7 ms·

Can batteries be created to make the process of reclaiming the lithium orders of magnitude easier? A completely different topic: Politics tends to focus on for

Can batteries be created to make the process of reclaiming the lithium orders of magnitude easier? A completely different topic: Politics tends to focus on forcing consumer vehicles to go electric, is this really the right move? Most cars are not driven a lot in a day. But cars that are used for work (fleet, uber/deliveries) are used much more, so the benefit to them being electric is far greater. Trucks too most likely. Shouldn't this be where we focus our attention to get the best bang for the buck? And also make sure we don't drive the price up making it more expensive for the vehicles that are driven much more? Imagine the scenario where lithium prices are driven up by legislation-borne demand, we would instead have more cars with less lithium, and thus less range. Maybe that's ok, I dunno. That said, more electric cars means more and better infra and tech that will be created. So obviously some good stuff. Life is so complicated.

matsemann 4y ago
Most people shouldn't need to own a car. I don't mean that in a "self driving will save us" way. But that a personal car is parked 95% of the day. In a city huge areas are used for storing these blocks of metal not in use. More accessible car sharing could make less people feel the need to own a car.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Isn't the problem that the car's that are parked 95% of the day are all moving at the same time in the last 5%? It feels like building a carless society is a lot more deliberate effort and requires a lot more public good will than electrifying what we have. That being said, it's probably the better long term goal.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    If some strain of covid crops up that's way more deadly, maybe then we'll permanently transition to not hauling our butts around to stare at computer screens anyways.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Unfortunately there's still a lot of jobs that require said butt hauling.
      - scotty79 4y ago
        Yeah, but there's a lot that don't. Other idea... Employer should by law pay for commute and time spent commuting. And bonus for going to the office shouldn't be less than some minimal amount if the worker doesn't work remotely.
- cm2187 4y ago
  Self driving cars can park themselves far away, clearing the streets for traffic. For commutting, people need to own the car for the same reason farmers own their equipment: they all need it at the same time so it isn't economical to rent it.
- fragmede 4y ago
  More useful bus and train, and other mass-transit options, along with densification would go a long way towards that too. Unfortunately though, there's no getting around the fact that driving is convenient as shit. It's a luxury that most Americans have become accustomed to and won't want to give up. I live in a city but the pandemic meant that I was able to park my car for short grocery trips where previously I would have taken a bus.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  Unless you have a family. It has to be there when you need it. Here in Québec we had an elected official who used to preach against cars and then once she got elected bought a SUV because, like everyone else with kids, she needed it for her family. The "you shouldn't need to own a car" attitude is arrogant and authoritarian in nature.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    No, the authoritarian and arrogant attitude is from those thinking it's their right to drive everywhere at whatever cost to others. And you're missing the point. Why do you need a car because of family? Think further than your own nose tip. Wouldn't it be nice with a society where you didn't have to drive to do any little chore? And the few times you needed to drive, a care from some car sharing service was available outside your apartment building?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - stcredzero 4y ago
      Most people shouldn't need to own a car. Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others.
      - matsemann 4y ago
        > Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. And please stop calling me authoritarian and arrogant just because you disagree with my views.. > Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others. No, the base case is no cars. The authoritarian view is to demand everyone else has to bend to your will. Children playing outside my house? No, they can't, stcredzero has decided that should be a high speed road for their car. Want to enjoy a peaceful evening? No, stcredzero has overruled you and decided their engine sound is more important. Want to eat outside at a restaurant? No, stcredzero has decided that space is for storing their metal box. Who is really the authoritarian?
- albertopv 4y ago
  I live in Italy, millions of people don't live in huge cities, but in small villages where you need to take a car for a lot of activies.
- samastur 4y ago
  I use my kitchen not more than 1.5 hours a day on average. Not to mention toilet and bathroom which I use even less. I guess we should all live in two room "apartments" and rest be communal ;) I actually agree with you about better support for car sharing, but low usage by itself is not a particularly strong argument.
  - wpm 4y ago
    "I guess we should all live in two room "apartments" and rest be communal" Maybe not forced, but there are plenty of people for whom this setup would work fine, and has it historical precedent. Even if it's not for you or me, who cares? If some developer thinks it'll work, let them build it.
  - Wohlf 4y ago
    That's called dorms, and should probably be a decent sized part of affordable housing solutions.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    It is when in a city those cars take up huge amounts of public space.
  - dumbfounder 4y ago
    Well, pooping in the kitchen sink is not sanitary, so if you can solve that problem we are golden. Yes, it's a good point, there is a heck of a lot of stuff that is not efficiently utilized. I only wear 3% of my clothes on any given day. I have never used my drill (because I lost the charger but that's beside the point). Don't get me started on books or my kids' toys. But then again, the government isn't trying to mandate we all wear clothing made of a scarce material which would increase the price and possibly cause some people walk around naked in cold climates.
moffkalast 4y ago
Those electric cars that aren't being used could theoretically be used as renewable grid load balancers, but in reality I doubt many people would degrade their battery longevity for a few bucks a month they'd likely get from it from the power company.
- powerbroker 4y ago
  At a miniumum, the electric cars could be scheduled to take power only when high proportions of wind energy are on the grid -- thereby causing steep declines in demand, sufficient enough that a few coal and gas plants go offline earlier in the evening (for want of demand).
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  The main reason it's not worth it is because renewables are still negligible. This is likely to change once they aren't and the demand for storage becomes much higher.
ecshafer 4y ago
The reality is that electric vehicles are a fools errand. The real winning strategy is one that overall reduces dependency on vehicles, and moves more to walking, biking, and mass transit. This would mean actually making hard decisions and having policy changes though. You lower the CO2 produced by orders of magnitude compared to even electric vehicles.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  That would be a great place to live, and several decades from now, it may exist. Several decades from now is too long to wait for an energy transition.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    We went from "We're going to the moon" to landing on the moon in under a decade. We could make this transition that fast if we really wanted to, the problem is there are a whole lot of entrenched interests in not making this transition.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Going to the moon required building a couple of rockets. Changing how most cities look like requires a lot more material and a lot more manpower.
  - ecshafer 4y ago
    We can do a lot that would help. We can build electric mass transit (trains, street cars, busses). We can legally mandate that roads have large sidewalks / bike lanes and limit the size of rods. We could remove stroads completely. With how often roads go under maintenance, those rules would be able to be implemented fairly quickly. Remove zoning restrictions that limit density, or make artificial space like setback requirements and parking requirements, then let infill development do the work. There is a lot that can be done with the stroke of a pen and will be fixed naturally over time.
- 2devnull 4y ago
nickspicer1993 4y ago
All cars need to be EV for net zero and < 2 degree global warming to be achieved not just a subset, there can't be any fossil fuel powered cars on the road by 2050. As hinted below though you could hit 2 birds with one stone and focus on a great EV ride sharing network, guess it depends on how well EV prices can come down and whether cars owned outright will become out of reach for the average person.

matsemann 4y ago

Most people shouldn't need to own a car. I don't mean that in a "self driving will save us" way. But that a personal car is parked 95% of the day. In a city huge areas are used for storing these blocks of metal not in use. More accessible car sharing could make less people feel the need to own a car.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Isn't the problem that the car's that are parked 95% of the day are all moving at the same time in the last 5%? It feels like building a carless society is a lot more deliberate effort and requires a lot more public good will than electrifying what we have. That being said, it's probably the better long term goal.
- scotty79 4y ago
  If some strain of covid crops up that's way more deadly, maybe then we'll permanently transition to not hauling our butts around to stare at computer screens anyways.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Unfortunately there's still a lot of jobs that require said butt hauling.
    - scotty79 4y ago
      Yeah, but there's a lot that don't. Other idea... Employer should by law pay for commute and time spent commuting. And bonus for going to the office shouldn't be less than some minimal amount if the worker doesn't work remotely.
cm2187 4y ago
Self driving cars can park themselves far away, clearing the streets for traffic. For commutting, people need to own the car for the same reason farmers own their equipment: they all need it at the same time so it isn't economical to rent it.
fragmede 4y ago
More useful bus and train, and other mass-transit options, along with densification would go a long way towards that too. Unfortunately though, there's no getting around the fact that driving is convenient as shit. It's a luxury that most Americans have become accustomed to and won't want to give up. I live in a city but the pandemic meant that I was able to park my car for short grocery trips where previously I would have taken a bus.
TeeMassive 4y ago
Unless you have a family. It has to be there when you need it. Here in Québec we had an elected official who used to preach against cars and then once she got elected bought a SUV because, like everyone else with kids, she needed it for her family. The "you shouldn't need to own a car" attitude is arrogant and authoritarian in nature.
- matsemann 4y ago
  No, the authoritarian and arrogant attitude is from those thinking it's their right to drive everywhere at whatever cost to others. And you're missing the point. Why do you need a car because of family? Think further than your own nose tip. Wouldn't it be nice with a society where you didn't have to drive to do any little chore? And the few times you needed to drive, a care from some car sharing service was available outside your apartment building?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - stcredzero 4y ago
    Most people shouldn't need to own a car. Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others.
    - matsemann 4y ago
      > Do you understand why making such proclamations about other's lifestyles is authoritarian? No, I don't. I don't say people shouldn't own a car. I say people shouldn't need to. Please explain how that's authoritarian. And please stop calling me authoritarian and arrogant just because you disagree with my views.. > Also, it's not so reasonable to declare others "authoritarian" because of the detection of an externality. Unless, one has nominated one's self as a superior arbiter of truth. If you are equal, then it's up to you to convince others. No, the base case is no cars. The authoritarian view is to demand everyone else has to bend to your will. Children playing outside my house? No, they can't, stcredzero has decided that should be a high speed road for their car. Want to enjoy a peaceful evening? No, stcredzero has overruled you and decided their engine sound is more important. Want to eat outside at a restaurant? No, stcredzero has decided that space is for storing their metal box. Who is really the authoritarian?
albertopv 4y ago
I live in Italy, millions of people don't live in huge cities, but in small villages where you need to take a car for a lot of activies.
samastur 4y ago
I use my kitchen not more than 1.5 hours a day on average. Not to mention toilet and bathroom which I use even less. I guess we should all live in two room "apartments" and rest be communal ;) I actually agree with you about better support for car sharing, but low usage by itself is not a particularly strong argument.
- wpm 4y ago
  "I guess we should all live in two room "apartments" and rest be communal" Maybe not forced, but there are plenty of people for whom this setup would work fine, and has it historical precedent. Even if it's not for you or me, who cares? If some developer thinks it'll work, let them build it.
- Wohlf 4y ago
  That's called dorms, and should probably be a decent sized part of affordable housing solutions.
- matsemann 4y ago
  It is when in a city those cars take up huge amounts of public space.
- dumbfounder 4y ago
  Well, pooping in the kitchen sink is not sanitary, so if you can solve that problem we are golden. Yes, it's a good point, there is a heck of a lot of stuff that is not efficiently utilized. I only wear 3% of my clothes on any given day. I have never used my drill (because I lost the charger but that's beside the point). Don't get me started on books or my kids' toys. But then again, the government isn't trying to mandate we all wear clothing made of a scarce material which would increase the price and possibly cause some people walk around naked in cold climates.

moffkalast 4y ago

Those electric cars that aren't being used could theoretically be used as renewable grid load balancers, but in reality I doubt many people would degrade their battery longevity for a few bucks a month they'd likely get from it from the power company.

powerbroker 4y ago
At a miniumum, the electric cars could be scheduled to take power only when high proportions of wind energy are on the grid -- thereby causing steep declines in demand, sufficient enough that a few coal and gas plants go offline earlier in the evening (for want of demand).
BlueTemplar 4y ago
The main reason it's not worth it is because renewables are still negligible. This is likely to change once they aren't and the demand for storage becomes much higher.

ecshafer 4y ago

The reality is that electric vehicles are a fools errand. The real winning strategy is one that overall reduces dependency on vehicles, and moves more to walking, biking, and mass transit. This would mean actually making hard decisions and having policy changes though. You lower the CO2 produced by orders of magnitude compared to even electric vehicles.

tuatoru 4y ago
That would be a great place to live, and several decades from now, it may exist. Several decades from now is too long to wait for an energy transition.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  We went from "We're going to the moon" to landing on the moon in under a decade. We could make this transition that fast if we really wanted to, the problem is there are a whole lot of entrenched interests in not making this transition.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Going to the moon required building a couple of rockets. Changing how most cities look like requires a lot more material and a lot more manpower.
- ecshafer 4y ago
  We can do a lot that would help. We can build electric mass transit (trains, street cars, busses). We can legally mandate that roads have large sidewalks / bike lanes and limit the size of rods. We could remove stroads completely. With how often roads go under maintenance, those rules would be able to be implemented fairly quickly. Remove zoning restrictions that limit density, or make artificial space like setback requirements and parking requirements, then let infill development do the work. There is a lot that can be done with the stroke of a pen and will be fixed naturally over time.
2devnull 4y ago

nickspicer1993 4y ago

All cars need to be EV for net zero and < 2 degree global warming to be achieved not just a subset, there can't be any fossil fuel powered cars on the road by 2050. As hinted below though you could hit 2 birds with one stone and focus on a great EV ride sharing network, guess it depends on how well EV prices can come down and whether cars owned outright will become out of reach for the average person.