Worried about the environment

[KX L]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS. PLEASE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL PARTIES. THIS IS AN ACADEMIC QUESTION.

For the life of me I can't understand why supposed environmentalists think electric cars are good for the environment. Please provide academic responses to my thoughts:

Net, [to include hybrids though not as much] I believe EV's take up waaay more energy and do waaay more environmental damage than vehicles with an internal combustion engine [ICE]. While the idea of reducing greenhouse gases is admirable I can't understand the rush of the end state [the vehicles themselves] before the steps required to get there are in place.

Topics: Mining, transportation, manufacturing, transportation, grid electronic requirements, toxic chemicals to dispose of in ? 10 -15 years?

Mining to get the different required precious metals. It's done by huge diesels [most of which are in countries without air standards for them]. More importantly the mining happens in countries that have way worse environmental policies and corruption that we have here. So if you really are an environmentalist you should care about the total costs and the world's environment not just the one where you live.

Transportation costs of the mined raw materials. It happens overland by trucks and railroads, as well as internationally by ships, all of which require huge diesels or some other energy sucking engine which means literally tons of fossil fuels. This is from MoreThanShipping.com:

The average tanker burns 2,623 gallons of diesel fuel per hour. It is said that 22.38 pounds of carbon dioxide are created from burning one gallon of diesel fuel. So, in only one hour, a tanker ship hauling oil to a refinery in the U.S. creates 58,757.5 pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere.Mar 30, 2022

This is from FreightWaves.com with 2018 costs:

How much does it cost to fill a container ship with gas?

With the cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.Jan 22, 2018


Manufacturing costs of using the various factories required to make the vehicle subsystems and put the vehicle together. This part of the stream is probably very close to or actually beats the ICE due to less parts.

More transportation costs by truck, rail, and shipping.

I believe the hugest cost of EV's are the energy costs of keeping the vehicle charged. Our [1st world country] grid can't begin to support EV's though of course the EV manufacturers are saying it can. I'd prefer to listen to the experts.

A Dec 2022 CNBC report says our grid would require 25-50% increase. That's a CNBC report not a Fox news report!

A 2022 U.S. Department of Energy report says the percentage of renewables on the current U.S. grid is 22% in 2022 and is expected to reach 26% by 2024.

The current grid runs mainly on fossil fuels and nuclear energy [approx 20%]. As more renewables come on line there has been more push back due to the unexpected wildlife damages and the usual Not In My Back Yard [NIMBY] lawsuits---which raises the costs. So if the trend continues at a 2% per year increase in renewables we're looking at 12 years just to get to the 50% capability of current requirements. It would be another 12 years to meet only a 25% increase in the future requirements.

Another huge environmental issue [in my peabrain] is what are we going to do with the expended batteries? They're toxic as hell so the costs to make them safe for storage or renewable for further use is completely unknown at the scale of only EV's on sale by 2035.

Puerto Rico's energy grid is 99% on renewable energy. They are in the correct position to move to all electric vehicles---oh wait, the majority of the people can't afford to buy them. General Motors has just reversed it's decision to stop production of the popular [because it's less expensive] Chevy Bolt to manufacture a Chevy Bolt II. They wanted to build just the bigger more expensive EV's but the outcry lead to CEO Mary Barra changing her mind.

So we're running around bragging about our environmental cleanliness and spending tons on subsidies on virtually every component of an EV. It seems to me the money would be much better spent on fixing the start and middle of the EV production stream BEFORE we went the EV path. Please educate me on why I'm wrong.

Sponsored

 

[Medical_Bartender]

? First in for the discussion...

On a serious note though, I completely agree with you on multiple levels. Doesn't make sense now, and more than likely won't make sense (economically or environmentally) for quite some time. That said, renewable natural resources and renewable energy MUST be the future because we do have a finite amount of fossil fuels on this planet. As more and more developing countries become developed they will start to thirst for fossil fuels which will make the situation even worse.

I definitely do not think that multi-ton, highly polluting, expensive AF batteries being strewn about the planet once they are past their usable lifespan isn't a good thing. I don't want that. I do however think that this "phase" we are going through as a developed nation will benefit us going forward. Can you imagine the pandemonium in a world where gas/diesel is 6...7...10...or more dollars per gallon? Hell I remember when I was a kid and my parents paid around $1/gal. We are at 3-4x that cost now, so it's not farfetched for that trend to continue.

In my opinion, as F'd as this complex monster of a situation is, not being reliant on oil/gas in the future will be what separates the "have's" from the "have not's" on a global scale. So I hope and pray that as a nation we can find a way to not base our entire economy and lifestyle on them. Don't get me wrong, I want to keep my ICE engines as long as I possibly can, but I also want to have an eye toward the future.

No way in hell are are we ready to dump ICE though. The subsidies and forcing the issue should be stopped, hard.

 

[Jefe1018]

At the risk of sounding like I'm wearing a tin-foil hat, I also do not believe that petroleum is a finite resource as we have been led to believe.

 

[Rusty PW]

At the risk of sounding like I'm wearing a tin-foil hat, I also do not believe that petroleum is a finite resource as we have been led to believe.

Look into abiogenic petroleum theory.

Being retired from power generation as a senior control room operator who had direct contact with grid operations on a daily basis. Our grid is shakily now. More and more coal fired power plants are being retired. And not enough new generation is coming on line to replace them. We are losing megawatt's on the grid. Don't believe what the media says about new generation. They are finding out that wind turbines costs lots of money to keep spinning. Blade life isn't what they thought it would be. It's roughly 70% of what was expected. Solar has it's own issues. Nuclear is the only way out. But everyone is scared of it.

 

[Jefe1018]

Look into abiogenic petroleum theory.

I didn't know that was the name of the theory, but I recall questioning my science teachers in high school based on the fact that hydrocarbons were claimed to be in existence on other planets with no means to sustain life, yet, I'm supposed to believe we are burning dead dinosaurs. How many gotdamn t-rex's were there?

 

[Rusty PW]

I didn't know that was the name of the theory, but I recall questioning my science teachers in high school based on the fact that hydrocarbons were claimed to be in existence on other planets with no means to sustain life, yet, I'm supposed to believe we are burning dead dinosaurs. How many gotdamn t-rex's were there?

I came across this theory years ago. Was in a training session. A discussion on different types of fuels used in power generation came up. The guy leading the class had a PhD in geology if I remember right. He brought it to our attention.

 

[bd100]

When I was young, they told us we'd all have died of the new ice age by now. And we'd have run out of fuel, food, atmosphere, etc.

Pollution control and conservation are useful. The big advances in vehicular pollution control included unleaded gas, the PCV valve, the catalytic converter, and fuel injection. At the power plant and factory level we have coal scrubbers and emissions filters. Yet, even today we have major pollution in modernized industrialized places like China. And in many places around the world they can collect things like plastic but have little use for it. Fixing things in America and Europe alone doesn't "save the planet". The environmental bang for the buck results right now are in the third world, not electric cars for rich people.

And is carbon dioxide really pollution?

 

[Rusty PW]

When I was young, they told us we'd all have died of the new ice age by now. And we'd have run out of fuel, food, atmosphere, etc.

Pollution control and conservation are useful. The big advances in vehicular pollution control included unleaded gas, the PCV valve, the catalytic converter, and fuel injection. At the power plant and factory level we have coal scrubbers and emissions filters. Yet, even today we have major pollution in modernized industrialized places like China. And in many places around the world they can collect things like plastic but have little use for it. Fixing things in America and Europe alone doesn't "save the planet". The environmental bang for the buck results right now are in the third world, not electric cars for rich people.

And is carbon dioxide really pollution?

Show where one climate change prediction ever came true. This goes all the way back to the 1800's. Zero predictions came true.

CO2 is needed. Plants need it to survive. Back when the dino's roamed. CO2 levels were in the 4000 ppm range. They had more plant life then, as we do now. CO2 levels now are in the 400 ppm range. This is barely enough for today's plants.. At the 350 ppm level, plants start to die off. At the 280 ppm level. It's an extinction event. At what level do these climate change people what the CO2 level at? CO2 doesn't cause the temps to go. Temps cause the CO2 levels to go up. CO2 follows temps, not temps follow CO2.

Grow houses that grow plants and flowers in green houses pump in CO2 to help the plants grow.

China is the major polluter. And they have no desire to change. Our country is the cleanest it's been since the 1960's.

Everything I just wrote can be found in wikipedia if you search for it.

 

[KX L]

I like that so far you guys agree with me. Mini nuclear plants for each city is the only real solution with today's technology---but we would still need a major upgrade to the grid itself. I definitely think these huge subsidies are insane.....

 

[Rusty PW]

I like that so far you guys agree with me. Mini nuclear plants for each city is the only real solution with today's technology---but we would still need a major upgrade to the grid itself. I definitely think these huge subsidies are insane.....

You take away the subsidies from solar and wind. They would all go bankrupt. Without the subsidies, they are operating in the red. They are the highest cost per megawatt. On the scale. Nuke is the cheapest at the bottom. Next is natural gas. Natural gas became cheaper than coal when they started to drill in Pa. and the surrounding states for natural gas. Most of the drilling is at the Marcellus layer. There is some drilling at the deeper Utica level. Coal became more expensive than natural gas with the new drilling and the addition of the installation of scrubbers and new emissions equipment. Solar and wind is at the top of the scale of price. Solar and wind take up a lot of land for the amount of megawatts generated. You can put a 900 MW natural gas plant on 50 acres of land. And you can put it almost anywhere. Long as you can get to water, and a gas line. Solar has to be placed in areas with a lot of sunshine. Areas west of the Appalachian Mountains don't do good because of the cloud cover. Wind has to be placed in areas with a steady flow of wind. That is mostly in the planes and on top of mountains.

We really need a place to store our nuke waste. We have a few places, but there is such a backlash against it by the locals. People want cheap energy, BUT won't let happen. It's the NIMBY's.

 

[Jefe1018]

You take away the subsidies from solar and wind. They would all go bankrupt.

I have a buddy who works in solar, the installation side. The panels work in terms of generating power and they are only getting better as technology progresses, however, we have come to the conclusion that the finances behind it are a scam and only sustained by subsidies.

 

[Rusty PW]

I have a buddy who works in solar, the installation side. The panels work in terms of generating power and they are only getting better as technology progresses, however, we have come to the conclusion that the finances behind it are a scam and only sustained by subsidies.

The one plant manger I had at the power plant. Got transfer to a wind farm to finish the construction of it and to start operations of it. He tired to get me and a few others to go. We all said no thanks after he told us what was involved. The one maintenance manger got bounced around to a couple of different power plants. One of them was a solar farm. He said it was easy work until you had to trouble shoot a problem. One dead cell in a panel could degrade the whole panel by 25% at times. Keeping the panels clean is the biggest thing. Dust, snow, leaves, bird shit, dead birds, pieces of aircraft. I miss Bobby and Crag. They were good people to work for. They had your back.

Look into the number of times a solar or wind farms gets sold. Duke Energy built a number of them, only to get sold right after construction was finished and they were operating. Someone builds them, then turns around to sell them. The samething happened to a number of natural gas power plants too. The one I retired from is on it's 3rd owner. I know of some that are on their 6th owner.

 

[Medical_Bartender]

I wish nuclear would be more prevalent. I’ll admit I’m not very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of it though. My personal fear with hundreds of nuclear power plants all over the country is the potential for a terrorist/disgruntled einolouee/insert anyone else with bad intentions to do something stupid and now we have a Chernobyl or two stateside.

 

[jimcasada]

KX brings up a good point. I wonder just how much does it cost in environmental terms to produce an EV, as compared to a similar an internal combustion vehicle? I have heard that lithium is mainly stripped mined from ancient sea beds, and processed using a whole lot of fresh water that becomes polluted, and ends of in the streams and rivers of mostly those 3rd world countries that allow that sort of thing.

And, what if you were to replace all the US cars with EV's? What happens to all our old internal combustion vehicles? They'll all mostly be sent over to another county, where they will continue to run and pollute the air over there (remember "Cash for Clunkers"). The US really can't do shit by doing it on our own.

Also, who's going to pay to keep up all our roads & bridges if we all switch to EV's? Approx 1/3 of the price of a gallon of gas or diesel is a tax going toward road construction & maintenance. EV's currently are freeloading on everyone else.

 

[Rusty PW]

I wish nuclear would be more prevalent. I’ll admit I’m not very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of it though. My personal fear with hundreds of nuclear power plants all over the country is the potential for a terrorist/disgruntled einolouee/insert anyone else with bad intentions to do something stupid and now we have a Chernobyl or two stateside.

Any new nuke plant that would be built will take 40+ years for it to happen because of the permits. Permits cost in the neighborhood of $10 billion dollars and 10 years to get the permits through. Construction is another 30 years, plus cost overruns. You're looking at $60 billion easy. A small nuke plant will cost the same as a large plant in permitting cost. No one energy company by themselves can afford to build a new nuke plant. It will take 3 or 4 to go together to build one.

Sponsored