National Geographic E-cigarette Article
- Thread starter McDougal
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- e-cigarette environment smoke
- Status
Yes, but I'm pretty sure secondary cells are less recyclable than primary cells. They're not like lead acid that are virtually all recyclable.
AFAIK NiMH are common in electric drive cars, except the Tesla which uses Panasonic 18650s.
Here's Tesla's press pulp publication
Based on this info we can see 60% recovery is good for Panasonic 18650s (2200mAh & 3100mAh). It's at best a secondary source, but it's the best I can find presently.
The general opinion is electric cars are a net win even if the source power is coal, taking delivery and 70% charge Eff into account. The cited eff on the Tesla is 17.7 kW·h/100 mi Gasoline at 36.6 kWh/US gal presuming 40mpg would represent 91.5kWh/100 mi.
It's expected that the battery life is 7yr/100,000mi.
So 17,700kWh(battery) vs 91,500kWh (2500gal)
Coal = 40% eff, Delivery 7% eff, charge Eff, >95%.
33,391kWh(coal source) vs 91,500kWh (2500gal)
[6,150kWh/ton] [907,184.74g/ton] [gasoline 2914.45g/gal]
4925kg of Coal vs 7286.125kg gasoline
Add 6800 Panasonic 18650s with a mass of 450kg, with 40% waste with recycling, so add 180kg solid waste for battery pack.
So 4925kg coal, 180kg slag waste from batteries per 100,000 miles, vs 7286.125kg of gasoline shot into the atmosphere per 100,000 miles @ 40mpg.
Assuming you drive 100,000 miles before your batteries are dead. I'm just guessing but I'd think it would take me 50-100 years or more to drive 100,000 miles, batteries don't last that long. I only go through 3-4 tanks of gas a year.
Matt - taking this waaay too seriously, lol! I was being wry. 
But, since you mentioned it about electric car drivers, their smugness is based on a mirage, IMO. Sure, they use less fossil fuel and have fewer carbon emissions from their cars, but all of that electricity has to come from somewhere. The power plants must increase their output to keep up with demand and most power plants still...burn fossil fuels (55% coal, 9% natural gas, and 4% oil - people freaking about nuclear power has kept it down at 20%.) Until wind and solar power (or some other future power source) become more efficient (where production doesn't cost more than energy output) and abundant/available and the cars themselves become more affordable, feeling smug about your electric car being better for the environment overall is just more "out of sight, out of mind" than anything else, IMO.
But, since you mentioned it about electric car drivers, their smugness is based on a mirage, IMO. Sure, they use less fossil fuel and have fewer carbon emissions from their cars, but all of that electricity has to come from somewhere. The power plants must increase their output to keep up with demand and most power plants still...burn fossil fuels (55% coal, 9% natural gas, and 4% oil - people freaking about nuclear power has kept it down at 20%.) Until wind and solar power (or some other future power source) become more efficient (where production doesn't cost more than energy output) and abundant/available and the cars themselves become more affordable, feeling smug about your electric car being better for the environment overall is just more "out of sight, out of mind" than anything else, IMO.
Just out of curiosity, does anybody know how much the electric bill goes up if you recharge a car? And if, instead of miles per gallon, you figured it out at miles per dollar, how do they compare?
For example, at $4 per gallon, it takes $48 to fill up my 12 gallon tank. That $48 buys me about 275 miles of travel. Works out to 5.7 miles per dollar I put in the tank. (Just looking at fuel costs, not tires, oils, repairs, or any extras here.)
For example, at $4 per gallon, it takes $48 to fill up my 12 gallon tank. That $48 buys me about 275 miles of travel. Works out to 5.7 miles per dollar I put in the tank. (Just looking at fuel costs, not tires, oils, repairs, or any extras here.)
17.7 kW·h/100 mi
Li-ion are efficient, 95+% depending on the temp.
NiMH are less so, around 65%.
95%eff = 18.7kWh/100mi @12c/kWh = $2.24/100mi = 2.24c/mi = 44.64mi/dollar
65%eff = 26.3kWh/100mi @12c/kWh = $3.15/100mi = 3.15c/mi = 31.75mi/dollar
275mi @ 95% eff = $6.15
275mi @ 65% eff = $8.58
I opted for 12c/kWh as Hawaii can double the price, Idaho can cut it in half.
Other citations include the Volt = 80mpg equivalent, Leaf = 110mpg equivalent, Tesla = 170mpg.
To put into perspective 12gal of gasoline represents 400.92kWh of energy, 80% is lost to the engine, leaving you with 80kWh, 5% lost in the drive train, leaving you with 76kWH, another 20% is lost by actually driving, leaving you 60.8kWh. Source
The Tesla's 48.675kWh per 275 miles. (not including source, and delivery). If coal powered, there's 60% loss there, another 7% in transmission, 5% loss for li-ion charging, 35% loss for NiMH charging. I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers, but in terms of energy, electrical cars are a net win. Just the battery replacement cost as much as much as two midsized cars.
If they get electricity from coal, they are polluting FAR less, FAR FAR FAR less than ANY ANY ANY gasoline or diesel automobile. This was true 100 years ago, it's true today. The only difference from Tesla's time was the limitation of lead acid batteries, and the lack of microprocessors for direct wheel drive. Direct drive electric is so efficient that it's more efficient to take a gasoline motor running at peek efficiency, using that to run an electric generator, and using direct drive electric motors at the wheels, then it is to have a drive train in a gasoline powered engine. This was true in 1942 with diesel electric ships, it's true today.
Gasoline automobiles are VERY inefficient.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
