| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This is what anti-Obama hysteria from pig oil was all about:
| Quote: | by Tom Randall
December 14, 2016, 10:00 PM PST December 14, 2016, 10:04 PM PST
A transformation is happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity.
This has happened in isolated projects in the past: an especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The chart below shows the average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies, including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon. 1 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm waiting for the nuke, steam powered car. Infinite power with water emissions.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poor old fella. His memory is as bad as ever. This is what I said only a few weeks ago.
"The study examined the full life cycle of battery powered vehicles versus those powered by internal combustion engines. In summary, the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of a BEV are between 19% and 23% less than an ICEV.........worth having, but hardly the "zero emissions" touted by Tesla and the like. The cost of those modest gains are enormous. Cost of ownership of a BEV is between 44% and 60% greater than an equivalent ICEV. This despite the fact that manufacturers are hugely under-pricing their EVs. Even worse, the toxicity of BEVs is three times greater than ICEVs."
He also forgot the reference I provided.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161129005678/en/Arthur-D.-%E2%80%9CThe-True-Economic-Environmental-Costs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
The first part is right, greenhouse gas emissions are lower--but not zero. The cost analysis needs to include the maintenance, primarily fueling, costs. See this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/
Bottom line? Fueling costs between 40% and 60% for a battery electric car compared to a atmosphere destroyer.
Don't let this get out--it may affect market share, and dispel the false narrative that moving away from fossil fuels will destroy our way of life.
By the way, I last filled up my windsurfing van in early November--but I do need to maintain my bicycles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Some of us remember the rants by Gybe that electric cars are bad for the environment. Rare earths, death to miners in China, etc. No references--could it possibly be spin? Well, yes. |
Well no.........
......."the toxicity of BEV's is three times greater that ICEV's"
Another green solution, just like ethanol and diesel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | Poor old fella. His memory is as bad as ever. This is what I said only a few weeks ago.
"The study examined the full life cycle of battery powered vehicles versus those powered by internal combustion engines. In summary, the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of a BEV are between 19% and 23% less than an ICEV.........worth having, but hardly the "zero emissions" touted by Tesla and the like. The cost of those modest gains are enormous. Cost of ownership of a BEV is between 44% and 60% greater than an equivalent ICEV. This despite the fact that manufacturers are hugely under-pricing their EVs. Even worse, the toxicity of BEVs is three times greater than ICEVs."
He also forgot the reference I provided.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161129005678/en/Arthur-D.-%E2%80%9CThe-True-Economic-Environmental-Costs |
do you know how to read? obviously adl is not known for their ability to do assessments of manufacturing. Ya they can sometimes count beans.
Here is what they forgot to mention in their summery.. I bet there is much more they made up. I am willing to bet just love canal beats the toxicity level of the battery producing places in the world. Well gee they forgot to tell us how the new gigafactory places in their made up delusional numbers like yours. It is only going to be the worlds largest battery factory.... I thought you morons wanted jobs... again to not even bring up the toxicity of that factory which will be cloned in about 10-20 places well is a F for their paper. your fired along with them you idiots...
thats what happens when you have no peer reviewing by lobbyists. garbage in garbage out that the right wing live to eat garbage.
| Quote: | As part of our study, Arthur D. Little also presents the findings of
two other widely-cited reports on the environmental impact of
BEVs versus ICEVs – “Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave: How
Electric Cars Beat Gasoline Cars on Global Warming Emissions,”3
from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and “Environmental
Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?”4
from the National Bureau
of Economic Research (NBER). Both of these reports examine the
environmental impact of BEVs and ICEVs, and both reports
describe the policy implications that arise from their findings.
However, UCS and NBER reach drastically different conclusions. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | Poor old fella. His memory is as bad as ever. This is what I said only a few weeks ago.
"The study examined the full life cycle of battery powered vehicles versus those powered by internal combustion engines. In summary, the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of a BEV are between 19% and 23% less than an ICEV.........worth having, but hardly the "zero emissions" touted by Tesla and the like. The cost of those modest gains are enormous. Cost of ownership of a BEV is between 44% and 60% greater than an equivalent ICEV. This despite the fact that manufacturers are hugely under-pricing their EVs. Even worse, the toxicity of BEVs is three times greater than ICEVs."
He also forgot the reference I provided.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161129005678/en/Arthur-D.-%E2%80%9CThe-True-Economic-Environmental-Costs |
Poor biased fellow. Subscribes to spin, if he doesn't write it himself. I took a spin through the Arthur D. Little report, which was missing the citations for its conclusion on human toxicity. So I poked around for a few other more systemic efforts at life cycle analysis for electric vehicles. Here's the first I found: Potential Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries in Electronic Waste
Daniel Hsing Po Kang†, Mengjun Chen‡†, and Oladele A. Ogunseitan†, and its conclusion:
| Quote: | | “… the relative contribution of aluminum and lithium to human toxicity and ecotoxicity could not be estimated due to insufficient toxicity data in the models. These findings support the need for stronger government policy at the local, national, and international levels to encourage recovery, recycling, and reuse of lithium battery materials.” |
But I kept poking, and I came upon this effort, very comprehensive, which puts the toxicity risk in context:
Application of LifeCycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology: Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles", from EPA's Office of Research and Development. It looks at the full life-cycle, and is much clearer on primary and secondary sources than the AD Little effort. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/lithium_batteries_lca.pdf
For human toxicity, the health risk in extraction is 2.58 times 10-13, for processing the numbers are 7.16 times 10-14. That is 2.5 chances in 10 trillion. for extraction. 7 chances in 100 trillion for manufacturing. I guess that's why they trumpet the triple the risk. To put this into a context with the risk associated with combustion products, the risk associated with smoking is 1 in 3. The risk associated with benzene emissions from crankcases and exhaust was the next largest health risk--until EPA and states like California regulated that risk by requiring fuel oxygenates. Gybe has railed against those regulations, but they have saved lives. The next target is diesel particulates. The cumulative risk for inadequately regulated vehicle exhaust in the United States is that it causes 58,000 premature deaths a year in the US--and millions world wide. I guess we should ignore that and panic about 2.58 in ten trillion.
Is mrgybe really Kelly Conway? Or do they just share alternative facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a bit more context. From the underlying paper used by both EPA and AD Little:
| Quote: | Discussion
The main finding of this study is that the impact of a Li-ion
battery used in BEVs for transport service is relatively small.
In contrast, it is the operation phase that remains the
dominant contributor to the environmental burden caused
by transport service as long as the electricity for the BEV is
not produced by renewable hydropower. This finding is in
good accordance with other studies showing that the impact
of operation dominates in transport service (35, 36). In these
studies, infrastructure, maintenance, and service have minor
shares of the environmental impact imposed by transport
services. We found the same pattern for the environmental
burden of the different components to transport service
(Figure 2).
Another explanation for the small impact of the battery
on the overall assessment of transport service is the tiny
share of the lithium components on the environmental
burden for the Li-ion battery. This finding can be explained
first of all by the fact that the lithium content accounts for
only 0.007 kg per kg Li-ion battery. Thereby, the lithium
content of the active material (LiMn2O4) and the lithium in
the electrolyte is included. In addition, the processes used
to extract lithium from brines are very simple and have a low
energy demand. Although lithium occurs in average concentrations lower than 0.01% in the Earth’s crust and hence
can be considered to be a geochemically scarce metal (37),
assessment with ADP does not result in a high impact for the
lithium components. Li2CO3, the base material for the cathode
active material and the lithium salt have an impact of only
1.9%. Compared to other components, for example, Mn2O3
(4.4%), copper (5.3%) or aluminum (15.1%), the abiotic
depletion of lithium resources does not seem to be critical.
However, these results are valid only as long as Li2CO3 is
produced from brines. If the lithium components were based
on spodumene, a silicate of lithium and aluminum, the
extraction of the lithium would require a considerable amount
of process energy (3 .
The major contributors to the environmental burden for
the production of the battery, regardless of the impact
assessment method used, are metal supply (Figure 3) and
process energy. Metals appear above all in the production
of the anode (copper collector foil), the cathode (aluminum
collector foil), and the battery pack. The battery pack requires
cables (copper), steel for the box of the battery and a battery
management system, which contains different metals, for
example, copper, gold, tin. A high energy demand occurs in
the production of aluminum, the production of wafers
for the battery management system, the production of
graphite, the roasting processes of manganese carbonate to
Mn2O3 or Li2CO3 and Mn2O3 to LiMn2O4 or the use of heat
to dry the electrodes....
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.
|
Source: Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to
the Environmental Impact of Electric
Vehicles
DOMINIC A. NOTTER,* MARCEL GAUCH,
ROLF WIDMER, PATRICK W AGER, ¨
ANNA STAMP, RAINER ZAH, AND
HANS-J ORG ALTHAUS
Is anyone shocked that mrgybe spun? Does anyone expect an acknowledgement that he posted pure hokum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
