The only “next level” battery technology worth talking about is one without lithium.
It makes me want to puke when self-righteous “environmentalists” drive around in their stupid BEVs pretending to save the world, while they destroy a unique eco system and the livelihoods of many indigenous people.
BEVs based on lithium batteries are a disaster, lithium batteries in general are a disaster, but the sheer volume of those going into cars make them particularly unsustainable.
EVs are not bad per se, that’s why there are either FCEVs, which would be best, because they also get rid of the charging problem, or BEVs with non-lithium batteries.
I strongly hope that Apple isn’t the next billion dollar company greenwashing BEVs with lithium batteries.
Asteroid and moon mining is within our sights now, who knows what rare earth elements might be in abundance out there.
It’s an absolute necessity that we get to this type of resource acquisition ASAP, but humanity is unmotivated... at the top, where the wealthy and the powerful are more interested in maintaining the status quo. I highly doubt we will see even the start of this infrastructure in our/my lifetime (I’m 45).
This is stuff we would have been doing long ago if the “space race” hadn’t been purely about showing up the USSR on a once & done political gamble...
Do you have any concept of the expense of 1) establishing a mining operation on the moon, and 2) the "astronomical" expense of ferrying shiploads of ore back to earth, much less the expense of lifting those same empty vessels back off the Earth, into orbit and back to the moon?
My suspicion is with the value and, dare I say, rarety of rare-earth elements, they may well become cost-effective for a commercial moon or maybe asteroid collection set up in a few years with reusable tech from the like of SpaceX and perhaps robots.
Facial recognition has always had ethical issues. ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. This is just one more and the facial recognition software in question was not even created by Huawei! It was tested on their platforms and ethnicity was just ONE of many parameters.
That is at best a very naive thing to say in this context; and actively defending Huawei with how it was only tested on their platform, and how ethnicity was only one parameter, imo pretty much takes away the naiveté defence.
It's like playing the "would you kill baby Hitler if you went back in time?" philosophical discussion with someone that instantly, and with way too much passion, turn the whole thing around to being about defending the freedom of speech of Mr. H.
I am not defending anyone nor am I attacking anyone.
I have given some factual information.
You will find similar (or dare I say identical) ethical debates playing out across the world.
In this case China, for better or worse, is proving to be the main testbed for the technology and Chinese companies are leading the field. There is no getting away from that.
From a research perspective the parameters are what they are. How and why the resulting technologies are employed and monitored is another story.
Ethnicity is an issue in facial recognition. There are many other issues of course.
Technology is never developed in a vacuum where everyone involved can just claim innocence all while knowing the pain that their work causes.
You ARE defending helping implement and improve technology used to target ethnic minorities.
I will repeat. There is nothing ingerently wrong with designing technologies to discern race or ethnicity. That is happening ALL OVER the world as I speak. The problems arise with how the resulting technologies are used and monitored.
No one is claiming that out of context work on a technology is inherently evil; helping/working on it knowing that it's used for ethnic cleansing very much is.
And you are going out of your way to defend and support that.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide. The reason we drill it up from the ground is because it's free down there and doesn't require electricity to create it by modifying the chemical bonds of H2O and CO2. Water isn't a pollutant. Some people say CO2 is a pollutant, but actually it won't count as a pollutant in this case if the CO2 is already pulled out o the atmosphere in the first place to create your fuel. That makes this fuel carbon-neutral. This technique isn't theory, it's fact. One company, Carbon Engineering, is already making gasoline this way and the price is only $4/gallon, which is pretty close to the world price of oil already.
<--
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
you're giving the gasoline engine WAY too much credit for efficiency. EVs are about 4x as efficient, so why bother using energy to generate gasoline to keep using gasoline powered cars? Nobody would suggest switching to gasoline if the world was already using EVs.
And everyone manages to charge their battery powered phones every night. Why does anyone think they would have trouble plugging in their cars. I bought a Model 3 last year and it's by far the best car I ever had, and gets better the longer I have it through software updates. Other cars are like going back to a flip phone once you've driven one.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide. The reason we drill it up from the ground is because it's free down there and doesn't require electricity to create it by modifying the chemical bonds of H2O and CO2. Water isn't a pollutant. Some people say CO2 is a pollutant, but actually it won't count as a pollutant in this case if the CO2 is already pulled out o the atmosphere in the first place to create your fuel. That makes this fuel carbon-neutral. This technique isn't theory, it's fact. One company, Carbon Engineering, is already making gasoline this way and the price is only $4/gallon, which is pretty close to the world price of oil already.
<--
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
you're giving the gasoline engine WAY too much credit for efficiency. EVs are about 4x as efficient, so why bother using energy to generate gasoline to keep using gasoline powered cars? Nobody would suggest switching to gasoline if the world was already using EVs.
And everyone manages to charge their battery powered phones every night. Why does anyone think they would have trouble plugging in their cars. I bought a Model 3 last year and it's by far the best car I ever had, and gets better the longer I have it through software updates. Other cars are like going back to a flip phone once you've driven one.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
Just for some actual data: I have an electric car. I get about 250 watt hours/mile in the summer, 325-350 in the winter, depending on outside temperature, how much I use the heat, etc. Gasoline contains about 33 kWh/gallon. (actually less, since many states blend it with ethanol, reducing the energy density.) From US DOT statistics, average fuel economy in 2020 was 24 mpg. 33 kwh/gallon ÷ 24 mpg = 1.375 kWh/mile = 1,375 wH/mile. That puts my EV somewhere between 4 and 5 times more efficient than the average car. Since cars are also significantly less efficient in the winter it's probably more consistently around 5x more efficient.
Gasoline has the advantage of being easily stored. Electricity has the advantage of easy transmission over long distances and being more universal. Electricity can also be generated in multiple ways. Technologies like the Tesla Power wall and other battery systems allow for home generation and storage, and solar generation can either be stored or put back into the grid.
There is still a place for internal combustion engines, but my electric car satisfies the vast majority of my driving needs and I would wager it would be the same for most other people. The two problems with it for me are that I don't have a suitable circuit to charge it at my cabin (yet,) so I can't drive it there and I can't realistically tow with it. Otherwise it's fabulous. I plug it in a couple nights a week and it's charged in the morning. I get a credit for off peak charging, so even with gas being cheap right now I'm paying the equivalent of 110 mpg. EV's also have lower maintenance costs, don't need oil changes, etc.
Apple has never done any significant work in batteries, so I read this rumor with not a small amount of skepticism.
Ummm what? You mean the Apple that sells the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook?
Those batteries aren't really anything special by today's standards. When it comes to the chemistry and cooling, I don't remember much coming from Apple. Not even the charging.
I'm not really up to date with the internals on Apple's battery offerings but from what I can see, they use industry offerings. From trusted vendors, yes (LG?). Good quality but that's it as far as I can tell.
Have they really made much mention of battery chemistry in recent years?
I wonder if there's an analogy to SOC fabrication. While Apple knows a thing or two about how to design a SOC and integrate it into a product, they have no particular expertise in the physical materials and manufacturing. The 5nm process TSMC uses for Apple is the same that they use for others who are able to pay for it. (and not many can pay for it)
Maybe Apple's relationship to batteries is similar? They don't have any advantage in chemistry or manufacturing, but they know how to design it into a product and they are able to write some very big checks to whoever the best supplier might be. If Apple has the good taste to pick the winner among battery manufacturers and then write a big check to secure a big chunk of the supply, that's not a small thing.
"TOKYO -- A trip of 500 km on one charge. A recharge from zero to full in 10 minutes. All with minimal safety concerns. The solid-state battery being introduced by Toyota promises to be a game changer not just for electric vehicles but for an entire industry.
The technology is a potential cure-all for the drawbacks facing electric vehicles that run on conventional lithium-ion batteries, including the relatively short distance traveled on a single charge as well as charging times. Toyota plans to be the first company to sell an electric vehicle equipped with a solid-state battery in the early 2020s. The world's largest automaker will unveil a prototype next year.
The electric vehicles being developed by Toyota will have a range more than twice the distance of a vehicle running on a conventional lithium-ion battery under the same conditions. All accomplished without sacrificing interior space in even the most compact vehicle.
Solid-state batteries are expected to become a viable alternative to lithium-ion batteries that use aqueous electrolyte solutions. The innovation would lower the risk of fires, and multiply energy density, which measures the energy a battery can deliver compared to its weight."
Toyota, VW, et al, are all going to solid state batteries over the next few years, and it isn't hard to predict that Apple would want to incorporate those into whatever it decides to produce. Apple has the checkbook to buy what they need, and doesn't need to develop its own solid state battery technology, though they likely will end up getting a custom tweak of same.
There's a shit ton of EV's on the road, especially Tesla's, that are recognized fire hazards. Solid State batteries make those all obsolete.
Sodium is being worked on as a replacement for lithium as well.
Facial recognition has always had ethical issues. ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. This is just one more and the facial recognition software in question was not even created by Huawei! It was tested on their platforms and ethnicity was just ONE of many parameters.
That is at best a very naive thing to say in this context; and actively defending Huawei with how it was only tested on their platform, and how ethnicity was only one parameter, imo pretty much takes away the naiveté defence.
It's like playing the "would you kill baby Hitler if you went back in time?" philosophical discussion with someone that instantly, and with way too much passion, turn the whole thing around to being about defending the freedom of speech of Mr. H.
I am not defending anyone nor am I attacking anyone.
I have given some factual information.
You will find similar (or dare I say identical) ethical debates playing out across the world.
In this case China, for better or worse, is proving to be the main testbed for the technology and Chinese companies are leading the field. There is no getting away from that.
From a research perspective the parameters are what they are. How and why the resulting technologies are employed and monitored is another story.
Ethnicity is an issue in facial recognition. There are many other issues of course.
Technology is never developed in a vacuum where everyone involved can just claim innocence all while knowing the pain that their work causes.
You ARE defending helping implement and improve technology used to target ethnic minorities.
I will repeat. There is nothing ingerently wrong with designing technologies to discern race or ethnicity. That is happening ALL OVER the world as I speak. The problems arise with how the resulting technologies are used and monitored.
No one is claiming that out of context work on a technology is inherently evil; helping/working on it knowing that it's used for ethnic cleansing very much is.
And you are going out of your way to defend and support that.
Not at all. I'm defending what I wrote.
It's similar to what happens when you after the fact listen to the people involved in ethnical cleansings; there are very few actual monsters defending the atrocities, instead you find whole chain of events from innocent captured to buried where everyone involved thinks that they didn't do it… "I only did [this]", and no matter how much you show them that without their participation, them doing their link of that chain, it couldn't have happened, they still defend their actions as if it was done out of context.
You are very much going out of your way to defend a crucial link to what's currently going on in China.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
That's not the reason I support gasoline. I told you that when gasoline is made from water and CO2, it is 100% clean. You didn't dispute that, so you know I'm right. The reason I support gasoline when it's made from water and CO2 is because it is clean, and because we already have the automobiles that use it. Since you haven't said how you expect to make people like me start using electric cars, I presume you want to take away my freedom to choose gas cars. I have to assume that because you are refusing to explain your position. My position is the status quo, so there's no more I need to say. Your position is unclear. You don't say how you intend to force your views on purchasers.
By the way, I never argued that electric isn't more efficient than gas, so stop harping on that. That has nothing to do with my point.
Once again, I presume you want some method to outlaw gas powered cars. Please deny that. I believe in freedom to choose what kind of cars we want. And it seems that you oppose freedom.
Facial recognition has always had ethical issues. ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. This is just one more and the facial recognition software in question was not even created by Huawei! It was tested on their platforms and ethnicity was just ONE of many parameters.
That is at best a very naive thing to say in this context; and actively defending Huawei with how it was only tested on their platform, and how ethnicity was only one parameter, imo pretty much takes away the naiveté defence.
It's like playing the "would you kill baby Hitler if you went back in time?" philosophical discussion with someone that instantly, and with way too much passion, turn the whole thing around to being about defending the freedom of speech of Mr. H.
I am not defending anyone nor am I attacking anyone.
I have given some factual information.
You will find similar (or dare I say identical) ethical debates playing out across the world.
In this case China, for better or worse, is proving to be the main testbed for the technology and Chinese companies are leading the field. There is no getting away from that.
From a research perspective the parameters are what they are. How and why the resulting technologies are employed and monitored is another story.
Ethnicity is an issue in facial recognition. There are many other issues of course.
Technology is never developed in a vacuum where everyone involved can just claim innocence all while knowing the pain that their work causes.
You ARE defending helping implement and improve technology used to target ethnic minorities.
I will repeat. There is nothing ingerently wrong with designing technologies to discern race or ethnicity. That is happening ALL OVER the world as I speak. The problems arise with how the resulting technologies are used and monitored.
No one is claiming that out of context work on a technology is inherently evil; helping/working on it knowing that it's used for ethnic cleansing very much is.
And you are going out of your way to defend and support that.
Not at all. I'm defending what I wrote.
It's similar to what happens when you after the fact listen to the people involved in ethnical cleansings; there are very few actual monsters defending the atrocities, instead you find whole chain of events from innocent captured to buried where everyone involved thinks that they didn't do it… "I only did [this]", and no matter how much you show them that without their participation, them doing their link of that chain, it couldn't have happened, they still defend their actions as if it was done out of context.
You are very much going out of your way to defend a crucial link to what's currently going on in China.
I'm presenting facts. I fear it is you who are reading something into my words that isn't there.
Promising new battery technologies are there, but their utilisation is about scale production. Like one recent czech patent, lithium based, but utilizing nanotubes with silicon covering (resolving quick degradation of tubes). These batteries can already drive trucks, charging up about half time than todays EVs, with more capacity and lifetime, much much lighter, and these won’t catch flame even if you drill thru the cell.. these are super safe. look up HE3DA
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
That's not the reason I support gasoline. I told you that when gasoline is made from water and CO2, it is 100% clean. You didn't dispute that, so you know I'm right. The reason I support gasoline when it's made from water and CO2 is because it is clean, and because we already have the automobiles that use it. Since you haven't said how you expect to make people like me start using electric cars, I presume you want to take away my freedom to choose gas cars. I have to assume that because you are refusing to explain your position. My position is the status quo, so there's no more I need to say. Your position is unclear. You don't say how you intend to force your views on purchasers.
By the way, I never argued that electric isn't more efficient than gas, so stop harping on that. That has nothing to do with my point.
Once again, I presume you want some method to outlaw gas powered cars. Please deny that. I believe in freedom to choose what kind of cars we want. And it seems that you oppose freedom.
The whole point is that it isn't efficient. Your being intentionally obtuse. You have to input lots of energy to convert various sources into a "clean fuel". That clean fuel then loses efficiency due to general inefficiency of the combustion engine. I addressed all of this, you just ignored it. I am not saying gasoline cars should be outlawed, I am saying that your "clean gas" is not only inefficient, it will be expensive. It costs $90 per tank(manufactured fuel through hydrolysis) to fill up a hydrogen car, to only get 400 miles. I believe it costs between $6-$12 to get the same mileage out of a Tesla, and the electricity is readily available. Your not helping your cause by repeating freedom, you just sound like your triggered and need a safe space. We don't need to "Outlaw" the gasoline car, you can be a "cool diesel bro" if you want, I am saying market forces are accelerating towards electric cars.
People forget that gasoline is a battery - a chemical battery. Gasoline can even be constructed at home using water and carbon dioxide.
Yes, instead of putting electricity directly in the car, lets use electricity to create "gasoline" with whatever % energy loss there is, which I would assume is fairly significant like the production of Hydrogen is. Then we put that in your car, which then loses another 12-30% of that energy through energy loss(heat/friction). Best case scenario, your losing bare minimum 15%(realistically closer to 30%) of the energy in creating the fuel, then another 12-30% when burning the fuel, not including the transportation cost of the fuel unless you propose that it is created at every gas station. Then you have the equipment cost that goes along with that. Or we can just take the electricity(really easy transport, infrastructure already in place, minimal energy loss), put it directly in a car, and only have the energy loss in that vehicle, which is already more efficient that a combustion engine.
So there's no heat/friction in an electric car? And currently we already have transportation of fuel to gas stations, so that's not an issue at all. In fact, some people will create the gasoline locally on their property, so it's an improvement on the whole situation.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Wow, going with politics when common sense fails...
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
That's not the reason I support gasoline.I told you that when gasoline is made from water and CO2, it is 100% clean. You didn't dispute that, so you know I'm right. The reason I support gasoline when it's made from water and CO2 is because it is clean, and because we already have the automobiles that use it. Since you haven't said how you expect to make people like me start using electric cars, I presume you want to take away my freedom to choose gas cars. I have to assume that because you are refusing to explain your position. My position is the status quo, so there's no more I need to say. Your position is unclear. You don't say how you intend to force your views on purchasers.
By the way, I never argued that electric isn't more efficient than gas, so stop harping on that. That has nothing to do with my point.
Once again, I presume you want some method to outlaw gas powered cars. Please deny that. I believe in freedom to choose what kind of cars we want. And it seems that you oppose freedom.
That is an insane thing to believe. Added to the list of so many insane things you've said in the past. And it's absurdly silly. Just as incandescent light bulbs weren't "outlawed", the alternatives became too good for consumers to pass up. I gladly purchase LED bulbs for their advantages. Incandescents still exist and have their use case, but for most people most of the time, LED is fine or better.
Same thing. Get the Alex Jones-style globalist world government conspiracies out of your head.
I have to quote myself to elaborate. Bit of fun in this time.
In future you will visit your friends house and you will like it so much you wanna have the same. YOu will you advanced future lidar scanner in your iPhone XX Pro to scan the house- Siri will then remove humans, pets and flowers from model, you apply colors on walls and place desierd Apple products and send it to Apple. It will 3D print your house in place in a week .D
The only “next level” battery technology worth talking about is one without lithium.
It makes me want to puke when self-righteous “environmentalists” drive around in their stupid BEVs pretending to save the world, while they destroy a unique eco system and the livelihoods of many indigenous people.
BEVs based on lithium batteries are a disaster, lithium batteries in general are a disaster, but the sheer volume of those going into cars make them particularly unsustainable.
EVs are not bad per se, that’s why there are either FCEVs, which would be best, because they also get rid of the charging problem, or BEVs with non-lithium batteries.
I strongly hope that Apple isn’t the next billion dollar company greenwashing BEVs with lithium batteries.
Dude, take a chill-pill. I agree lithium is a current problem, but when evaluating the life-cycle environmental impacts of EVs vs. ICE engines, it's no comparison, especially when it comes to emissions, which is now the most critical environmental aspect to address. Here's a great balanced article explaining why: https://get-green-now.com/environmental-impact-electric-vehicle-batteries/
Comments
And everyone manages to charge their battery powered phones every night. Why does anyone think they would have trouble plugging in their cars. I bought a Model 3 last year and it's by far the best car I ever had, and gets better the longer I have it through software updates. Other cars are like going back to a flip phone once you've driven one.
And you argue that electrical power distribution is "already in place" and you suggest that gasoline distribution is not already in place. How many errors can a single person write in a single post?
Why do you oppose improvements to the current system? What's wrong with improving the status quo? You must be an AOC supporter, who wants to throw away all gas powered cars and airplanes.
Electric cars use energy more efficiently than internal combustion, its not even arguably. To your second “point” of course we have infrastructure for transporting gasoline, it’s loading it into trucks and trains that’s also consume gasoline or diesel in order to transport the fuel. By that idea, we should all just use generators at our homes instead of relying on electric lines, since that is efficient? Their is also the energy used to refine the fuel in the first place.
Your not seeking improvement, you want to maintain the status quo because change is scary to you. But history shows you either embrace change or get left behind. There is nothing political about wanting cleaner more efficient transportation.
I have an electric car. I get about 250 watt hours/mile in the summer, 325-350 in the winter, depending on outside temperature, how much I use the heat, etc.
Gasoline contains about 33 kWh/gallon. (actually less, since many states blend it with ethanol, reducing the energy density.) From US DOT statistics, average fuel economy in 2020 was 24 mpg. 33 kwh/gallon ÷ 24 mpg = 1.375 kWh/mile = 1,375 wH/mile. That puts my EV somewhere between 4 and 5 times more efficient than the average car. Since cars are also significantly less efficient in the winter it's probably more consistently around 5x more efficient.
Gasoline has the advantage of being easily stored. Electricity has the advantage of easy transmission over long distances and being more universal. Electricity can also be generated in multiple ways. Technologies like the Tesla Power wall and other battery systems allow for home generation and storage, and solar generation can either be stored or put back into the grid.
There is still a place for internal combustion engines, but my electric car satisfies the vast majority of my driving needs and I would wager it would be the same for most other people. The two problems with it for me are that I don't have a suitable circuit to charge it at my cabin (yet,) so I can't drive it there and I can't realistically tow with it. Otherwise it's fabulous. I plug it in a couple nights a week and it's charged in the morning. I get a credit for off peak charging, so even with gas being cheap right now I'm paying the equivalent of 110 mpg. EV's also have lower maintenance costs, don't need oil changes, etc.
You are very much going out of your way to defend a crucial link to what's currently going on in China.
By the way, I never argued that electric isn't more efficient than gas, so stop harping on that. That has nothing to do with my point.
Once again, I presume you want some method to outlaw gas powered cars. Please deny that. I believe in freedom to choose what kind of cars we want. And it seems that you oppose freedom.
Same thing. Get the Alex Jones-style globalist world government conspiracies out of your head.
https://get-green-now.com/environmental-impact-electric-vehicle-batteries/
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_1222_data-security-business-advisory.pdf
Weird replies. Apple does work on battery tech. Even if they didn't Apple can.