Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "driving 4 answers"
channel.
-
122
-
47
-
21
-
19
-
16
-
15
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@daviddunmore8415 Currently only a small fraction of car batteries are being recycled (I believe as low as 5% of discarded batteries - and they pose a great environmental disaster, a lot more than CO2 emissions that, in reality, are greening the planet) and you shouldn't care so much about whether they are recyclable but if it's economically viable to recycle them.
The recycling procedure is extremely energy intensive and costly.
So, even though in theory everything's possible, reality may have a few objections on what's actually feasible.
BTW, when Tesla itself only warranties their batteries up to 120K miles, I am pretty certain that they have worked a lot to balance actual/potential liabilities (from battery claims) vs marketing gains (for assuring customers of a relatively long trouble-free operation of their product) for their business. So, no to that too!
P.S. I have, in the past, replaced an engine in a Jeep I used to own and it was something like $2K, so nothing like the $20K Tesla asks for their batteries. Have you seen the guy that blew up his Tesla exactly because of that exorbitant cost? Worth a watch. BTW, how many emissions did he "save" the planet by torching his vehicle (or accidental battery fires after road accidents, for that matter)? We'll never know.
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@guard13007 " No, because they aren't polluting continuously. They only pollute in construction and destruction. This outweighs the continuous pollution of ICE vehicles SO MUCH that even if your power is 100% COAL-DERIVED, AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE IS STILL CLEANER over a useful lifetime. It takes 5-7 years for this to become true because of the different in initial pollution costs, but maybe don't replace your vehicle every 5 years. Also, regenerative braking recovers a lot of energy used in movement, boosting the overall efficiency in a way ICE vehicles just can't."
>>Absolutely wrong! They just outweigh conventional ICEs in terms of mass AND emissions produced.
Read the following:
"Electric vehicles also involve energy intensive lithium-ion batteries. Few realize how much energy is embedded in an electric vehicle before it is ever plugged in. Over the life of a typical EV, nearly 40% of the total energy goes into manufacturing the battery. The IEA expects electric vehicles will represent nearly 15% of total transportation energy by 2040. We calculate this equates to approximately 850 mm EVs and nearly 65 terawatt hours of batteries. This is a staggering amount considering global lithium-ion manufacturing capacity is currently less than 0.4 terawatt hours per year. These batteries will require an incredible 2 billion tonnes of oil equivalent to build.
Unfortunately, few people realize how energy intensive the “green transition” will be. As a result, much (if not all) of the carbon savings will be undone by generating the power in the first place. The IEA’s proposal assumes wind and solar make up nearly 50% of all electricity by 2040 and that some 850 mm electric vehicles will be on the road. These initiatives are expected to reduce CO2 by 55% or 18 bn tonnes per year. While this may sound impressive, simply moving away from coal towards much-cleaner natural gas would itself save nearly 14 bn tonnes of CO2 per year. When analyzed through this perspective, renewables would save an incremental 4 bn tonnes compared with the next cleanest option.
At the same time, an incredible amount of energy is required to build out the renewable capacity and manufacture the necessary batteries. A move toward gas would be much more energy efficient (given its high EROEI) and would not require batteries for either grid storage or automotive uses. We estimate the move toward renewables and EVs would generate nearly 45 billion tonnes of incremental CO2. Therefore, nearly 10 years of carbon “savings” would be spent on the energy transition itself. A battery is expected to last between 6 and 15 years depending on charging behavior while wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years and PV solar panels have a useful life of 25 years. At best, a huge amount of the expected carbon savings will be undone by the necessary manufacturing. At worst, the impact could be net detrimental."
There's a lot more in their site (they are commodities expert analysts) Goehring & Rozencwajg Associates, LLC. and the title of this report was "Ignoring energy transition realities". They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they get that wrong. So far, whatever they have said, coincides with reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
The bucket part was a favorite!!! Laughed really hard on that (and you're right).
You are a sophisticated and complicated young man. You also seem like a natural contrarian to me. My kind of guy.
Allow me to make a few points on the topic of first bike. I think you should focus your efforts on affording a bike you LOVE to ride which will push you to want to learn how to ride it properly. You are a very sensible person to know how much to twist the throttle so the checks and balances are in place for you, so as to not make some stupid decision of the moment and get hurt (even so, sometimes our unconscious takes over and things can get difficult - don't underestimate the unconscious).
Moreover, and because we all have crashed or going to crash as newbies or even as experienced riders, try to find a bike that's crash-resistant and those are usually the enduro type, with cheap plastics and almost crash-proof design. I mean, you can throw one of these from the second floor, pick it up and ride away. Street bikes (like that Ducati or your previous bike) are the antithesis of that. Even a drop from the sidestand can cost a lot. Been there, done that.
The 250 Dominator (we also call them like that here in Greece) is a good choice for a new rider but not perfect imho.
I think that you'll eventually get bored of this bike. It's kind of a novice's Swiss army pocket knife that does most tasks decently but it's not the motorcycle on which you'll feel ecstatic riding it. As you get to ride more motorcycles and feel the huge differences in engine characteristics and geometry setups, you'll get to a point of preference or call it "bias", which will determine what you'll prefer riding from that point on. As your riding matures, you'll, most likely, understand better what I'm trying to convey.
Until then enjoy your new bike but know that nothing is written in stone, if you get an opportunity to flip that bike for another do it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Comment 3 of 4:
"In his excellent work, Energy and Civilization, Professor Smil describes society’s ongoing adoption of new technologies. A theme that runs through his work is how every new major “prime mover” is able to convert energy into useful work more efficiently than what came before. According to our models, wind and solar would mark the first time we have seen a widespread shift into a much less efficient source of energy conversion. It has never happened in the past, and the only way it can happen in the future is if governments subsidize wind and solar (as is being done right now), or outlaw old hydrocarbon-based technologies—now being threatened. In either case (subsidy or outlaw), government intervention is the only way people would likely adopt new energy conversion technologies with inferior efficiencies.
It is difficult to forecast the impact of transitioning from a system where 3% of all energy is consumed internally to one where more than a third is lost. To the extent solar and wind facilities do not achieve their target lifespans (and there is ample evidence to suggest this is happening), the results will be even worse.
Solar and wind’s low EROEI also impacts their carbon emissions. While billed as being “carbon free,” solar and wind generate CO2 during their construction and maintenance. To the extent overbuilding and battery backup is required to allow for baseload power, CO2 emissions increase dramatically. This partially explains why German carbon intensity only fell by 12%, despite having among the highest renewable penetration in the world.
Electric vehicles also involve energy intensive lithium-ion batteries. Few realize how much energy is embedded in an electric vehicle before it is ever plugged in. Over the life of a typical EV, nearly 40% of the total energy goes into manufacturing the battery. The IEA expects electric vehicles will represent nearly 15% of total transportation energy by 2040. We calculate this equates to approximately 850 mm EVs and nearly 65 terawatt hours of batteries. This is a staggering amount considering global lithium-ion manufacturing capacity is currently less than 0.4 terawatt hours per year. These batteries will require an incredible 2 billion tonnes of oil equivalent to build.
Unfortunately, few people realize how energy intensive the “green transition” will be. As a result, much (if not all) of the carbon savings will be undone by generating the power in the first place. The IEA’s proposal assumes wind and solar make up nearly 50% of all electricity by 2040 and that some 850 mm electric vehicles will be on the road. These initiatives are expected to reduce CO2 by 55% or 18 bn tonnes per year. While this may sound impressive, simply moving away from coal towards much-cleaner natural gas would itself save nearly 14 bn tonnes of CO2 per year. When analyzed through this perspective, renewables would save an incremental 4 bn tonnes compared with the next cleanest option.
At the same time, an incredible amount of energy is required to build out the renewable capacity and manufacture the necessary batteries. A move toward gas would be much more energy efficient (given its high EROEI) and would not require batteries for either grid storage or automotive uses. We estimate the move toward renewables and EVs would generate nearly 45 billion tonnes of incremental CO2. Therefore, nearly 10 years of carbon “savings” would be spent on the energy transition itself. A battery is expected to last between 6 and 15 years depending on charging behavior while wind turbines have an expected life of 20 years and PV solar panels have a useful life of 25 years. At best, a huge amount of the expected carbon savings will be undone by the necessary manufacturing. At worst, the impact could be net detrimental."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Simon-dm8zv Yeah, I figured that much. Would you mind telling me where's the mistake? Specifically. Do you actually believe that EVs are produced and operate without emissions (which is the "green" criterion - not mine, theirs) and that end of life toxicity (of those huge batteries) isn't going to pose huge environmental issues?
For reference, Lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to recycle.
Then, are you doubting that CO2 has greened the planet to a great degree? If you think so you are doubting what NASA themselves say. Of course, in their typical fashion, they compliment the fact with some dubious theories about how this is bad (!!!).
Notice that the "bad" part that NASA serves to the public is just theory whereas the greening is observable and a fact.
If the earth had its green (foliage) coverage reduced year-over-year, they would scream from the top of their lungs (and I'd probably joined them) that this is not good, but now they try to propagate that actual greening of the planet is bad! That's, of course, nonsense!
Fun fact: the satellite program which measures atmospheric temperatures across the globe and possibly monitors foliage coverage (that's how we know the planet is greening) is operated (and invented) by two avid skeptics, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all you should be a fan of capitalism and the markets. It's the economic equivalent of objectivity and science, decentralized (I was going to use the word Democracy but, unfortunately, the rule of the majority isn't always fair to the smallest minority in society - the individual).
You said in this clip that motives are the profit. Perhaps, but look what you just did here and what others like you have been doing when pointing these flaws out: you took away that profit with a simple clip.
They have invested millions in these products and you just debunked their efforts with a video that costs, what, 20 euros on electricity or less (?).
I, for one, will never look for a car with such an engine.
The market of products, ideas, services, etc is a highly competitive domain and if some of the participants believe that they can fool the public and get away with it, I assure you (especially in the age of widespread information) that losses are easier than profits.
Good and useful video. Keep it up.
P.S. I own a vehicle with gear driven cams. In fact everything's gear driven apart from the alternator which has a small and thick belt and sits in the "V" of the V10 engine.
1