[mura_gadi (Steve)]

Hello,

Electrics are very limited in their environment impact imo, last I read they still lagged behind deasel.

You have a massive amount of earth moved for the batteries, they only last 50-60k's, so you need three sets to match a petrol cars life. They are limited recycling options of these batteries as well at present. All these makes a much less environmentally friendly product then we are lead to believe. A lot of misleading data can be based on whole of production/disposal/running costs ect.

However, the power output and distance really is becoming less of an issue for some models, 1200k+ on a charge is already possible.

Hydrogen is more feasible imo and certainly requires less mining of resources. The leaking in storage is the issue for hydrogen, transport wise etc, not to mention a massive need for new infrastructure - recharging stations for either.

But, we have a carbon capture method, proven and available at $1.75(CAD) per liter that removes carbon and converts back to fuel. So, at 8kilos of carbon per liter of petrol (1 tanks 50 liters, be generous 800k's to a tank, 250k k's to a lifetime = about 125 tonnes of carbon per car) and no capture.

Or a car that can run on one tank of captured carbon over and over again for a life time... But the consumer needs to accept a steep price rise. All infrastructure remains in place, and technically we could use the increased carbon capture infrastructure to go back down under 300pmm as well. (and a car that runs on 800's kilo of carbon for its life!)

We could go carbon capture at $2 a litre (pump price) and virtually not have to change a thing of the worlds economy or infrastructure to billions of people...

But, its seems we live in a world on confusion, denial and deliberate misinformation.


Steve