3 ms·

> "Enabling the phase-out of fossil fuels" How much hydrocarbon fuel is needed to produce these batteries each year? How much fuel is needed to charge them?

ceejayoz 3y ago
> How much fuel is needed to charge them? The eventual goal would be zero.
- tonymet 3y ago
  in what year?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Don't pull a muscle moving those goalposts around.
  - mbgerring 3y ago
    Many batteries deployed today, in 2024, spend their entire lifecycle being charged entirely from solar. Are you asking what year none of them will be charged with electricity from fossil fuels? I’d bet that we’ll hit that mark in California before 2040.
stetrain 3y ago
Currently used? Probably quite a bit. But usually still a net emissions win for using an EV vs a fossil fuel vehicle even with current grids. Required? None. There's nothing in EV battery production or charging or usage that requires burning fossil fuels. That fossil fuels are a major source of our current energy is part of the problem that we are also working to solve. And mass production of economical batteries is part of how we do that with renewable energy. Building grids and vehicles that burn fossil fuels means you need to keep drilling, refining, and transporting that fossil fuel for every future kWH generated or mile driven. Forever. A battery is made once and used for its lifetime, and most of its critical materials can be recycled at end of life into new batteries. If you want current stats on total lifetime emissions of manufacturing and using batteries vs fossil fuels, search for "EV cradle to grave emissions" and there are a few studies. My recollection is that the results show that an EV will have lower lifetime emissions than a fossil fuel vehicle even with today's mostly dirty grids in most cases, and break-even in the worst grid mixes. As grids shift to renewables and recycling increases those numbers should only improve.
- tonymet 3y ago
  a quick check showed about 21 Billion Gallons annually to make 130k tons of lithium batteries are produced. so 273 billion kWh of hydrocarbon fuel burned to make batteries that can hold only 51.5 million kWh of energy. And then roughly a few billion or more to fill them up each year. What year will we make enough solar & wind power to compensate for the 21 billion gallons of fuel?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    A quick check shows the 21 billion gallon number you're (not) citing is likely bullshit. https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint/536-92531ae7-c68f-4eaa-a24d-6c04c4b9ff95 https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-v... > David Checkel, a professor at the University of Alberta and an electric car expert, did some back-of-the-napkin math to dispute the claim. Checkel calculated that if each gallon of fuel costs $3, then 21 billion gallons would cost $63 billion annually. If $63 billion was the price tag for 250,000 batteries, then the cost of raw materials for each battery would be more than $250,000.
    - tonymet 3y ago
      what's the correct figure? it's easily 100x the output
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Is that number pulled off a Facebook meme, too? You seem confused by the concept of a reusable battery. It's not a AA battery; you don't throw it away every 300 miles and get a new one.
      - recursive 3y ago
        Good thing they get charged more than 100 times then.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    > Nonetheless, it is shown that conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles emit the highest amount of total life-cycle GHGs in comparison to vehicles powered by other available energy resources. When using green electricity, plug-in hybrid electric and fully electric vehicles can reduce the total life-cycle emission in comparison to combustion engine vehicles by 73 % and 89 %, respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122000867 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212... Plenty of other papers with similar results. Current total lifecycle emissions are already net negative for EV vs ICE including production of the battery and vehicle, and production of the electricity using the current grid. That margin improves as the grid gets cleaner.
tonymet 3y ago
typical hackernews climate thread -- don't ask any important questions
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  They're bad faith, loaded questions. Be honest, you didn't ask them to learn something, you asked them because you think they're "Gotcha!" questions. Your responses to answers make this painfully obvious. If you want to make a point, then just make it. Don't hide behind a bullshit claim that you're just asking questions and then cry about downvotes.
  - tonymet 3y ago
    My point is no one accounts for the cost and environmental impact . They are fair questions .
    - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      They're not fair questions because they've been answered. Multiple times. Every time electrification comes up. Cost and environmental impact has been accounted for. And it turns out, using solar/wind energy for production and storing the excess in batteries for when the sun goes down or the wind gets lighter is better for the environment than constantly burning natural gas and coal. Yes, building batteries has a carbon footprint, but that footprint only needs to be done ONCE, whereas burning fuel for electrical generation requires constant burning. For some reason, this fact upsets you, and rather than accept it, you try to act like nobody has done the studies. I don't know how else to explain this to you. The studies have been done. This is settled science. So again. Your questions are bad faith. You have no interest in learning.
  - tonymet 3y ago
    Every solution has tradeoffs . What is so wrong about discussing them. We discuss the tradeoffs of everything else. Then electric comes up and that’s off limits

ceejayoz 3y ago

> How much fuel is needed to charge them? The eventual goal would be zero.

tonymet 3y ago
in what year?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Don't pull a muscle moving those goalposts around.
- mbgerring 3y ago
  Many batteries deployed today, in 2024, spend their entire lifecycle being charged entirely from solar. Are you asking what year none of them will be charged with electricity from fossil fuels? I’d bet that we’ll hit that mark in California before 2040.

stetrain 3y ago

Currently used? Probably quite a bit. But usually still a net emissions win for using an EV vs a fossil fuel vehicle even with current grids. Required? None. There's nothing in EV battery production or charging or usage that requires burning fossil fuels. That fossil fuels are a major source of our current energy is part of the problem that we are also working to solve. And mass production of economical batteries is part of how we do that with renewable energy. Building grids and vehicles that burn fossil fuels means you need to keep drilling, refining, and transporting that fossil fuel for every future kWH generated or mile driven. Forever. A battery is made once and used for its lifetime, and most of its critical materials can be recycled at end of life into new batteries. If you want current stats on total lifetime emissions of manufacturing and using batteries vs fossil fuels, search for "EV cradle to grave emissions" and there are a few studies. My recollection is that the results show that an EV will have lower lifetime emissions than a fossil fuel vehicle even with today's mostly dirty grids in most cases, and break-even in the worst grid mixes. As grids shift to renewables and recycling increases those numbers should only improve.

tonymet 3y ago
a quick check showed about 21 Billion Gallons annually to make 130k tons of lithium batteries are produced. so 273 billion kWh of hydrocarbon fuel burned to make batteries that can hold only 51.5 million kWh of energy. And then roughly a few billion or more to fill them up each year. What year will we make enough solar & wind power to compensate for the 21 billion gallons of fuel?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  A quick check shows the 21 billion gallon number you're (not) citing is likely bullshit. https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint/536-92531ae7-c68f-4eaa-a24d-6c04c4b9ff95 https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-v... > David Checkel, a professor at the University of Alberta and an electric car expert, did some back-of-the-napkin math to dispute the claim. Checkel calculated that if each gallon of fuel costs $3, then 21 billion gallons would cost $63 billion annually. If $63 billion was the price tag for 250,000 batteries, then the cost of raw materials for each battery would be more than $250,000.
  - tonymet 3y ago
    what's the correct figure? it's easily 100x the output
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Is that number pulled off a Facebook meme, too? You seem confused by the concept of a reusable battery. It's not a AA battery; you don't throw it away every 300 miles and get a new one.
    - recursive 3y ago
      Good thing they get charged more than 100 times then.
- stetrain 3y ago
  > Nonetheless, it is shown that conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles emit the highest amount of total life-cycle GHGs in comparison to vehicles powered by other available energy resources. When using green electricity, plug-in hybrid electric and fully electric vehicles can reduce the total life-cycle emission in comparison to combustion engine vehicles by 73 % and 89 %, respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122000867 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212... Plenty of other papers with similar results. Current total lifecycle emissions are already net negative for EV vs ICE including production of the battery and vehicle, and production of the electricity using the current grid. That margin improves as the grid gets cleaner.

tonymet 3y ago

typical hackernews climate thread -- don't ask any important questions

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
They're bad faith, loaded questions. Be honest, you didn't ask them to learn something, you asked them because you think they're "Gotcha!" questions. Your responses to answers make this painfully obvious. If you want to make a point, then just make it. Don't hide behind a bullshit claim that you're just asking questions and then cry about downvotes.
- tonymet 3y ago
  My point is no one accounts for the cost and environmental impact . They are fair questions .
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    They're not fair questions because they've been answered. Multiple times. Every time electrification comes up. Cost and environmental impact has been accounted for. And it turns out, using solar/wind energy for production and storing the excess in batteries for when the sun goes down or the wind gets lighter is better for the environment than constantly burning natural gas and coal. Yes, building batteries has a carbon footprint, but that footprint only needs to be done ONCE, whereas burning fuel for electrical generation requires constant burning. For some reason, this fact upsets you, and rather than accept it, you try to act like nobody has done the studies. I don't know how else to explain this to you. The studies have been done. This is settled science. So again. Your questions are bad faith. You have no interest in learning.
- tonymet 3y ago
  Every solution has tradeoffs . What is so wrong about discussing them. We discuss the tradeoffs of everything else. Then electric comes up and that’s off limits