EV owners of today and tomorrow

[BleedingOrange]

MSN

 

[BleedingOrange]

^^^^^^^^ Huge fire at Riven plant. How much pollution is this causing ?????

 

[DarkBlack]

What weaknesses?

 

[JeepHead]

I read this over the weekend and found it interesting.

Batteries do not create electricity, but they store electricity produced elsewhere, especially through coal, uranium, natural power plants or diesel generators. So the claim that an electric is a zero-emission vehicle is not true at all, because the electricity produced comes from power plants and many of them burn coal or gas.



So 40% today ? some of electric cars on the road are carbon-based.



But that's not everything.



Those who are enthusiastic about electric cars and the green revolution should take a closer look at batteries, but also wind turbines and solar panels.



A typical electric car battery weighs 450 kg, about as big as a suitcase. It contains 11 kg of lithium, 27 kg of nickel, 20 kg of manganese, 14 kg of cobalt, 90 kg of copper and 180 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic. There are more than 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside.



To make each BEV battery, you will need to process 11,000 kg of salt for lithium, 15,000 kg of cobalt mineral, 2.270 kg of resin for nickel and 11,000 kg of copper mineral.



In total, you have to extract 225,000 kilograms of soil for one battery.



The biggest problem with solar systems is the chemicals used to convert silicate into the gravel used for the panels.



To produce sufficient clean silicon, it must be treated with chloride, sulfuric acid, fluoride, trichloroethane and acetone.



In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper-indian-galium diselenuride and cadmium telluride are necessary, which are also highly toxic.



Silicone dust is a hazard to workers and tiles cannot be recycled.



Wind turbines are not plus-ultra in terms of cost and environmental destruction.



Each windmill weighs 1,688 tons (equivalent to the weight of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass and rare lands that are hard-to-get Neodymium, Praseodymium and Dyprosium.



Each of the three shovels weighs 40,000 kg and has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years, after which they must be replaced. We cannot recycle used rotor blades.



Certainly these technologies can have their place, but we need to look beyond the myth of freedom of emission. Going Green may seem like a utopian ideal, but if you look at the hidden and embedded costs in a realistic and impartial way, you’ll find that “Going Green” is doing more damage to the Earth’s environment today than it seems.





credit: Jeff Spring Shu

 

[WinterDeere]

I read this over the weekend and found it interesting.

Batteries do not create electricity, but they store electricity produced elsewhere, especially through coal, uranium, natural power plants or diesel generators. So the claim that an electric is a zero-emission vehicle is not true at all, because the electricity produced comes from power plants and many of them burn coal or gas.



So 40% today ? some of electric cars on the road are carbon-based.



But that's not everything.



Those who are enthusiastic about electric cars and the green revolution should take a closer look at batteries, but also wind turbines and solar panels.



A typical electric car battery weighs 450 kg, about as big as a suitcase. It contains 11 kg of lithium, 27 kg of nickel, 20 kg of manganese, 14 kg of cobalt, 90 kg of copper and 180 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic. There are more than 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside.



To make each BEV battery, you will need to process 11,000 kg of salt for lithium, 15,000 kg of cobalt mineral, 2.270 kg of resin for nickel and 11,000 kg of copper mineral.



In total, you have to extract 225,000 kilograms of soil for one battery.



The biggest problem with solar systems is the chemicals used to convert silicate into the gravel used for the panels.



To produce sufficient clean silicon, it must be treated with chloride, sulfuric acid, fluoride, trichloroethane and acetone.



In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper-indian-galium diselenuride and cadmium telluride are necessary, which are also highly toxic.



Silicone dust is a hazard to workers and tiles cannot be recycled.



Wind turbines are not plus-ultra in terms of cost and environmental destruction.



Each windmill weighs 1,688 tons (equivalent to the weight of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass and rare lands that are hard-to-get Neodymium, Praseodymium and Dyprosium.



Each of the three shovels weighs 40,000 kg and has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years, after which they must be replaced. We cannot recycle used rotor blades.



Certainly these technologies can have their place, but we need to look beyond the myth of freedom of emission. Going Green may seem like a utopian ideal, but if you look at the hidden and embedded costs in a realistic and impartial way, you’ll find that “Going Green” is doing more damage to the Earth’s environment today than it seems.





credit: Jeff Spring Shu

Good post, even if the write-up came from a third party. Some of it is misleading or misinformed though, such as "In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper-indian-galium diselenuride and cadmium telluride are necessary, which are also highly toxic." The semiconductor is gallium-arsenide, a group III-V compound semiconductor, typically deposited on SiC. It's not "using gallium and arsenoide", they form an inert molecule, as deployed.

What's more often glossed over is that the sources of charging those batteries have much lower emissions per kWh than any ICE can ever hope to achieve. Even fossil-fuel powered electrical plants operate at much higher efficiency than an ICE, and they make up only a fraction of the total energy used to charge an EV.

There's no question that, if we are going to move from point A to point B, we are going to have an impact on our environment. EV's aren't about eliminating that impact, but somewhere between reducing it and shifting it toward areas where there's less perceived risk. As to whether perception meets reality there, is anyone's guess, it depends on who's funding both the research and coverage of it.

 

[DarkBlack]

What's more often glossed over is that the sources of charging those batteries have much lower emissions per kWh than any ICE can ever hope to achieve. Even fossil-fuel powered electrical plants operate at much higher efficiency than an ICE

I’m surprised to see you post that common false narrative.
I thought I remembered you and I debunking that pro-EV misinformation months ago. Maybe it was someone else.

Here you go:

More than 60% of energy used for electricity generation is lost in conversion - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

You’re starting with only 40% making to your home, 60% lost as wasted energy , now of that remaining, you now loose another 4-12% losses through the battery charging system. You then have the vehicle motor and motor controller losses.

 

[Quaffer]

You got feminazi's at your house?

More than I wish!

 

[tradosaurus]

More than I wish!

time to gird your loins and take back control!

 

[tradosaurus]

^^^^^^^^ Huge fire at Riven plant. How much pollution is this causing ?????

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[WinterDeere]

I’m surprised to see you post that common false narrative.
I thought I remembered you and I debunking that pro-EV misinformation months ago. Maybe it was someone else.

Here you go:

More than 60% of energy used for electricity generation is lost in conversion - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

You’re starting with only 40% making to your home, 60% lost as wasted energy , now of that remaining, you now loose another 4-12% losses through the battery charging system. You then have the vehicle motor and motor controller losses.

Your numbers are correct, and there are losses any time energy is converted, but this does not translate to a false narrative. It is true that conversion losses eat up about 58.5% of all energy production, before even hitting the battery charger in your garage. However, the fossil-fuel consumption and losses applicable to ICE usage are even higher than that.

1. Fossil fuels make up only 64% [1] on the energy used to charge an EV in this country, versus 100% in the ICE. So you can immediately discount the those loss comparisons by 1/3.

2. The petroleum you're running through your passenger vehicle must be first refined to gasoline, or occasionally diesel. The petroleum refining industry is the largest user of energy in the United States today, and so their efficiency has improved enormously in recent years, but still runs only 85% - 90% for most gasoline products [2]. So, discount the ICE by another ~0.87.

3. The actual efficiency of the ICE: US average 33.7 kWh/gal / 35.8 mi/gal = 0.94 kWh/mi [3][4].

Combine these three effects, and we're looking at (0.94 kWh/mi) / .87 / .64 = 1690 Wh/mi for the ICE, versus the aforementioned (340 Wh/mi) / 0.415 = 819 Wh/mi for EV. Even if you argue for accuracy of some of the numbers, or heating a cooling consumption, a 2 to 1 gap in motive power is basically impossible to ever argue away.

Note: The 64% number was applied to the ICE, but could have been flipped and applied to the EV instead. Different kWh numbers, same ratio. Point is, numbers matter.

[1] - More than 60% of energy used for electricity generation is lost in conversion - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
[2] - Updated Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries
[3] - Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia
[4] - NHTSA data reported at USA Today

I think one problem is that people play fast and loose with these numbers, ignoring loss on one side, while highlighting it on the other. Doing this, it might initially appear the gap is even larger, like 5 to 1 if you only account of the losses on the ICE side. The gap is much smaller, but still favors EV by roughly 2:1, using these coarse numbers.