ZORRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

Here's some good links for those that may want to see daily EV news.

https://electrek.co

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/electric-car-myths/

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 04:06 AM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

WAIT!

Meandering through the labyrinthine corridors, foyers, staircases and forgotten rooms of my sprawling manor in a dimly moonlit night, with only the soft rustle of my silken robe to keep me a discreet company,

IT SUDDENLY CAME TO ME:

Why "buy Amiga"?
44 billion United States American Dollars are well enough to purchase AMIGAS.

The entire Amiga production, ever.
And,
all the Commodore 64s ever made.

CHECK THE MATH,
my friends.

Check the math.





/MEGA!

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: I didn't claim cars full of combustible liquids don't burn.

You implied it. The truth is that electric cars are far less likely to burn than gas cars. But that's not the message you wanted to put across.

Quote:

It was the Hindenburg reference towards hydrogen as a fuel while failing to acknowledge that EVs are just as flammable.

No, they aren't. Hydrogen is potentially far more volatile than a lithium battery, and lethal even without burning. The only good news is that because hydrogen gas is so light it dissipates quickly, so most hydrogen fires don't last long (on the downside of course, they tend to burn until reaching an explosive mixture). But petrol is worse.

Some years ago New Zealand switched to using partly synthetic petrol (this had nothing to do with being green, but simply that we had a lot of natural gas going spare, and a syngas project that was started in the 70's during the oil crisis had reached fruition). This fuel attacked rubber hoses more than regular petrol, causing a lot of premature failures. It happened to me while I was driving at night. I stopped immediately when the engine started missing, and very fortunately the petrol gushing out all over the engine didn't catch fire. Some others weren't so lucky.

This from 6 days ago:-

Ford is recalling about 39,000 SUVS after 16 catch fire under the hood Quote:

The recall covers certain 2021 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator vehicles in the United States that were built between December 2020 and April 2021. The company is urging customers to park their cars "outside and away from structures." Of the 16 reported incidents, 12 cars were off and parked when the fires started.

The batteries used in EVs are the same as those used in cell phones and laptops, except they are protected by strong metal shielding. Generally they are located under the floor in the cabin area, where they are unlikely to be damaged in a crash (not like gas cars). They also have multiple safety mechanisms to prevent overcharging or shorting out. A lot of manufacturers are now using Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, which are harder to ignite.

Study: Electric Vehicles Involved in Fewest Car Fires Quote:

Analysts from AutoInsuranceEZ examined data from the National Transportation Safety Board to track the number of car fires and compared it to sales data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The result? Hybrid-powered cars were involved in about 3,475 fires per every 100,000 sold. Gasoline-powered cars, about 1,530. Electric vehicles (EVs) saw just 25 fires per 100,000 sold... Researchers also tallied fire-related recalls filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2020. Gasoline-powered cars were subject to far more recalls for fire risk. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, an estimated 560 people died in car fires in 2018. Collisions triggered the majority of fatal fires. Car fires also caused an estimated $1.9 billion in property damage losses in the U.S.

Quote:

And unlike petrol, spraying water on a lithium fire only makes it worse.

Not exactly true. In fact the only problem is getting enough water to cool down the battery. In my own experience dealing with Lithium Polymer drone batteries (which only have a plastic wrapper and no protection mechanisms) putting the battery in a bucket of water puts it out almost instantly. The problem with an electric car is that fire engines may not have enough water or suitable delivery systems. Two methods are being used to address this:-

1. a container that the car is lifted or towed into, which blasts water onto it from all sides (basically a big bucket).

2. water is applied directly to the underside of the car onto the batteries, using special nozzles. This uses only 260–1,000 gallons of water, about 1/100th the amount that might otherwise be needed.

On the down-side, lithium batteries tend to burn longer than petrol. On the up-side they don't tend to explode. Because of this it is often recommended to just let it burn while protecting the surrounding area.

Quote:

With fuel powered cars, fires tend to break out in the engine bay. It's very uncommon for the fire to start where the fuel is stored and this the rate at which the vehicle is engulfed is often slow enough to get out.

Unless the car is a Pinto (actually the explosion rate for Pintos wasn't much higher than other cars of the time).

Quote:

By comparison, fires in EV are more likely to begin in the battery array. Once a cell fails catastrophically, unless the battery array is extremely well designed for containment, the cells around in are at risk of joining in and quickly.

Not that quickly. The battery is under the floor and surrounded by a strong metal shield, so the occupants usually have plenty of time to get out. The problem with all car fires is that they are usually caused by collisions, where the occupants may be injured and/or trapped inside the vehicle.

One issue with batteries is that they may smoulder for a long time before 'cooking off' after an accident. OTOH gas tanks are dangerous even when 'empty'. I know someone with permanent facial injuries due to working on a gas tank that wasn't aired out enough.

Bottom line: your attack on electric cars because their batteries may catch fire is just another example of Ludditism. Petrol cars catch fire far more often and cause way more deaths. But you ignore this inconvenient fact because it doesn't support your agenda.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: And Elon is all right. Some people resent him for being smart and successful, and envy him for being rich, but he's also eccentric and contrarian, which are points in my book.

You clearly don't follow the guy. Not enough, at least, to know all his shots...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: To be clear, I'm not opposed to EV. I just think they aren't the sole solution we need to tackle climate change.

Same thing: nothing against EVs. They are vehicles like other, with pros and cons.

What I don't like at all is the false myths and urban legends that the green zealots are spreading around, and that's why I rebut their claims.
Quote:

However they are being leapt on by governments because they are low hanging fruit

Exactly.
Quote:

and cynically promoted by manufacturers as being the answer to all ills while still being in a market where most people upgrade cars they never fully own every few years. Which is not long enough to even break even on the emissions produced in the manufacture or the cells alone. It's a massive crock.

Here I don't agree. Cars vendors have already spent a lot of money (only in the last year or so they have invested something like 200 billion of dollars/euros) on EVs, because the path is clearly towards those vehicles.

And this is not because they like to spend a lot money (you can talk with their stockholders) or being cynical using this green washing propaganda to make money, but only because all governments are pushing in this direct ion and they have already claimed that selling CE cars will be stopped in 10-15 years.

So, cars vendors are FORCED to embrace the same path: they have NO OTHER CHANCE!

@bison

Quote:

So you think the jury was wrong?

Yes, the reason we wasn't prosecuted was that he didn't name him specifically. The problem is Elon's Teets and the rescue were so high profile that everyone knew who he was referring to but the law can be manipulated if you're rich and influential.

Last edited by BigD on 26-May-2022 at 07:08 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@bhabbott

I'm not attacking electric cars. I'm pointing out that they are just as combustible as any other car given the right failure scenario. I spent years studying chemistry. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. A lithium fire is not something you want to be caught up in any more or less than a petrol car. Maybe less, from an ease of extinguishing point of view. Petrol cars catching fire more often may have something to do with the sheer number of them on the road compared to EVs. The bus that caught fire in the footage posted earlier was not the result of a collision. It was the result of a failure of the battery array. Could've been a manufacturing defect, a short circuit of a cell or some other novel failure mode.

Look, I have no "agenda" here. I'm countering the simplistic greenwashing that comes with EV promotion and ownership. You want to reduce emissions from your travelling in a significant way? Take public transport.

Like most people with young kids, I own a car. It has a small petrol engine. My next car will almost definitely be an EV or hybrid and, like the car I have, it's not going to be brand new. Until lockdown and the advent of common remote working, I had a 2 hour commute every day. How did I commute? By tram. I did not use the car.

Until there's a more environmentally friendly alternative to lithium ion cells, your new EV already has anywhere between 3-15* tons of carbon dioxide emissions behind it, not even including those from the basic manufacturing of the car itself (which all cars have), before you've even driven it once. If you couple that with the modern trend of non-ownership, where people tend to pay monthly and get a new car every 2 years rather than paying the remaining cost and buying the car they currently have, it's not actually doing a lot for the cause.

*Let's do some simple back of the envelope maths. According to https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries a Tesla model 3 battery could be between 3000-15000kg of CO2 from manufacture. Take the midpoint of that, 9000kg. Typical UK car emissions are quoted at 221g/mile, based on 2020 department of transport statistics.

My hypothetical second hand T3 will need to have done 40,700 miles already when I buy it for me to realistically claim it's emission free (again neglecting the baseline manufacturing of the car, common to all cars) from the point of my ownership.

Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 07:38 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 07:36 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 07:18 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: The argument about no filling stations is pretty weak. There were barely any charging stations when electric cars were introduced.

Not weak at all. I have had an electric car for over 3 years, and never once had to use a charging station. I just take my 240V cable with me and plug it into any 3 pin socket that's handy. My friends don't mind me topping up while visiting them because electricity is so cheap. Theoretically I only need the range to get to their location, then recharge before the return trip (in practice I've never had to go that far, but having a bit extra reduces 'range anxiety').

Some rural friends of mine (who also have a Leaf) have finally installed the solar panels they bought before building their house. That means the next time I go up there, charging my car will cost nothing!

Quote:

EV is definitely good for urban settings but I wouldn't want to depend on the alleged driving range day in day out if I had to travel further.

That's why we have hybrids.

Quote:

Have you seen a lithium fire?

Yep. I've even caused a few (both deliberately and by 'accident'). OK not car-sized batteries, but still.

Quote:

Speaking of green, do you know how green lithium refining is? Lithium may be the third most abundant element in the universe, but here, on Earth, it's bound into comparatively few useful mineral sources. And don't forget the other materials used in lithium ion cells.

Oh god not that one again. Do you know what the majority of refined lithium goes into? Glass and ceramics. But I don't see you complaining about that. Car batteries are being recycled, which recovers almost all the lithium. So unlike glass and ceramics, once most of the fleet is electric the demand for new lithium will reduce. The amount of lithium used in lithium batteries is a tiny fraction of the total content, about 1.5%.

Also have you heard about how green the refining of other metals is?

Environmental impact of steel production Quote:

Over 2,000 million tons of iron ore is mined mined a year - about 95 percent is used by the steel industry. Iron ore is the world’s third most produced commodity by volume - after crude oil and coal - and the second most traded commodity - only beaten by crude oil. The mining of iron ore is highly energy intensive and causes air pollution in the form of nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide from diesel generators, trucks and other equipment. The mining of iron ore also causes water pollution of heavy metals and acid that drains from the mines. Acid drainage can go on for thousands of years after the mining activities have stopped... Steel production requires large inputs of coke (a sort of coal) which is extremely damaging to the environment. Coke ovens emit air pollution such as naphthalene that is highly toxic and can cause cancer. Wastewater from the coking process is also highly toxic and contains a number of carcinogenic organic compounds as well as cyanide, sulfides, ammonium and ammonia. The making of steel from the mined iron ore is also highly energy demanding. Production of steel is the most energy-consuming and CO2 emitting industrial activity in the world. On average, 1.83 tons of CO2 is emitted for every ton of steel produced making steel production a major contributor to global warming adding over 3,3 million tons annually to global emissions.

Quote:

Now don't get me wrong. I'd rather have electric than petrol for my every day driving cycle. When I commuted, I walked and used the tram. However I just don't think electric road transit alone is the answer.

Of course it isn't the whole answer, just like IC powered vehicles haven't been. But most people who say electric isn't the answer parrot all the same objections, then when those are debunked (again!) explain that an electric car will never be good enough for them because 'reasons'.

And my answer is always the same - that's OK. There may not currently be an electric vehicle that meets your needs. Perhaps you need a big truck to tow that horse float, or you live 1000 miles away from the nearest town, or... But your use is not typical. How many people buy big SUVs on the basis that they might go off-road - and never do. My brother does need one, and I am happy to drive his vehicle to and from the bush for him. But the vast majority of us don't (I couldn't even fit it in my garage). Or perhaps I might want to drive non-stop from North Auckland to Hastings (a 6 hour 300 mile trip), but I would never do that again - even if I still had a gas car.

There's an old saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Rejecting electric cars (or any new technology) because they aren't the perfect answer to everything, is just being a Luddite.

Quote:

You desperately need higher energy densities if you want to tackle shipping, flight, etc.

Yes, and hydrogen will probably be a part of that.

But other solutions are also being considered, like high-tech sailing ships for example. In the late 1800s we had clipper ships transporting refrigerated meat from New Zealand to England. These could sail at speeds of up to 22 knots. Most container ships today travel at 18-20 knots. Diesel-powered ships are very dirty, and also expensive to run. A combination of wind and solar could not only cut emissions to zero but also be cheaper.

Many technologies that were previously sidelined in favour of dirty coal and oil are being revived and may be more viable today due to other advances. Some, like electric cars and sailing ships, have the potential to be cheaper overall, an advantage even if not needed to combat global warming. In the past they weren't controversial - but somehow anything that might help care for the environment (which you would think was a no-brainer) has become a target for derision by Luddites who fear change.

Though to be fair, the Luddites tend to be against any new technology. How many people in the 80's were against having a microwave oven? "The radiation will give you cancer!" they said, "and it can't brown pastry!". Now they can't live without one.

@Karlos

Quote:

Typical UK car emissions are quoted at 221g/mile, based on 2020 department of transport statistics.

Does that also include the emissions of the refinery?

Also, it isn't just about CO2. There are other pollutants. What comes out of a CE car exhaust is not good for us.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

It doesn't, of course. And no doubt, thats probably worse. I couldn't find reliable data for that*. However it doesn't detract from the argument that a brand new EV is not remotely green from an emissions perspective. It only becomes "emission free" from a power source perspective once it's done enough to recover the battery production. And a new car generally isn't produced with a full tank of fuel already in it.

*Try on the basis of this: https://www.carbonindependent.org/17.html

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Quote:

However it doesn't detract from the argument that a brand new EV is not remotely green from an emissions perspective. It only becomes "emission free" from a power source perspective once it's done enough to recover the battery production.

But it does eventually become "emission free", whereas a CE car never becomes emission free.

Yes. An EV compared to a CE sitting at the factory waiting for distribution to dealer lots, is lumbered with all the emission of the battery pack production. Were these two vehicles purchased and placed in storage and never driven, the EV will always be worse for the environment than the CE.

Outside of the hypothetical scenario above, people buy vehicles to use them for their designed purpose. The CE car has a different energy model. It is entirely reliant on a consumable store of energy. While it doesn't start with the additional burden of a replenishable store of energy, it quickly catches up as all energy transactions are purely consumable.

Last edited by agami on 26-May-2022 at 09:56 AM.
Last edited by agami on 26-May-2022 at 09:47 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, cars vendors are FORCED to embrace the same path: they have NO OTHER CHANCE!

Car vendors, and consumers, are not entitled to a choice. Not when our collective livelihoods are in question.

Also, fossil fuel powered cars have been pretty much the only choice for about 100 years. I kind of think that's enough. They had a good run.

Last edited by agami on 26-May-2022 at 09:57 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @cdimauro Quote: So, cars vendors are FORCED to embrace the same path: they have NO OTHER CHANCE! Car vendors, and consumers, are not entitled to a choice.

Well, do you know that consumers and people employed by car vendors are citizens?
Quote:

Not when our collective livelihoods are in question.

You have to prove it. More precisely, you've to prove that CE cars are causing issues that demand the above actions.
Quote:

Also, fossil fuel powered cars have been pretty much the only choice for about 100 years. I kind of think that's enough. They had a good run.

If a technology is old it does NOT mean that it should be dropped and supplanted by another one. So, only because it's old.

This is another logical fallacy...

@cdimauro

Gasoline causes cancer over time if exposed to it. This is not up for debate, it’s a fact. Want to prove it to yourself. Turn on your ICE car in your closed garage and stay there. You won’t try this test, want to guess why? It will kill you. Now what happens if you turn on an EV in your garage? Nothing, you could stand there all day and there’s no exhaust to kill you.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426

Now try to imagine what drilling for, refining, transporting and burning this toxic substance in individual vehicles all over the planet does to the earth and life on it? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize what happens.

Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 11:59 AM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 11:57 AM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 11:51 AM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 11:43 AM.
Last edited by DiscreetFX on 26-May-2022 at 11:42 AM.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: Now try to imagine what drilling for, refining, transporting and burning this toxic substance in individual vehicles all over the planet does to the earth and life on it? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize what happens...

...AMIGAOS 4.1

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

@agami

Quote:

But it does eventually become "emission free", whereas a CE car never becomes emission free.

Only under the ideal constraint of recharging using emission free energy and it doesn't fail before then for any reason. It's splitting hairs though. My objection isn't to electric cars, it's to the naivety that lithium batteries solve all the problems somehow,


@Karlos
Quote:

Karlos wrote: @agami It doesn't, of course. And no doubt, thats probably worse. I couldn't find reliable data for that*. However it doesn't detract from the argument that a brand new EV is not remotely green from an emissions perspective. It only becomes "emission free" from a power source perspective once it's done enough to recover the battery production. And a new car generally isn't produced with a full tank of fuel already in it. *Try on the basis of this: https://www.carbonindependent.org/17.html

Based on the breakdowns provided, the estimate amounts to a 32% increase of CO2 per unit volume when you factor in the emissions from producing the petrol. So again, using my previous back of the envelope calculation...

Emissions per mile were quoted at 221g, so multiplying by 1.32, that becomes 291g. Using the same midpoint 9000kg emissions for battery production my second hand T3 (I'd not actually by a T3, maybe something less ambitious) would need to have done ~30,920 miles to recoup the battery. This assumes the electricity I recharge it with is 100% emission free, which it isn't going to be.

My actual car has a 1.2 litre petrol engine has done about 5000 miles in about 3 years that I've had it and had done around 27K when I bought it. In terms of it's actual emissions, it's rather lower than the value quoted as average, but then it also doesn't get toyota's claimed 60mpg either.

Based on that 5000 miles at a far more realistic 45mpg (based on the car's own measurements to date), using 14.3kg/gallon (from the above link, factoring in the emissions from fuel production) it's produced ~1590kg of CO2 in the time I've owned it. That figure would be easily 3-4x higher if I'd have used it for the work commute instead of my legs and public transport.

To put that in context, my own respiration over the same 3 years is close to 1000kg of CO2.

As I've said in an earlier post, my next car will almost certainly be a pre-loved EV (or maybe a hybrid if it makes any economic sense by then). If it's done around 30K miles already then I may even be able to make the claim it's zero emissions in use. What I won't be doing is pretending otherwise.

Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 03:00 PM.
Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 12:58 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@DiscreetFX

There's absolutely no question that the immediate emissions from petrol/diesel combustion are harmful. This is by far a stronger argument for the adoption of EVs than mitigating climate change.

Modern internal combustion engine cars tend to do better than their previous generations but you can't burn anything, even hydrogen, without producing some undesirable byproducts. The cleanest hydrogen engine will likely produce some nitrogen oxides for example. Catalytic converters for existing cars in part rely on decomposing those back to nitrogen and using the liberated oxygen to help oxidise any other partial combustion products (esp carbon monoxide) in the exhaust.

Last edited by Karlos on 26-May-2022 at 03:05 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

Tesla is for the car industry what Amiga was for the computer industry.

So how many of us Amigans drive a Tesla?

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro Gasoline causes cancer over time if exposed to it. This is not up for debate, it’s a fact.

No, it's not a fact: it's only the product of a mind which isn't able to understand a paper which doesn't require a PhD from Cambridge, and which is making eco-terrorism.
Quote:

Want to prove it to yourself. Turn on your ICE car in your closed garage and stay there. You won’t try this test, want to guess why? It will kill you.

Do you have knives in your house? I reveal you a secret: if you use one of them to cut the blood vessels of your hand and you stay there, it will kill you.
Quote:

Now what happens if you turn on an EV in your garage? Nothing, you could stand there all day and there’s no exhaust to kill you.

All right, then I propose you to ban knives to prevent the above. And, in general, ban ANYTHING that can be dangerous to human beings.

Do you agree? I'm just applying your insane logic.
Quote:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426 Now try to imagine what drilling for, refining, transporting and burning this toxic substance in individual vehicles all over the planet does to the earth and life on it? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize what happens.

No, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the article that you posted: you need a normal education. But, from what you said before, this is clearly beyond your capabilities.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that you stopped just at the title of the article. At least your understanding. In fact, because just below it you can read this:

Limited contact with gasoline is usually harmless. However, gasoline and its vapors are toxic, and having extended exposure to them can seriously damage a person’s health.

Which contradicts what you stated on your first sentence here.

The article goes deeper with the explanation. That you ignored, of course.

Besides this, you also missed the Q&A sections, which reports this:

Some examples of alternatives to petroleum include:

biodiesel made from animal fats and vegetable oils
ethanol made from grains such as corn and barley
hydrogen fuel cells that make electricity from hydrogen and oxygen

So, it should be OK for you to use one (or even all) of those alternatives. Do you agree? It's just written on the paper that YOU shared...

TL;DR. The problem with you is not rocket science: it's even elementary science.
So, I suggest you do something different: reap the fruits. It's something which even monkeys, which are our "cousins", can do...

@Deniil715

Quote:

Deniil715 wrote: Tesla is for the car industry what Amiga was for the computer industry. So how many of us Amigans drive a Tesla?

I beg to differ. There's no relationship between the two things. Unless you prove it, of course.