This question has puzzled me for some time
The automotive industry tells us they will produce huge numbers of EV vehicles and the market is waiting to buy said vehicles, thus competing with Tesla etc and of coarse each other for market share
I don't doubt the various CEO's of the automotive industry have looked carefully at this market and decided a sizable investment in EV is the road to profits
The problem as I see it is this
Where will all the batteries come from to power the EV industry. We know china owns a large share of the nickel, cobalt etc to make batteries and china isn't very good at sharing when they need said rare earth materials for them selves
Today EV is at a low market share and batteries are available
What happens when the EV production explodes as we are told. How long can we make batteries with the rare earth material we have in our control, plus all other countries demands for rare earth material
How are we going to power the new EV vehicles coming to market
Now Hydrogen may work but that is a technology that needs yrs to develop, at least economically
I suppose we might use soybean oil and other oil from grain such as canola etc. Even animal fat would work in a diesel engine
100% Ethanol is possible
So: Do we use some thing other than batteries??
Do you really think there is enough rare earth material available??? for EV for yrs to come???
where does the energy come from if conventional ICE engines and fossil fuel are phased out
One thing I think
This may be a very expensive leap of faith into the unknown,
or??
maybe the auto industry has done it's home work and I am the only person with questions??
I can't believe the auto industry hasn't done due diligence and profits will be huge.
Please help me with your thoughts
Thanks Wayne,
The plan is to replace the combustion engine and to provide the energy to charge the electric cars from solar and wind.
We won't even be able to replace the electricity used now in addition to natural gas for heating and cooling without electric cars with solar and wind and every plan that we hear or read about that includes using solar and wind for all electricity is a laughable fairy tale that defies the principles of physics, chemistry, economics, energy and common sense.
This thread has some good nuggets in it:
Killing Coal
11 responses |
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2021, 10:57 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/78168/
The world we live in features people just manufacturing fake realities for their current agenda. If they are convincing enough on a large enough scale.........they get what they want right now..............even if they are totally impossible, fraudulent schemes with no chance of working or if they are not even doing what they claim to be doing (The Climate Accord over the fake climate crisis for instance)
That's just the way it is today, I'm sorry to say.
I doubt that ethanol will ever be used to generate electricity on a large scale because it emits so much CO2.
A case could be made that it's carbon neutral because the corn plants got that CO2 from the air and burning it just puts it back. However, it takes alot of fuel burning to plant and harvest and dry/transport the corn, then convert it to ethanol and vehicles and electric tractors and farm equipment won't have fuel tanks and they will never be able to run on 100% ethanol.....so if we were really getting rid of fossil fuels, we would get rid of ethanol too.
Most importantly of all, the environmentalists will be screaming bloody murder at growing corn for ethanol because by far, corn is the most environmentally damaging/polluting crop of all.
But they won't tell you these facts Wayne because if they did, they would cause the entire ag sector to be on a mission to vehemently oppose all the fake green energy schemes which are designed to obliterate agriculture as we know it.
Some of the ag sector is aware of this.
However, if you read all your articles from the ethanol cheerleading sites, like the RFA, they will not tell you any of this. They are sugar coating everything and presenting an unrealistic picture of ethanol in a future without fossil fuels.
Kiss ethanol as we know it good bye if that ever happened. Which probably won't happen.
However, somebody could still come up with a new scheme that includes the use of ethanol if they could make a ton of money and get a ton of farm votes for doing it.
The Role of Fossil Fuels in the
U.S. Food System and the
American Diet
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82194/err-224.pdf
They will NEVER tell you about this either!!!
Another secret about fossil fuels: Haber Bosch process-fertilizers feeding the planet using natural gas-doubling food production/crop yields. September 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39215/
The title of my post was EV batteries
I ran thru all the options I could think of, and decided wind, solar and batteries seems to be the model of EV production and sales
Which meant the production of a lot of batteries for the planned EV production
Everything except wind, solar and batteries did not seem to fit the green agenda, for one reason or another
This left batteries to power the planned production of EV
So my question boils down to where is the needed amount of nickel, cobalt etc going to come from for the number of batteries needed for the planed introduction of EV auto production
I have ruled out china as a provider of rare earth material as they have a very poor record of sharing scarce materials, which leaves us with a very small amount of material to make batteries
Having examined all the known facts, available in my small amount of knowledge, the auto industry must know some thing I don't know to invest huge sums of money in EV production
What does the auto industry know about EV production that I don't know
Thoughts???
Wayne,
The auto industries will just go with whatever can make them the most money, not what is practical or makes sense.
The US government is huge with incredible resources and able to pick winners and losers and handsomely reward whatever technologies THEY WANT developed. Doesn't matter if they are dumb or not.
The auto companies are FOR PROFIT businesses and will use what's available to maximize profits. Without the influence of the government, this would be dead in the water.
Instead, it will be dead after we flush hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet finding out.
metmike: The auto industry knows dang well they can get alot more money from the government. They have powerful lobbyists working for them.
$555 billion to fight the fake climate crisis
Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76969/
Wayne,
The auto industries will just go with whatever can make them the most money, not what is practical or makes sense.
The US government is huge with incredible resources and able to pick winners and losers and handsomely reward whatever technologies THEY WANT developed. Doesn't matter if they are dumb or not.
The auto companies are FOR PROFIT businesses and will use what's available to maximize profits. Without the influence of the government, this would be dead in the water.
Instead, it will be dead after we flush hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet finding out.
metmike: The auto industry knows dang well they can get alot more money from the government. They have powerful lobbyists working for them.
Wind and solar will NEVER be able to supply more than half of the reliable energy to replace the current demand and additional demand from cars. It's not scientifically viable.
Too diffuse. Too unreliable. Has to be stored with losses in energy. Extremely environmentally damaging (many times worse than fossil fuels).
If we develop a new source, like hydrogen.......then we have something that might get us there.
But then, using hydrogen or something else as a fuel means NOT going with mostly electric cars.
$555 billion to fight the fake climate crisis
Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 12:19 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76969/
We already have an extremely well developed system for discovering and obtaining fossil fuels, delivering them and using them in combustion engines.
If they were discovered today and we didn't have the fake climate crisis..........we would be going full steam ahead with fossil fuels.
I think unless there is some kind of battery coming down the road that we don't know about, all these car companies that spout off on how they are going 100% electric is going to bite them hard. I expect people will keep their gas cars for longer than they ever have before. Car companies' sales will fall. If that happens, you can bet the government will add so much tax to gasoline that it will become prohibitively expensive. And in the meantime, environmentalists will start looking at the destruction of mining....even if it is in other countries. It will be no small task to supply all the lithium that will be needed. But you know how it is in America....as long as it isn't happening in their own backyards, they don't care. Let's not forget that current recycling of lithium batteries is around 20% if what I read is accurate. Very dangerous stuff.
Will solid state batteries ever get out of the lab? That would be a breakthrough. I've ridden in a Tesla. Make that battery half as small, twice the storage and a charge time in your garage of an hour and at the electric station of 5-10 minutes and no one will think twice about that old gas burner.
All that to say....be very careful who you vote for.
There seems to some shift from Lithium Ion (uses nickel and cobalt) to Lithium Iron Phosphate (no nickel or cobalt) batteries. Tesla announced in October they would be using LFP batteries in some models. Not sure about other auto companies. Most battery storage systems for sure going toward LFP.
Lithium batteries have been around for about 50 years and the only real advancement that has been made is that they don’t blow up quite as randomly as they used to.
If you follow the topic at all, they get great results out of graphene batteries and solid state batteries. But we hear it time and again. Too expensive to manufacture yet or the life cycle is horrendous.
You can bet anyone who is anyone is trying to figure it out because there are trillions to be made.
Wayne-
Very late response - but I believe that the battery technology will advance. And there are current alternatives to lithium, but without the same energy density storage (
The crux of the energy problem, as you and others have mentioned, is where is the electricity going to come from? The only viable source for the near-term that I can rationalize is nuclear (fission). But nobody wants that in their back yard. Look at the situation Germany has gotten itself into. Modern nuclear plants can be standardized and be safer than the technology of 30-40 years ago (my guess at the average age of today's operating nuclear plants).
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/ap1000-pwr
Further down the road, fusion will be the way to go. But there are technical hurdles to be overcome yet.
The people that keep waving the solar/wind/hydro flag are only fooling themselves (maybe not?) and the sheeple that can't do some simple math. Full scale conversion to electric vehicles can only happen if the world embraces nuclear energy as a near-term solution.
My 2 cts.
Never too late matt!
Agree 100% with your points too.
I wonder how many square miles smaller our earth is because of areas we can't go to because of nuclear meltdowns? How many more miles smaller would the world have to get before nuclear is no longer an option. I love what it can do....I hate what it can do. If you know what I mean.
How many square miles will be inaccessible because of solar panel farms if we are to meet our electricity producing goals/needs via the "Green" pathway?
John
Well...according to the NREL it would takes approximately 14 million acres of solar panels to provide all power for the US. This ignores the problems of supply variability and storage obviously.
With approximately 22 million acres of cropland currently in set aside (CRP) in the US one could just use about 2/3rds of what is currently not under production. FWIW, the soil erosion (and some of the wildlife benefits) would be maintained.
You could elevate an acre of solar panels and still have ground to live on. Once an area is lost to nuclear waste, destruction, whatever, it's effectively gone.
Someday .....like solid state batteries.....someday....solar panels might become more efficient along with batteries. It would take half as many solar cells to charge half as much battery that holds twice the charge. Then we wouldn't need all those solar panels and we could reclaim that ground.
Meanwhile that nuclear waste land is still nuclear waste land.