Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

It certainly does show what a large negative effect the presence of people would normally have on a habitat. The animals are doing well despite the radiation, though. It's a mixed bag, but mutation and tumour rates are increased in some animals while other creatures, like insects, exist at lower levels than there should be. Others still have adapted physiologically to the radiation.

A recent radiation mapping exercise using drones has confirmed that the radiation is very patchy. Some areas are OK while areas only a few metres away have dangerous accumulations. On a larger scale there are areas of forest where the tress grow in a weird, twisted and bent manner and others still that are barren because it's so radioactive that trees cannot grow.

There's likely to be increased access for people, especially for tourists to visit Pripyat, but they will be restricted to specific, known safe, areas.

While the fallout effects from Chernobyl turned out to be far less than many feared at the time, make no mistake, the meltdown was a full-on disaster that cannot be swept under the carpet.

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

Did you read the article you linked? No one has "banned recycling".
 
Punx0r said:
While the fallout effects from Chernobyl turned out to be far less than many feared at the time, make no mistake, the meltdown was a full-on disaster that cannot be swept under the carpet.

I wonder if the opinion on Chernobyl greatly differs between people in different countries, especially between European neighbors of the incident area and folks on different continents.
 
I updated my previous post because I was surprised to learn people don't know the basic science of co2 emissions behind metal mining and refinement, and how 1 tonne of lithium battery in an EV easily adds up to 15 tonnes of co2 or 10 years roughly of combustion vehicle driving.
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3700#p1460666

To me, this is a mere simple IQ/puzzle test that anyone, ideally, should be able to pass, as long as they are presented with all the data!

So again from this article http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows
^You don't need to be a science genius to look at some basic well-established charts/data from the EPA on metal mining emissions to work this stuff out.
Most Tesla's are over 2 tonnes in weight because they house a large battery that would weigh close to 1 tonne when you include all the supporting metal, as they can't merely wrap 18650/21700 cells in tape or plastic like ebike batteries do for their packaging. A typical combustion car is conversely about 1 tonne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X
P100D 5,531 lb (2,509 kg)

Then just start looking at the co2 emissions of metals used on the cells.
All 18650/21700 cells are coated in a thick amount of nickel to prevent corrosion and also ensure they have high electrical conductivity. The canister itself is steel.
Here is a document from the EPA (Environment Protection Authority) of a typical mine and its emissions on nickel mining/refining.
https://epa.tas.gov.au/documents/proto%20resources%20-%20barnes%20hill%20nickel%20laterite%20project%20dpemp.pdf
So its >>"57.9 tonnes of co2 emitted per 1 tonne of nickel."<<

file.php



Magnesium is about 35times co2 in its produced weight.
You will find similar numbers for other major metals, copper, aluminium average about 10 times their own weight.
file.php

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cobalt-price-rally-2017-3
https://www.metalary.com/lithium-price/
Cobalt and Lithium are very expensive per tonne, they also move around significantly, but considering their costs its very safe to say they emit at minimum probably around 50 times their weight in co2.

As the metals chart of co2 emissions for metals various greatly, so does gold. There are plenty of sites that reference Gold is at roughly an incredibly high 30,000kg CO2 per 1 "kg" produced, so its 30,000 times its own purified weight in co2, which helps explain why its so expensive, the energy to find/produce/refine the metal adds to the cost significantly.
This is typical for these elements, the more expensive it is per gram, the more the apparent is the fact that it required more energy and thus co2 emissions to produce that gram of metal.

Platinum and Gold are "roughly" the same price in dollars per ouch/gram/tonne. Also interestingly, they cause "roughly" the same amount of co2 emissions in their weight via the process of mining/refinement.
https://www.ethicaljewels.com.au/2018/10/08/recycled-precious-metals-platinum-group-metals/
Based on figures from the World Gold Council (3), mining as a source emits approximately 38,100 tonnes of CO2e for every one tonne of gold produced.

primary production of PGMs emits CO2e at the rate of approximately 77,000 tonnes for every one tonne of PGMs.

http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2015/WCE2015_pp863-865.pdf
https://ipa-news.com/assets/sustainability/Environmental%20Profile_LR.pdf?PHPSESSID=86216a7ceff02ff3201d4a79532a300c
GHG-Emissions-Gold-PGMs-Table-3.png

The reason I am showing gold/platinum cost/co2 relationship is to help make it clear that when a EV battery pack costs $10,000 at minimum (This is just Tesla's claim and Tesla still lose money) it ultimately proves there was a lot of co2 emissions created making that battery pack, the sourcing of the various metals of lithium, cobalt, nickel, aluminium and steel make it complex to see the co2 emissions from the cell production, what makes it easy to see the real co2 emissions is just the resulting cost.
https://www.wsj.com/video/the-secret-to-why-a-tesla-costs-so-much-hint-batteries/65F3A21D-0837-4DA6-B739-612124815603.html

This is why Nate Hagens Youtube videos are interesting, because he talks about the theory that energy and money are very closely linked, if not the same thing more or less. https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3700#p1461131
And we see that so clearly with the cost of gold and its co2/energy production requirements.

The probabilities of about 1 tonne Tesla battery packs co2 emissions being about 15tonnes is incredibly generous and is really giving the battery pack the benefit of the doubt.
To me people who can't understand these charts/data that are written very clearly by even people from the EPA have serious problems with reality and probably aren't worth talking to if you have tried to show them the data just once.
So again, 15tonnes of co2 "pre-emitted" is about 10 years worth of traditional combustion driving, but for the EV thats before you take your EV first drive, and you will likely be charging your EV from a dirty high grams/KWh electricity source, like what we see on EM for Germany etc https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DE&remote=true

The energy it will take to recycle lithium cells will also be substantial, I can only hope it doesn't end up in a landfill like with solar panels. Everyone envisioned solar panels being cleanly recycled, but they just get put in mass landfill in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L_lzUhitx8

For combustion cars it works out like below.
http://ecoscore.be/en/info/ecoscore/co2
https://www.transportenvironment.org/what-we-do/cars-and-co2
So for petroleum fuel it's around 120 g CO2/km
120g of co2 is "0.00012 tonne"
For the average car to make 100,000km of driving that is, 100,000km x 0.00012 = 12 tonnes of co2.
I drive an LPG car which is about 83 g of CO2/km
100,000km x 0.000082 = 8.2 tonnes of co2.

If you include the co2 emissions to charge an EV then it continues to get incredibly bad for EVs, as the Renewable energy state of South Australia is currently emitting 462grams of co2 per KWh produced. Not very good for a state that has 2,142MW of installed wind-farms for 1.6million people who consume on average 1500MW of power and have the most expensive electricity in the entire world.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-SA&remote=true

Cells21700_8.png


I don't have anything against EV's specifically unless you are claiming it's saving the planet with lower emissions, there is no logical way that is possible. But this is becoming a big problem, people continue to push lithium EVs including Tesla battery PowerWalls/Grid storage as somehow a magical way to massively lower emissions when it can only make things worse.
 
Energy underpins everything. And we are headed for a future with less. The idea that we should continue to plan on a world society that demands 100 million new 2 ton cars per year, even if they are ev's, is absurd to me. The dominant CCS charging standard does not even support V2G. We need to focus our remaining energy budget on building out necessities. What will they need in 200 years? 20,000 years? Super cheap and net zero community housing designed to last for several hundred years. In order to relocate anyone that lives in a flood/ hurricane/ tornado/ barren/ dry/ intemperate zone. In places where electrified/ hand permaculture food production can feed them all locally and where there is plentiful clean water. Build out big hydro wherever the resource is adequate and relocate critical factories there to maintain solar, wind, and electronic and metals production to build out and maintain a worldwide internet at some scale (no more cat videos). Educated people are harder for corrupt/ outdated leaders and concepts to push around. Develop a new social system that does not require continuous growth to spur investment and pay back interest on debt, where all necessary work is rewarded equitably.
.
ect.
 
sendler2112 said:
The dominant CCS charging standard does not even support V2G.
It does, actually. Both CCS and DCFC support V2G because they are so simple; a negotiation allows the contactors to close and from that point on the battery is connected to the terminal. There are several standards that can then negotiate power transfers. There's a V2G station here in UC San Diego that is available for students during the day, then from 5pm-6am is used for V2G grid support. (It uses Leafs and is therefore CCS based.)

Level 2 charging is the hard nut to crack, and the more important one, since most cars will charge via level 2. You need to replace the EV charger with a charger/inverter, and there needs to be incentives for that to happen.
 
Early Leaf's are chademo and can do V2G. I'm interested in a home V2G for CCS if there is one. Which to my understanding is not supported by any CCS auto maker.
 
sendler2112 said:
Early Leaf's are chademo and can do V2G. I'm interested in a home V2G for CCS if there is one. Which to my understanding is not supported by any CCS auto maker.
Here's one:

https://dcbel.com/product/

I spoke to one of their engineers last week and they seem like they have a good handle on the problem.
 
You heard it here first: EVs have batteries weighing 1000kg and an ICE car only drives 100,000km (60,000 miles) in it's life using fuel that took no energy to produce!
 
Punx0r said:
You heard it here first: EVs have batteries weighing 1000kg and an ICE car only drives 100,000km (60,000 miles) in it's life using fuel that took no energy to produce!
I find it counterproductive to heed anything he says any more. He's copying and pasting from anti-EV and solar sites, and not even reading what he's posting.
 
sendler2112 said:
And we need to figure out floating offshore for the population dense coastal states.
Yep. And note that, offshore, the strongest winds are roughly from 3pm to 10pm - exactly the time needed to fill the "peak" on the duck curve.
 
Im no logistics expert, but something tells me that using highly concentrated wind energy sources , several states away from where it is needed, is not a viable plan. The transmission costs ( $3 bn). Would pay for a bunch of extra local wind turbines or solar farms to make up for any deficiency in wind availablity.
...... Or one decent Nuclear plant to provide twice as much energy !
 
For those who would like to read some peer-reviewed research into the emissions related to Li-ion battery manufacture:

2010 work: View attachment 230 Environmental impact of li ion cells.pdf
"All the facts taken together, the results of the LCA, the various sensitivity analyses, the modeling applied for EOL, the assumption for the used electricity mix, etc., suggest that E-mobility is environmentally beneficial compared to conventional mobility. The Li-ion battery plays a minor role in the assessment of the environmental burden of E-Mobility. Thus, a Li-ion battery in an BEV does not lead to an overcompensation of the potential benefits of the higher efficiency of BEV compared to an ICEV."

2015 work: View attachment 124 Li ion battery manufacture emissions.pdf
"An electric vehicle’s higher emissions during the manufacturing stage are paid off after only 2 years compared to driving an average conventional vehicle, a time frame that drops to about one and a half years if the car is charged using renewable energy. Approximately half of a battery’s emissions come from electricity used in the manufacturing process."
This paper also has a good list of other references where emissions are calculated in difference scenarios.

2018 work: View attachment 2
"This analysis illustrated that, even if a battery assembly energy reflective of a low-throughput facility is adopted, EVs consume less petroleum and emit fewer greenhouse gases (GHG) than an ICV on a life-cycle basis. The only scenario in which an EV emitted more GHGs than an ICV was when it used solely coal-derived electricity as a fuel source. SOx emissions, however, were up to four times greater for EVs than ICVs. These emissions could be reduced through battery recycling."

Nobody said EVs were perfect, but they are certainly better than diesel or petrol.
 
jonescg said:
For those who would like to read some peer-reviewed research into the emissions related to Li-ion battery manufacture:

2010 work: 230 Environmental impact of li ion cells.pdf
"All the facts taken together, the results of the LCA, the various sensitivity analyses, the modeling applied for EOL, the assumption for the used electricity mix, etc., suggest that E-mobility is environmentally beneficial compared to conventional mobility. The Li-ion battery plays a minor role in the assessment of the environmental burden of E-Mobility. Thus, a Li-ion battery in an BEV does not lead to an overcompensation of the potential benefits of the higher efficiency of BEV compared to an ICEV."

2015 work: 124 Li ion battery manufacture emissions.pdf
"An electric vehicle’s higher emissions during the manufacturing stage are paid off after only 2 years compared to driving an average conventional vehicle, a time frame that drops to about one and a half years if the car is charged using renewable energy. Approximately half of a battery’s emissions come from electricity used in the manufacturing process."
This paper also has a good list of other references where emissions are calculated in difference scenarios.

2018 work: 211 EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT.pdf
"This analysis illustrated that, even if a battery assembly energy reflective of a low-throughput facility is adopted, EVs consume less petroleum and emit fewer greenhouse gases (GHG) than an ICV on a life-cycle basis. The only scenario in which an EV emitted more GHGs than an ICV was when it used solely coal-derived electricity as a fuel source. SOx emissions, however, were up to four times greater for EVs than ICVs. These emissions could be reduced through battery recycling."

Nobody said EVs were perfect, but they are certainly better than diesel or petrol.

That stands only if we don't change the way these things are manufactured. Say if Tesla only produced Model 3's during peak PV output hours, the environmental impact would be significantly lower. Unfortunately market dictates otherwise.
 
jonescg said:
For those who would like to read some peer-reviewed research into the emissions related to Li-ion battery manufacture:

Great post :thumb:

billvon said:
I find it counterproductive to heed anything he says any more. He's copying and pasting from anti-EV and solar sites, and not even reading what he's posting.

Good point
 
jonescg said:
For those who would like to read some peer-reviewed research into the emissions related to Li-ion battery manufacture.....
And the most recent study, from a group without a “ dog in the race”...the German Centre for Economic Studies
http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/sd-2019-08-sinn-karl-buchal-motoren-2019-04-25.pdf

Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy. A Tesla Model 3 battery, for example, represents between 11 and 15 tonnes of CO2. Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometres, this translates into 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn noted in their study.

jonescg said:
Nobody said EVs were perfect, .....
No, but many organisations, including the EU, catagorise them as “zero emissions” vehicles,..which they clearly are not.
 
That German essay is a highly political piece. Do some Google Translating and you will find plenty of off-the-cuff commentary and opinion. It's singing praises for hydrogen fuel cells and claiming hydrogen is 'truly zero emissions'.

It has a vastly different slant to the other studies I linked which are far more scientific and far less opinion.
 
Hillhater said:
Mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese used for batteries consume a great deal of energy.
Which is why battery manufacturers are moving from 3:3:3 and 6:2:2 formulations to 8:1:1. Much less cobalt and manganese needed.
 
Back
Top