London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Desertwolfch...what's your point Exactly ?
Haggis, every type of recycling leads waste left over, there is no 100 % recycling in the world, secondly not fully proven not even up and lastely in the moment and for the next 5 years at least there are collection places but no efficient recycling technologies and places. 80-100 % is a very undefined figure , don`t you think ? Batteries are not the solution, they are a short term direction of inbetween solving a problem, they seemed to, but their CO2 bilanz is not as the industry wants us to know....
"The technology recovers 80-100% of all materials found in lithium-ion batteries"
Mining and processing the minerals, plus the battery manufacturing process, involve substantial emissions of carbon.
Lithium mining, needed to build the lithium ion batteries at the heart of today's EVs, has also been connected to other kinds of environmental harm. There have been mass fish kills related to lithium mining in Tibet, for example. The freshwater supply is being consumed by mines in South America's lithium-rich region. Even in North America, where mining regulations are strict, harsh chemicals are used to extract the valuable metal.
An aerial view of the brine pools and processing areas of the Rockwood lithium plant on the Atacama salt flat in northern Chile, the largest lithium deposit currently in production. (Ivan Alvarado/Reuters)
And all the operations are energy intensive, sometimes running on diesel generators and relying on carbon-emitting heavy machinery.
Adding to the cumulative effects on the environment, lithium demand is expected to at least triple by 2025, pushing more exploration and extraction globally.
Second life for lithium-ion batteries
And all that extracted raw material — once the batteries are worn out — will land somewhere.
It's something Andrew MacDonald at Maritime Autoparts in Debert, N.S., is thinking about. His facility recycles car parts and he says it's only a few more years before his industry will start seeing EVs and their lithium-ion batteries in the scrapyard.
"As pure electric vehicles come onto the
Wait for it in 50 years time we will be told due to the lack of c02 in the atmosphere that lots of trees are dying
Silicon can leak and besides of that at the moment there is no proov of silicon beeing either toxid or non toxid:
The process is as following besides
This is the base element that makes up silica, but silicon is not generally found in nature in this elemental form. It is made by heating silica at very high temperatures with carbon in an industrial furnace.
The silicone is then reacted with fossil fuel-derived hydrocarbons to create siloxane monomers that are bonded together into polymers to form the final silicone resin. The quality of these silicones can vary greatly depending on the level of purification. For example, the silicones used to make computer chips are highly purified.
to be more clear, not the silicates are toxid but there is a high probability that parts used within might be. But as said nothing hereis finally prooven.
An Haggis, to produce batteries is always a CO 2 producing process, the battery itself when runing not, but then again when you need to recycle it, so they are not and never CO2 neutral !
Thought I'd stumbled onto the Lloy flat earth channel for a minute.....solar panels caused the virus over there....
How can silicon leak? It has no toxic chemicals in it, all it is is silicon.
Suggest you read this, as you'll see I have actually been VERY generous towards the Hydrogen car.
If you're accusing me of greenwash I suggest you put your verifiable facts on the table, like I am.
Just wait until mountains of solar panels start appearing leaking toxic chemicals into the food chain DW.
Original report towards batteries and CO2 footprint, just one of a lot which are not really considered until now officially
Thanks haggis. I get it!
Haggis, you are a reason why greenwashing is working...... No clue about the details and the full story.... Have you seen the harbours of Amsterdam and Rotterdam where mountains of old batteries are stored right now ? Just one example....
Hydrogen cars will NEVER beat EV's on carbon emissions.
The simplest way to spell it out is that if both were powered on solar energy only, the CO2 produced by the cars over their lifetime is made up of the car build plus the solar panel build, plus shipping.
The EV battery is nearly 100% efficient, this drops very gradually but the battery can last 400,000 miles (as proven by a recently sold Tesla which had a new battery at virtually 400,,000 on the clock). The overall efficiency of the EV car is about 85%.
A Hydrogen car is not efficient at all. The power from solar goes into electrolysis, then is pumped to extremely interested high pressure. Then the fuel is pumped into the car. Then the fuel is put through a PEM Fuel Cell. The whole electrolysis to car system process is about 60% efficient. The fuel cell might be 65% efficient maximum. 65% of 60% is 39%.
So every mile that a Hydrogen car travels uses over double the power of an EV and therefore produces over double the CO2 based on the CO2 cost inherent in the solar power.
Then you have add that the Hydrogen car will need it's fuel cell replaced 3 times, maybe even 4 times to get to 400,000 miles.
So if that is the case in the future, why are they saying that hydrogen fuel cell cars will produce almost three times the amount of CO2 than EVs? If the EVs can be charged from the grid using renewable power, then surely the hydrogen can be produced using renewable power from the grid as well. Where is this vast amount of CO2 coming from?
I'm just trying to understand how they are coming to this conclusion in their report.
They state "When the grid is decarbonised, hydrogen fuel cells cars will deliver emissions of 17gCo2 per km, while battery electric vehicles will deliver around 6gCO2 per km."
That means ALL of the grid is powered by renewables or nuclear. Their is NO carbon in the grid at all, none.
My last post should have been under this thread and not the one about the "Wireless"
What don't you understand about the expression 'decarbonised grid'???
It applies everywhere.
The study at the University of Queensland is mainly about the situation in Australia. It is assuming that the electricity to create and compress the hydrogen is coming from the grid, which is not decarbonised. However, in the UK ITM is using renewable energy through the grid, and plan to use off-grid renewable energy in the future wherever possible. PHE will hopefully be producing hydrogen with very low CO2 emissions. AFC and others are planning to produce greener and cheaper hydrogen in the future. The study assumes that the distribution of hydrogen will be producing CO2, but if they use hydrogen fuelled trucks for the distribution then there will be no CO2 emissions.
So I don't believe that the study applies universally.
Yes, for a car that big it is good to get 4.
If they move to Cobalt free batteries that will drop, as LiPo is much less power dense.
Sorry haggis, read an article stating their efficency, but it was comparing to the new German competition,and perhaps in a different car size class to the leaf and i3, it was a model y I think they were referring to, also the i3 and the leaf are in a different range class.
Turns out you are wrong. EV's have a lower carbon footprint even when the grid is decarbonised.
"Hydrogen fuel cell cars have three times emissions of battery EVs – UQ study"
"When the grid is decarbonised, hydrogen fuel cells cars will deliver emissions of 17gCo2 per km, while battery electric vehicles will deliver around 6gCO2 per km."
Tesla at 4 miles per kW is not the best.
The i3 often gets 5 miles per kW.
My 30kW Leaf regularly gets up to 5 in the warmer months.
They might have more efficient batter technology, but they need it with the size and weight of their cars.
I saw an article about lithium-sulphur batteries that lowered the carbon footprint compared to lithium-ion. Sure someone posted about a non-lithium fast charging battery the other day. Point is however that battery manufacturing will need to reduce CO2 output along with everyone else so the impact here will decrease.
Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future. If produced by renewable energy (solar, wave, tidal and wind) it will be carbon neutral. Compare that with lithium batteries. The lithium has to be mined, transported and processed creating I would suggest a considerable carbon footprint.