There is no need for me to "diminish e-vehicles." Rather, not enough of them will be built because they require oil, and we do not have enough of that plus minerals. Also, they require roads that are smooth and with low inclines, plus infrastructure such as electric grids. All of those are lacking in many parts of the world. That's why according to the study mentioned in the article, it will take more than a century to replace oil. Finally, the reason why there is no replacement for oil is because compared to other energy sources, oil has very high energy densities. That makes them portable and suitable for heavy machinery used in mining, manufacturing, and especially container ships. They are also needed for petrochemicals needed for tens of thousands of applications, including all sorts of plastic. I am not referring to "earth (space)" but material resources. And the fact that this is "clear and based on pure logic" to you nullifies every argument you raise in your previous paragraph. In order to do that, you do not have to be a "depressive pessimist." Rather, you can be a realist, especially given the fact that you referred to limits to growth as "clear and based on pure logic." In my case, though, I prefer to use the term "common sense." Why argue that this is a choice between using e-vehicles for personal transport and killing ourselves? I'm sure you can think of things other than e-vehicles. Would you like me to help you out with that?
That is not right and what are 'not enough?' Each one built replaces the others....you could say 'not enough' if we'd stop building them. At first place what's required is energy. And e-vehicles are using far less oil based products during their life time / time of usage. One has to think about if the processes which are requiring oil and minerals and resources are reversible or not, in other words are recyclable or not. Check which processes really 'require' oil and resources, means let vanish them forever. Fact is burning oil is an irreversible process. From that fact it is absolutely reasonable to replace oil as fuel and to go for a source that will last longer (sun/ wind)! Authors of such headlines have an intent to cultivate depressive pessimistic thinking. In the headline are concrete predictions with concrete periods. These predictions are scientifically untenable, a pure invention. The headline "It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We've Only Got 10" is not objective and made to address emotions, hence my question why not 132 years. This is far away from being realistic. I wonder why people are not able to distinguish good journalism from yellow press. It's about the general choice to do something that can avoid/retard an event (running out of oil) which might be negative for human population or to wait until we don't have enough resources anymore.....and start to get it by using violence... We could open a new thread: Is it reasonable to think about and realize resource elongating measures at all even though we know they are limited and we sooner or later will have to realize that unlimited growth is an illusion?
Another fact Yen, Cobalt and Lithium might end up being in limited supplies in the near future as e-vehicles become more popular, You think we have a shortage of oil, just wait till they start gobbling up tonnes and tonnes of Cobalt and other rarer minerals required to make all these batteries We'll all end up riding horses again in the far future (they use renewable resources!)
Actually using bio-fuels is the best option, although it does not have a low "carbon footprint" it is a source of re-newable resources that will not run out as of today Invest now in Cobalt, Lithium, and manufacturing in lithium/ion batteries because their stocks will go through the roof once these minerals become more scarce as e-vehicle manufacturing starts to ramp up
It's about a huge conflict in human nature. We are realizing measures which make it possible that humans can live a longer period and a more comfortable life and our nature is to get more and more individuals and to spread. It's simply about to survive and to spread and to multiply. This applies to other populations as well. Consider mold. When there are fortunate conditions for growth (spores, culture medium, humidity, temperature), then your bread for instance starts to get moldy until the entire bread is populated.. When the resources become insufficient the growth stagnates. The population starts to go backwards. It's a question of time what shortage will force us to decline....since we have got an intellect we know about this conflict we're actually living... Anyway it is right to do a thing because of current 'Reason', this means it is right to research for new resources or ways to keep them in cycles. It is right to fight diseases and it is right to care for nature. It is right to see our life as something that is not limited to individual interests... We all do have smartphones and they do use / occupy a lot of resources.....they have become common items we're using but we are struggling with the sense of establishing e-vehicles, I wonder why.
I'm not concerned about over population, as human nature....we kill. In WW II alone we managed to kill about 80 million humans, I'm sure we'll do it much better in WW III It's not a question if we will have a WW III but only as to when
@Yen: Because the technology is not there yet. Despite what people may think. We can't even deal with disposal of smartphones, let alone the enormous amounts of e-waste produced by e-vehicles.
"Not enough" means ecological footprint exceeding biocapacity. More details in my first post. Actually, it's energy plus material resources. The first is dropping due to low energy returns and the second due to that plus resources that are deeper or require processing. More details here. Recycling adds to energy cost and assumes a static population. That's not the case for obvious reasons. Solar and wind power have low energy returns. The global economy needs ever-increasing energy returns due to a growing global middle class, which is part of a global capitalist system. That growth will require the equivalent of one more earth. The article refers to a study. You could have answered your own question by reading the study mentioned in the article. Because they only look at the headlines. Did you look at the article? Did you identify the study mentioned in it? Well, to do that, you have to first acknowledge that we have a problem. Isn't that what I just did? Keep in mind that there are different measures. Would you like me to share with you something in place of using electric cars?
The process of establishing tech has to come along with practical realisations and practical development. I mean how should we know that 'technology is not there yet'? Development on paper alone never would make us to notice where improvements are required. Tesla himself just realized his inventions practically and improved them out of practical results. The same applies to recycling. First there has to be something that requires recycling. Unfortunately being in a capitalistic world it's always a matter of money. Only when new stuff gets more expensive than the recycled stuff people start to recycle and that is a shame. Until then we throw away.... We never could deal with new stuff at first place and have thrown it away this also applied to glass bottles and other products we do now recycle. Sad but true. I was shocked when the smartphone manufacturers started to make smartphones with built in non removable batteries. In that case we've learned nothing...e-vehicles without a proper recycle concept are useless, you're right.
But doesn't that argument work both ways? Also, shouldn't one consider lag time, which is raised in the study reported on earlier? Then add to this demands brought about by a growing global middle class. That means whatever tech one imagines it has to be implemented at a very cheap cost, quickly, and on a global scale. Add to this points raised in a documentary about peak oil raised back in 2005, stating that any "game changers" should have been implemented at least a decade earlier. That's because with a lag time we also need a buffer. Tesla burned through over $2 billion last year, and lost as well the previous year. And they're essentially relying on gov't dole outs. And in terms of using electric vehicles for sustainability, investing in fancy e-vehicles for recreation is probably the most impractical thing we can do. What to recycle is painfully obvious. The world is awash with trash. The problem is that recycling has an additional energy cost, and a capitalist economy requires the opposite. That's why we've been throwing things away for decades. One reason is given below. Look up "planned obsolescence". To recap, electric cars have low energy returns, require extensive development of roads and infrastructure, and like luxuries ranging from smart phones to vacations abroad, require energy and resources that exceed what the planet allows. Meanwhile, the global capitalist system which rests on the same planet requires ever-increasing amounts of resources and energy in return for more profits. Hence, the insistence that there's no shortage of either, that we have the "tech" to solve anything, and thus can continue with a "throwaway" culture involving driving around leisurely in fancy e-vehicles. In contrast to that is the reality that we face limits to growth, and no amount of fantasizing about technology can reverse what is simple physics driven by gravity and what are essentially finite material resources. Given that plus the reality of low energy returns as part of diminishing returns, then the only thing that can be done is to adjust to using less in the long term. In light of that topic, that will mean using electric rail for transport of necessities, reliance on cheap e-vehicles that can carry more people and load (like Asian utility vehicles), continued reliance on diesel-powered trucks and utility vehicles if most roads worldwide are of very poor quality (or will become so as we focus on other necessities, such as constructing shelters for hospitals, clinics, against natural disasters, etc.), etc. Any personal form of transport will likely involve bicycles or whatever we can use that requires less energy and materials, and so forth.
1 Recycling e-vehicles shouldn't be treated in absolute, but in comparison to conventional technology. 2 Similarly for effects on resources and other negative aspects. 3 Comparison shouldn't be for some striking items, but all-inclusive, all aspects being taken into consideration for the whole lifetime of the vehicles. This is a very complicated task that will also require years of experience with e-vecles. 4 It should be borne in mind that, whereas conventional technology has more or less reached its limits, e-vehicle technology is still developing, and very rapidly at that, especially regarding its weak point, i.e. the batteries..
I think e-vehicles will need much improved batteries for a long term future, not just battery life cycle but the materials/minerals required to produce these batteries efficiently. We currently build cars by the millions. In 2017 that figure is 23.85 million: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262747/worldwide-automobile-production-since-2000/ If we convert all combustion engines to ev the supply can not meet those needs, We will need one hell of a lot of batteries in that future, and then figure out what to do with millions of large sized automotive batteries once we are done with them. We don't think about that today but what will our children do with all that waste in the next 20 to 30 yrs?
IMHO, e-vehicles are a regional utility, meaning that in some areas in the world the technology can work and some can't. At least not at this time. Countries that have naturally low electricity costs (Geothermal, Nuclear) can take advantage of the tech and maintain a low carbon footprint. At this time, the USA is not really ready for a full e-vehicle. We can, however, take advantage of hybrid technology. It's a step in the right direction, and from there, we can build an engineering profile of the problems that can and will arise. We can't just dive into this blindly. We'll only end up making the same mistakes, or worse, make mistakes with exotic, potentially toxic materials. Case & Point: The nuclear industry. The funny thing about that is that people get crazy about nuclear waste and neglect hazards that are right under their noses. Did anybody realize that the WTC towers were laden with asbestos? We know now. Who knows where battery design will take us, and what exotic, potentially toxic materials will be used to craft the next-generation of batteries. @monkeylove: Good post.
https://electriccarsreport.com/2018...ditors/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Real-Life Plug-In Hybrid Comparison by Kelley Blue Book Editors The expert editors at Kelley Blue Book evaluated four plug-in hybrids on the market today, the Chevrolet Volt, Honda Clarity Plug-In Hybrid, Hyundai Ioniq Plug-In Hybrid and Toyota Prius Prime, in a real-life comparison, including a long-distance road trip from the busy Los Angeles freeways to Northern California. Plug-in hybrids run on efficient electric power, a gasoline engine, or the combination of both, and today there are more plug-in hybrid models available than ever before from luxury SUVs to simple, no-fuss commuter cars. “Plug-in hybrids stand out for most buyers because they can plug into a regular wall socket, charge overnight, and get drivers to their job the next morning on pure electric power with zero tailpipe emissions,” said Karl Brauer, executive publisher for Kelley Blue Book. “These vehicles offer clear advantages for smarter commuting, superior fuel economy and good highway manners.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/2...ause-problems-with-pacemakers-study-suggests/ EV Drivetrain Electromagnetic Fields Don’t Cause Problems With Pacemakers, Study Suggests https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/tesla-shareholders-vote-proposal-remove-elon-musk-chairman/ Tesla shareholders to vote on proposal to remove Elon Musk as Chairman https://www.teslarati.com/top-luxur...b5a5adfdc4e1b&uid=917878446&nid=244 285282312 Top luxury automakers follow Tesla’s lead, others are in denial
gorski, Don't you care that millions and millions of batteries in the future may affect you children's lives 20 yrs from now?
Certainly, if they only haven't started with recycling etc. already... Plus, the resources will become depleted, so we shall have no choice but to create a more rational relationship with Mutty Natur... But ahem... about those millions of oil spills, trillions of tons of cancerogens from exhaust pipes, CO2 galore, ozone holes....................
Having read all those depressive "predictions" (thanx for nuthin'! ), I have one word for ya gloomy lot: Malthus! He was wrong back then and you are wrong now. All your presumptions are NOT written in stone! Hans, of course, keeps learning and changing his top numbers but again, science is not religion, so this is built into the system. Speaking of which: Luhmann's "systems theory" ( https://duckduckgo.com/?q=luhmann system theory&t=canonical&ia=web ) is forgotten (more like not known by at least most participants in these discussions, of course) and the case in point. We can learn and we are learning, not just individually. And Humans, of course, are potentially greater than the sum of their (especially) depressive parts, heh... Human ingenuity, creativity, imagination is not taken into consideration. (Malthus!!!) And one more important point no one is taking seriously into consideration when "calculating" many of those variables: we do have the capacity to spread beyond this planet, also... Ergo?!? We have started to recycle and plan on a greater scale, so we are becoming ever more aware of the problems and ever more painfully so (plastics, endocrine disruptors, general pollution etc.) and that will become a great impetus for change. It's not enough right now but... The thing is, all of those predictions are based on Capitalism being "natural" and our current "nature" being immutable - and that is NOT a given and by all accounts a FALSE PRESUMPTION!!! Anyone remembers Marx: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...E_Paid_240418&CMP_TU=mrtn&CMP_BUNIT=mem&att5= ???!!!??? Necessity is the Mutty of Invention and Zappa is laughing in his grave now... Must go to bed a bit more, sorry... more enlightenment later...
Ach, yes, the batteries: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=new research on batteries&t=canonical&ia=web For instance: https://www.extremetech.com/computi...mes-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster Or: https://news.mit.edu/2016/new-concept-turns-battery-technology-upside-down-0525 Or: https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/new-technology-could-wean-battery-world-cobalt Or: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/toyota-hydrogen-research-leads-to-better-battery/ Or: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/...s-revolutionary-new-electric-vehicle-battery/ Or: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-batteries-charge-70-percent-in-2-minutes/ Enough to slam dunk a few of gloomies here into the ground, to see if they can grow again...
It's all vaporware until it becomes something viable in the public market How much titanium dioxide gel do you think they can make for over 23 million plus cars a year???? Get more serious in your replies, with products that can actually be used on a large scale They do not know the health risks of titanium dioxide as of yet