it's a new report from the School of the Environment at Yale University, and this is a pared-down version of the press release:
quote
With new major spending packages investing billions of dollars in electric vehicles in the U.S., some analysts have raised concerns over how green the electric vehicle industry actually is, focusing particularly on indirect emissions caused within the supply chains of the vehicle components and the fuels used to power electricity that charges the vehicles.
But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels — either at the tailpipe for conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles. . . .
The research team combined concepts from energy economics and industrial ecology — carbon pricing, life cycle assessment, and modeling energy systems — to find if carbon emissions were still reduced when indirect emissions from the electric vehicle supply chain were factored in.
“A major concern about electric vehicles is that the supply chain, including the mining and processing of raw materials and the manufacturing of batteries, is far from clean,” says Gillingham. “So, if we priced the carbon embodied in these processes, the expectation is electric vehicles would be exorbitantly expensive. It turns out that’s not the case; if you level the playing field by also pricing the carbon in the fossil fuel vehicle supply chain, electric vehicle sales would actually increase.”
The study also considered future technological change, such as decarbonization of the electricity supply, and found this strengthened the result that electric vehicles dominate when indirect supply chain emissions are accounted for.
The research team gathered data using a National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) created by the Energy Information Administration, which models the entire U.S. energy system using detailed information from the current domestic energy system and a forecast of the future of the electric system. . . . “the elephant in the room is the supply chain of fossil fuel-powered vehicles, not that of electric vehicles.” He notes that the faster we switch to electric vehicles, the better — at least in countries with a sufficiently decarbonized electricity supply, like the U.S.
This is the Abstract from the report in Nature Communications:
quote
Large–scale electric vehicle adoption can greatly reduce emissions from vehicle tailpipes. However, analysts have cautioned that it can come with increased indirect emissions from electricity and battery production that are not commonly regulated by transport policies. We combine integrated energy modeling and life cycle assessment to compare optimal policy scenarios that price emissions at the tailpipe only, versus both tailpipe and indirect emissions. Surprisingly, scenarios that also price indirect emissions exhibit higher, rather than reduced, sales of electric vehicles, while yielding lower cumulative tailpipe and indirect emissions. Expected technological change ensures that emissions from electricity and battery production are more than offset by reduced emissions of gasoline production. Given continued decarbonization of electricity supply, results show that a large–scale adoption of electric vehicles is able to reduce CO2 emissions through more channels than previously expected. Further, carbon pricing of stationary sources will also favor electric vehicles.
"Pricing indirect emissions accelerates low—carbon transition of US light vehicle sector" Paul Wolfram et al; Nature Communications; December 8, 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y
Didn't read the entire article and won't go to the linked sites but, I'm curious if anyone has studied the environmental effects of disposal/recycling of all those batteries that will soon be at the end of their useful lives?
This will keep some happy...until they begin to understand how lithium is mined. But we don't have to worry for a little while, since it happens in far away places inhabited by poor people with funny sounding names.
edit: See if you can guess which country makes the most money from lithium mining.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]
Originally posted by blackrams: Didn't read the entire article and won't go to the linked sites but, I'm curious if anyone has studied the environmental effects of disposal/recycling of all those batteries that will soon be at the end of their useful lives?
quote
Originally posted by williegoat: This will keep some happy...until they begin to understand how lithium is mined. But we don't have to worry for a little while, since it happens in far away places inhabited by poor people with funny sounding names.
The Yale University press release doesn't go into that much detail.
The report itself, which was published in Nature Communications, is not easy reading. Not for me. I looked for hints that the researchers were concerned about these factors of lithium mining, and end of vehicle or end of battery service life disposal/recycling. I think they tried to take these factors into account, but only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I see nothing that makes me think that this research, as it stands to date, tries to strike any balance or tradeoffs involving other kinds of environmental impacts, which I envision as mining byproducts and other harmful substances that could have damaging effects on air, water and/or ground or soil resources.
Nevertheless, I have the impression--having tried to penetrate this "fog" of research and discern the outlines of the reality that's enshrouded within--that this research has gone farther than previous research, in terms of understanding the implications of road vehicle electrification.
The Yale University press release doesn't go into that much detail.
The report itself, which was published in Nature Communications, is not easy reading. Not for me. I looked for hints that the researchers were concerned about these factors of lithium mining, and end of vehicle or end of battery service life disposal/recycling. I think they tried to take these factors into account, but only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I see nothing that makes me think that this research, as it stands to date, tries to strike any balance or tradeoffs involving other kinds of environmental impacts, which I envision as mining byproducts and other harmful substances that could have damaging effects on air, water and/or ground or soil resources.
Nevertheless, I have the impression--having tried to penetrate this "fog" of research and discern the outlines of the reality that's enshrouded within--that this research has gone farther than previous research, in terms of understanding the implications of road vehicle electrification.
So in other words, they pick and choose their choices of environmental damage, in order to promote their preference. I guess its just a coincidence that the world's largest lithium mining company is Chinese.
I mean, America and capitalism are so passe.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]
It's not like there hasn't been various kinds of damage to air, water and soil, in countries all around the world, from producing and transporting gasoline and diesel fuel.
I'm all for metrics, numbers, comparisons, tradeoffs--but they're not easy to discern.
I've seen reports, just in the last few days, of new plans for lithium mining in the United States and maybe South America.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2022).]
The point is that none of this has anything to do with mending the environment or helping the poor, underprivileged people of the world. It is all about lining Chinese pockets.
Originally posted by williegoat: The point is that none of this has anything to do with mending the environment or helping the poor, underprivileged people of the world. It is all about lining Chinese pockets.
It doesn't have to be only about advantaging China because of lithium mining.
Road vehicle electrification--and it's already underway, obviously--is a moving target, in terms of where the lithium is mined. Some of it will be recycled. And there are possibilities for moving away from lithium and using other, more readily available materials instead. I think I was just reading about using iron instead of lithium.
"Carbon (greenhouse) gas emissions are the 'boss' . . ." as Austan Goolsbee might well say. And how do I know he might say that? He said "The virus is the boss" when he was talking about the economic impacts of Covid-motivated lockdowns and curtailments.
It doesn't have to be only about advantaging China because of lithium mining.
It doesn't have to be, but it is.
Regarding carbon emissions, production of electricity adds carbon to the atmosphere, unless of course it is hydroelectric or nuclear powered. Hydroelectric power requires water and guess what? It takes a half a million gallons of water to produce one ton of lithium.
The power that is delivered to my house is a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear. Let's build more nuclear power plants, OK?
Regarding carbon emissions, production of electricity adds carbon to the atmosphere, unless of course it is hydroelectric or nuclear powered. Hydroelectric power requires water and guess what? It takes a half a million gallons of water to produce one ton of lithium.
The power that is delivered to my house is a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear. Let's build more nuclear power plants, OK?
I am not going to pretend that I can "vouch" for the accuracy of this research. On the face of what I read, it did include projected emissions from electrical power generation. They used data and methodology from the U.S. Energy Information Administration or EIA.
Reducing the impacts of lithium mining, including the demand for water--somebody's thinking about it. I read about that just the other day, but I don't remember it that clearly.
Here's fresh support for the idea that "Carbon emissions are the boss."
"Ocean heat hit record high in 2021 as Earth warms, NOAA says"
quote
“Science leaves no room for doubt: Climate change is the existential threat of our time,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said.
I wouldn't say that electrification of road vehicles is the one thing that can mitigate this threat. I think it's widely perceived as necessary, but not sufficient.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2022).]
I don't think that "we should start with . . ." makes any sense. What's needed is a full court press, with efforts to reduce any greenhouse gas emissions that are large enough to be visible on a pie chart like that. From whatever source or activity. Since it's not easy to project what will work after it moves from the drawing board and into the field. Cover your bets with other bets, so to speak.
As the current century moves forward and into a "post-rinselberg" era, I expect there will be all kinds of "crazy" stuff going on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate the effects of global warming. Bioengineering and genetically-modified organisms. New methods of carbon sequestration. Just some relatively simple changes to agriculture.
Just the other day, I was reading in the New York Times about how much nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) goes into the atmosphere because of how they are growing wheat in Mexico. Something about the way that they are using fertilizer, in connection with how they are irrigating. A timing issue. Something that they're doing more of in Mexico, than in the U.S.
And concrete. Gotta have lower carbon emissions concrete for construction.
Cargo ships. That's a big one. Carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled cargo ship engines. The Japanese, for certain reasons, have been putting a monkey wrench into the needed regulatory schemes. So I read, a year or two back.
A full court press.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2022).]
Originally posted by williegoat: We should be promoting nuclear power. Why not nuclear [powered] cargo ships? Are there any? I'll bet maryjane has some insight here.
Since I've never been aboard an ocean-going vessel, except some that were docked, I don't have maryjane's seafaring insight. But I do have the Internet and its content-retrieval accoutrements, such as Google. Chiefly, Google, although from time to time I've resorted to DuckDuckGo when the Google web page has been temporarily down or slow to respond. These are my findings:
Russia's NS Sevmorput is the only nuclear powered cargo ship currently afloat and in service. At least, as recently as 4Q 2021.
Russia has a tradition of nuclear powered icebreakers, and I think that continues to this day.
The NS Savannah was the only U.S. nuclear powered cargo and passenger ship. It was operational from 1962 to 1972.
Let's break all that down:
quote
The world's only nuclear powered cargo ship yesterday set sail from the Russian port of St Petersburg laden with a cargo of components destined for the Rooppur nuclear power plant under construction in Bangladesh. The NS Sevmorput, which is operated by Rosatom enterprise Atomflot, is transporting the 1400 tonne cargo - described as mainly comprising "metal structures and mechanisms" - to the port of Vladivostock.
Timelab Pro (YouTube channel) video of two Russian nuclear powered icebreakers; 3 minutes duration; posted June 12, 2019. The remarkably high resolution video is from March, 2018. The beginning of it, which is speeded up, seems like a video game, but then it gets "real." This must be the apex of nuclear powered icebreaker videos. The pinnacle of this genre. The video to end all such videos. https://youtu.be/bKaVhXn49xY
quote
In 1955, President Eisenhower proposed construction of a nuclear powered merchant vessel to promote the visionary Atoms for Peace program. NS Savannah was hailed as a "bold and enterprising experiment in the daring and distinguished annals of American science and seafaring." The 596-foot ship had cargo capacity of 9,900 tons and accommodated 60 passengers.
From 1962 to 1972, [Savannah] operated as an experiment to assess the feasibility and cost effectiveness of nuclear power in commercial shipping. Due to high operating costs, the ship was taken out of service in 1972. [The ship] was designated a National Historic Landmark [an oxymoron, if ever there was one] in 1991 and is currently [docked in Baltimore Harbor.]
The Atlantic's Robinson Meyer explores a few different aspects of how pickups, SUVs and cars are retailed in the United States, and the implications of the status quo (vs changes) for EV sales.
Not a real long article. Medium-sized? Medium Long?
My simplest and biggest concern with EV on a personal level would be the cold winters. Being caught in traffic for hours with heat and lights on. Long commutes. Not having a place to plug in at work. Places to plug in if on a trip. Planning your trip stops based on not being able to just top fuel off. WHat if I dont have 240 in the garage. Also a power large outage scenario means you cant travel far. It basically means nothing can travel.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-24-2022).]
My simplest and biggest concern with EV on a personal level would be the cold winters. Being caught in traffic for hours with heat and lights on. Long commutes. Not having a place to plug in at work. Places to plug in if on a trip. Planning your trip stops based on not being able to just top fuel off. WHat if I dont have 240 in the garage. Also a power large outage scenario means you cant travel far. It basically means nothing can travel.
Anybody proponents got a fix or we just going to promote the whole idea regardless of feasibility.
"FULL SPEED AHEAD: FORD PLANNING TO NEARLY DOUBLE ALL-ELECTRIC F-150 LIGHTNING PRODUCTION TO 150,000 UNITS ANNUALLY; FIRST WAVE OF RESERVATION HOLDERS INVITED TO ORDER"
"FULL SPEED AHEAD: FORD PLANNING TO NEARLY DOUBLE ALL-ELECTRIC F-150 LIGHTNING PRODUCTION TO 150,000 UNITS ANNUALLY; FIRST WAVE OF RESERVATION HOLDERS INVITED TO ORDER"
Originally posted by 2.5: My simplest and biggest concern with EV on a personal level would be the cold winters. Being caught in traffic for hours with heat and lights on. Long commutes. Not having a place to plug in at work. Places to plug in if on a trip. Planning your trip stops based on not being able to just top fuel off. WHat if I dont have 240 in the garage. Also a power large outage scenario means you cant travel far. It basically means nothing can travel.
Remember the Three 'R's
What are the Three 'R's..?
A power grid that's Robust, with the capacity to sustain EV charging demand 24/7.
A power grid that's Resilient, winterized and summer'ized for reliable operations during the harshest weather conditions year round.
A power grid that's Redundant, with backup capabilities to overcome the Single Point of Failure phenomenon.
"Finish the job: Congress passed infrastructure package, but Build Back Better investments are still needed" OpEd from Sarah Ladislaw and John Larsen in The Hill; January 19, 2022. https://thehill.com/opinion...ture-package-but-bbb
quote
In 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — including around $60 billion for energy infrastructure such as transmission lines, electric vehicle (EV) charging, building weatherization and demonstration projects for new technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear energy. This latest effort builds on the major investments already made in 2020 for clean energy innovation — spearheaded by Sens. Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Manchin (D-W.Va.) on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee.
All of that funding is sorely needed to improve the resilience of our nation’s critical energy infrastructure and to bolster American competitiveness in the global competition to be a clean energy superpower.
But now, Congress risks wasting the full potential of the infrastructure bill investments if they fail to follow up by passing the Build Back Better (BBB) Act. Why? Because the infrastructure package only addresses half of the clean energy market. It invests in developing and driving down the initial costs of emerging clean technologies and pilot projects, but it does nothing to build the commercial demand to get them to scale in the time it’s needed most.
quote
Sarah Ladislaw is a Managing Director at RMI, where she leads the US Program. She also works on other global initiatives like the Mission Possible Partnership to reduce industrial-sector emissions and supports the development of green banks.
quote
John Larsen is a Partner at Rhodium Group and leads the firm’s US energy system and climate policy research.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2022).]
Originally posted by 2.5: My simplest and biggest concern with EV on a personal level would be the cold winters. Being caught in traffic for hours with heat and lights on. Long commutes. Not having a place to plug in at work. Places to plug in if on a trip. Planning your trip stops based on not being able to just top fuel off. WHat if I dont have 240 in the garage. Also a power large outage scenario means you cant travel far. It basically means nothing can travel.
"I Idled in an Electric Car for 12 Hours in the Freezing Cold to See What Would Happen"
quote
The I-95 shutdown [in Virginia] ignited a debate about EVs in winter, so I did an extraordinarily mundane test.
The basic idea was this: I would sit in the car like I was stuck in traffic the entire time, keeping the cabin warm enough not just for me but for theoretical passengers as well, and see how much the range dropped in that time. The Mustang Mach-E I tested was a 2021 Premium AWD model with an extended range battery (88 kWh), which the EPA estimates at 270 miles of range on a full charge. But the delivery person who dropped it off told me it was a pre-production unit without all the software updates, so he said to expect a lower top range.
quote
I’d much rather be stuck in traffic in the heated seats of a [Ford Mustang] Mach-E than the [gasoline powered] car currently sitting in my frozen garage.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-26-2022).]
A power grid that's Robust, with the capacity to sustain EV charging demand 24/7. A power grid that's Resilient, winterized and summer'ized for reliable operations during the harshest weather conditions year round. A power grid that's Redundant, with backup capabilities to overcome the Single Point of Failure phenomenon.
Ah, a grid impervious. High hopes.
The guy who tested the brand new unreleased model, it is interesting. A few key statements though: "But the delivery person who dropped it off told me it was a pre-production unit without all the software updates, so he said to expect a lower top range." He also says: "turning the car off for periods of 15-30 minutes a handful of times to conserve energy." Details?
Anyway hopefully people understand my point. Relying just on electric for, well.. everything in society, is a bad idea. Maybe that is just what they are saying because of the push, but if that is indeed what they want, bad idea.
Also, did they fix the microchip / precious metal shortage yet?
Ah, a grid impervious. High hopes. . . . Anyway hopefully people understand my point. Relying just on electric for, well.. everything in society, is a bad idea. Maybe that is just what they are saying because of the push, but if that is indeed what they want, bad idea.
Also, did they fix the microchip / precious metal shortage yet?
I don't think GM is all that worried about it.
"GM to spend $6.6 billion on EV plant investments in bid to dethrone Tesla in electric car sales by 2025" Michael Wayland for CNBC; January 25, 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/0...v-sales-by-2025.html
"GM to form new joint venture to produce crucial materials for EVs"
quote
[Cathode Active Materials] represent about 40% of the cost of a battery cell, the automaker said. GM’s new batteries use cathodes made of nickel, cobalt and other materials.
"Fed Chair, Ford CEO agree: No quick fix for semiconductor [microchips] crunch" Suzanne O'Halloran , Edward Lawrence and Grady Trimble for Fox Business; January 27, 2022. https://www.foxbusiness.com...ing-view-chip-crisis
This impacts the manufacture and maintenance (I guess) of all road vehicles, not just EVs.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-27-2022).]
