[AzCal Retred]

“In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rock feller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighways.” Tyler Durden

[Richard230]

High priests of global warming have figured there is more money to be made by making things not work, outlaw everything except their solution which is EVs. So there is not much chance anyone will succeed to market any of these ideas even if they may be a hundred times more efficient than the supposedly green EV. In the EUdssR you can concider yourself to be outlawed to make anything and hoping to make a profit on it, anyone can equally wait for the government check to obtain the EV. The question will be only who gets one and who not, which apparently they feel qualified to decide too. The sooner EUdssR goes belly up the better, sustainability looks different.

One minor issue with electric vehicles is getting rid of the lithium batteries when they or the vehicle expires. There doesn't appear to be much in the way of a recycling industry for those batteries and most recycling centers consider them a fire hazard and don't want anything to do with them.  Easy come, hard to go. 

[AzCal Retred]

Who knew? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#European_Union

Lithium ion batteries
Lithium-ion batteries and lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries often contain among other useful metals high-grade copper and aluminium in addition to – depending on the active material – transition metals cobalt and nickel as well as rare earths. To prevent a future shortage of cobalt, nickel, and lithium and to enable a sustainable life cycle of these technologies, recycling processes for lithium batteries are needed.[6] These processes have to regain not only cobalt, nickel, copper, and aluminium from spent battery cells, but also a significant share of lithium. Another potentially valuable and regainable materials are graphite and manganese. Recycling processes today recover approximately 25% to 96% of the materials of a lithium-ion battery cell, depending on the separation technology.[7][8] In order to achieve this goal, several steps are combined into complex process chains, especially considering the task to recover high rates of valuable materials with regard to involved safety issues.[9][10]

These steps are:[9]

Deactivation or discharging of the battery (especially in case of batteries from electric vehicles)
Disassembly of battery systems (especially in case of batteries from electric vehicles)
Mechanical processes (including crushing, sorting, and sieving processes)[10]
Electrolyte recovery[11]
Hydrometallurgical processes
Pyrometallurgical processes
Specific dangers associated with lithium-ion battery recycling processes are: electrical dangers, chemical dangers, burning reactions, and their potential interactions.[9] A complicating factor is the water sensitivity: lithium hexafluorophosphate, a possible electrolyte material, will react with water to form hydrofluoric acid; cells are often immersed in a solvent to prevent this. Once removed, the jelly rolls are separated and the materials removed by ultrasonic agitation, leaving the electrodes ready for melting down and recycling.

Pouch cells are particularly easier to recycle in this way and some people already do this to salvage the copper despite the safety issues.

As of 2019, the recycling of Li-Ion batteries in most cases does not extract lithium since lithium-ion battery technology continuously changes and processes to recycle these batteries can thus be outdated in a couple of years.[12] Another reason why it isn't being done on a large scale is because the extraction of lithium from old batteries is five times more expensive than mined lithium.[13] However, it is already being done on a small scale (by some companies[7][14][15][16]), an industry in expectation of large quantities of disused batteries to come.[8][17][18][19]

Energy saving and effective recycling solutions for lithium-ion batteries can reduce the carbon footprint of the production of lithium-ion batteries significantly.[8][20]

[Arschloch]

One minor issue with electric vehicles is getting rid of the lithium batteries when they or the vehicle expires. There doesn't appear to be much in the way of a recycling industry for those batteries and most recycling centers consider them a fire hazard and don't want anything to do with them.  Easy come, hard to go. 

The minor issue is that high priests are businesses administrators and accountants, If necessary they call themselves engineers as well. Good luck explaining anything to them.

If looking at the some of the commie "nordic" overlord transport companies, the Idea could as well be - We say we make "only" electric vehicles, employ the folks that actually believe in the future of EV's and whip them as long as they leave the company since the laws and public relations don't favour the layoffs of staff. That could make sence. Of course they won't advertise such on their website, than they land up with an wild gone crowd of developers whome they dispose at the next business down cycle.

[Arschloch]

And if there is anything that pops up that could be sold, it gets transformed in company ownership and the financial gains goes to those above, the overlords. So basically they are f$€#ed, no future.

In the meanwhile Greta searching who is steeling her future, accusing the whole world of it. 

[AzCal Retred]

“Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history. No purpose or place. We have no Great War, No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't. We're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.” Tyler Durden

[Arschloch]

You just avoid dealing with svine with full pockets of cash, no matter how lucrative they whine, that's it. Now they scramble to buy some innovation to present themselves as saviours of the world and putting their shitty corporate logo on it. So no deal, garbage can innovate themselves.

[AzCal Retred]

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your f**king khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing c**p of the world." Tyler Durden

[Arschloch]

Who is Tyler Durden?

[AzCal Retred]

Must-see cinema. Allegories appropriate for our time & nonpareil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club

" The first rule of Fight Club is: ...? "

[Arschloch]

Electric vehicles are not exactly new either. It's fascinating how the high priests clinch on that idea. On the other hand when Triumpb and others presented alternatives they have been ridiculed as retro, old school, historic, backwards....so good luck to you EV developers, the whole world is waiting. 100 horses, 5 min charge, 200 miles range, 180 kg max, 6000$ and I would concider getting one.

[axman88]

So, ..  I guess this is why the more experienced members groan when they see another thread about oil?

[Arschloch]

Who knew? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling#European_Union

I assume you have a clue how Wikipedia is financed, hence all the distorted articles regarding the subject. 

[AzCal Retred]

Wow - the hits just keep on a'comin' eh? The bulk of their financing is from individual donations, like mine, $30 per year in my case. Can't wait to hear what a dumba _ _ I and most other folks are for subsidizing an information resource, trying to make things a bit better.

https://vator.tv/news/2015-11-13-how-does-wikipedia-make-money#:~:text=Wikipedia%20gets%20most%20of%20its,free%2Dcontent%20Internet%20encyclopedia%20Wikipedia.& text=Wikipedia%20is%20hosted%20by%20the,funded%20primarily%20by%20reader%20donations.

Wikipedia gets most of its money through donations, but also sells goods on the Wikipedia store.
Of all the tools that the Internet has given us, perhaps the most useful is free-content Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia. It's such a great source for information that it's a place that I find myself visiting just about every single day.
It's gotten to the point now where if someone famous doesn't have a Wikipedia page it's kind of bizarre. It's almost like they don't exist, in a strange way.
So how does it make money? Given Wikipedia’s status as part of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit, it makes money in a much different way than other major websites.
Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is funded primarily by reader donations. As the non-profit that supports Wikipedia, its sister projects, and a community of volunteer contributors, the Wikimedia Foundation uses reader contributions to cover the costs of operating Wikipedia, including servers, and staff.
During the 2014–2015 fiscal year, more than 4 million donors gave $75 million USD to support Wikipedia through the Wikimedia Foundation. 
"People make contributions year-round from countries all over the world. We receive contributions of all sizes, but every gift is meaningful. The average donation is just $15. Wikipedia readers will see banners on the site asking for a small contribution. We strive to make sure fundraising campaigns are as short as possible, and that people who have already contributed are not asked again," Samantha Lien, as a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson, told me.
"We regularly meet and speak with donors and readers about their impressions of our fundraising efforts, and we take their feedback very seriously. We also share our approach each year with readers and editors online to get their input before launching a campaign. This helps us ensure that our efforts are aligned with our values as a movement."
For this current fiscal year, its fundraising team has set its goal to raise $68.2 million.
The Wikipedia Foundation does have one other source of revenue beyond donations: goods sold on the Wikipedia store. Some of the items for sale include t-shirts for $21, notebooks for $8, pencils for $10, and pins for $3.
However, this is not a signifigant source of revenue, as the Wikipedia store was less than 1% of the total revenue for the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
"100% of the proceeds from the store go directly to the Wikimedia Foundation to support Wikipedia and its sister projects. These proceeds are then earmarked for our Merchandise Giveaways Program to send Wikipedia merchandise to editors around the world who contribute to the Wikimedia projects," Lien said.
Every month, roughly 75,000 active editors make more than five edits on Wikipedia.
“They also regularly review and improve content, applying policies and guidelines to make sure Wikipedia is a reliable, neutral, and accurate resource for the world.”

I know more about its funding, but I fully expect any responses to have some verifiable information links. As far as distorted articles, is IS user moderated content, probably on par with "magazine" info, so mostly a place to get some orientation & possibly start real research. Conflating funding and editing is absurd. If you know more about a specific "distorted" Wiki topic and can prove it, have at it. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." is a useful aphorism here. Putting a polish on some Wiki arcanery could prove to be an entertaining pastime.

[Arschloch]

Wow - the hits just keep on a'comin' eh? The bulk of their financing is from individual donations, like mine, $30 per year in my case. Can't wait to hear what a dumba _ _ I and most other folks are for subsidizing an information resource, trying to make things a bit better.

I know more about its funding, but I fully expect any responses to have some verifiable information links. As far as distorted articles, is IS user moderated content, probably on par with "magazine" info, so mostly a place to get some orientation & possibly start real research. Conflating funding and editing is absurd. If you know more about a specific "distorted" Wiki topic and can prove it, have at it. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." is a useful aphorism here. Putting a polish on some Wiki arcanery could prove to be an entertaining pastime.

Seeking answers to subjects that are matters of the Frontline may be about as good as reading the newspaper. The overwhelming scientific consensus of one day may flip in overwhelming scientific consensus of tomorrow. Scientists don't like uncertainty like most people don't and will find proof of any theory that satisfies their donors or universities. They all are independent and write for free because they have nothing better to do?

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/wikipedia-information-on-global-warming-unreliable-study/articleshow/48501406.cms

Locking people at home because of an overwhelming scientific consensus on covid? They could equally well come and confiscate your vehicles because it's "you" who is causing global warming, how would you like that? I can equally accuse the paid scientists of stealing jobs, destroying the economy, ruining lives yet they are independent so they believe.