Maybe none of us should drive. 6000+ gallons to fuel 100k miles in a pig cruiser isn't exactly roses and flowers.
Rivian R1S vs LC thoughts? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Reckless
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Maybe none of us should drive. 6000+ gallons to fuel 100k miles in a pig cruiser isn't exactly roses and flowers.
Point taken....although I own the LC200 and it is much easier to keep driving it until they tell me I can't or tax me until I can't afford to drive it!
That's what I love/hate about this topic and age. It's very easy to find an answer that seemingly supports your point without making the next logical leap/step you did: Yes it uses a lot of water. But it's net less (gallons of water) after a low number of miles.
The problem now is, that gets ignored and something else is the issue now.
Also consider how much water is used to make the electricity coming out of the wall.
We're getting into like "the good place" territory. I bet if you did a calculation of the water it takes to do anything we're all going to hell.
Well my meeting was cancelled so I have five minutes to spare.
A gallon of gas takes 5kWh of electricity to refine (plus some natural gas for heating too, we can ignore that). A kWh of electricity seems to have an average footprint of 20 gallons of water.
Going back to the 70000 mile example, the Tesla has now consumed 2894 gallons of water for its lithium, plus another 467,000 gallons for electricity footprint. The gas car is up to 12600 gallons plus another (100*5*2800)= 1,400,000 gallons to support refining.
The breakeven point (argh equations)
2894 + 20(x/3) = 12600 + (x/25*20*5)
x = 3,639 miles if we factor in cost of water to produce electricity for miles in the Tesla and gas refining for the gas powered Tesla.
Look at how much water it takes to produce a gallon of gas.....
Yeah but I can go 15 miles on one gallon so that evens out riiiighhhttt?
Not arguing that but look at the actual destruction ev batteries create. I’m sorry but EV’s are absolutely wrecking the environment. Environmental groups are finally waking up and exposing what’s really going on. Obviously gas/oil is part of the problem but it doesn’t mean we should double down and kill off water supply and damage the air much more rapidly.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction
As the world scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required could become a major issue in its own right
I'm going to back out of the thread again as I really want to manage my BP. But as I've commented before there's an appropriate place for use of multiple energy modalities. I fly around the country in a piston plane burning (sadly still) leaded gas at a prodigious rate, so I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I love my LC200 and the freedom it gives....well freedom as long as you're within range of a gas station. But the math on using an electrical source for transport is clearly favorable over the long term...
I'm hoping to see hybrid drives coming to light aircraft soon. We carry giant motors- 300 hp TIO540 in my case- primarily for takeoff and climb, then carry all that weight and inefficiency to use 150-180 hp in cruise. A hybrid electric boost on takeoff could easily add 150 hp for 10-15 minutes and then recharge in flight from a smaller piston motor.
So...looking at the math that shows the overall impact of EVs on water vs gas cars is highly favorable after <4000 miles driven, you don't see that EVs bring an improvement? Like seriously, if you want to debate this bring some math, no just hysterical links that are clearly biased.Not arguing that but look at the actual destruction ev batteries create. I’m sorry but EV’s are absolutely wrecking the environment. Environmental groups are finally waking up and exposing what’s really going on. Obviously gas/oil is part of the problem but it doesn’t mean we should double down and kill off water supply and damage the air much more rapidly.
The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction
As the world scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required could become a major issue in its own rightwww.wired.co.uk
.
Hmm, so actual reports by Amensty International, including environmental groups( I generally don’t always agree with) Yale University, plus others are all working together to mislead the truth about Evs and human trafficking. This isn‘t a math problem, it’s an environmental and human problem. Replacing one fuel source with another that does not advance a cleaner less destructive impact isn’t bringing us any closer to a greener planet. The problem isn’t ICE vehicles in current form, the problem is over population and a throw away society.
I will give credit to Rivian for building an EV right out of the gate that appears to be a great EV for the Ev crowd.
I will give credit to Rivian for building an EV right out of the gate that appears to be a great EV for the Ev crowd.
Leave Johnny out of this!!!
I am curious: What happens to the EV batteries when they reach end-of-life, as all batteries do? I don't want to hear: "Well, they get recycled". As a geologist, I have looked into this. There is some interesting reading out there.
I would be all in on EVs if it was not the problems with the power supply. Electric motors are ideally suited for traction motors, far better than ICEs. If I could drive into the charging station, plug in, trot off to the Necessary, buy a drink and bag of chips, go back to the car, unplug it and hop in for another 300-400 miles, it would be a no-brainer. It just ain't there yet. Also, can't carry jerricans for an EV. I ain't yet seen a portable back-up battery that can get you out of a sticky situation. In the boonies, I can grab my jerrican and dump in another five gallons.
An aside: I wonder if all the money and research into EVs was instead spent on making ICEs more adiabatic? What would increasing efficiency from around 35% to say, 60% - 70% or so accomplish? Maybe that would require moving away from piston engines to some other design. The biggest problem I see is keeping the fuel charge from spontaneously combusting/detonating before it is in the cylinder.
I would be all in on EVs if it was not the problems with the power supply. Electric motors are ideally suited for traction motors, far better than ICEs. If I could drive into the charging station, plug in, trot off to the Necessary, buy a drink and bag of chips, go back to the car, unplug it and hop in for another 300-400 miles, it would be a no-brainer. It just ain't there yet. Also, can't carry jerricans for an EV. I ain't yet seen a portable back-up battery that can get you out of a sticky situation. In the boonies, I can grab my jerrican and dump in another five gallons.
An aside: I wonder if all the money and research into EVs was instead spent on making ICEs more adiabatic? What would increasing efficiency from around 35% to say, 60% - 70% or so accomplish? Maybe that would require moving away from piston engines to some other design. The biggest problem I see is keeping the fuel charge from spontaneously combusting/detonating before it is in the cylinder.
Last edited:
Let's be honest. Most of us have multiple vehicles, live in big houses with AC or heat running most of the time, buy quite literally tons of plastic crap shipped from China in a big honking boat every year, travel when not strictly necessary, consume industrially produced food products several times a day, water our lawns from rapidly depleting natural water sources, etc, etc,, etc, ad nauseum. Every single thing we do as a human being in an industrialized country has a significant environmental impact.
@1Maverick You're right to call out the environmental degradation caused by lithium mining. Of course conventional cars require ore mining and refining as well. One must also weigh the harm caused by lithium mining against the harm caused by vehicle emissions vis a vis climate change. Not saying EV's aren't without a large carbon footprint, but depending on how they are built and used over time, there is the potential to significantly reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere compared to ICE. Would hydrogen be better? Could be. No doubt it would also have consequences over time, some un-anticipated.
People also frequently make the argument that it is best to get a reliable vehicle, maintain it well and keep it running until it dies of old age at a half-million miles. There is definitely merit to that argument if we're talking about a corolla, but nobody is doing the environment any favors by driving a 200, period. Big SUV's (whether ICE or EV) are luxury items or lifestyle accessories. Very few people actually need to drive one.
At the end of the day, nearly everything we do is godawful for the environment. If we want to get really controversial, I'll throw in: worst of all, having more than two children. As red-blooded, developed-country consumers our options are: 1) move to the city, live in a small apartment, ride public transit and a bike, eat like a farmer's market loving hipster 2) move to the woods, build a cabin with our bare hands and live as a hunter/gatherer 3) make the best choices we can given the available options while balancing our own personal desires and quality of life. If you truly care about the environment above all else, the very best thing you can do is off yourself, but I don't see anyone doing that.
I think the "which is worst for the environment" argument is pointless. Everything is bad for the environment except walking in homemade shoes.
@1Maverick You're right to call out the environmental degradation caused by lithium mining. Of course conventional cars require ore mining and refining as well. One must also weigh the harm caused by lithium mining against the harm caused by vehicle emissions vis a vis climate change. Not saying EV's aren't without a large carbon footprint, but depending on how they are built and used over time, there is the potential to significantly reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere compared to ICE. Would hydrogen be better? Could be. No doubt it would also have consequences over time, some un-anticipated.
People also frequently make the argument that it is best to get a reliable vehicle, maintain it well and keep it running until it dies of old age at a half-million miles. There is definitely merit to that argument if we're talking about a corolla, but nobody is doing the environment any favors by driving a 200, period. Big SUV's (whether ICE or EV) are luxury items or lifestyle accessories. Very few people actually need to drive one.
At the end of the day, nearly everything we do is godawful for the environment. If we want to get really controversial, I'll throw in: worst of all, having more than two children. As red-blooded, developed-country consumers our options are: 1) move to the city, live in a small apartment, ride public transit and a bike, eat like a farmer's market loving hipster 2) move to the woods, build a cabin with our bare hands and live as a hunter/gatherer 3) make the best choices we can given the available options while balancing our own personal desires and quality of life. If you truly care about the environment above all else, the very best thing you can do is off yourself, but I don't see anyone doing that.
I think the "which is worst for the environment" argument is pointless. Everything is bad for the environment except walking in homemade shoes.
Last edited:
As far as recycling goes, this looks promising: Redwood Materials | Circular Supply Chain for Lithium-ion Batteries - https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/
I get the 'power grid can't support it argument' but consider the alternative: a big government spend to solve the problem in advance. Costly, wasteful, off target, antiquated, inefficient are all phrases that come to mind when government steps in to solve problems. Having it be demand driven will provide the best solution to the consumer. More government influence isn't what's needed. Remove the roadblocks to getting new power sources online and let the search for profits drive the infrastructure.
While EV motors may work efficiently on the road, they have not been proven good in the off-road realm due to the need to modulate zero-rpm torque to climb obstacles.
For off-road range, Ram is rumored to be working on an EV hybrid HD truck that will electrically propelled but have a small diesel generator up front. I think this is where you will see EVs pivot that need to be operated remote. Plug-in for the 80% use case and run the on-board generator for extended range needs.
Redwood Materials is all well and good and I am glad to see someone attempting to solve the recycling problem. We need more of this. One thing they did not mention in that link is HOW the batteries are recycled. Currently, there are two ways to recycle the batteries: Incineration and to dissolve them in an environmentally nasty acid. From the leftovers, you then try and get the still useful metals out. It is not as much as you would think. The rest is landfill fodder. I forget what the acid is but do remember that it is very toxic and nasty stuff. Incineration? I really don't want that smoke in the air.
A hundred or so years ago, some electric car manufacturers (don't remember which companies - getting old) tried to put a small gas engine and a generator in the electric cars. It was found that the weight of the gas engine, generator, batteries and the electric motor was prohibitive. In the end, it was found to be better to just use the ICE to power the car and eliminate the weight of the generator, electric motor and batteries. For Diesel- electric locomotives, weight is an advantage. For cars, it is not.
Thing is, if it were not for the miles I typically drive, I would get an EV yesterday. That hydrogen-powered Toyota Mirai is interesting. Bad thing about hydrogen is that basically being a single proton, it leaks out of any and everything you put it in.
As for off-road, I would think some kind of current-limiting device would be useful. Sometimes, 100% torque at zero RPMs is not a good thing. I sure would not want that in snowy - icy conditions!
You’d be surprised. I am personally related to several of the engjneers and got plenty of insight over the holiday season. They know what they are doing. The engineering, quality, manufacturing, and testing teams are all made up of seasoned professionals from automotive, aerospace, electrical engineering backgrounds. So they have startup issues. Sure, but no more then any new model issues out of any other auto manufacturer. And as for operating cash, I don’t think Amazon is going to let them fail.
I miss the good old days, I refuse to sacrifice my comfort…. I’m still checking junk yards for seat swaps. If any true god fearing oil burning gear heads still exist let me know if you want to join in on the search.
Cold dead hands obligatory.
