Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There will never be, well not for a few hundred years probably, "zero fossil fuel emissions". We can make major reductions in the next 20-50 years, but "zero fossil fuel emissions" is bumper sticker slogan for the yokals.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm calculating the amount of lithium required to replace all internal combustion engines with EV's. It's not a premise or an assumption. It's a calculation.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm calculating the amount of lithium required to replace all internal combustion engines with EV's. It's not a premise or an assumption. It's a calculation.
As I don't disagree with the math. However the assumption that EVs will replace 100% of ICE vehicles is a faulty assumption. Or if you prefer a correct (possibly) calculation which though has no real world value. Over time they will fit the applications where they are best suited.
Therefore the math is meaningless based on the faulty premise as it does not account for the other variables (some of which were detailed in post #78) when comparing EVs to ICE vehicles.
As I don't disagree with the math. However the assumption that EVs will replace 100% of ICE vehicles is a faulty assumption. Or if you prefer a correct (possibly) calculation which though has no real world value. Over time they will fit the applications where they are best suited.
Therefore the math is meaningless based on the faulty premise as it does not account for the other variables (some of which were detailed in post #78) when comparing EVs to ICE vehicles.
Then by your math the next question should be is what will be the environmental damage by extracting that much lithium and do we have enough supply to keep on reproducing batteries after a battery has died out?
We must remember a lithium battery has a limited amount of life and if I remember correctly it is ten to twenty years is the theory that a lithium battery will last before needing replacement, so do we have enough lithium sources to keep up the replacement?
Now I do know that scientists have been working on recycling the batteries and it has shown it is possible to get a better made battery from recycled batteries but still you need to understand we will still have limited source and sooner or later we will run out of lithium and then what?
We do not plan for the reality all of our resources will dry up over time and will lead to the reality of us reverting back to what our ancestors did before the industrial revolution.
Finally, before we can discuss moving to a all electric vehicle society we must answer the limited quantities issue along with the lack of infrastructure to support such a switch…
Then by your math the next question should be is what will be the environmental damage by extracting that much lithium and do we have enough supply to keep on reproducing batteries after a battery has died out?
We must remember a lithium batter has a limited amount of life and if I remember correctly it is ten to twenty years is the theory that a lithium battery will last before needing replacement, so do we have enough lithium sources to keep up the replacement?
Now I do know that scientists have been working on recycling the batteries and it has shown it is possible to get a better made battery from recycled batteries but still you need to understand we will still have limited source and sooner or later we will run out of lithium and then what?
We do not plan for the reality all of our resources will dry up over time and will lead to the reality of us reverting back to what our ancestors did before the industrial revolution.
Finally, before we can discuss moving to a all electric vehicle society we must answer the limited quantities issue along with the lack of infrastructure to support such a switch…
100% ICE replacement with EVs wasn't going to happen. Ever**.
So the math can be valid, just doesn't mean anything as it describes a result that will not happen and excludes variables that will change the outcome.
100% ICE replacement with EVs wasn't going to happen. Ever**.
So the math can be valid, just doesn't mean anything as it describes a result that will not happen and excludes variables that will change the outcome.
The math isn't trying to predict what will happen. The math only predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines.
The math isn't trying to predict what will happen. The math only predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines.
I've seen post #78 several times. Thanks for post #78. It's a great post. I swear. But you have totally missed the point. The math predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines. So clearly the math does mean something.
I've seen post #78 several times. Thanks for post #78. It's a great post. I swear. But you have totally missed the point. The math predicts how much of a resource is required for battery operated vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines. So clearly the math does mean something.