4 ms·

It is because we can recycle, in theory, BUT it's economically untenable in practice, witch means that so far nobody really do it on scale, only some experiment

by kkfx 4y ago

It is because we can recycle, in theory, BUT it's economically untenable in practice, witch means that so far nobody really do it on scale, only some experiments and promises for the future AND if done on scale like we know so far, simply because we need to recover some elements for mere production needs, not environmental reasons, well... The outcome will be around 60k€ for a very small city-car with 20-30kWh battery. Something too much expensive for almost anyone. That's just one of the main issues. EVs would be very nice if they cost nearly the same of ICEs for similar distance ranges and target only retirees and teleworkers witch means some who do not/can not use a car every day and IF they own a small domestic p.v. so can wait a day to recharge from the Sun instead of the grid. Not more, so far. Honestly IMVHO in this scenario: - cities will only be able to offer public transportation GRID-CONNECTED (witch means rails/filobus), forbidding private transportation, just some inter-modal hubs for those who came from outside and working vehicles only (emergency services, plumbers, builders etc); - outside probably the cheapest and most effective option for private transport for both individuals and whole society will be via flying cars to cut distance effects and roads needs (with their regular hyper-expensive upkeep). A substantial revolution we already see possible but still too costly for too many [1] witch means in turn: ~90% or so of the people unable to travel autonomously anymore for mere practical economical reasons, concentrated in "developed-Asian-like" urban settlements and a wealthy 10% living a good life in large Rivieras... I really do not see, given the input, different possible outcomes for an all-EVs scenario and I'm curios how someone can prove the contrary. I still not have an EV simply because for my use case and their price they are too costly compared to classic diesel cars, but I do have a small p.v. with lithium storage: after an year of VERY LITTLE usage (minimum SOC if grid is operational 90% only if tomorrow meteo is good enough) I've already lost 1% of the total battery capacity, EVs since they get far more stress (accelerations AND sudden deceleration witch led to high ripple on battery side) will offer less endurance (mildly confirmed by some neighbors with moderately new Teslas and a Renault Zoe). Surely IF we will not being able to source diesel/petrol there are no other options, but that's a different story with a far larger impacts since from oil we get much more than fuels AND anything we get from oil&gas, from sweeteners/flavours to lubricants and plastics and fertilizers will be far more expensive if oil/gas is used only for them and so all that use them will be far more expensive as well... Not very optimist, so to speak... [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/uk-first-airport-electric-flying-cars/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/uk-first-airport-elec... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/technology/flying-cars.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/technology/flying-cars.ht... http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201111000877 http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201111000877 https://tass.com/economy/1395363 https://tass.com/economy/1395363 ...

mlindner 4y ago
> It is because we can recycle, in theory, BUT it's economically untenable in practice, witch means that so far nobody really do it on scale This is simply wrong and totally incorrect. No one doing it "on scale" because there simply isn't enough recyclable material yet, not because it's non-profitable. (In fact the small lithium ion battery recycling companies are quite profitable already and they haven't even scaled up.) Most EVs are way too new to hit the recycle stream yet. Almost all EVs built are still driving today and on the roads and the ones getting recycled are the ones with the smallest batteries. This is a completely non-issue. > flying cars Flying cars will never happen because of noise and safety reasons.
- kkfx 4y ago
  > No one doing it "on scale" because there simply isn't enough recyclable material yet Lithium batteries are heavily used outside EVs since more than a decade, witch means we have many "recyclable material" since years, did you know just how many UPSes we sent to landfills any years? How many used mobile phones? ... So sorry, no that's propaganda, not reality, in reality the small companies you mentions are just small startups hyper-funded by Green New Deal giants who want to show them as profitable, but they aren't. > Flying cars will never happen because of noise and safety reasons. They are already there, and keep expanding at a steady pace, only most people do not even know that because beside some unis, govs and think tanks so far we have zero propaganda on them and we have propaganda against human fly "for environmental reasons" where the real reasons are that élites want to cut journeys in general to isolate populations for better directing them. If you think that's just an extreme and fantastic theory try a serious mind experiment: how much it cost not merely economical but also environmental costs in gazillion of tons of concrete, steel so iron, coke etc and how many years it take to build a trans-national rail line? Let's say from China to EU through central Asia as an extreme example. That imaging in such timeframe how many things might have changed making such big investments a dead project before completion. Now do the same for airborn and waterborn means: surely they need some "ports" on both ends, but they can go anywhere under a certain range. Try do do the same for road infra. We can debate on the why some push against human fly, but the economics of small flying devices and their effectiveness is clear. Cars demand much more raw material and much more regular entertainment (just for tires), flying demand far lighter and simpler cars, mostly aluminum witch is recyclable ad infinitum, and can last 50+years with regular checks and not much raw material demands. The same happen for ships vs trucks. As I said try to find such data yourself: you'll see a deep decline on anything "giant on scale" from big ships and planes to big land-based infra, toward small and flexible systems. You'll see a growing trend toward autarchy and isolation, witch deeply need ability to change quickly since it's something experimental in the present world so something that keep change at a fast peace, run your scenario and imaging the future remembering how much the society is changed in 50+ and 100+ years any 50/100 years in recent human history, so if you imaging something equal to today you know you are probably wrong, and try to depict a possible future.

by kkfx 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

> It is because we can recycle, in theory, BUT it's economically untenable in practice, witch means that so far nobody really do it on scale This is simply wrong and totally incorrect. No one doing it "on scale" because there simply isn't enough recyclable material yet, not because it's non-profitable. (In fact the small lithium ion battery recycling companies are quite profitable already and they haven't even scaled up.) Most EVs are way too new to hit the recycle stream yet. Almost all EVs built are still driving today and on the roads and the ones getting recycled are the ones with the smallest batteries. This is a completely non-issue. > flying cars Flying cars will never happen because of noise and safety reasons.

kkfx 4y ago
> No one doing it "on scale" because there simply isn't enough recyclable material yet Lithium batteries are heavily used outside EVs since more than a decade, witch means we have many "recyclable material" since years, did you know just how many UPSes we sent to landfills any years? How many used mobile phones? ... So sorry, no that's propaganda, not reality, in reality the small companies you mentions are just small startups hyper-funded by Green New Deal giants who want to show them as profitable, but they aren't. > Flying cars will never happen because of noise and safety reasons. They are already there, and keep expanding at a steady pace, only most people do not even know that because beside some unis, govs and think tanks so far we have zero propaganda on them and we have propaganda against human fly "for environmental reasons" where the real reasons are that élites want to cut journeys in general to isolate populations for better directing them. If you think that's just an extreme and fantastic theory try a serious mind experiment: how much it cost not merely economical but also environmental costs in gazillion of tons of concrete, steel so iron, coke etc and how many years it take to build a trans-national rail line? Let's say from China to EU through central Asia as an extreme example. That imaging in such timeframe how many things might have changed making such big investments a dead project before completion. Now do the same for airborn and waterborn means: surely they need some "ports" on both ends, but they can go anywhere under a certain range. Try do do the same for road infra. We can debate on the why some push against human fly, but the economics of small flying devices and their effectiveness is clear. Cars demand much more raw material and much more regular entertainment (just for tires), flying demand far lighter and simpler cars, mostly aluminum witch is recyclable ad infinitum, and can last 50+years with regular checks and not much raw material demands. The same happen for ships vs trucks. As I said try to find such data yourself: you'll see a deep decline on anything "giant on scale" from big ships and planes to big land-based infra, toward small and flexible systems. You'll see a growing trend toward autarchy and isolation, witch deeply need ability to change quickly since it's something experimental in the present world so something that keep change at a fast peace, run your scenario and imaging the future remembering how much the society is changed in 50+ and 100+ years any 50/100 years in recent human history, so if you imaging something equal to today you know you are probably wrong, and try to depict a possible future.