Curious

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 01:46:27 UTC-8, David Brown wrote:
...
> Tesla battery : 100 kWh 
> CO₂ per kWh for Li-ion battery manufacturing (estimate) : 73 kg 
> CO₂ released when make battery : 7300 kg 
> 
> CO₂ per litre petrol : 2.4 kg 
> 
> Litres petrol equivalent per Tesla battery : 3041 litres 
> 
> Fuel consumption Toyota Yaris Hybrid : 3.3 l per 100 km 
> 
> Total distance for a Yaris to release the same CO₂ from petrol as it 
> costs to make a Tesla battery : 92,000 km or 57,000 miles. 

Do you think it is a meaningful comparison between a luxury 7 seater vehicle (Tesla only uses the 100kWh battery is Model S and X) and a small subcompact with probably the lowest fuel consumption of any gasoline vehicle?

Something like a BMW 730 would be a better comparison at about 10l/100km
...
> And there are many other environmental factors about mining Lithium.

And oil wells and refining have no negative impacts?
...

kw

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 08:56:34 UTC-8, David Brown wrote:
...
> And yes, fairly obviously I got the key figures from the web - that's 
> how you get data in the modern world. You can do some googling of your 
> own if you like. The 73 kg CO₂ per kWh for the lithium ion battery is, 
> as I said, an estimate - and you'll easily find others ranging from 
> about 50 kg to about 200 kg, depending on many factors such as the 
> source of the lithium salts.

Even with the handicap of the energy required for the battery production the CO2 production over the life of the vehicle is significantly less than a comparable conventional vehicle.

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf

The cost (and energy investment) is predicted to reduce significantly over the coming years/decades.

https://www.dnv.com/feature/tesla-battery-day-energy-transition.html

kw

On Wednesday, 22 December 2021 at 07:46:43 UTC-8, David Brown wrote:.
..
> free long enough. The practice we see over here is that it takes 
> extremely little damage to an electric car battery before it is 
> considered a safety risk and the battery is replaced. 

Evidence. The percentage of vehicles that have the battery damaged is exceedingly small.

> We also see entire electric cars being scraped because even minor fixes 
> are often too costly to repair, based on insurance company standards 
> (using new manufacturer parts, particular repair shops, etc., rather 
> than mashing together something from scrap parts that is cheaper and 
> more environmentally friendly). The trend exists for non-electric cars 
> too, but not quite as badly.

Again what is your evidence. In this context vehicles that are scrapped with good batteries (or even just some good modules) are in high demand for electrification of conventional vehicles or the modules/cells are sold off separately. Just check Ebay. That manufacturing investment is not wasted. It is rare that cells are scrapped.

..
> As far as I can see, they are currently worse than petrol - but those 
> steps are the only way to get to something better.

Most published analyses do not agree.

kevin

On Thursday, 23 December 2021 at 04:24:32 UTC-8, David Brown wrote:
..
> Unfortunately, a large proportion of even slightly damaged electric 
> vehicles are "turned into rubbish", rather than "turned into scrap 
> parts". (It happens for non-electric vehicles too, more and more, but 
> it is worse for electric vehicles and a higher proportion get scraped 
> rather than repaired.) 

Evidence?

> Some parts get recycled - most of the steel in cars gets recycled, 
> AFAIUI. But a lot ends up in landfills or burnt. Very little gets 
> re-used as complete parts. Maybe this will change in the future, but 
> there is such a high turnover for models and such specialised parts that 
> re-use is difficult. A motor, battery or other part from a two-year-old 
> electric car will often not fit in this years' model. (Again, this is 
> also a problem in newer non-electric cars.)

I doubt that many scrapped EVs have gone to landfills. There are are so few of them that they are are highly valued.
The batteries, motors are associated electronics are highly valuable for intended use even if they are from a previous year's model.

There are also not many EVs that have worn out. The modern EV has only been around for about ten years. Most are still on their original battery and have not had damage significant enough to cause them to be scrapped. They are still being used.

A quick look on Google shows many 2013 Tesla Model S cars available selling for about $38,000 (BMW 5 series from the same year are less than $20,000 so an 8 year old Tesla is considered more valuable than a comparable BMW).
...
kw

On 25/12/2021 00:43, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 December 2021 at 04:24:32 UTC-8, David Brown wrote: 
> ..
>> Unfortunately, a large proportion of even slightly damaged electric
>>  vehicles are "turned into rubbish", rather than "turned into scrap
>>  parts". (It happens for non-electric vehicles too, more and more,
>> but it is worse for electric vehicles and a higher proportion get
>> scraped rather than repaired.)
> 
> Evidence?
> 
>> Some parts get recycled - most of the steel in cars gets recycled,
>>  AFAIUI. But a lot ends up in landfills or burnt. Very little gets
>>  re-used as complete parts. Maybe this will change in the future,
>> but there is such a high turnover for models and such specialised
>> parts that re-use is difficult. A motor, battery or other part from
>> a two-year-old electric car will often not fit in this years'
>> model. (Again, this is also a problem in newer non-electric cars.)
> 
> I doubt that many scrapped EVs have gone to landfills. There are are
> so few of them that they are are highly valued. The batteries, motors
> are associated electronics are highly valuable for intended use even
> if they are from a previous year's model.
> 

It is quite possible that what I have been seeing is a local phenomena
here in Norway, or at least more of a problem here.  We have /lots/ of
EV's - I think we have a significantly higher proportion of electric
cars than anywhere else.  And the cost ratios between buying new and
paying someone to repair things is quite different here from many other
countries.  So the economic cut-off point between repair or replace is
different.

> There are also not many EVs that have worn out. The modern EV has
> only been around for about ten years. Most are still on their
> original battery and have not had damage significant enough to cause
> them to be scrapped. They are still being used.
> 
> A quick look on Google shows many 2013 Tesla Model S cars available
> selling for about $38,000 (BMW 5 series from the same year are less
> than $20,000 so an 8 year old Tesla is considered more valuable than
> a comparable BMW). ... kw
> 

Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Latest wrote:
>> Rick C wrote: 
>> > Even the part that doesn't drive depends on the other part to get products 
>> > and food produced and delivered and support their way of life.
>> Not as much as our lifestyle depends on their being paid so little that they 
>> won't ever be able to afford to significantly pollute the planet.
>
> What???  Have you gone off the deep end???

No.

> What part of 7 billion do you not understand?  No one needs to drive cars or
> sit in hot tubs to pollute the planet when there are 7 billion of us all
> working to the same end. 

Exactly my point. It is intrinsically impossible for all 7 billion to have that.

On 31 Dec 2021 08:38:07 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Rick C wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Latest wrote:
>>> Rick C wrote: 
>>> > Even the part that doesn't drive depends on the other part to get products 
>>> > and food produced and delivered and support their way of life.
>>> Not as much as our lifestyle depends on their being paid so little that they 
>>> won't ever be able to afford to significantly pollute the planet.
>>
>> What???  Have you gone off the deep end???
>
>No.
>
>> What part of 7 billion do you not understand?  No one needs to drive cars or
>> sit in hot tubs to pollute the planet when there are 7 billion of us all
>> working to the same end. 
>
>Exactly my point. It is intrinsically impossible for all 7 billion to have that.

Everyone should have electricity, clean running water, reasonably
comfortable shelter, some sort of communications, transport, a decent
diet, basic medical care, access to education, and basic safety.

There is no reason that 7 billion people shouldn't have that. The
fraction of the population living in extreme poverty continues to
decline.



-- 

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 10:12:53 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2021 08:38:07 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> >Rick C wrote: 
> >> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Latest wrote: 
> >>> Rick C wrote: 
> >>> > Even the part that doesn't drive depends on the other part to get products 
> >>> > and food produced and delivered and support their way of life. 
> >>> Not as much as our lifestyle depends on their being paid so little that they 
> >>> won't ever be able to afford to significantly pollute the planet. 
> >> 
> >> What??? Have you gone off the deep end??? 
> > 
> >No. 
> > 
> >> What part of 7 billion do you not understand? No one needs to drive cars or 
> >> sit in hot tubs to pollute the planet when there are 7 billion of us all 
> >> working to the same end. 
> > 
> >Exactly my point. It is intrinsically impossible for all 7 billion to have that.
>
> Everyone should have electricity, clean running water, reasonably 
> comfortable shelter, some sort of communications, transport, a decent 
> diet, basic medical care, access to education, and basic safety. 

Quite a few Americans don't. Your access to education was limited by your enthusiasm for concentrating on what you imagined was going to be useful.

> There is no reason that 7 billion people shouldn't have that.

But quite a few Americans don't. Your society does insist on treating quite a bit of your population badly.
The children of single mothers in  Sweden do just as well as everybody else - they don't in the US. 

> The  fraction of the population living in extreme poverty continues to decline.

Because somebody is changing the definition of "extreme poverty"?

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 11:12:53 UTC, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2021 08:38:07 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> >Rick C wrote: 
> >> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Latest wrote: 
> >>> Rick C wrote: 
> >>> > Even the part that doesn't drive depends on the other part to get products 
> >>> > and food produced and delivered and support their way of life. 
> >>> Not as much as our lifestyle depends on their being paid so little that they 
> >>> won't ever be able to afford to significantly pollute the planet. 
> >> 
> >> What??? Have you gone off the deep end??? 
> > 
> >No. 
> > 
> >> What part of 7 billion do you not understand? No one needs to drive cars or 
> >> sit in hot tubs to pollute the planet when there are 7 billion of us all 
> >> working to the same end. 
> > 
> >Exactly my point. It is intrinsically impossible for all 7 billion to have that.
> Everyone should have electricity, clean running water, reasonably 
> comfortable shelter, some sort of communications, transport, a decent 
> diet, basic medical care, access to education, and basic safety. 
> 
> There is no reason that 7 billion people shouldn't have that. The 
> fraction of the population living in extreme poverty continues to 
> decline.

It declines despite the definition being revised upward. 
But the reasons for poverty are real, and not ceasing to exist any time soon.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 8:47:01 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 11:12:53 UTC, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> > On 31 Dec 2021 08:38:07 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > >Rick C wrote: 
> > >> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 1:05:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Latest wrote: 
> > >>> Rick C wrote: 
> > >>> > Even the part that doesn't drive depends on the other part to get products 
> > >>> > and food produced and delivered and support their way of life. 
> > >>> Not as much as our lifestyle depends on their being paid so little that they 
> > >>> won't ever be able to afford to significantly pollute the planet. 
> > >> 
> > >> What??? Have you gone off the deep end??? 
> > > 
> > >No. 
> > > 
> > >> What part of 7 billion do you not understand? No one needs to drive cars or 
> > >> sit in hot tubs to pollute the planet when there are 7 billion of us all 
> > >> working to the same end. 
> > > 
> > >Exactly my point. It is intrinsically impossible for all 7 billion to have that. 
> > Everyone should have electricity, clean running water, reasonably 
> > comfortable shelter, some sort of communications, transport, a decent 
> > diet, basic medical care, access to education, and basic safety. 
> > 
> > There is no reason that 7 billion people shouldn't have that. The 
> > fraction of the population living in extreme poverty continues to 
> > decline.
>
> It declines despite the definition being revised upward. 
> But the reasons for poverty are real, and not ceasing to exist any time soon.

Sure. But the reasons for the real poverty that actually matters - kids not getting enough to eat or being well enough housed to be able to take full advantage of the education they - have been eliminated in Sweden, where the kids of single parents do just as well as the children of couples. They could be in other countries if the politicians were prepared to spend tax-payers money in the same way the Swedish government does, and Sweden collects 55% of the national income in taxes, which is higher than anywhere, without wrecking the economy.

Sweden is a fairly rich country, but richer countries do find all sorts of excuses for being less generous to the poor, and more generous to people with political influence.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney