7 ms·

you’re comparing the fuel to the tank . how much fuel is spent to put energy into the lithium ?

bryanlarsen 5y ago
I'm heading off the criticism that electric cars aren't green because of resource mining. But compared to gas cars... And to answer your question: none. New electricity generation capacity in the States is expected to be carbon negative over the next two years because of retiring coal. We're adding mostly renewables, but some NatGas too. However, the duty cycles of NatGas generators are expected to decline as they switch to a peaking role as renewables cover base energy.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  natgas is not carbon free so not sure where you get to carbon negative in 2 years
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    According to projections, we'll have more natgas capacity, but the plants will be running less often because they're only supplementing renewables rather than providing base power. By carbon negative I just mean that generation will emit less carbon two years from now despite generating more power.
    - morsch 5y ago
      That still doesn't mean no resources are spent producing the electricity that powers your electric car. (Which is what you claimed: "And to answer your question: none.") Just fewer resources than would have been required it electricity production had been as carbon intensive as today.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Every time I hear new "country/state X achieved Y% of renewable power generation for Z hours", it's usually during warmish sunny weekeds (usually sundays) with relatively low power use and high sun and wind generation. If we switch eg. 30% of the current cars to electric, and most people charge them in the evenings/during the night, the math for renewables is a lot different, and without building nuclear, totally unsustainable.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    You'd have to build a lot more wind turbines while you switch cars to electric, and/or invest in some grid scale storage.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      yes. And?
      - adrianN 5y ago
        The math doesn't change at all, you just need to build things so that supply keeps up with demand. It's not rocket science.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Please show that math. There's no math that can justify capital costs of $20B and a 20 year delay for 1.5 GW of capacity. Especially since wind power is stronger at night than during the day, and it's trivial to tell electric cars to charge when it's cheapest to do so.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      Reduce corruption maybe? In slovenia (back then yugoslavia), in the 1970/80s with all the communist bullshit and bureaucracy we built one in 6-7 years, and it still works.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        Wouldn't that be nice! If we can fix that we could build subways and high speed rail for a reasonable price too! But not even China can build reactors in a timely fashion for a good price. It takes them over 10 years and about $10B per.
imtringued 5y ago
It's just a matter of time until the energy put into oil extraction exceeds the energy gained and must be "subsidized" through nuclear power and renewables.

I'm heading off the criticism that electric cars aren't green because of resource mining. But compared to gas cars... And to answer your question: none. New electricity generation capacity in the States is expected to be carbon negative over the next two years because of retiring coal. We're adding mostly renewables, but some NatGas too. However, the duty cycles of NatGas generators are expected to decline as they switch to a peaking role as renewables cover base energy.

ekianjo 5y ago
natgas is not carbon free so not sure where you get to carbon negative in 2 years
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  According to projections, we'll have more natgas capacity, but the plants will be running less often because they're only supplementing renewables rather than providing base power. By carbon negative I just mean that generation will emit less carbon two years from now despite generating more power.
  - morsch 5y ago
    That still doesn't mean no resources are spent producing the electricity that powers your electric car. (Which is what you claimed: "And to answer your question: none.") Just fewer resources than would have been required it electricity production had been as carbon intensive as today.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Every time I hear new "country/state X achieved Y% of renewable power generation for Z hours", it's usually during warmish sunny weekeds (usually sundays) with relatively low power use and high sun and wind generation. If we switch eg. 30% of the current cars to electric, and most people charge them in the evenings/during the night, the math for renewables is a lot different, and without building nuclear, totally unsustainable.
- adrianN 5y ago
  You'd have to build a lot more wind turbines while you switch cars to electric, and/or invest in some grid scale storage.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    yes. And?
    - adrianN 5y ago
      The math doesn't change at all, you just need to build things so that supply keeps up with demand. It's not rocket science.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Please show that math. There's no math that can justify capital costs of $20B and a 20 year delay for 1.5 GW of capacity. Especially since wind power is stronger at night than during the day, and it's trivial to tell electric cars to charge when it's cheapest to do so.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Reduce corruption maybe? In slovenia (back then yugoslavia), in the 1970/80s with all the communist bullshit and bureaucracy we built one in 6-7 years, and it still works.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      Wouldn't that be nice! If we can fix that we could build subways and high speed rail for a reasonable price too! But not even China can build reactors in a timely fashion for a good price. It takes them over 10 years and about $10B per.

imtringued 5y ago

It's just a matter of time until the energy put into oil extraction exceeds the energy gained and must be "subsidized" through nuclear power and renewables.