Million mile+ batteries answer to vehicle pollution?

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The energy that the solar panels absorb and convert to electricity, is eventually expressed as heat.
Now... THAT is a stupid comment.
LOL Since, except in nuclear, energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to different forms of energy, where the hell do you think that energy ends up?
Dummy, Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Say it with me.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,484
Reaction score
7,296
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
The new Tesla batteries will exceed a million mile life by a lot. And, as the new terafactories start production, they will go head to head with ICE vehicles on price, while exceeding them in all other areas. This will eliminate most of our transportation pollution;

The damage from the resources that are need to create these batteries are never discussed and should be...
What bullshit. But you would ignore the damage done to mountain top mine coal? Most lithium comes either from extreme desert brines, or other dry climates where the mining damage is far less than that of drilling for natural gas or oil. All man's activities impact nature. Renewables and Ev's impact is orders of magnitude less than ICE's and fossil fuels.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,484
Reaction score
7,296
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
The energy that the solar panels absorb and convert to electricity, is eventually expressed as heat.
Now... THAT is a stupid comment.
LOL Since, except in nuclear, energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to different forms of energy, where the hell do you think that energy ends up?
Dummy, Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Say it with me.
OK, so you are a stupid ass, no knowledge of basic physics, and no desire to learn. Understood.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The energy that the solar panels absorb and convert to electricity, is eventually expressed as heat.
Now... THAT is a stupid comment.
LOL Since, except in nuclear, energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to different forms of energy, where the hell do you think that energy ends up?
Dummy, Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Say it with me.
OK, so you are a stupid ass, no knowledge of basic physics, and no desire to learn. Understood.
Any radiation solar panels take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Say it with me.

Widespread use of solar power will cause the earth to cool.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So... unless you want the planet to cool, you will have to burn something.
 
OP
O

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,484
Reaction score
7,296
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
No one's making an EV puck-up truck ... fer the dawg ...
Not sure when they are coming out but it sounds like it will be soon.
Putting a 1/2 ton of batteries on a 1/2-ton chassis kinda defeats the purpose of a pick-up ... how many miles towing a 6 ton trailer? ...

What they'll come out with is a Chick Truck, with little Tinkerbell stickers on it ... pink streamers on the rear-view mirrors ... I want a Man Truck, something I can dump 1-1/2 tons of bricks in and not have the suspension bounce ... like in the commercials ... figure a 450 cu in equivalent ...
[/QUOTE]
As far as an ICE pickup with normal 620 mile range would tow one. Instead of making yourself look stupid, why don't you look up the specs on the top end Tesla.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If the goal is to collapse society an all EV fleet would be a good start.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The energy that the solar panels absorb and convert to electricity, is eventually expressed as heat.
Now... THAT is a stupid comment.
LOL Since, except in nuclear, energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to different forms of energy, where the hell do you think that energy ends up?
For the most part performing work. But since there are no 100% efficient processes some heat is lost by the system. This loss in heat in no way compensates or equals the lost radiation which heats the surface of the earth and radiates back out into outer space where greenhouse gases choke or trap the heat on its way to outer space.

Wake the fuck up dummy and learn some physics. Your reluctance to accept reality shows just how much of a true believer you are.
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,460
Reaction score
1,824
Points
1,903
The new Tesla batteries will exceed a million mile life by a lot. And, as the new terafactories start production, they will go head to head with ICE vehicles on price, while exceeding them in all other areas. This will eliminate most of our transportation pollution;

The damage from the resources that are need to create these batteries are never discussed and should be...
What bullshit. But you would ignore the damage done to mountain top mine coal? Most lithium comes either from extreme desert brines, or other dry climates where the mining damage is far less than that of drilling for natural gas or oil. All man's activities impact nature. Renewables and Ev's impact is orders of magnitude less than ICE's and fossil fuels.
Hey, do not tell me it is bullshit when studies have been done on the environmental damage done from mining of the material!

If you are going to argue for clean energy then you better not lie about the environmental damage it has done to Tibet and South American Nations that you and CHINA have ignored all this time!

So do not call something bullshit when it has been discussed about the damage that has been done or are you one of those Chinese Trolls that want to lie and deny?



Read the damn article and let remember for electric cars to work you must generate the electricity to charge the battery with which causes environmental damage and then the mining of the material to make the battery and car causes environmental damage, so again when you write bullshit to me you better back it up with facts and not your fucking opinion!
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,460
Reaction score
1,824
Points
1,903
The new Tesla batteries will exceed a million mile life by a lot. And, as the new terafactories start production, they will go head to head with ICE vehicles on price, while exceeding them in all other areas. This will eliminate most of our transportation pollution;

The damage from the resources that are need to create these batteries are never discussed and should be...
What bullshit. But you would ignore the damage done to mountain top mine coal? Most lithium comes either from extreme desert brines, or other dry climates where the mining damage is far less than that of drilling for natural gas or oil. All man's activities impact nature. Renewables and Ev's impact is orders of magnitude less than ICE's and fossil fuels.
Hey, do not tell me it is bullshit when studies have been done on the environmental damage done from mining of the material!

If you are going to argue for clean energy then you better not lie about the environmental damage it has done to Tibet and South American Nations that you and CHINA have ignored all this time!

So do not call something bullshit when it has been discussed about the damage that has been done or are you one of those Chinese Trolls that want to lie and deny?



Read the damn article and let remember for electric cars to work you must generate the electricity to charge the battery with which causes environmental damage and then the mining of the material to make the battery and car causes environmental damage, so again when you write bullshit to me you better back it up with facts and not your fucking opinion!
Also let me add what it take to make the electronic boards to the body of the vehicle is not discussed and the resources or the damage it does to the environment but of course the OP’er will want to silence those like me...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The new Tesla batteries will exceed a million mile life by a lot. And, as the new terafactories start production, they will go head to head with ICE vehicles on price, while exceeding them in all other areas. This will eliminate most of our transportation pollution;

The damage from the resources that are need to create these batteries are never discussed and should be...
What bullshit. But you would ignore the damage done to mountain top mine coal? Most lithium comes either from extreme desert brines, or other dry climates where the mining damage is far less than that of drilling for natural gas or oil. All man's activities impact nature. Renewables and Ev's impact is orders of magnitude less than ICE's and fossil fuels.
That's a horseshit claim. You really are a true believer to spread bullshit like that.


"...Specifically, mining for lithium — the essential element for batteries used in many electric cars, as well as other portable electronics — is wreaking havoc on the world's deserts.

Lithium is found in the brine of salt flats. In order to obtain lithium, holes are drilled into the flats to pump the brine to the surface. This allows lithium carbonate to be extracted through a chemical process.

Last week, Bloomberg published a report detailing how the boom in lithium mining is irreversibly destroying the local environment of northern Chile’s Atacama desert. Mining for lithium means means removing large amounts of water, which means depleting the water supply for locals. According to the report, the Tilopozo meadow in Chile used to be a shelter for shepherds traveling at night, yet has become barren due to lack of grass or water. That puts a severe strain on local farmers.

“We’re fooling ourselves if we call this sustainable and green mining,” Cristina Dorador, a Chilean biologist, told Bloomberg. “The lithium fever should slow down because it’s directly damaging salt flats, the ecosystem and local communities.”

Cairn Energy Research Advisors estimates the lithium ion industry is expected to grow from 100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of annual production in 2017 to 800 GWhs in 2027—not only as a result of electric cars, but also because lithium is used in batteries to power various electrical and electronic goods, including mobile phones. Much of this will be mined from the South America’s Lithium Triangle, which spans across Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, an area that is said to hold more than half the world’s supply of the metal beneath its salt flats. Another major deposit comes from Australia.

“One of the biggest environmental problems caused by our endless hunger for the latest and smartest devices is a growing mineral crisis, particularly those needed to make our batteries,” Christina Valimaki an analyst at Elsevier, told UK’s Wired.

One of the side effects of lithium mining is water pollution: the process of mining can affect local water supplies, potentially poisoning communities. Yet chemical leakage is also a major concern when it comes to lithium mining. The lithium carbonate extraction process harms the soil, and can cause air pollution. There are also concerns around how to recycle it. Eco-nonprofit Friends of the Earth notes that lithium recycling is fraught, as the metal is “toxic, highly reactive and flammable.”

“It tends to be incinerated or ends up in landfill due to very low collection rates and flawed waste legislation,” Friends of the Earth states in their lithium factsheet. “Low collection rates, the low and volatile market price of lithium, and the high cost of recycling relative to primary production have contributed to the absence of lithium recycling.” The organization recommends further social and environmental impact assessments should be made.

Yet does that mean that electric cars are equally destructive as fossil-fueled ones? Certainly not. But the idea that electric cars, or anything with lithium batteries, are entirely "green" might not be true. And as demand rises, the hidden costs will become more apparent."

.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,341
Reaction score
2,019
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Oh bullshit. Lithium is very abundant, just kind of refractory in most natural compounds. However, in the McDermitt Caldera in Neveda and Oregon, there is enough lithium to power almost every car in the US. And Tesla owns ten thousand acres of that deposit.
Have you ever been to McDermitt Caldera? ... haw haw haw haw haw ... that's BLM land, and for good reason ... I'm sure Tesla can get a mining permit, or just ship it in from Bolivia ... there's a Port-of-Entry near there that my mum have administrative responsibility ... I visited her there a few times ... nasty country ... hateful to live there ...
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,341
Reaction score
2,019
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
A square meter of solar panel receives 1000 W ... roughly 200 W is converted to electricity ... the rest is absorbed by the Earth ... if this electricity is run through a motor, then the energy is converted to mechanical energy and mechanical work ... although much is lost through heat ...

Solar panels aren't efficient enough to figure into the atmosphere's energy budget ... certainly not anymore than roofing materials in our urban environments ... mainly because most of the Earth's surface is water ... not conducive to housing or solar panels ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
A square meter of solar panel receives 1000 W ... roughly 200 W is converted to electricity ... the rest is absorbed by the Earth ... if this electricity is run through a motor, then the energy is converted to mechanical energy and mechanical work ... although much is lost through heat ...

Solar panels aren't efficient enough to figure into the atmosphere's energy budget ... certainly not anymore than roofing materials in our urban environments ... mainly because most of the Earth's surface is water ... not conducive to housing or solar panels ...
Install enough of them and they will.

 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,506
Reaction score
4,147
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Lol.....the OP was posting this same crap 10 years ago promising that by 2020 we'd be going thousands of miles with new battery technology....yUk.....yUk.

Its always unicorn chasing with these climate hysterics.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
4,298
Reaction score
5,073
Points
1,903
The new Tesla batteries will exceed a million mile life by a lot. And, as the new terafactories start production, they will go head to head with ICE vehicles on price, while exceeding them in all other areas. This will eliminate most of our transportation pollution;

No.......it won't.

THE BATTERIES themselves are quit bad for the environment------think car wrecks and what happens to the battery thereafter.

Musk is a slime ball----------he is lying to people and playing games.

Eventually TEsla will crash and burn---------Musk is conveniently funnelling money into his spacex and other endeavors where HE will be the one to profit. Tesla is simply a VEHICLE to enrich Musk by conning saps and the government....
 
Last edited:

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,341
Reaction score
2,019
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
If you'll note in your citation ... these are simulations they're looking at ... we do have solar farms to compare ... the researchers didn't do this ... pretty crappy science if you want my opinion ...

"In the third simulation, which included fewer solar panel arrays, the climate effects are scaled down accordingly. The average global cooling observed in this simulation is only a decline of about 0.04 degree Celsius."

The panel itself only collects 20% of the solar energy, and they cover (say) half the ground ... or 10% at the location ... only 30% of the Earth's surface is ground ... which gives us a total of 3% reduction of energy input, if and only if we cover all the land masses with solar panels ... or 970 W/m^2 ... the difference of the fourth roots is 0.04 ...

Really? ... we should submit this to the Iggy Awards Commission as "research that never should have been done in the first place" ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
If you'll note in your citation ... these are simulations they're looking at ... we do have solar farms to compare ... the researchers didn't do this ... pretty crappy science if you want my opinion ...

"In the third simulation, which included fewer solar panel arrays, the climate effects are scaled down accordingly. The average global cooling observed in this simulation is only a decline of about 0.04 degree Celsius."

The panel itself only collects 20% of the solar energy, and they cover (say) half the ground ... or 10% at the location ... only 30% of the Earth's surface is ground ... which gives us a total of 3% reduction of energy input, if and only if we cover all the land masses with solar panels ... or 970 W/m^2 ... the difference of the fourth roots is 0.04 ...

Really? ... we should submit this to the Iggy Awards Commission as "research that never should have been done in the first place" ...
Again.... any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Widespread use will be cumulative. It's no different than their argument that parts per million increases in atmospheric CO2 has a cumulative effect on the earth's climate. Except of course reducing radiation received by the earth is a more direct impact than radiative forcing of CO2.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
5,341
Reaction score
2,019
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Again.... any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Widespread use will be cumulative. It's no different than their argument that parts per million increases in atmospheric CO2 has a cumulative effect on the earth's climate. Except of course reducing radiation received by the earth is a more direct impact than radiative forcing of CO2.
I believe you're wrong here ... conservation of energy ... our solar panel receives 1000 J of energy in one second ... 200 J of energy is converted to electricity every second ... what happens to the other 800 J of energy per second? ... that 1000 J already takes into account reflected energy ... (1360 W/m^2 x ( 1 - 0.29 )) ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
76,166
Reaction score
6,014
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Again.... any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. Widespread use will be cumulative. It's no different than their argument that parts per million increases in atmospheric CO2 has a cumulative effect on the earth's climate. Except of course reducing radiation received by the earth is a more direct impact than radiative forcing of CO2.
I believe you're wrong here ... conservation of energy ... our solar panel receives 1000 J of energy in one second ... 200 J of energy is converted to electricity every second ... what happens to the other 800 J of energy per second? ... that 1000 J already takes into account reflected energy ... (1360 W/m^2 x ( 1 - 0.29 )) ...
What part of any radiation (read 200 J ) they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth is wrong?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top