Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution
Options
Comments
-
@Al.
You are responding to someone who is happy to post on green and ethical threads, on green and ethical boards, that AGW doesn't exist, and that FF emissions do not cause health issues.
So whilst I agree with what you are saying, and normally believe it's worth pushing back on all the denial, FUD, negative nonsense and lies ....... in the case of this poster (and his other account cells), it's probably best to do what dozens of us have already done, and place him on ignore.
He will not stop, you may have noticed, even if the claims deny all science, so you can't win, all you will do is feed him, waste your time, and disrupt the threads.
Eventually you (not him) will be criticised for arguing, so it's a lose, lose for you.
Carry on if you want, I believe in speaking truth, especially when the issue has a health, environment and economic cost (to us all), but you will get nowhere with this individual, sadly.
Edit - Just for a laugh, i was wondering if 'we' are allowed creative accounting too, in which case I'd suggest that all new RE generation be first put against all new leccy consumption, with the leftovers then used to clean/green up the old demand.
That way, BEV's are 100% RE powered, and our 'old kit' is getting greener a bit slower.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »@Al.
You are responding to someone who is happy to post on green and ethical threads, on green and ethical boards, that AGW doesn't exist, and that FF emissions do not cause health issues.
So whilst I agree with what you are saying, and normally believe it's worth pushing back on all the denial, FUD, negative nonsense and lies ....... in the case of this poster (and his other account cells), it's probably best to do what dozens of us have already done, and place him on ignore.
He will not stop, you may have noticed, even if the claims deny all science, so you can't win, all you will do is feed him, waste your time, and disrupt the threads.
Eventually you (not him) will be criticised for arguing, so it's a lose, lose for you.
Carry on if you want, I believe in speaking truth, especially when the issue has a health, environment and economic cost (to us all), but you will get nowhere with this individual, sadly.
The arbiter of goodness truth and all things green speaks, blessed are we for your wisdom0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »@Al.
You are responding to someone who is happy to post on green and ethical threads, on green and ethical boards, that AGW doesn't exist, and that FF emissions do not cause health issues.
So whilst I agree with what you are saying, and normally believe it's worth pushing back on all the denial, FUD, negative nonsense and lies ....... in the case of this poster (and his other account cells), it's probably best to do what dozens of us have already done, and place him on ignore.
He will not stop, you may have noticed, even if the claims deny all science, so you can't win, all you will do is feed him, waste your time, and disrupt the threads.
Eventually you (not him) will be criticised for arguing, so it's a lose, lose for you.
Carry on if you want, I believe in speaking truth, especially when the issue has a health, environment and economic cost (to us all), but you will get nowhere with this individual, sadly.
If someone is happy to take part in an exchange then surely that is up to them. If you want to ignore somebody just ignore them; what is the point of posting that you are putting someone on ignore? That’s playground stuff.
As far as BEVs using marginal generation is concerned, having argued the opposite myself and then thought about it, I think GA maybe has a valid point of view.
You might not like all GA’s posts but he makes us think about how we look at renewables just as you do. The whole point of debate is to put forward challenging ideas and propositions and make us question what we assume to be correct.
Since I joined this forum 18 months ago my attitude to some of the issues we discuss has changed as a result of being exposed to alternative points of view.
I think it is important to keep an open mind and allow others to do the same if one is not to become a bigot.Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
If someone is happy to take part in an exchange then surely that is up to them. If you want to ignore somebody just ignore them; what is the point of posting that you are putting someone on ignore? That’s playground stuff.
As far as BEVs using marginal generation is concerned, having argued the opposite myself and then thought about it, I think GA maybe has a valid point of view.
You might not like all GA’s posts but he makes us think about how we look at renewables just as you do. The whole point of debate is to put forward challenging ideas and propositions and make us question what we assume to be correct.
Since I joined this forum 18 months ago my attitude to some of the issues we discuss has changed as a result of being exposed to alternative points of view.
I think it is important to keep an open mind and allow others to do the same if one is not to become a bigot.
If you read my post again, you will see that I agree with Al, and pushing back against false information, denial and FUD. You will also be aware that I've pushed back enormously against your (and Nick and C's) diet-denial and morally repugnant positions on combating AGW.
However, in the case of GA, he not only tries to post occasional denial, diet denial, and subtle misinformation- which is worth correcting each time, but has now for years simply been arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Challenging his posts is pointless, and that has been confirmed/proved by the enormous number of regulars that have placed him on ignore.
I appreciate that your 'key' tactic for G&E thread disruption is to defend GA's posts in repeated attempts to stir and start arguments (such as this), but my position on this individual is not going to change, and nothing he posts will change in response to thorough debunking by others. I also believe that we might all be doing harm to a vulnerable fantasist by engaging and arguing.
Lastly it has been noticeable for most of this year, that whilst you will challenge any small positive by myself and other RE, BEV supporters, you have never challenged the vast mass of false information spread/posted by GA. You seem to be using him as a tool. If you agree with what he says, then say so, but you'll also need to point out (endlessly) when he is so, so, so wrong.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Article on cobalt free batteries.
Most li-ion batts use cobalt, and this raises serious concerns about how it's sourced from the DRC where child labour (border-line slave labour in some cases) is used.
Tesla is one of the worst, in the sense that they use a lot due to the scale of their battery production, though they do use a bit less per battery than some, and are aiming to use less/zero.
Also worth mentioning that a vast amount of cobalt is used in fuel refineries for cleaning fuels (desulfurization) and that process is single use, not recyclable.
IBM Changes The Energy Storage Game With Cobalt-Free BatteryThe leaders of the nations of the world declined to go forth and conquer climate change during the COP25 talks in Madrid earlier this month. That leaves the business of saving the planet up to a hodgepodge of activists, inventors, NGOs, and gigantic corporations. In the latest development, IBM has just slipped word of new energy storage research that could help accelerate the renewable energy transition with a next-gen solution for electric vehicles and stationary batteries, too.
New Energy Storage Technology, Without The (Cough, Cough, Cobalt) Baggage
IBM provided CleanTechnica with an advance copy of the new energy storage announcement so we don’t have a link yet, but the company’s IBM Research branch will probably have it online by the time you eyeball this.
The idea is to clean up the energy storage supply chain by clearing out the clutter of certain heavy metals and other materials commonly used in today’s lithium-ion batteries. That would help reduce the environmental impacts of producing rechargeable electronic goods as well as electric vehicles and stationary energy storage systems.
Aside from environmental concerns, human rights issues are also in play.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW). Two A2A units for cleaner heating.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
There's also considerable safety issues with cobalt. This video highlights the difference between cobalt and iron phosphate chemistry .....
https://youtu.be/3oBcIjaJ3b0Scott in Fife, 2.9kwp pv SSW facing, 2.7kw Fronius inverter installed Jan 2012 - 14.3kwh Seplos Mason battery storage with Lux ac controller - Renault Zoe 40kwh, Corsa-e 50kwh, Zappi EV charger and Octopus Go0 -
This thread looks like it will go the way of the green and ethical energy issues thread.Martyn1981 wrote: »If you read my post again, you will see that I agree with Al, and pushing back against false information, denial and FUD. You will also be aware that I've pushed back enormously against your (and Nick and C's) diet-denial and morally repugnant positions on combating AGW.
However, in the case of GA, he not only tries to post occasional denial, diet denial, and subtle misinformation- which is worth correcting each time, but has now for years simply been arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Challenging his posts is pointless, and that has been confirmed/proved by the enormous number of regulars that have placed him on ignore.
I appreciate that your 'key' tactic for G&E thread disruption is to defend GA's posts in repeated attempts to stir and start arguments (such as this), but my position on this individual is not going to change, and nothing he posts will change in response to thorough debunking by others. I also believe that we might all be doing harm to a vulnerable fantasist by engaging and arguing.
Lastly it has been noticeable for most of this year, that whilst you will challenge any small positive by myself and other RE, BEV supporters, you have never challenged the vast mass of false information spread/posted by GA. You seem to be using him as a tool. If you agree with what he says, then say so, but you'll also need to point out (endlessly) when he is so, so, so wrong.
Several of us having been having a debate with GA as to whether BEVs use marginal generation. None of us were forced to argue with GA. We were happy to continue the argument as much as GA was. You then step in and start telling Al he is wasting his time and should put GA on ignore because GA doesn’t toe the party line. You do this on numerous threads when valid arguments are put forward. You then wade in and make out that GA, Nick and I are in cahoots to disrupt the thread and chuck in all this rubbish about us being deniers and that I “challenge any small positive by myself and other RE, BEV supporters“ and how it is necessary for you to push back against our “morally repugnant positions”.
I know you just want to make the entire forum into the gospel according to Mart but not everyone sees the world quite in the black and white, good and bad way that you do. BEVs have their place for the likes of you and me and much as I go around telling everyone how great they are one sometimes has to accept the reality that they aren’t the zero emissions car we like to make out they are. GA points this out and you don’t like him doing it. He has a point, you don’t like that and so you start the personal attacks.Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
GreatApe:By this logic if I buy a 1 ton carbon offset credit for £20, my diesel car doesn't produce any co2 emmissions
I don't know exactly what a carbon offset credit is, but you seem to be completely off-board with what offsetting is. You do something, and you make up for it. Net zero, not zero. If I lend you £20, and you give me back £20, do you still owe me money?!What are peaker plants expensive and slow relative to?
Battery pack?
Hamsters on wheels?
I was talking about big plants, peakers seem to be faster. Batteries controlled by software would be faster still though. We've established with EVs that electrical energy is far more efficient than burning stuff.
Martyn1981:He will not stop, you may have noticed, even if the claims deny all science, so you can't win, all you will do is feed him, waste your time, and disrupt the threads.
I am optimistic that I am making progress. Double counting the heating of an EV is a personal favourite gaffe, and we've already knocked 25% off these filthy EV emmissions!
JKenH:As far as BEVs using marginal generation is concerned, having argued the opposite myself and then thought about it, I think GA maybe has a valid point of view.
GA's argument applies to every single thing you ever switch on, that is connected to the grid. He has focussed on EVs, and now you're repeating it. I think it's wrong to obsess over marginal. The discussion is above for all to read, and make up their own minds but I'll repeat this fact, 'if EVs use marginal FF energy to charge, so does every other grid connected device'.
Just to confirm you're paying attention, how many g/km of CO2 does a BEV produce, according to our discussion?accept the reality that they aren’t the zero emissions car we like to make out they are
Again, let me understand your standpoint. My dad produces 4kWh from his solar panels, and they go directly to his Leaf. He drives 12 miles, at 3 miles/kWh. He has used 4kWh.
Is that a Zero Emission journey or not? I argue it is, NET. GA argues that a load has been placed on the grid so emmissions were produced. I think this ignores the production from the panels. What do YOU think?0 -
Is that a Zero Emission journey or not? I argue it is, NET. GA argues that a load has been placed on the grid so emmissions were produced. I think this ignores the production from the panels. What do YOU think?
Also, how can a load be placed on the grid if you haven't imported any leccy ?Scott in Fife, 2.9kwp pv SSW facing, 2.7kw Fronius inverter installed Jan 2012 - 14.3kwh Seplos Mason battery storage with Lux ac controller - Renault Zoe 40kwh, Corsa-e 50kwh, Zappi EV charger and Octopus Go0 -
I was talking about big plants, peakers seem to be faster. Batteries controlled by software would be faster still though.
Conventional power stations respond via the laws of physics so they respond at the speed of light batteries don't really produce a faster response nor are they required as by the fact the grid has worked okay for a hundred years without batteries
It's complicated and beyond this thread to explain I'll just day conventional power stations have inertia which is instant then ramp speed the two factors together allow a affordable functional grid
Batteries on the grid don't/can't repalce gas fired conventional power stations
Actually they can but a small amount perhaps in the UK about 3-5 GW and only if batteries get really cheap. That still leaves 50GW or so to be covered by conventional power stationsWe've established with EVs that electrical energy is far more efficient than burning stuff
Come on now, we've established that in a CCGT heavy grid like the UK using BEVs are a little more efficient depending on how it's used and which particular model we are talking about. For instance the e golf of used mostly on motorways is less efficient than a Prius or corrolla ICE
And if in a coal heavy grid (most of the world) then the BEV is less efficientI am optimistic that I am making progress. Double counting the heating of an EV is a personal favourite gaffe, and we've already knocked 25% off these filthy EV emmissions!
I wasn't double counting heating
I looked at the model 3 and the e golf miles per kWh without heating
You came up with a number for your dad's leaf which you say includes the heating
I'm not sure either of us is absolutely correct in this. We would need to see an actual energy useage for perhaps 100+ drivers ideally the electricity measured at the meter before the charger.
This way we could see total energy into the charger Vs miles and indeed get a total all in miles per KWhJust to confirm you're paying attention, how many g/km of CO2 does a BEV produce, according to our discussion?
In the UK probably 70-120g depending on model and useage
The e golf in particular seems terrible at high speeds perhaps due to its boxy shape
In Germany or China or India or any coal marginal grid double that so 140-240g depending on model and useageAgain, let me understand your standpoint. My dad produces 4kWh from his solar panels, and they go directly to his Leaf. He drives 12 miles, at 3 miles/kWh. He has used 4kWh.
Electricity isn't a physical product for you to say your electricity goes into your car
A solar panel or the coal stations the other side of town both supply power to the grid which moves at the speed of light. The proximity to the power source is irrelevant.
Your solar panels produce energy
Your car consumes energy
You can account for it as the energy in your solar panels is charging your car if you want
But take two exact copies of the planet and every power station has a co2 meter
On one version you charge your car
On the other versions you don't charge your car
Measure the difference in the CO2 produced
It's not zero as per your assertion
The additional CO2 is marginal emmissions from your 4KWh chargeis that a Zero Emission journey or not?
As per above, noI argue it is, NET.
But it isn'tGA argues that a load has been placed on the grid so emmissions were produced. I think this ignores the production from the panels. What do YOU think?
It really doesn't matter what people think
the reality is in the two parallel universes. One where you charge one where you don't, you can provide that the one where you charged up there are greater emmissions 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards