| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
BREAKING NEWS: Fox News viewers are finally informed that Texas homes have been powered by wind for years. Wind turbines account for almost 1/3 of the grid behind natural gas. In other news, iwindsurf forum user isobars wants all wind turbines torn down due to 6 inches of snow.
Meanwhile, 300 miles North of the Arctic circle, temperatures have been at record highs this past 14 days. Temperatures in Northern Canada and the farthest northern reaches of Greenland are above those in Texas 7000 miles south. Fox News viewers are not told unprecedented warming at the North Pole is pushing cold air South in Jet stream rivers in unparalleled climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox news viewers will soon be told the deep state and AOC are causing these problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | This is the sort of dialogue I think needs to occur when discussing battery operated vehicles........Big batteries are not a panacea. Lugging a battery around that weighs what my first car weighed is NOT a green solution to carbon reduction. |
CB, I agree with you, and with the article you posted which covers the same environmental and human rights issues that I raised. Presumably they must also be Luddites and march in step with Exxon talking points. Coincidentally, some of this was covered in today's WSJ. The attached comment caught my eye, and gives additional context to those who look solely at the relative efficiency of BEVs and ICE vehicles. Lengthy but worth reading........
How do you plan to build out "renewable" energy without using fossil fuels? A Tesla lithium EV battery weighs more than 1,000 pounds. While there are dozens of variations, such an EV battery typically contains about: 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt, 60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper. Looking upstream at the ore grades, one can estimate the typical quantity of rock that must be extracted from the earth and processed to yield the pure minerals needed to fabricate that single battery:
- Lithium brines typically contain less than 0.1% lithium, so that entails some 25,000 pounds of brines to get the 25 pounds of pure lithium.
- Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore to get 30 pounds of cobalt.
- Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore to get 60 pounds of nickel.
- Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery to get 100 pounds of graphite.
- Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery to get 90 pounds of copper.
In total then, acquiring just these five elements to produce the 1,000-pound EV battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of ore. To properly account for all the earth moved though—which is relevant to the overall environmental footprint, and mining machinery energy use—one needs to estimate the overburden, or the materials first dug up to get to the ore.
Depending on ore type and location, overburden ranges from about 3 to 20 tons of earth removed to access each ton of ore. This means that accessing about 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over 1,500,000 pounds of earth—a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds of ore per battery.
The story for mining and manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels is similar - people have no idea of the raw material requirements for them. Not only that, but fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have a life span of 40-60 years - and can be lengthened through basic maintenance and upgrades. Wind turbines rarely last 20 years and many fail long before that. Solar panels maybe 25 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles make the most sense looking into the future. It could take some time to build the necessary infrastructure, but it's all about investment and the business of cleaning up our environment.
Here in Santa Barbara there is a hydrogen filling station. If you're not really driving great distances to unserviced areas, it could be great choice. I like the idea of conveniently filling up the tank much like you would a gas-powered car.
Lastly, it is my understanding that hydrogen is one of the left over byproducts in the oil refining process. Something that you would think that oil companies might be able to leverage on into the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | This is the sort of dialogue I think needs to occur when discussing battery operated vehicles........Big batteries are not a panacea. Lugging a battery around that weighs what my first car weighed is NOT a green solution to carbon reduction. |
CB, I agree with you, and with the article you posted which covers the same environmental and human rights issues that I raised. Presumably they must also be Luddites and march in step with Exxon talking points. Coincidentally, some of this was covered in today's WSJ. The attached comment caught my eye, and gives additional context to those who look solely at the relative efficiency of BEVs and ICE vehicles. Lengthy but worth reading........
How do you plan to build out "renewable" energy without using fossil fuels? A Tesla lithium EV battery weighs more than 1,000 pounds. While there are dozens of variations, such an EV battery typically contains about: 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt, 60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper. Looking upstream at the ore grades, one can estimate the typical quantity of rock that must be extracted from the earth and processed to yield the pure minerals needed to fabricate that single battery:
- Lithium brines typically contain less than 0.1% lithium, so that entails some 25,000 pounds of brines to get the 25 pounds of pure lithium.
- Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore to get 30 pounds of cobalt.
- Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore to get 60 pounds of nickel.
- Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery to get 100 pounds of graphite.
- Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery to get 90 pounds of copper.
In total then, acquiring just these five elements to produce the 1,000-pound EV battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of ore. To properly account for all the earth moved though—which is relevant to the overall environmental footprint, and mining machinery energy use—one needs to estimate the overburden, or the materials first dug up to get to the ore.
Depending on ore type and location, overburden ranges from about 3 to 20 tons of earth removed to access each ton of ore. This means that accessing about 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over 1,500,000 pounds of earth—a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds of ore per battery.
The story for mining and manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels is similar - people have no idea of the raw material requirements for them. Not only that, but fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have a life span of 40-60 years - and can be lengthened through basic maintenance and upgrades. Wind turbines rarely last 20 years and many fail long before that. Solar panels maybe 25 years. |
interesting. But to have a true context for comparison, that would need to be compared to the similar requirements for oil development, and for the batteries that will still be built for other purposes. And to be truly meaningful, it would also have to take into account the multi-trillion dollar cost we are facing for adapting to climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IIRC from our many previous blows to this dead horse, the primary, almost only, byproduct of hydrogen-fueled engines is water vapor -- not just the leading greenhouse gas we know of, but more potent than all the others combined. We cited sources a few iterations ago, but the left doesn't want to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You might want to consider the following.
In a fuel cell vehicle, the hydrogen fuel is combined with oxygen. While the combustion in a hydrogen- or gasoline-powered engine is converted into mechanical energy, in a fuel cell vehicle, the chemical energy from the hydrogen and oxygen is converted into electrical energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mrgybe
Today, I had a conversation with one of my best friends. He is a total greenie and just leased a Chevy Bolt. I asked him about the problems with EV such as range, snow driving, charging times. His comment was “I don’t use a chainsaw to cut trim, that’s what my miter saw is for”. It was a perfect example of how EV can be used effectively. A smaller EV along with a larger efficient gasoline vehicle in the quiver might make a LOT of sense.
This guy is a friend of mine. So, he uses his head and has no preconceived ideas that his EV doesn’t have a whole litany of environmental costs associated with it.
I applaud you for continuing to question the merits of EV. Regardless of our political prejudices (I have many), we do need to try and get to the facts before we jump in with both feet and adopt a technology we can not afford. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | This is the sort of dialogue I think needs to occur when discussing battery operated vehicles........Big batteries are not a panacea. Lugging a battery around that weighs what my first car weighed is NOT a green solution to carbon reduction. |
CB, I agree with you, and with the article you posted which covers the same environmental and human rights issues that I raised. Presumably they must also be Luddites and march in step with Exxon talking points. Coincidentally, some of this was covered in today's WSJ. The attached comment caught my eye, and gives additional context to those who look solely at the relative efficiency of BEVs and ICE vehicles. Lengthy but worth reading........
How do you plan to build out "renewable" energy without using fossil fuels? A Tesla lithium EV battery weighs more than 1,000 pounds. While there are dozens of variations, such an EV battery typically contains about: 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt, 60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper. Looking upstream at the ore grades, one can estimate the typical quantity of rock that must be extracted from the earth and processed to yield the pure minerals needed to fabricate that single battery:
- Lithium brines typically contain less than 0.1% lithium, so that entails some 25,000 pounds of brines to get the 25 pounds of pure lithium.
- Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore to get 30 pounds of cobalt.
- Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore to get 60 pounds of nickel.
- Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery to get 100 pounds of graphite.
- Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery to get 90 pounds of copper.
In total then, acquiring just these five elements to produce the 1,000-pound EV battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of ore. To properly account for all the earth moved though—which is relevant to the overall environmental footprint, and mining machinery energy use—one needs to estimate the overburden, or the materials first dug up to get to the ore.
Depending on ore type and location, overburden ranges from about 3 to 20 tons of earth removed to access each ton of ore. This means that accessing about 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over 1,500,000 pounds of earth—a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds of ore per battery.
The story for mining and manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels is similar - people have no idea of the raw material requirements for them. Not only that, but fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have a life span of 40-60 years - and can be lengthened through basic maintenance and upgrades. Wind turbines rarely last 20 years and many fail long before that. Solar panels maybe 25 years. |
The man from Exxon would have us believe that these are not Exxon talking points. He's right, they are Koch talking points. The source for this screed is the Manhattan Institute--funded by Koch to the tune of $3 million plus, and bought to us by Robert Bryce, an oil and gas apologist. Wow, I didn't expect that. Really? It's not clear if this is a matter of loyalty to the oil industry, or still being paid to flak. But let's look a little deeper.
Let's start with lithium. A terrible thing, it has to be mined. Wow, 25 pounds of lithium, are we mining everything for that? Well, 57,000 tons of lithium were used in 2019 according to the USGS. Let's put that in pounds. Hm, that's 115 million pounds. Well, are we going to run out? The USGS estimates we have 365 years of reserves. Well, are we trashing our wild lands to produce this? Most lithium is produced in Australia and Chile--not in the US or Africa. Hmm, that doesn't match the spin either.
Let's turn to cobalt. What are batteries doing to cobalt production? Not much--120,000 tonnes are produced a year.
Nickel? 2.31 million metric tons per year are now produced.
Copper? 18 million metric tons used per year.
Excuse me if I think that there is a little BS in the Wall Street Journal's sudden concern about mining and the environment. After all, this is a Murdoch paper where the instruction is to always include language that expresses a doubt in the science. Where were they when Trump trashed the Obama monuments--to allow more mining in our wild lands.
So we have energy company talking points, spun through the WSJ which usually has never seen an open pit mine it didn't love.
How about the other side of the equation? What does unregulated use of fossil fuels cost our children, who will have to pay for our adaptation efforts?
Well there is this estimate:
| Quote: | | Two geoscientists and a philosopher from the University of Chicago wanted to take a much longer view on the matter. Their new estimate for an “ultimate cost of carbon” to humanity, published in the journal Climactic Change, came out closer to $100,000 per ton of carbon—a thousand times higher than the $100 or less routinely calculated for the cost to our generation. |
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/climate-change-will-ultimately-cost-humanity-100000-ton-carbon-scientists-estimate
Good propaganda works like this. It makes false comparisons and looks, at first blush, like it is scientific and balanced. In fact, allowed uncontrolled burning of carbon fuels without accounting for their costs involves a huge subsidy to the Exxon's and Koch's of the world. But when you want to keep selling buggy whips... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SAS
Joined: 18 Feb 1997
Posts: 177
Location: planet earth
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: |
Millions of Texans are without power, the death toll is rising, surgeries are being cancelled, gas pumps and EV recharging stations are belly up, etc. because their frozen wind turbines have shut down the power grid ... and more of the same or worse is on its way. |
Less than 1/3 0f Texas power outages were related to wind turbines failing. 2/3 were related to problems with gas and coal electric plants. On average wind provides about 23% of Texas' power.
Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said that the primarily cause of the outages on Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.
In fact, similar state-wide power outages previously occurred in February 2011 when wind and solar power constituted less than 4 percent of Texas' generation capacity. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's report on the 2011 weather event noted that 193 generating units failed, resulting in rolling power outages that affected 3.2 million customers. Most of the outages in 2011 occurred as a result of frozen sensors and valves and natural gas shortages. The same problems with insufficiently winterized equipment appear to be happening now,
It seems that the people running the state of Texas didn't learn from their past problems.
I don't make comments on things like this often, but I like facts, and think they should be the starting point for any intelligent discussion. The prior poster ignored facts. This needed correcting. |
|
| 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
