Weekend warriors - electric cars?

Tradibanwrote:

Glowering and I agree!

Wait for the "good" EVs to got the used market and snatch them up for cash cheap.

Demand will only be higher in the future, they may not be cheap. 

Tradibanwrote:

Glowering and I agree!

Wait for the "good" EVs to got the used market and snatch them up for cash cheap.

They will never be cheap, the batteries will always be worth a lot. A problem for the poor in the future, $500 buck clunkers won't exist.

Ezra Elliswrote:

I own a rav4 hybrid, 29,500$ and  38 mpg in the summer; running 77 mph on the freeway. Pretty good all wheel drive too.

I would have bought a rav4 prime, but they are functionally unavailable.

I just can’t see spending 70-90k on a Tesla.

We haven’t addressed the lifecycle cost of ev batteries imo.
cobalt lithium copper and other mining have great environmental  costs.

just my thoughts 

E

Tesla's start at ~$47K today. Of course, there are fees, but Tesla does not add dealer upcharges as other middleman dealers will add.

For comparison, the RAV 4 Prime - which is an awesome plug-in hybrid- starts at $40K.

Can we talk about the lifecycle of a normal ICE car?  

It's not really that much different.  Consumerism has people throwing out cars like other gadgets.  Does everyone properly take their electronics to ewaste?  A problem with the engine or transmission typically 'totals' the car and it goes to a junkyard or gets crushed.  Not too many people do engine or transmission swaps to keep a car running.

Cobalt is an interesting one because it comes up a lot, but no one thinks about cobalt when they buy anything made with glass.  Currently, the glass industry uses 1/2 the cobalt in the world so that glass does not have a yellow tint. Its also used as blue pigments and automotive air bags.  The battery industry will probably surpass the use of the glass industry, but many EV makers are phasing out Cobalt.  

Lithium: There is actually a lot less lithium in a battery than you would think.  ~10Kg for a modern EV with a 200+ mile battery.  Lithium is considered less toxic and it is actually prescribed as medicine.  The lead-acid battery in a normal ICE car has a bunch of toxic lead in it, but these batteries are recycled heavily. Modern Lithium-ion batteries will greatly outlast lead-acid batteries.  Long-term sourcing battery materials from old batteries will be easier than digging in the ground for it.  

Copper is in everything and its one of the most recycled materials on the planet.  Make sure you take your old wires to e-waste and it will have a better chance to be recycled.  

Brody,

Those are all reasonable legitimate points,

Are you sure you’re on the right forum   

Lithium toxicity is common, usually from overdoses of it's medical usage.

Jim Tittwrote:

Lithium toxicity is common, usually from overdoses of it's medical usage.

doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, non-toxic. 

you can also have oxygen toxicity

If you eat the contents of your salt grinder all at once you'll die. And it's sitting on your kitchen table. 

gtlukewrote:

If you eat the contents of your salt grinder all at once you'll die. And it's sitting on your kitchen table. 

Should put a prop 65 warning on it or something. Think of the keeeeds

curt86irocwrote:

doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, non-toxic. 

you can also have oxygen toxicity

Something that is toxic is by definition non-toxic? Just look it up, it's in every toxicology book because the difference between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose is minimal.

my point was, many things that we interact with everyday can be harmful if abused. medical overdoses happen all the time, but that doesn't mean the medication itself is toxic.

lithium, taken as prescribed, is non-toxic.

https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=L119500&productDescription=LITHIUM+CARBONATE+CR+ACS+500G&vendorId=VN00033897&countryCode=US&language=en

As far as batteries go, lots of companies working on closing the loop to reuse the material since battery material is scarce. Redwood materials and BMW are already deep into work on it.

As far as the move to EVs - it's vastly easier for automakers as you no longer have fueling or exhaust systems to engineer and package in and cooling is orders of magnitude easier. They have more freedom in design and more space to work with when designing an EV with the added bonus of no emissions tuning to deal with. Accountants and designers rejoice, large swaths of engineers can be retasked or laid off. 

I've only ever traveled to Europe twice: first time to Zurich (for work initially & then finding out it wasn't worth a short trip to Magic Woods nor the Eiger), then to Paris via TGV (which wasn't that cheap if one does not purchase tickets ahead of time), including renting a car to explore Font & other areas around Paris. Second time we took a 10-day trip to Font, and while it'd be convenient to bike to some of the crags if one stayed in town, it'd have been pretty annoying w/o a car. And in any case there were a lot of cars (& camper vans) @ the crags.

If I were to visit France for climbing again, then Verdon Gorge, Ceuse (Google doesn't show public transportation options to either) would be much higher on the list than say Chamonix (it's not close to being on my list). The Ondra & Megos world of climbing seems to involve driving in the EU, at least in their videos. So my question is, how convenient is public transportation (for a quick trip, it's great if one can do it end-to-end, but not much if one still needs a car for the last KMs) to climbing destinations in the EU? I'm sure it's better than in the US, but that's a pretty low bar.

^^^ As others are indicating, it seems that even in Europe the idea of car-free climbing access is (for most destinations) a long ways off. But urban life in many parts of Europe is quite convenient, sans car, for everyday commuting and errands. 

In backwards, car dependent America, it would seem that the best goal we can hope for at present is to try to catch up to where Europe is now. For climbers this would mean no car needed for midweek in-town life (commute, shopping, gym, etc), but still using a car for access to backwoods climbing destinations on the weekends. This is a lot more realistic than hoping for rail access to all the crags, but would still cut down significantly on driving impacts (cost, congestion, carbon, local particulate pollution) compared to current typical American driving habits.

A lot of posters above are suggesting a lifestyle of an EV for in-town trips (commute, etc), and a ICE road trip vehicle for climbing trips.  I'd suggest a better option is to not use a car at all in town, and use the car only for weekend climbing and road trips.  I'm getting pretty close to this lifestyle currently here in Sacramento by living in an older neighborhood near the city core.  With better transit and bike infrastructure, mixed use zoning, infill development, and the other basic urbanism things, this could be possible in more places. 

If we get rid of a need for the in town commuter vehicle, the question then is whether electric cars are pragmatic as a road trip vehicle. It sounds like the answer is a mix of "almost" and "it depends". 

For now it seems the best compromise (for my situation) is to keep using my gasoline car for climbing trips, but try to eliminate the need to use it for anything else. 

Another conflict not yet mentioned is that an electric vehicle is a lot less convenient if you live in a denser urban area and don't have a driveway or garage to charge it in overnight. A lot of the logistics of electric vehicle usage seems contingent on a certain suburban lifestyle. Which is something we need very much to move away from. More/better charging infrastructure in the city would be needed to make electric cars a good option for the urban apartment dweller.

JCMwrote:

^^^ As others are indicating, it seems that even in Europe the idea of car-free climbing access is (for most destinations) a long ways off. But urban life in many parts of Europe is quite convenient, sans car, for everyday commuting and errands. 

In backwards, car dependent America, it would seem that the best goal we can hope for at present is to try to catch up to where Europe is now. For climbers this would mean no car needed for midweek in-town life (commute, shopping, gym, etc), but still using a car for access to backwoods climbing destinations on the weekends. This is a lot more realistic than hoping for rail access to all the crags, but would still cut down significantly on driving impacts (cost, congestion, carbon, local particulate pollution) compared to current typical American driving habits.

A lot of posters above are suggesting a lifestyle of an EV for in-town trips (commute, etc), and a ICE road trip vehicle for climbing trips.  I'd suggest a better option is to not use a car at all in town, and use the car only for weekend climbing and road trips.  I'm getting pretty close to this lifestyle currently here in Sacramento by living in an older neighborhood near the city core.  With better transit and bike infrastructure, mixed use zoning, infill development, and the other basic urbanism things, this could be possible in more places. 

If we get rid of a need for the in town commuter vehicle, the question then is whether electric cars are pragmatic as a road trip vehicle. It sounds like the answer is a mix of "almost" and "it depends". 

For now it seems the best compromise (for my situation) is to keep using my gasoline car for climbing trips, but try to eliminate the need to use it for anything else. 

Another conflict not yet mentioned is that an electric vehicle is a lot less convenient if you live in a denser urban area and don't have a car or garage or charge it in overnight. A lot of the logistics of electric vehicle usage seems contingent on a certain suburban lifestyle. Which is something we need very much to move away from. More/better charging infrastructure in the city would be needed to make electric cars a good option for the urban apartment dweller.

Charging really isn't that bad in CA and most places I have traveled, a lot of DC fast chargers isntalled at grocery stores and other similar shopping. Lots of chargers at work places and near restaurants as well. Even apartment buildings are starting to install them more and more.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Charging really isn't that bad in CA and most places I have traveled, a lot of DC fast chargers isntalled at grocery stores and other similar shopping. Lots of chargers at work places and near restaurants as well. Even apartment buildings are starting to install them more and more.

This is good progress if that is available to you, but for the places where I live, shop, and spend time, pretty much the only way I could charge an EV is to drive to a charger and then sit and wait for it. Not really something that sounds appealing to do regularly, and kills much of the convenience of an EV. The same was true where I used to live in Seattle, in a similar urban neighborhood. This is just n=2, but I'd assume that many other urban residents have a similar situation?

And charging at work or the grocery store is missing the broader point that we shouldn't be needing to drive to work or the grocery store (especially for the urban residents I'm referencing here).

curt86irocwrote:

doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, non-toxic. 

you can also have oxygen toxicity

Lithium is, by definition, extremely toxic. Elemental lithium is so reactive that it will explode when exposed to air or water. The medication people commonly refer to as “lithium” is lithium carbonate, and it’s toxic in dosages higher than prescribed. It can be toxic to some even in prescribed doses, and it comes with a long list of serious side effects and undesirable drug interactions.

This thread is indirectly about the automotive application of lithium-ion batteries. The mining, manufacturing, and disposal of lithium and such batteries is toxic. To assume that lithium is non-toxic because it’s chemically reacted to be in a medication is jumping to conclusions… without a belay.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Charging really isn't that bad in CA and most places I have traveled, a lot of DC fast chargers isntalled at grocery stores and other similar shopping. Lots of chargers at work places and near restaurants as well. Even apartment buildings are starting to install them more and more.

I suspect that as EV sales increase, you'll see ever more chargers installed, especially as the economics of L1/L2 pay charging settle out. CA cities are way ahead of the curve of course.

I also suspect we aren't going to move to a "post-car" world in the west anytime soon. Some urban cores might increasingly lean that way, but driving your own car is way too appealing for people, and covers some of their transport use cases better than anything else can. If you look up stats for Europe, you'll see that lots of people actually do drive around in their own cars there. It's good to invest in public transport and walkable/cyclable areas so people don't need to drive, but - you do still need roads, parking and (hopefully increasingly electrified) personal cars.

rebootwrote:

I've only ever traveled to Europe twice: first time to Zurich (for work initially & then finding out it wasn't worth a short trip to Magic Woods nor the Eiger), then to Paris via TGV (which wasn't that cheap if one does not purchase tickets ahead of time), including renting a car to explore Font & other areas around Paris. Second time we took a 10-day trip to Font, and while it'd be convenient to bike to some of the crags if one stayed in town, it'd have been pretty annoying w/o a car. And in any case there were a lot of cars (& camper vans) @ the crags.

If I were to visit France for climbing again, then Verdon Gorge, Ceuse (Google doesn't show public transportation options to either) would be much higher on the list than say Chamonix (it's not close to being on my list). The Ondra & Megos world of climbing seems to involve driving in the EU, at least in their videos. So my question is, how convenient is public transportation (for a quick trip, it's great if one can do it end-to-end, but not much if one still needs a car for the last KMs) to climbing destinations in the EU? I'm sure it's better than in the US, but that's a pretty low bar.

Ceuse can work as all the climbing is walking distance of the camping or gite. I’ve done London to Gap by train which was very civilised and I didn’t miss not having a private vehicle. You need a taxi or local contact for the last few miles though.

Having said that, I’m in Ceuse right now and on this trip took the train to Lyon then rented a car for the convenience as there were four of us coming and going at different times.

It’s a similar story for Siurana, El Chorro, or Chullilia to mention some other Euro destinations worthy of a trip from the US. You can get most of the way by mass transport and don’t need a car once you’re there. Car rental in the winter in Spain used to be ludicrously cheap so folk rarely went without but that may be changing.

The Verdon is harder as the accommodation is a few miles from the climbing.

For Verdon there's a train to Castellane then a shuttle bus to La Palud past the campsites. All week in the summer, Fri, Sat & Sun in the spring.

There's endless climbing areas served by public transport in Europe, the times might not quite be what climbers want but there are workers and schoolkids to be ferried around. I know of one cliff where you start the routes in the railway station and one where the bus stop sign is actually on the cliff. A lot of campsites and bunkhouses etc do pick-ups from the railway or airport, people under 21 generally can't hire cars.

George Bracksieckwrote:

Lithium is, by definition, extremely toxic. Elemental lithium is so reactive that it will explode when exposed to air or water. 

yes. that makes it reactive, not toxic. these are actually different hazard classifications (i.e. OSHA) as long as we're being specific ;)

The medication people commonly refer to as “lithium” is lithium carbonate, and it’s toxic in dosages higher than prescribed. It can be toxic to some even in prescribed doses, and it comes with a long list of serious side effects and undesirable drug interactions.

yes, i know. did you read my follow on post with the SDS for lithium carbonate?

This thread is indirectly about the automotive application of lithium-ion batteries. The mining, manufacturing, and disposal of lithium and such batteries is toxic. 

Is it? is mining lithium it any worse than all of the other metal we pull out of the ground..or do we think it's worse because it's the new game in town? or are all of the EV haters/oil lobbyists just telling you it's worse than their AL, iron and copper mines? pretty sure they all have similar ecological and social side effects (displacement of natives, ground water contamination etc.). but sure, to this point, miming lithium likely has some kind of downstream toxic effects.

To assume that lithium is non-toxic because it’s chemically reacted to be in a medication is jumping to conclusions… without a belay.

literally anything can be "toxic" in certain situations/doses/etc., but to blindly say its "all toxic" is short sighted. eating 30 lbs of gummy bears would be toxic to me, but that doesn't make gummy bears toxic... in order for something to be toxic, you need a substance at a given dosage above which adverse effects occur. this is literally the OSHA definition of toxicity.

lithium carbonate taken orally at the prescribed amount is non-toxic

lithium carbonate taken orally ABOVE the prescribed amount CAN BE toxic.

Elemental lithium is REACTIVE with water AT ANY AMOUNT

anyway, back to the conversation at hand. short term, hybrids are probably the best and fastest step forward we can take. they leverage the existing infrastructure with less up front costs than pure EVs. my guess is, in the next 20 years, the number of hybrid/pure EVs on the road will equal IC powered autos.