nah, we dont need to drill for oil

The real reason behind cash for clunkers was to revive the stagnant automakers sales and give a boost to the overall economy, of course now a days you can get the people to do anything as long as you use the "Environment"moniker as the reason to do it.

NoDrama said:

of course now a days you can get the people to do anything as long as you use the "Environment"moniker as the reason to do it.

Click to expand...

and with good reason. renewable, sustainable energy is the way of the future.

of course, not everything advertised as such meets this criteria. hence, your apt distinction of using the moniker, rather than meeting the criteria of the moniker

So I was taking a shower and I was thinking about electric cars and what level it would have to get to for me to buy one. It would have to be close to the same cost as a regular comparable car. Performance isn't that big of a deal to me, but Id like to be able to go 70 mph, pull out into traffic and not get ran over, and be able to accelerate faster than if I got out and pushed it myself.

Then it occurred to me that there is bound to be a lot of chemicals/metals used in building batteries for electric cars and the motors that we don't use in regular cars. So my question ended up being - what about peak lithium or any other metal ect?

Assuming that half of our 250 million vehicles were changed over to electric, that is 125 million vehicles in the country that would be produced.

Upon reading the figures from different reports the answer is no one is sure what the hell is going on since China controls most of the worlds litium supply. Trading the Middle East for China doesn't seem very reasonable. I gave up on all that since I don't want to spend the next 20 hours reading about it.

A few things that strike me as being key in deciding the course of technologies.

Gas vehicles can be made smaller and lighter without changes in technology and reach hyrbid mpg standards. This is a great short term (20 year?) strategy to decrease or at least keep flat oil usage in the short term.

Hybrid vehicles use oil the same as regular cars, just at a reduced rate. Then add to it the extra manufacturing, cost, and environmental damage caused by the mining and use of metals/chemicals that gas cars wouldn't use and at best its a tie over the entire life of the vehicle. Hybrid vehicles are still necessary as a platform to learn more about technology if nothing else. Purchasing a hybrid helps to fund technology of the next generation. Hybrid vehicles will probably never really make sense in the world. It is entirely possible you would help the environment more by buying a 15k gas car and donating 15k to science.

Battery operated vehicles would have to run off of fossil fuel being burned at centralized locations. While this is slightly better than oil, it would require a huge infrastructure change to permit the actual use of them. How long would it take to make these changes? The cars are at least 10-20 years off, Infrastructure is probably further than that. It would require a massive building project to build power plants of all kinds. I think by the time we were completely changed over that we would have some sort of usable solar paint that might be able to be used on the electric cars so they charge themselves. They already have this paint, they are trying to make it more efficient and bring down the cost to manufacture it. A car that utilized this to charge itself would be awesome and as close to being truly green as it gets.

Oil is our only real option right now. If the government wants to increase the number of efficient cars on the market it needs to do one thing - CREATE A DEMAND. Creating a supply doesn't do anything if no one wants it. If the government wants to throw taxpayers money at the problem the best thing to do is to give incentives for all vehicles that get better than 30 mpg. That will create a big demand for those cars and car companies will make them. The government should not be doing this, but it makes more sense than forcing companies to build certain cars with the stick. Carrots are definitely a better incentive.

Alternatively, wait another 10 years and the price of oil will force this same thing to happen. Well, off to the market! Adios.

Afghanistan has huge amounts of rare earth metals, gold, silver, copper, uranium.

Want to see what Lithium batteries do to an electric car? Electric vehicles normally develop full torque as soon as power is applied.

[video=youtube;7rVTIpS5zb4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rVTIpS5zb4[/video]

Its the little white Datsun, fastest drag racer in the land in his class. 100% electric powered by lithium.

Here is his 7 second quarter mile run.
[video=youtube;E8Yp9abkPjQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Yp9abkPjQ&feature=related[/video]

Comparing that electric car to a regular electric car. That is the electric car version of strapping a jet engine to the back of a car. A few other things I might point out.
First, That car has never done better than 10 seconds in the 1/4 mile. I was really impressed, so I checked, it did just under 7 in the 1/8th. It is still very impressive. Factory Vipers, Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, ect all run 12 and 13's for the better models in the 1/4 without modifications. Here is there website for the White Zombie car btw:
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/history/2010.php
Second, Did you see how many batteries it required to do that? lol - that could power the entire "I hate men" camp's dildos for a year. You could probably run 1000w hps off it all day.

Thats a kick ass motor they have in that though. I bet that would be ok in a truck like the F150. For those that are curious, the 1/4 record is 3 seconds. That is insanely fast. Thats over 300 mph in 3 seconds from a dead stop.

Carthoris said:

So I was taking a shower and I was thinking about electric cars and what level it would have to get to for me to buy one. It would have to be close to the same cost as a regular comparable car. Performance isn't that big of a deal to me, but Id like to be able to go 70 mph, pull out into traffic and not get ran over, and be able to accelerate faster than if I got out and pushed it myself.

Then it occurred to me that there is bound to be a lot of chemicals/metals used in building batteries for electric cars and the motors that we don't use in regular cars. So my question ended up being - what about peak lithium or any other metal ect?

Assuming that half of our 250 million vehicles were changed over to electric, that is 125 million vehicles in the country that would be produced.

Upon reading the figures from different reports the answer is no one is sure what the hell is going on since China controls most of the worlds litium supply. Trading the Middle East for China doesn't seem very reasonable. I gave up on all that since I don't want to spend the next 20 hours reading about it.

A few things that strike me as being key in deciding the course of technologies.

Gas vehicles can be made smaller and lighter without changes in technology and reach hyrbid mpg standards. This is a great short term (20 year?) strategy to decrease or at least keep flat oil usage in the short term.

Hybrid vehicles use oil the same as regular cars, just at a reduced rate. Then add to it the extra manufacturing, cost, and environmental damage caused by the mining and use of metals/chemicals that gas cars wouldn't use and at best its a tie over the entire life of the vehicle. Hybrid vehicles are still necessary as a platform to learn more about technology if nothing else. Purchasing a hybrid helps to fund technology of the next generation. Hybrid vehicles will probably never really make sense in the world. It is entirely possible you would help the environment more by buying a 15k gas car and donating 15k to science.

Battery operated vehicles would have to run off of fossil fuel being burned at centralized locations. While this is slightly better than oil, it would require a huge infrastructure change to permit the actual use of them. How long would it take to make these changes? The cars are at least 10-20 years off, Infrastructure is probably further than that. It would require a massive building project to build power plants of all kinds. I think by the time we were completely changed over that we would have some sort of usable solar paint that might be able to be used on the electric cars so they charge themselves. They already have this paint, they are trying to make it more efficient and bring down the cost to manufacture it. A car that utilized this to charge itself would be awesome and as close to being truly green as it gets.

Oil is our only real option right now. If the government wants to increase the number of efficient cars on the market it needs to do one thing - CREATE A DEMAND. Creating a supply doesn't do anything if no one wants it. If the government wants to throw taxpayers money at the problem the best thing to do is to give incentives for all vehicles that get better than 30 mpg. That will create a big demand for those cars and car companies will make them. The government should not be doing this, but it makes more sense than forcing companies to build certain cars with the stick. Carrots are definitely a better incentive.

Alternatively, wait another 10 years and the price of oil will force this same thing to happen. Well, off to the market! Adios.

Click to expand...

the first part of this i say, welcome to conservative critical thinking. then you go off the deep end.

WE ALREADY HAD VEHICLES THAT GOT BETTER ECONOMY/EFFICIENCY.

you mentioned several you drove yourself! duh

the reason mileage has gone down is because we have been told that this 55 mpg car is killing the environment. so they made us put air crap on them. they made us put catalytic converters and a whole bunch of other bullshit. just ask your mechanic. lots of it was done specifically to hurt jap sales in the late seventies early eighties....you know, underhanded union/govt/protectionism shit.

bottom line, you driving whatever your driving, isnt killing the planet. when it make sense to you, a free thinking person, you will make the right choice.

the govt forcing you to drive or buy isnt saving shit and isnt helping us to "do the right thing".

if a toyota battery car makes sense to you and your family, buy one. it doesnt make sense to my family so dont pester me. free thinking people will figure out better ways to make cars better so we will buy it. competition. the govt telling you what to do just chases shit down the wrong alley.

ethanol is a classic example. it takes more than a gallon of fuel to make a gallon of ethanol. then you still have to burn the ehtanol. but these fucksticks in the govt made us put it in our fuel. burn our food, great idea. then they set up this entire system to subsidize the farmers, costing you the guy who has to pay for the ethanol fuel. so when the farmers have to switch crops when the govt finally pulls its head out of its ass, many farms will fail because they cant afford the new equipment. its a different set up and they have been growing corn instead of what was really needed, a balanced crop driven by market pressures. God this stuff is so basic yet some cant see it.

i gotta get some sleep

jeff f said:

the first part of this i say, welcome to conservative critical thinking. then you go off the deep end.

WE ALREADY HAD VEHICLES THAT GOT BETTER ECONOMY/EFFICIENCY.

you mentioned several you drove yourself! duh

the reason mileage has gone down is because we have been told that this 55 mpg car is killing the environment. so they made us put air crap on them. they made us put catalytic converters and a whole bunch of other bullshit. just ask your mechanic. lots of it was done specifically to hurt jap sales in the late seventies early eighties....you know, underhanded union/govt/protectionism shit.

bottom line, you driving whatever your driving, isnt killing the planet. when it make sense to you, a free thinking person, you will make the right choice.

the govt forcing you to drive or buy isnt saving shit and isnt helping us to "do the right thing".

if a toyota battery car makes sense to you and your family, buy one. it doesnt make sense to my family so dont pester me. free thinking people will figure out better ways to make cars better so we will buy it. competition. the govt telling you what to do just chases shit down the wrong alley.

ethanol is a classic example. it takes more than a gallon of fuel to make a gallon of ethanol. then you still have to burn the ehtanol. but these fucksticks in the govt made us put it in our fuel. burn our food, great idea. then they set up this entire system to subsidize the farmers, costing you the guy who has to pay for the ethanol fuel. so when the farmers have to switch crops when the govt finally pulls its head out of its ass, many farms will fail because they cant afford the new equipment. its a different set up and they have been growing corn instead of what was really needed, a balanced crop driven by market pressures. God this stuff is so basic yet some cant see it.

i gotta get some sleep

Click to expand...

I think you were mixing the posts up. If you look, the only small car I ever said I drove was the micra and it meets all of our current emissions standards. Following is a quote from my post. I said a demand will make things successful, not a supply. I then went on to say that though that would be more effective the government has no business being part of either.

"Oil is our only real option right now. If the government wants to increase the number of efficient cars on the market it needs to do one thing - CREATE A DEMAND. Creating a supply doesn't do anything if no one wants it. If the government wants to throw taxpayers money at the problem the best thing to do is to give incentives for all vehicles that get better than 30 mpg. That will create a big demand for those cars and car companies will make them. The government should not be doing this, but it makes more sense than forcing companies to build certain cars with the stick. Carrots are definitely a better incentive."

The government should not be a business, it should not do business, and it should not dictate to business on what products it must make.

I do not endorse this "solution". However if the government, which is a system of force, added a $2 per gallon fuel tax that could
do two things, reduce the deficit if the "extra" money weren't siphoned off somewhere else, force the use or "demand" of smaller more
efficient cars.

With that said I think absent any government intervention or regulation there would not be the need to solve anything, because the free market would not have allowed the problem to have arisen in the first place. There is only a deficit because government created it. The reason certain high mileage vehicles are not permitted is due to regulation, again government. Asking the creator of a problem, Government, to solve the problem, is likely to fail. Free the markets, solve the problem.