By what year, should all fossil fuel passenger vehicles be banned from use on Australian public roads?
So that is both new & used vehicles
Doesn't include freight trucks, mining vehicles or trains (in this poll).
For those who choose 'Never' - do you accept the relevant science of the health effects of airborne carcinogens/pollutants from vehicle exhaust? Do you accept the science of anthropogenic global warming?
Ask Martin ebarhard the co-creator of Tesla, who envisioned electric roadsters.
As he has no idea either, only Elon musk can answer that question while martin retaliates on corporate sabotage.
But hay getting royalties from such company would be epic, but the shame that would follow contemplating such questions.
Huh what?
Exactly.
Electric cars were invented in the late 1800s….
Where talking about Tesla, not ihe invention of discovery.
Where do you think the electricity comes from to charge your "electric" car when there is no solar power or "renewable" energy available……
An old school power plant that, even account for loss in distribution, is still 4 times cheaper and more efficient than petrol?
The real question is what is going to happen to those beautiful toxic batteries…
and yes if you say recycle them…
my next question WHERE….
show me where on tesla.com they mention where you can recycle their batteries…
Another byproduct of the rush to EV's.
https://restofworld.org/2022/indonesia-china-ev-nickel/?utm_…
Being an early adopter… Coming close to 8yrs of EV ownership and 3yrs of Fossil free household… Can vouch that EVs are the future and can't imagine ever owning an ICE vehicle ever again. Unfortunately, Australia is so far being the EV/Sustainability revolution that I am afraid we will soon become the dumping ground for all fossil/ICE rubbish…
Hopefully our politicians can wakeup and acceleration the transition to EVs and sustainable energy…need incentives to make them more affordable for everyone.
People who buy into something rarely can pick out any faults or criticism, your response is very typical but doesn't make it right.
lend me 60K interest free?
need incentives to make them more affordable for everyone
Even need is too strong a word really. Just get rid of the disincentives and let the supply catch up with demand.
Even now, all you need for electric to win is to stop subsidising fossil fuels.
Where do you think the battery and metals for your EV come from ?
Did they grow on a tree ?
Probably when electric vehicle manufacturers don't blatantly disrespect consumers' rights to repair or are banned from having DRM bs built into their cars making customers pay subscriptions for already installed heated seats and other goofy shit behind a paywall.
making customers pay subscriptions for already installed heated seats and other goofy shit behind a paywall.
This has nothing to do with EV's - BMW and Toyota started this nonsense with their ICE vehicles:
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/toyota-to-charge-u-s-owners…
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/bmw-offering-heated-se…
Unpopular opinion- electric might be a way forward but it’s not really feasible for long time. I wouldn’t spend 30 to 40k extra to buy a car to save fuel costs. Where does everyone think Aussie electricity comes from? It’s coal so you are only doing favour if you have solar panel on your roof. That is sorta a dream now that house prices are sky rocketed. Most people simply can’t make use of solar panel.
Second thing, where do people think battery comes from? It’s just not sustainable to mine that much raw ore. Australia have population of 28 million. Our use of reliance on battery will impact environment more than fuel.
Why does it always have to be a binary all or nothing approach to EVs, why can't ICE, Hybrids and EV live in harmony. Like a multicultural society.
Fire nation attacked, not us
Thursday
I don't want my car to be like software, with subscription and in-car purchases model. I will be holding on as long as I possibly can. Already car CEO's are talking crap like they don't sell cars, they are selling services.
Too late - BMW and Toyota started the subscription model with their ICE vehicles:
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/toyota-to-charge-u-s-owners…
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/bmw-offering-heated-se…
You can thank corporate america for this bullshit.
They will sell their children for another dollar…
Ban fossil fuel vehicles, but EV's require fossils fuels to charge them. Hmmm…Yes, trust the science.
ACT (and maybe SA?) generate enough renewable power to cover their own needs. So any car charged there is not using any fossil fuels to charge.
They absolutely do not, you can see this inconvenient truth yourself when you look at the inter-connectors feeding them from elsewhere every single day.
You mean the arguments made here should be factual and logical? Get outta here.
2123
No time soon, but Series Hybrids are the gap bridger. Look at the nissan note. 1.6l/100km, insane range. We're talking 1500km on a tank of petrol.
For reference a tiny Suzuki swift gets 5/6L/100k.
It uses a tiny on board engine purely as a generator for an electric drivetrain. It's not actually connected to the wheels. It runs at the perfect RPM. It requires minimal maintenance, it's not particularly stressed, it doesn't run that often.
For Australia's range and coverage, it's the answer.
For road freight, it's the answer.
For trains and large container ships, they're literally already doing it.
This tech gives us time to bolster the grid to cope with kilowatt class chargers in every house, rentals to install them (fat (profanity) chance knowing landlords), renewables, solar, and battery/storage tech to improve.
And only Nissan is going all-in on it. The note's already one of the most popular cars in Japan. The Qashqai is about to land here with it.
The Nissan E-Power is no where near as efficient as a Toyota OR Honda Hybrid.E-Power:ICE running all the time, generator pumps up a tiny battery(1.8KWH)which is nothing.Battery driving an inverter producing an alternating current for the traction motors on the front & the rear axle.It is a very complex system (fact) with a lot of moving parts.There are a lot of disadvantages to doing it this way.It’s fuel economy is no where near as good as a full hybrid.Even the Hyundai Tucson diesel gets 6.3,X-Trail E-power,6.1L/100.Qashqai E-Power:6.4L/100.RAV Hybrid :4.7L/100.Honda HRV Hybrid: 4.3L/100,in fact they will go as low as 2.9L/100.Toyota & Honda have the best Hybrids on the market.This is all marketing hype from Nissan.Nissan Note is a ‘Kei’ car,it is a city car nothing else.You are paying a premium for something which is no where as efficient as a full hybrid.Why would any one purchase one is beyond me.
The e-Note doesn't get 1.6L/100km. The official rating in Japan's lenient test cycle is 3.4L/100km, real world tests report around 5L/100km, worse than my 12yo 3rd gen Prius, and about the same as the 2nd Gen Prius released in 2003.
It's a Yaris sized city car that gets about the same fuel economy as a RAV4 hybrid - Nissan's hybrid tech is about 20 years behind Toyota's.
How many of you guys live in rural areas?I can tell you were need diesel and petrol because it's reliable you doing need to charge for hours you really sure as hell wouldn't like to be stuck in the middle if no where, it's great of you own an ev but the range isn't really feasible in those areas, in sure you guys think a battery is cheap to replace too, is anyone else worried about being immoliated having a large battery under them as well?, we should continue to give people a choice in vehicle type we should not tax them put price gouge, electricity is getting nigh unaffordable as it is these days
about being immoliated having a large battery under them as well
An ice is effectively a Molotov cocktail on wheels….
But you're happy driving around with 50-100 litres of petrol under you?
Maybe the real problem is people in the country driving like idiots every other day…for hundreds of kilometers.
I voted ‘never’ and I accept all the science.
Imo electric will take over….and petrol engines will be a hobby for a small number of enthusiasts; who will be doing minimal harm.
Without viable alternatives we cannot simply stop using fossil fuels in cars, or anywhere else that degree of mass deployed portable energy density is required.
For those who choose 'Never' - do you accept the relevant science of the health effects of airborne carcinogens/pollutants from vehicle exhaust?
Yes, but I think it is a bigger problem to have fossil fuel power where it doesn't need to be. So we can talk about getting rid of the combustion engine right after the grid and every vessel big enough is converted to nuclear power. Those create orders of magnitude greater quantities of pollution than cars do, and thanks to centralisation they're so much easier to mitigate.
Do you accept the science of anthropogenic global warming?
Not on face value. It certainly has intuitive merit but in the absence of a forward model the 'science' here is clear: it's a theory and not fact. We need a forward model to predict the weather with high accuracy to confidently make the claim that climate change is primarily or substantially anthropogenic in origin. We don't even remotely have anything like that model yet. Science can't tell me what the weather will be in 6 months yet I'm supposed to believe it can do so for the weather in 2+ decades?
Still, if we are to use the theory to decide policy then the first thing we have to do is go nuclear with a vengeance. Everything we can viably attach a reactor to we need to. It is the only real answer we have. We do have the models necessary to calculate the requirements to replace fossil fuels, and we can't do that without nuclear. There isn't enough lead or other minerals on the planet for the batteries that would be required. There's not enough land to cover with solar panels or windmills. There is no solution for 'green' that can work for our needs without nuclear.
"There's not enough land to cover with solar panels or windmills." They are going to be installing 22,000 500 watt solar panels in Australia per day. That will end up occupying the same area as 5.5 Tasmanias. Clear felling land to cover it in solar panels is NOT environmentally friendly.
The best solution is to gradually replace coal power stations with nuclear ones. Build the nukes next to the old coal generators to utilize existing power line infractucture.
Renewables horrify me. We are replacing highly concentrated forms of energy with dilute ones whose output we cannot control.
"Global warming" is just something academics made up and leftist politicians have completely embraced.
are long distance high voltage transmission lines not viable for placing panels in places that aren't such a problem to clear fell. Not matter what you put, anywhere, it's going to displace something that was living there - but the middle has less cloud cover and more options for minimising ecological impact.
What is the projected lifetime of our fuel stores for nuclear power stations? It isn't a "renewable" either, but if the timescale is long enough it can delay the transission to somethiung else AND provide bulk base load power quickly to get away from burning things.
High voltage lines are subject to transmission losses the same as any other powerline is. It's a huge part of the reason we ship coal, gas, and oil directly to point of use.
If you are going to look for somewhere that is already 'empty' and available for solar generation close to the coast then the ocean is a way better candidate. You provide shading and that creates aquatic habitat.
Nuclear fuel stores are enormous and reprocessing exists. Even with existing technology we are talking centuries of use with year on year growth in demand. That's all before we look at things like breeder reactors and thorium. There's easily enough stock to electrify the entire world (which is something that is happening right now, just with the dirtiest fossil fuels you can get) and still have mountains of capacity left to spare.
What is the projected lifetime of our fuel stores for nuclear power stations? It isn't a "renewable" either
Tens of thousands of years…
Solar area requirements are a very simple matter. It's literally a case of area-to-energy density. That's where the problem arises because people grossly underestimate our power usage. People can put solar on their roofs that give partial power to a domestic house, good luck finding enough space to power a single chemical factory. Industrial users often have private substations, or even private coal generation on premise, simply because the energy requirements are that enormous.
A thing I like to suggest in these kind of discussions of wishful thinking about getting rid of fossil fuels is for people to go on google earth and look at the actual infrastructure. It's not hard to find the ports and follow the train lines that link the fuel imports directly to industrial consumers. Plenty of large industrial facilities are proximal to their own ports because they'd never be able to turn on the lights without boatloads of coal right on their doorstep.
Something that is also relevant but not visible on a map is the nature of industrial usage. The example I use for that is industrial smelting of aluminium. There's factories all around the world keeping a kilometre (yes, that's not a mistake) of aluminium liquid for processing 24 hours a day. If they lose power for long enough then not only do they lose all the product being processed, the equipment is completely destroyed too. There is no off for these places. That is one type of factory, there are literally thousands of different industries that have fail critical processes (ever seen an industrial explosion? Turning things off unexpectedly is dangerous). We simply use too much stuff to go without anymore, and pulling the plug is no longer an option. We'd literally kill billions if we did (because where do all these greenies think their fertiliser comes from?).
Isn't this an argument to re-tool factories?
@Eeples: Capitalism already does that.
Electricity costs money and businesses optimise to reduce costs of production. Especially high throughput businesses, this is a domain where saving yourself half a cent per product translates into millions of dollars profit. There are entire job sectors dedicated to nothing but negotiating the best supply deals.
There's also observations that can be made viewing constrained energy consumers. These are the two ends of the bell curve on energy use, the outliers. Shipping vessels burn brown coal, the dirtiest but cheapest fuel possible the second they're outside a country's maritime waters. Under nations with nuclear technology military vessels like submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered. They can afford to have long term high density fuel because they don't have to deal with the bitching and moaning of the public. So we can see what people do when they're trying to save money and what they do when they can have the best in the world.
The argument to retool factories isn't in changing their processes because they already do that themselves. The argument is to put a nuclear reactor everywhere that one can viably be installed. It's taking away the chimney belching carbon and replacing it with a self contained battery that runs cleanly for years without intervention. The only argument against that is fear (and let's not sugar coat things: fear should be respected, but it shouldn't be an excuse to be paralysed in the face of threat).
Solar panels also have a limited lifetime and guess what the manufacturing process and disposal of them is not environmentally friendly.
The real solution is to use less energy, pretending the wasteful usage of energy is ok is the problem. Reduce energy consumption and you will need less energy sources which like you state themselves are not green.
According to the stats I read, there are approx 20 million vehicles registered in Australia and in ideal circumstances, about 1.1 million new vehicles sold annually. The national fleet regenerates at around 5 percent a year.
So given the relatively low number of alternative energy vehicles (ie, electric, hydrogen) on the roads atm, even in simplistic terms, it would take around 20 years to replace the entire fleet with new vehicles.
Even if the federal government was to ban the sale of internal combustion engined vehicles next week, they would still be present on the roads (though in diminishing numbers) until 2041.
And there is no sign yet that either side of politics has the will to mandate any firm timeline to do something so radical. EVs and others will remain in the minority until laws or incentives tip the economic balance in their favour.
I think that sometime in the second half of this century ICE engined vehicles will be in the minority on Aussie roads but just as you sometimes see cars on the road now that are 50, 60 or more years old, we will continue to see ICE vehicles around for a generation.
I don't think they should be "banned" completely, just incentivise people to move off them to other powerplants so they do it themselves. I don't think it should be outlandish penalties on registration, that would just punish people who can't afford to move away from what they already have - but new car sales could either be all electric, or simply taxed to high heaven on new purchases of ICE. No doubt there would be a primary producer exemption for vehicles used in rural locations.
What is the situation with the grid and what will happen if cars aren't able to be topped up during the day when at work - it's one thing when everyone throws on their heaters/aircons at the end of the day when they get home, it'll be another thing entirely if the load can't be spread out when everyone gets home and their car goes on charge. Especially in the further out suburbs that are poorly served by public transport making a long car commute necessary for most households in the estate.
Cars release minimal amounts of CO2 compared to methane emitting leaking old Oil wells.
Methane emissions from open cut coal mines and oil and gas wells are the first place there should be pressure applied but that would eat into profits and potential investment so media pushes the individual responsibility mantra.
Shame it's so easy to bribe both sides of politics with such small amounts in election campaign funds and distract you with this bullsh!t .
No money for Gov coffers if you just put a battery bank in your house if that's an individual goal.
You can use your old car battery, single solar panel and small inverter ($100+) from jcar to create a power point to charge most everything+ run battery charger ect , if you want to save money and feel better .
When electric cars can go for 250k Kms trouble free for 25 years
How about we ban those cruise ships that do nothing but pollute?
Look cars should be run to end of life because doing this is less wasteful and more environmentally friendly than building a new car. At what point should we stop selling ICE cars? I think when the manufacturing capacity (and sourcing of raw materials) hits a point all sales volume can be electric and the grid can support charging it all.
Also not everyone is able to financially afford to be proactive about the environment so I believe if you can afford to take action you should but don't make others feel bad if they can't.
That’s what a lot of people I know and myself plan to do. We’re driving our current ICE cars to the ground and waiting for EVs to be affordable to us. We’re not rich but want to do our bit. Fossil fuels shouldn’t be banned but probably go the way of horse carts when demand is no longer there.
I voted "Never"
For those who choose 'Never' - do you accept the relevant science of the health effects of airborne carcinogens/pollutants from vehicle exhaust?
Yes. And it'll be great when nobody drives them anymore.
Do you accept the science of anthropogenic global warming?
Yep.
I don't think a ban is necesary. As EVs become cheaper and the charging infrastructure improves, less petrol stations / mechanics service fossil fuel cars, etc — people will stop buying fossil fuel cars.
Eventually it'll just be a handful of enthusiasts preserving / using old fossil fuel cars, like how some of us enthusiasts use CRT TVs today. And with so few of them around, there won't be any significant environmental impact.
Reading through these comments, it is apparent that there are many clueless people when it comes to electric vehicles and renewable energy, on both sides of the argument.
I voted never, I grew up on a farm, EV's dont work for anyone actually working in the country. Grey nomads might be able to go place to place, but not for normal people
Where's the 2022 option?
ICE cars are hundred year old antiquated technology that should have been banned ages ago.
Not sure why people hold on to them at all?
They shouldn't need to ban them, given 20 years ICE cars might not be the best choice for most people unless they're an enthusiast - charging infrastructure will become more common and take over (needing to park further away/elsewhere), fuel prices will continue to rise to maintain profits while less motorists are visiting the traditional Servo, Insurance will go up for ICE cars due to less on the roads (more costly repairs), registration prices will go up to encourage motorists to switch and governments will likely have banned the sale of brand new ones by then.
EDIT: And they might ban ICE vehicles from the CBDs.
I don't see the charging costs dropping for EV, they will only get more expensive with longer waiting times. Especially fast charging as seen in other parts of the world already.
Insurance now for Tesla's is already a bit insane, most owners I've spoken to seem to see the $2-2.5k annual insurance policy as a badge of honour in a strange way, insurance will also be high for them given the difficulty to repair (limited places, limited authorized etc) in to the future.
Most likely ICE will just be devalued for policy value so premiums won't be too huge, they will be written off economically at the slightest damage no doubt also to get them off their books.
As we move towards less ICE vehicles, where do you think that fuel excise gap is going to come from? same goes for rego, it's going to be shifted on to EV (PHEV and other combos) owners.
Governments love to take our money and misuse it, that's not about to change anytime soon so I can see rego being the same or higher, congestion taxes or similar being forced upon people to make up that loss.
No part of this ends with consumers getting a better deal, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then cool but its more about marketing and selling people stuff than anything else, they don't really care about the environment.
Thank you all for the laughs at the ignorance on display here.
Even if you replace city runabouts with EVs good luck replacing large trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=yBODCJKn6vQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TUfTwWdHM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3dCDNIRM34
Hope you guys really enjoy downvoting this. That's all this place is good for.
I agree. People should own fewer cars.
That is not what I was aiming to say. It isn't a good thing. We could solve this problem with technology, eventually and gradually instead of with grand gestures and people proclaiming what others should do. Instead we are going to diminish the life of the average person and thanks to commercial concerns we'll probably damage the environment even more. Greenwashing is crazy behaviour.
Some times you have to take Cadogan with a grain of salt.He seems to have a beef with some manufacturers.
You have to think critically with ALL sources of information. I definitely don't agree with him on everything, and I agree he has his biases. But he's not wrong on EVs. I wish it were not so.
I just don’t think EVs are the way to go atm.Maybe down the track.
Why dont we start off smaller by banning small engine petrol powered mowers and other garden equipment. Cutting out inefficient mowers that still burn oil (2 stroke) and without cats could make a difference.
yeah ive seen my naighbours 'lawns' maintained with electric
hard pass….lol
4-stroke & 2-stroke and stop wasting my time
On the ‘banning’ of fossil fuel mowers.Electric mowers are actually very strong in sales.Bunnings sell, a very big range these days, very little in gas mowers.I ended up going down that road as I found my Honda buffalo mulching mower far to heavy.(& I have had them all my life).Ended up going with a Ryobi 36V mower, & have never looked back, has heaps of power, & will cut very thick grass very easily.It is also self propelled.Best mower I have ever owned.
Because you are talking about global warming I am assuming that you know the major causes of greenhouse gases. As per the CSIRO, emissions attributable to transportation is less than 18%. And this includes things like airplanes, mining vehicles, trucks, trains, ships, boats and the whole lot.
Given that you seem to want to let mining vehicles, trucks, etc carry on as per usual, cars will be less than 10% or even 5%. So what part of your "accepting the science of anthropogenic global warming" makes you think that cars are the ones to target here? What information could you provide to show us the long-term and short-term impact on the global warming by mining all those rare earth metals required to produce EVs? In addition, let's not forget that less than 30% of our electricity is produced from renewable sources. Right now we are all buying these electric vehicles and are charging them up with coal-fire produced power.
Electric vehicles do nothing to solve problems with urban congestion ( in fact, research suggests they make it worse), manufacturing emissions, transport to market emissions or finite resource use.
They're a one trick pony, with huge associated cost, to allow us to continue an unsustainable and miserable lifestyle.
Economics will make the decision on moving from petrol to electric. But fundamentally we need to get out of cars and into bikes, scooters, trains and buses.
Take a walk around any town or city, look at the lack of priority you have as a person and then think about ways to stop being a slave to our vehicular culture.
Wait at lights for 5 minutes to be given 20 seconds to cross a road. It's wrong.
The more busses we have the quicker it is for everybody to get around. And its a lot safer. People driving cars kill people all the time. Bus drivers never kill people.
buses suck balls…no further comment needed
I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
My cycling experience is that bus drivers can be more belligerent C&-ts than other drivers, but any decrease in traffic volumes would let them be belligerent in their own space.
My cycling experience is that bus drivers can be more belligerent C&-ts than other drivers,
My motoring experience is that cyclists are the worst kind of belligerent C&-t cockroaches on the road and I believe their opinions about the road or traffic should be ignored with extreme prejudice.
I nearly killed one a few days ago because he decided to just wander into the road when the lights had turned green and I had just started moving the car and wasn't anticipating a feral roach to just appear in the middle of the road.
The only reason I could imagine why he would do that was that he was naturally an imbecile like most cyclists and/or was downright inconsiderate of other road users. If I didn't have good brakes or wasn't being careful this roach would have been history (good thing I've dash camara in case the car didn't stop in time).
I'd personally rather have two dozen buses on the road than one pedalpest.
Busses are clearly coded better than cars.
For example, I can lean over from the driver's side of my car and open the passenger window whereas on a bus there are 2 seats, an aisle, and another 2 seats; no way I can lean over and open the window across the aisle.
And yet both cars and buses travel on the same road width.
Always hilarious when greentards try to make their deranged policies sound like a fait a compli.
greentards is a keeper….lol
Who and what are you referring to by that? Doesn't seem to apply to the original poll does it?
Considering its 2022 and we still havnt done away with leaded petrol vehicles I dont know when this will happen.
Yeah its bit of a joke that this topic can even be reasonably argued when out of the top 10 selling cars for Nov only 1 was an EV. When there is at least 7 out of the top 10 are EV then lets talk about future bans.
Based on https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/fossil-discovery-quee…
I really don't think we have enough fossils to keep processing them into fuel.
Lol
Won't happen, they'll eliminate themselves, except for hobbyists and nostalgia folks they will just disappear. Just the same as every other technological advance that completely obliterates previous tech because the difference is obvious and inevitable. No point in trying to put into law what folk will do by themselves.
I drive an ev, it's been our sole family car since 2018 and have no regrets. I'm fully sold on the personal health benefits of a fume free garage.
What single source of science are you asking people to sign up to? There may be some form of consensus that man made co2 contributes to climate change, but they're is certainly no unified view on how much and if banning ice passenger vehicles would have a meaningful impact.
But I picked never. 1 running your used corolla into the ground is far more sustainable than buying a top end Tesla. 2 free choice is something I value, even if I made a choice which aligns with your works view I have no intention of imposing it on others.
What do you think of the benefits of millions of EV car batteries with all their toxic components going into land fill and leaking into the water and more ?
OIL Is bad, but what do you think of millions upon millions of tonnes of wonderful cadmium, arsenic, nickel and friends ?
Leave a car to rust in your backyard and it will be gone and things will grow back, leave a car battery and the entire neighbourhood will be poisoned forever.
I picked never… But anyway, since your asked, I see that argument as a non issue in the short term. Currently a dead ev battery has quite a bit of value. Each cell can be sorted and the ones with some usable life in them can be repurposed. The ones that are dead still contain valuable materials that mean recycling is viable. The main issue right now is there aren't enough dead ev batteries to get a reuse/recycle model going in an economically viable way. But should your concern come to the forefront, it should be an easy fix.
Everything you said is completely untrue. You are making statements without understanding how EV batteries are made or their composition, when you understand this you will also understand WHY they are not recycled, because unfortunately it all comes down to money. It costs more to recycle than to make a new one.
EV batteries are not recycled - thats a fact
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779
V batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of which need dismantling. They contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.
…
"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."
Recent proposals from the European Union would see EV suppliers responsible for making sure that their products aren't simply dumped at the end of their life, and manufacturers are already starting to step up to the mark.
Where is the easy fix for recycling plastic that was promised ?
@CowFrogHorse: Plastic recycling is and always has been a farce. But that is partly because the material being recycled isn't valuable. Also the places that use the material are rarely the place that manufacturers it, so the material needs to go all the way back to the start of the supply chain.
The supply chain issues are true for batteries, but the value of the material is quite different. And I do understand quite a bit about battery chemistry along with the application, and am well aware that battery recycling is still in its early stages.
Equally, you are still missing the point that I said "never" in the pole. So does seem a tad odd that you are picking issue with someone who has picked the same side of the argument as you…
@Munka: Your reply is incomplete, you only mention the components of a battery having value, but you forget to mention the cost of processing them.
This simple fact is WHY today batteries are basically not recycled on any mass scale, and we are limited to a few very small startups that are basically losing massive amounts trying to solve the problem.
Secondly battery chemistry is constantly changing, the components of todays battery will be very differnt from the batteries in the future again why would anyone want to recycle something of little or no value ?
Im only making the point that EV cars are not green in any capacity. Carefully worded statements pretending that cars only make pollution if their pipe smokes is stupid.
Im only making the point that EV cars are not green in any capacity.
EV cars are still far more energy efficient to run though. Even if all the electricity did come from dirty old coal power.
@trapper: The effect on the environment is the entire lifecycle of the EV car. There is no magic that cancels the pollution of the mining or manufacturing steps of the EV car.
EV cars are still far more energy efficient to run though. Even if all the electricity did come from dirty old coal power.
SO what happens to those toxic batteries ?
Please dont tell me they will be recycled, dont tell me, show me where in the world MOST EV cars are being recycled. MOST not a few hundreds but MOST of them. Because those batteries in the millions are going to poison the environment. Go ask your chemistry friends how long chemicals like lithium, cadmium, mercury, nickel stay in the environment. These are not banana peels that disappear in a few weeks, they stay and poison everything for thousands of years.
@CowFrogHorse: I wasn't commenting on the battery's. You said EV cars are not green in any capacity, that is not true at all.
@trapper: When judging an EV car and its greeness, we have to consider the ENTIRE package. The entire package or the car affects the planet.
Just because you dont want to comment on the battery doenst mean the battery itself is not toxic or very much not green.
Stop being dishonest.
@trapper: You just confirmed your dishonesty with your last reply.
The components of all batteries come from mines, thats a fact. Mines run on OIL, thats also a fact. The cost of the raw resources is very much directly related to the cost of the ENERGY required to mine those resources.
So please tell me why do EV batteries cost a lot - they cost a lot because it costs a lot of OIL to mine the batteries.
Thats a fact.
chemicals like lithium, cadmium, mercury, nickel …
Another untrue statement btw Electric vehicle batteries do not contain cadmium or mercury.
It is important to be precise when making statements about technical subjects.
@trapper: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jordan-brinn/electric-vehicle-b…
Many challenges with battery supply chains are tied to extracting and processing of five minerals used in many of today’s leading electric vehicle (EV) batteries: lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and graphite.
Yeh all wonderful stuff that never killed anything.
@trapper: Heres an example of the consequences of EV car batteries. How many more of these wonderful places do you think are sensible to support EV car batteries ?
Pollution doesnt stop imaginary border lines….
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/norilsk-russian-arctic-be…
But Norilsk Nickel has undermined its own vision for the future by spoiling a priceless environment, with implications for the entire planet. The company’s pollution has carved a barren landscape of dead and dying trees out of the taiga, or boreal forest, one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. Its wastewater has turned glacial rivers red. Its smokestacks belch out the worst sulfur dioxide pollution in the world. And last year, a corroded tank burst and released 6.5 million gallons of diesel fuel into waters that flow to the Kara Sea.
Never be banned. Freedom of choice. People using Electric car just moving the pollution elsewhere.