[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Ok you’re definitely just trolling now

Therein lies the problem. You are not being trolled, Efthreeoh is serving up a truth bomb. We think too much of our minuscule existence in the history of the planet. Our hubris thinking that we can alter the course of planetary evolution by buying EV's. is pathetic, sad and cult like.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

First error: unanimous - Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. The science is NOT settled. it never is.

Never said the science was settled lol

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Therein lies the problem. You are not being trolled, Efthreeoh is serving up a truth bomb. We think too much of our minuscule existence in the history of the planet. Our hubris thinking that we can alter the course of planetary evolution by buying EV's. is pathetic, sad and cult like.

Strawman, try again

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Never said the science was settled lol

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

It has become predictable that certain groups when faced with facts that refute their position will resort to name calling. I take that as win generally.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by fcman

Never said the science was settled lol

Really?

Originally Posted by fcman

Taking precautions based on current unanimous scientific analysis and observing the impact.

Don't feel bad "The Science is Settled" has always been the fall back position of those that can't defend their position.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

It has become predictable that certain groups when faced with facts that refute their position will resort to name calling. I take that as win generally.

And that's the issue. Such groups who think humans are smart enough to control the climate need to be specific as to why they think so and how they are going to move the climate to a state they deem correct. They need to have a target climate (a corresponding CO2 ratio according to them), and then account for how their solution counter acts all the natural forces that change the climate. The fossil evidence points to all species either adapt to the climate (change) or go extinct from climate change. When a group starts to believe it can manipulate the climate to prolong human existence, then it is axiomatic that they are going to make the climate static.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What I'm trying to find out from such people is how they developed their plan for the climate and how they are going to execute the plan. You are retired and I'm a few years out from retirement. All I've heard about the Plan (i.e. the US Green New Deal) is we have just a few years left of massive carbon output before we "reach the point of no climate change return" and hundreds of trillions of dollars in spending to avoid the point of no return. A "few short years" and "hundreds of trillions of dollars" means printing money in quantities far more than the US GDP (and Canada's GDP) can produce let alone support within the climate catastrophe point of no return timeframe. That means your retirement funds and my retirement funds get devalued; that is the serious shit going on here.

Forcing EV on everyone is just the start with these people.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And that's the issue. Such groups who think humans are smart enough to control the climate need to be specific as to why they think so and how they are going to move the climate to a state they deem correct. They need to have a target climate (a corresponding CO2 ratio according to them), and then account for how their solution counter acts all the natural forces that change the climate. The fossil evidence points to all species either adapt to the climate (change) or go extinct from climate change. When a group starts to believe it can manipulate the climate to prolong human existence, then it is axiomatic that they are going to make the climate static.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What I'm trying to find out from such people is how they developed their plan for the climate and how they are going to execute the plan. You are retired and I'm a few years out from retirement. All I've heard about the Plan (i.e. the US Green New Deal) is we have just a few years left of massive carbon output before we "reach the point of no climate change return" and hundreds of trillions of dollars in spending to avoid the point of no return. A "few short years" and "hundreds of trillions of dollars" means printing money in quantities far more than the US GDP (and Canada's GDP) can produce let alone support within the climate catastrophe point of no return timeframe. That means your retirement funds and my retirement funds get devalued; that is the serious shit going on here.

Forcing EV on everyone is just the start with these people.

My wife and I have worked hard, been responsible with our money and saved for our retirement and our fear is the economic damage the greening of the economy will do will decimate our savings. For a great many others the impact will be much much worse.

[Car-Addicted]

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Unanimous:

Def. (of an opinion, decision, or vote) held or carried by everyone involved

If the same opinion is held by everyone involved, then by definition the opinion is accepted by everyone and therefore settled; meaning there is no debate about the opinion left to be had. If the opinion has to do with a scientific principle or theory, then the science is considered "settled".

Strawman:

Def. Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat.

In my post #2949 under discussion regarding "trolling", none of what I wrote is a logical fallacy. You stated there is a risk to ignoring the unanimous scientific consensus the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forces. I simply asked what are the risks and who is at risk. Your answer is "Efthreeoh is now just trolling". Yup, to make the discussion about risk clear, I referenced the plot of the environmental disaster move The Day After Tomorrow. Perhaps you didn't get the reference; though I would think someone so concerned about climate change would be familiar with the work. I found the movie comical, which is why I used it as a reference with comical conjecture. Especially comical was the scene when the Vice President character mimicking (mocking?) Dick Cheney gets sucked out of the White House by the giant frigid vortex cyclone hurricane.

Efthreeoh the "Flat Earther" "Luddite" wants to know what is at risk, who is at risk, and when date certain the risk is going to come to fruition.

Hey good job, you looked up the correct definitions. Unfortunately you still didn’t understand them.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

You make a good point, when you buy electronics like a TV you get charged a recycling fee when you pay. Maybe the same should be attached to EV's.

[David70]

Originally Posted by g21

You're point is we need to force change & better working conditions for the people working in these industries? Or what?

Like sweat shops in SE Asia, blood diamonds in Africa, dirty/polluting oil extraction technics (Chevron Ecuador, or anywhere there wasn't regulations), gold mines all over the world, Palm Oil in Malaysia, the answer isn't to move a giant industry out of poor country but instead force regulations and changes by the companies buying these products.

A 3rd world country with a new industry isn't helped by closing the industry, instead needs to be forced to by the buyers to meet certain requirements. All the people that are suddenly against EV's because of the social problems and wanting to be "green", is a joke.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Hey good job, you looked up the correct definitions. Unfortunately you still didn’t understand them.

Ever get the idea everyone else knows the definitions of words and uses them correctly in a sentence or paragraph to convey thoughts accurately and you don't?

[David70]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The cost to dispose of an electric car battery is $6,750. That means $4.50 per pound of the Tesla electric car battery. While industry experts say that it costs $90 to process a metric ton of the material coming from batteries.

https://electriccarexperience.com/co...c-car-battery/

The high costs of recycling means that these batteries will find their way into landfills.

"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."

Currently, for example, much of the substance of a battery is reduced during the recycling process to what is called black mass - a mixture of lithium, manganese, cobalt and nickel - which needs further, energy-intensive processing to recover the materials in a usable form.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Since the car manufactures like Nissan and Volkswagen are undertaking the recycling costs maybe this should be built into the cost of the EV and not shared with the ICE car production?

I don't have a problem with forcing manufacturers or consumers to pay for the processing or recycling. I think we will find that similar to building the first EV batteries, the cost will go down significantly with efficiencies/scale as time goes on. I also believe if they were forced to recycle/reuse the battery at the end of life they would do things to make it simpler when building the battery. They would also find ways to repair damaged batteries to delay the recycle cost.

While we are sticking the recycle cost on the EV, we should add a cost to all other major purchases for the parts that are difficult to recycle and force the industry to deal with them. TV's, computers, phones, car parts that aren't recycled, probably a long list.

One thing I have heard as a good suggestion is reusing the battery as a stationary power storage device. Your EV battery still has 40-50% of its capacity or the car is totaled, the battery gets put in a house to be used when the power goes out or as storage when you produce more solar than you are currently using. Doesn't get rid of the ultimate problem of eventual disposal but uses up more of the battery potential before it is done.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

I don't have a problem with forcing manufacturers or consumers to pay for the processing or recycling. I think we will find that similar to building the first EV batteries, the cost will go down significantly with efficiencies/scale as time goes on. I also believe if they were forced to recycle/reuse the battery at the end of life they would do things to make it simpler when building the battery. They would also find ways to repair damaged batteries to delay the recycle cost.

While we are sticking the recycle cost on the EV, we should add a cost to all other major purchases for the parts that are difficult to recycle and force the industry to deal with them. TV's, computers, phones, car parts that aren't recycled, probably a long list.

One thing I have heard as a good suggestion is reusing the battery as a stationary power storage device. Your EV battery still has 40-50% of its capacity or the car is totaled, the battery gets put in a house to be used when the power goes out or as storage when you produce more solar than you are currently using. Doesn't get rid of the ultimate problem of eventual disposal but uses up more of the battery potential before it is done.

It's an interesting topic from the perspective of 2nd tier ownership. The problem I see is the original new car buyer pays the bill for recycling the battery. That should be added into the total cost of ownership calculation, making the picture even worse for the potential EV fuel savings cost benefit. If the price for battery recycling is $6,750, that buys about 65,000 miles of gasoline (at current prices). Passing the $6.7K recycling cost on to the next (used car) buyer then makes the cost of purchase difficult to justify. It's literally a hot potato issue.

This is another check in the plus column for ICE. Auto recyclers pay for junk cars to recycle parts and then the raw materials, which are easily separated metals and plastics, because the value of the recycled materials is more than the processing cost.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ever get the idea everyone else knows the definitions of words and uses them correctly in a sentence or paragraph to convey thoughts accurately and you don't?

No, sorry, can’t relate

[Car-Addicted]

2018: I couldn't find more recent numbers.
80 Percent of EVs are Leased, Not Bought
EV values drop like a rock after three years. That makes them great buys on the used-car market, especially if the automaker warrants the battery at least five more years.
For contrarians and possible risk-takers, there's a strong argument in favor of buying EVs used. At three years of age, some sell for as little as 25 percent of their initial price and there are fewer wear parts, other than the battery. Most combustion-engine cars retain 35-55 percent of their value at three years of life.

I think this is a big issue. Once you start down the lease road it's hard to get back to purchasing a car as the down payment can be prohibitive. We all remember what it took to buy our first house.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

No, sorry, can’t relate

It was a rhetorical question...

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It was a rhetorical question...

Oh my bad, I thought you were having a moment of clarity and self awareness

[M5Rick]

What may happen when EB's are charged in your home
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=el...id:3EuO0ydJfgs

[M5Rick]

Another case of an EV catching fire while charging outside destroying a truck and another EV beside it.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=el...id:nsBgDXHVorE

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Oh my bad, I thought you were having a moment of clarity and self awareness

Precisely. Your misunderstanding definitions of words leads to such errors. Things you think are wrong, aren't. You've talked yourself now in a full circle, you must be dizzy.