[Scrippy]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

There was an old saying that the solution to pollution is dilution. With enough dilution the pollution will "disappear". This is an example of the lifecycle emissions of ICE. You don't see it so it doesn't exist at least not in the degree the "experts" say it does.

An EV has a battery which will eventually have to be recycled. A battery is physically large and because you can see it the amount of waste must be significant.

These positions are illogical.

Not for nothing but do you not feel that these batteries will be harmful on a similar level as exhaust? Because I believe that to be illogical. Do you own an electric car and would that maybe be upsetting to hear? The numbers will be coming back to haunt us shortly. Nobody diacusses this and it’s alarming. Merely form of toxicity that does not affect air quality but does harm land water and wildlife that we aren’t accounting for. All we have done is change the waste and form of pollutants. I’m not trying to upset you my friend.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Scrippy

Not for nothing but do you not feel that these batteries will be harmful on a similar level as exhaust? Because I believe that to be illogical. Do you own an electric car and would that maybe be upsetting to hear? The numbers will be coming back to haunt us shortly. Nobody diacusses this and it’s alarming. Merely form of toxicity that does not affect air quality but does harm land water and wildlife that we aren’t accounting for. All we have done is change the waste and form of pollutants. I’m not trying to upset you my friend.

Ask yourself exactly how.

Btw... You do know that from an energy perspective it would be better to burn NatGas in a hybrid rather than use NatGas to create hydrogen for use in a fuel cell.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

Here’s an interesting take

Headline: “BMW, Toyota take a risky gamble on a failing product”

https://www.thestreet.com/automotive...amble-hydrogen

1/2 off and $15k worth of fuel, heck of a sales plan, can't wait for the new model. I guess I need to move to LA or San Francisco to get it, have to add that to the overall cost. If charging at home the EV is unlikely to cost $15k for electricity for the lifetime of the vehicle which shows how expensive hydrogen currently is.

Because high fueling costs have dampened the appeal of the Mirai, as of July 4, Toyota has been offering discounts of $33,000 off the top of the line Limited model, and $25,000 off the $50,190 sticker price of the base XLE model. Additionally, Toyota will throw in a hydrogen "gas card" worth $15,000.

[sammuller]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

.... Add that H2, once freed, is a gas with very low energy density it makes for a lousy fuel for vehicles.
.

Just want to jump in here and clarify: By weight/mass, hydrogen contains much more energy than almost any other fuel, however it is very voluminous (in gaseous state) so a certain amount of energy takes up much more volume than say a fossil fuel. The fuel tank in a car for a 400 mile range would take up more than 5 times the volume of the same energy in gasoline form. Not very easy to package...

In liquid form it gets much better but still not on par with fossil fuels and then you have the problem of long term storage. No matter how well you insulate the tank, you'll lose a substantial amount of fuel (=range) while you park your car at an airport for 2 weeks.

Look at the most powerful and efficient rocket engines. What is their fuel? Hydrogen! Pound for pound it packs more energy than anything else.

I do like the idea of hydrogen, but the storage and distribution are MAJOR obstacles. I am curious to see how the aviation industry, that is now trying out a transition to hydrogen, is going to tackle that problem.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Ask yourself exactly how.

Btw... You do know that from an energy perspective it would be better to burn NatGas in a hybrid rather than use NatGas to create hydrogen for use in a fuel cell.

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Interested in knowing where you got this and what it means.

Where does the other 70% go?

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Let's assume the figure is correct. The system can only absorb so much.

This is why C02 levels have been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by David70

Interested in knowing where you got this and what it means.

Where does the other 70% go?

Remember the Carbon cycle from grade school?

[Scrippy]

Oh I know, my buddies rock crawler runs on LPG. He likes it because he can never flood on extreme inclines or angles. But there is still spent gas coming out of the pipe, albeit much less. The conversion was easy and most motors can swap to this. But to be scared of the engineering needed to make hydrogen feasible is silly when it comes with the most acceptable byproduct. You know that Toyota did this already with the Mirai? You did nail it when you said it’s not known for performance but that’s what BMW and mostly all auto manufacturers do. They push the engineering into function. If it were my call……I’d like to stay with petrol because the sound and performance is amazing. Not to mention the motors are runnining cleaner and cleaner with each iteration. I guess all I’m getting at is that it could be done and will be done.

[David70]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Remember the Carbon cycle from grade school?

Hard to believe only 30% is absorbed and 70% isn't. I realize he said "today" but tomorrow will be another day of 30% absorbed and 70% that isn't. Seems far worse than I would have expected. Imagine someone that said that each day they burn 30% of the calories they take in each day.

Still interested in hearing where this number came from.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Interested in knowing where you got this and what it means.

Where does the other 70% go?

It means that 30% automobile exhaust gets recycled immediately while the chemical components of an EV battery do not get recycled until the battery enters the automotive waste stream, which is decades.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Let's assume the figure is correct. The system can only absorb so much.

This is why C02 levels have been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Less cities and more forest...

The accumulation and what it means is at the center of the debate of course. Saying it is increasing means nothing really. Deciding on what is a proper or correct level in the atmosphere is just a guess.

CO2 is good. It just depends on how you look at it. I plan on exhaling it for the rest of my life. To help the trees of course.

[Efthreeoh]

Wag more, bark less.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Let's assume the figure is correct. The system can only absorb so much.

This is why C02 levels have been increasing dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Even if this were true, it could be easily dealt with through the global greening that results.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Hard to believe only 30% is absorbed and 70% isn't. I realize he said "today" but tomorrow will be another day of 30% absorbed and 70% that isn't. Seems far worse than I would have expected. Imagine someone that said that each day they burn 30% of the calories they take in each day.

Still interested in hearing where this number came from.

The terrestrial carbon sink.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by sammuller

Just want to jump in here and clarify: By weight/mass, hydrogen contains much more energy than almost any other fuel, however it is very voluminous (in gaseous state) so a certain amount of energy takes up much more volume than say a fossil fuel. The fuel tank in a car for a 400 mile range would take up more than 5 times the volume of the same energy in gasoline form. Not very easy to package...

In liquid form it gets much better but still not on par with fossil fuels and then you have the problem of long term storage. No matter how well you insulate the tank, you'll lose a substantial amount of fuel (=range) while you park your car at an airport for 2 weeks.

Look at the most powerful and efficient rocket engines. What is their fuel? Hydrogen! Pound for pound it packs more energy than anything else.

I do like the idea of hydrogen, but the storage and distribution are MAJOR obstacles. I am curious to see how the aviation industry, that is now trying out a transition to hydrogen, is going to tackle that problem.

That's what I said... summarized of course.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The terrestrial carbon sink.

Neither say anything about automotive CO2 and both are talking about role forests play in the the total CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Even if this were true, it could be easily dealt with through the global greening that results.

No it won't because the amount of emissions continues to grow. This is why companies are working on sequestering carbon.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Neither say anything about automotive CO2 and both are talking about role forests play in the the total CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Ah, another internet argument that requires a thesis paper...

The terrestrial carbon sink (forest) consumes "about 30% of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels" (read in the attachment to my previous post). NASA states "Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions" by photosynthesis (read in the attachment to my previous post). NOAA states about 31% of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's oceans. The ocean can sequester CO2 for hundreds or even thousands of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, the source of the CO2 is immaterial to the discussion; all CO2 sources mix together in the atmosphere.

So, add the terrestrial carbon sink with the ocean carbon sink and that's around 60% of automotive emissions are recycled by mother earth. 60% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation are also recycled by mother earth. Mother earth doesn't recycle the toxic chemicals in EV batteries. In fact, once EV battery recycling comes on line in significant capacity, that industry will produce additional carbon emissions because most recycling activities require energy for the recycling process.

Believe the science.

We need more forest, more oceans, and less cities.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, another internet argument that requires a thesis paper...

The terrestrial carbon sink (forest) consumes "about 30% of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels" (read in the attachment to my previous post). NASA states "Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions" by photosynthesis (read in the attachment to my previous post). NOAA states about 31% of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's oceans. The ocean can sequester CO2 for hundreds or even thousands of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, the source of the CO2 is immaterial to the discussion; all CO2 sources mix together in the atmosphere.

So, add the terrestrial carbon sink with the ocean carbon sink and that's around 60% of automotive emissions are recycled by mother earth. 60% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation are also recycled by mother earth. Mother earth doesn't recycle the toxic chemicals in EV batteries. In fact, once EV battery recycling comes on line in significant capacity, that industry will produce additional carbon emissions because most recycling activities require energy for the recycling process.

Believe the science.

We need more forest, more oceans, and less cities.

If what you said in the first statement made sense I wouldn't have questioned it.

About 30% of automotive CO2 gets recycled into O2 every day.

What you should have said- - 30% of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests.

As for the disposal problem, you are acting like CO2 is the only pollutant ICE is producing. Note the brown haze that hangs over most major cities that we breath in. Batteries, if recycled, disposed of properly I won't ingest any of it.

As for the net result of batteries, there are ways to recyle most of the battery, there are ways to dispose of the waste properly. Plastics don't decay in a reasonable amount of time, neither does nuclear waste.

No idea what you are proposing with the "we need more forest, more oceans, and less cities" --- We aren't getting more oceans, if everyone from the city left and went to the country it would be far worse for society.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Less cities and more forest...

The accumulation and what it means is at the center of the debate of course. Saying it is increasing means nothing really. Deciding on what is a proper or correct level in the atmosphere is just a guess.

CO2 is good. It just depends on how you look at it. I plan on exhaling it for the rest of my life. To help the trees of course.

The question is over the impact to the climate over the rapid, in geological terms, iincrease in CO2

Oceans absorb some but eventually it'll reduce the pH of saltwater which can have a negative impact on fish stocks.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

No it won't because the amount of emissions continues to grow. This is why companies are working on sequestering carbon.

That is why you think they are working on sequestering carbon.