As EV sales slump, a breakthrough lithium extraction method could turbocharge the industry

mattferg · Jun 16, 2024

Endymio said:
Because it's not "a lie".

Except, it is.

Endymio said:
Oops! You fail to realize that Tesla in 2023 sold more EVs than everyone else combined. Tesla sold 162,000 EVs in Q1 2023. Toyota sold 1,800. Nissan: 5,200. BMW 7,200.

Except that other countries exist buddy. The whole world isn’t the US.

Endymio said:
And it isn't just Tesla that saw a dip in sales. GM's EV sales are down 20% from one year ago, and Volkswagen's are down 12%. Hyundai and Ford are up -- but their sales increases are less than 10,000 vehicles from each.

Once again, the whole world isn’t the US.

Endymio said:
Proof that 90% of all Internet statistics are made up on the spot. While very few may need 600 mile range driving to work, many wish to take long weekend trips-- and don't want to buy an extra car just for that purpose. And a "600 mile range" can decline to half that when towing, and cold weather or battery age can lop off even more.

Once again, the whole world… isn’t the US. No one takes a 600 mile drive without stopping. Chargers exist. Very few people tow, too.

Endymio said:
Oops again! "Grid changes' don't alter the fact that the vast majority of CO2 emissions come from nature, not man, nor that personal auto emissions are a tiny fraction of man's total emissions.

The vast majority of new CO2 emissions are not “from nature” - but given the ignorant prior comments and your lack of actual factual response, it was fairly clear you have some fringe, extreme, ignorant opinions. Man made climate change has been proven repeatedly.

Endymio · Jun 16, 2024

mattferg said:
Except that other countries exist buddy. The whole world isn’t the US.

Oops again!

Reuters, June 12 2024: "Global EV sales rose 35% in 2023 to almost 14 million, but fell in 2024, including 29% drop in Germany in March"

mattferg said:
The vast majority of new CO2 emissions are not “from nature”

Oops once more. Unsure why you sneakily interjected the word "new" into my statement. But natural CO2 sources do indeed dwarf man's emissions. See this graph from Nasa's JPL -- natural sources account for 300+ gigatons, whereas man contributes some 8 gigatons.

Carbon Cycle | AIRS

The annual flux of CO2 in GigaTons (Gt) or billions of tons between each of the Earth's reservoirs.

airs.jpl.nasa.gov

Change from "carbon" to CO2 "equivalent" (which includes GHG gases like methane) and the disparity becomes larger still:

"....Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. Around 750 gigatons (one gigaton = one billion tons) of CO2 move through the carbon cycle each year naturally, while humans currently produce an additional 36 gigatons...."

Geo explainer: How carbon emissions impact climate

Global warming: Why is the amount of C02 increasing in our atmosphere, how is it being produced and by which countries?

geographical.co.uk

opckieran · Jun 16, 2024

Endymio said:
While few may need 600 mile range driving to work, many wish to take long weekend trips-- and don't want to buy an extra car just for that purpose. And a "600 mile range" can decline to half that when towing, and cold weather or battery age can lop off even more.

Ding ding ding!! Exactly this. Nobody is talking about actual real world range or other environmental handicaps EVs face over ICE vehicles. 600 miles suddenly seems a far more justified demand.

Plus, you know, you can buy a reliable used ICE for under $10K EASILY (speaking from experience here, I’ve actually done it twice under $3K recently, putting over 140k miles on the first…) Anybody buying a used EV under $10K (let alone $3K) is either a RichRebuilds type hobbyist or is NOT using it as a sole vehicle.

RobMonteforte · Jun 24, 2024

Endymio said:
"Almost" means even less suitable -- less range, greater weight (and thus lower efficiency), and higher cost. Current EVs are already having difficulty selling, and you want to make them even less attractive to consumers?

The number of fallacies in this statement are beyond count. I'll name just one: personal autos worldwide constitute less than 10% of total manmade GHG emissions, and all manmade emissions combined are less than 1/25 of total global emissions. Furthermore, since much of electricity production is generated via hydrocarbons, even if the entire world switched to EVs overnight, it would cut manmade emissions by less than 4%, and total (natural and manmade emissions) by less than 0.2%.

Statistics given without a reputable reference are as worthless as the time to read them.

Endymio · Jun 24, 2024

RobMonteforte said:
Statistics given without a reputable reference are as worthless as the time to read them.

Next time you might wish to read posts before replying to them. The references demonstrating slumping EV sales are already in the thread, and, as for battery chemistry suitability, my post was in response to someone suggesting elements with lower electron potential, and thus energy density, which automatically entails the rest.

As EV sales slump, a breakthrough lithium extraction method could turbocharge the industry

mattferg

Posts: 258 +262

Endymio

Posts: 3,034 +2,954

Carbon Cycle | AIRS

Geo explainer: How carbon emissions impact climate

opckieran

Posts: 251 +418

RobMonteforte

Posts: 28 +10

Endymio

Posts: 3,034 +2,954

Similar threads

Latest posts