Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

The Cost of Going Green

Recommended Posts

This is meant to be neutral, not bashing or praising the pursuit of alternative sources of energy. I was reading about Biden’s Energy Plans in T&D Magazine. All I can say is: long live the Cost-Benefit Analysis. 

It takes 500,000 lbs of dirt by diesel powered tractors to make one car battery and when you charge that battery at night, nuclear power may be providing that energy. All factors need to be weighed in these decisions versus incomplete information.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lead acid batteries can be recycled, Li-Ion?  What about landfill needs in a few years when panels burn out?  Biomass?

Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans movie is pretty good.

https://g.co/kgs/ygm9m9

 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Can you link the article?

I think he got it from the free market think-tank the Manhattan Institute.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check

Quote

For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

@Nevada Convert I'm all for cost-benefit analysis.  But this think tank seems to be just throwing numbers out like these in order to mislead and lobby politicians to pursue a particular narrative.  The second part of the statement above is a perfect example of this.

Driving an electric car "consumes" 5 pounds of earth per mile.  Whereas an internal combustion engine consumes 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.  I guess we aren't counting the drilling, mining, and refining to get to that 0.2 pounds, or counting the pounds of oxygen gas we are also putting into the combustion engine.  Also - 500,000 pounds isn't that much, about 220 cubic yards of dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

I think he got it from the free market think-tank the Manhattan Institute.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check

@Nevada Convert I'm all for cost-benefit analysis.  But this think tank seems to be just throwing numbers out like these in order to mislead and lobby politicians to pursue a particular narrative.  The second part of the statement above is a perfect example of this.

Driving an electric car "consumes" 5 pounds of earth per mile.  Whereas an internal combustion engine consumes 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.  I guess we aren't counting the drilling, mining, and refining to get to that 0.2 pounds, or counting the pounds of oxygen gas we are also putting into the combustion engine.  Also - 500,000 pounds isn't that much, about 220 cubic yards of dirt.

Not to mention that nothing actually gets "consumed". :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, bsu_alum9 said:

I think he got it from the free market think-tank the Manhattan Institute.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check

@Nevada Convert I'm all for cost-benefit analysis.  But this think tank seems to be just throwing numbers out like these in order to mislead and lobby politicians to pursue a particular narrative.  The second part of the statement above is a perfect example of this.

Driving an electric car "consumes" 5 pounds of earth per mile.  Whereas an internal combustion engine consumes 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.  I guess we aren't counting the drilling, mining, and refining to get to that 0.2 pounds, or counting the pounds of oxygen gas we are also putting into the combustion engine.  Also - 500,000 pounds isn't that much, about 220 cubic yards of dirt.

Also, most lithium mining is pumping and evaporation, not open pit mines

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Can you briefly explain this so I don't have to go down some mining rabbit hole?

you drill a hole, pump out briny water, and dry it out. process the mineral deposits, dry that out. eventually the lithium is concentrated enough to refine. 

not that much earth being moved

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only current reliable non fossil fuel power is nuclear. If we are serious about weaning the US off fossil fuels we need to get serious about building more nuclear power plants. Yet there does not appear to be the political will to move in that direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

This is meant to be neutral, not bashing or praising the pursuit of alternative sources of energy. I was reading about Biden’s Energy Plans in T&D Magazine. All I can say is: long live the Cost-Benefit Analysis. 

It takes 500,000 lbs of dirt by diesel powered tractors to make one car battery and when you charge that battery at night, nuclear power may be providing that energy. All factors need to be weighed in these decisions versus incomplete information.

How much went into mining and producing the minerals/oil/gasoline/transportation and additives powering the gasoline powered car?  Is there a big difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

The only current reliable non fossil fuel power is nuclear. If we are serious about weaning the US off fossil fuels we need to get serious about building more nuclear power plants. Yet there does not appear to be the political will to move in that direction. 

Industrial batteries are now coming online.  Putting in a big project in Hawaii to get off the bringing of fossil fuels for electricity.  Supplemental to Solar and Wind

 

https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/battery-farm-could-replace-coal-plant/

 

btw several of these are being installed in Hawaii on multiple islands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Billings said:

Industrial batteries are now coming online.  Putting in a big project in Hawaii to get off the bringing of fossil fuels for electricity.  Supplemental to Solar and Wind

 

https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/battery-farm-could-replace-coal-plant/

 

btw several of these are being installed in Hawaii on multiple islands

I don't think that conventional battery power storage is as good idea for power grids. Good idea for cars, yeah, but not grids. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That's what the physics says.

It's not efficient at all, but if you are going to rely heavily on renewable energy it is a necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

It's not efficient at all, but if you are going to rely heavily on renewable energy it is a necessity.

That's the problem with green in a nutshell.  Electricity is really, really hard to store and we are not getting anywhere close to measuring stored grid potential in weeks.  We are still measuring it in hours.

Nuclear is the answer from a pure physics standpoint, but would need a ton of money dumped into it along the lines of a nuclear green new deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until there is a viable way to eliminate nuclear waste without it requiring storage and burial for centuries, nuclear will be a difficult sell.  Rightfully so. 

The best way to generate electricity is hydro-electric dam and ocean wave generation technology.  Wind would be second.  Other parts of the world are already leading the way in alternative energy.  I know it'd be a heinous blow to the pride of the average conservative, but we might actually....ahem....learn from others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Whats Up Doc said:

Until there is a viable way to eliminate nuclear waste without it requiring storage and burial for centuries, nuclear will be a difficult sell.  Rightfully so. 

The best way to generate electricity is hydro-electric dam and ocean wave generation technology.  Wind would be second.  Other parts of the world are already leading the way in alternative energy.  I know it'd be a heinous blow to the pride of the average conservative, but we might actually....ahem....learn from others. 

Dams are terrible for the environment (ecosystem) and expensive to build (no one is going to build it unless government funded). Wind doesn't blow all the time. Ocean wave generation technology is in it's infancy and is not really feasible as of yet. The way the electric grid works is there needs to be a ready supply of power to meet demands at all time. Burning hydrocarbons allows us to meet peak demands while scaling back during low demand times. Currently there are no easy ways to store energy. Nuclear is the only other option besides hydrocarbons. Hopefully science saves us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...