Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suggest you look into the actual "environmental costs" of the petrol & ICE industries vs the solar/wind/EV industries before you draw any conclusions. The cost of the new unreliables is magnitudes greater than the old.
Land use/habitat destructuion of oil wells-- https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_pro...elds_units.pdf
Note that the oil wells are represented by a few discreet dots on this map of the 200,000 sq mi North Slope in AK.....While EACH wind turbine takes 1.5ac of habitat out of the natural habitiat pool https://sciencing.com/much-land-need...-12304634.html and there are now 70,000+ wind turbine sinthe US...7x10^4 x 1.5 = ~100,000 ac.
And you fail to account for all the other related environmental concerns with oil, gas, ore and coal extraction. Emissions, tailing deposits, habitat loss, mountain top destruction..
Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.
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.
And I admitted in my post that ALL forms of energy production currently come at a cost- but I think you are cherry picking to say EV production is worse than oil or gas. That's patently Bullsnot and history is not your friend on this one. So I 100% disagree with you on all of your 'duckduckgo' data mining efforts. Nice try.
In 2020, Reuters reported that Chinese battery maker CATL was developing an EV battery that did not require the use of cobalt or nickel, both key components in traditional EV batteries. Tesla also reported that half the vehicles manufactured in the first quarter of 2022 were produced using cobalt-free lithium iron phosphate – known also as lithium ferrophosphate or LFP batteries – proposed to be more sustainable alternatives.
But perhaps each of these alternatives are simply examples of environmental problem-shifting. In each of these scenarios, transitioning to EVs and developing cobalt-free batteries often lead to new, and sometimes more chaotic, complicated and severe environmental problems – something that we refer to as ‘environmental problem-shifting’. Critics have suggested that instead, a more radical and long-term solution would involve investments that decrease our dependence on vehicles, electric or fossil-fuel driven. Switching to electric cars addresses only a few of the issues presented by fossil fuels and clearly develops complications exemplified by cobalt mining in the DRC. Beyond batteries, cars also require tyres, whose manufacture and subsequent disposal happens at an enormous
Currently, yes, ICE's use more aluminum than EV's, but that's about to change. Auto manufactures currently use ICE frame work to manufacture EV's, however, they are moving away from that concept and designing EV's from the ground up, using more aluminum. By 2030 the EV's demand on aluminum resources will increase 10 fold, this demand will strain the ability to mine bauxite ore and process it into alumina. To help with the increase in demand, mining operations will increase at the same rate as the demand for the bauxite ore. Have you ever looked at what is required to manufacture aluminum? It also is a very dirty process, unrestricted mining and processing of the bauxite into alumina contaminates rivers and drinking water and not left out is the destruction of wildlife habitat. Guinea, is one of the biggest suppliers of Bauxite ore in the world, by 2030 the mining of this ore will have consumed 858 sqKm of agricultural land and 4700 sqKm of wildlife habitat, that is an area 6 time more than New York City. The electricity required to turn alumina into aluminum, you make aluminum by running huge amounts of electricity through an alumina solution. At the moment, most of that energy comes from coal, a high carbon, highly polluting fuel. Aluminum production accounts for 2 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide, or more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year by 2030 this will also increase by 10 fold.
I'm being very honest here, we are destroying lively hoods, ecosystems and the environment to produce something that is suppose to save the environment, just how insane is that. CO2 isn't the boogyman, without it there would be no life, as we know it, on this planet. Plants thrive on CO2, it is their life subsistence, CO2 levels of 500-1000 PPM are ideal for the majority of plants on this planet. Without plants there would be no land dwelling life forms, think about that.
You're suggesting that more CO2 is better. I disagree, and most credible scientists disagree. We're seeing the impacts of global weather events and other matters- like ocean acidification that seem to be linked with our warming environments. You want to be a climate denier - go for it. But to say that EV production is multitudes more destructive than other extractive operations- oil, gas, coal or ore- is patently absurd. Your trying to simply justify your own bias.
Currently, yes, ICE's use more aluminum than EV's, but that's about to change. Auto manufactures currently use ICE frame work to manufacture EV's, however, they are moving away from that concept and designing EV's from the ground up, using more aluminum. By 2030 the EV's demand on aluminum resources will increase 10 fold, this demand will strain the ability to mine bauxite ore and process it into alumina. To help with the increase in demand, mining operations will increase at the same rate as the demand for the bauxite ore. Have you ever looked at what is required to manufacture aluminum? It also is a very dirty process, unrestricted mining and processing of the bauxite into alumina contaminates rivers and drinking water and not left out is the destruction of wildlife habitat. Guinea, is one of the biggest suppliers of Bauxite ore in the world, by 2030 the mining of this ore will have consumed 858 sqKm of agricultural land and 4700 sqKm of wildlife habitat, that is an area 6 time more than New York City. The electricity required to turn alumina into aluminum, you make aluminum by running huge amounts of electricity through an alumina solution. At the moment, most of that energy comes from coal, a high carbon, highly polluting fuel. Aluminum production accounts for 2 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide, or more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year by 2030 this will also increase by 10 fold.
I'm being very honest here, we are destroying lively hoods, ecosystems and the environment to produce something that is suppose to save the environment, just how insane is that. CO2 isn't the boogyman, without it there would be no life, as we know it, on this planet. Plants thrive on CO2, it is their life subsistence, CO2 levels of 500-1000 PPM are ideal for the majority of plants on this planet. Without plants there would be no land dwelling life forms, think about that.
You've made some specious claims (highlighted) without any support.
1: Increased aluminum demand for EV's will be offset by decreased demand for ICE's.
2: See 1: above.
3: How do you know Co2 levels of 500-1000 ppm are ideal? Current levels of 440ish are about 50% higher than pre-industrial, and (don't quote me on this), but best I can tell, for all those thousands of pre-industrial years plants managed just fine at 280 ppm without additional input from humans.
You're suggesting that more CO2 is better. I disagree, and most credible scientists disagree. We're seeing the impacts of global weather events and other matters- like ocean acidification that seem to be linked with our warming environments. You want to be a climate denier - go for it. But to say that EV production is multitudes more destructive than other extractive operations- oil, gas, coal or ore- is patently absurd. Your trying to simply justify your own bias.
I'm not a "warming climate denier", the planet has been warming for 12,000 years and it will continue to warm for another 10-15,000 years. It wasn't human activity that kick started the Holocene Warming period, with out this we would still be under a mile of ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Yes, if this warming period is going to be anything like the last warming period (Eemain) then sea levels are going to rise and global weather patterns are going to change, it is the nature of the beast.
Our planet is getting "greener" more plant growth, why is that. The majority of plants on this planet are of the C3 type, which means they thrive at CO2 levels between 500-1000 ppm. Higher CO2 levels in these plants means, higher yields, less stress and less stress mean less water consumption and the more sequestering of CO2. Why do you think that large nursery operations use elevated CO2 levels in their greenhouses?
You're suggesting that more CO2 is better. I disagree, and most credible scientists disagree. We're seeing the impacts of global weather events and other matters- like ocean acidification that seem to be linked with our warming environments. You want to be a climate denier - go for it. But to say that EV production is multitudes more destructive than other extractive operations- oil, gas, coal or ore- is patently absurd. Your trying to simply justify your own bias.
There's lot's of reasons to suspect that EV production and driving isn't LESS destructive than the current oil and gas paradigm.
The Green Living forum can be divided into 2 camps:
Those that believe CO2 reduction is more important than habitat preservation
Those that believe habitat preservation is more important than CO2 reduction
I don't think either camp believes the other issue is irrelevant, just that both sides should be looked at.
There's lot's of reasons to suspect that EV production and driving isn't LESS destructive than the current oil and gas paradigm.
The Green Living forum can be divided into 2 camps:
Those that believe CO2 reduction is more important than habitat preservation
Those that believe habitat preservation is more important than CO2 reduction
I don't think either camp believes the other issue is irrelevant, just that both sides should be looked at.
No way, Norway. In 2022, 79% of cars sold in Norway were fully electric vehicles (EVs). Tesla is the most popular brand in the country, accounting for 12.2% of the overall market. While the country aims to end the sale of diesel and petrol automobiles by 2025, new taxes on EVs could potentially stand in the way of achieving that goal. Learn more about early-stage EV innovation in this report.
UK....
Quote:
Automakers had their worst year of UK sales in three decades, with only electric vehicles providing a bright spot.
Full-electric cars accounted for 16.6 percent of new-vehicle registrations last year, overtaking diesel for the first time as sales rose 40 percent, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said in a statement on Thursday.
That did not stop overall shipments from declining 2 percent to 1.61 million — the lowest level since 1992.
One in three new cars sold in the UK in December 2022 were battery-electric models, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) has confirmed.
The industry body has today (5 January) published its data on car registrations for December 2022 and the entirety of 2022. The figures confirm that, overall, new car sales in the UK during the year failed to reach pre-pandemic levels. Registrations in 2022 were their lowest in 30 years and 25% lower than in 2019.
And you fail to account for all the other related environmental concerns with oil, gas, ore and coal extraction. Emissions, tailing deposits, habitat loss, mountain top destruction..
And I admitted in my post that ALL forms of energy production currently come at a cost- but I think you are cherry picking to say EV production is worse than oil or gas. That's patently Bullsnot and history is not your friend on this one. So I 100% disagree with you on all of your 'duckduckgo' data mining efforts. Nice try.
Mining coal vs the minerals required for solar/wind/Evs-- I'll concede to call it a wash berween the two, although coal mining in the US is now much more environementally friendly than mining for minerals in the Congo, Asia, etc....and coal will last us centures, while those other minerals will be depleted wiothin a few years as the portion of solar/wind/EVs goes up srteadiuly--Just ain't enough rsources to force us off fossil fuel.
Envronmental hazards of fracking? Miniscule effects. Would you rather live near a fracking site (good chance you do already and don't know it) or an open pit cobalt mine?
By 2030, DoE expects EV battery manufacturing in North America to be 20 times, 2000%, greater than in 2021. That could support US EV market penetration of 70%+. 14M vehicles sold in 2022.
Quote:
A wave of new planned electric vehicle battery plants will increase North America’s battery manufacturing capacity from 55 Gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/year) in 2021 to nearly 1,000 GWh/year by 2030. Most of the announced battery plant projects are scheduled to begin production between 2025 and 2030. By 2030, this production capacity will be capable of supporting the manufacture of roughly 10 to 13 million all-electric vehicles per year.
To optimize supply chain logistics, many battery plants will be co-located with automotive plants. Most of the planned projects in the United States are concentrated along a north-south band from Michigan to Alabama. Based on current plans, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Michigan will see the highest growth in battery manufacturing capacity.
guido said it, because of where the mining is located. As much as possible, it's best to domesticize resource extraction cause the US has better controls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
