Reply With Quote"5,000 pounds of resin for the nickel" What resin exactly?
"The main problem with solar systems is the chemicals" What?
The fundamental point is sound but made in an unpleasant, hectoring tone.
If factually accurate this is Probably the best post ever published on the subject of "zero emissions". Absolutely worth the read!
(Translated from English):
“Batteries don’t create electricity – they store electricity generated elsewhere, especially through coal, uranium, natural gas-powered power plants, or diesel-powered generators.” So the claim that an electric car is a zero-emission vehicle is not true at all.
Since forty percent of the electricity produced in the USA comes from coal power plants, therefore forty percent of electric cars on the road are coal-based.
But that's not all. Those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution should take a closer look at the batteries, but also wind turbines and solar panels.
A typical electric car battery weighs a thousand pounds, about the size of a suitcase. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. There are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside.
To make each BEV battery, you'll need to process 25,000 pounds of salt for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of resin for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore from the copper. Overall, you have to dig out 500,000 pounds of earth’s crust for a battery. "
The main problem with solar systems is the chemicals used to turn silicate into the silicon used for the panels. To produce sufficiently pure silicon, it must be treated with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichlorothane and acetone.
In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium diselenide and cadmium telluride are needed which are also highly toxic. Silicon dust poses a hazard to workers and the plates cannot be recycled.
Wind turbines are the nonplusultra in terms of cost and environmental destruction. Each windmill weighs 1,688 tons (equivalent to the weight of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard-to-win rare-earths Neodym, Praseodym, and Dysprosium. Each of the three blades weighs 81,000 pounds and has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years, after which they must be replaced. We cannot recycle used rotor blades.
These technologies can certainly have their place, but you have to look beyond the myth of emission freedom.
“Going Green” may sound like a utopian ideal, but if you look at the hidden and embedded costs in a realistic and unbiased way, you’ll find that “Going Green" is doing more harm to the Earth’s environment than it seems. Has.
I'm not opposed to mining, electric vehicles, wind or solar energy. But I show the reality of the situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update...03447728771073
RIAC
"5,000 pounds of resin for the nickel" What resin exactly?
"The main problem with solar systems is the chemicals" What?
The fundamental point is sound but made in an unpleasant, hectoring tone.
Im not knowledgeable on these things but would appreciate an educated opinion which he has on LinkedIn, find it all very interesting moving forward in lifeOriginally Posted by Jeremy67
RIAC
That one keeps popping up on Facebook with a fact check warning, but much of it has to be true, the electrification of cars is about business, not the environment, if it wasn't, why not just stop making them, the planet is saturated with cars.
Here is some analysis of the claims: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.327A429
Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
Imagine it's a chelating/ion-exchange resin for extraction of the nickel. Stuff like this isn't needed for each battery though, it's just part of the process, regenerated and re-used. Same for the organic solvents mentioned - they'll be recovered and re-used.
Shouldn't be a problem recycling the rare-earths such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium used in wind turbine magnets either.
Well, we have to start somewhere otherwise we just keep on pumping out c02. This is a cynical statement by those with a vested, short-term interest in selling carbon.
I don't see that. Its showing the costs in carbon in producing so called Green Technology. I can't see how producing a goliath of a wind turbine, including its transportation and maintenance has got a hope of being "Green"...
He misses a lot too. Deliberately.
The car thing is probably accurate for the US, but we have days here now that are 100% coal free in the UK. In fact right now we are 40% gas, 40% Renewable and 20% other (some of which can be seen as renewable, biomass, storage and nucelar).
He also forgets to mention that E-cars regenerate their own batteries on deceleration, which is simply not possible with fuels. So you can get more from your charge than a simple figure expresses.
He mentions some toxic chemicals in relation to solar power, but has nothng to say about any problems with these chemicals (which, properly husbanded are in fact totally safe to use, and many are also naturally occuring as well as manufactured). Similar chemicals are in use for almost every other process we use in a modern world, and certainly in traditional power generation.
He goes on about the resources needed for a wind turbine, but completely ignores the resources needed for a coal-fired station.
The tone is one of trying to be even-handed without actually being so.
This is typical of the kind of naysayers post that encourages people to do nothing about their footprint, by trying to dismiss the alternatives to the previous norm.
No-one said that replacing the entire power grid of the developed world was an omelette without broken eggs.
It does take resources. But it also makes improvements. Which he seeks to deny.
The main benefit of having an electric vehicle fleet in a country instead of ICE ones is that as the countries energy mix gets greener, then so does the fleet of vehicles plugging into it. A great benefit if we’re going to insist on personal transport decades ahead.
I don’t think anybody is stupid enough to believe that building anything is zero impact either, whether it’s a wind turbine or an oil rig.
It’s all about lowering and minimising the impact, but then I think we all know this.
I just ignore this kind of thing now. Any net positive is good so even if it’s only 0.0001% better for the environment it’s worth it imho.
^^^ simple analysis, well put.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
This is the kind of statement that is damaging. An onshore turbine can generate up to 6 million kWh in a year which is enough to power 1,500 average homes. I think they repay their carbon debt in about a year.
Of course they aren't perfect but every small step in the right direction encourages innovation and those small steps add up. It is painfully obvious that we have to cut back massively on fossil fuel reliance and releasing locked-in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and electric vehicles are part of that process. They might just be a stepping stone towards hydrogen power or something else but the momentum is there, and it is good to see.
The Times They Are a-Changin
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
This would reach a younger audience and be more effective if it was written in the language of the modern world.
Eg Metric.
Our current and future scientists, those who we are saving the planet for, don't talk in this out dated language.
" Overall, you have to dig out 500,000 pounds of earth’s crust for a battery"
What? Is that the weight of a car or the weight or Pluto?
I'm no tree hugger, but come on. This is poor.
No scientist or ecologist talks like this.
Most under 50yr, old non USA dwellers, and thats 90% of the population of the planet, are not going to be able to take tangible mass estimations from this.
Posting Permissions
