Ecology vs Disposable Electronic Cigarette

[IDEngineer]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

If the state of the art in PC's or cellphones radically improves in 12-24 months, what motivation is there to keep old equipment running? Yes, this argument doesn't apply to all products but it does to a very large segment of the commercial economy.

[tszaboo]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

[Zero999]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

Did you look at the website citing that study? ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) are an anti-tobacco charity, so it's in their interests to cite information which makes smoking look as bad as possible.

It's very difficult to come to an exact figure regarding the costs of something like tobacco. This isn't helped by the fact that people will cherry pick data and bias studies to suite their point of view.

Banning tobacco will also be costly. It will become an illicit drug, which means criminal organisations will fill the void, left by legal manufactures and retailers.

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

[themadhippy]

3 Billion? Not even close:

your right,from the nhs own figures ,not some vested interest group,but the actual people who pick up the bill

It is estimated that smoking has cost the NHS in England £2.6 billion per year

.

[tszaboo]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

Did you look at the website citing that study? ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) are an anti-tobacco charity, so it's in their interests to cite information which makes smoking look as bad as possible.

It's very difficult to come to an exact figure regarding the costs of something like tobacco. This isn't helped by the fact that people will cherry pick data and bias studies to suite their point of view.

Banning tobacco will also be costly. It will become an illicit drug, which means criminal organisations will fill the void, left by legal manufactures and retailers.

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

I did look at the source. The actual number will be somewhere in the middle. The NHS will only report surgeries and something that is directly related to smoking. For example someone getting pneumonia, and complications for the rest of their life, who was also a smoker, where do you place the blame?

[BrokenYugo]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

If the state of the art in PC's or cellphones radically improves in 12-24 months, what motivation is there to keep old equipment running? Yes, this argument doesn't apply to all products but it does to a very large segment of the commercial economy.

In this case the cartridge based vape/ecig system has had a defacto standard connector ("510 thread") for about a decade.

[NiHaoMike]

I doubt junk food taxes would work. There's already a sugar tax on soft drinks over a certain percentage of sugar, but the manufactures simply replaced some of the sugar with artificial sweeteners, which aren't proven to be any more healthy or result in weight loss. Food is already processed enough. I doubt anyone wants it to become more artificial to circumvent taxes.

Then just ban or massively tax the artificial sweeteners and other problematic additives as well.

The driving test is already difficult enough as it is. There's a computer based simulator and written exam as well as the practical test. A big weakness is, foreigners from countries with less stringent driving tests can come here and drive on an international license, but I doubt the government will stop that.

The US really needs to get up to that level.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

That's certainly a common "complaint" with the Prius. While it can be upgraded to a PHEV, how many actually want to spend thousands on an upgrade for an old car?

[Andy Chee]

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

In jurisdictions with socialised healthcare e.g. UK, it is incumbent upon the government to reduce the cost of treating smoking related diseases. So in that circumstance it makes rational sense for governments to do all they can to reduce smoking rates in the community.

[SiliconWizard]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

In other words, our decisions should be rational and, as much as possible, without any conflict of interest.

TLDR; it won't happen.

[NiHaoMike]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

[Zero999]

I doubt junk food taxes would work. There's already a sugar tax on soft drinks over a certain percentage of sugar, but the manufactures simply replaced some of the sugar with artificial sweeteners, which aren't proven to be any more healthy or result in weight loss. Food is already processed enough. I doubt anyone wants it to become more artificial to circumvent taxes.

Then just ban or massively tax the artificial sweeteners and other problematic additives as well.

Great. More laws.

The problem is there isn't a scientific consensus on what's harmful and what isn't. For example aspartame is generally considered safe. It might be carcinogenic in large quantities, but the same is true for other chemicals which are present in food, or develop during cooking.

Quite often it's the food as a whole which is healthy or not so healthy, rather than the individual ingredients. For example, whole oranges are high in sugar, yet don't result in the same sugar spikes as orange juice, which is similar to a fizzy drink. What law can deal with that?

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

In jurisdictions with socialised healthcare e.g. UK, it is incumbent upon the government to reduce the cost of treating smoking related diseases. So in that circumstance it makes rational sense for governments to do all they can to reduce smoking rates in the community.

The same is true of other vices such as alcohol.

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

That's not true. A much lighter, energy dense battery would greatly increase the efficiency, as well as causing less air pollution from brake and rubber dust.

[tszaboo]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

Solid state lithium batteries will be half the size (and safer). Axial Flux motors can save several kilograms of copper windings. Charging losses can be greatly reduced if the car manufacturers would spend a little more effort on software, because the charger itself is efficient but the car wastes a bunch of energy needlessly running everything else.

[SiliconWizard]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

[NiHaoMike]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

[AVGresponding]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

[SiliconWizard]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

[NiHaoMike]

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

ORNL tested the 2012 Leaf motor and inverter at greater than 90% over most of its operating range.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/03/f13/ape006_burress_2013_o.pdf
The efficiency of the battery itself wasn't mentioned in that PDF but a similar one is listed at 96% round trip. The charger is easily 95% or better for an overall efficiency of greater than 82%.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

The big improvements there would be aerodynamics and tires, which are already a big focus for EVs. One problem is that the higher efficiency tires are more expensive and wear out before the energy savings pay for themselves, particularly with EVs.

[tszaboo]

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

ORNL tested the 2012 Leaf motor and inverter at greater than 90% over most of its operating range.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/03/f13/ape006_burress_2013_o.pdf
The efficiency of the battery itself wasn't mentioned in that PDF but a similar one is listed at 96% round trip. The charger is easily 95% or better for an overall efficiency of greater than 82%.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

The big improvements there would be aerodynamics and tires, which are already a big focus for EVs. One problem is that the higher efficiency tires are more expensive and wear out before the energy savings pay for themselves, particularly with EVs.

95% charger efficiency? Not even close. You shouldn't assume things, because you underestimate how bad software and cables can be.
https://www-motor-no.translate.goog/elbil/dette-er-de-mest-og-minst-effektive-elbilene/199860?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
For example Renault Zoe: 52KWh pack, 54 KWh to charge it, ~81% efficiency.
And all this discussion is off topic still.