Some things to consider as we move to EV's and more battery/wind/solar

[Boilermaker03]

"you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered. . .Interesting. . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven."

"Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . . we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic."

"One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells."

"This should concern us all! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust. . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery."

"The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!"

Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s - The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction

What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric

www.academia.edu

You can read the rest in the link. Why are we sprinting toward a solution that is environmentally WORSE than what we have been using for decades?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Also around 10 percent of electricity created at the grid is lost on the way to your house, depending on distance. EV was always a misnomer. They are battery powered.

 

[SDBoiler1]

"you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered. . .Interesting. . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven."

"Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . . we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic."

"One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells."

"This should concern us all! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust. . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery."

"The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!"

Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s - The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction

What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric

www.academia.edu

You can read the rest in the link. Why are we sprinting toward a solution that is environmentally WORSE than what we have been using for decades?

Because the D puppet masters’ have a vested interest in making EVs the new standard. This really isn’t about “ saving the planet”. It’s about lining the pockets of certain wealthy D backers - except for Elon Musk. He’s now a pariah to the Ds. He dared to buy Twitter and will reinstate freedom of speech on the platform instead of the biased, one-sided, politically-correct, hard left view Twitter currently allows.

 

[Droid12345]

"you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered. . .Interesting. . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven."

"Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . . we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic."

"One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells."

"This should concern us all! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust. . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery."

"The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!"

Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s - The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction

What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric

www.academia.edu

You can read the rest in the link. Why are we sprinting toward a solution that is environmentally WORSE than what we have been using for decades?

This random dude should submit his work for a Nobel prize. He could change the world as he's uncovered something here that the scientific community has clearly missed.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Because the D puppet masters’ have a vested interest in making EVs the new standard. This really isn’t about “ saving the planet”. It’s about lining the pockets of certain wealthy D backers - except for Elon Musk. He’s now a pariah to the Ds. He dared to buy Twitter and will reinstate freedom of speech on the platform instead of the biased, one-sided, politically-correct, hard left view Twitter currently allows.

So it's not going to line Elon's pockets.........or it's ok because he's today's hero of the right? Is there another option?

 

[Boilermaker03]

This random dude should submit his work for a Nobel prize. He could change the world as he's uncovered something here that the scientific community has clearly missed.

"Random" dude. Dog whistle for "I'm not going to recognize anything this person has to say".

 

[SDBoiler1]

So it's not going to line Elon's pockets.........or it's ok because he's today's hero of the right? Is there another option?

Didn’t you see where Biden won’t even acknowledge Tesla as an American EV maker? He’s so in the pocket of the AFL-CIO that will only talk about Ford, GM, and Stellantis (not even American-owned). Biden is pushing people to buy EVs from the Big3. The Ds can’t control Musk so they will either try to “cancel” him or ignore him. There’s only one problem - Musk is too rich, too savvy, and too connected to be ignored.

Musk himself has said that when he started his career he leaned center-left. Since 2008, the Ds have moved increasingly hardcore left. He says that his views now make him center-right (i.e. Liberatarian/Republican) and he is much more comfortable with the Rs now than the Ds. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

 

[Droid12345]

"Random" dude. Dog whistle for "I'm not going to recognize anything this person has to say".

It's not a dog whistle, it's explicit. Why should ANYONE recognize what he has to say on topics about which he has no expertise? But, for the record, I downloaded his paper and it's full of problems and offers only a one-sided argument.

 

[BSIT]

"you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered. . .Interesting. . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven."

"Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . . we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic."

"One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells."

"This should concern us all! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust. . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery."

"The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!"

Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s - The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction

What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric

www.academia.edu

You can read the rest in the link. Why are we sprinting toward a solution that is environmentally WORSE than what we have been using for decades?

As I said previously, all sources of power need to be considered with the goal of creating less pollution. In my case (Kauai), solar is a no brainer. I'm getting 100% power from the sun for my house and next car we get will probably be EV because I can use solar to charge in our garage. With that being said, I'd think it would be silly to demand the use solar in my previous state of Michigan. Not enough winter sunlight to use solar and driving ranges are too long to support EV let alone have the EV infrastructure in place.

Kauai Quit Using Oil To Produce Most Of Its Electricity Years Ago. That's Paying Off Now

Oil prices are surging due to the Russian invasion, but the island's dwindling reliance on fossil fuels is helping to stabilize utility bills.

www.civilbeat.org

 

[BoilerJS]

This random dude should submit his work for a Nobel prize. He could change the world as he's uncovered something here that the scientific community has clearly missed.

It’s not missed it’s covered up. Ten years ago my daughter did her senior project studying this. It’s widely known in academia.
Also my county is installing 7 square miles of solar panels on some of best farm ground in the world.

 

[Hausta01]

It’s not missed it’s covered up. Ten years ago my daughter did her senior project studying this. It’s widely known in academia.
Also my county is installing 7 square miles of solar panels on some of best farm ground in the world.

Adams county?

 

[PurdueFan1]

It’s not missed it’s covered up. Ten years ago my daughter did her senior project studying this. It’s widely known in academia.
Also my county is installing 7 square miles of solar panels on some of best farm ground in the world.

So who leased out the farm land then?

 

[Boilermaker03]

It's not a dog whistle, it's explicit. Why should ANYONE recognize what he has to say on topics about which he has no expertise? But, for the record, I downloaded his paper and it's full of problems and offers only a one-sided argument.

Full of problems? Like? I'm sure it's possible there may be some inaccuracies, but as a whole, it's not incorrect. There are major issues that aren't being talked about in this "green" movement that is anything but green.

 

[Boilermaker03]

So who leased out the farm land then?

What difference does that make?

 

[Indy_Rider]

What difference does that make?

If it's a private entity, good luck to the farmer with the mess that will be left if/when the lease holder backs out/goes belly up. If it's government, at least you know who to go after for the mess left, not that it will help you get it cleaned up and farmable again, you just at least have someone to curse at while you look at your now worthless and unusable ground.

 

[Droid12345]

Full of problems? Like? I'm sure it's possible there may be some inaccuracies, but as a whole, it's not incorrect. There are major issues that aren't being talked about in this "green" movement that is anything but green.

Well, for one, he seems to think that E=mc2 has something to do with calculating the amount of energy required to move an object. So, I don't have a lot of faith in his scientific literacy.

But, more importantly he makes a big deal about accounting for both "operational costs" and "embedded costs." That in itself is totally fine. However, he continually brings up the "embedded costs" of EVs but not for ICE cars. A few examples:

- He holds EVs accountable for the environmental costs of mining for lithium etc, but doesn't talk about the environmental costs of oil extraction, oil spills, oil transportation, oil refining, etc.
- He voices concerns for the geopolitical aspects of sourcing materials for EVs but doesn't talk about the geopolitical aspects of sourcing oil.
- He holds EVs accountable for the whole of the energy needed to run them, including production, line loss, energy lost to heat while charging, etc., but only accounts for the fuel actually burned by ICE cars. He neglects the energy needed to produce the gasoline (about 4 kWH per gallon, as best I can tell), the extra petroleum products needed to transport the gasoline to gas stations, the energy required to run gas stations, etc.
- He uses the tired argument that EVs are still powered by fossil fuels because of the makeup of the US electricity grid. This is a straw man that doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE advocates going to EVs without ALSO greening the grid. It's even improved since he wrote the paper, as he uses the stat of .92 lbs of CO2 emitted per kWH of electricity generation based on the makeup of the production sources. That was accurate in 2019, but had dropped to .85 lbs in 2020 and will no doubt continue to improve.
- He attempts to show that EVs actually emit 15% more CO2 per mile than gasoline cars, but does that calculation by comparing an EV to a hybrid that gets 55 mpg, not an average ICE car. If you re-do the calculation based on an ICE car that gets 35 mpg (and even that's generous), you find that it emits .54 lbs of CO2 per mile, or 38% more than the .39 lbs "emitted" by the Tesla he used in his example. The disparity would be even greater if I updated the CO2 cost of electricity generation to the 2020 numbers and added the cost of 4kWH needed to produce a gallon of gasoline to the ICE car.

He also makes false statements about the recyclability of wind turbine blades and solar panels.

So, while he points out legitimate issues and even some problems yet to be solved, his calculations to determine that EVs are actually worse for CO2 are wrong and the only thing he holds ICEs accountable for is the fuel they actually burn, not any of the processes required to make that fuel available, while bashing EVs for every step along the way.

Oh, and he's a conspiracy theorist, but then, so are you, so I guess that won't bother you.

 

[BoilerJS]

So who leased out the farm land then?

At $1800 per ton go anhydrous, the farmers did.
Farmers are business men.
And if they didn’t someone else would.

 

[PurdueFan1]

What difference does that make?

Don’t worry about it, 03.

 

[PurdueFan1]

At $1800 per ton go anhydrous, the farmers did.
Farmers are business men.
And if they didn’t someone else would.

I was gonna say that I’m sure someone is making decent dough. Do you know if they sold the land or are leasing it out?

 

[BSIT]

I was gonna say that I’m sure someone is making decent dough. Do you know if they sold the land or are leasing it out?

I bet they are leasing like they also do for windmills. Can’t fault farmers if they get a greater return than farming

 

[TheGunner]

Didn’t you see where Biden won’t even acknowledge Tesla as an American EV maker? He’s so in the pocket of the AFL-CIO that will only talk about Ford, GM, and Stellantis (not even American-owned). Biden is pushing people to buy EVs from the Big3. The Ds can’t control Musk so they will either try to “cancel” him or ignore him. There’s only one problem - Musk is too rich, too savvy, and too connected to be ignored.

Musk himself has said that when he started his career he leaned center-left. Since 2008, the Ds have moved increasingly hardcore left. He says that his views now make him center-right (i.e. Liberatarian/Republican) and he is much more comfortable with the Rs now than the Ds. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

RE AFL-CIO…Brandon Carter won’t be satisfied until we fully return to the 70s.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Well, for one, he seems to think that E=mc2 has something to do with calculating the amount of energy required to move an object. So, I don't have a lot of faith in his scientific literacy.

But, more importantly he makes a big deal about accounting for both "operational costs" and "embedded costs." That in itself is totally fine. However, he continually brings up the "embedded costs" of EVs but not for ICE cars. A few examples:

- He holds EVs accountable for the environmental costs of mining for lithium etc, but doesn't talk about the environmental costs of oil extraction, oil spills, oil transportation, oil refining, etc.
- He voices concerns for the geopolitical aspects of sourcing materials for EVs but doesn't talk about the geopolitical aspects of sourcing oil.
- He holds EVs accountable for the whole of the energy needed to run them, including production, line loss, energy lost to heat while charging, etc., but only accounts for the fuel actually burned by ICE cars. He neglects the energy needed to produce the gasoline (about 4 kWH per gallon, as best I can tell), the extra petroleum products needed to transport the gasoline to gas stations, the energy required to run gas stations, etc.
- He uses the tired argument that EVs are still powered by fossil fuels because of the makeup of the US electricity grid. This is a straw man that doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE advocates going to EVs without ALSO greening the grid. It's even improved since he wrote the paper, as he uses the stat of .92 lbs of CO2 emitted per kWH of electricity generation based on the makeup of the production sources. That was accurate in 2019, but had dropped to .85 lbs in 2020 and will no doubt continue to improve.
- He attempts to show that EVs actually emit 15% more CO2 per mile than gasoline cars, but does that calculation by comparing an EV to a hybrid that gets 55 mpg, not an average ICE car. If you re-do the calculation based on an ICE car that gets 35 mpg (and even that's generous), you find that it emits .54 lbs of CO2 per mile, or 38% more than the .39 lbs "emitted" by the Tesla he used in his example. The disparity would be even greater if I updated the CO2 cost of electricity generation to the 2020 numbers and added the cost of 4kWH needed to produce a gallon of gasoline to the ICE car.

He also makes false statements about the recyclability of wind turbine blades and solar panels.

So, while he points out legitimate issues and even some problems yet to be solved, his calculations to determine that EVs are actually worse for CO2 are wrong and the only thing he holds ICEs accountable for is the fuel they actually burn, not any of the processes required to make that fuel available, while bashing EVs for every step along the way.

Oh, and he's a conspiracy theorist, but then, so are you, so I guess that won't bother you.

E=mc2 aside.

Many of the things you listed here are few and far between. Oil spills don't happen very often and we have become good (not great) at cleaning them up. The environmental costs of mining is massive in relation.

As far as comparing the rest of the embedded costs of the two. I agree there could be a lot more said. However, that doesn't diminish the issues that EV's/batteries/solar panels and windmills have, which is much worse than what we are currently doing.

Not all parts of a solar panel are recyclable. Wind turbine blades are rarely recycled and typically buried. Getting a couple minor things wrong doesn't take away from the main parts of the article, which is the toxic pollution of the mining and the raw amount of Earth that has to be moved.

I must have missed the conspiracy theory part. Do explain.

 

[BoilerJS]

Adams county?

Pulaski.

I was gonna say that I’m sure someone is making decent dough. Do you know if they sold the land or are leasing it out?

Leasing it. The problem is the ground is pretty much ruined for farming after all the infrastructure goes in for the panels.
I did work on an ordinance for our County that would require escro for the infrastructure removal if the project failed and bonds for County Road damage.

 

[Hausta01]

Pulaski.

Leasing it. The problem is the ground is pretty much ruined for farming after all the infrastructure goes in for the panels.
I did work on an ordinance for our County that would require escro for the infrastructure removal if the project failed and bonds for County Road damage.

They are doing that, or at least trying to, in Adams County too. I think paying about $15k per acre to the farmers. For a lot of older farmers whose kids won't take over it seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Droid12345]

E=mc2 aside.

Many of the things you listed here are few and far between. Oil spills don't happen very often and we have become good (not great) at cleaning them up. The environmental costs of mining is massive in relation.

You said "many" of the things, but that's only one thing. Can't help but notice you didn't talk about extraction, refining, etc., which is normal procedure. But, the scientific community disagrees with you, and random dude, that, taken on the whole, mining is worse. Why should I believe you two instead?

As far as comparing the rest of the embedded costs of the two. I agree there could be a lot more said. However, that doesn't diminish the issues that EV's/batteries/solar panels and windmills have, which is much worse than what we are currently doing.

Again, it's not been demonstrated that it's "much worse." You agree there could have been a lot more said, but presented it anyway? My whole issue with it is he only offers one side of the argument, and an inaccurate one at that. He's not arguing honestly, so I don't really care what he has to say.

Not all parts of a solar panel are recyclable.

This is true, but that's not what he said. He's not arguing honestly.

Wind turbine blades are rarely recycled and typically buried.

This is true, but that's not what he said. Lots of aluminum cans are not recycled, but I would not be justified in saying "aluminum cans can't be recycled," right? If he had said "wind turbine blades are not recycled as frequently as they should be," then we're fine. But that's not what he said. Again, he's not arguing honestly.

Getting a couple minor things wrong doesn't take away from the main parts of the article, which is the toxic pollution of the mining and the raw amount of Earth that has to be moved.

A couple of minor things? Like lying about what kind of car he compares to an EV? You'll note in my last response I acknowledged that he brought up legitimate things to talk about, but he only talks about how bad EVs are and ignores the impact of the fossil fuel industry.

I must have missed the conspiracy theory part. Do explain.

"We ALL should take a good hard look at what we are being Told is . . . ‘Green Technology’ . . . What are ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green? . . . Sadly, no one ever seems to ask! . . . Why Not? . . . Where are the governments in all of this? . . . Where is the Media?"

"The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject is, Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole."

"Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct."

His whole premise seems to be that we're all being lied to about this stuff and this information is hidden. Except, of course, he was able to find it by searching on the publicly-accessible internet. So....

 

[Boilermaker03]

You said "many" of the things, but that's only one thing. Can't help but notice you didn't talk about extraction, refining, etc., which is normal procedure. But, the scientific community disagrees with you, and random dude, that, taken on the whole, mining is worse. Why should I believe you two instead?

Again, it's not been demonstrated that it's "much worse." You agree there could have been a lot more said, but presented it anyway? My whole issue with it is he only offers one side of the argument, and an inaccurate one at that. He's not arguing honestly, so I don't really care what he has to say.

This is true, but that's not what he said. He's not arguing honestly.

This is true, but that's not what he said. Lots of aluminum cans are not recycled, but I would not be justified in saying "aluminum cans can't be recycled," right? If he had said "wind turbine blades are not recycled as frequently as they should be," then we're fine. But that's not what he said. Again, he's not arguing honestly.

A couple of minor things? Like lying about what kind of car he compares to an EV? You'll note in my last response I acknowledged that he brought up legitimate things to talk about, but he only talks about how bad EVs are and ignores the impact of the fossil fuel industry.

"We ALL should take a good hard look at what we are being Told is . . . ‘Green Technology’ . . . What are ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green? . . . Sadly, no one ever seems to ask! . . . Why Not? . . . Where are the governments in all of this? . . . Where is the Media?"

"The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject is, Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole."

"Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct."

His whole premise seems to be that we're all being lied to about this stuff and this information is hidden. Except, of course, he was able to find it by searching on the publicly-accessible internet. So....

No, he doesn't say it's hidden. Just that it's not being presented to the public.

 

[Droid12345]

No, he doesn't say it's hidden. Just that it's not being presented to the public.

Except that all the data he used is publicly available. There are articles all over the place that discuss the environmental impact and geopolitical issues regarding lithium mining, including in that liberal rag The NY Times.

Most people don't need to get into the weeds of all this. The scientific community seems to believe that moving to EVs and renewable energy is a net positive, despite the fact that they already know all this stuff. There is NO solution to climate change (I know you don't think it's something that needs to be solved, but that's a whole other issue) that doesn't have some kind of environmental impact because there's NOTHING we do as humans that doesn't have environmental impact. So, I can accept that lithium mining has negative consequences and still be ok with it if it offers a net positive over fossil fuels. Copper mining (and every other kind) has a negative impact, too, but I don't see you on here complaining that the public is not being presented with the negatives of copper mining.

I'd need to see data about the comparison between the two to convince me that lithium mining is, overall, worse for the environment than oil extraction, coal mining, fracking, etc. That's the problem with this paper, he doesn't do any comparing (except for the incorrect one about cars' CO2 emissions). He offers a bunch of scare stats about how bad lithium mining is but doesn't offer any comparable stats for fossil fuel extraction. How much "earth is moved" to get a ton of coal? How toxic to local water supplies is fracking?

I'm reminded of once when I was car shopping and mentioned to the salesperson that I was also considering another make. To try to convince me to stay with them, I was shown a photo of that other make after an accident and told "this car was hit by a PT Cruiser." Then I was shown a crash test photo of the car they were trying to sell me for comparison. It was in much better shape. But, those two photos gave me basically no information. How fast were the cars going in the PT Cruiser accident? How fast was the car going in the crash test? Which part of the car took the impact? That's basically the exact thing random dude has done here, and why it's easy for me to dismiss his claim that EVs and renewables are worse than fossil fuels and ICE cars when that seems to be the opposite of the conclusion of the scientific community AKA the people who actually know stuff.

What's more, I don't think anyone in the scientific community or green movement is claiming that lithium batteries and such are the end-all-be-all solution. It's a temporary measure to get us away from the immediate threat (CO2, which, again, I know you think is BS) until some new, cleaner, battery technology is developed.

 

[BoilerJS]

Except that all the data he used is publicly available. There are articles all over the place that discuss the environmental impact and geopolitical issues regarding lithium mining, including in that liberal rag The NY Times.

Most people don't need to get into the weeds of all this. The scientific community seems to believe that moving to EVs and renewable energy is a net positive, despite the fact that they already know all this stuff. There is NO solution to climate change (I know you don't think it's something that needs to be solved, but that's a whole other issue) that doesn't have some kind of environmental impact because there's NOTHING we do as humans that doesn't have environmental impact. So, I can accept that lithium mining has negative consequences and still be ok with it if it offers a net positive over fossil fuels. Copper mining (and every other kind) has a negative impact, too, but I don't see you on here complaining that the public is not being presented with the negatives of copper mining.

I'd need to see data about the comparison between the two to convince me that lithium mining is, overall, worse for the environment than oil extraction, coal mining, fracking, etc. That's the problem with this paper, he doesn't do any comparing (except for the incorrect one about cars' CO2 emissions). He offers a bunch of scare stats about how bad lithium mining is but doesn't offer any comparable stats for fossil fuel extraction. How much "earth is moved" to get a ton of coal? How toxic to local water supplies is fracking?

I'm reminded of once when I was car shopping and mentioned to the salesperson that I was also considering another make. To try to convince me to stay with them, I was shown a photo of that other make after an accident and told "this car was hit by a PT Cruiser." Then I was shown a crash test photo of the car they were trying to sell me for comparison. It was in much better shape. But, those two photos gave me basically no information. How fast were the cars going in the PT Cruiser accident? How fast was the car going in the crash test? Which part of the car took the impact? That's basically the exact thing random dude has done here, and why it's easy for me to dismiss his claim that EVs and renewables are worse than fossil fuels and ICE cars when that seems to be the opposite of the conclusion of the scientific community AKA the people who actually know stuff.

What's more, I don't think anyone in the scientific community or green movement is claiming that lithium batteries and such are the end-all-be-all solution. It's a temporary measure to get us away from the immediate threat (CO2, which, again, I know you think is BS) until some new, cleaner, battery technology is developed.

The EV movement is solving nothing. The environmental impact by moving to EV's is at best a net zero.
Let's fix the problem permanently. We have enough fossil fuels to last for a century or more. We are coming up with ways to use fossil fuels and have a minimal impact on the environment. Let's explore permanent solutions, hydrogen fuel cells for example are intriguing.
Technology moves exponentially fast. A century ago cars were just coming into their own.
Let technology have a chance at a permanent, environmentally friendly solution.

 

[Droid12345]

The EV movement is solving nothing. The environmental impact by moving to EV's is at best a net zero.

Data please. I see this claim all the time, but no one ever backs it up. The scientific community apparently disagrees, so why should I accept your claim?

Let's fix the problem permanently. We have enough fossil fuels to last for a century or more. We are coming up with ways to use fossil fuels and have a minimal impact on the environment. Let's explore permanent solutions, hydrogen fuel cells for example are intriguing.
Technology moves exponentially fast. A century ago cars were just coming into their own.
Let technology have a chance at a permanent, environmentally friendly solution

No one’s stopping it, but do we know it can get there before climate change causes more severe problems? And, if your answer to that is that climate change isn’t real or that human activity isn’t the cause of it, then there’s no sense continuing the conversation.

 

[BoilerJS]

Data please. I see this claim all the time, but no one ever backs it up. The scientific community apparently disagrees, so why should I accept your claim?

No one’s stopping it, but do we know it can get there before climate change causes more severe problems? And, if your answer to that is that climate change isn’t real or that human activity isn’t the cause of it, then there’s no sense continuing the conversation.

You win. Global warming is man made.
It can't be a coincidence that some 17,000 years ago man mastered fire and WHAM, the glaciers melted.
Those Wooley Mammoth burgers over an open fire did the glaciers in.
So how does the scientific community explain that?

 

[Droid12345]

You win. Global warming is man made.
It can't be a coincidence that some 17,000 years ago man mastered fire and WHAM, the glaciers melted.
Those Wooley Mammoth burgers over an open fire did the glaciers in.
So how does the scientific community explain that?

Oh right, because the fact that the climate can and has changed naturally necessarily means that natural factors are the ONLY things that can change the climate. I forgot. Since the scientific community clearly has neglected to factor in natural climate change, you should publish your findings and win that Nobel.

 

[BSIT]

You win. Global warming is man made.
It can't be a coincidence that some 17,000 years ago man mastered fire and WHAM, the glaciers melted.
Those Wooley Mammoth burgers over an open fire did the glaciers in.
So how does the scientific community explain that?

I’m not going to get into whether climate change is caused by man but there’s evidence of improvements to air and water quality. Not that long ago acid rain caused by coal power plants took a toll on lakes in the Northeast. Now they have rebounded. Also remember when a river caught on fire in Cleveland due to pollution. I also remember when LA had a terrible smog problem during the summer times but this has also improved. Unfortunately Conservatives seldom mention this in fear of being called environmental sellouts.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Well, for one, he seems to think that E=mc2 has something to do with calculating the amount of energy required to move an object. So, I don't have a lot of faith in his scientific literacy.

But, more importantly he makes a big deal about accounting for both "operational costs" and "embedded costs." That in itself is totally fine. However, he continually brings up the "embedded costs" of EVs but not for ICE cars. A few examples:

- He holds EVs accountable for the environmental costs of mining for lithium etc, but doesn't talk about the environmental costs of oil extraction, oil spills, oil transportation, oil refining, etc.
- He voices concerns for the geopolitical aspects of sourcing materials for EVs but doesn't talk about the geopolitical aspects of sourcing oil.
- He holds EVs accountable for the whole of the energy needed to run them, including production, line loss, energy lost to heat while charging, etc., but only accounts for the fuel actually burned by ICE cars. He neglects the energy needed to produce the gasoline (about 4 kWH per gallon, as best I can tell), the extra petroleum products needed to transport the gasoline to gas stations, the energy required to run gas stations, etc.
- He uses the tired argument that EVs are still powered by fossil fuels because of the makeup of the US electricity grid. This is a straw man that doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE advocates going to EVs without ALSO greening the grid. It's even improved since he wrote the paper, as he uses the stat of .92 lbs of CO2 emitted per kWH of electricity generation based on the makeup of the production sources. That was accurate in 2019, but had dropped to .85 lbs in 2020 and will no doubt continue to improve.
- He attempts to show that EVs actually emit 15% more CO2 per mile than gasoline cars, but does that calculation by comparing an EV to a hybrid that gets 55 mpg, not an average ICE car. If you re-do the calculation based on an ICE car that gets 35 mpg (and even that's generous), you find that it emits .54 lbs of CO2 per mile, or 38% more than the .39 lbs "emitted" by the Tesla he used in his example. The disparity would be even greater if I updated the CO2 cost of electricity generation to the 2020 numbers and added the cost of 4kWH needed to produce a gallon of gasoline to the ICE car.

He also makes false statements about the recyclability of wind turbine blades and solar panels.

So, while he points out legitimate issues and even some problems yet to be solved, his calculations to determine that EVs are actually worse for CO2 are wrong and the only thing he holds ICEs accountable for is the fuel they actually burn, not any of the processes required to make that fuel available, while bashing EVs for every step along the way.

Oh, and he's a conspiracy theorist, but then, so are you, so I guess that won't bother you.

Why are you not preaching to China and India, the two largest polluters on planet Earth? Under Trump, CO2 emissions were decreasing. Even with ICE's. Under Biden, they're not moving a bit.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

I’m not going to get into whether climate change is caused by man but there’s evidence of improvements to air and water quality. Not that long ago acid rain caused by coal power plants took a toll on lakes in the Northeast. Now they have rebounded. Also remember when a river caught on fire in Cleveland due to pollution. I also remember when LA had a terrible smog problem during the summer times but this has also improved. Unfortunately Conservatives seldom mention this in fear of being called environmental sellouts.

If one studies the history of climate change, it's proven to be cyclical. Many different ice ages, and the poles at one point have been proven to be tropical.

 

[Droid12345]

Why are you not preaching to China and India, the two largest polluters on planet Earth?

How do you know I'm not? But also, ridiculous argument. Why are you not preaching to Russia that they should leave Ukraine?

For the record, China and India both get a far higher percentage of their energy from renewables than we do. So, while their CO2 may be higher than ours because of their dramatically higher populations, they're both making progress faster than we are. Maybe we should catch up.

Under Trump, CO2 emissions were decreasing. Even with ICE's. Under Biden, they're not moving a bit.

Source? But, even if true, maybe we should do something about that? Like, I don't know, invest in renewables? Wonder which party wants to do that and which party consistently blocks it...

 

[Droid12345]

If one studies the history of climate change, it's proven to be cyclical. Many different ice ages, and the poles at one point have been proven to be tropical.

Wow, this is totally new information to me. Why haven't the climate scientists studied the history of the climate? Seems like if they knew about these cycles, they could give us all much better recommendations.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

How do you know I'm not? But also, ridiculous argument. Why are you not preaching to Russia that they should leave Ukraine?

For the record, China and India both get a far higher percentage of their energy from renewables than we do. So, while their CO2 may be higher than ours because of their dramatically higher populations, they're both making progress faster than we are. Maybe we should catch up.

Source? But, even if true, maybe we should do something about that? Like, I don't know, invest in renewables? Wonder which party wants to do that and which party consistently blocks it...

Renewables really aren't.

 

[BSIT]

Interesting read

U.S. Leads in Greenhouse Gas Reductions, but Some States Are Falling Behind | Article | EESI

www.eesi.org

 

[Droid12345]

Interesting read

U.S. Leads in Greenhouse Gas Reductions, but Some States Are Falling Behind | Article | EESI

www.eesi.org

This is good. Let's move even faster.

 

[Droid12345]

Renewables really aren't.

Then I guess we're screwed.