Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
Who cares when the tech was first developed? The entire point is that they were ignored until the last couple of decades. Ditto for solar and wind, two technologies that have been around for centuries, but are just now coming into their own. I suspect we are going to see an explosion in green tech innovation in the next few years. A superb example is that of LEDs, which are replacing lighting worldwide due to their low energy use. A decade ago they were almost nonexistent; now they are everywhere. We are in an age that rivals the Industrial Revolution in its rapid technological innovation. Change is accelerating and I expect it will continue to do so.

Solar panels cost more energy to construct, install and maintain than they ever return.

Pacific Gas and Electricity installed enough (from Federal tax subsidies) solar and wind power that if all were developing maximum power that they could deliver 19% of the maximum demand for electricity. Last year was their best year ever because of the drought and almost perfect winds. They actually delivered 3%. In a normal year they can deliver 2%. This is not worth the cost of maintenance alone on these systems.

Several of the cities in the San Francisco bay area are proving how green they are by demanding that all new construction have solar panels on their roofs. This is a boon for the Chinese who manufacture the panels and the roofing companies who are making an average of $40,000 per new home. The home owners have discovered that in 2 years they haven't saved one red cent. But the advertisers will come on TV and openly lie with claims that since they installed solar panels they haven't paid any electric bills.

Got that? The experts in the power company can't make any money with solar but some person that lives in Mill Valley which is shaded for most of the year or overcast doesn't pay for electricity.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Let me get this straight - YOU think that things under development are better. You are not an engineer and don't know what is being said nor have the capacity to analyze them yourself but you can talk about them - right?

If there's one thing that is really stupid it is a True Believer in the faith of Global Warming.

Really? You don't believe that LED lighting is more energy efficient than conventional lighting? And you don't believe in the improved efficiency of modern electric motors? I think that explains a lot about your denial of global warming.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Solar panels cost more energy to construct, install and maintain than they ever return.

Pacific Gas and Electricity installed enough (from Federal tax subsidies) solar and wind power that if all were developing maximum power that they could deliver 19% of the maximum demand for electricity. Last year was their best year ever because of the drought and almost perfect winds. They actually delivered 3%. In a normal year they can deliver 2%. This is not worth the cost of maintenance alone on these systems.

Several of the cities in the San Francisco bay area are proving how green they are by demanding that all new construction have solar panels on their roofs. This is a boon for the Chinese who manufacture the panels and the roofing companies who are making an average of $40,000 per new home. The home owners have discovered that in 2 years they haven't saved one red cent. But the advertisers will come on TV and openly lie with claims that since they installed solar panels they haven't paid any electric bills.

Got that? The experts in the power company can't make any money with solar but some person that lives in Mill Valley which is shaded for most of the year or overcast doesn't pay for electricity.

How do you explain the fact that green tech now produces electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels? If solar actually cost more to manufacture than it produces that would not be possible. I'm talking industrial green tech - not a few homeowners sticking solar panels on their roofs. If green tech was not economically viable no one would be building large scale solar and wind installations.

BTW I am quite sure that if you went back to the 1890s you would get similar percentages for electric light. You don't seem to understand that modern green tech is in its infancy, but it is not going to go away just because you are opposed to it.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,176
489
83
Washington DC
How do you explain the fact that green tech now produces electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels? If solar actually cost more to manufacture than it produces that would not be possible. I'm talking industrial green tech - not a few homeowners sticking solar panels on their roofs. If green tech was not economically viable no one would be building large scale solar and wind installations.

BTW I am quite sure that if you went back to the 1890s you would get similar percentages for electric light. You don't seem to understand that modern green tech is in its infancy, but it is not going to go away just because you are opposed to it.
That's why I don't argue with Wake, except when I'm bored. For all his alleged science and engineering expertise, he surely did miss the fact that tech always improves.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
That's why I don't argue with Wake, except when I'm bored. For all his alleged science and engineering expertise, he surely did miss the fact that tech always improves.


Well, that is just the problem isn't it? Every person in these forums can claim huge amounts of background knowledge. I would say that in Wake's case it is mostly in his imagination since most of his sources are complete pseudoscience.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,176
489
83
Washington DC
Well, that is just the problem isn't it? Every person in these forums can claim huge amounts of background knowledge. I would say that in Wake's case it is mostly in his imagination since most of his sources are complete pseudoscience.
On the upside, it ain't like anybody (or everybody) here is having any effect on the real world.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,397
4,493
113
Moccasin Flats
How do you explain the fact that green tech now produces electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels? If solar actually cost more to manufacture than it produces that would not be possible. I'm talking industrial green tech - not a few homeowners sticking solar panels on their roofs. If green tech was not economically viable no one would be building large scale solar and wind installations.

BTW I am quite sure that if you went back to the 1890s you would get similar percentages for electric light. You don't seem to understand that modern green tech is in its infancy, but it is not going to go away just because you are opposed to it.

Adding solar power to natural gas plants isn’t a new idea, but it hasn’t been economical without government subsidies. GE says that because of its new turbines and related equipment, these hybrid plants can, for utilities with the right combination of sunlight and natural gas prices, be competitive even without government support.


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424223/ge-combines-natural-gas-wind-and-solar/
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Adding solar power to natural gas plants isn’t a new idea, but it hasn’t been economical without government subsidies. GE says that because of its new turbines and related equipment, these hybrid plants can, for utilities with the right combination of sunlight and natural gas prices, be competitive even without government support.


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424223/ge-combines-natural-gas-wind-and-solar/

Your article is six years out of date. You have to understand that green tech is not standing still. Solar panels made today are much more efficient than those made even just a few years ago and will probably be even more efficient in years to come. Contrast this with fossil fuels which have pretty much peaked in their efficiency.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,397
4,493
113
Moccasin Flats
Your article is six years out of date. You have to understand that green tech is not standing still. Solar panels made today are much more efficient than those made even just a few years ago and will probably be even more efficient in years to come. Contrast this with fossil fuels which have pretty much peaked in their efficiency.

And subsidized NG peak plants are still being built nation wide. 6 years later.

Keep trying Smurfette

Have they come out with the slave free battery yet?

Coal based batteries are starting to come on market.

Coal will save the EV.

Your article is six years out of date. You have to understand that green tech is not standing still. Solar panels made today are much more efficient than those made even just a few years ago and will probably be even more efficient in years to come. Contrast this with fossil fuels which have pretty much peaked in their efficiency.

Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
#1Jun 24th, 2017
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,537
526
113
And subsidized NG peak plants are still being built nation wide. 6 years later.

Coal will save the EV.

Many, if not most EV's driving around today are coal and NG powered. Where do people think the electricity comes from? Wind? Solar?? LOL..

People get all self-righteous and think that their saving the planet with their Prius, but they're only fooling themselves.

Tesla might be worse for the environment than a gas car.

"The global warming potential for EVs that rely on natural gas – generally considered to be the cleanest fossil fuel – show an improvement of only 12 percent over gasoline, and break even with diesel.

Most alarming, EVs that depend on coal for their electricity are actually 17 percent to 27 percent worse than diesel or gas engines. That is especially bad for the United States, because we derive close to 45 percent of our electricity from coal. In states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, that number is much closer to 100 percent."

Huge hopes have been tied to electric cars as the solution to automotive CO2 climate problem. But it turns out the the electric car batteries are eco-villains in the production process of creating them. Several tons of carbon dioxide has been emitted, even before the batteries leave the factory.

CO2 is only a small part of the environmental impact resulting from battery production...

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

"In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas. At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling."