Electric cars are a pipe dream

Last edited:
adoucette said:
Yes, but we have our own source, just let it wither for a while. It's coming back, any attempt by China to drive up the prices would just accelerate that.... Arthur
Click to expand...
I completely agree but think only with luck can the US meet its needs by start of 2015. - It much more than just digging up the lower grade ore - separation etc. is needed.

China's bonanza will not last much beyond 2015, but they will always be the lowest cost producer if no equally rich ore body is found. I.e. they will once again lower the prices to make US and other's production possible economically only with subsidies. That means Chevy's Volt will get another subsidy etc.
 
The only reason china is the source of all the world rare earth minerals is that they could provided it for far cheaper because of incredibly cheap mining labor and pathetic pollution laws, now they start raising the prices more likely because of the thousand of chinese dieing of heavy metal poisoning then to crush the worlds economy with there hands. Mines and production that was shut down in the US can come back online because they can be competitive again, mines in other countries can open up. The Molycorp is working on reopening the Mountain Pass rare earth minerals mine in california by 2011 and planes to have production back up to 20,000 tons by 2012, that means the US will go from zero percent production to nearly 20% production in just 2 years.
 
ElectricFetus said:
The only reason china is the source of all the world rare earth minerals is that they could provided it for far cheaper because of incredibly cheap mining labor and pathetic pollution laws, ... because of the thousand of chinese dieing of heavy metal poisoning ....
Click to expand...
Certainly many miners die in coal mines each year in China, but it is my understanding that the rear earths are near the surface and the "mines" are of the open pit type.

Why do you assert that thousands of Chineses working in these "mines" are dying of "heavy metal poisoning"? AFAIK, there is a small radio-activity problem at most rare earth ore sites, but that could be due to K40, or radon which might accumulate in the air of the open pit on windless days.

Certainly the Chinese can under price (and have) all other known rare earth suppliers as:
(1) they have cheaper labor (in the North interior of china, still) and
(2) their ore is richer in rare earths than any other known. More yield per ton of ore.

You may be correct, but I have never heard from any other source what you are stating is true. What is your source?
 
Billy T said:
Certainly many miners die in coal mines each year in China, but it is my understanding that the rear earths are near the surface and the "mines" are of the open pit type.
Click to expand...

I did not say the mining labor was unsafe or that they die, I merely said it was cheap. Honestly Billy T I'm not going to respond to your comments anymore because of these strawmen.

Why do you assert that thousands of Chineses working in these "mines" are dying of "heavy metal poisoning"?
Click to expand...

I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING! I never said the miners were dying, heavy metal pollution and the toxic nature of cheap rare earth mineral processing is a serious problem in china and kills indiscriminately slowly and indirectly through the polluting of their water and food supply.

You may be correct, but I have never heard from any other source what you are stating is true. What is your source?
Click to expand...

GIYD

"Mountain Pass rare earth mine"

"China and the Future of Rare Earth Elements"

"Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for Environment?"
 
Last edited:
Skeptical said:
EF

Saying "Google it, you dumbass" is not an acceptable way of responding to a request for a source.
Click to expand...

Sheeeesh, its a running joke between me and Billy T, he once asked for a reference and knowing a simple Google search would bring up pages of them I said "GIYD", he then said he did not know what that meant, so I said "GIYD!" :D

In this case I even provided the search engine phrases for him, why should I post hundreds of links?
 
ElectricFetus said:
{post607}I did not say the mining labor was unsafe or that they die, I merely said it was cheap. ... I never said the miners were dying, heavy metal pollution and the toxic nature of cheap rare earth mineral processing is a serious problem in china and kills indiscriminately slowly and indirectly through the polluting of their water and food supply. ...
Click to expand...
ElectricFetus said:
[Post 604}The only reason china is the source of all the world rare earth minerals is that they could provided it for far cheaper because of incredibly cheap mining labor ..., now they start raising the prices more likely because of the thousand of chinese dieing of heavy metal poisoning ...
Click to expand...

In post 604 you were discussing rare earth minerals and cheap mining labor (now bold in your post) when you said: “thousand of chinese dieing of heavy metal poisoning” were you not?

I have already agreed that many COAL miners die each year in China, but less than half as many as a few years ago as more than 5000, small mines with low safety standards have been closed. I now also agree that China has a serious water pollution problem, BUT IT IS NOT CAUSED BY RARE EARTH PRODUCTION. That production is mainly in the arid central north* where there is low population density. River (and probably ground water) pollution is caused by Chinese industries in the more populated areas along or near the coast.

Again your assertions about rare earths causing significant water pollution problem and “thousands of deaths” seem to me to be false, based on what I know about rare earth production in China. That is why I asked, and again ask: What is your source for these statements.

I will admit that rare earth production does causes some water pollution; any time you plow a field and certainly when you move tons of earth, some water pollution occurs, but it is very trivial compared to industrial pollution in China. Interestingly, as an excuse for reducing the exports of rare earths by 72% in the second half of 2010, China initially justified it by claiming that the production was causing pollution problem. No one took that claim seriously as it was like saying we are planning to cover the river so birds don’t shit in it but allow tons of sulfuric acid waste water etc. to continue to be dumped in the river from the local industry. Instead Japan has taken the Chinese export reduction to the world court. They would not have any case if there really were a pollution problem bases for the reduction.

------------------
*I am not sure but think some is actually in or very near the Mohave Desert, where even polluted water would be a blessing..

ElectricFetus said:
...why should I post hundreds of links?
Click to expand...
I was assuming you had a source for your claims about rare earth pollution of the waters and causing thousands of deaths. I only asked for that ONE source.
 
Billy T said:
In post 604 you were discussing rare earth minerals and cheap mining labor (now bold in your post) when you said: “thousand of chinese dieing of heavy metal poisoning” were you not?
Click to expand...

Did I say "thousand of chinese miners dieing of heavy metal poisoning" did I?

I was never speaking of dieing miners!

I have already agreed that many COAL miners die each year in China, but less than half as many as a few years ago as more than 5000, small mines with low safety standards have been closed. I now also agree that China has a serious water pollution problem, BUT IT IS NOT CAUSED BY RARE EARTH PRODUCTION. That production is mainly in the arid central north* where there is low population density. River (and probably ground water) pollution is caused by Chinese industries in the more populated areas along or near the coast.
Click to expand...

rare earth mining pollution is added problem to an already pollution ridden country, and it difficult to separate how much damage is caused by each due to the compounding effects of all. As for arid central north, riiiggghhhttt:


"Here in Guyun Village, a small community in southeastern China fringed by lush bamboo groves and banana trees, the environmental damage can be seen in the red-brown scars of barren clay that run down narrow valleys and the dead lands below, where emerald rice fields once grew.

Miners scrape off the topsoil and shovel golden-flecked clay into dirt pits, using acids to extract the rare earths. The acids ultimately wash into streams and rivers, destroying rice paddies and fish farms and tainting water supplies."

oh and I'll link that to anyone who asks but you, because you can't GIYD.

I will admit that rare earth production does causes some water pollution; any time you plow a field and certainly when you move tons of earth, some water pollution occurs, but it is very trivial compared to industrial pollution in China. Interestingly, as an excuse for reducing the exports of rare earths by 72% in the second half of 2010, China initially justified it by claiming that the production was causing pollution problem. No one took that claim seriously as it was like saying we are planning to cover the river so birds don’t shit in it but allow tons of sulfuric acid waste water etc. to continue to be dumped in the river from the local industry.
Click to expand...

China is trying to crack down on a variety of pollution sources, not just rare earth mining. It has demanded increase in fuel efficiency, reductions on pollutions, clean up and disposal of toxic waste fields, closed down metal smelting plants.

As for no one took that seriously, gee can you quote everyone that ever heard of this? I know of at least on guy in my department who doing his thesis on pollution in china and bio-sequestration of heavy metals that would disagree, oh wait you will probably say he is a Chinese spy.

Instead Japan has taken the Chinese export reduction to the world court. They would not have any case if there really were a pollution problem bases for the reduction.
Click to expand...

what fallacious logic! The viability of a case can't be determined simply because its being pursued in international court. The export ban in rare earths to japan is very likely for other reasons then pollution, but the general reductions in production are a different case.
 
German electric car sets new distance record!!! 1 day ago.

"BERLIN — An electric car drove from Munich in southern Germany to Berlin without recharging its battery on Tuesday, setting what organisers hailed as a new world distance record for an everyday vehicle.

The yellow and purple Audi A2 car took around seven hours to complete the 600-kilometre (372-mile) stretch and arrived in the sumptuous courtyard of the economy ministry in Berlin just before 8:00am local time (0600 GMT)"


The rest of the Article:


http://tinyurl.com/2devod4
 
Did any of you guys ever travel on an electric powered train? Well they work fine. The only problem to solve is the way of transferring power to a car that can move independent of rails.

I have read in some science journal of work towards transferance of power wirelessly. When this technological leap comes into fruition your car will be able to autocharge whilst on the move. No more petrol stations, only energy providers with pay-as-you-go packages.

That sound plausible to you?

It's the future (remember where you heard it first, lol ;)
 
universaldistress said:
Did any of you guys ever travel on an electric powered train? Well they work fine. The only problem to solve is the way of transferring power to a car that can move independent of rails.

I have read in some science journal of work towards transferance of power wirelessly. When this technological leap comes into fruition your car will be able to autocharge whilst on the move. No more petrol stations, only energy providers with pay-as-you-go packages.

That sound plausible to you?

It's the future (remember where you heard it first, lol ;)
Click to expand...

If it's possible to send power to the vehicle from the road itself, then a combination of a short commute battery pack with the power from the road on major highways.

So once on the highway the power comes from another source and when you exit it reverts to the battery pack.

This way they don't have to be fixed and the freedom that individual cars offer would remain.

Now, how to do that ?

Also, considering where the battery tech is going with the hope that nano-tech can offer, it may be a mute point someday.
 
universaldistress said:
Did any of you guys ever travel on an electric powered train? Well they work fine. The only problem to solve is the way of transferring power to a car that can move independent of rails.

I have read in some science journal of work towards transferance of power wirelessly. When this technological leap comes into fruition your car will be able to autocharge whilst on the move. No more petrol stations, only energy providers with pay-as-you-go packages.

That sound plausible to you?

It's the future (remember where you heard it first, lol ;)
Click to expand...

Nope. Doesn't sound safe either, and where is this power going to come from? And what kind of transmission losses would incur?
 
X-Man2 said:
German electric car sets new distance record!!! 1 day ago.

"BERLIN — An electric car drove from Munich in southern Germany to Berlin without recharging its battery on Tuesday, setting what organisers hailed as a new world distance record for an everyday vehicle.

The yellow and purple Audi A2 car took around seven hours to complete the 600-kilometre (372-mile) stretch and arrived in the sumptuous courtyard of the economy ministry in Berlin just before 8:00am local time (0600 GMT)"


The rest of the Article:


http://tinyurl.com/2devod4
Click to expand...

Seems like a hoax.
 
jpappl said:
If it's possible to send power to the vehicle from the road itself, then a combination of a short commute battery pack with the power from the road on major highways.

So once on the highway the power comes from another source and when you exit it reverts to the battery pack.

This way they don't have to be fixed and the freedom that individual cars offer would remain.

Now, how to do that ?

Also, considering where the battery tech is going with the hope that nano-tech can offer, it may be a mute point someday.
Click to expand...

Cant remember where I read it now but I do recall a company(s) working on nano batteries.Said they believe with nano we could expect around 1000 miles between charges initially.Probably not in our lifetimes unless your young of course but I expect great things down the road.
 
This technology (to charge phones etc. wirelessly) is still in developmental stages but I envisaged a live metallic strip -encased in a physical insulator that allows the power-waves to pass through- on the road that beams a constant stream to cars as they pass overhead. It would be proximity sensitive and able to intelligently direct power to correct part of the car (I did initially think it could be done with lasers that turn on and direct themselves at a part of the car as it passes, the light then being converted to electricity, but that would be slightly insane I think). This technology will be possible but it is just about whether something better comes along in the mean time.

Yes safety issues are paramount but I am an optimistic soul; we can make it work.

Watch that space.
 
The whole exercise is flawed. Why do we want to continue independent motoring at all costs? It ruins cities and neighborhoods. The electric trolley is ancient technology already and we know it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top