GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,431 Posts
Nice article. There is one point that no "oil lover" can defend: gas engine burn that oil and is never recovered. Lithium-based cells are recycleable, such that the market will stabilize when recycling cost less than mining, and mining then drops. LG has developed cells that can outlast most cars. GM has proven that the Chevy Volt battery can be reused as energy storage after its life in a Volt has ended (a sustancial drop in capacity), and even after that use has ended, the cells can be remaufactured and used in newer applications. So all this lithium mining will peak someday and from then on, all the used lithium will be recycled again and again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Yeah someone threw that initial meme out at me a few days ago.

Ultimately my reply to the "snarky" folks is simply...

I used to drive an 18 year old Jeep Cherokee to the tune of 37 gallons of gas per week MINIMUM. No matter what metrics you use I have SIGNIFICANTLY decreased my "footprint".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,439 Posts
Another point not emphasized in the article is that the petroleum is used as a fuel, and ICE vehicles must be re-fueled roughly on a weekly basis for their entire lives, many hundreds of times. With an EV, the lithium is used for manufacturing the vehicle, i.e. just once for the life of the vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Another point not emphasized in the article is that the petroleum is used as a fuel, and ICE vehicles must be re-fueled roughly on a weekly basis for their entire lives, many hundreds of times. With an EV, the lithium is used for manufacturing the vehicle, i.e. just once for the life of the vehicle.
Good point. TCO is a complex calculation. (or maybe that should be TIO "Total Impact of Ownership")
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
I see people claiming lithium mining is bad, but in reality, it's 90% solar powered. And by that I mean, it's evaporation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
I saw a variation of that meme as well, the one I saw said an Environmentalist's Electric car lithium for the batteries vs natural gas from fraking. What ticks me off is not everyone who drives an EV is an environmentalist, and why are you comparing natural gas to an EV? Why don't you drive a natural gas car? They are far cleaner than an oil burners, especially older ones with fewer emission controls.

Also, besides the obvious point that the picture is not a lithium mine, try looking up what an iron mine looks like, which both EVs and ICE cars use in abundance.

That meme ticked me off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Lithium is not the fuel, it is the fuel injector and it wears out like many mechanical parts.

The fuel is nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, wind, and/or solar and electricity is used to get the energy from the source to your car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Lithium is not the fuel

which also means when the battery is worn out, it is recoverable and can be used to create a new battery. It will not end up in a landfill, stream or in the air.

so even if the extraction pollutes, it is not endless pollution.

easier to clean one tailpipe than it is to clean a million of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
so that link says:

"Also, electric vehicles’ regenerative braking might mitigate the brake dust production, though that may be offset by the greater weight when the brakes actually do get employed."

might mitigate? I only use the brake in about the last 10 feet.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
so that link says:

"Also, electric vehicles’ regenerative braking might mitigate the brake dust production, though that may be offset by the greater weight when the brakes actually do get employed."

might mitigate? I only use the brake in about the last 10 feet.....
The use of "might" and "may" when describing quantifiable values that can be determined using basic physics means only one thing: The writer is making crap up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
"Also, electric vehicles’ regenerative braking might mitigate the brake dust production, though that may be offset by the greater weight when the brakes actually do get employed."
The proof is in the pudding: the fact that brake pads have to be replaced far less frequently on hybrid and all-electric vehicles (Priuses, for example have long established this) means that they're not turning into dust at anywhere near the rate of those installed on ICE vehicles.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,356 Posts
I mean, all the author had to do was look at the EV column on the chart, which doesn't even include brake wear for the EV.
Yes, most people didn't notice that. Brake wear for EVs is assumed to be zero.

This is a study looking at one component of emissions. I think it's decent work, myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
This is a study looking at one component of emissions. I think it's decent work, myself.
I'm always skeptical about these kinds of studies because of the possibility of cherry-picking the results. For example the PM10 particulates aren't really the ones most associated with health issues since they're fairly coarse. Most regulatory bodies around the world allow considerably higher levels of PM10 particulates than PM2.5, which is more dangerous. So my first question would be: how relevant is the PM10 emissions to a discussion on health, and are the rates any different for PM2.5.

My next question would be whether cars in general are a significant source of PM10 emissions compared to other causes. If not, then it's a tempest in a teapot.

And finally, I find it rather odd to criticize electric vehicles based on the fact that they're no worse than other vehicles in this regard. ICE vehicles that burn gasoline have so many other negative externalities that it really seems like the author is trying to misdirect the discussion away from what really matters.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top