Norway ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea I would not put much stock into what Kevin Libin of FP/NP say's.... he and others have an axe to grind and evidence of their honor on this subject is in question. Let's just say they think free speech is for people and people sometimes lie therefore lying is protected by free speech.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/01/2015BCSC0165.htm

Thxs for that link GLG. Really interesting reading.
Just shows you what many scientists just trying to do their job are up against when big industry corporate money tries to influence and corrupt. If you can't attack the science, attack the person.... If they (big oil) put some of that money towards trying to find solutions to the climate change problems we'd be alot farther ahead.... Pretty crazy some of the BS they spew and expect us to believe... The courts got it right it seems.
Gives me a whole new respect for Andrew Weaver.
Think you can drop the mike with that last link GLG. Shows the credibility of some of these articles put forth. pretty much non existant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GLG

Thanks CR i did find it here .....
http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede95a9/1496136143435/C243.pdf
I also had a chance to skim through it some what but will take more time but at this point page 24 and 25 did pop out.

“What differences are there in greenhouse gas emissions between different production locations?”
The largest part of the energy use in the production of lithium-ion batteries comes from electricity use. Because of this the electricity mix is a critical factor for the greenhouse gas emissions from production. The largest short term potential to impact the electricity mix in the production stage will come from placement of the production plants, as the emissions from the electricity can vary a lot between countries. Alternatively the battery plant can ensure access to fossil-free energy by buying or producing green electricity.

Like Tesla is doing by getting 100% renewable electricity? Makes you question that claim the their batteries take as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving now don't it.

For the record we know that you need to consider the lifecycle of everything and added batteries need to be considered. My understandings was 2 to 3 years, going from memory. So the question is after those same 2 or 3 years does a fossil fuel car stop producing co2 like an e-car?
 
Enormous hope rests on electric cars as the solution by the motor industry to climate change. However the batteries of electric cars are not environmentally friendly when manufactured. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, even before electric batteries leave the factory.
IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective. Batteries for electric cars were included in the study. Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have produced a meta-analysis, that is, a review and compilation of existing studies.

The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory.

The researchers have not studied individual car brand’s batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But to understand the importance of battery size here’s one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.

As soon as you buy the car, CO2 emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have been released for batteries of these sizes. The numbers may be difficult to relate to. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.

Another conclusion of the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.

The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based by more than half by power generated by fossil fuels. In Sweden, power generation predominantly consists of zero-carbon nuclear and hydropower, as a result of which lower emissions can be achieved.

The study also reveals that CO2 emissions rise almost linearly with battery size, even though data is scarcer in this area. This means that a Tesla-size battery contributes more than three times as much CO2 as Nissan Leaf’s battery. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare.

“It should have been less linear because the electronics used do not increase to the same extent. But the battery cells themselves are as influential as the production looks today, she says.

“One conclusion is that you should not drive unnecessarily cars with large batteries,” says Mia Romare

The authors emphasises that a large part of their study was about finding out what data was available and finding out what information they hold. In many cases they found that it was difficult to compare existing studies with each other.

“We have been frustrated, but it is also part of the result,” says Lisbeth Dahllöf.

Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions.

“It’s great for companies and government to embark on ambitious environmental policies and to buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should not think of choosing an electric car with a larger battery than necessary, he says, and points out that politicians should also address this in the design of instruments.

An obvious part to look at in life cycle analyzes is recovery. The authors of the report note that what characterises batteries is the lack of the same as there is no financial incentive to send the batteries for recycling and that the volumes are still small.

Cobalt, nickel and copper are recycled, but not the energy required to make the electrodes, says Mia Romare, pointing out that recycling points are resource conservation rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

Peter Kasche from the Energy Agency, the publishers of the report, stresses the importance of the close relationship between the size of the electric battery and CO2 emissions.

One really needs to make sure to optimise electric batteries. One should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily. In some cases, a plug in-hybrid may be the optimum, in other cases a clean battery device.
 
Stolen from a website from our friends down south that was talking about this study, kind of puts the real value or cost to our fossil fuel addition.

Yes, how much CO2 emissions were created to build 2 US Aircraft Carrier Groups stationed near the Straits of Hormuz. Steel requires a LOT if Energy.

Don’t forget the 2 US Aircraft Carrier Groups in the Med.
That’s Carriers, Battleships, Subs, Cruisers and Destroyers.

The fact they’re completely left out of the picture tells you all you need to know about CO2 studies of “battery” production.

Not to mention the Fuel Bill of those ships.

Whenever you dig deep into the issue, it looks like OIL is an Ancient Dinosaur Fuel invented 150 years ago, and only a fool would continue with this technology, when there are better cleaner “fuels” today. ( Wind and Solar ) that don’t require Naval Groups and exercises protecting the worlds shipping lanes.
 
Well, energy demand and electricity demand are two different things, so those statements are not mutually exclusive, although it is poor wording. But the person who writes the headline is rarely the same person as the one who writes the article, which is often how this kind of confusion arises.
You got that right.... here is another view on that subject. It's clear that steps are needed but solutions and time are on their side.
 
This one is worth a view.
 
Currently charging at home is not that big of a deal. You could in theroy make it a big deal if you wanted supercharging but for most people you have 2 options. Here is a cut and paste from another website.

Level 1 (120 volts): 3 to 20 Hours Charge Time

A full charge at Level 1 can take as little as 3 hours, depending on your EV type and how empty your battery is. Since the charging cord set provided with your vehicle will use a customary household 120-volt outlet, there is no need for equipment installation. We recommend that you charge at this level on a dedicated 20-amp circuit. It’s always a good idea to have your electric infrastructure inspected by a licensed electrician before your first charge.

Level 2 (240 volts): 1 to 8 Hours Charge Time

Level 2 charging is faster and may take as little as 1 hour, again depending on your EV type and how empty your battery is. If you want a Level 2 charging station at your home, you’ll need a 240-volt line installed by a licensed electrician.

I think that Level 2 can be configured for 30 amp or 40 amp depending on what you want. There was some talk in the past that we would have to upgrade all the houses and all the lines in the neighbourhood but that turned out to be not the case as the vast majority of the charging is done at night when no other loads are being used on the system. Here in BC we have some older 100 amp and more common 200 amp service to our houses. There should be plenty of capacity depending on your needs and we just need to be prudent on our use.


Yes I know about IPP's ... that's a huge mistake from our past leaders. Seems some got rich on that deal (why does that not surprise me). Can you imagine that IPP's only produce power when BC Hydro is spilling water from its dams because we have too much. Wasted energy because we made the wrong decision and that's something we need to look at with Site C. If you can find the business case for Site C the people of BC would be eternally grateful to you because so far it was for an industry that may not show up. After that our past leader was trying to sell the power to Alberta and they have declined. Seems they know they can get renewables for less cost. It would be good to learn what Alberta is doing to meet there future needs. Perhaps some member knows.

As for this comment... "Getting back to electric cars, they would be similar to what you pay for your house." don't take this the wrong way but I'll take 2 of those houses, just let me know where they are..... :rolleyes: seriously ... price still need to come down but the question is how far down is the right price..... 25K , 35K or 45K

Thanks for your input..

Let me clarify the cost of charging your car would be relatively the same as what you pay for electricity for a home.
 
Last edited:
Thanks CR i did find it here .....
http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede95a9/1496136143435/C243.pdf
I also had a chance to skim through it some what but will take more time but at this point page 24 and 25 did pop out.

“What differences are there in greenhouse gas emissions between different production locations?”
The largest part of the energy use in the production of lithium-ion batteries comes from electricity use. Because of this the electricity mix is a critical factor for the greenhouse gas emissions from production. The largest short term potential to impact the electricity mix in the production stage will come from placement of the production plants, as the emissions from the electricity can vary a lot between countries. Alternatively the battery plant can ensure access to fossil-free energy by buying or producing green electricity.

Like Tesla is doing by getting 100% renewable electricity? Makes you question that claim the their batteries take as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline-powered driving now don't it.

For the record we know that you need to consider the lifecycle of everything and added batteries need to be considered. My understandings was 2 to 3 years, going from memory. So the question is after those same 2 or 3 years does a fossil fuel car stop producing co2 like an e-car?
Thank you; I found it difficult to locate a convenient link from my phone.

The Tesla factory in Nevada (assuming claims about it are entirely accurate, which has typically been problematic with Tesla; I encourage anyone interested to look at the analyses of Musk's products and claims on Solar Panel Talk, which is devoted to alternative energy and hardly in the pocket of big oil etc; they are extremely critical and skeptical on the basis of their experience designing alternative energy systems) is certainly an improvement over other options but does nothing to reduce the embedded energy costs in the materials they process. Not that it would be fair to expect them to, of course, but the point is that while the pollution generated ON SITE may be significantly reduced, the total pollution generated by ground-to-retail production may be only somewhat reduced.

So while factories such as that one will definitely reduce the time to pay off the initial carbon investment, it's difficult to say exactly to what degree. This is the crux of the entire issue: it has been so thoroughly clouded by rhetoric that attempting to evaluate proposed solutions is nearly impossible.

And, of course, they do nothing to offset the losses in transmission and storage, nor do they address the ultimate issue of grid stability and the requirements of even the small percentage of vehicles which are electric.





Ultimately, the real problem is very different from the one that guilt-reduced consumer products purport to solve, and virtually no one is even asking the correct questions. It's very popular to frame the problem as: is the climate changing as a result of human behaviours?

That question is entirely wrong. I can tell you, on the basis of my university years partly spent on astronomy/astrophysics, that increasing the CO2 load in an atmosphere like ours will absolutely increase its specific heat capacity and allow the planet within to retain more infrared solar radiation. Will more CO2 heat up the planet? Absolutely, and people should have some concerns about that. The models generally used to describe climate change are atmospheric models relating to this fact and insofar as they predict this issue they are correct.

But that is not the question that needs to be asked. The real question has two parts:

A) What are the self-regulating systems of this planet in regards to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and are they being overwhelmed?
B) if so, what steps will reduce the CO2 load to a point that the self-regulating systems will handle it?

The reason that climate models have consistently predicted not only warming, but catastrophic warming which is always coming soon but never seems to arrive, is that they don't account for the self-regulating mechanisms of what is a nearly closed system: the earth's complete biosphere.

We know that self-regulating mechanisms exist because the Earth IS a nearly closed system. Without the evolution of these systems, life would have been extinct a long time ago. But we have very little understanding of their efficiency. As we increase CO2, we make the planet a very slightly easier place for plants to grow; at what rate does that offset the increased carbon load? We don't know. To what degree does it change the surface albedo and at what rate? We don't know. At what comparative rates does the ocean absorb CO2 versus acidify, and at what speed does this affect shellfish versus their ability to adapt? We don't know.

So part A is very poorly understood, and as a result part B is even MORE poorly understood. What will fix it? We're not sure. Will alternative energy play a role? Maybe, but efficiency is so poor in terms of large scale grid power that unless there is a sea change in photovoltaic technology it doesn't look that way. Will wind generation ever be more than bare-bones supplemental power at extremely high cost? At this point it really doesn't look that way. Will nuclear options have their various issues resolved and thereby become more appealing? I'm not sure but I fervently hope so. Then what about storage? I know a scientist currently working on the microcapacitance of graphene who desperately hopes to change battery technology to the point that the current issues of mining, rare earths, and toxicity are resolved; he's so committed to the concept that he doesn't give a damn whether he makes a penny off of it, but his hopes for all current battery technology aren't high.



Unfortunately, nobody wants to ask "A" because on one side, that means admitting there's a problem. On the other side, that means admitting that the solutions getting pitched may be based entirely in fantasy, and I tend to think they are.


I'm as interested in a solution as anyone but I very much doubt that non-nuclear alternative energy solutions are anything beyond a distraction, and I'm equally skeptical about electric cars. I appreciate that people want an answer and that a lot of people think those are part of it but I really don't think that's likely and I am fairly convinced that what has really happened is that enough ideological clustering has taken place that most people are now incapable of distinguishing environmental concerns with left-wing dogma, and vice versa. I am about as far to the right as exists in Canada; I essentially believe that only voluntary social contracts are actually morally justified. And yet I'm highly interested in the preservation of the environment, because in reality, voluntary social contracts have little to do with concern for nature.

But so many of the proposed solutions are a reflection not of pure interest in the sustainment of the earth's natural environmental state, but of social controls designed to promote the development of countries not even remotely interested in the state of the environment, and to forcibly funnel money into the hands of those blessed by regulatory agents who are themselves not constrained by the rules they inflict upon average people, that I rarely find them acceptable.

Or even likely to make a positive impact.
 
Yes the sales numbers you can look up but what about this line....
"Current estimates for Tesla batteries put the pollution associated with production at around 8 years of running a small gas-powered car according to a Swedish study; the combination of electrical transport loss and battery pollution may mean that even if we got everyone into electric cars, we might not reduce the environmental problem at all."

neat trick using Tesla when the study did not include Tesla. Have you heard about the gigafactory and that it runs on 100% renewable energy? Like I said they have an axe to grind and will use all the tricks in the book to grind it.

It would also be interesting to second source his sales numbers....
Sadly you are correct. Both sides of the environmental argument seem to cherry pick, misrepresent and skew numbers to support their perceptions .
 
I follow the car industry as that's something that interests me going back to my hot rodding days. I was dismayed when Toyota seemed to think the the future was hydrogen and refused to look at battery only cars. Many people thought that they would regret it. When Tesla announced their model 3 and got 400,000 reservation Toyota woke up to the fact that was where the market was going and quickly started a new program. So news out of Toyota the other day seems that the did in fact WTFU. Better late than never....

http://www.reuters.com/article/toyota-electric-cars-idUSL3N1KG03L

Toyota set to sell long-range, fast-charging electric cars in 2022 -paper

TOKYO, July 25 (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp aims to begin selling in 2022 an electric car powered by a new type of battery that significantly increases driving range and reduces recharging time, the Chunichi Shimbun daily reported on Tuesday.

Current electric vehicles (EVs) typically have a range of just 300-400 kilometres (185-250 miles) and need 20-30 minutes to recharge even using fast chargers. By using all-solid-state batteries, which can store more energy and can recharge more quickly than lithium ion batteries, Japan's top automaker would be removing the two key shortcomings associated with EVs today.

The EV, to be built on an all-new platform, would be able to recharge in just a few minutes, Chunichi Shimbun said, without citing sources. Toyota has decided to sell the new model in Japan as early as in 2022, the paper said.

A Toyota spokeswoman said the company could not immediately comment on the report.

Toyota, which had long touted hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles and plug-in hybrids as the most viable low-emission alternative to conventional cars, said last year it wanted to add long-range EVs to its lineup as battery-powered cars gain traction around the globe.

Toyota is reportedly planning to begin mass-producing EVs in China, the world's biggest auto market, as early as in 2019, although that model would be based on the existing C-HR sport utility vehicle and use lithium-ion batteries, which power most EVs today.

Other automakers such as BMW are also working on developing all-solid-state batteries, eyeing mass production in the next 10 years.

Solid-state batteries use solid electrolytes rather than liquid ones, making them safer than lithium-ion batteries currently on the market. (Reporting by Chang-Ran Kim and Naomi Tajitsu; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)

 
Ban could be placed on charging electric cars during peak times as energy demand is set to TRIPLE by 2050
Harry Bradfield
ELECTRICITY demand could rise by a THIRD by 2050 with bans in place on when electric cars can be charged, experts have warned.

The surge in plug-in motors popularity could cause “challenges” for energy providers, according to National Grid forecasts.

nintchdbpict0003355129901.jpg


Getty Images

1
Electric cars will have to charged at certain times to avoid blackouts
By 2050, 90 per cent of new cars are expected to be electric sending demand for electricity soaring, especially at peak times.

And the National Grid said peak time demand could rise by 18 gigawatts (GW) – the equivalent of nearly six Hinkley Point nuclear power stations.

It said “smart chargers” could have to be introduced to only fill up car batteries when power networks could cope.

Drivers would have to wait until times of day when there was surplus electricity.

And cars with existing charge left could be used to plough resources back into the grid.

Dustin Benton, acting policy director at the Green Alliance, a think-tank, told the FT to keep costs down consumers may have to “accept some control over when and how they charge their cars”.

MOST READ IN MOTORS
He said: “The government should require smart chargers to be installed which support the grid by default, while ensuring people are able to drive their cars whenever they need them.

“The alternative is a dumb charging system where everyone charges their car at 6pm, putting huge pressure on the grid.

“This would be much more expensive and have a higher carbon footprint.”

Manufacturers are rushing out more and more electric models with Volvo the most recent to declare a drive for zero-emissions vehicles.

The move comes as toxic taxes hang over the head of diesel.

More proof that what some write (axe grinders) misquote what is being said.
http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1264/ev-myth-buster-v032.pdf

The recent government announcement on the ban of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 has resulted in some of National Grids FES numbers being quoted out of context.
 The scenario which best fits the government’s statement is Two Degrees.
 The additional peak demand from EVs in that scenario is not 30 GW but more likely to be 5 GW.
 The 30 GW often quoted is from our more extreme, but possible, sensitivity called High EV.
 In this sensitivity there are no nuclear power stations by 2050 – and certainly not 10 as often quoted.
 Nuclear power stations would not be the best option for meeting peak demand.
 
Meanwhile, Tesla continues to run massive operating losses and needs another couple of billion dollars from investors to keep going. Moody's is nervous about the upcoming junk bond sale as there is not yet any clear path for them to recover the funds, and without the fresh cash injection the company is running out of money. Sales don't support the business model despite massive taxpayer subsidies, so it's back to the investors if they want to stay liquid.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40906793

There's definitely theoretical potential upside but man, I wouldn't put my money into it. Not that it's open to private buyers anyway, but man, someone's going to get left holding the bag on that one sooner or later.
 
Musk is a shrewd businessman. I say good on him, many ways to make a dollar and using humans strongest emotion, fear, to make profits is as valid as any.
 
A rich man is just as dead as a poor man. There is no benefit to being "richer" dead. We are all underwater with scuba guage showing "times up". Delusional to suggest infinite consumption/depletion/poisoning cuts it on a very small, finite resources planet. The (oil) dog is just one bad habit that just don't hunt these days. Electric propulsion is just part of the tech under the category of "hail mary" pass. Desperate times... desperate hopes.... profit just ain't in it. You need a planet to enjoy greed.
 
Musk is a shrewd businessman. I say good on him, many ways to make a dollar and using humans strongest emotion, fear, to make profits is as valid as any.
There's definitely an argument to be made that if you can convince governments to give you people's money to advance your own position, it absolutely makes sense to do so. And if you can convince major stock buyers to give you money for bonds with no guaranteed value, again, they have the ability to turn down your offering. It's a voluntary arrangement.

The only people actually engaged in behaviour that's definitely morally questionable are the governments who extract non-voluntary taxes to fund guys like Musk. But that's life. In my experience, most people are fairly inured to the idea of forced social contracts anyway.
 
A rich man is just as dead as a poor man. There is no benefit to being "richer" dead. We are all underwater with scuba guage showing "times up". Delusional to suggest infinite consumption/depletion/poisoning cuts it on a very small, finite resources planet. The (oil) dog is just one bad habit that just don't hunt these days. Electric propulsion is just part of the tech under the category of "hail mary" pass. Desperate times... desperate hopes.... profit just ain't in it. You need a planet to enjoy greed.
There's actually an enormous benefit to being richer dead...your wealth can be passed on to your descendants.

If going electric helps sustain the planet I'm interested...but at present I have not seen any good numbers indicating that it will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top