+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (/thread-4986.html)
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Gointocarlton - 12-05-2023
Read this today:
An example of ‘net zero’ madness
This is a Tesla battery. It takes up all of the space under the passenger compartment of the car.
To manufacture it you need:
--12 tons of rock for Lithium
-- 5 tons of Cobalt minerals
-- 3 tons of mineral for nickel
-- 12 tons of copper ore
You must move 250 tons of soil to obtain:
-- 12 kg of Lithium
-- 30 pounds of nickel
-- 22 kg of manganese
-- 15 pounds of Cobalt
To manufacture the battery requires:
-- 100 Kg of RAM chips
-- 200 kg of aluminum, steel and/or plastic
The Caterpillar 994A is used for the earthmoving to obtain the essential minerals. It consumes 264 gallons of diesel in 12 hours.
Finally you get a “zero emissions” car.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - kruddler - 12-05-2023
Jeremy Clarkson has been banging on about that for over a decade.
None of that takes into account the emmisions from shipping it from all parts of the world as well.
Lithium mines to manufacturing to production to end user.
All to make people feel better about themselves.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 12-05-2023
(12-05-2023, 07:06 AM)kruddler date Wrote:Jeremy Clarkson has been banging on about that for over a decade.And to top it off, it's relatively wealthy types buying Tesla's, and they are scrapping relatively new cars made from tonnes of recently mined resources that could have run for another decade or two more. Many of the same people update their car every 3 to 5 years, while the break-even figures assume you buy the Tesla and drive it to destruction.
None of that takes into account the emmisions from shipping it from all parts of the world as well.
Lithium mines to manufacturing to production to end user.
All to make people feel better about themselves.
I've even had someone arrogantly argue the aged Teslas will be passed down the economic chain benefitting those who can't initially afford them, but doesn't that mean the new car buyer never breaks even? I suspect unless they end with decades of invalid care they probably pass in deficit!
That's the feel good green for you, perhaps it's pseudogreen!
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Baggers - 12-05-2023
(12-05-2023, 07:06 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Jeremy Clarkson has been banging on about that for over a decade.
None of that takes into account the emmisions from shipping it from all parts of the world as well.
Lithium mines to manufacturing to production to end user.
All to make people feel better about themselves.
Now come on, K, tell me you didn't write this with a wry grin, tongue in cheek and a wink of the eye. Quoting Clarkson, a self-confessed boofhead, as an environmental guru is a stretch.
And I don't think you can blanket everyone who goes EV in their vehicle choice as wanting to feel better about themselves. There are a variety of motives, some altruistic, some egocentric, some just wanting to check it out and some wanting to appease some deep seated, unconscious guilt... etc.
The moment huge bucks from big hitting individuals and businesses started being invested in alternative energy sources, it ceased to be about environmentalism and started being about making copious amounts of loot; discovering a new healthy revenue source. Economics/loot rule.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - LP - 12-05-2023
(12-05-2023, 09:07 PM)Baggers date Wrote:Now come on, K, tell me you didn't write this with a wry grin, tongue in cheek and a wink of the eye. Quoting Clarkson, a self-confessed boofhead, as an environmental guru is a stretch.In fairness to Clarkson, he might well be a boofhead, but he isn't a fool either. What he mostly rallies against is the public being conned by the very economic forces you discuss, and personally it aligns with much of my own perspective. What we here call green is somebody else's choking mess.
Our Australian version of green is very NIMBY, we offload the filthy aspects to China, Taiwan, India, Malyasia or Vietnam, etc, etc.. Then we sit here watching the 6 O'Clock news tut tutting at the smog and pollution in Asian cities, on our sparkling dazzling freshly solar powered big screen TV's while our EV gets a load of juice, all from the solar panels, extrusions, controllers, inverters and cabling delivered to us via the smog inducing mills in the very same countries we wag our finger at.
As for the geopolitical situation, we buy Subs to keep "the enemy" at bay, in the meantime we sell them cheap coal by the ship load to keep them running (making solar panels and TVs for us to buy) while they build nuclear power stations to set them free of that market dependency, while our own politicians count the short term cash and do nothing for the future.
You would think if the place that makes the bulk of the solar panels, and can by definition install them cheaper than any other location in the world, would find them to be so cost effective that building trillion$ of nuclear power stations would be redundant, ...................... and yet! Because here, solar is "So cost effective" that nothing can compete, apparently we have billionaires here preparing to clad the top end with SolarPV and power SE Asia, yet there were they make the stuff they build nuclear, .............. something seems NQR!
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - ElwoodBlues1 - 12-05-2023
(12-05-2023, 11:36 AM)LP link Wrote:And to top it off, it's relatively wealthy types buying Tesla's, and they are scrapping relatively new cars made from tonnes of recently mined resources that could have run for another decade or two more. Many of the same people update their car every 3 to 5 years, while the break-even figures assume you buy the Tesla and drive it to destruction.Most people buying Tesla's will be using the generous Government subsidies and obtaining(not buying) them on novated leases through employers. Not sure on how passing EV's down the food chain will work either as I cant see how the second hand market will work with a lot of those EV's being in need or close to needing new batteries which are not cheap plus who will want to fork out for an EV with old technology with less range than the new variety.
I've even had someone arrogantly argue the aged Teslas will be passed down the economic chain benefitting those who can't initially afford them, but doesn't that mean the new car buyer never breaks even? I suspect unless they end with decades of invalid care they probably pass in deficit!
That's the feel good green for you, perhaps it's pseudogreen!
I can also see EV's being a lot cheaper at the bottom end of the market with the Chinese auto companies like BYD, MG, GWM, Chery controlling the market and being able to knock out cheaper cars given they also have investments in the battery technology in many cases ie BYD provide Tesla with batteries and cars at that end of the market of the Chinese variety plummet in resale value.
We may have a lot of worthless EV's and recycling/disposing of batteries etc may become another issue and cost.
In China as soon as the Government subsidies stopped EV's were just dumped on mass like I have said before....
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/#:~:text=China's%20Abandoned%2C%20Obsolete%20Electric%20Cars,with%20unwanted%20battery%2Dpowered%20vehicles.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - Thryleon - 12-05-2023
With all that being said, (and I am no EV booster, just pointing out the logical fallousies that exist) does manufacturing ICE cars, and pulling oil out of the ground not require similar amounts of effort and the odd disaster from an oil slick cause similar issues?
Is it possible that the manufacturing processes and cost are as probelematic and costly as each other, and ergo, the running of an EV vs an ICE car, actually yield some ecological benefit?
That being said, im not convinced either way, but many of these arguments are one sided which makes it really difficult. Its possible that once manufactured, the ecological impact of the EV decrease to a point to offset any issues in manufacturing and you need good data for that, including how the electricity is produced to power the EV. If you charge off solar, and then run it for 10 years, vs a petrol powered car, you have additional ongoing environmental impacts in the car industry to also consider even if the manufacturing process is initially in deficit.
I think there is likely a better solution out there, but we will find out in due course.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - DJC - 12-06-2023
(12-05-2023, 11:24 PM)Thryleon link Wrote:With all that being said, (and I am no EV booster, just pointing out the logical fallousies that exist) does manufacturing ICE cars, and pulling oil out of the ground not require similar amounts of effort and the odd disaster from an oil slick cause similar issues?
Is it possible that the manufacturing processes and cost are as probelematic and costly as each other, and ergo, the running of an EV vs an ICE car, actually yield some ecological benefit?
That being said, im not convinced either way, but many of these arguments are one sided which makes it really difficult. Its possible that once manufactured, the ecological impact of the EV decrease to a point to offset any issues in manufacturing and you need good data for that, including how the electricity is produced to power the EV. If you charge off solar, and then run it for 10 years, vs a petrol powered car, you have additional ongoing environmental impacts in the car industry to also consider even if the manufacturing process is initially in deficit.
I think there is likely a better solution out there, but we will find out in due course.
A Facebook post is probably a tad less one-sided than anything that comes out of Jeremy Clarkson's mouth :
A fairly independent appraisal of some of the myths about EVs can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
For example:
FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.
Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).
For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher, total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.
That's pretty close to your logic Thry.
It's claimed that 98% of each EV is now being recycled, but I haven't verified that. I imagine that a similar percentage would apply to ICE vehicles, but then there's the energy required to recycle both.
I'm still not convinced that EVs, in their current form, are the future but I have no doubt that they are preferable to ICE vehicles in terms of GHG emissions.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - kruddler - 12-06-2023
(12-05-2023, 09:07 PM)Baggers link Wrote:Now come on, K, tell me you didn't write this with a wry grin, tongue in cheek and a wink of the eye. Quoting Clarkson, a self-confessed boofhead, as an environmental guru is a stretch.
And I don't think you can blanket everyone who goes EV in their vehicle choice as wanting to feel better about themselves. There are a variety of motives, some altruistic, some egocentric, some just wanting to check it out and some wanting to appease some deep seated, unconscious guilt... etc.
The moment huge bucks from big hitting individuals and businesses started being invested in alternative energy sources, it ceased to be about environmentalism and started being about making copious amounts of loot; discovering a new healthy revenue source. Economics/loot rule.
The point about clarkson is exactly that though.
People don't need to be part of Mensa or deep within the industry to understand when the wool is being pulled over your eyes.
If someone of his 'record' is all over it, then the fact the average punter doesn't know and/or understand this, shows the propoganda that has been pushed onto everyone is working.
As for the reasons you listed....are majority of them not based upon people wanted to feel better about themselves?
People don't buy teslas because of their performance.
People don't buy teslas because of their history
People don't buy teslas because of their looks.
People buy teslas because they are teslas and that 'means' they are conscious of what that branded represents (albeit inaccurately) that they are green and better for the environment.
There's nothing wrong with it....apart from the fact that it is 'not as advertised' when you dig into it.
Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread - kruddler - 12-06-2023
(12-06-2023, 12:51 AM)DJC link Wrote:A Facebook post is probably a tad less one-sided than anything that comes out of Jeremy Clarkson's mouth :
A fairly independent appraisal of some of the myths about EVs can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
For example:
FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.
Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).
For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher, total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.
That's pretty close to your logic Thry.
It's claimed that 98% of each EV is now being recycled, but I haven't verified that. I imagine that a similar percentage would apply to ICE vehicles, but then there's the energy required to recycle both.
I'm still not convinced that EVs, in their current form, are the future but I have no doubt that they are preferable to ICE vehicles in terms of GHG emissions.
A couple of things.
I'm not sure anyone has explicitly said that EV cars are worse for the environment over their lifetime.
Plenty have said the logic that these cars are green is incorrect.
From your link, it shows that the manufacturing of these cars does actually cause more GHGs than traditional cars (which is the point being made consistently).
Its also assumed that a lot of the energy used to charge these vehicles (the fuel) comes from green sources (study is based on american power, rather here), which will have a big effect on how green they are over the lifetime of the vehicle.
It also doesn't take into account the end of life costs that would be more involved with recycling batteries etc.
I'm not against the idea, i'm against the marketing/propaganda/misdirection involved when talking about how 'green' it is.
Not sure it takes into account the costs (GHG and otherwise) of building all the charging stations that are required either.
Its far from a perfect solution.