Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

Tesla? Not sure, never looked into it,

Really, then why make statements about how many EV cells end up in Ebikes and BESS systems. ?
Tesla are the biggest source of EV cells ( so we are told) so you should address your comments to the major source.
........................

and the number of folk with the skills and desire to reuses even modules as BESS systems is a tiny fraction of the population.

..You mean like . . . us? And grid scale storage companies?...

Yes exactly like us ..a tiny minority who mostly use new cells.
How many “grid scale storage companies” use recycled Tesla modules ?..can you name any ?

 

[Hillhater]

Ignoring your “credit card” attempts to distract from the CO2 question.....You are saying then,..that its better to dump 10 years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in one dose now, rather than the same amount progressively over 10 years ?

Yes - if, in ten years, you can stop dumping altogether. That's a net win. With an EV, once you hit the breakeven point, everything from there on out is a win. With a gas car, you keep dumping - you never win.

Except that in 10 years you will still be producing even more EVs with the same “pre-polution” issue
..you never win !
And i guess i can take it then that all the ..” must stop CO2 now, or we are doomed in 5 -10 - 12, years “ ..hysteria we are bombarded with.......is not relevant ??

 

[jonescg]

We've already hit peak car. In fact the number of private vehicles in the global fleet is dropping, and will continue to. So when we start replacing ICE vehicles with half as many EVs, year on year, we will end up in a better position than business as usual.

EVs have an emissions hit at manufacture of about 20-30% depending on the vehicle size class. At the moment, Tesla is a popular vehicle to compare to because it's the most common EV (and therefore the easiest target). But they are big cars, and big cars need more resources. In 5 years time when small EVs with 200 km range battery packs are more common, the numbers will improve again.

And like the 5c coin that costs 10c to mint, it will be used for thousands of transactions into the future. Energy might come for free, but the equipment to harness it doesn't. Either you build equipment that can use the free energy, or you build equipment to use the disposable energy (coal, oil, gas). One of them comes out ahead, and it's not the black stuff.

 

[sendler2112]

Global car sales are skyrocketing due to the new middle class in China. Almost 100 million/ year and increasing.
.
.

.
Electric car sales were up to almost 2% of the total last year.
.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_plug-in_car_sales_since_2011.png#/media/File:Global_plug-in_car_sales_since_2011.png
.

 

[billvon]

Except that in 10 years you will still be producing even more EVs with the same “pre-polution” issue

Nope. As time goes on, production costs (represented by energy) will go down dramatically, even if you assume your BS claim about "10 years worth of CO2" is valid (which it isn't.) The CO2 content of gasoline will ever go down.

And i guess i can take it then that all the ..” must stop CO2 now, or we are doomed in 5 -10 - 12, years “ ..hysteria we are bombarded with.......is not relevant ??

Why do you think "we must stop CO2 now, or we are doomed?" Sounds like another strawman from you.

Really, then why make statements about how many EV cells end up in Ebikes and BESS systems. ?

Because they will all end up there. Very soon governments will mandate recycling of EV batteries like they mandated recycling of lead acid batteries. And at that point, manufacturers can recycle the batteries - or give them away to second life companies (which counts as recycling.)

When a battery is free, people will use it.

How many “grid scale storage companies” use recycled Tesla modules ?..can you name any ?

Sure. Wattwhale is using exclusively Tesla batteries for BTM storage. EVGo, UCSD, Renault, EcarACCU, Eaton, BYD, Sumitomo, FPL and Chevrolet are all using second life batteries for facility/grid scale storage.

 

[Hillhater]

.....
EVs have an emissions hit at manufacture of about 20-30% depending on the vehicle size class. At the moment, Tesla is a popular vehicle to compare to because it's the most common EV (and therefore the easiest target). But they are big cars, and big cars need more resources. In 5 years time when small EVs with 200 km range battery packs are more common, the numbers will improve again. .....

20-30% of what ?........and what is the source of that data ?
Remember the German study quoted 98 gm/km just for the battery,..over a 10 yr 15,000km/yr life
And that was for a Model 3 not the bigger S or X packs
Maybe when those small , short range EVs , are available, we will be able to compare with small , short range , city cars of the same era.

 

[jonescg]

This one: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Oh - and you found that German report - good for you. It pretty much says what you want to be true, so case closed. Ignore the fact it included every joule of energy and gram of CO2e to manufacture every component of the battery cells, but ignored the equivalent level of detail for diesel, which magically appeared in the tank of a diesel car.

 

[Hillhater]

Except that in 10 years you will still be producing even more EVs with the same “pre-polution” issue

Nope. As time goes on, production costs (represented by energy) will go down dramatically, even if you assume your BS claim about "10 years worth of CO2" is valid (which it isn't.)

Pure speculation and idealism !
Combined with flat denial /refusal to accept data from a published report.

And i guess i can take it then that all the ..” must stop CO2 now, or we are doomed in 5 -10 - 12, years “ ..hysteria we are bombarded with.......is not relevant ??

Why do you think "we must stop CO2 now, or we are doomed?" .

I dont think that bill, ( you have trouble following discussions, dont you. ?).....that is the GND/IPCC/CAGW , brain fart.

Really, then why make statements about how many EV cells end up in Ebikes and BESS systems. ?

...Because they will all end up there. Very soon governments will mandate recycling of EV batteries like they mandated recycling of lead acid batteries. And at that point, manufacturers can recycle the batteries - or give them away to second life companies (which counts as recycling.)

More wishful speculation and idealism.....
Nothing is ever 100% recycled, even some relatively valuable materials, so what chance for a battery cell which we keep being told will be increadably cheap in a few years !
If its more cost effective to make new rather than recycle (eg wine/beer/coke bottles), producers wont recycle.

 

[Hillhater]

This one: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Oh - and you found that German report - good for you. It pretty much says what you want to be true, so case closed. Ignore the fact it included every joule of energy and gram of CO2e to manufacture every component of the battery cells, but ignored the equivalent level of detail for diesel, which magically appeared in the tank of a diesel car.

You are comparing apples to lemons.
The ucsusa report is quoting manufacturing emissions of the whole EV as a % of “life time emissions” for the whole car

....The global warming emissions from manufacturing a midsize BEV are about 30 percent of its lifetime global warming emissions; the remaining 70 percent come from driving it....

Whilst the German report was stating the CO2 component (g/km) of just manufacturing the battery only..
there was no mention emissions from Diesel production because it was purely a component manufacturing comparison.....IE , CO2 debt before a wheel is turned.

 

[jonescg]

This is the 20% to 30% more emissions I was referring to. As in, an EV's manufacture results in 20 to 30% more CO2e than an ICE car.
Both ICE and EVs emit greenhouse gases at manufacture - indeed EVs result in more. Yes, the graph looks at life cycle emissions, but tell me, once it rolls off the production line, how many more emissions can be attributed to manufacture? None. Because it's already made.

The ICE will continue to emit for the next 30 years if it's well made. The EV has the ability to emit practically none, or at the least, far, far less over it's life.

 

[cricketo]

sigh.JPG

The chart looks somewhat suspect. Aren't EVs significantly simpler mechanically ? Why does it take the same amount of energy to make one prior to the battery manufacturing ?

 

[billvon]

Pure speculation and idealism !

So "EVs are improving" - speculation. "Oil will last forever" - fact.

You're a funny guy.

I dont think that bill, ( you have trouble following discussions, dont you. ?).....that is the GND/IPCC/CAGW , brain fart.

Nope. It is your claim. You have to take AOC's comment (for example) WAY out of context to claim that she said that. But it's a great strawman for people who don't ever question what they are fed!

Nothing is ever 100% recycled, even some relatively valuable materials, so what chance for a battery cell which we keep being told will be increadably cheap in a few years !
If its more cost effective to make new rather than recycle (eg wine/beer/coke bottles), producers wont recycle.

They will if they have to. That's why there are laws requiring lead acid batteries to be recycled. It would be cheaper, initially, to dump them in a landfill (at least until the lead leached into the water table, that is.)

 

[Hillhater]

Something for you to get excited about..

..... New science from Sweden proves oil comes naturally from rocks: Until now these believers in “abiotic oil” have been dismissed as professing “bad science” but — alas — a new study has proven them correct!

Reported in ScienceDaily, researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

https://principia-scientific.org/swedish-scientists-geologists-fossil-fuel-theory-busted/

 

[sendler2112]

Flat Earth.

 

[Hillhater]

Both ICE and EVs emit greenhouse gases at manufacture - indeed EVs result in more. Yes, the graph looks at life cycle emissions, but tell me, once it rolls off the production line, how many more emissions can be attributed to manufacture? None. Because it's already made.

The ICE will continue to emit for the next 30 years if it's well made. The EV has the ability to emit practically none, or at the least, far, far less over it's life.

So you are predicting a 30 year life for the battery ?
..if i were being churlish, i could also say this .....

and you found that German UCSUSA report - good for you. It pretty much says what you want to be true, so case closed.

Do you think the authors might just have an agenda ,,
Rachael Nealer is a Kendall Science Fellow in the UCS Clean Vehicles Program.
David Reichmuth is a senior engineer in the program.
Don Anair is deputy director and research director in the program.

 

[jonescg]

So it sounds like they are pretty knowledgeable in their field then :? .

As part of my day job, I collated all of the references cited within this report and examined them pretty thoroughly. It checks out - they aren't making this stuff up. They cite all the best automotive, mineral processing and energy laboratories like Argonne and Sloan. They aren't soft when it comes to the emissions of battery manufacture, in fact they are probably being overly conservative.

The German report cited many of the same papers as these guys; in fact their graphs typically show the electric car emitting far less CO2 over its life than diesel or petrol cars, but get the negative results when they factor in the worst grids for emissions.

 

[billvon]

..... New science from Sweden proves oil comes naturally from rocks: Until now these believers in “abiotic oil” have been dismissed as professing “bad science” but — alas — a new study has proven them correct!

PSI is an organization that claims that CO2 is a global cooling gas. Even prominent climate change deniers call the founder (and only contributing member) of PSI "confused and scientifically illiterate."

Research does not mean "type in what I want to prove into Google, and then copy and paste."

 

[Hillhater]

Shooting the messenger again bill ?
PSI did not do the study..
..they simply reported the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) research findings.

 

[Hillhater]

.
The German report cited many of the same papers as these guys; in fact their graphs typically show the electric car emitting far less CO2 over its life than diesel or petrol cars, but get the negative results when they factor in the worst grids for emissions.

..which was the German grid, the one claiming one of the highest proportion of renewable generation in Europe.

 

[billvon]

Shooting the messenger again bill ?

Doing the research to understand who the source is.

Let's say someone posted an article by Al Gore. How would you react?

PSI did not do the study..
..they simply reported the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) research findings.

You didn't read the article, did you. Or the research.

The first claim in PSI's story is that there was a conspiracy to label oil "fossil fuel" in 1892. To "prove" this they have an interview with Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who once worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Prouty also claims that the military assassinated JFK.) In the video they link he claims:

"The definition of organic is a substance with hydrogen, oxygen and carbon" - false. "Organic" in chemistry means "contains carbon" period. He may be confusing organic with hydrocarbon, which would explain his confusion over how oil is defined.

"There has never been a fossil found below 16,000 feet" - false. Microbial fossils have been found well below 20,000 feet.

So right off the bat his claims are false.

The second claim is that oil can be formed without biological processes. The study they linked to concludes that "our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle." What sort of hydrocarbons? "ethane, propane and butane, and molecular hydrogen and graphite." I guess perhaps PSI just missed that part.

Ethane, propane and butane are not oil. Neither is hydrogen and graphite.

You are really striking out lately. Perhaps take a break and actually read things before you post them?

 

[TheBeastie]

I noticed in the South Australia vs Victoria wars of who's the biggest/dumbest embracer of wind energy, that Victoria is catching up.

According to https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy Victoria now has 1,972MW of Installed/Registered wind-farm capacity
And South Australia has obviously put a few final projects online with 2,142MW online.
At least for Victoria the way its going electricitymap.org will be 1000MW missing/unlisted in claimed "installed capacity" number in a few months as more wind-farm projects go online. Electrictiymap really needs to update it as its looking quite dated.
It's possible on a really windy day, we could look at EM stats and see Victoria running at 100% capacity of its claimed installed wind-farms, which will look impressive but very far from what is actually happening.
It's possible this will be rectified somewhat soon.

The other thing I have noticed is according to OpenNEM, South Australia hasn't been exporting nearly as much wind energy to Victoria lately, I am assuming this is because Victoria also has an equivalently large amount of wind capacity installed, so when the wind blows through the whole bottom of Australia, Victoria is now electing to use its own wind-generation rather than buy South Australia's via the 700MW Heywood interstate connector grid connection..

To me it really seemed like South Australia was banking on exporting wind to Victoria when it does randomly blow through, but now that Victoria has its own wind, SA instead now just has to try and use as much of it can its self. https://opennem.org.au/#/regions/sa

^You can see here on the bottom left where the wind blew more than they could use without getting unstable and using gas, but at least on the chart, Victoria just bought the gas generation instead?

It's still a frequent nightly sight to see South Australia emitting 20 times more co2 than France, because SA is importing a lot of coal-generation at night time from Victoria. This is because wind in SA tends to die out when it gets dark and cold, hitting a peak at about mid-night.
It's remarkable that a state with 2.142GW of wind-capacity and typically only maxes out at 1.5GW consumption still emits 20 times more co2 typically than an entire country like France who has a population of 67million people. 516_SA / 25_FR = 20 times more co2.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=FR&remote=true
View attachment 1
^This was snapshotted last night when South Australia's coal imported power (purple colour) via Victoria was about 700MW.
Again, if we were comparing these emissions technologies as like with "cars". Then SA or Germany with their wind/solar technologies would be considered a complete joke compared to Nuclear.

Again, every time I see some politician/child say "we are all going to die if we don't cut co2 by using wind/solar", it seems clear to me they are really all about the politics and nothing else, because the co2 emissions are joined at the hip with wind/solar systems to the point that it's just a joke.
Either that or they get all their information from broadcast established Mains-Stream-Media, and like always they are letting their heads be stuffed with garbage information, this will always be the problem with broadcast "spectrum privileged" media, always gets abused.

Instead, I see it the other way, that is unrestricted Internet/IP-streaming must replace all broadcast protected MSM, or "we are all going to die".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, more bad news from Tesla, this time the solar division.
It's an interesting story in its self the Solar division of Tesla, the big solar Tesla manufacturing plant in USA Buffalo was founded by the local government giving Tesla $750million dollars to start it based on the promise to ramp it up and hire about 1,400 new people/jobs by April 2020.
But sales are massively slumping so it looks like its going to be impossible for Tesla to be able to hire that many people and make money/sell the solar products.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3700#p1460666
^Like I was saying with my previous post on the new Germany scientific study claiming a Tesla EV battery pack product emits around 10 years worth of driving in co2 emissions during the battery packs production and is no lower emitting than a diesel car if charged from Germany's high emissions grid, a similar co2 connection can be connected with the power-walls/solar business.

Tesla has been a beacon of so-called "green energy tech", but like its sales and stock price, it all seems to be falling apart now.

https://buffalonews.com/2019/04/25/david-robinson-teslas-solar-business-takes-an-ugly-turn/
Tesla's solar business takes an ugly turn

And it was a truly terrible first quarter for Tesla's solar energy business, with installations plunging and the solar roof timetable pushed back again.

For starters, Tesla's solar energy business is just a shadow of what it was under SolarCity and when state officials agreed to spend $750 million in taxpayer money to build and partially equip a massive factory for what was then a fast-growing company in a next-generation business.

Put it together, and you get a solar energy business that is heading in the wrong direction at a time when it is just a year away from a $41.2 million state penalty if it fails to meet the next job target at the Buffalo factory that would require it to double employment there by April 2020 from the current level of around 700 people.

Companies that are facing a 38 percent drop in sales usually are thinking about cutting jobs, not going on a hiring spree, and that's why state officials have said they are pushing Tesla to move some work from its more robust battery business to the Buffalo factory.

 

[sendler2112]

Chernobyl docuseries."As concluded in the 2008 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.”
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/04/25/chernobyl-truth-drowns-in-dramatized-movie/#5b4b7f7c431d
.

 

[Punx0r]

If so that means the forced evacuation, reactor containment and enduring large exclusion zone has been successful.

 

[Dauntless]

]

...Because they will all end up there. Very soon governments will mandate recycling of EV batteries like they mandated recycling of lead acid batteries. And at that point, manufacturers can recycle the batteries - or give them away to second life companies (which counts as recycling.)

More wishful speculation and idealism.....

Especially at a time when governments are banning recycling. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/asia/malaysia-plastic-recycle-intl/index.html

 

[billvon]

If so that means the forced evacuation, reactor containment and enduring large exclusion zone has been successful.

The animals in the area haven't obeyed the exclusion zone - and it is now the healthiest ecosystem in the Ukraine. (Mostly because of the lack of people, of course, but it certainly isn't some radioactive wasteland.)