Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  EVs 'crush' gas/diesel. Greenhouse emissions from use, manufacture and supply chains.

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
EVs 'crush' gas/diesel. Greenhouse emissions from use, manufacture and supply chains. by rinselberg
Started on: 01-14-2022 04:57 PM
Replies: 17 (214 views)
Last post by: 2.5 on 01-24-2022 05:00 PM
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 04:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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.


"YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels"
Yale University press release; December 19, 2021.
https://environment.yale.ed...s-through-additional

"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
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
blackrams
Member
Posts: 30547
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 06:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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?

Rams
IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 06:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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).]

IP: Logged
D3M6B
Member
Posts: 342
From: Beloit, WI
Registered: Sep 2011


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 06:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for D3M6BClick Here to Email D3M6BSend a Private Message to D3M6BEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

See if you can guess which country makes the most money from lithium mining.



Do I have to guess? Can I just Google it and act like I knew it?
IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by D3M6B:


Do I have to guess? Can I just Google it and act like I knew it?

Aww, it'll be a fun game, like checkers, except with marbles.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
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.
IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

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).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 08:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
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.
IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 08:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

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?
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 08:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

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?

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.
Denise Chow for NBC News; January 13, 2022.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sci...-noaa-says-rcna12079

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).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 09:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
OK, then if we want to reduce air pollution, we should really start with...uh...what was that place? Oh yeah...China.

Also, transportation is responsible for only 14% of greenhouse gasses. Can you tell me what industry causes the greatest percentage?



That's right.

source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemis...e-gas-emissions-data

Does this make me an environmentalist? You may call me a tree hugger because a large percentage of income over my lifetime came directly from trees.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 09:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15744
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 09:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
We should be promoting nuclear power.

 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Cargo ships. That's a big one.


Why not nuclear cargo ships? Are there any? I'll bet maryjane has some insight here.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-15-2022 01:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
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.
World Nuclear News; November 3, 2021. Brief report includes photograph.
https://world-nuclear-news....s-Rooppur-components


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.]
HMdb(.org)
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=19558

NS Savannah Association online; includes an extensive virtual tour.
http://ns-savannah.org/nssa.pl?page=virtualtour

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
NS Savannah

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-15-2022).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2022 07:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
"The Simplest Way to Sell More Electric Cars in America"
 
quote
Decades-old laws that protect car dealers are keeping the U.S. stuck in the gas-powered past.

Robinson Meyer for The Atlantic; January 21, 2022.
https://www.theatlantic.com...ership-power/621330/

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?
IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 42575
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 180
Rate this member

Report this Post01-24-2022 05:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
A few practical problems...

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).]

IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock