[zain]

Originally Posted by Evansa22

Don't forget to throw in the issues with materials needed for the batteries ( un-environmentally friendly practices to mine the precious metals and limited quantities), as well as eventual disposal of said batteries. Developing nations are starting to get aggravated with the push for clean energy and the cost when the already developed nations are the ones trying to force it on them.

question: what is more damaging, using a car with a combustion engine for seven years or recycling a battery for an EV after the same period (assuming the EV used a renewable/green power source)?

[CCG Garnet Red]

Ford debuting new updated 2024 Mustang and 2024 model looks like death date #2 for Camaro. EV crazy gm gives up another car market. Very sad!

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by zain

question: what is more damaging, using a car with a combustion engine for seven years or recycling a battery for an EV after the same period (assuming the EV used a renewable/green power source)?

Green energy is a Hoax.

[CW3SF]

Originally Posted by Zybane

Nuclear is by far the best option right now. Yet almost the whole world is against it, crazy stuff.

Germany is really feeling the pain now of them shutting down their nuclear reactors.

Just to clarify on Nuclear …..Nuclear can only provide a base load, and they have to be scheduled start up, scheduled shut down, require scheduled maintenance outages…..ie, they are slow start up and slow shut down. To manage the grid and not suffer blackouts then power companies use (for lack of a better term) fast start up and fast shut down sources to manage requirements above and beyond the base load. The peaks and valleys of demand vs supply above the base load has to be massaged and balanced 24/7. Right now that’s gas and coal. Solar and wind might someday be used for that but it’s not there yet. Hydro has never been reliable enough to depend on for it either. They are not reliable enough 24/7 to depend on it for grid management.

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by CW3SF

Just to clarify on Nuclear …..Nuclear can only provide a base load, and they have to be scheduled start up, scheduled shut down, require scheduled maintenance outages…..ie, they are slow start up and slow shut down. To manage the grid and not suffer blackouts then power companies use (for lack of a better term) fast start up and fast shut down sources to manage requirements above and beyond the base load. Right now that’s gas and coal. Solar and wind might someday be used for that but it’s not there yet. Hydro has never been reliable enough to depend on for it either. They are not reliable enough 24/7 to depend on it for grid management.

Solar fields require massive amounts of land. Panels start to decrease efficiency with a think layer of dust on them,worse yet after 70° they lose 30% efficiency and it increase with every degree. The panels require sunlight so on a cloudy day there unless .Also solar panels produce a large amount of toxic waste at the end of there lifecycle.
The same can be said with wind turbines and needing lots of land. Animal lovers hate them due to killing birds. For me they are eye sores. Your also dependant on the wind for power so just like solar it can never be a primary source of power.

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by Slippy

Will you please provide sources when making statements that quote #s? I'd love to learn more about solar fields. The residential panels I'm familiar with typically have a power coefficient of -.26 to -.5%. Solar panels are tested at 25*C/77*F, that means for every 1*C increase over 25*C they generate that much less electricity.

https://www.thesolarnerd.com/blog/so...ent-explained/

Spec sheets are available on all the manufacture sites to corroborate the efficiency #s.

I'm only giving general numbers,every manufacturer is different.The coefficient number is not the efficiency percentage. The Coefficient is used as a multiplier . Multiply the degree celcius by the Coefficent number and that will give you your efficiency percentage. These are numbers when the panels are brand new, as they age they get worse.

[Jofu]

Originally Posted by raptor5244

They have supposedly have about 2.5M cars on the road. Assuming a very high take rate on that $9.99 Connectivity package, we are talking like $2.5B per month in recurring revenue.

That would be $25M per month, not $2.5B, right?

Geoff

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by zain

question: what is more damaging, using a car with a combustion engine for seven years or recycling a battery for an EV after the same period (assuming the EV used a renewable/green power source)?

Impossible to answer. One directly contributes to climate change through exhaust emissions and the other indirectly contributes due to the fact that 80 percent of our electricity is generated by burning coal and natural gas.

The rapid transition to EV's is perversely going keep the demand for electricity generated by coal strong for a long time. The coal lobby loves electric vehicles.

[Slippy]

Originally Posted by Dan82679

I'm only giving general numbers,every manufacturer is different.The coefficient number is not the efficiency percentage. The Coefficient is used as a multiplier . Multiply the degree celcius by the Coefficent number and that will give you your efficiency percentage. These are numbers when the panels are brand new, as they age they get worse. Where did you go Slippy? seems like you deleted your account??

Nah just deleted the post, didn’t seem like a conversation worth continuing with you using arbitrary general numbers. The power coefficient comment was in relation to “after 70° they lose 30% efficiency”. I’m not talking about the overall efficiency of the panel. What is the starting point before the 30% loss at 70*?

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by Slippy

Nah just deleted the post, didn’t seem like a conversation worth continuing with you using arbitrary general numbers. The power coefficient comment was in relation to “after 70° they lose 30% efficiency”. I’m not talking about the overall efficiency of the panel. What is the starting point before the 30% loss at 70*?

Solar panels Today are less than 30% efficient. So out of that 30% take off another 30% out of that when the temperature is above 70.


https://newatlas.com/energy/perovski...ciency-record/

[Slippy]

Originally Posted by Dan82679

Solar panels Today are less than 30% efficient. So out of that 30% take off another 30% out of that when the temperature is above 70.


https://newatlas.com/energy/perovski...ciency-record/

Solar panel efficiency is tested at 25*C/77*F. Most panels lose .25-.5% at every degree C increase. A panel operating in 70* weather would perform better than its efficiency rating.

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by Jofu

That would be $25M per month, not $2.5B, right?

Geoff

Yeah, I got carried away with number of zeros. I think I was confusing it with Elon's monthly income.

[Dan82679]

Originally Posted by Slippy

Solar panel efficiency is tested at 25*C/77*F. Most panels lose .25-.5% at every degree C increase. A panel operating in 70* weather would perform better than its efficiency rating.

Sure dude

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

Impossible to answer. One directly contributes to climate change through exhaust emissions and the other indirectly contributes due to the fact that 80 percent of our electricity is generated by burning coal and natural gas.

The rapid transition to EV's is perversely going keep the demand for electricity generated by coal strong for a long time. The coal lobby loves electric vehicles.

Agreed, it varies depending on power grid generation mix. This article covers it pretty good.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...asoline-models