Since i commute to work during peak time and with congestion inevitable, is hybrid cars is really worth the money? Say Toyota Camry Hybrid for example and other cars in the town what are the pros and cons of these hybrid cars?
Your thoughts please.
Pros and Cons of Hybrid Cars?
mkar18 on 10/11/2017 - 10:41
Last edited 10/11/2017 - 10:43
Last edited 10/11/2017 - 10:43
Comments
not just idling, more towards pressing your accelerator to build up speed from stationary but only to stop again after 10 meters.
of course, you can let your car roll slowly but you'll get honked for leaving such a big gap in front.
Well accelerating costs a battery powered car just as much.
@ninetyNineCents: not sure where you are coming from. Yes, accelerating uses the same amount of energy for the same amount of weight, but there is a significant difference in dollar cost between using petrol to get that energy, and using electricity. Then there is the difference in spinning up a petrol engine and an electric engine. Lots more moving parts in a petrol engine.
Except thats not what the replies above were trying to pretend. IM just trying to be honest that there are costs for all systems.
@ninetyNineCents: true, but the efficiency of an electric motor running from a battery is better than running off petrol. And before you comment on fossil fuel burning for battery charging, the process of finding, refining and transporting petrol isn't exactly free either.
true, but the efficiency of an electric motor running from a battery is better than running off petrol.
Says who ?
I have no problem with people making comments but at least be honest in your ALL replies.
And before you comment on fossil fuel burning for battery charging, the process of finding, refining and transporting petrol isn't exactly free either.
Another example of bullshit.
The environment cost of making ALL those batteries is a lot more damaging to the environment than burning petrol both by the car and at the refinery.
Burning petrol is actually a pretty clean process, its just the volume of those billions of cars/trucks/ships adds up to a lot of pollution. Batteries on the other hand are completely toxic, anywhere they get dumped becomes a dead zone.
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not…
The haze from one lifetime of burning petrol is not much compared to the dead zone created from disposing of a battery of the constituent components taht are used during the manufacturing process.
Try opening ONE or a few LIPO battery and placing it in your garden, and then try and grow something and see what happens. Burning a small amount of petrol or pouring it on the ground wont hurt anywhere near as much.
true, but the efficiency of an electric motor running from a battery is better than running off petrol.
Says who ?
says the laws of thermodynamics.
a lot of energy is lost in internal combustion engines, as obviously, they produce a lot of heat. so much heat that you need to cool the engine down. aside from that, there are lots of moving parts in an IC engine - and the more mass you have to move, the more energy you need to expend to do so, driving down overall efficiency.
The energy required to accelerate the car is the same but a portion of that energy can be recovered in a hybrid/EV by regenerative braking when decelerating. The energy cannot be recovered in a car with only an internal combustion engine (ICE).
Also, the output efficiency of an electric motor drive train can be close to 90%. The regenerative efficiency would also be quite high. The efficiency of an ICE drivetrain is ~20-30% at best. Also, the only reason why ICE can be more economical is that we do not price the cost of greenhouse gas pollution.
The energy required to accelerate the car is the same but a portion of that energy can be recovered in a hybrid/EV by regenerative braking when decelerating.
Thats completely untrue, if that was remotely true then the battery would never need recharging because what you lose on accelerating you gain on breaking.
Whatever regen braking gets back is a very small amount thats barely worth mentioning in the end.
Also, the output efficiency of an electric motor drive train can be close to 90%.
Yet again you fail to mention that batteries are no where near perfect at giving back what you put in.
Telling the truth is about telling everything not selected highlights.
The efficiency of an ICE drivetrain is ~20-30% at best
How come you didnt mention the efficiency of charging batteries ?
Also, the only reason why ICE can be more economical is that we do not price the cost of greenhouse gas pollution.
I never mentioned the economics of ICE, dont introduce red herrings.
I suggested you do some background reading, as you seem unfamiliar with the basic working principles of how electric motor batteries and EV/hybrids work. I wrote that a PORTION of the energy is recovered during regenerative braking, not all the energy. No one is talking about a perpetual motion machine. However, the recoverable portion can be around 50% which is not "barely worth mentioning in the end". This is possible because an electric motor acts as a generator when back-driven by an external energy source (in the case of regenerative braking, this is the inertia of the car). The efficiency in both motor and generator modes can be ~90%. An ICE is not back-drivable, so the energy can never be recovered. Its efficiency as an energy generator within a car drivetrain is also only ~%20-30 at best.
Furthermore, the charging efficiency of LI batteries can readily be 80-90%. As such the total system efficiency is much higher for electric cars compared to ICE cars. (hint: did you ever wonder why ICE cars make so much more noise and heat than electric cars?)
The only technical advantage of ICE cars is the order of magnitude higher energy density of the fuel compared to batteries.
I wrote that a PORTION of the energy is recovered during regenerative braking, not all the energy
And if you read my reply the amount "saved" is such a small amount its not worth mentioning. Its not going to double your range, so who cares.
However, the recoverable portion can be around 50% which is not "barely worth mentioning in the end"
Write complete sentences, 50% of what ? Im going to guess that it saves 50% of the energy during the braking process, which again is not a signiicantly part of the driving experience. It might get you an extra 1-2% range, so whats the big deal.
An ICE is not back-drivable, so the energy can never be recovered. Its efficiency as an energy generator within a car drivetrain is also only ~%20-30 at best.
Yet again you are making assumptions and ignoring other aspects of the total engineering experience.
I mentioned that batteries are also in efficient, and you have completely ignored this, pretending it does not exist.
After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning, do i really need to tell you how a battery capacity for a phone fades over a year or two ?
The only technical advantage of ICE cars is the order of magnitude higher energy density of the fuel compared to batteries.
Thats right, but we arent talking about that, you tried to pull a fast one and pretend taht electric motors are lighter so that makes them better a few comments ago.
Furthermore, the charging efficiency of LI batteries can readily be 80-90%.
Thats right "can" but can doesnt mean "always". batteries fade, tahts a fact, after a few years your old batteries will be doing 50% as comapred to when they are new.
Why dont you start telling us how poisonous to the environment the entire LIPO manufacturing process is ?
https://forums.tesla.com/en_AU/forum/forums/battery-charging…
Well, the general guideline is that the ~56kwh Roadster battery takes ~70kwh to charge. (approx) So figure 20% of input is lost to heat
Amazing how you tell porkies trying to deceive and forget to mention the weak points of electric cars.
I see no point discussing this topic further as you do not seem to understand many prerequisite concepts around electric and ICE automotive propulsion technology. Again suggest you do some reading on these topics. You will then begin to understand why essentially all automotive manufacturers have announced plans to transition to only hybrid/EV vehicles in the future.
I see no point discussing this topic further as you do not seem to understand many prerequisite concepts around electric and ICE automotive propulsion technology.
Look who is talking, the person who tells downright lies and exaggerates favourable factors of electric car systems and fails to mention major losses in battery charging/ discharging.
Again suggest you do some reading on these topics.
Well if you have done so much reading why dont you tell us how toxic the battery manuf process is.
You will then begin to understand why essentially all automotive manufacturers have announced plans to transition to only hybrid/EV vehicles in the future.
I know more than you do, the problem is you dont tell the whole truth about the matter.
You try and pretend electric cars are better in all ways without telling or acknowledging their weaknesses.
@qvinto: yeah don't bother arguing with that guy, pretty sure they think they have a PhD in "i-know-everything"
@ninetyNineCents: I don't think anyone is trying to pretend electric cars are better than ICE cars 'In all ways'. Yes, they do have weaknesses, but in overall efficiency of the vehicle while driving the electric car is more efficient. Whole of life is debatable, and I'm happy to be educated around that, but I think I'd rather do my own research than rely on your knowledge which seems limited.
A fully charged, electric car of similar weight and design to an ICE car full of petrol will be more energy efficient to put in motion using a similar driving style. The electricity to charge that car will also cost less than the petrol to fI'll for the same distance. How they get built and fuelled and the pollution emitted is very different and much more difficult to calculate the actual environmental and economical costs for each.
deng: yeah don't bother arguing with that guy, pretty sure they think they have a PhD in "i-know-everything
When did i say i know it all ? I didnt, our friend is just bitter and rude ignoring my questions about the batteries.
I didnt i simply asked him to tell me about the "cost" of manuf the batteries which our friend continued to ignore. The batteries are the big environmental cost in electric cars, its like if i pretended and excluded the environmental cost of burning all that petrol.
Being honest is about measuring ALL factors, and ignoring batteries AFTER i challenged him multiple times is dishonest.
A fully charged, electric car of similar weight and design to an ICE car full of petrol will be more energy efficient to put in motion using a similar driving style.
Yet again you are cherry picking what you want to talk abouit, and you dont jhave any facts that back this statement.
The manuf of the batteries requires an enormousa mount of energy, i think i saw somewhere the energy that goes in is MORE than the car uses in its lifetime. Of course i will have to google for it if you challenge me.
The electricity to charge that car will also cost less than the petrol to fI'll for the same distance.
Thats true but i can throw in another metric, the environmental cost of making the batteries.
Over a lifetime of driving, the environmental damage of an electric car because of the manuf of batteries is significantly more than the burning of the equiv amount of petrol.
How they get built and fuelled and the pollution emitted is very different and much more difficult to calculate the actual environmental and economical costs for each.
Thats right, so why do you keep forgetting to mention the environmental cost of manuf and disposing/recycling the batteries.
https://axleaddict.com/cars/Prius
The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.
This is only the "start" of the environmental cost of making those batteries. There are many other components in said batteries this line is only about the nickel. If we try a bit harder there are many other dead lands caused by the other components.
Read the rest of the article, turns out the Prius is WORSE than a HUMMER for the environment when all factors are considered.
This article only talks about the carbon debt of the manuf process. If we factor in ALL other processes, the hybrid is WORSE than a petrol car.
https://www.wired.com/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/As Matt Power notes in this month’s issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt — one you won’t pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.
@ninetyNineCents: OK, so a Prius has paid off it's debt by 46000 miles. 46000miles for a car is nothing in it's lifespan, so for the next 150,000miles you are ahead of the carbon game.
Where is that break even point for an ICE car? There isn't one, it will continue to use more fuel than any hybrid version that costs more to make.
Go and find me the same info on a Nissan Leaf? Then compare it with a petrol or diesel car. While you are at it can you show me that drilling for oil doesn't harm the environment? Can you point to where you can create petrol from sunshine or wind or any other sustainable source? Sure, both those have an energy cost to build, but so does an oil drilling rig. I'm not ignoring the potential environmental harm from battery production, but can you at least consider the other impacts of digging up dinosaurs and squishing them into a fuel tank.
Battery production has and will change over time, technology is improving and electric cars are the future. Burning dinosaurs is not.
OK, so a Prius has paid off it's debt by 46000 miles. 46000miles for a car is nothing in it's lifespan, so for the next 150,000miles you are ahead of the carbon game.
Yet again you havent been paying attention or reading or grasped that there are many costs for the many componets of manuf a hybrid/electric car.
The 46K is just the CARBON cost of all that shipping of electric car components.
46000miles for a car is nothing in it's lifespan, so for the next 150,000miles you are ahead of the carbon game.
No you arent. That figure is only with regards to the carbon cost of shipping during manufacturing the electric car.
You didnt read the cost of manuf the batteries themselves.
Battery production has and will change over time, technology is improving and electric cars are the future. Burning dinosaurs is not.
That will of course happen but today its not.
While you are at it can you show me that drilling for oil doesn't harm the environment?
Stop lying i never said oil doesnt harm the environment. I have admitted this multiple times above but it appears you dont know how to read.
Over a lifetime the environmental cost of a petrol car TODAY is less than a hybrid/electric car if we factor in EVERYTHING from manuf, to driving.
Try and stay in the spirit of being honst and stop inventing words and ideas that i have never said.
Can you point to where you can create petrol from sunshine or wind or any other sustainable source?
Did i say they could ?
The fact even if electricity was completely free and had no impacts on the environment, the batteries that travel with the car do.
So tell me why are you ignoring this fact ?
Sure, both those have an energy cost to build, but so does an oil drilling rig.
An oil drilling rig doesnt leave toxic chemicals in the soil that never go away.
You need to look at a periodic table and have a look at what column battery components like nickel and cadmium come from. Its the same column as arsenic. That column produces compounds that are deadly to life.
I'm not ignoring the potential environmental harm from battery production, but can you at least consider the other impacts of digging up dinosaurs and squishing them into a fuel tank.
I have, but you dont seem to understand the difference between poisoning the ground and the damage from an oil rig. Its about comparing the two and understanding that after a hundred years the environment around an oil rig will have mostly recovered, poisoning from heavy metal does not.
Let me spell this out to you very clearly.
Petrol and electric cars are both bad for the environment in different ways.
However if you scale the battery production required to replace all petrol cars today that would require many more battery manufacturing sites. Today we dont care or know much about the few mining sites and manuf plants for batteries. But imagine if that factor were increased by 100x times. Now the left overs from all those plants are going to leak untold amounts of heavy metals into the water, and thats going to REALLY hurt the environment.
Oil is bad for the environment, but heavy metals are even worse, they are REALLY bad…
@ninetyNineCents: nah, just can't be bothered anymore. You keep rabbiting on about making batteries, I'm trying to point out the efficiency of an electric drive system.
No stop bullshitting, you were clearly on the side that electric cars are better for the environment than petrols, because you were not aware nor did you care or bother too do the research and find the true total cost of both systems.
Typical loser, no grace to admit they were wrong, and as we have seen too stupid to both to try and do a 5 minute google and see the other side of the argument.
@ninetyNineCents: No, you read that into my responses. I never said that either is better or worse. You have gone to great extents to point out that batteries are toxic, which is true, but you also seemed misled about the energy efficiency of battery charging and electric engine efficiency. On top of that I wanted others to consider that getting the petrol into your tank also has significant economic and environmental costs that you were willing to avoid discussing.
Repeat:I never said that digging up dinosaurs and squishing them into a fuel tank was more or less polluting than digging up metals and making boxes to hold sparks in. I was commenting on the efficiency of the drive system.
Thank you for taking the time to point out the problems with battery production, maybe some others are more aware of how it works now.
Besides, the OP was not about saving the environment anyway, but saving fuel. Of which a hybrid, or electric will both do. One more than the other of course.
No, you read that into my responses. I never said that either is better or worse
Thats true you didnt explicitly say that.
However you were obviously trying to persuade that batteries were better for the environment,…
eg
Eu >> OK, so a Prius has paid off it's debt by 46000 miles. 46000miles for a car is nothing in it's lifespan, so for the next 150,000miles you are ahead of the carbon game.
You have gone to great extents to point out that batteries are toxic, which is true, but you also seemed misled about the energy efficiency of battery charging and electric engine efficiency.
Quote where i denied this efficiency, i simply said when the topic mentioned regen braking that this is a minor saving in the big picture.
:I never said that digging up dinosaurs and squishing them into a fuel tank was more or less polluting than digging up metals and making boxes to hold sparks in. I was commenting on the efficiency of the drive system.
I will grant that, i guess i was just disappointed that you didnt take the time to acknowledge and point out others who i was replying were wrong about their statements about how green electric cars were. For that i will apologise.
@ninetyNineCents: Wise words from a Physics professor: combustibles are great for heating, eccentricity is great for motors. So I think the efficiency of electric engines is much higher than combustion engine.
Efficiency of electric engines is higher in terms of conversion electric > kinetic.
You forget that the full conversion is chemical (coal) > electric > kinetic.
If you think that green energy can sustain the nation's electricity usage PLUS all consumer vehicles anytime this century (without going nuclear of course), you are kidding yourself.
Wise words from a Physics professor: combustibles are great for heating, eccentricity is great for motors. So I think the efficiency of electric engines is much higher than combustion engine.
The problem is you arent looking at the full picture, the cost in energy and the environment is not limited to what you see when you drive your car. Costs also exist in the maniufacturing phase of all said components.
The pollution from a single car is terrible but the environmental cost of one cars worth of batteries is 100x worse to the environment.
@CMH:
If you think that green energy can sustain the nation's electricity usage PLUS all consumer vehicles anytime this century (without going nuclear of course), you are kidding yourself.
That isnt true, today Germany is receiving 50% of all its electricity from solar, wind aka green energy. These numbers are increasing on a weekly basis. A few weeks ago, they got 100% of their electricity from green sources.
@ninetyNineCents: have you got some references for that? It sounds pretty extreme. If it is the case we shouldn’t be using mobile phones, laptops, cordless tools or anything else with a battery.
Is the environmental impact of a battery pack for a car measurably 100x worse than a lifetime of using petrol to drive a car? Or is it another made up figure? Does it take into account the process of finding, collecting, refining and distributing that petrol too?
have you got some references for that? It sounds pretty extreme. If it is the case we shouldn’t be using mobile phones, laptops, cordless tools or anything else with a battery.
Theres a big difference between the size of a mobile battery and the thousands in an electric car, the scale of battery between the two is 1000x.
You seem to have a problem understanding scale and comparing between items of a different scale.
Is the environmental impact of a battery pack for a car measurably 100x worse than a lifetime of using petrol to drive a car? Or is it another made up figure?
Again if you understand the toxicity of the battery components. DO i really need to tell you how toxic cadmium, arsenic, lead etc are on a quantity basis compared to petrol ?
Unfortunately all those components share a column in the periodic table and the attributes that make them great for batteries also make them toxic.
https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-ba…
In a 2013 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program concluded that batteries using nickel and cobalt, like lithium-ion batteries, have the “highest potential for environmental impacts”. It cited negative consequences like mining, global warming, environmental pollution and human health impacts.
Or is it another made up figure? Does it take into account the process of finding, collecting, refining and distributing that petrol too?
Another ?
How about you show some grace and stop calling me names and accusing me of lying after i actually provided proof for everything i said. Let me remind you of just how completely and utterly wrong you were in your dismissals of battery environmental effects as being insignificant.
@ninetyNineCents: yes, I really want you to tell me how a battery pack is “100x” more damaging than a life time of petrol usage.
I have no problem understanding scale, but if you are so worried about batteries being made for cars, then you should also be advocating to ban all of them.
selected highlights, remember today electric cars are a very small minority, now cscale these numbers if there were tens of millions of new electric cars and their batteries every year.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24…
A 2009 study published in PLOS One concluded that the global warming potential of mining and processing nickel was the eighth highest of 63 metals over the previous year.
The company has a lot of ground to make up – its home city of Norilsk is rated one of the most polluted cities in the world, thanks largely to the 350,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide emitted annually by the city’s nickel factory, which was decommissioned last year.
yes, I really want you to tell me how a battery pack is “100x” more damaging than a life time of petrol usage.
Thats fine, but dont call me a liar.
The problem is you dont understand or appreciate the difference between burning carbon and releasing shite like sulfur dioxide and heavy metals like cadmium , nickel etc. As i mentioned before if the number of mines increases to support a large adoption from a minor insignificant amount of electric cars to something of a large majority (say over 20%) we will need many many more of these mines and other manuf sites.
I dont think you understand or appriocate that heavy metals are 1000x worse than petrol. You can drink a little bit of petrol and you might get sick, but you wont die. Try a single bit of these heavy metals and you are in serious trouble.
Personally i think the answer is probably electric cars rather than petrol, but without the batteries. I dont know the answer but maybe the answer might be a overhead electric power system like a dodgem car or trolly bus, but nobody wants to pay for all that infrastructure.
@ninetyNineCents: come off it. Never said you were a liar either. Now you are calling heavy metals 1000x worse than petrol? Got some more science behind that? Yes, I don’t believe you. I do believe that heavy metals are toxic, I do believe that petrol is toxic but show me some evidence they are 1000x worse, please.
You’ve provided two links to news articles that spout about battery materials causing pollution, but they are hardly scientific and do not go any way to providing actual insight into how much more polluting those materials are than petrol. If you claim it is 100x worse you must have read that somewhere, send us all a link please.
Again, I agree with you that batteries use toxic chemicals and heavy metals but you have not provided any proof of the level of that toxicity compared to the pollution emitted by a petrol powered car. You obviously have researched it, but so far I haven’t seen your evidence.
… cadmium, arsenic, lead… Unfortunately all those components share a column in the periodic table and the attributes that make them great for batteries also make them toxic.
Ummm. No. Looked at the table lately? None in the same column. I’m happy to accept facts. I question everything when it is surrounded by misinformation. Edit: I’m not questioning toxicity here - cadmium is on completely the other end of the table to the other two and they aren’t in the same column either.
Sorry its not just one column, different columns have different attributes including toxicity.e
Yes, I don’t believe you. I do believe that heavy metals are toxic, I do believe that petrol is toxic but show me some evidence they are 1000x worse, please.
The toxicity of heavy metals is measured in milligrams, while according to a quick google 30ML is a toxic amount for petrol. The difference between those two amounts is 1000x.
I already gave you a link to a few guardian articles which have more details at the landscape from a few nickel mines. The most polluted (localized) place on earth is a Nickel mine in arctic Russia, and thats simple because of its size. Other nickel mines are also death zones.
You’ve provided two links to news articles that spout about battery materials causing pollution, but they are hardly scientific and do not go any way to providing actual insight into how much more polluting those materials are than petrol. If you claim it is 100x worse you must have read that somewhere, send us all a link please.
Thats because you dont understand that heavy metals once they enter the environment never go away, and continue to cause and kill life for a long long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metals#Environmental_hea…
That isnt true, today Germany is receiving 50% of all its electricity from solar, wind aka green energy. These numbers are increasing on a weekly basis. A few weeks ago, they got 100% of their electricity from green sources.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-green…
Germany breaks green energy record by generating 35% of power from renewables in first half of 2017
If you read into it a little deeper (not this particular article), almost 1/4 of renewable energy production in Germany is from Biomass (biofuels). May or may not be considered "green energy" depending on how pedantic you are.
In either case, nowhere near 50%, and no mention anywhere of 100% from green sources.
p.s. This article does state that in "certain sunny, windy days this year" Germany has produced 85% of its electricity from green sources. I'd like to see you drive your car only on sunny, windy days :)
@ninetyNineCents: So we need to deal with these heavy metals smarter. They are already coming from the environment, it's not like we create them from nothing. One of the news articles you linked mentioned 70% and 100% recyclability for batteries. Then on top of that we need to hold multinational corporations to account at all steps of the process to ensure the best environmental safety precautions are put into place. Unfortunately poor nations get carried away by the profits from mining and don't consider the future implications of the process.
@CMH:
This article does state that in "certain sunny, windy days this year" Germany has produced 85% of its electricity from green sources. I'd like to see you drive your car only on sunny, windy days :)
Well if you bothered to think a little there are ways to store energy, such as in Scotland where wind power is used to pump water back up to a dam for later use.
In AMerica they heat salt for later use at night in some places, cant recall the locations.
Its really pathetic that you dont think there are ways to store energy for later use.
and no mention anywhere of 100% from green sources.
Heres one when they hit 85%. Didnt bother to look harder for the days they did 100%.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/08/germany-breaks-solar-re…
So we need to deal with these heavy metals smarter. They are already coming from the environment, it's not like we create them from nothing
Yet again you dont understand basic chemsitry. Of course they are mined from the environment, but they are in more or less stable compounds ,while we transform them into other compounds many of which are extremely toxic.
. One of the news articles you linked mentioned 70% and 100% recyclability for batteries
Well its not that simple because, we have to be practical and appreciate the reality of what happens today where such mining and manufacturing occurs. and those places are a toxic disaster.
Then on top of that we need to hold multinational corporations to account at all steps of the process to ensure the best environmental safety precautions are put into place.
Well lets talk reality not hypothetical bullshit.
If we want to play these games we could also pretend that fossil fuels can be much better and less polluting but that doesnt happen either. We have to be truthful to reality.
@CMH:
Perhaps its not all from a perfect green energy source, i wont argue with, but all things considered its bloody good progress and shows what can be done with will power and some money.
https://energytransition.org/2016/05/germany-nearly-reached-…
One of the news articles you linked mentioned 70% and 100% recyclability for batteries.
Talk about double standards. You claim stats that have never happened on any real scale and certain never by any electric car manuf and their batteries. However i show real world examples and numbers that have been achieved sometimes and you jump up and down.
Come on try and be fair, everything i have said is true without bullshit including the claims of the toxicity of batteries.
@ninetyNineCents: No, not everything you said is true and not everything is without embillishment.
One thing stands out in particular, and that is your claim that the heavy metals are in the same column in the periodic table when clearly they are not.
You also claimed that "Electrical motors waste a lot of energy making magnetic fields." and "A lot of energy is also lost by electrical engines, in other ways." when the efficency for electric motors is 80-90%. Compared with ICE efficiency of 30-40% electric motors certainly do not "waste a lot of energy".
Have a look at this: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/comparing_the_bat… as well. Then link through to the capacity link.
You mentioned "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning" when another poster mentioned " the charging efficiency of LI batteries can readily be 80-90%"
Modern lipos can be charged at 99% efficiency and cycled up to 5000 times up to 8 years with near full capacity during that time. It depends on how you build and charge them. Car batteries are designed for long life. Phone batteries designed for high capacity and will have a diminished life because of that (3yrs)Again, I'm not refuting the toxicity of heavy metals, but pointing out your wild claims that led to me questioning everything you said. You can't expect to be fully believed when you include things that are obviously erroneous.
One thing stands out in particular, and that is your claim that the heavy metals are in the same column in the periodic table when clearly they are not.
You dont understand that the columns or groupings amongst many other attributes also include the outer ring of electrons for elements. Some elements want to take electrons others want to give, and in our discussion cd, ni and others are often on opposite sides because some are anodes and others are cathodes.
All batteries need compounds from "groups" from opposite sides of the table, thats what a battery is, the problem is you dont have any basic understanding of chemistry. I dont want to spend more on every little detail if you want to understand batteries go read wiki.
You mentioned "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning" when another poster mentioned " the charging efficiency of LI batteries can readily be 80-90%"
Have a look at this: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/comparing_the_bat… as well. Then link through to the capacity link.
Perhaps you should have lookd a bit harder at that very site…
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/hybrid_electric_v…
Figure 4: End-of-life battery capacity of HEVs. At 256,000km (160,000 miles), the two Honda Civic vehicles had 68% capacity, the Insight had 85% and the Prius had 39%. The capacity fade did not affect the fuel efficiency by much.
Its unforgivable that you didnt know LIPOs and all batteries fade. We all have mobile phones and know after a year or two the phone charge doesnt last as long as when it had a new battery.
It depends on how you build and charge them. Car batteries are designed for long life.
Except this claim is based on ZERO evidence, while my claims are yet again true. I present the graph showing numbers for numerous major hybrid car manuf.
You can't expect to be fully believed when you include things that are obviously erroneous.
I have shown multiple times my claims are true, without a single failure. On the other hand you have been wrong multiple times as pointed out by me in several replies including this one.
See a pattern ?
I have shown multiple times my claims are true, without a single failure.
Back to the periodic table, you claimed they were in the same column. A simple thing to check. You don't need a basivc understanding of chemistry to prove that poiont wrong, juist to lok at the table. Perhaps if you weren't so adamant that everything you said is correct I could let this slide. Yep, I get that the chemistry requires complementary elements to create a compound, but THEY ARE NOT FROM THE SAME COLUMN. Heck, you are now even saying that some are anodes and some are cathodes - Not the same!
Additionally you've claimed "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning". But it is fairly clear that at 250,000km the batteries were at 68%, 85% and 39% - here's the kicker though, both vehicles have NiMh battery packs. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Stop clutching at straws and claiming EVERYTHING you said is correct when it clearly isn't. You have an agenda to discredit batteries for electric vehicles, I would respect that, but you clearly are making claims that are incorrect.
And just to be sure, back quite a few posts I decided I'd given up, but now I'm not going to. You obviously have some knowledge, but it seems that it is dangerous knowledge, kinda like the anti-vaxxer claims.
Question me as much as you like, just be honest and admit when your wrong.
I'll be happy to, but you'll need to admit you were wrong too.
But thankyou, I've learnt a bit more about li-ion battery efficiency and different battery types. Think I'll accelerate my plans to re-build an old petrol car with a modern, efficient electric drive system - it'll save a lot of embodied energy over buying a new car.
Back to the periodic table, you claimed they were in the same column. A simple thing to check. You don't need a basivc understanding of chemistry to prove that poiont wrong, juist to lok at the table.
No you failed to understand i made a generalised statement and made the mistake of listing multiple heavy metals. I was just trying to point you in the direction to understand why all these compounds are toxic.
Additionally you've claimed "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning". But it is fairly clear that at 250,000km the batteries were at 68%, 85% and 39% - here's the kicker though, both vehicles have NiMh battery packs. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
All batteries fade, thats a fact. SO what if i gave one example with lips, this article shows the same is true of NIHM. THis is quite different from your bullshit where you stated 99% and failed to acknowledge and still do here, that batteries fade.
Simple facts are i said batteries in cars fade to 50% after a few years, how exactly am i wrong ? THe article matches what i said.
Stop clutching at straws and claiming EVERYTHING you said is correct when it clearly isn't.
Except you are wrong yet again in this last reply.
You obviously have some knowledge, but it seems that it is dangerous knowledge, kinda like the anti-vaxxer claims.
Typical loser, you start with personal attacks, i guess its hardly a surprise considering how many times you have been shown to be wrong. Its also sad you dont have the grace to admit you were wrong.
Heck, you are now even saying that some are anodes and some are cathodes - Not the same!
You are an idiot, a battery needs both to make it "work". I never said cathodes and anodes were the same in purpose at all, i simply said some of those metals are anodes and the other lot are cathodes. I never said which were which.
Except you are wrong yet again in this last reply.
You have been wrong getting close to a dozen times. The problem is you are misrepresenting what i said. Next time you claim im wrong, QUOTE WHAT I SAID and then make the correct. Dont put words into my mouth that i never said.
Typical loser
You are an idiot
So you've degraded to calling me names. Nice work.
No you failed to understand i made a generalised statement and made the mistake of listing multiple heavy metals. I was just trying to point you in the direction to understand why all these compounds are toxic.
Thankyou for correcting your initial mistake.
a battery needs both to make it "work". I never said cathodes and anodes were the same in purpose at all, I simply said some of those metals are anodes and the other lot are cathodes. I never said which were which.
But you had stated that the elements were the same column (now corrected, thankyou) If you had mentioned that difference initially there would have been no argument.
All batteries fade, thats a fact. SO what if i gave one example with lips, this article shows the same is true of NIHM. THis is quite different from your bullshit where you stated 99% and failed to acknowledge and still do here, that batteries fade.
Simple facts are i said batteries in cars fade to 50% after a few years, how exactly am i wrong ? THe article matches what i said.
The article does not match what you said. the 99% I referred to was the charging efficiency of the batteries. ie 99% of the energy put into them goes to charging, for lead acid it was lower (80%?).
As for battery fade, you have mixed your messages, I acknowledge that batteries fade, but not to 50% and not in a few years. 8 years is not a few. Li-ion batteries used in cars will have much more than 50% capacity after 'a few years' due to their construction and charging. 5000 cycles is more than a few years, daily cycle would be 13 years- assuming a proper temp control and charge /discharge cycle.
yes I'm being pedantic, because you are being overly general but using numbers in your generalisation that do not match the facts in the article.
QUOTE WHAT I SAID and then make the correct.
I've been quoting your work, and correcting it. I'm not an idiot. I've never said you are completely wrong, just pointing out where you are since you so adamantly claimed that EVERYTHING you say is correct.
@ninetyNineCents: “We’re shifting pollution, and in the process we’re hoping that it doesn’t have the environmental impact,” says Abraham. He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.)
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not…
So you've degraded to calling me names. Nice work.
No im using a label that accurately describes your replies. You take things that i said then invent other claims without any backing proof via quotes or links to articles.
Additionally you've claimed "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning". But it is fairly clear that at 250,000km the batteries were at 68%, 85% and 39% - here's the kicker though, both vehicles have NiMh battery packs. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
When did i say cars use LIPO, i domt think i mentioned what type of batteries cars use at all ?
Where is the quote that i said this ?
The real fact or importance is not which type of batteries cars use, but the fact they fade and their replacement because of the mining and manufacturing process has an impact on the environment.
EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.)
Emissions are not the only pollution possible with electric cars, you should take a look at the mining and manufacturing plants that are involved in the process of creating these batteries.
The mining and manufacturing of said batteries is extremely toxic. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here but this is an important environmental factor that needs to be included in the environmental impact of said cars.
The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees
Who ? SOrry arguments of aiuthority from societies or people nobody has ever heard of dont count, especially when they for whatever reason fail to mention the cost of making the batteries in the first place.
You might want to also read further articles from battery uni… its quite interesting and tells quite a dsifferent story from your rosy claims. You oversell your claims and fail to mention the negatives. A balanced and honest view includes both while you seem to want to play a game that demands every statement i make be perfectly qualified while you invent words that i have never mentioned.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/nickel_based_batt…
Limitations
Limited service life; deep discharge reduces service life
Requires complex charge algorithm. Sensitive to overcharge
Does not absorb overcharge well; trickle charge must be kept low
Generates heat during fast charge and high-load discharge
High self-discharge
Coulombic efficiency only about 65% (99% with Li-ion)@ninetyNineCents: thanks for the link. Nothing to do with Li-ion batteries which everyone is using now. Ni-cad and NiMH have had their day, it is superseded technology, for MOST applications.
Modern Li-ion batteries do require complex algorithms for charging and limits on discharge, but they charge efficiently and have quite low self discharge rates. Battery controllers are readily available for them. They do not suffer from the memory effect of nicad batteries and have much better service life.Note: I am not denying your claims about nicad or NiMH batteries, I actually agree about that.
Go and read about Li-ion Batteries, one of the links will lead to a section that mentions that Li-ion batteries are suitable for household waste, unlike nicad or NiMH due to much lower toxicity.
Yours isn’t a balanced and honest view, any more than mine is - and mine is clearly biased against your claims in order to correct some of your mistake. Again, I’ve never claimed that battery production is not toxic, just corrected some of your claims about chemistry and the efficiency of battery charging and electric motors.
@ninetyNineCents: in case you missed it:
He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles
The real fact or importance is not which type of batteries cars use, but the fact they fade and their replacement because of the mining and manufacturing process has an impact on the environment.
Yes, which type of batteries makes a big difference. Nicad, NiMH are the wrong type of batteries, they fade, badly. Lead acid is only just ok, the are heavy and not particularly efficient, but they can be recycled relatively easily. Li-ion has good characteristics. Favourable charge efficiency, good current output, no need to fully discharge before recharging, less fade (not none, but much less than NiMH. Li-ion also have different types, as mentioned before. The ones in phones etc are designed to be really efficient but with a 3yr lifespan. The ones for cars have a bit less capacity, but normally 2000 cycles and under ideal conditions up to 5000 cycles. It is in one of the links I previously posted.
Additionally you've claimed "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning". But it is fairly clear that at 250,000km the batteries were at 68%, 85% and 39% - here's the kicker though, both vehicles have NiMh battery packs. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
So are you going to deliver the quote where i said cars use LIPOs or are you going to apologize for yet another mispresentation of my statements.
Nicad, NiMH are the wrong type of batteries, they fade, badly. Lead acid is only just ok, the are heavy and not particularly efficient, but they can be recycled relatively easily. Li-ion has good characteristics.
So tell us more about these good characteristics and also concentrate on the environmental cost.
Yours isn’t a balanced and honest view, any more than mine is - and mine is clearly biased against your claims in order to correct some of your mistake. Again, I’ve never claimed that battery production is not toxic, just corrected some of your claims about chemistry and the efficiency of battery charging and electric motors.
Your view is honest ?
Lets recall the important facts you "failed" to mention and then after i questioned you , you still fail to acknowledge them.
You failed to mention the energy cost in transporting /manufacturing batteries which according to one link ?
You also failed the mention the significant toxic impact of manuf nickel for batteries ?
The problem is you fail to mention to many negative things and exaggerate minor positives.
Yes, which type of batteries makes a big difference. Nicad, NiMH are the wrong type of batteries, they fade, badly. Lead acid is only just ok, the are heavy and not particularly efficient, but they can be recycled relatively easily. Li-ion has good characteristics.
The problem is LION batteries also have nickel…
but then again its obvious you know more than the US EPA, when they mention that they do and have environmental consequences, which you failed to mention when you tried to distant LION from other nickel based batteries.
https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-ba…
In a 2013 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program concluded that batteries using nickel and cobalt, like lithium-ion batteries, have the “highest potential for environmental impacts”. It cited negative consequences like mining, global warming, environmental pollution and human health impacts.
He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles
Thats right he "believes", go check a dictionary what the word means. It means you accept something truth without any foundation in facts.
That rightly explains the countless bullshit and lies, like his latest that LIONs are not an environmental concern because they are "different" when the US EPA says different.
@ninetyNineCents: if you are going to focus on nickel check what it is used for. From Wikipedia:
The global production of nickel is presently used as follows: 68% in stainless steel; 10% in nonferrous alloys; 9% in electroplating; 7% in alloy steel; 3% in foundries; and 4% other uses (including batteries)[8]
So are you going to deliver the quote where i said cars use LIPOs or are you going to apologize for yet another mispresentation of my statements.
Have a look at the quote before this reply. Your comments are quoted in it. Due to my formatting, it appears a bit old fashioned betweeen “ “, and commences with “after a few…”. Ok, if you are being pedantic you don’t actually mention cars.
So tell us more about these good characteristics and also concentrate on the environmental cost.
I mentioned the good characteristics, but you’ve truncated my quote. I’ll leave you to discuss the environmental costs, you have more knowledge than me in that area.
The problem is you fail to mention to many negative things and exaggerate minor positives.
While you are failing to acknowledge many positive things and are focussing on the negative aspects. Between us it must make the full set.
Have a look at the quote before this reply. Your comments are quoted in it. Due to my formatting, it appears a bit old fashioned betweeen “ “, and commences with “after a few…”. Ok, if you are being pedantic you don’t actually mention cars.
You LIED, just like you have LIED other times.
You invent words that i never said, then criticize me for those and you still dont have the grace or honour to say im sorry for lying.
99>> The problem is you fail to mention to many negative things and exaggerate minor positives.
E> While you are failing to acknowledge many positive things and are focussing on the negative aspects. Between us it must make the full set.
Again this is a lie. I have admitted quite a few times that some of your points are true.
You dont seem to grasp the idea that you can dismiss major problems by finding a minor insignificant positive.
I mentioned the good characteristics, but you’ve truncated my quote.
Typical you make a claim against me, and fail to provide evidence, in this case the original and my truncated quote. We all know that is because when the evidence is shown here, it will be another example of your dishonesty.
if you are going to focus on nickel check what it is used for. From Wikipedia:
The global production of nickel is presently used as follows: 68% in stainless steel; 10% in nonferrous alloys; 9% in electroplating; 7% in alloy steel; 3% in foundries; and 4% other uses (including batteries)[8]
Yet again you fail to appreciate the concept of scale, namely that if MORE batteries are produced these numbers will jump significantly and the effect to the environment.
@ninetyNineCents: @ninetyNineCents: if someone 'believes' something, that's doesn't insinuate whatsoever that he is running on blind faith, it could be based on any scientific truth or testing. If Issac Newtown believes in the laws of physics, does that make them not factual? Is he exercising faith? The fact is throughout this entire thread you have interpreted every single thing the way you want and twisted people's words to suit your argument. Anyone with year 3 comprehension skills knows exactly what this guy means when he says believes. Also you weren't even able to pick up that I wasn't talking about the person you are arguing with, I was pulling a quote from the story I linked to. It's clear to anyone that you are simply now being argumentative, and it really wouldn't matter what was put forward your mind is made up.
Should have just let them be. It has been a very interesting 2 days reading the posts of these 2.
The thread is practically dead already, and most of the time people's minds are made up. Both these guys aren't any different.
As for the facts, anyone who's after information about hybrids will find that they'll have plenty to wade through here, from the factual to the bs and everything in between. It is up to them to make their own further research into all the relevant facts and make their own judgment as to whether hybrids would suit them.
You LIED, just like you have LIED other times.
You invent words that i never said, then criticize me for those and you still dont have the grace or honour to say im sorry for lying.
I quoted your words. YOUR claim that Li-Po will drop to 50% capacity is a few years. Go back and find it. I did, it wasn’t hard to find, copy and paste it into my reply.
Additionally, have a look at the early posts in this thread. Who is getting all the negs? True, I negged the first 2 replies of yours, but not one since. Plenty of others seem to disagree with your comments.
Yet again you fail to appreciate the concept of scale, namely that if MORE batteries are produced these numbers will jump significantly and the effect to the environment.
Sure, increasing the production of batteries for cars will increase the proportion of the products used to create batteries, but 4% is a pretty low base, you be better focussing on stopping stainless steel productions and nickel plating being stopped if nickel is so bad.
What do you know about lithium, manganese and cobalt mining? (I know very little) these are the big components in electric car batteries now. Nickel is used much less - one of the points I’ve been trying to get across. Nicad and NiMH batteries are old tech and wouldn’t be used in car batteries in the future, they aren’t suitable.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_…No point sayin that. Deleted.
I quoted your words. YOUR claim that Li-Po will drop to 50% capacity is a few years. Go back and find it. I did, it wasn’t hard to find, copy and paste it into my reply
Here is what you said, notice the two GLORIUOUS mistakes from yourself.
Additionally you've claimed "After a few years your lipos will be running at 50% as compared to beginning". But it is fairly clear that at 250,000km the batteries were at 68%, 85% and 39% - here's the kicker though, both vehicles have NiMh battery packs. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT
68 + 85 + 39 = ~ 190 / 3 = 63% thats close enough to 50%.
Then you made a second mistake shouting at me that those cars are nihm and making a big deal that i supposedly said they were lipo.
Sure, increasing the production of batteries for cars will increase the proportion of the products used to create batteries, but 4% is a pretty low base, you be better focussing on stopping stainless steel productions and nickel plating being stopped if nickel is so bad.
I previously claimed you dont understand scales, and here again we have an example where you dont get it that more cars and more abtteries mean more nickel amongst the other nasties in battery production. This is the problem you are either dishonest or too stupid to understand the big picture.
We arent discussing nickel and steel production, thats out of bounds.
What do you know about lithium, manganese and cobalt mining? (I know very little) these are the big components in electric car batteries now.
Cobalt is another deadly toxin. Anything that is a good battery anode or cathode is also very deadly and toxic because the qualities that make it good for batteries also make it deadly and toxic.
Nicad and NiMH batteries are old tech and wouldn’t be used in car batteries in the future, they aren’t suitable
Except that isnt true, components in a LIPO battery still use Ni. The problem is if electric cars reach tens or hundreds of millions this will mean a significant increase in production and the toxicity effects to the environment.
I dont think you understand that while burning fossil fuels is bad, an equivalent increase in scale for batteries and all the side effects of their production, use and disposal is an environmental disaster. THe area around such sites is a dead zone, now imagine hundreds of them around the world just to participate in the battery supply chain.
Nickel is used much less - one of the points I’ve been trying to get across. Nicad and NiMH batteries are old tech and wouldn’t be used in car batteries in the future, they aren’t suitable.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_…yes you are right, but just imaging what a big amount of nickel will be required when there are hundreds of millions of electric cars with their thousands of batteries. Its a huge value.
Fossil fuels doesnt look so bad when you weigh the cost of all that and we havent even gone into detail about all the other costs. Nobody can deny the evil sof FF they are evident, but because electric cars are relatively small you dont appreciate their cost. If we could look back at them in a hundred years and see all the change and damage they required you wouldnt be able to say all the nonsense you are trying to sell with a straight face.
if someone 'believes' something, that's doesn't insinuate whatsoever that he is running on blind faith, it could be based on any scientific truth or testing
Well then its not faith if you have evidence.
If Issac Newtown believes in the laws of physics, does that make them not factual? Is he exercising faith?
He didnt believe in the laws, he Knew they were true. The Pricipia which outlines these laws and his observations and maths isnt a dozen pages, its very detailed. Theres no way you can say thats not evidence of some sort. Its far more evidence than people of faith have for believing their bullshit.
You insult the great man, when you use "faith:" theres a big difference in the support for Sir Isaacs brilliance and the bullshit in holy books.
Also you weren't even able to pick up that I wasn't talking about the person you are arguing with, I was pulling a quote from the story I linked to.
So what if you are, i was only correcting you because its simply wrong to mix faith and science together, one side has proof the other side is bullshit.
68 + 85 + 39 = ~ 190 / 3 = 63% thats close enough to 50%.
Then you made a second mistake shouting at me that those cars are nihm and making a big deal that i supposedly said they were lipo.
Nope. I was pointing out that you were claiming that lipo batteries will be at 50% after a few years then referring to a NiMH study. NiMH does not have similar characteristics to
And 63% is close enough to 50%? You’re kidding right. I’d love to be your accountant. You were trying to find something showing your 50% after a few years and you failed, on two counts. 1. NiMH is not lipo. 2. The average 63% is well North of 50% and 250000km is going to take more than a few years to run up at the average 20-25k per year.
You continually claim that I am being inaccurate and your statements are all correct. Are you calling the above accurate? No where near it.
We arent discussing nickel and steel production, thats out of bounds.
Why is steel production out of bounds? Nickel in steel/stainless uses 94% of nickel production is used for producing alloys of steels and aluminium. Give us some idea, with references how the production figures will change with the increase of battery production please.
The points I have been trying to get across are that battery efficiency is much better than you keep asserting. We won’t be replacing batteries ‘every few years’ any more. The batteries will have a lot better recycling opportunities which will help reduce (yes, not remove) environmental impact. We will use less fossil fuels in burning so we can use them for stuff like making plastic instead ofmaking co2 and smog.
The only reason I have kept going with this thread is that you have adamantly stated you are 100% correctwhwn you haven’t been … and for calling me an idiot and a liar.
I was pointing out that you were claiming that lipo batteries will be at 50% after a few years then referring to a NiMH study.
Thats trye i was using them interchangably, i didnt realise it mattered as they both fade.
And 63% is close enough to 50%? You’re kidding right. You were trying to find something showing your 50% after a few years and you failed, on two counts.
Its close enough, its far more accurate than your complete oversight in failing to mention this issue at all. Most people wouldnt consider it honest failing to mention a matter like this at all.
- NiMH is not lipo.
Does this even matter, does it matter that diesel isnt petrol for our discussions ? No it doesnt for our purposes they are the same.
- The average 63% is well North of 50% and 250000km is going to take more than a few years to run up at the average 20-25k per year.
Well considering you didnt mention it at all thats the same as batteries will remain 100%. WIth a value of 63, 50 v 100 is far more accurate.
The only reason I have kept going with this thread is that you have adamantly stated you are 100% correctwhwn you haven’t been …
Well i have been far more accurate than you, thats for sure. If anyone took both our writings, they would have a quite more realistic picture of the reality of batteries and electric cars than the picture you are trying to present.
and for calling me an idiot and a liar.
I called you an idiot because you demand perfection from my statements, and yet you are very lose with your own claims. Take for example our discussion regarding battery fading. I originally mentioned 50%, and the study avg is about 63%. You claim that my statement is wrong, and yet you say that the toxicity of nickel doesnt matter because NIHM batteries are old and irrelevant, failing to mention Ni is still present in LION batteries.
You are a liar , because you invent things i never said , and when i challenge you , continue to fail to provide quotes or do the honourable thing and admit you got it wrong.
Thers nothing wrong with being wrong, but LYING is another matter, doing so gets the label liar.
I called you an idiot because you demand perfection from my statements, and yet you are very lose with your own claims. Take for example our discussion regarding battery fading. I originally mentioned 50%, and the study avg is about 63%. You claim that my statement is wrong, and yet you say that the toxicity of nickel doesnt matter because NIHM batteries are old and irrelevant, failing to mention Ni is still present in LION batteries.
Funny. You clearly claimed that lipo fade to 50% in a few years, then pointed to a study on NiMH batteries that says it is 63% after 250000km (more than a few years) You can not compare NiMH and lipo for fade. I’ll be happy to see a lipo example showing 50% after a few years, but highly doubt you’ll find one. And I don’t know how you can claim it’s 50% particularly when two of the examples are much higher. It is not any where near 50% in a few years. It appears I’ll need to stoop to calling you the idiot for not understanding the difference in battery technology and for not acknowledging you posted a dud link to support you false claims over and over.
Never said nickel isn’t in lipo batteries, but it isn’t in the majority part of batteries suitable for electric vehicles. Did you even look at the link to lipo battery types? Sounds like you didn’t. Yes, there is one type out of four that donuse nickel in the Long life types.
Funny. You clearly claimed that lipo fade to 50% in a few years, then pointed to a study on NiMH batteries that says it is 63% after 250000km (more than a few years) You can not compare NiMH and lipo for fade.
The thing is i never compared them at all, of course im lying show me where i did.
I only started the fade example with lipos because we have all experienced this with our mobile phones. I then showed the study which you are mentioning. At no stage did i say lipos and nihm fade at the same rate, i will repeat at no stage did i say they fade at the same rate. This is another example of you not being able to read or trying to be too smart and lying.
Of course feel free to quote where i did say anything remotely like what you claim.
I’ll be happy to see a lipo example showing 50% after a few years, but highly doubt you’ll find one
Go ask any person in the RC hobby, we all have lots of LIPOs in that condition.
I just tried google with "lipos battery fade" and guess what a few posts from flyers saying exactly the same thing… I know its difficult to have my genius and trying obvious search terms…
> Never said nickel isn’t in lipo batteries, but it isn’t in the majority part of batteries suitable for electric vehicles Heres what you said when you dismissed the comments about Nickel based batteries. >> Euphemistic on 17/11/2017 - 15:57 @ninetyNineCents: thanks for the link. Nothing to do with Li-ion batteries which everyone is using now. Ni-cad and NiMH have had their day, it is superseded technology, for MOST applications. > It appears I’ll need to stoop to calling you the idiot for not understanding the difference in battery technology and for not acknowledging you posted a dud link to support you false claims over and over.Did you even look at the link to lipo battery types? Sounds like you didn’t. Yes, there is one type out of four that donuse nickel in the Long life types.
How typical as always you make accusations and fail to provide any quotes. Its amazing how often this pattern repeats, everytime you throw this bullshit in the air, you just never can provide a quote of my supposed mistake or misjudgement or lie.
The thing is i never compared them at all, of course im lying show me where i did.
I've done that several times. You can't compare Li-Po with NiMh. Sure, some lipos contain nickel, but they are not nickel based batteries. Nicad and nimh are nickel based batteries. Your link to nickel based batteries has nothing to do with lipo batteries, they would be lithium based batteries, to which I provided a link.
A few times I've tried to explain that there are different types of lipo batteries. Light weight high capacity, used in phones and probably RC flying things would aim to be max capacity at the cost of longevity. Batteries for vehicles are designed for longevity and can have up to 8yr life and 5000 cycles under ideal conditions. It is easier to manage the conditions with modern battery controllers/chargers.
Edit: Man I hate the quoting thing on this forum.
good for start stop traffics on EV mode.
you drink more fuel on start stop traffics when running petrol engine.