Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Ianhill]

How can you be so certain when we do not know our future actions?

Because some changes are "baked in" at this point - even if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow (which we won't.)

other than we are screwed no one knows, becuase it can end in so many different ways can we predict everything ?

We do have a pretty good idea. So again, saying 'no one knows' is like saying 'no one knows if smoking causes cancer' as a reason to keep smoking.

There's no limit to human stupidity just look at DuPont for example and the Russian, Us 1960's nuclear tests in space we Do things that can vastly tip the scale, then there non human influence like as mentioned meteroid colision outside our detectors scope of range, yellow stone erupting these type of circumimstsnces that are out of our control is what I mean by the prediction and it's reality I'm not in am misconception about the carbon output, there's the microscopic plastic problem too that major city's have with humans in subways wearing polymers that get into the air and we breath long term effects? Unknown things like that I mean I get there's certain science that's proven and fact I don't dispute it I have no position too.

I hate the fact that local goverment makes a big shout out about the issues and continues to feed itself from greed behind closed doors and ignore true scientific input, I believe we are at a position in most country's like Africa were Nelson Mandela rose and held the system accountable and that's is the issue goverment are to short sited and full of greed to make a true difference in a way that is needed.

 

[billvon]

There's no limit to human stupidity

Of course. So you choose your sources judiciously.

then there non human influence like as mentioned meteroid colision outside our detectors scope of range, yellow stone erupting these type of circumimstsnces that are out of our control

Again, of course. But deciding to keep smoking because a bus could hit you tomorrow isn't all that smart IMO.

I hate the fact that local goverment makes a big shout out about the issues and continues to feed itself from greed behind closed doors and ignore true scientific input, I believe we are at a position in most country's like Africa were Nelson Mandela rose and held the system accountable and that's is the issue goverment are to short sited and full of greed to make a true difference in a way that is needed.

Aaaand . . . away we go on the political merry-go-round.

I won't dispute any of that, and it doesn't really have anything to do what we were talking about.

 

[Ianhill]

Best of luck bill.

 

[jonescg]

I felt like there's a sense of irony in reporting the above post for spam, considering this entire thread is an endless argument going nowhere :lol:

Edit - spam post has since been removed.

 

[Punx0r]

It will end when people stop being willfully ignorant. Shouldn't take *too* long... :lol:

 

[Ianhill]

I felt like there's a sense of irony in reporting the above post for spam, considering this entire thread is an endless argument going nowhere :lol:

Edit - spam post has since been removed.

Damn I slept and missed it

 

[TheBeastie]

So with reference to the studies that claim nickel-based lithium battery EVs like Tesla 'pre-emit' about 150,000km worth or around 10-15 years worth of average driving, here is some new reports on the worries of lack of nickel supply already showing below.
There's One Metal Worrying Tesla and EV Battery Suppliers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/there-s-one-metal-worrying-tesla-and-the-ev-battery-supply-chain
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-08/tightening-nickel-supply-threatens-electric-vehicle-boom


From my googling around it is easy to find an EPA nickel mine report for specific mine that show around 60tonnes of co2 per 1-tonne of nickel produced, but charts on nickel production show as high as 120tonnes of co2 per tonne of nickel do exist.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/55602/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-german-study-shows/
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1462581#p1462581
To me it's the 120t nickel mines that suspend their operations as the amount of energy/cost thus co2 emissions to produce nickel compared to better ore mines, but as nickel prices go back up due to demand the 120tonne nickel mines reopen, we see this all the time in Australian mine news, as some mines are owned by politicians etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Nickel

The thing is that most studies on lithium EV's that claim that EVs are "technically" no better than petroleum cars probably have their nickel estimates set below or at 60 tonnes of co2 per tonne of nickel, if all nickel mines end up being around 120 tonnes than nickel lithium-based EVs will surely 'pre-emit' more co2 over their lifetime under any circumstance, even if they are charged from nuclear or other ultra-low co2 sources.

I have no issue with folks continuing to buy Lithium EV's as long as they know their total co2 footprint is no better than a petroleum car, as the game of "as long as the pollution is in someone else's back yard" seems to be general solution everyone is happy with as weird as that technically is.

 

[sendler2112]

1.05 billion personal light vehicles in the world on the road today. And many more, new middle class people that never yet had a car, but will want one. Do we really think we can dig up enough elements to make a billion new 60kWH batteries? 60 TWh just for cars? And that much again for grid storage? And how much for heavy transport? Agriculture machines will have to have cords and sockets in every field.
.
Scale
.
Or, most people will live near local food production, travel by bicycle, and haul with heavy horses. 200 years.

 

[ZeroEm]

We need the new battery. yes, the lighter more powerful one. Think of all the companies that it takes to support ICE's. coolant, oil, gaskets, SLA's, Oh to much to list you get it. the aftermarket. not sure ev's have the same foot print!

 

[Hillhater]

We need the new battery. yes, the lighter more powerful one. Think of all the companies that it takes to support ICE's. coolant, oil, gaskets, SLA's, Oh to much to list you get it. the aftermarket. not sure ev's have the same foot print!

All the items you list so far are used in EVs also...
Keep going withthat list, you wont find many that EVs do not use !
If you look at EVs with an unbiased view, you may find they have a worse carbon footprint than an equivalent ICE !
For sure, Some great EV advantages but, they are not the huge carbon reducer most think.

 

[Punx0r]

Everything you have ever posted claiming the carbon footprint of BEVs is worse than ICEs has been thoroughly debunked. Please stop making false claims and posting misinformation.

 

[Hillhater]

Everything you have ever posted claiming the carbon footprint of BEVs is worse than ICEs has been thoroughly debunked. Please stop making false claims and posting misinformation.

You need that unbiased mind to see the full picture.

 

[Dauntless]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/10/africa/tanzania-oil-tanker-explosion-intl/index.html

The biggest question is why this thread has never moved to Toxic.

 

[Ianhill]

Persian gulf war largest oil spill disaster can't say lithuim mining is clean but it's not had multiple spills and clean up operations, Each type of car have their own merits ease of operation but the fact remains we are moving to electric slowly but surely oil will dry up and we use to much for bio fuels to take the fuel strain of our demand.

 

[billvon]

Everything you have ever posted claiming the carbon footprint of BEVs is worse than ICEs has been thoroughly debunked. Please stop making false claims and posting misinformation.

If he didn't post false claims - what would he have left?

Good comparison here:

 

[sendler2112]

Two wheeled fast e cargo bikes and scooters would be so much less resource intensive than cars. Let's wake up and skip it. We are gobbling up all of the low entropy resources that they will need for later. Maximize the number of humans that can ever live on this planet. But not all at once. Let's try for 200 million years.
.
HoChiMinh
.
https://vimeo.com/32958521

 

[billvon]

Two wheeled fast e cargo bikes and scooters would be so much less resource intensive than cars.

Even 3 and 4 wheel vehicles. It's not that it's an ebike, it's that it is small and light.

 

[sendler2112]

RIP Aptera
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070490_aptera-collapse-how-why-it-happened-a-complete-chronology
.

.
.
Held back by prohibitive nanny state safety requirements. Driving is an accepted risk. And should be an earned privilege based on skill. We waste too many resources on making them "fool" proof.

 

[jimw1960]

Meanwhile, while people here are arguing that it can't be done, people are out there doing it.

Los Angeles, California: "Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid?fbclid=IwAR0SrpYEuiZe5Vkw9NCIJBWGFrtoC32Bc1_c69k7xEf_m0DhnS_wox8zb1U
The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.

Florida: "Florida utility to close natural gas plants, build massive solar-powered battery"
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/florida-utility-to-close-natural-gas-plants-build-massive-solar-powered-battery/?fbclid=IwAR1Gyojm0ZyXV6B1rNUKOjztX9s40WW_sMddVzkyikvNgD8pOH0Nq2GQQSE
The utility says its plan, including additional efficiency upgrades and smaller battery installations throughout its service area, will save customers more than $100 million in aggregate through avoided fuel costs. FPL also says its battery and upgrade plan will help avoid 1 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Hillhater]

Everything you have ever posted claiming the carbon footprint of BEVs is worse than ICEs has been thoroughly debunked. Please stop making false claims and posting misinformation.

If he didn't post false claims - what would he have left?

Good comparison here:

The problem with biased minds , is they are drawn to biased sources ( ucsusa) !
Why would you use a National average mpg figure ( 27.9 mpg), when the EPA lists plenty of ICEs with double (and more !) that mileage.?... IE , well below 200 gm/mile CO2.
And... that EVs 154 gm/ml is also based on a National “average” of 1.0 lb CO2/kWh ....
....which wont be realistic if you live in WV, UT, WY, etc, ...or Australia , or just about anywhere without a Nuclear plant .
In those places , that EVs 154 gm/ml, suddenly becomes 300+ gm/mile !
So in any of those places you are INCREASING your CO2 footprint by driving an EV.
Oh, and that is before you allow for any CO2 debt for manufacturing the battery !
( 50-100 gm/ml depending on capacity )
So.... as i said ,..not always the great Carbon reducer you may think.

 

[Hillhater]

Meanwhile, while people here are arguing that it can't be done, people are out there doing it.

Los Angeles, California: "Giant batteries and cheap solar power are shoving fossil fuels off the grid"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid?fbclid=IwAR0SrpYEuiZe5Vkw9NCIJBWGFrtoC32Bc1_c69k7xEf_m0DhnS_wox8zb1U
The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel.

A little late jim...we discussed this a month ago. But no one could answer my questions..such as how can a 400 MW solar array supply 7% of LAs power ,?...and how can power from the battery cost less than the power used to charge it ?.... some ne economics in play ?
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&p=1478184&hilit=8minute#p1478184

 

[billvon]

Meanwhile, while people here are arguing that it can't be done, people are out there doing it.

We are starting to hit the "knee" of battery production, where minor, incremental decreases in cost per kwhr have a major and immediate impact on sales volume. This means that those incremental increases will come more rapidly (more $$$ to amortize them) and we will see more rapid decreases in cost.

And of course from our perspective - more used batteries for us.

 

[Punx0r]

A little late jim...we discussed this a month ago. But no one could answer my questions..such as...how can power from the battery cost less than the power used to charge it ?

To put it another way, you've had a month and still haven't worked that out?

 

[billvon]

To put it another way, you've had a month and still haven't worked that out?

Give him time. His climate change denial sites will feed him a new talking point in a few days and he will post that.

 

[jimw1960]

To put it another way, you've had a month and still haven't worked that out?

Seriously, it took me all of a few minutes to find out how the per-kWh cost estimates were derived. Anyone interested can find the presentation by LA Dept. of Water and Power staff to their board of commissioners here: http://ladwp.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2&&_afrLoop=295120843836842 just go to the June 18 meeting video. The presentation begins exactly at hour 3:00:00 in the video so you can skip all the previous discussion of data security and HR issues. Lots of interesting details, like costs based on 35 year project life, the "7% of LA" number is actually 7.1% of LADWP customer demand.