MadCat360

MadCat360 t1_j1c4ldv wrote

Sure sounds like you're saying you're not complicit because you buy the products from the companies listed in the lawsuit. Sounds like you are complicit to me. That's why there's a lawsuit.

Cobalt free batteries exist and are being implemented. I wouldn't be surprised at all if cobalt in batteries gets banned in the next 10 years as a stepping stone to 100% EV sales.

For the record I do not support 100% EV only sales. For most people that drive less than 40 miles a day, a plug in hybrid with 30-50 miles of EV-only range is much more resource conscious. I personally drive 150 miles per work day, so I need a full EV with that range. And because the average driver doesn't need it (the resources for those large Tesla batteries that get used maybe 20 miles a day is a big waste), I think you'll see the government back off on the EV sales once more of the market gets saturated to the point where the manufacturing pressure from impending legislation isn't required.

Also, your attempt to expose my virtue signaling is hilarious. I fly big gas guzzling airplanes for a living. I'm not an eco warrior. I'm buying an EV because it's gonna save me 4k a year vs my current car.

2

MadCat360 t1_j1biw76 wrote

Most of the cobalt is used in shit you already buy and use every day. If you're gonna go after EVs for being unethical because a small amount of the current battery technology is using cobat, then drop your laptop in a lake.

By the way, significant money is being invested by the US and almost every car manufacturer like Tesla to go cobalt free in EV batteries.

4

MadCat360 t1_j1az5vz wrote

They edited their post after I replied. But ok.

Many apartment complexes have charging stations. My complex has level 3 stations that charge an average car in under 2 hours. If a charger is not available for you, you can buy a used hybrid or ICE.

Full lifecycle of batteries is between 300 and 500k miles. After a full battery lifecycle an EV is still between 6% and 20% more energy and carbon efficient than an ICE depending on what the grid uses to charger those EVs. There are numerous studies reporting this.

I make 50k a year. Definitely not 1%. I just ordered a brand new Bolt. Why? Because my ICE Audi costs 35 cents a mile and I drive 25k miles a year. For the same cost as I'm spending on gas and maintenance, I could simply have a newer more valuable car (my Audi is worth about 6k now after 200k miles) and I can increase my net worth while consolidating my vehicle costs into one payment each month. My charging is free at my apartment. Do you understand that this is only for new cars, and that you will still be able to buy a a used car if you can't afford a new one?

Your last point misses what I was trying to say. Worst case, if you replaced every car on the road with EVs, AND made them charge at peak times (worst case scenario), it's still only 30% more draw than now.

13

MadCat360 t1_j1afh6f wrote

Edit: you edited your post, so I will preface by saying I wrote this when you only argued infrastructure in your comment.

There's an Engineering Explained video that debunks this. Even if you replace all vehicles on the road with EVs, and make them all charge every day at peak times, it's only 30% more draw than current. If you incentivize people to charge overnight or in the mornings by varying kWh cost based on usage, then the charging overhead needed for entire fleet replacement fits within the current infrastructure. Also realize that refineries take shit tons of power, so if those are not working as much to provide gasoline, then that frees up more electrons for EVs.

24