they are. Just some food for thought.
Iâm still catching up and reading through the thread
but so far no one has also mentioned
that hydrocarbons are really fucked
turbo fucked for the environment
Current batteries arenât very good, but that battery degradation doesnât look bad at all IMO. He lost 24 miles of range over 44,000 miles. From what I can tell he will have 194 miles of range when his car has 183k on the clock and 94 miles of range at 366k, which is still more then almost every 2016 and older EV.
I found that very interesting thanks for sharing.
I wonât address the entirety of your post other than to say that I work in the auto industry and the common knowledge is that EVs are, actually, not of larger carbon footprint DEPENDING ON ELECTRICITY SOURCE. The carbon footprint of manufacture is on par with normal vehicles, and the lifetime carbon footprint depends entirely on the source of electricity used to charge the vehicle. If the electricity comes from a clean, renewable source then the lifetime carbon footprint of an EV is substantially smaller than that of a gasoline vehicle. This is fact. The only source I can find suggesting otherwise is Jeremy Clarkson on old Top Gear making a claim that the Prius is way worse for the environment than a standard gas vehicle. Thatâs simply false.
KmanAuto the fullychargedshow and Bjørn Nyland are some of my favorite EV you tubers out there.
not to mention i think if it ever hits 80% life in the warranty it gets swapped
mine 2
sheeeeeet
The lack of sources in this thread is disturbing.
Why wouldnât they use nuclear? Itâs an obvious choice.