The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

[Nickyjo]

"Drill baby drill" .
After that stop funding so called scientists to whine about climate, stop subsidizing wind and solar and start funding research into a viable, reliable alternative clean energy source.
Oil won't last forever and as it plays out we will need a replacement. Wind and solar are not it.

So I gather you reject science and haven’t noticed wildfires, stronger storms, opening of the Artic, etc. And if we subsidize oil, why not wind and solar.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

So I gather you reject science and haven’t noticed wildfires, stronger storms, opening of the Artic, etc. And if we subsidize oil, why not wind and solar.

I reject complete BS propaganda not science.

 

[craig]

I'm sure the AGW obsessed will say so what but the truth is these electric vehicles are not nearly as green as advertised. Lots of good info in this article pro and con for anyone truly interested.

"The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale"

"The extra materials and energy involved in manufacturing a lithium-ion battery mean that, at present, the carbon emissions associated with producing an electric car are higher than those for a vehicle running on petrol or diesel – by as much as 38%, according to some calculations. Until the electricity in national grids is entirely renewable, recharging the battery will involve a degree of dependence on coal or gas-fired power stations."


"Everyone having an electric vehicle means an enormous amount of mining, refining and all the polluting activities that come with it.”

Lithium accounts for a small part of the battery’s cost, which means there is less incentive for manufacturers to find an alternative. As it is, recycling lithium costs more than digging it out of the ground'

The curse of 'white oil': electric vehicles' dirty secret

The long read: The race is on to find a steady source of lithium, a key component in rechargeable electric car batteries. But while the EU focuses on emissions, the lithium gold rush threatens environmental damage on an industrial scale

www.theguardian.com

• EV sales in the U.S. are expected to jump from an estimated 350,000 autos in 2021 to more than a million annually by 2025, according to LMC Automotive.
• Tesla says none of its “scrapped lithium-ion batteries go to landfilling, and 100% are recycled.”
• Ford and its battery manufacturing partner SK Innovations will secure a steady supply of key materials such as lithium, nickel and copper critical to manufacturing EV battery packs.

Ford signs deal with Redwood Materials to recycle EV Batteries

The agreement is the latest indication automakers are taking steps to address the supply of raw materials needed to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Nickyjo]

I reject complete BS propaganda not science.

So all the nations of the world that accept the science are wrong? All the scientists are faking the data? Do you accept that auto emissions cause smog and tobacco causes cancer? Those were called propaganda by some a while ago. Even republicans are on board and have formed the Conservative Climate Caucus, suggesting market based solutions as an alternative to the green new deal. Check oil company websites. They apparently have fallen for the propaganda as well.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

So all the nations of the world that accept the science are wrong? All the scientists are faking the data? Do you accept that auto emissions cause smog and tobacco causes cancer? Those were called propaganda by some a while ago. Even republicans are on board and have formed the Conservative Climate Caucus, suggesting market based solutions as an alternative to the green new deal. Check oil company websites. They apparently have fallen for the propaganda as well.

Let’s start with your claim storms are getting stronger.
Google the children’s blizzard and get back to me

 

[longview]

So all the nations of the world that accept the science are wrong? All the scientists are faking the data? Do you accept that auto emissions cause smog and tobacco causes cancer? Those were called propaganda by some a while ago. Even republicans are on board and have formed the Conservative Climate Caucus, suggesting market based solutions as an alternative to the green new deal. Check oil company websites. They apparently have fallen for the propaganda as well.

It is not that the science is wrong, but rather what is presented as the science comes from the extreme end of a range of predictions.
If we look at the expected warming from a doubling of the CO2 level for example, the benchmark is ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity),
it has a range of ~2 to 4 °C, yet it represents how much warming will happen in response to an abrupt doubling of the CO2 level.
The Science says that the size of the emissions matters. The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For Human style emissions TCR (Transient Climate Response) is a closer fit, and the doubling warming from TCR is 1.4° to 2.2°C, with a best estimate of 1.8°C.
The expected sensitivity is combined with an emission scenario. to attempt to predict a future average temperature.
Again, what is often relayed as science is the high end of the range RCP8.5, now called SSP8.5, being described as a Business as usual.
The reality is, what is called "Business as Usual" is more than 4 times the the CO2 growth rate of the last 20 years.
If we combine the hyperbole, for a sensitivity of 3 °C , AND RCP8.5, would give year 2100 warming of ~6.87°C.
A much closer fit would be TCR of 1.8°C AND a RCP a little over 4.5 W m-2, for a 2100 warming of about ~2.19°C, of which ~1°C has already happened.

 

[JasperL]

The exact percentage is debatable but what's not debatable is that electric cars are not without their own pollution.

No one makes that claim - it's a straw man. Of course manufacturing ANYTHING comes with pollution.

The question is what's more sustainable over time - the continued burning of fossil fuels, or alternative energy powered cars, houses, etc. The claim in the OP - 38% more - refers only to the production of the car itself and says nothing about the lifetime pollution or costs of an EV versus standard auto.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

No one makes that claim - it's a straw man. Of course manufacturing ANYTHING comes with pollution.

The question is what's more sustainable over time - the continued burning of fossil fuels, or alternative energy powered cars, houses, etc. The claim in the OP - 38% more - refers only to the production of the car itself and says nothing about the lifetime pollution or costs of an EV versus standard auto.

If there actually was alternative energy that was able to provide the reliable electricity to power an electric fleet you’d have a point but there is not so you don’t.

 

[JBG]

Let’s start with your claim storms are getting stronger.
Google the children’s blizzard and get back to me

These people don't have the requisite intellectual curiosity.

In addition, during the 1930's, starting I think in 1933, there were extremely significant heat waves going all the way through 1936 or 1937 in from just east of the Rocky Mountains to the northeast.

Are you familiar with the Dust Bowl and a similar heat wave in July 1936 affecting the U.S. Upper Midwest and Northeast? Or of the unnamed 1821 hurricane that joined NYC's East and Hudson Rivers to Canad Street. Or the unnamed hurricane that destroyed St. Croix, gifting the then-colonies with Alexander Hamilton? Or the Year Without Summer, either 1816 or 1817? Weather events have been devastating inhabited areas back to Biblical times. "Sea level rise" is particularly comic. I forget whether it was the leader of the Marshall Islands or Tonga that wanted money to compensate for that. One would think that a Pacific atoll would be sundered and would need money to relocate, not for Swiss bank accounts.

On July 9, 1936 alone heat records were shattered in most of the Northeast. NYC hit 106°F that day, Troy, NY hit 108°F and most northeastern cities broke records. If you do any measurable amount of historical reading stories of oppressive heat are quite common. Climate alarmists are great at finding weather disasters. They are not at all hard to find, in any season. Neither is beneficial warmth that aided the early construction of the Brooklyn Bridge during, I think, 1871.

 

[Nickyjo]

Let’s start with your claim storms are getting stronger.
Google the children’s blizzard and get back to me

So I did. There was a big storm over a hundred years ago. What of it? Your turn: Google “are storms getting worse” and see what NASA, the NOAA et al. are saying. Look, the political issue is very simple: if climate change is real and human caused, we probably should do something, as we did with tobacco, smog, acid raid, fluorocarbons, etc. In general, conservative forces will resist doing it (as they did with the other issues) since they tend to represent business interests. Liberal forces don’t mind regulation as much. Now, we have the GOP and oil companies recognizing the problem, the former suggesting market based solutions and the latter investing in alternatives. So you have all the nations of the world on board, most scientists, and from what I have read, all the conservative parties in the developed world as well, the exception being only a portion of the GOP. If you disagree, write your paper, get it peer reviewed and submit it to Science, Scientific American and/or the IPCC. Set up a rival conference like the one at Glasgow.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

So I did. There was a big storm over a hundred years ago. What of it? Your turn: Google “are storms getting worse” and see what NASA, the NOAA et al. are saying. Look, the political issue is very simple: if climate change is real and human caused, we probably should do something, as we did with tobacco, smog, acid raid, fluorocarbons, etc. In general, conservative forces will resist doing it since they tend to represent business interests. Liberal forces don’t mind regulation as much. Now we have the GOP and oil companies recognizing the problem, the former suggesting market based solutions and the latter investing in alternatives. So you have all the nations of the world on board, most scientists, and from what I have read, all the conservative parties in the developed world as well, the exception being only a portion of the GOP. If you disagree, write your paper, get it peer reviewed and submit it to Science, Scientific American and/or the IPCC. Set up a rival conference like the one at Glasgow.

The children’s blizzard is just one of numerous examples of severe weather in the past that dwarfs anything happening today.

 

[Nickyjo]

The children’s blizzard is just one of numerous examples of severe weather in the past that dwarfs anything happening today.

Well that about settles it. Meanwhile, you could invest in flood insurance and sea wall companies in Florida.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Well that about settles it. Meanwhile, you could invest in flood insurance and sea wall companies in Florida.

Problem in Florida is turning what was a gigantic swamp into a gigantic city and or agricultural land. Nature will ultimately prevail and it will once again be a giant swamp.

 

[JasperL]

If there actually was alternative energy that was able to provide the reliable electricity to power an electric fleet you’d have a point but there is not so you don’t.

So you're going to completely abandon your first point and my response, and move the goal posts to an entirely new set of claims!! Who could have guessed.....oh, right, me.

FWIW, this is another straw man argument. I'd say more but there's obviously no point as you're not interested in having a discussion, just throwing out dumb talking points.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

So you're going to completely abandon your first point and my response, and move the goal posts to an entirely new set of claims!! Who could have guessed.....oh, right, me.

FWIW, this is another straw man argument. I'd say more but there's obviously no point as you're not interested in having a discussion, just throwing out dumb talking points.

The question is what's more sustainable over time - the continued burning of fossil fuels, or alternative energy powered cars, houses, etc

Don’t ask questions and expect others not to respond.

 

[JasperL]

Don’t ask questions and expect others not to respond.

You made a point, I responded to that point. You ignored that response, abandoned your original claim, to raise entirely new ones. That's a red flag already.

And your second set of goal posts makes no sense. I thought about responding on the merits, but I cannot figure out what your point is.

You: "If there actually was alternative energy that was able to provide the reliable electricity to power an electric fleet you’d have a point but there is not so you don’t."

How big an electric fleet? When? Do you mean 100% powered by alternatives, or 90% by alternative sources, or 40%, or 10%? You don't say. Who made the claim that we can power any unknown number of EVs at some unknown time 100% (or whatever percent you have in your head and are not sharing) by alternatives? Wasn't me.

I didn't claim we had alternative energy right now that was sufficient to replace all gasoline cars with EVs fueled by renewable energy, right now. We might NEVER have enough renewable energy to do away with fossil fuels, at least in any of our lifetimes, and we certainly won't at the current pace without huge new investments in nuclear or alternatives still being drawn up and tested. But that's not an argument against EVs versus gas or diesel powered cars today, or whether an EV is today more sustainable, more efficient, cheaper, over the life of the car than a gas powered comparable, whether the electricity right now comes from coal and natural gas like in my area or from solar panels in many houses that are used to recharge EVs and run houses, at least in part.

So I don't know what claim you think you're responding to. Looks like a straw man to me, but who knows because you're not actually interested in engaging in a discussion.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

didn't claim we had alternative energy right now that was sufficient to replace all gasoline cars with EVs fueled by renewable energy, right now.

The question is what's more sustainable over time - the continued burning of fossil fuels, or alternative energy powered cars, houses, etc

If there actually was alternative energy that was able to provide the reliable electricity to power an electric fleet you’d have a point but there is not so you don’t.

Until or unless we have alternative energy that can provide reliable electricity to power an all electric fleet you have nothing but a pipe dream

 

[JasperL]

Until or unless.....

tl/dr

I addressed your point, you ignored it, to repeat your drivel. Apparently I have a "pipe dream" (a third set of goal posts I guess) in your mind, but it's not something I have asserted so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[bluesmoke]

"Drill baby drill" .
After that stop funding so called scientists to whine about climate, stop subsidizing wind and solar and start funding research into a viable, reliable alternative clean energy source.
Oil won't last forever and as it plays out we will need a replacement. Wind and solar are not it.

What alternative?

 

[longview]

What alternative?

The error is in understanding the problem!
Solar (and to some extent wind) are great energy sources, but lack the duty cycle to be directly used for on demand energy.
The problem is not the supply of energy, but how it can be stored and accumulated to supply an on demand world.
This is not a solution that can be solved with our current generation of batteries, because one of the larger demands will be seasonal storage.
We need a storage system with enough capacity, to move Spring and Fall Surplus, to Summer and Winter Demand.
Basically we have to potential with solar to provide all the energy we need for a sustainable future, we just need that energy in a different form
so it can be used when needed, instead of within milliseconds of generation.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

What alternative?

The one scientists should be looking for instead of wasting time and money whining about climate change.

 

[bluesmoke]

The one scientists should be looking for instead of wasting time and money whining about climate change.

There is no known alternative, as you yourself fail to name, that would justify halting our progress being made towards current clean energy source and developing what else we can.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

There is no known alternative, as you yourself fail to name, that would justify halting our progress being made towards current clean energy source and developing what else we can.

Maybe maybe not.M

Can Transient Plasma Ignition Save the Internal Combustion Engine?

This sounds like great technology on the horizon. 20% more efficient and 50% less polluting. It can be part of new cars and an easy add on to existing cars. “The technology is called "transient plasma ignition," and it could, in theory, boost the efficiency of internal combustion engines by...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Deuce]

Right wingers see ten articles a week on how much stuff goes into producing electric cars and still think this is some kind of secret they've just discovered and nobody else knows about.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Right wingers see ten articles a week on how much stuff goes into producing electric cars and still think this is some kind of secret they've just discovered and nobody else knows about.

Really? You know that as a fact! Seems like an unreliable statement to me.