EV's could be Banned

mac_doctor said:

"they"?

Click to expand...

do you really need it spelling out? .
DOnt blame me for exporting jobs to China or for China's willingness to take manufacturing away from Countries so they could pay people a fraction of what they get paid elsewhere but at the same time increase profits.
China are not the victims here other than maybe their people they are fully aware of what the future holds and are probably the only Country that has the ability to plan 5o years ahead

j777stp said:

do you really need it spelling out?

Click to expand...

Yes. I have a pathological dislike of statements about "them" having to "do something". I am much less likely to quibble with statements that "spell it out".

Hello J777stp,

it depends what you mean by pollution. The American Environmental Protection Agency classified CO2 as a pollutant which is completely wrong. Unfortunately this description has taken hold world wide.
I don't suppose that China's emissions of real pollutants are lower than the West's but I have no doubt that they will soon match or exceed it. That is the nature of the advancement of 'developing' countries.
The West has facilitated China's growth to the detriment of their own industry by making energy so much more expensive than it needs to be. A country's prosperity is in inverse proportion to it's energy cost as a broad rule.

Alec

Ian D said:

It’s the per capita that really surprises you, funnily enough the 3 most polluting countries in the world per capita are oil producing.

1. Qatar — 37.05 per capita
2. Kuwait — 23.49 per capita
3. Saudi Arabia — 19.39 per capita
4. Canada — 16.85 per capita
5. United States — 15.74 per capita
6. Germany — 9.7 per capita
7. China — 7.72 per capita
8. Spain — 6.09 per capita
9. France — 5.02 per capita
10. Thailand — 4.05 per capita
    
    
    

    The 10 most polluting countries per capita, according to new UN report

    And you might be surprised by number one

    www.countryliving.com

Click to expand...

Yes, but per capita is only important for significant populations as the climate doesn't care about per person, it cares about the total.

Frank said:

Yes, but per capita is only important for significant populations as the climate doesn't care about per person, it cares about the total.

Click to expand...

India has a much lower rate per capita than any western country and less than half the UK, it’s just the sheer size of the population that’s against them.

Ian D said:

India has a much lower rate per capita than any western country and less than half the UK, it’s just the sheer size of the population that’s against them.

Click to expand...

Indeed, which is why, perhaps unfairly, that such large populations need to make the most effort as a fraction of a percent per capita improvement in India would be worth to the planet several percent in the UK and maybe easier to achieve.

Frank said:

Indeed, which is why, perhaps unfairly, that such large populations need to make the most effort as a fraction of a percent per capita improvement in India would be worth to the planet several percent in the UK and maybe easier to achieve.

Click to expand...

Seeing as USA is pretty much the largest polluter in the western world as well the richest in the world too, I think it’s them that should be making the biggest effort and showing the rest of the world how it can be done.

Getting out of the Paris agreement (rejoining later), no high speed rail at all, suburbs that you can only drive around to get to anything, doesn’t really help USA’s cause. Look at China’s infrastructure in comparison, more high speed rail than the entirety of Europe.

Hello Ian,

putting aside the questionable science of CO2's effect on climate, how are they going to significantly reduce their output without reducing their standard of living and no one is going to vote for that?
High speed trains, for instance, are expensive to build and run and are unlikely to reduce emissions. Electricfication does not reduce emissions. Counter intuitive you might think but the complexities of generation and the measures that are needed to accomodate renewables means the net overall is much less than you would think.
But as electrical production is only a small proportion of CO2 emissions, what about the rest.
It's easy to say they should do more but realistically and practically it is extremely difficult, slow and then using energy that a large percentage will not accept namely nuclear.

Alec

Frank said:

Anyway regardless of emissions, as has already been mentioned, fossil fuels are running out and whether we like it or not, new ICE car sales are getting banned in just 7 years time. We can just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it, but it will happen anyway!

Click to expand...

Fossil fuels are running out in exactly the same way that cobalt is running out to make batteries.

t0m4ever said:

Fossil fuels are running out in exactly the same way that cobalt is running out to make batteries.

Click to expand...

Cobalt free batteries are already happening though. Using a higher content of nickel instead.
Tesla is already leading the way with LFP (lithium-iron phosphate) batteries. Other manufacturers are following such as LG Chem who makes the batteries for JLR.


Still need that cobalt to refine the oil for petrol.

t0m4ever said:

Fossil fuels are running out in exactly the same way that cobalt is running out to make batteries.

Click to expand...

Cobalt is recyclable.

We'll all have to run steel tyred cart wheels soon:

"Emissions Analytics conducted a test last year that concluded almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tyre wear than what is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars."
‘Highly carcinogenic’ tyre toxins give electric car drivers a nasty surprise (msn.com)

mac_doctor said:

Cobalt is recyclable.

Click to expand...

"Cobalt is toxic to touch and breathe — and there are hundreds of thousands of poor Congolese people touching and breathing it day in and day out. Young mothers with babies strapped to their backs, all breathing in this toxic cobalt dust."
Humans are not though

j777stp said:

"Cobalt is toxic to touch and breathe — and there are hundreds of thousands of poor Congolese people touching and breathing it day in and day out. Young mothers with babies strapped to their backs, all breathing in this toxic cobalt dust."
Humans are not though

Click to expand...

As I already posted previously, battery manufacturers are changing their process to eliminate cobalt altogether in their batteries called LFP, uses high content of nickel instead. Tesla already uses them and LG Chem are switching to them.
Petrol on the other hand still uses cobalt to remove the sulphur in the refinery process.

Ian D said:

As I already posted previously, battery manufacturers are changing their process to eliminate cobalt altogether in their batteries called LFP, uses high content of nickel instead. Tesla already uses them and LG Chem are switching to them.
Petrol on the other hand still uses cobalt to remove the sulphur in the refinery process.

Click to expand...

see this is the propaganda 1lb of cobalt is used to produce 80,000 gallons of petrol upto 12kg is used in the production of an EV. over 16 million EV's on the roads today that an awful lot of mined Cobalt. Luckily these environmentalists have taught us to look past the headlines. It appears the declaring of EV's as the saviour of the Planet may well be slightly flawed. These is also a warning from the Oil producers that the switch to renewable energies could jeapordise the future investment in oil and gas production so cheap oil and gas are gone basically thanks for that

J777stp,

there will be no switch to renewables, they only run at the levels we currently have due to the support of gas generation. We need oil and gas.
It's fantasy land to think wind and solar will replace conventional generation.

j777stp said:

see this is the propaganda 1lb of cobalt is used to produce 80,000 gallons of petrol upto 12kg is used in the production of an EV. over 16 million EV's on the roads today that an awful lot of mined Cobalt. Luckily these environmentalists have taught us to look past the headlines. It appears the declaring of EV's as the saviour of the Planet may well be slightly flawed. These is also a warning from the Oil producers that the switch to renewable energies could jeapordise the future investment in oil and gas production so cheap oil and gas are gone basically thanks for that

Click to expand...

Perhaps look at LFP which is already replacing cobalt batteries. Won’t be an issue for much longer, it can also be recycled. You mention propaganda, but mention oil producers as a source! Of course they’ll be saying that, it’s going to hit their multi billion pound profits.

How much did Shell and BP make again? Where’s the cheap prices now?

I think the objections to EVs that many people express are due to their compulsory introduction by our Governement. Not only is there a Govt-imposed ban on all new purely ICE-engined cars in 2030, but, from 2024, car manufacturers will be fined increasing amounts if they don't meet a steadily increasing proportion of their new car sales as EVs.
If EVs had just been enabled to be an option to ICE cars, with maybe some price incentives from Government, then they'd be much greater acceptance of them by the population. Take up of EVs would probably be a bit slower but would probably still take place at a reasonable pace.
Why do Governments continually meddle with the free market?

A worthwhile watch from Harry's Garage: