States all over the world have declared we have to change our cars to EVs and do it tomorrow so we can save the world. But as Mark Mills points out, despite the rush “No one can really say whether widespread adoption of EVs will cut carbon emissions.” I mean, does carbon dioxide matter at all?
The problem with EVs is that it takes a staggering amount of energy to dig up the 250 tons of specialty rocks required, and then crush, purify and mold them into one half-ton battery. While normal cars are naughty burners of fossil fuels for their whole lives, an EV emits a mountain of CO2 before it even gets to the saleyard.
Electric Vehicle Illusions
EV emissions realities start with physics. To match the energy stored in one pound of oil requires 15 pounds of lithium battery, which in turn entails digging up about 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the minerals needed—lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, neodymium, manganese, and so on. Thus, fabricating a typical, single half-ton EV battery requires mining and processing about 250 tons of materials. (These figures hold roughly true for all lithium chemistries.) For the carbon-counters tracking such things, the global mining and minerals sector uses 40 percent of all industrial energy—dominated by oil, coal, and natural gas—and that’s before we take into consideration the massive expansion that would be required to supply all the battery factories planned for widespread EV adoption.
Lithium Mining makes a big hole in the ground, and we’d need about 10,000 times as many big holes to get to Net Zero. Not that I have anything against big beautiful open pits but the Greens may not have thought this through…
We don’t even know what emissions we will produce by making a billion EVs. As Mark Mills points out one review shows studies on this vary fivefold and start with the assumption the median car only uses a 30-kilowatt-hour battery. But most batteries are much larger. Indeed MyEVreview lists 344 electric cars and 327 of them have bigger batteries than 30KWh — much bigger batteries. Nearly 100 EV models are 90kWh or more — three times the size.
Ponder just how far you have to drive an EV to even get the emissions clock down to the same level as a fossil fuel powered car?
Some automakers—notably Volkswagen and Volvo—have published their own studies that take into account both upstream emissions and grid realities. Those analyses found that an EV powered on Europe’s grid creates more CO2 emissions than a conventional car until at least 50,000 miles of gasoline-free driving. After 120,000 miles, the studies estimated that total cumulative emissions reductions finally reach about 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Hardly “zero.”
Just to check that we understand Mills point we can visit the VW study to find that “yes”, it is that bad. The EV emits more CO2 than a fuel filled car for the first 125,000 kilometers. Only after that, there are some savings… but by the time you’ve owned that EV for years and driven 200,000 kilometers (or 120,000 miles) you’ll have saved a tiny 15% in total emissions produced by the diesel equivalent.
Comparison of the carbon footprint of the e-Golf and the Golf diesel.
But of course, if you dent the EV after one year and have to write it off because no one is sure the battery won’t catch fire, then “the planet” would have been much better off if you bought a fossil fueled guzzler instead.
And as Mills points out, this dismal assessment is the optimistic one:
Those savings shrink for cars using batteries significantly bigger than small one in the Volkswagen and medium-sized one in the Volvo. And the calculated CO2 reductions collapse, and even evaporate entirely, if one factors in the higher ranges of known values for upstream emissions in mining and processing, rather than the low, average values chosen in those studies.
And it’s clear which part of the EV is the cause of all the emissions. If only EV’s could run without a battery…
Comparison of the carbon footprint of the e-Golf and the Golf diesel.
And things are likely to get even worse as demand rises and we seek out deeper and more difficult ore-bodies to mine:
…per the IEA, “lower-grade ores require more energy . . . greenhouse gas emissions and waste volumes.” Already, for example, over the past decade in Chile, the world’s top supplier of copper, mining-energy use has grown ten times more than the tonnage produced.
As Mills also points out, the global mining and minerals sector already uses 40 percent of all industrial energy. It’s not like we can double this on a whim.
So we are pouring money into a program to “reduce CO2” which will cost a fortune and quite possibly achieve very little, if anything of the danger it was supposedly going to save us from.
Meantime, hundreds of billions of dollars designated for wildly premature all-EV mandates will likely become stranded capital because the quantities of minerals needed won’t be available soon enough. Along the way, those stranded billions will do little or nothing to cut CO2 emissions. In the end, the rush to EVs could even increase global vehicle-related emissions.
Luckily CO2 is plant food so it doesn’t matter that EV’s are a terrible way to reduce CO2. Unluckily money doesn’t grow on trees unless you are a central banker.
How do they recycle those EV batteries?
Pyrometallurgy?
Hydrometallurgy?
Both?
Landfill?
340
Batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, blades, and the concrete/steel base – – all present an end-of-life quandary.
371
Battery life is approx. 10 years and a replacement is in the order of 10-15k£s.
Windmills and solar have a life of around 15-20 years, then they have to be replaced – totally.
Currently no recycling strategy – straight to landfill.
So, every 10 to 20 years we have to completely repeat the cycle of mining and manufacturing, ad infinitum.
Maybe after one refresh cycle the madness will stop !!
590
Sadly, I don’t think so. Don’t forget, critical thinking skills haven’t been taught in “schools” for decades. And children (now adults making important decisions) haven’t been educated, they’ve indoctrinated.
This is not going to end well.
451
The madness won’t stop until the money runs out.
100
Firstly, I doubt that the batteries can’t be recycled. Surely it would be easier to extract the lithium from a dead battery than a remote hole in the ground.
And I don’t think we’ll have to wait till the first cycle is complete for a majority of the people to wake up to what is going on. I think the exploding cost of energy will bring ructions before this year is out.
There are three great scams going on. The Hole in the Ozone Layer, CAGW/Climate Change and COVID 19. Make sure that all three are on the table all of the time. All three are founded on public ignorance of science.
130
The exploding cost of energy has made recycling uneconomic in many cases. Lithium is not an easy element to work with so would be expensive to recycle but with rising demand it might become attractive to do. No doubt environmental restrictions in the West will add to the costs.
30
Not to mention exponential decay of the battery. As with all rechargeable devices, the battery does not perform at 100% for ten years and then ‘die suddenly’ – to coin a phrase.
It will degrade slowly, meaning the charging interval will become shorter and shorter, requiring even more coal power. (i.e., real power).
360
Catastrophic failure of the battery or a component of the battery is a more likely cause of replacement than gradual degradation. The batteries have a lot of on-board surveillance and protection. A failure of a component in one of those systems could cause a fatal problem with the battery. These sort of faults could be difficult to track down and repair so the whole battery gets junked.
Some Teslas are up to 600,000km on the original battery. But it is not just cycles that matter. It is calendar time and how the batteries are charged and discharged.
It has taken decades to sort out fuel storage in a modern ICE vehicle and the actual fuel is not structural and just sloshes about in a bingle. It is a different matter for a 200kg battery pack to survive a bingle. And the slightest damage increases risk of serious failure so best to replace. That is why insurance is so high for BEVs.
140
Check the battery in your portable telephone – I’m sure it is degrading slowly rather than failing catastrophically. I don’t use a ‘smartphone’, but I know I have to recharge my laptop more frequently than I used to.
Mere observation I know, but having been in the landscape/horticulture industry for well over forty years, my observations of the weather have led me to conclude that CAGW is total bullshit too.
140
Individual cells will degrade gradually, until the point where the cell fails. Just one cell in a battery pack could fail and bring down a whole section of interconnected cells in the pack. One bad cell could make the whole pack appear to suddenly fail.
Mobile phones probably only have one or two cells in their battery pack. Cars have thousands of individual cells.
40
Don’t panic Dom and Rick, I most certainly am not promoting battery powered cars in any shape or form. They are simply not needed – we still have plenty of oil available and great ICE technology.
40
Some clown was talking about 20 year payback period for ev’s, based on the battery life and replacement cost, I’d get rid of it after 3 years while it still has some residual value.
110
There are many studies that confirm EVs have a lower environmental footprint than ICE:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2833-the-environmental-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossil-cars
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/electric-vehicles/our-mission/are-evs-better-for-the-environment
The economics and technology continue to improve for EVs as does the reducing environment footprint. Much of the Lithium extraction and processing is done by Chinese firms with poor ESG records; that will change. Australia is sitting on a huge economic opportunity due to its large Lithium reserves but seems reluctant to grasp it.
371
Loved your second link….the first sentence written for a mental midget, which I suppose is what attracts EV shills to the Electrickery duds in the first place…..First line: the “hook”..
“One of the interesting aspects when first observing a battery electric vehicle (BEV) is the absence of an exhaust pipe.”
Like commenting that a septic toilet tank has no exit pipe to the sewer-line. Wow…septic tanks are BETTER!
540
No exhaust pipe. Missing something obvious just like Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz who had no brain. Scarecrow should have been a Uniparty politician or climate “scientist” (sic) or someone who believes in the anthropogenic global warming fraud.
390
Mantaray: word of the day – Electrickery – a favourite illusion of those employed in politricks.
You know it’s a cult when followers use guilt buzzwords to diss outsiders or non-believers, such as ’emissions’, ‘carbon footprint’, ‘fossil fuels’, ‘sustainable’, ‘net(t) zero’, ‘saving the planet’ or saving grandma for the ‘good of the community’.
Pay your tithes and indulgences, buy forgiveness, mock those who don’t follow the anointed profits [sic] of doom. This new religion is the old religion with a shiny updated brand/name. Simple.
210
Interesting articles, but I could not find a single ICE MPG denominator reference in any of them. (Correct me if I am wrong, please)
Are they comparing a Ford F350 to an EV to get those results?
220
EV’s are the answer to a problem that does not exist. They are a wasteful joke.
510
First, read the Michaux report from the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), Simple Simon.
160
Net Zero is the IQ of most “Pollies” and ESG stands for “Economic Suicide, Gormless”
210
Rowan Atkinson, who has far greater understanding of electronics, manufacturing costs etc, than the simplistic view of a bog-standard virtue-seeking leftist.. Feels DUPED. Rowan Atkinson with an Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering at Newcastle University and a Master’s degree in EE at The Queen’s College, Oxford, back in 1975.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/05/rowan-atkinson-i-love-electric-vehicles-but-increasingly-i-feel-duped/
120
Whether the impact is lower or not is moot in my opinion. Their impact is demonstrably too high as pointed out above. The fact that our eyes are wide open to this while not making proportionate effort to reduce the impact should worry greens and non greens alike.
319
The impact of all that excessive mining and extraction of raw materials for EVs is certainly something that needs to be considered.
Again we have a truly idiotic “fix” for something which was never a real problem..
ICE cars have been becoming more efficient and cleaner of real pollution…
Their CO2 emissions are a benefit to plant life, hence all life on Earth.
Efficient use of resources, that is what we should be concentrating on…
… not some pie-in-the-sky leftist dream of EVs which are causing environmental destruction at the mining stage, to the end-of-life disposal… and relying on the supply of minerals that we don’t have resources to ever accomplish.
190
Gee Aye, I believe those of us burning fossil fuels are helping plant life on Earth. Burn oil, feed the world. We have a duty to liberate those hydrocarbons.
230
Free the carbon 9!
20
RE:Evs
No EV is CO2 neutral until at least 200,000 km, and that, excluding battery replacement.
The grid upgrades to charge the EVs is a real cost. Who pays for that? Some 60% to 100% of generation increase is required, and some 50% increase in transmission line and distribution costs. If you have 100,000 miles of transmission/distribution lines, the cost to rewire existing towers and install new lines is some 4 Million AUD per mile. So that’s 400 Billion AUD. Upgrading/replacing substations is another 20 Million or so per substation, and local distribution upgrades are another 3 Million AUD/mile, then you’ve got substation, switchgear, residential entrance upgrades at 5,000 AUD each home, plus the special charging circuitry at another 3,000 AUD per house or apartment. And then the sun sets. or the wind fails. Then you have the issue of no refrigeration, no lifts, no traffic lights, no aircons, no water, no sanitation, and many other issues.
Everyone in favour of an EV transportation system and a renewable power system needs to post a Bond of some 100 Trillion dollars in case they are wrong. Because they are provably wrong. RE, EVs, etc are solutions in search of a problem.
There is no climate emergency. There is no CO2 problem. The real problem is innumerate idiots with no concept of system dynamics, grid scale power, economics, thermodynamics, chemistry, economics, scarcity, social impacts, or reality. Stupid, illiterate, innumerate, ignorant, emotional, selfish, children, should not have a voice in any matter, whatsoever.
160
It has been pointed out that coal fired power station generators to provide electricity for EV batteries is less fuel efficient than petrol or diesel and an internal combustion engine.
290
Correct. With a coal fired power station you have a loss at the power station first converting fuel to electricity (unavoidable due to thermodynamic considerations).
Then you have a second loss charging the EV battery. Then you have a third loss discharging the battery and converting the electricity into motive power. Not to mention losses due to electricity transmission over power lines and transformers and EV motor losses. And not to mention long term losses due to EV batteries not being recyclable.
With a gasoline or diesel vehicle you only have one loss converting the fuel into motive power.
431
There will be further losses on an all wind and solar grid because there will be additional batteries (or dams) to charge and discharge between you and the bird choppers and panels before the power even gets to your EV.
310
I read that windmill bearings suffer from brinell forces when static and most use a diesel generator to keep the rotor turning when they ain’t blowin’ in the wind. True?
90
I’ve also read a few articles on the subject of brinelling and the bearings supporting the shaft between the prop and the turbine…it is apparently a large problem.
110
Brinelling happens with all bearings kept static under a high load and causes deformation of bearing surfaces. The windmills have to be kept turning during the vast majority of the time when they aren’t being turned by wind.
100
DM, The WT bearings suffer uneven stress because the pressure of the wind on the upper part of the rotation is much greater than at the bottom. The wind is greater higher up. Just look at kite surfers compared to windsurfers at the same time. The kite has much more wind and performance is greatly enhanced.
Burning out bearings is a big problem with WTs. With the uneven pressure they run hot, pit and eventually burnout!
John
70
From a colleague in the business. Certainly true during Installation and commissioning. When operational and connected to the grid they use power from the grid. Madness either case.
50
One big loss of gasoline or diesel energy is the process of refining crude oil into liquid fuels. it’s more expensive than burning coal.
The transport of liquid fuels is more expensive than the transport of electricity.
Otherwise I agree with your post.
70
DonK31,
Can be, but they really have different cost structures. If you want to double the delivery for a day, it’s cheaper sending a second truck than stringing larger cable the whole way (gold plating as they call it).
70
Assuming that you have enough trucks, and drivers and are willing to double the fuel costs to deliver liquid fuels to the gas station. Trucks do not grow on trees and neither do drivers. Their time on the road is regulated by the government.
10
Power lines don’t grow on trees either. It is *sometimes* cheaper to transport liquid fuel.
30
3% loss in refining crude to transport fuels.
40
I have always seen EVs as primarily coal powered. Their substantial CO2 is emitted remotely at the power station rather than the exhaust pipe (not that it matters).
Of course, the generally wealthy virtue signalers who own these machines have no clue where their power comes from. It certainly isn’t windmills and solar panels in the main.
390
“wealthy virtue signalers”
Who have no virtue to start with, and end up with even less. !
I have met several guys with EVs, and I can assure you… is all just “posing”..
300
David . It is not cheaper either. If one takes into account that a litre of petrol contains about 10 kWh of energy it costs 18 cents per kWh to fill the car. The cheapest electricity I can get is 25 cents/kWh Off Peak to a high this morning of 45 cents/kWh. In the middle of the day it is 38.7 cents/kWh. How is that cheaper to operate? There is a dirth of real information in the media which I suppose we expect when the details do not support the woke agenda.
240
In fairness to the BEV, it does a better job turning kWh into motion than the petrol engine does. Rather than raw energy input, it’s fairer to rate a litre of petrol at 3kWh of useful output. On the plus side, you get cabin heating for free.
20
Tesla will be charging up to 99 cents a kWh which equates to 330 cents per liter according to your figures which is close to twice as dear as petrol.
20
Yes, the plain facts are on our side, so better to be conservative on the energy equation and keep on solid ground.
Personally, I see the bigger cost with the Tesla charging as the time wasted. You have to (a) top-up more often than a petrol vehicle, and (b) take an extra 25 minutes or so per top-up. What hourly rate do you bill that at?
20
And if they are made in China, the power station emissions as the car and battery is manufactured.
40
It is entirely irrelevant if EVs reduce co2, they aren’t for the environment in the first place, they are for power and control.
In a few years governments will rescind their fascist EV mandates and automakers will be left with billions in losses. Just watch.
280
I agree Klem. I think EV’s are eventaully going to fail and sales plummett when the penny finally drops…and Oh what a mess that is going to create.
100
The real reason electric vehicles are being forced on us, at least before all personal transport for non-Elites is banned or highly restricted and you are forced to stay within the confines of a “15 minute city” is the same reason all non-electric appliances such as natural gas heating are being banned.
Electrified machines are far more amenable to remote control and monitoring than non-electric items and less amenable to be able to bypass electronic restrictions. So, for example, if you committed a Thought Crime, your EV could lock in your vehicle and then deliver you to the nearest re-education camp. Or, your car could keep you strictly within the confines of your 15 minute city and report attempts to leave.
Or Big Brother could deem your heating is too warm or your cooling too cold and adjust the temperature accordingly.
The latter facility already exists in Australia with nearly all new air conditioning units sold equipped with DRED, Demand Response Enable Device, although it is not yet compulsory to have it connected. I wrote an article about it. https://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2017/April/DRED%3A+they+can+turn+your+aircon+off
340
The other source of emissions that has not been really fully accounted for in this article. is What is that rate of emissions reduction comparing battery charging with refuelling with petrol. If the impact of recharging billions of motor vehicles drastically increases demand for electricity then the mix of energy in the grid involved used in the process of manufacture and then recharging of the battery on an ongoing basis influences how rapidly the excess CO 2 caused in the battery production is paid back. As most of the EVs are made in China and China is also becoming one of the biggest consumer nations of EVs the fact that the Chinese grid is dominated by fossil fuels means the global impact of CO 2 payback might be even less than predicted. It’s all very well to assume that the future grids will be like EU where renewables are prominent but the dominant energy grid used globally will be in China and India where fossil fuels will dominate for a long time.
I have realised that if you think EVs are going to save the world we are going to be dis appointed.
210
Another point missed in the article is that about the time that EV & Ice total emissions become equal, about 70,000 kilometers is about the time that the most emissive part of the EV, the battery, will require replacement.
So the EV has to start again playing catch up with the ICE car.
70
“Missed”?
More like “buried”.
40
“I have realised that if you think EVs are going to save the world we are going to be disappointed.”
Spot on !
51
Recharging an EV is becoming more expensive …
https://www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicle-owners-warned-to-brace-for-looming-electricity-price-rises/?utm_source=Nine-Front-Page&utm_medium=Referral
110
Then there are the infrastructure impacts. Studies indicate that if all transport switches to electric vehicles, power generation would have to increase by about 60%.
Then, each owner would need to install a charger at home. However, more than 3 EVs on a street overload the current draw of local grid transformers, meaning every local grid would need to be upgraded.
Pity those who rent, live in apartments, or don’t have off street parking. Where do they charge their EVs? They could complain to their local council and have more chargers installed in public parking areas. But who will pay for that? Perhaps they can recoup the cost of the chargers (and don’t forget the requisite grid upgrades) by charging higher prices to EV owners?
I wonder if all the necessary grid upgrades have been included in their CO2 emissions analysis? Ha ha! Most don’t bother to include disposal costs, so let’s not kid ourselves about any CO2 emission savings.
But speaking of costs, how is the government going to replace the billions in revenue from fuel taxes? I’m sure our clever politicians will work this out fairly quickly. You see, EVs are about 300kg to 500kg heavier than their ICE equivalents. So they wear out our roads faster. The solution might be a road tax, based entirely on kms driven.
Since most EVs are smart vehicles, various governments might choose to automatically monitor each vehicle’s position and mileage. Don’t worry, they won’t be monitoring your speed (yet)! And when they do, it will be a “safety feature”, sold as preventing vehicle thefts. But then, your fines will come straight to your email, as soon as your vehicle reports you! So much potential revenue!
270
..? Which studies ?
I call BS on that. I would suggest someone cannot do maths.
..probbably a similar place as ICE car owners go to refill their fuel tanks ?…..Public charge stations !
Not many ICE owners can refuel at home !
Utter, utter , regurgitated online bull5hit. !
See previous discussions on this site for the real information.
Tesla’s heaviest car,..the 2500 kg Model X, 7 seat, 4×4, luxury SUV….
….equivalent, Lexus 570, 7 seat, 4×4, luxury SUV (ICE) , 2600 kg !!
ALL modern cars are heavy !
There are many REAL issues with EVs, but these are not some of them !
11
Other issues with the massive upgrading of the electricity grid to supply power for EVs are:
1) Where is all the power going to come from? How many more bird choppers and solar farms are needed? How much more environmental damage from these is acceptable?
2) Where will all the lithium for battery storage come from if we are to have a wind and solar grid? Plus lithium for EV batteries? There are not enough reserves in the world.
3) Where will all the aluminium for HV wires and copper for domestic wires come from? Aluminium for HV wires requires electric smelting with huge amounts of electricity plus they are often steel reinforced and you need coal to make steel and copper is already in short supply and expensive and also needs a lot of energy to process.
4) Where will all the steel and aluminium to build all these EVs come from? Both are energy intensive to produce or recycle. Where will the plastics come from because you need an oil industry for those?
210
As demand for EVs increase, there will be shortages of the supply of raw materials leading to …
[1] Increased input costs driving up the price of the end products, resulting in …
[2.a] Increased exploration and mine development to meet the increased demand for raw materials (substantial lead time, and the amounts required are … let us say … formidable…)
[2.b] Increased investment in battery alternative technologies that could see a breakthrough in materials and battery tech (substantial lead time, and technical risk that a ‘revolution,’ does not occur…)
All resulting in [3] greatly reduced market penetration as EV’s become a luxury item.
In an environment of [4] Reduced baseload electric power inviting grid instability… and [5] Regulatory action against fossil-fueled cars …
Resulting in [6]
Say hello to your new eco-friendly human powered bicycle which will be perfect for navigating your 15 minute city.
181
So true ExWarmist. Most here are working on the principle that the idea is to replace ice cars with battery cars. What couldn’t be further from the truth.
The whole idea is to get the peasants out of any powered personal transport, & back onto their feet, to limit mobility, & atop wasting the resources wanted by the elites. They want us back on the manor or walking to work in the factory at the end of our street.
Personal transport for us has no place in the elites idea of the future. Thus none of the problems with powering millions of battery cars apply in our future.
90
It does look like that.
10
Jo. You asked why the Greens do not complain about the vast amount of extra mining required for batteries and EVs generally. The Greens are communists and their aim is to destroy the West not save the planet about which they could not care less. They are doing a fabulous job thanks to the media and dumb politicians elected by even dumber voters. I am sure that if the people were given all the facts they would throw out politicians who are making their lives worse for no good reason. We probably won’t have to wait that long when the inevitable blackouts start. It will depend on how those blackouts are reported.
220
On a practical note.
When your EV is stuck in a massive traffic jam due to accident or bad/cold weather and your battery goes flat. What will the breakdown services do to rescue 100s of dead EVs ?
In the UK the breakdown services currently turn up with a diesel generator to recharge your battery, that can take from 20 mins to an hour. Multiply that by, say, 20 or 50 !
Is it me, or is this f*ckin madness ?
260
Its not you, definitely effing madness on a grand scale. a) on govts behalf for pushing this utter stupidity and more significantly b) on the general populations behalf for not being able to use that thingy in their pockets with internet access to check basic facts about co2 and the ’emissions’ generated over the full life cycle of these so called ‘green’ monstrosities (solar, wind, EVs, etc). Your average person that says ‘we need to do something about climate change’ thinks that the earths co2 level is anywhere from 5 to 20% in my experience. I have not met a single one that knows what the level is, what mans contribution to that is, how much is produced from a single volcanic eruption, nor what the ideal level should be set at. Beggars belief that so many have been brainwashed by the obvious misinformation, spread by corrupt socialists by enlarge. They even refuse to believe their own lying eyes – what warming? what sea level rise? what permanent droughts? what end to snow season? what extinct polar bears? I could go on…And then what are they doing to reduce their own ‘co2 footprint’? moving into smaller houses, getting rid of their extra vehicles/boats, not travelling on planes, not using a/c? Of course not, it’s only a ‘climate emergency’ for the peasants – who cares if pensioners freeze to death because they cant afford green dream heating costs…
Sickening.
100
One area where conservatives have failed VERY BADLY is to point out the random and diffuse nature of solar and wind and the huge size differences between a power station and farms of bird choppers and solar panels that pretend to produce equivalent usable power to a power station.
How many Uniparty voters actually understand that you need infeasibly large battery banks and many thousands of windmills or thousands of hectares/acres of solar panels to even pretend to replace one single compact out-of-the-way usually-invisible power station?
250
I think a typical Uniparty voter thinks when they see a solar farm or a few dozen bird choppers on a hill that it represents a replacement for a demolished power station. They have absolutely no clue!
190
There is NO viable replacement for a good old fashioned power station. When it’s dark and the wind doesn’t blow there is no electric – end of discussion.
30
I’ve got it! Lay a conductor along every road and turn the country into a giant scalextric.
80
Like ‘solar roadways’. Look at Regen Power.https://regenpower.com/is-solar-powered-road-a-reality/
10
Remember, the long term plan is to destroy all achievements of The Enlightenment, Western Civilisation and the free enterprise system.
Once the Elites have even more dictatorial powers, and they are getting more every single day, even the private motor vehicle, electric or not, will be banned for non-Elites.
The WEF makes no secret of it. And Australia is a fanatical follower of UN and WEF decrees.
Why are people so blind to this?
221
I am beginning to think that the word “Elites” is too good for the people who are wrecking the world for everyone else to benefit themselves. I ran a few thoughts through the Thesaurus and came up with :
Encumbrance
Hindrance
Burden
Impediment
Obstacle
Privileged
Swill
But the one I like best is “Swabs”.
Any other thoughts?
90
‘Swabs’ – as in Klaus?
30
Pond scum – always rises to the top.
40
I live in a regional Queensland country town. I’m waiting for Chris Bowen or one of his minions to come up here and tell the local 4WD Ute enthusiasts that they will have to learn to live without their urban assault/bush track destroying method of transport. I haven’t been to a good tar and feathering for a long time.
80
Politicians haven’t been tarred and feathered for some time. And it shows.
The last Australian politician tarred and feathered was federal Labor MP John McDougall in 1919.
40
Where is Chris Bowen???
20
Does anybody have any feedback on trade in values of EVs, or the attitude of new ICE dealerships toward trading EVs for ICE vehicles.
Is there a market for used EVs, if so what prices??
60
EVs are costly useless, TOXIC disasters and will never make a measurable difference on the weather or their so called CC.
But they will vastly increase our need for energy and the cost will be horrendous. But I’m sure that’s what China and Russia are hoping for and their OECD useful idiots are only too happy to oblige.
The cost of a very small EV is about twice the cost of a medium size ICE car that will last much longer with proper servicing and the trade in value is also much higher.
But if Albo and Bowen get their way we’ll see the cost of ICE cars increase because of corruption and fraud via GOVT price increases.
But why would govts need to tell lies, when the facts prove that we are now living in the SAFEST and most BENIGN climate in Human history?
Anyone who disputes these facts should tell us when the climate has been better than the last 200 or 100 or 50 years? Can anyone dispute the data?
And fossil fuels have made the world a much safer place for everyone.
200
Willis Eschenbach’s “where’s the emergency” article is very comprehensive and he has made further interesting updates recently to further prove we are living in the very best of times.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
130
Here’s the clueless King island disaster this morning and without the Diesel generator the 1700 or so residents would be without power AGAIN.
So when will they wake up and admit they are telling us a pack of lies?
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island
120
The push to EVs is a mirror of the push to RE, which are both driven by government mandates, rather than the free market economy and therefore we can easily predict what happens next. In the case of EVs, the forced/mandated demand for lithium and rare earth metals will easily outstrip supply early in the transition phase and will keep driving up prices. Governments will respond with more and more subsidies until we end up cost spiral that ends with completely unaffordable vehicles and bankrupt car manufacturers. And, at the end of that journey, the plants that manufacture ICE vehicles will have mostly closed down and with car manufacturers already bust we end up with a halt to global transport manufacture and a world sinking in deep excrement.
And, just in case someone invents a cheaper battery in decades to come, that uses more readily available metals and that can be recharged more times. That won’t help either because we’ll be forced by government to use low density and intermittent RE to power a grid that would become even more swamped by the extra demand. If there is a future solution where we use EVs, it will be one where we invent the cheaper / rare-earth free battery and charge our vehicles using coal, gas or nuclear, which could be a good outcome for countries that import lots of oil. But that ain’t happening any time soon.
110
Got it in one Serge. Governments worldwide will see no obstacle in just subsidising the populace to buy BPV’s. They’ll probably be subsidising those companies/industries who can no longer operate profitably due to high energy prices for a long time. What’s a couple extra hundred billion $ for some BPV/EV’s ? It will be spun as ” this is the price to save the world from climate change etc”. It will be like COVID vaccines – go get your booster, they’re “free”.
100
If you asked the purchasers of Battery Powered Vehicles I would estimate that most would say it wasn’t to save the planet etc. Most would probably say they’re great to drive, look good and are very functional. Others might say they have that cool function where you can leave your dog in the car on a hot day. The indicators play “jingle bells” around Xmas time. Stuff like that. You know, all the reasons people buy ICE vehicles. There’s also an element of vanity (look at me, look at me) as well. It’s just like COVID vaccines as well- our governments were effectively pharma reps. Now, they appear to be slick, slimy car sales people for the BPV industry. Old Elon is laughing all the way to the bank.
120
You can already envisage the EV owners of the future, returning to their cars to find a deceased dog, flat battery and no jump start possible.
110
An EV owner, with a dog?
Pets aren’t allowed in wokeville , are they ?
20
It would be a non-binary dog 😉
20
I parked my V6 petrol 4WD SUV in a supermarket carpark in QLD one hot humid summer day with my German Shepherd Dog inside, windows up and doors locked, engine and air conditioning running and Dog sitting happily on the front passenger seat.
When I returned there was a small crowd of muttering unhappy people standing looking towards to front of the vehicle with my Dog staring back at them. When they realised I was the driver a couple became abusive, how dare I leave my Dog in a hot vehicle. I pointed to the engine and replied, listen it’s running and the air conditioning is on. They all looked embarrassed.
70
“it takes a staggering amount of energy to dig up the 250 tons of specialty rocks required, and then crush, purify and mold them into one half-ton battery.”
Lets not forget the CO2 emissions from transporting the specialty rocks to a processing plant, most likely in a faraway country.
100
The elephant in the room : Heavy transport . There is no way we will be able to transport anything big or heavy without oil . Electrical transport isn’t scalable like diesel transport . Imagine trying to move the base of a turbine with an electric truck…
70
Old Goat >”The elephant in the room : Heavy transport”
Agreed. Lots of last-mile applications but until there’s heavy long-haul rollout there’s not much of a dent in ICE trucking.
E-trucks lose 25% of payload capacity to the battery – that’s the load that pays. Frito Lay has a Tesla trial hauling ….. wait for it …. packets of crisps. No news on what the back haul is (or isn’t) or how the same haul was handled with ICE. I don’t believe the back haul was ever empty.
In NZ big fanfare for E-trucks in quarry applications, example here (BHP doing similar in OZ):
New Zealand’s first fully electric quarry truck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq37EAGFoCI
The NZ heavy long-haul rollout so far is hydrogen:
Hydrogen-powered heavy freight trucks to hit New Zealand roads
(4th Nov 2021)
https://www.eeca.govt.nz/about/news-and-corporate/news/hydrogen-powered-heavy-freight-trucks-to-hit-new-zealand-roads/
“heavy vehicle leasing and rental company TR Group has ordered 20 heavy hydrogen fuel cell trucks for delivery to New Zealand next year [2022]”
“TR Group will lease those trucks to its customers, and use Hiringa Energy’s hydrogen refuelling network, which previously received $16 million in co-funding from the CRRF. Hiringa will soon break ground on the first of four green hydrogen refuelling stations across key freight routes in the mid to upper North Island.”
“Hydrogen is being seen to play an important role in establishing New Zealand’s low-emissions economy,” EECA CEO Andrew Caseley said, “and heavy freight is considered a promising application for it. New Zealand has the renewable energy needed to produce green hydrogen, and investing in the vehicles and infrastructure will create new jobs in a highly skilled industry as well as reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”
See next for NZ heavy E-truck rollout.
30
Not seeing the same scale heavy long-haul E-truck rollout in NZ as hydrogen, just this:
Scania NZ launches first [two] electric trucks
https://www.nztrucking.co.nz/scania-nz-launches-first-electric-trucks/
Probably more than what I’ve seen or searched but the H/E ratio seems to about 10:1 in NZ.
Europe different:
Logistics firm orders 50 Mercedes-Benz battery-electric long-haul trucks SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
https://www.nztrucking.co.nz/logistics-firm-orders-50-mercedes-benz-battery-electric-long-haul-trucks/
“Europe-based logistics company Hegelmann Group has signed a Letter of Intent for an order of 50 Mercedes-Benz Trucks battery-electric long-haul trucks.”
E-truck rollout is light and short. This Govt article says “Heavy” but the examples are light and short:
Heavy electric trucks part of latest round of Govt’s low emissions fund
https://www.nztrucking.co.nz/heavy-electric-trucks-part-of-latest-round-of-govts-low-emissions-fund/
Last line:
“the single most interesting question in the market is what will happen in the long-haul segment. While battery electric looks more likely to win out in the end over the wider truck and bus market, long haul is now the one area where fuel cells still could make a big breakthrough.”
30
Most amusing to me is the ICE vs Electric race in clean-green NZ kiwifruit logistics.
Bins delivered to packhouses by diesel trucks offloaded by double-fork diesel forklifts.
Inside a packhouse is all electric forklifts, little more than 1 tonne/1 pallet at a time.
Loadouts to trucks are mainly double-fork diesel but some (lessor power) LPG 2 tonne/2 pallets at a time. Forkies hate LPG because they are expected to keep up with diesel. Electric nowhere to be seen.
Pallets delivered from packhouse coolstores to port by diesel trucks.
At the port, 2 tonne/2 pallet diesel offloads from trucks. then MUCH larger 4 tonne/4 pallet diesel from offload station to ship side.
Logs, paper, dried milk etc – all a similar story.
The ships of course, are powered by bunker oil (and diesel in port).
All ok because kiwifruit are clean and green, gold, red, whatever.
40
>”This Govt article says “Heavy” but the examples are light”
I suppose they could be referring to battery weight rather than payload….
30
A single electric truck is going into service in Scotland.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65812980
“The HGV will haul around 24 tonnes of full whisky casks on the first leg of its journey, returning to the bottling plant with empty casks.”
Open to correction, but in the UK, max Gross Vehicle Weight is 44 tonnes; IIRC, tare weight is about 12 tonnes – so load of 32 tonnes [roughly].
On the face of it, this is a 25% reduction in payload. . . .
Interestingly, the report includes: –
“The lorry will be able to make the 50-mile round-trip up to five times each day before being recharged overnight.”
” up to five times …”
Auto
20
Imagine bolting EV bikes to the truck like outboard motors on the stern of a boat.
Something like using wind turbines to replace power stations.
20
It’s never been about the planet or the climate. Follow the money… A few predictions:
1) People are going to become commodities in this whole shebang – they are going to implement programs and processes (health economics etc) that will make people expendable, so certain treatment regimens (or lack thereof) will be implemented that will actually bring about the planned population reduction, at least in the Western World.
2) You will eventually be forced to only buy those small EVs with the small batteries and limited range. Remember, you will own nothing…
60
As an indicator of how far society has fallen, how many even know today is the anniversary of D-Day?
How many care?
If you do a Goolag search under “News” the only Australian returns are radio 2GB on page 1 and later Sky News Australia on page 5. (Page numbers are what I got on a phone, they maybe different on other devices.)
Instead we have “pride month”.
After all that sacrifice, the forces of totalitarianism are back with a vengeance.
Very sad.
70
I am PROUD to be a NORMAL, HETEROSEXUAL male. !
80
Translation in todays progressive speak… I am PROUD to be a white, racist, homophobic, mysoginistic bigot!
I am with you b.nice. I am also PROUD to be a NORMAL, HETEROSEXUAL male.
I don’t care what the “progressives” lable me as.
20
Pride cometh before a fall.
The petals are heterophobes.
Isn’t there a law against heterophobia?
30
Willis Eschenbach has even checked out the increase in protein per capita since 1961 for the world.
But if you check out the increase in all the continents you’ll find that Oceania seems to flatten since 2000, but Australia alone is high and just under Nth America.
Africa has fallen a bit since 2000, but their population has increased by hundreds of millions of people over the last 20 years.
But I’ve added China and their protein increase is much more rapid as their coal power generation has SOARED.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-protein-supply?tab=chart&country=OWID_AFR~OWID_ASI~Northern+America+%28FAO%29~Oceania+%28FAO%29~OWID_SAM~OWID_WRL~OWID_EUR~AUS~CHN
20
BTW the population of Africa has increased by 822 million since 1990 and 641 million since 2000.
And much higher life expectancy today as well.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/population
30
Here we go again, a whole lot of useless discussion. When are people going to wake up to the fact that CO2 is a simple, stable molecule that does not, can not generate any heat whatsoever. It merely passes on the heat energy already in the environment from hotter to colder places as part of the natural process of achieving thermodynamic equilibrium, it cannot increase the temperature of anything because it does NOT GENERATE any heat energy.
To warm the Earth requires additional heat from a source hotter than the Earth and the only source of that which I know of is the Sun.
71
Well put.
People should read this twice.
” It merely passes on the heat energy already in …..”
31
Just wanted to highlight your comment ! 🙂
31
And blankets don’t generate heat energy either but they work. Delaying heat loss through energy transfer to non-GHG molecules in kinetic collisions matters.
We will all die sometime. Your life depends on “the delay”.
50
Sorry Jo Nova, you are not comparing like with like. The blanket delays the loss of heat generated by your body. When life leaves the body, the body gets cold regardless of the depth of blankets.
In the case of the atmosphere, energy transfer takes place between both GHG molecules and non-GHG molecules. If the collision is between a fast moving, non-GHG molecule and a neutral GHG molecule, the former can energize the GHG molecule. The heat can go either way but the total energy of the pair of molecules remains the same with no warming of the atmosphere. However the blanket cannot heat the body as it is colder that the body and heat only travels from hotter, the body, to colder, the blanket.
The chances are that we may all die sooner rather than later unless the population wakes up to what must be the greatest fraud of all time, the CO2 induced global warming fraud devised to give the UN/WEF total power and ownership of the the Earth.
51
Good one.
🙂 🙂
01
It is a very strange “blanket” that COOLS the surface when it get too warm 😉
The use of the “blanket” analogy should be reserved for use by climate alarmists.
01
Sigh. Here we go again. No Bevan. My analogy is self evidently correct. I’m merely pulling up b.nice again for the simplistic claim that CO2 “cannot increase the temperature of anything because it does NOT GENERATE any heat energy”.
Despite the YELLING, it misses the point that there are two ways to “make something hotter”. One is with added Joules. The other is by slowing the loss of joules. Insulation does increase the temperature of things by delaying the heat loss. This is trite and banal, but very relevant to the role of all GHG’s in the atmosphere.
In the blanket analogy your body is the heat source, and the blanket is an insulator. It is not a coal fired blanket, or a nuclear generator blanket, just something that slows the heat loss your body makes. We all know it works, every night, and breaks no laws of physics. Would you or would you not be warmer with a blanket on?
On the planet, the sun and the molten lava under our feet generate heat. The GHG’s are the blanket insulators. GHG’s don’t need to “GENERATE” any joules. Merely to delay their loss to space.
This is such an important (and quite modest) point, I hope all three of you pay attention and reply. We may disagree on many things, but can we at least agree:
1. Insulators effectively warm things (that have some other heat source) without generating kilojoules by slowing the heat loss. Yes or No?
2. Therefore it is logically incorrect to say CO2 can’t heat anything because it doesn’t generate heat. Yes or No? This is only a theoretical point. It does not prove CO2 does anything. I’m making the small but logically infallible point that it’s possible greenhouse gases can act as an insulator creating warmer temperatures on Earth merely due to delaying the heat loss.
I really hope we can get past this and move on rather than repeating this fallacious loop.
21
To ëx warmist
Yes, with all the minerals required to support these EV’s, large numbers of new mines will need to be found. Universities will need to reopen Geology Departments (like my old ANU Geology Dept) to cope with the amount of exploration and mining required.
Can’t see this happening.
20
“No one even knows if EV’s will reduce carbon dioxide”
Yes, we do.
In the 2020 world Wu Flu lockdown most commuting including road traffic, airline traffic, cruise boat traffic and thus many factories and offices came to a complete stop. Count the cars And a dramatic reduction in REAL pollution.
most of the world’s private cars stopped for at least six months to a year . Did CO2 drop? No. In fact was no observable impact of reduction of human activity on CO2 let alone a billion cars stopped and 340,000 giant windmills.
Secondly, there is the underlying absolutely ridiculous presumption that cars, planes, breathing, the entire biosphere contributes to atmospheric CO2. They don’t.
CO2 existed long before life on earth. And it is vastly larger than the very small amount involved in life, even fossil fuels. Or 8 billion people breathing. And billions of animals and trillions of plants and insects.
CO2 is a gas like water. And in the ocean a liquid like water. And frozen a solid like water. And it evaporates like water and is extraordinarily soluble. So like water the little bit of H2O and CO2 on which we live is a gift of the vast oceans. And the oceans decide how much is in the air. Currently water in the air is about 1% and in the tropics up to 4%. CO2 is 0.04%. And has varied no more than 50% in 250 years.
There is no crisis to be solved. And EVs are a very wasteful way to use electricity, ultimately generating more CO2 than hybrids. The idea that changing cars to electric will reduce total CO2 somehow is ridiculous. Science fantasy, like all of man made CO2 caused Global Warming.
70
And because chemical energy has about 8x the energy density of batteries, carrying around a fixed 600kg battery to get the range of 40kg of fuel is nonsense. The CO2 cost of these larger, heavier vehicles in terms of minerals required means that there is no net gain. The same with windmills and solar panels. The CO2 pay back period is 5-10 years of extra CO2.
So for EVs and Windmills and Solar Panels we are emitting much more CO2 today to perhaps start saving minor CO2 a decade from now and the nett result is a dramatic increase in CO2 today and in the next decade. Can anyone see that doesn’t make sense? It’s the exact opposite of sense.
By the time these EVs and Windmills and Solar panels are actually reducing nett CO2 output, they are well on the road to replacement, especially as the batteries begin their terminal decline and the savings in CO2 are destroyed by loss of efficiency.
Electric cars have their place in crowded inner cities. They are no solution for the vast requirement for commuter traffic. And everyone knows it. It is a game played by the virtue signalling rich, a sign of success and privilege, like all expensive cars.
80
But I would like to know why Australia wants to be a Green Energy Superpower? Why?
Why can’t we be Saudi Arabia? No guilt. No apologies. Just Insanely rich.
Or Norway, once the poorest country in Europe and now the richest.
And what do you think will happen if we keep all the coal, oil and gas in the ground? And how does anyone think we can afford to pay $365billion for a few nuclear submarines if we do?
What sort of nimcompoop posts a balanced budget as one of the world’s great exporters of CO2 and swears to stop exports?
There is a complete sense of unreality in Australia, exemplified by a minister for Energy who hates energy and pushes Climate Change but cannot demonstrate it is reality. How’s that Great Barrier Reef going?
The question is not whether EVs can save us. It’s whether we can get a goverment which realises we are idiots keeping our wealth in the ground. Would Saudi Arabia be a country, let alone owned lock stock and oil barrel by one Saud family if they refused to sell the oil?
80
And what has Minister Bowen done about the greatest public theft in world history, outside a military dictatorship.
The $444 Million given by Malcolm Turnbull to his wife and her friends, to ‘save’ the Great Barrier Reef.
This from Chris Bowen. about the $11million interest we taxpayers have to pay on the gift.
And now that, thanks to this gift, the Great Barrier Reef is saved, perhaps we can stop subsidizing electric cars to save it?
Or better still, could we please have our money back?
100
Aloha! Greens lecture that extreme climate is manmade due to carbon emissions from an over populated high consuming Western society. In that case how many EVs do we have to buy and drive to reduce a cat 4 hurricane to a cat2? How many EVs will add 10% more Arctic ice? How many EVs will result in three less California fires and floods per year? How many EVs will it take to cure drought? How many EVs must we own until we “own nothing”?
50
And I find it an incredible sleight of hand to focus on reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions and not on reducing Carbon Dioxide.
That is because all scientists know that CO2 it is impossible to reduce carbon dioxide. It is not affected by anything we do. Just look at the graph of CO2. (Ignore the text, it is just a fairy story)
And see if you can spot giant forest fires or windmills or China or the 2020 world lockdown. Human activity has no observable impact on CO2 and as you know the human contribution is 3.0% anyway.
But we have now been told another fairy story that CO2 itself is not the problem, CO2 emissions are! Especially emissions from Western Democracies like Australia. Or family owned countries like Saudi Arabia. Or a theocratic dictatorship like Iran. The thinking is that if you believe one lie, you will believe anything.
And an impoverished struggling third world country like China is exempt.
60
The 6th of June has another anniversary. I recall these immortal lines from simpler times, and probably the greatest anti bureaucrat anthem ever writ — “It was a dark of a moon, on the 6th of June, in a Kenworth pullin logs
a cab over pete with a reefer on, an a jimmy haulin hogs …..
CW McCall’s ‘Convoy’, with a vocal that warps space and time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_m0YXADhg
10
You also have to factor in a replacement battery pack after 8 years or around 100,000 km
Do this then all CO2 savings are then blown out the window
30
This issue and so many others arise because this scam of a climate crisis (flat temps the past 9 years, btw, but you’ll never see that pop up in MSM) is government run, meaning it is not results-oriented. That is, results that favor the solution of whatever crisis is at hand. This situation would never do in an organization that actually works for a profit or tangible result.
Whenever anyone asks what will be the result of such-and-such a policy aimed at reducing atmospheric carbon, the answer is always couched in terms of CO2 or energy reduction. However, that’s not supposed to be the result. Remember, this is all about warming of the atmosphere, a cataclysmic 1.5C by the end of the century. That’s supposedly what they are trying to avoid.
Instead, *everyone*, we, the MSM, whoever, should be asking the question: OK, so if we enact this current policy, how much will that reduce the atmospheric temperature at the end of the century?? That’s the only measure that counts.
Of course, as Senator Kennedy has demonstrated, no “expert” (aka grifter) is going to answer that question because 1) for each policy the temperature reduction is vanishingly small, might as well be zero and 2) they really, really don’t know. There is no such thing as a “Carbon Index”, they know it, they know that means it’s all junk science.
But, that question needs to be asked again and again and again ad nauseum until the sheep start to look up from their grass and say WTF?
30
And it seems Australia now has 100,000 EVs. So how much CO2 is being saved?
In America there are 1.7 million electric cars but out of 285 million vehicles.
But when something like this does not work, the answer is more windmills, more EVs, more solar panels. Lots more subsidies please.
Einstein’s “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”. Windmills don’t work. If worldwide shutdown of all passenger cars did not work, why would EVs make a difference?
And EVs are the new status symbol, signalling both wealth and virtue. Clearly one buys the other. A bit like Carbon Indulgences.
60
And the posturing for Scottish independence is based entirely on the windfall in oil and gas from the North Sea.
Which shows that when the chips are down for governments, cash wins.
Except in self flagellating Australia where we are not allowed to use our own coal and not allowed to export any more than at present and fracking is illegal, nuclear is illegal and picking up sticks for the fire in Victoria is criminalized.
And the current environment minister Tanya Plibersek banned a new coal mine because of potential for damage to the Great Barrier Reef, of which there is no sign at all.
Australia is not the Smart Country. You could make a good argument for the reverse. We refuse to act in our own best interests. And hope someone thinks we are virtuous.
80
Transportation, all of it, is only about 15% of “emissions” and EV’s are only a tiny fraction of that. And EV’s might be net increasers of co2 anyway. Not that there’s any reason to want to reduce co2.
The atmospheric concentration does what it does regardless. Just look what happened during the cv19 lock downs: wait for it….nothing.
The whole concept is absurd.
20
Your wish is my command.
The QUANTiNO twentyfive is an all-electric car that does not require batteries. As a result, you don’t need to charge it but juice it up instead. The liquid bi-ION electrolyte fuel used in QUANTiNO twentyfive’s nanoFlowcell is a non-flammable, non-toxic, and environmentally friendly aqueous solution, and lasts for around 1,272 miles (2,000 kilometers) before needing refueling.
The technology makes use of a water treatment process that essentially turns salt water or wastewater to be used in a way that acts as a carrier for nano-structured molecules. These act as carriers that support the chemical reaction in order to produce the electrical current required to power the motors.
With regard to power, nanoFlowcell 48VOLT E-drive is initially powered by a small electrolytic capacitor. The QUANTiNO twentyfive also utilizes a multiphase motor design. The four low-voltage e-motors and the 48-volt onboard electronics are subsequently powered by the nanoFlowcell, which then assumes control of the process. The car has a top speed of 124 miles per hour. The car is equipped with n-AI for advanced vehicle safety control, which allows a rigid safety cell despite a detachable car roof.
https://www.topspeed.com/this-electric-car-is-proof-that-batteries-are-old-technology/
00
Something tells me that “flowcell” technology is likely even more expensive and less practical than current Lithium battery systems. ?
I recall that the King Island RE pilot project had a “flowcell” battery system at one stage, but it prooved so problematic that it was removed. ?
20
The CO2 / AGW argument for EVs is just Political/Environmental BS !
However, The one benefit of EV usage that seems to be ignored by many is the conservation of oil resources for more essential uses.
Until practical alternatives are developed for aero flight, heavy haulage, agraculture, chemicals, pharmacuticals, plastics, etc etc,….oil will be an increasingly scarce and valueable commodity.
So, if we have a practical alternative for powering cars, it makes sense to adopt it.
And the concerns over the additional generation capacity required for an EV fleet, has been debated here many times concluding that it is not a dramatic as some would believe.
If 10 million EV were on our roads it would only require less than 10% extra demand from the grid,..and that level of EV adoption is not going to happen within 20 years !..
..So plenty of time to gear up for that demand increase ( one small Nuclear plant ?)
21
I had a thorough read of the Volkswagen literature and they made the point that as far as reducing CO2 emissions go the EV is only as clean as the electricity that they use to charge it. In fact China which is one of the fastest growing EV markets adds more CO2 per EV relative to their fossil fuel equivalent in the charging / filling up stage. In China ( and the same in India) EVs create more CO2 than does an ICE vehicle.
10