Weekend warriors - electric cars?

curt86irocwrote:

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

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

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.

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.

You made a blanket statement in which you said, “Lithium by definition is non-toxic,” which is false. Chemical reactivity is what makes many elements and compounds toxic. Your linked SDS of lithium carbonate repeatedly says that lithium carbonate is toxic.

I agree that, taken in prescription doses monitored by a physician, the benefits of lithium carbonate far outweigh the potential risks. I have friends who have taken it for as long as I’ve known them, and they have tolerated it well. I’m all for taking it when indicated!

I’m not against the use of lithium-ion batteries in electric cars. I agree that burning fossil fuels has got to stop immediately. However, most consumers just buy stuff and don’t know (and don’t care to know) about the consequences of their consumption. Consumers of electric vehicles should understand that lithium is what it is: toxic.

Btw if coal-fired power plants generate electricity used to charge your electric vehicle, you’re not helping. Using methane to generate electricity is better, but far from good. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and leaks everywhere along the supply stream, from pumping out of the ground to burning it in your stovetop. 

I rarely comment on MP threads (and never on threads like this), but I wanted to add my 2 cents in case it can do some good. We recently strongly considered getting solar panels on our roof and went so far as to get a quote. The quote (~$22k) came with a lot of data on (i) how much money we would be saving in our electric bill over the lifetime of the solar panels and (ii) how many metric tons of CO2 we would be saving from the atmosphere (both of which were calculated over a 25 year period because of the warranty on the panels). FYI, I live in MN, so the algebra below would be different for some of you living in sunnier places.

The upshot was that when looking at the data, the 'I could be saving money' argument didn't work, because even a poor rate of return investment would do much better if I invested the $22k in something like a bond/stock/mutual fund. The 'I could be doing good for the environment' argument didn't work, because I could offset just as much CO2 with a $500 donation to a charity that gives efficient stoves to families in Africa ( givinggreen.earth/carbon-of…).

I am not arguing that people should do nothing, but it makes sense to me to examine what your primary justification for going electric would be, and then make sure that you maximize your impact in that direction. For us, we were able to offset 10x the amount of CO2 AND save more money by deciding to donate/save the $22k it would have taken to put up solar panels. I realize this is off-topic a bit, and apologize in advance to anybody that is offended.

We have got some real winning ideas in this thread. Turns out, it's definition not dose that makes the poison; suck it Paracelsus. Also, probability of total loss doesn't need to be factored in to figuring out depreciation! So many fields we're simplifying here. Plus, 14 * 1 = 385, 1 million pounds = 1 billion tons, and Teslas resale for less than ICE cars.

Did you know if you push the spots on a giraffe in the right order, they can fly? That might not be technically true, but I just wanted to add to this riveting conversation. Think how much you could save by riding a flying giraffe to the crag! 

My point is that most of your  solutions  are city  centric.  Public  transportation dosen't do  anything for  rural  folks who have to  drive a  work  truck with  tools  every day. 

George Bracksieckwrote:

You made a blanket statement in which you said, “Lithium by definition is non-toxic,” which is false. Chemical reactivity is what makes many elements and compounds toxic. Your linked SDS of lithium carbonate repeatedly says that lithium carbonate is toxic.

I agree that, taken in prescription doses monitored by a physician, the benefits of lithium carbonate far outweigh the potential risks. I have friends who have taken it for as long as I’ve known them, and they have tolerated it well. I’m all for taking it when indicated!

I’m not against the use of lithium-ion batteries in electric cars. I agree that burning fossil fuels has got to stop immediately. However, most consumers just buy stuff and don’t know (and don’t care to know) about the consequences of their consumption. Consumers of electric vehicles should understand that lithium is what it is: toxic.

Btw if coal-fired power plants generate electricity used to charge your electric vehicle, you’re not helping. Using methane to generate electricity is better, but far from good. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and leaks everywhere along the supply stream, from pumping out of the ground to burning it in your stovetop. 

It's probably nitpicking on the toxicity of lithium since the conventional ICE starter battery is lead-acid and lead is an internationally banned material and is toxic at any dose in the body.  Lithium is an essential trace mineral for a healthy human body.  People born before the '80s, are considered lead-poisoned to a degree because of leaded gasoline.  

Ironically, many EV still have a lead-acid 12v battery to power the car before the high voltage battery contactor is closed. It's cheap and off the shelf a carryover from legacy auto.  Unfortunately, lead-acid batteries have a low life in many cases.  

Coal energy is on its way out and has had a huge decline in the last couple of decades.  Not because it's dirty, but because it's expensive compared to alternatives like natural gas and wind. The pandemic energy crisis is an exception.  

An EV plugged into 100% coal energy is still emitting fewer Green House Gasses than a ICE vehicle.  The ICE is just so inefficient "Well to Wheel" -- a very low bar to beat.  Of course, either is 100% dirty and 100% clean.  There is a sliding scale.  

Joseph Brodywrote:

It's probably nitpicking on the toxicity of lithium since the conventional ICE starter battery is lead-acid and lead is an internationally banned material and is toxic at any dose in the body.  Lithium is an essential trace mineral for a healthy human body.  

“Trace” is the key word here. Normal serum levels are three orders of magnitude lower than those maintained by therapeutic medication.

“Coal energy is on its way out and has had a huge decline in the last couple of decades.  Not because it's dirty, but because it's expensive compared to alternatives like natural gas and wind. The pandemic energy crisis is an exception.”

My electric utility (Xcel Energy) still burns coal, which IS dirty, to generate 35-40% of its total electricity output. If you are plugging in your vehicle where a coal-fired power plant is providing close to 100% of the electricity, you really aren’t helping. 

George Bracksieckwrote:

My electric utility (Xcel Energy) still burns coal, which IS dirty, to generate 35-40% of its total electricity output. If you are plugging in your vehicle where a coal-fired power plant is providing close to 100% of the electricity, you really aren’t helping.

You can buy electricity from renewables only through Xcel. They are also scheduled to close 4 coal plants by 2031.

Also, Brody’s last paragraph is spot on. 

curt86irocwrote:

You can buy electricity from renewables only through Xcel. They are also scheduled to close 4 coal plants by 2031.

Also, Brody’s last paragraph is spot on. 

Until all their energy production is renewable (or better CO2 neutral) the person that buys renewable energy to charge their car only loads more dirty production onto another user. It isn't a zero-sum game at the moment.

Jim Tittwrote:

Until all their energy production is renewable (or better CO2 neutral) the person that buys renewable energy to charge their car only loads more dirty production onto another user. It isn't a zero-sum game at the moment.

Xcel is also scheduled to bring more sources of renewable energy online to replace the closure of the coal plants I mentioned above. Things are happening in real time, but it’s not going to happen overnight.

Nuts will never replace pitons!

comparing the cost of new F150s means very little to working stiffs. we usually can't afford new trucks and have to wait a decade or more to buy a used rig. My tool truck is a 2008 Sierra. 

Jim Tittwrote:

Until all their energy production is renewable (or better CO2 neutral) the person that buys renewable energy to charge their car only loads more dirty production onto another user. It isn't a zero-sum game at the moment.

Disagree.  A car is a long term purchase.  That buyer of renewable energy pushes the utility to switch more of the fossil energy to renewables.  So your statement is only true in the moment, not in the long run.    And if you charge when solar or wind is available, that is not part of the nighttime dirty power problem.  However those who charge at night but do not specify renewables likely use more fossil sources than the utility average, since there is no solar at night and nowhere near enough storage yet.

At this website you can see the hourly sources for the California ISO. http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/supply.aspx
another article https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097376890/for-a-brief-moment-calif-fully-powered-itself-with-renewable-energy

Every day solar is good during the daytime, but at night fossil fuels dominate. Hydro is mostly used at night when solar is not available; however with the permanent drought, much less traditional hydro is now available. And fossil fuel plants have to be kept running at a minimal level even when their power is not needed, since otherwise they would take too long to turn on at night.

Possibly hydrogen can become a big night time electricity source, if green electrolysis and fuel cell technology continues to improve efficiency and cost.  Even if home hydrogen and cars don't get popular, it may still work for large electricity and industrial plants. At the moment it is not possible to predict which grid storage technology will be the long term winner between future batteries and future hydrogen.  We are still in a long transition development phase.  Right now pumped hydro is still cheapest, but it takes so many years to get approved and built that the phrase "right now" loses meaning.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

You don’t think if you really needed/wanted to that you could put away $10,000 a year for four years? I don’t have a college degree, work as a guide, an industry not known for getting you rich, but I could do that if I needed to.

If you could do that you should be putting your money into things other than an electric F-150, like savings and investments. Just because you can purchase one doesn't make it a responsible purchase 

I live frugally and  with  paying rent,  insurance,  vehicle  payments etc..  no.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

comparing the cost of new F150s means very little to working stiffs. we usually can't afford new trucks and have to wait a decade or more to buy a used rig. My tool truck is a 2008 Sierra. 

Enough people conserve gasoline, then gasoline prices go down for everyone.  

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

You don’t think if you really needed/wanted to that you could put away $10,000 a year for four years? I don’t have a college degree, work as a guide, an industry not known for getting you rich, but I could do that if I needed to.

To your hobo lifestyle, $10k a year may not be a huge sacrifice, and as a single (I assume) person, you can cut out whatever expenses you want. I don't know the average income in the States, but let's say $40k (which I think is being generous). That means taking out a quarter of every paycheck. People with families, living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to afford rent and decent food make up the majority of the population to my knowledge.

Now if we're talking about climbers in general, there's a huge spectrum of income and spending. Buying any electric vehicle is no big deal for some, while others who are trying to keep their income and lifestyle as simple as possible are not going to try and make an extra bunch of money just so they can go out and buy some brand new electric truck. 

My point is that you seem to be in the minority of people (general population or climber population) with relatively flexible financial resources, so your idea of simple putting away money to be a good person and buy an electric vehicle just doesn't make sense for most folks. I for one am going to drive my diesel VW and old Tundra as gently and fuel efficiently as possible, so as to consume as little fuel and other parts as possible, until the day they die, which is hopefully years down the road. Then I'll figure out what to do based on what's available and makes sense.

tom donnellywrote:

Disagree.  A car is a long term purchase.  That buyer of renewable energy pushes the utility to switch more of the fossil energy to renewables.  So your statement is only true in the moment, not in the long run.    And if you charge when solar or wind is available, that is not part of the nighttime dirty power problem.  However those who charge at night but do not specify renewables likely use more fossil sources than the utility average, since there is no solar at night and nowhere near enough storage yet.

At this website you can see the hourly sources for the California ISO. http://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/pages/supply.aspx
another article https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097376890/for-a-brief-moment-calif-fully-powered-itself-with-renewable-energy

Every day solar is good during the daytime, but at night fossil fuels dominate. Hydro is mostly used at night when solar is not available; however with the permanent drought, much less traditional hydro is now available. And fossil fuel plants have to be kept running at a minimal level even when their power is not needed, since otherwise they would take too long to turn on at night.

Possibly hydrogen can become a big night time electricity source, if green electrolysis and fuel cell technology continues to improve efficiency and cost.  Even if home hydrogen and cars don't get popular, it may still work for large electricity and industrial plants. At the moment it is not possible to predict which grid storage technology will be the long term winner between future batteries and future hydrogen.  We are still in a long transition development phase.  Right now pumped hydro is still cheapest, but it takes so many years to get approved and built that the phrase "right now" loses meaning.

Exactly, until there is a surplus of renewable energy available at the time BEV's are charged one is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The variety of correct information, misleading but still correct information, outdated but now incorrect information and outright incorrect information in this thread is stunning.  Misleading information is in the lead. 

This is very apropos:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/04/opinion/academic-team-debate.html

  I don't know if it is true or not but I believe that there is merit in getting full use out of an older vehicle rather than throwing it away and manufacturing a new one. I suspect the manufacturing process itself is not super enviro friendly.