You may have underestimated those figures. We all know Engines are well capable of reaching them so no need to replace the engine in a car but, are Batteries capable of doing that kind of mileage and still be functional? If you need to change the battery in an EV then not only is maybe more expensive than buying a new IC car but it's also very costly to the environment.
how do these people who claim that electric is the future for the environment…..they are destroying the Congo mining for cobalt used in the batteries The hypocrisy is astounding
yeah, but it's a different problem, so we can kick it down the road, same with the ground water problem caused by lithium production.
Not sure how you arrive at the numbers because the ones I've seen published based on carbon emissions only are significantly lower. Break-even after less than 2years if electric car made in USA or less than 3 years if in China (due to source of energy used to make the cars). Of course there are a whole load of variables that are difficult to factor in: 1) how is the electricity generated to power the electric cars. In UK you can now choose suppliers that only provide electric supply from renewables (although I suspect they cheat at times) but elsewhere its maybe not as clear 2) where is the oil coming from to create the gasoline to run the cars - the length of the supply chain and mode of transport makes a huge difference 3) the numbers I quoted don't factor in the effects of methane which has far greater greenhouse gas effects than carbon dioxide and is also easily leaked during hydrocarbon transportation, and is emitted in exhaust fumes As @aberdude mentioned the mining of nickel, lithium and cobalt produce quite significant environmental effects but how do you compare that with CO2 emissions. The environmental damage is much more localised (and often in remote areas) whereas carbon dioxide and methane get up into the atmosphere and stay there for years so are distributed over the whole planet. I suspect that there is much more environmental harm caused on a global scale by particulate emission from car exhausts than there is from rare earth mining. While electric cars may not be the best solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from transport they are, and will be for the next 15-20years at least, the best solution for reducing our carbon dioxide emissions.
Just ordered an Enyaq coupe. will it be better or worse for the environment than a ‘traditional’ car, who knows.
It matters a lot on what is being compared. A small ICE car compared to a small electric car would probably break even quicker. A small ICE car compared to a large electric SUV takes a lot longer to break even. What is being compared matters a lot on how long it takes to break even. In other parts of the world it's probably different, but here in the US a lot of people go for the ginormous electric cars which use more batteries, and use more electricity to move around. And they switch to the big SUVs "to be green"... and yes, they're in the long run more efficient than if they drove ICE SUVs but it takes a number of years before being better than just driving a smaller car that wasn't electric.
When making the comparison I assumed that you swapped like for like, according to your needs. I hadn't allowed for Americans. In the UK people are tending to choose electric cars based on range but that seems to be more controlled by battery efficiencies, which are improving all the time.
Range is a major factor here too (especially when you consider how many people commute 30+ miles by car one way to work)... but studies show that people who are going for electric vehicles tend to be swapping smaller car ICEs for larger electric SUVs which is greatly eating into how much it actually is helping the environment. People who were already driving gas guzzlers are not the early adopters. Some vehicles like the F150 lightning and the Humvee (and presumably the upcoming Tesla Cybertruck) are so bad to start with, if people are switching from a 30 to 40 mpg car to them it will take many many years for them to offset their initial damage to the environment. Of course, taking pollutants off the streets where people live and concentrating them at some factory somewhere is probably a good thing (for people if not the environment).
Indian's lunar lander not woken up, after being put to sleep for two weeks, to protect from the harsh conditions of the two week long lunar night. It was supposed to have woken up on the 22nd Sept - they will keep trying until the 30th Sept. It's claimed it had already exceeded expectations before being put in sleep mode.
Tbph I don't know, I hadn't really followed it much, well I knew they had put it to sleep, it was only when I was browsing google recommendations I found it hadn't woke up. I'd been looking at some videos of Saturn and the click bait was how it's rings are disappearing, they leave it until the end of the video to tell you in about 25 millions years, even that conflicts with others who say 100 million years lol - maybe they are disappearing quicker than originally expected. Anyway back to the moon, did they find what they were looking for, well I've not seen them shouting very loudly about it if they did, but maybe they don't want to share their research findings publically.
I remember them saying they went to the south pole of the moon (others had tried and failed) because they were looking for water/ice and that could mean life or a way of making fuel not sure how. As it stands I'm going to go out on a limb and say they just found craters and decided to save on the electricity bill
They probably steered it over the edge of a crater and don't want to admit it, so say instead it will not wake up. I don't know if they've actually gained anymore knowledge than what they already know, that the minerals/rocks/other ****te, creates water molecules. Still humans like fighting over baron landscapes.
