Pasted from an article on another social media forum.
Im not at all sure what the solution is but this is an excellent breakdown well worth the read.
Batteries, they do not make electricity they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent 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 extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Obviously copied/pasted. I encourage you to pass it along too.
peter67 said
11:13 AM Mar 17, 2022
That reads like a modern day horror story for thinking adults.
BasilB said
12:47 PM Mar 17, 2022
power station 70% efficient
ev 80% efficient
ice 30% efficient when not stuck in traffic.
BasilB said
01:05 PM Mar 17, 2022
i'll try again,
power station 70% efficient, ev 80% efficient, ice 30% efficient when not stuck in traffic.
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:44 PM Mar 17, 2022
Another pile of biased and misleading BS. Not worth the time for a detailed response.
A SA coal fired power station. Total life 31 years. 6 years after closure they are still clearing up the mess and they will never fix the thousands of hectares destrored at the coal mime.
Just read the list of pollutants from the power station.
Cheers, Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 17th of March 2022 01:51:38 PM
DeBe said
02:06 PM Mar 17, 2022
It would be interesting to know what the wind farms actualy cost to run. Where i live there is one & the maintenance is on going year round. The amount of scrap coming from there is amazing, including lead acid AGM batterys. Every PSU to keep computing systems going in a black out, has 20 x 12V 12Ah in them to give 240V DC. One faulty cell & the lot are thrown out. I do find them handy as theres another 19 good batterys to use.
dorian said
02:38 PM Mar 17, 2022
We need lots of real data from places where these technologies are prevalent, eg Norway for EVs and Portugal for wind farms.
dabbler said
04:23 PM Mar 17, 2022
Huge assumption that 1) EV are charged from the grid, 2) that EV purchasers prioritize the environment over cost of ownership and 3) that EV ownership is uniformly distributed across a nation. Not sure about 3 in OZ. But 1 is demonstrably incorrect as EV ownership is primarily driven by cost of ownership. In my case, my rooftop solar feeds the grid and charges my EV. Let's face facts: EG are here, EV are staying, EV are improving at the greater rate than ICE ever managed.
rgren2 said
07:25 PM Mar 17, 2022
Batteries make electricity, a capacitor stores electricity.
DeBe said
07:46 PM Mar 17, 2022
Non rechargable batterys make electricity. Rechargable store electricity.
Rob Driver said
09:26 AM Mar 18, 2022
BasilB wrote:
i'll try again,
power station 70% efficient, ev 80% efficient, ice 30% efficient when not stuck in traffic.
From above;
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
Rob Driver said
09:29 AM Mar 18, 2022
DeBe wrote:
Non rechargable batterys make electricity. Rechargable store electricity.
From above;
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
dogbox said
09:41 AM Mar 18, 2022
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Another pile of biased and misleading BS. Not worth the time for a detailed response.
A SA coal fired power station. Total life 31 years. 6 years after closure they are still clearing up the mess and they will never fix the thousands of hectares destrored at the coal mime.
Just read the list of pollutants from the power station.
Cheers, Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 17th of March 2022 01:51:38 PM
i did not think the article was misleading ,it just pointed out that the new GREEN may not be as green as we first thought
Rob Driver said
09:48 AM Mar 18, 2022
dabbler wrote:
Huge assumption that 1) EV are charged from the grid, 2) that EV purchasers prioritize the environment over cost of ownership and 3) that EV ownership is uniformly distributed across a nation. Not sure about 3 in OZ. But 1 is demonstrably incorrect as EV ownership is primarily driven by cost of ownership. In my case, my rooftop solar feeds the grid and charges my EV. Let's face facts: EG are here, EV are staying, EV are improving at the greater rate than ICE ever managed.
Dabbler,
Your point with regard to your own personal solar system is basically quite valid.
If the problem was addressed with every EV manufacturer supplying a stand alone solar charging system with every car that made the EV vehicle totally independent of relying on power from a grid then a claim of EVs being *green* might be justified, except of course in the manufacture of the *green* vehicle we seem to ignore THAT COST to the claim of being *green*
Todays technology is happening at a greater rate than we ever could dream of 100 years ago so it stands to reason that any technology will advance at a greater rate than we could achieve in the past.
There is one big difference with EVs is the way that this advancement in technology is reported to the public.
Any result due to fear mongering that the world will end, will forever be an inaccurate report of the true result of EVs on our earth.
Rob Driver said
10:08 AM Mar 18, 2022
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Another pile of biased and misleading BS. Not worth the time for a detailed response.
A SA coal fired power station. Total life 31 years. 6 years after closure they are still clearing up the mess and they will never fix the thousands of hectares destrored at the coal mime.
Just read the list of pollutants from the power station.
Cheers, Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 17th of March 2022 01:51:38 PM
Peter,
It is far from BS. It is far from misleading or biased.
From above;
For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
Your comparison to the brown coal mine in Leigh Creek when at the same time ignoring practices with the mines throughout the world extracting products so *greenies* get that warm and fuzzy feeling about EVs is at the best very irresponsible and really highlights the selfishness of *green* supporters.
Just one question if I may,
I have read that you are building a new OKA.
How will this new vehicle be powered? Will it be powered with this new technology that has massive demand on resources which the use of is presently being ignored with comments of BS etc,
or will it just have a modern Diesel engine?
Rob Driver said
10:13 AM Mar 18, 2022
DeBe wrote:
It would be interesting to know what the wind farms actualy cost to run. Where i live there is one & the maintenance is on going year round. The amount of scrap coming from there is amazing, including lead acid AGM batterys. Every PSU to keep computing systems going in a black out, has 20 x 12V 12Ah in them to give 240V DC. One faulty cell & the lot are thrown out. I do find them handy as theres another 19 good batterys to use.
Without the gain of the batteries that have not yet failed, here are some wind farm facts with regard to failure.
That reads like a modern day horror story for thinking adults.
Peter67,
It is a horror story with an attached cost that will financially cripple future Australians.
A simple example is the comment by the leader of the opposition in Aus, when he stated that EVs will be good as we can plug them into a solar panel overnight and they will be good to go the next morning.
For this even to be partly correct, every EV owner or operator will have to have a similar system to what is being used by dabbler in an above post.
Then even with that system, it does not take into account the hidden facts of horror in extracting minerals to manufacture these *green* products.
Buzz Lightbulb said
10:35 AM Mar 18, 2022
No comparisons. Where're the details about the emissions and pollution for fossil fuels and oil spills?
It's fair enough to say that EVs are not zero emissions but I read somewhere that they emit 50% of the equivalent ICE vehicle over their lifetimes and even less when renewable energy is used to charge them. It's a step to save the planet.
These are the same old arguments being brought up time and time again. Give it a break. Do is all a favour Rob and stop using batteries.
Peter_n_Margaret said
11:14 AM Mar 18, 2022
Less so than the original post, in my view.
Cheers,
Peter
BasilB said
01:05 PM Mar 18, 2022
BasilB wrote:
i'll try again,
power station 70% efficient, ev 80% efficient, ice 30% efficient when not stuck in traffic.
From above;
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
__________________
Regards
Rob
Chairman of the Bored
yes, that's right.
-- Edited by BasilB on Friday 18th of March 2022 01:06:41 PM
Peter_n_Margaret said
02:18 PM Mar 18, 2022
BasilB wrote:
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
Except that the electric vehicle will actually require significantly less energy input in real life, because it has regenerative braking, which also increases the life of brake pads and discs substantially.
Cheers,
Peter
BasilB said
03:18 PM Mar 18, 2022
BasilB wrote:
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
Except that the electric vehicle will actually require significantly less energy input in real life, because it has regenerative braking, which also increases the life of brake pads and discs substantially.
Cheers,
Peter
not to mention the ice inefficiencies.
Rob Driver said
08:03 PM Mar 18, 2022
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
BasilB wrote:
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
Except that the electric vehicle will actually require significantly less energy input in real life, because it has regenerative braking, which also increases the life of brake pads and discs substantially.
Cheers,
Peter
Isnt the advancement in modern technology just marvellous.
What a shame some of this effort wasn't applied to the mining of the resources to make it comply with basic expectations of humanity so as to enable your *green dream* to be fulfilled.
While we are on the subject, you have not yet answered my enquiry to you in an above post.
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Waiting with baited breath
BasilB said
08:24 PM Mar 18, 2022
Isnt the advancement in modern technology just marvellous.
What a shame some of this effort wasn't applied to the mining of the resources to make it comply with basic expectations of humanity so as to enable your *green dream* to be fulfilled.
While we are on the subject, you have not yet answered my enquiry to you in an above post.
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Waiting with baited breath biggrin
__________________
Regards
Rob
or you could just tell us about e=mc2 again. big grin.
Rob Driver said
09:10 PM Mar 18, 2022
BasilB said
or you could just tell us about e=mc2 again. big grin.
For One Hundred years motor vehicles have had generators and later alternators That is technology. This provided the charge to the battery for starting, lights etc.
EVs had no alternator because they didnt have a battery as such for starting. Then, once again technology came to the fore and harnessed the power that has been wasted in the vehicle (momentum) braking and directed this saving to the big climate unfriendly battery bank that stores the power from a non renewable source in the majority of occasions.
I believe similar technology has been used or at least experimented with in motor racing and with heavy machinery and trucks with retarders fitted. So probably not that newer technology but so be it,
OK so with a big grin we have that sorted.
Now are you *not so green greenies* going to change Einsteins formula to suit your agenda
In your confused state what you and the bloke who raised this point and primed you to comment needs to know that grasping at straws by attempting to change Einsteins Formula wont change the truth in the original post in this topic.
Harnessing the power of momentum is not that new or surprising.
While you are pondering this, get your mate to answer my question.
BasilB said
09:48 PM Mar 18, 2022
For One Hundred years motor vehicles have had generators and later alternators
That is technology.
This provided the charge to the battery for starting, lights etc.
EVs had no alternator because they didnt have a battery as such for starting. Then, once again technology came to the fore and harnessed the power that has been wasted in the vehicle (momentum) braking and directed this saving to the big climate unfriendly battery bank that stores the power from a non renewable source in the majority of occasions.
I believe similar technology has been used or at least experimented with in motor racing and with heavy machinery and trucks with retarders fitted. So probably not that newer technology but so be it,
OK so with a big grin smile we have that sorted.
Now are you *not so green greenies* going to change Einsteins formula to suit your agenda no
In your confused state what you and the bloke who raised this point and primed you to comment needs to know that grasping at straws by attempting to change Einsteins Formula wont change the truth in the original post in this topic.
Harnessing the power of momentum is not that new or surprising.
While you are pondering this, get your mate to answer my question.
__________________
Regards
Rob
a little catch up on efficiencies is required first i think. big grin
Peter_n_Margaret said
10:39 PM Mar 18, 2022
Rob Driver wrote:
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Not totally green, but it will be more effcient than its predecessor.
Almost all house power will be solar. No gas. Cooking will be solar powered induction. It will have 1,2000W+ of solar. Hot water will be via waste heat from the motor or solar via an inverter. Back up power will be via the alternator. No generator will be carried.
I expect that within 10 years it will be possible to convert vehicles like this to hydrogen/electric.
Cheers,
Peter
Are We Lost said
12:24 AM Mar 19, 2022
For those who are negative to electric vehicles, what would you suggest we do to prepare for the day when there is no more oil? Or because the supply is so limited that it is priced out of existence for the average person. That WILL happen. Predictions on climate change and the impact of pollution leave room for doubt, but we know the supply of oil is limited. To me that is the justification that we need to move from our reliance on oil.
I see the point of the original post about how "green" energy is really not so green at all. Whether those figures quoted are accurate or not, there can be no doubt that digging up and extracting all those resources is far from green. Then add the manufacturing, transport and disposal. So those green solutions are not green at all. Perhaps they are just less dirty than using oil and coal.
But, it has to come. Even if the process IS dirtier than extracting oil and burning it ....the oil IS going to run out so we have no choice.
When the time comes that oil powered vehicles are in the minority, the next targets will be those dirty "green" solutions that many are singing the praises of now. What then? Any solution so far dreamed up has its own impact on the environment.
The elephant in the room is population growth and the consumerism that goes with it. But nobody is talking about it. And the impacts are now, not in some future time like the climate change predictions.
dorian said
04:48 AM Mar 19, 2022
Nuclear fusion is on the horizon. That will be a game changer.
Until then, another good reason to wean ourselves off oil and fossil fuels is to free ourselves from the political powers that control it. If we didn't need Arab oil, nobody would have fought a war in Iraq. If Europe didn't need Russian gas, then Putin may not have invaded Ukraine.'
Rob Driver said
09:18 AM Mar 19, 2022
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Rob Driver wrote:
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Not totally green, but it will be more effcient than its predecessor.
Almost all house power will be solar. No gas. Cooking will be solar powered induction. It will have 1,2000W+ of solar. Hot water will be via waste heat from the motor or solar via an inverter. Back up power will be via the alternator. No generator will be carried.
I expect that within 10 years it will be possible to convert vehicles like this to hydrogen/electric.
Cheers,
Peter
Thank you for the description,
I note it is mostly along the lines of a well thought out caravan. I would imagine that there is a great saving in costs if you are doing it yourself.
It is a shame that more van manufacturers dont adopt some of your ideas.
It is also a shame that the diesel bowser will still feature as a necessity in its operation.
Pasted from an article on another social media forum.
Im not at all sure what the solution is but this is an excellent breakdown well worth the read.
Batteries, they do not make electricity they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent 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 extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Obviously copied/pasted. I encourage you to pass it along too.
i'll try again,
power station 70% efficient, ev 80% efficient, ice 30% efficient when not stuck in traffic.
Another pile of biased and misleading BS.
Not worth the time for a detailed response.
EDIT... I will just direct anyone who is really interested to this... Northern Power Station (South Australia) - Wikipedia
A SA coal fired power station. Total life 31 years. 6 years after closure they are still clearing up the mess and they will never fix the thousands of hectares destrored at the coal mime.
Just read the list of pollutants from the power station.
Cheers,
Peter
-- Edited by Peter_n_Margaret on Thursday 17th of March 2022 01:51:38 PM
From above;
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
From above;
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
i did not think the article was misleading ,it just pointed out that the new GREEN may not be as green as we first thought
Dabbler,
Your point with regard to your own personal solar system is basically quite valid.
If the problem was addressed with every EV manufacturer supplying a stand alone solar charging system with every car that made the EV vehicle totally independent of relying on power from a grid then a claim of EVs being *green* might be justified, except of course in the manufacture of the *green* vehicle we seem to ignore THAT COST to the claim of being *green*
Todays technology is happening at a greater rate than we ever could dream of 100 years ago so it stands to reason that any technology will advance at a greater rate than we could achieve in the past.
There is one big difference with EVs is the way that this advancement in technology is reported to the public.
Any result due to fear mongering that the world will end, will forever be an inaccurate report of the true result of EVs on our earth.
Peter,
It is far from BS. It is far from misleading or biased.
From above;
For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
Your comparison to the brown coal mine in Leigh Creek when at the same time ignoring practices with the mines throughout the world extracting products so *greenies* get that warm and fuzzy feeling about EVs is at the best very irresponsible and really highlights the selfishness of *green* supporters.
Just one question if I may,
I have read that you are building a new OKA.
How will this new vehicle be powered?
Will it be powered with this new technology that has massive demand on resources which the use of is presently being ignored with comments of BS etc,
or will it just have a modern Diesel engine?
Without the gain of the batteries that have not yet failed, here are some wind farm facts with regard to failure.
https://www.cotes.com/blog/most-common-reasons-for-wind-turbine-failures
Peter67,
It is a horror story with an attached cost that will financially cripple future Australians.
A simple example is the comment by the leader of the opposition in Aus, when he stated that EVs will be good as we can plug them into a solar panel overnight and they will be good to go the next morning.
For this even to be partly correct, every EV owner or operator will have to have a similar system to what is being used by dabbler in an above post.
Then even with that system, it does not take into account the hidden facts of horror in extracting minerals to manufacture these *green* products.
No comparisons. Where're the details about the emissions and pollution for fossil fuels and oil spills?
It's fair enough to say that EVs are not zero emissions but I read somewhere that they emit 50% of the equivalent ICE vehicle over their lifetimes and even less when renewable energy is used to charge them. It's a step to save the planet.
These are the same old arguments being brought up time and time again. Give it a break. Do is all a favour Rob and stop using batteries.
Cheers,
Peter
From above;
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
__________________
Regards
Rob
Chairman of the Bored
yes, that's right.
-- Edited by BasilB on Friday 18th of March 2022 01:06:41 PM
Except that the electric vehicle will actually require significantly less energy input in real life, because it has regenerative braking, which also increases the life of brake pads and discs substantially.
Cheers,
Peter
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
Except that the electric vehicle will actually require significantly less energy input in real life, because it has regenerative braking, which also increases the life of brake pads and discs substantially.
Cheers,
Peter
not to mention the ice inefficiencies.
Isnt the advancement in modern technology just marvellous.
What a shame some of this effort wasn't applied to the mining of the resources to make it comply with basic expectations of humanity so as to enable your *green dream* to be fulfilled.
While we are on the subject, you have not yet answered my enquiry to you in an above post.
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Waiting with baited breath
What a shame some of this effort wasn't applied to the mining of the resources to make it comply with basic expectations of humanity so as to enable your *green dream* to be fulfilled.
While we are on the subject, you have not yet answered my enquiry to you in an above post.
Will the new OkA be totally green as per your definition or is this a case of instructing others without the abstinence we might all expect from the preacher.
Waiting with baited breath biggrin
__________________
Regards
Rob
or you could just tell us about e=mc2 again. big grin.
BasilB said
or you could just tell us about e=mc2 again. big grin.
For One Hundred years motor vehicles have had generators and later alternators
That is technology.
This provided the charge to the battery for starting, lights etc.
EVs had no alternator because they didnt have a battery as such for starting. Then, once again technology came to the fore and harnessed the power that has been wasted in the vehicle (momentum) braking and directed this saving to the big climate unfriendly battery bank that stores the power from a non renewable source in the majority of occasions.
I believe similar technology has been used or at least experimented with in motor racing and with heavy machinery and trucks with retarders fitted. So probably not that newer technology but so be it,
OK so with a big grin
Now are you *not so green greenies* going to change Einsteins formula to suit your agenda
In your confused state what you and the bloke who raised this point and primed you to comment needs to know that grasping at straws by attempting to change Einsteins Formula wont change the truth in the original post in this topic.
Harnessing the power of momentum is not that new or surprising.
While you are pondering this, get your mate to answer my question.
For One Hundred years motor vehicles have had generators and later alternators
That is technology.
This provided the charge to the battery for starting, lights etc.
EVs had no alternator because they didnt have a battery as such for starting. Then, once again technology came to the fore and harnessed the power that has been wasted in the vehicle (momentum) braking and directed this saving to the big climate unfriendly battery bank that stores the power from a non renewable source in the majority of occasions.
I believe similar technology has been used or at least experimented with in motor racing and with heavy machinery and trucks with retarders fitted. So probably not that newer technology but so be it,
OK so with a big grin smile we have that sorted.
Now are you *not so green greenies* going to change Einsteins formula to suit your agenda no
In your confused state what you and the bloke who raised this point and primed you to comment needs to know that grasping at straws by attempting to change Einsteins Formula wont change the truth in the original post in this topic.
Harnessing the power of momentum is not that new or surprising.
While you are pondering this, get your mate to answer my question.
__________________
Regards
Rob
a little catch up on efficiencies is required first i think. big grin
Not totally green, but it will be more effcient than its predecessor.
Almost all house power will be solar. No gas. Cooking will be solar powered induction. It will have 1,2000W+ of solar. Hot water will be via waste heat from the motor or solar via an inverter. Back up power will be via the alternator. No generator will be carried.
I expect that within 10 years it will be possible to convert vehicles like this to hydrogen/electric.
Cheers,
Peter
I see the point of the original post about how "green" energy is really not so green at all. Whether those figures quoted are accurate or not, there can be no doubt that digging up and extracting all those resources is far from green. Then add the manufacturing, transport and disposal. So those green solutions are not green at all. Perhaps they are just less dirty than using oil and coal.
But, it has to come. Even if the process IS dirtier than extracting oil and burning it ....the oil IS going to run out so we have no choice.
When the time comes that oil powered vehicles are in the minority, the next targets will be those dirty "green" solutions that many are singing the praises of now. What then? Any solution so far dreamed up has its own impact on the environment.
The elephant in the room is population growth and the consumerism that goes with it. But nobody is talking about it. And the impacts are now, not in some future time like the climate change predictions.
Until then, another good reason to wean ourselves off oil and fossil fuels is to free ourselves from the political powers that control it. If we didn't need Arab oil, nobody would have fought a war in Iraq. If Europe didn't need Russian gas, then Putin may not have invaded Ukraine.'
Thank you for the description,
I note it is mostly along the lines of a well thought out caravan. I would imagine that there is a great saving in costs if you are doing it yourself.
It is a shame that more van manufacturers dont adopt some of your ideas.
It is also a shame that the diesel bowser will still feature as a necessity in its operation.