Headline should have been "Climate Crisis: The trouble with things OTHER than electric cars"
2 года назад+11
The energy grid is a separate solvable issue. A power plant burning coal to propel a city full of electric vehicles is still less polluting than thousands of tiny petrol and diesel engines farting away.
Fair enough. Though reducing the need to drive a car for everyday chores does more than even moving from fossil fuel to electric vehicles. Just look for "Not Just Bikes" to get the idea
@@wolfetone2012 Electric car sharing when needed, bicycle use within the city or region, and public transport for long distance. The time that everyone has a full metal jacket will never be a solution.
@@dutchman7623 easy for you, used to be easy for me. Three years, no car; no problem. Now living in Australia. No traffic calming, no sidewalks, no shops within walking distance, pure hatred towards cyclists, no public transport options. Toddlers dying on driveways, because a parent runs them over. Kids dying on streets, because someone does 80 on a 50km/h street (technically a 'woonerf'.) Motorvehicle operators running up verges/sidewalks killing pedestrians or crashing into homes. Oh, let's not forget police crashing into cars on intersections. Because they were never taught to slow down and get proper oversight before running red lights. All because the entire city was built so cars could go from A to B as quickly as possible, making it the only safe and available option to travel. Anyone not in a motorvehicle is considered a hazard to society
@@wolfetone2012 True, some countries have to change a little more than others to create a safer world. On the other hand Australia is 'blessed' with a lot of sunlight that can be used as energy to power all electric needs. With a solar roof on your carport, your car stays cool and filled up. And yes, I just cycled home with two shopping bags on my handlebar, bottles in my pannier and a bunch of flowers on the back rack. Could have used the supermarket at five minutes, but passed by another one at fifteen... Outside forty bicycles, three mopeds, fifteen cars, but a majority just walked.
@@dutchman7623 South Australia has done just that. Despite the Liberal (conservatives) party trying to stop it. In terms of renewable energy, SA is second in the world on this. But it's not safety that is really the issue, it's a cultural thing as well. In Australia the automobile is still the 'Holy Cow', everything else is just people getting in the way of that. While people here would must certainly ride a bike or walk, if they had the opportunity to do so. But when you need a liter of water to walk half an hour to the shops, because there is no shade provided; you opt for the AC in the car. People love the exercise a bike gives them, if it was safe to do so, they would ride like the wind. Edit: on the cultural issue. Recently a girl was abducted and safely recovered. That story gets more attention than the toddler killed in the driveway and the toddler killed on the street by a speeding vehicle. All of which happened in the same time period. The response to both deaths: "toddlers shouldn't have been out there." Not that the 'drivers' were utterly careless, or safety measures should be put in place to prevent this from occuring. Imagine if you had not been allowed to play on the street, because drivers were careless and speeding
2:10 yes, and all those transport emissions are completely IGNORED when doing the emissions figures for ICEVs. As are the emissions from exploration, extraction and refining. The actual carbon emissions from burning petrol is about a third higher than the simple tailpipe emissions.
Exploration, extraction, refinining, and transport are there for fossil fuels and electric. The argument being, they cancel eachother out as the main focus of power source. Where we end up is looking at the power source's environmental impact. Where electric _looks_ better untill you realise what's used to produce the electricity. Main problem is, we keep relying on companies pushing their own products. So we end up debating corporate marketing gimmicks. Meanwhile politicians sit on their hands pretending we are all having a meaningful discussion worth listening to, as the science involved is ignored. So now we ended up with China having best access to most of the resources we'd need. And ahead on design and construction of commercial products needed to go towards neutral
@@wolfetone2012 They really cancel eachother out at all Remember you dig the minerals for batteries once and they last 30 years. Petrol required a constant massive flow of extraction and processing because of can only be used once. And refineries alone use hundreds of megawatts of power 24/7, EACH That's why I pointed out that the well-to-wheel emissions of petrol are nearly always understated in these comparisons.
Can anybody tell me the average life span of an electric car battery, and what happens to them when they die? As far as I understand they remain very toxic.
Well I'll talk about Tesla's specifically. But EV's have come a long way, and are a far more mature technology than when they first came to market. Tesla's are good for over 200,000 miles, their new 4680 cell is said to be good for around 1 million. So worries over battery life is not an issue. As for what happens to them, The EU are bringing in legislation that means all batteries have a paper trail from the elements used to their eventual recycling. Tesla have a deal with Redwood materials for all their batteries to be recycled, and to use the materials to make new batteries, creating a circular economy.
@@daydreamer8373 Thanks Day Dreamer for your reply. Why I asked the question is that I recently went to a VW showroom to ask about the i3 - I asked how long the battery lasts and they said between 8-10 years - which would coincide with Tesla's claim in my instance - but when I asked the price of a new battery I was told 20.000€. When asked, the salesman told me that "certain elements of the battery can be recycled - but others cannot, and the only solution (so far) is to dig a big hole in the ground". If this is true (and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) It seems to me that electric cars, in the long term could produce a hole new set of problems.
@@johnderrick2501 Every chemical substance can be reused, but that will take investments and energy. So if needed we can, but as usual it's sometimes cheaper to dump than to reuse.
@@johnderrick2501 old EV car batteries can be reused to provide grid storage. They often have 80% charge capacity remaining and so are still useful. The cells just need careful monitoring on their charge/discharge cycle to shut them down if they fail with thermal runaway. Providing grid storage can smooth the humps in demand, storing excess renewable energy for times when the demand temporarily exceeds supply.
Why not compare a small petrol car with these overpowered electric cars? People should be encouraged to buy smaller lighter cars with less power. You wouldn't need electric then.
@Ayy Leeuz rare earth metals are actually a misnomer. They aren’t rare, they are actually rather common, but spread evenly across the earth, not in convenient veins like iron and copper etc. And in the end using even a lithium-cobalt car powered by energy from solar panels is less resource intensive than a ICE car powered by petroleum or non-bio diesel. Environmentalists and scientists in the area have been arguing for decades that electric cars and even renewable power isn’t enough, we need to change the structure of supply and production chains, to reduce transport costs, and resource intensity, with greater circularity in the flows of materials, rather than a linear path from extraction to product to landfill. This isn’t yet being taken seriously because it poses a greater threat to presently existing capitalism, and ignoring it for a few more years isn’t viewed as a problem to buisness.
I was just cooking and listening to this absolute complete RUBBISH I just left my sauce to comment is there anyone out there anyone who thinks this show is a sensible commentary?
@@dutchman7623 It still has to be transferred into the form and location where we need it, I refer you to the 2nd law of thermodynamics again you can't escape it.
Headline should have been "Climate Crisis: The trouble with things OTHER than electric cars"
The energy grid is a separate solvable issue. A power plant burning coal to propel a city full of electric vehicles is still less polluting than thousands of tiny petrol and diesel engines farting away.
Fair enough. Though reducing the need to drive a car for everyday chores does more than even moving from fossil fuel to electric vehicles.
Just look for "Not Just Bikes" to get the idea
@@wolfetone2012 Electric car sharing when needed, bicycle use within the city or region, and public transport for long distance. The time that everyone has a full metal jacket will never be a solution.
@@dutchman7623 easy for you, used to be easy for me. Three years, no car; no problem. Now living in Australia. No traffic calming, no sidewalks, no shops within walking distance, pure hatred towards cyclists, no public transport options.
Toddlers dying on driveways, because a parent runs them over. Kids dying on streets, because someone does 80 on a 50km/h street (technically a 'woonerf'.) Motorvehicle operators running up verges/sidewalks killing pedestrians or crashing into homes. Oh, let's not forget police crashing into cars on intersections. Because they were never taught to slow down and get proper oversight before running red lights.
All because the entire city was built so cars could go from A to B as quickly as possible, making it the only safe and available option to travel. Anyone not in a motorvehicle is considered a hazard to society
@@wolfetone2012 True, some countries have to change a little more than others to create a safer world. On the other hand Australia is 'blessed' with a lot of sunlight that can be used as energy to power all electric needs.
With a solar roof on your carport, your car stays cool and filled up.
And yes, I just cycled home with two shopping bags on my handlebar, bottles in my pannier and a bunch of flowers on the back rack. Could have used the supermarket at five minutes, but passed by another one at fifteen...
Outside forty bicycles, three mopeds, fifteen cars, but a majority just walked.
@@dutchman7623 South Australia has done just that. Despite the Liberal (conservatives) party trying to stop it. In terms of renewable energy, SA is second in the world on this.
But it's not safety that is really the issue, it's a cultural thing as well. In Australia the automobile is still the 'Holy Cow', everything else is just people getting in the way of that.
While people here would must certainly ride a bike or walk, if they had the opportunity to do so. But when you need a liter of water to walk half an hour to the shops, because there is no shade provided; you opt for the AC in the car.
People love the exercise a bike gives them, if it was safe to do so, they would ride like the wind.
Edit: on the cultural issue. Recently a girl was abducted and safely recovered. That story gets more attention than the toddler killed in the driveway and the toddler killed on the street by a speeding vehicle. All of which happened in the same time period. The response to both deaths: "toddlers shouldn't have been out there." Not that the 'drivers' were utterly careless, or safety measures should be put in place to prevent this from occuring.
Imagine if you had not been allowed to play on the street, because drivers were careless and speeding
Banning e-bikes (unless you rented it), encourages driving.
There have been great moves in hydrogen. Definitely worth looking at
2:10 yes, and all those transport emissions are completely IGNORED when doing the emissions figures for ICEVs. As are the emissions from exploration, extraction and refining.
The actual carbon emissions from burning petrol is about a third higher than the simple tailpipe emissions.
Exploration, extraction, refinining, and transport are there for fossil fuels and electric. The argument being, they cancel eachother out as the main focus of power source. Where we end up is looking at the power source's environmental impact. Where electric _looks_ better untill you realise what's used to produce the electricity.
Main problem is, we keep relying on companies pushing their own products. So we end up debating corporate marketing gimmicks. Meanwhile politicians sit on their hands pretending we are all having a meaningful discussion worth listening to, as the science involved is ignored.
So now we ended up with China having best access to most of the resources we'd need. And ahead on design and construction of commercial products needed to go towards neutral
@@wolfetone2012
They really cancel eachother out at all
Remember you dig the minerals for batteries once and they last 30 years.
Petrol required a constant massive flow of extraction and processing because of can only be used once.
And refineries alone use hundreds of megawatts of power 24/7, EACH
That's why I pointed out that the well-to-wheel emissions of petrol are nearly always understated in these comparisons.
Can anybody tell me the average life span of an electric car battery, and what happens to them when they die? As far as I understand they remain very toxic.
Well I'll talk about Tesla's specifically. But EV's have come a long way, and are a far more mature technology than when they first came to market. Tesla's are good for over 200,000 miles, their new 4680 cell is said to be good for around 1 million. So worries over battery life is not an issue.
As for what happens to them, The EU are bringing in legislation that means all batteries have a paper trail from the elements used to their eventual recycling. Tesla have a deal with Redwood materials for all their batteries to be recycled, and to use the materials to make new batteries, creating a circular economy.
@@daydreamer8373 Thanks Day Dreamer for your reply. Why I asked the question is that I recently went to a VW showroom to ask about the i3 - I asked how long the battery lasts and they said between 8-10 years - which would coincide with Tesla's claim in my instance - but when I asked the price of a new battery I was told 20.000€. When asked, the salesman told me that "certain elements of the battery can be recycled - but others cannot, and the only solution (so far) is to dig a big hole in the ground". If this is true (and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) It seems to me that electric cars, in the long term could produce a hole new set of problems.
@@johnderrick2501 Every chemical substance can be reused, but that will take investments and energy.
So if needed we can, but as usual it's sometimes cheaper to dump than to reuse.
@@dutchman7623 hello Dutch Man, thanks for your reply.
@@johnderrick2501 old EV car batteries can be reused to provide grid storage. They often have 80% charge capacity remaining and so are still useful. The cells just need careful monitoring on their charge/discharge cycle to shut them down if they fail with thermal runaway.
Providing grid storage can smooth the humps in demand, storing excess renewable energy for times when the demand temporarily exceeds supply.
Why not compare a small petrol car with these overpowered electric cars? People should be encouraged to buy smaller lighter cars with less power. You wouldn't need electric then.
Nuclear. Thorium looks less toxic. Power plants can last for decades so we will only emit carbon to make them.
"it's not actually zero, so let's not bother".. wtaf
Electric trains can travel from China to Europe using only 10 meter solar panel along the tracks.
@Ayy Leeuz Every chemical element can be reused. So it is not technical but financial. Recycling becomes financially more attractive by regulations.
@Ayy Leeuz rare earth metals are actually a misnomer. They aren’t rare, they are actually rather common, but spread evenly across the earth, not in convenient veins like iron and copper etc.
And in the end using even a lithium-cobalt car powered by energy from solar panels is less resource intensive than a ICE car powered by petroleum or non-bio diesel.
Environmentalists and scientists in the area have been arguing for decades that electric cars and even renewable power isn’t enough, we need to change the structure of supply and production chains, to reduce transport costs, and resource intensity, with greater circularity in the flows of materials, rather than a linear path from extraction to product to landfill. This isn’t yet being taken seriously because it poses a greater threat to presently existing capitalism, and ignoring it for a few more years isn’t viewed as a problem to buisness.
I was just cooking and listening to this absolute complete RUBBISH I just left my sauce to comment is there anyone out there anyone who thinks this show is a sensible commentary?
Nope.
Hahaha nope.
Or course, we in the physical world are still bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Our blue marble receives over a hundred times the energy we need from the sun.
@@dutchman7623 It still has to be transferred into the form and location where we need it, I refer you to the 2nd law of thermodynamics again you can't escape it.
@Ayy Leeuz I must've missed that episode of Star Trek.
Show me anyone presenting EVs as "a silver bullet".
The BBC is full of appalling propaganda and shite journalism.