[Rushtalk] Batteries are only a storage device! (They are eviroromentally a disaster)

Dennis Putnam dap1 at bellsouth.net
Mon Mar 14 15:23:28 MDT 2022

The big one being that the electrical grid cannot handle the required load.

On 3/14/2022 5:18 PM, Stephen Frye via Rushtalk wrote:
> John, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you are against electric cars. 
>  E=MC2 won’t tell us much - don’t forget the denominator.  F=MA is a 
> little better, but either way the claim is correct: same amount of 
> energy.  But there are losses all along the way, and he itemizes one 
> approach, but ignores the analogous itemization on the other. 
>  Textbook example of pre-existing bias.  He also overlooks and 
> misstates a lot of quite pertinent information.
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rushtalk <rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> on behalf of John A. 
> Quayle via Rushtalk <rushtalk at csdco.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2022 12:47:36 PM
> *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com <rushtalk at csdco.com>
> *Cc:* John A. Quayle <quaylejohn at aol.com>
> *Subject:* [Rushtalk] Batteries are only a storage device! (They are 
> eviroromentally a disaster)
>>> 	Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity 
>>> produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered 
>>> plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a 
>>> zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
>>> Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. 
>>> is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs 
>>> on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
>>> Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of 
>>> energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a 
>>> mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what 
>>> produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; 
>>> the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
>>> There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The 
>>> most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and 
>>> lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, 
>>> silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. 
>>> Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.(empahsis: MINE!- JAQ)
>>> Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, 
>>> usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The 
>>> United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, 
>>> and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is 
>>> the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you 
>>> throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens 
>>> to them.
>>> All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, 
>>> they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a 
>>> flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs 
>>> down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as 
>>> dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of 
>>> electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds 
>>> inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The 
>>> metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight 
>>> is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every 
>>> battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just 
>>> takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
>>> In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used 
>>> in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those 
>>> is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not 
>>> yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
>>> But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric 
>>> cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at 
>>> batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three 
>>> technologies share what we call environmentally destructive 
>>> production costs.
>>> A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a 
>>> travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty 
>>> pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 
>>> pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. 
>>> Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
>>> It should concern you that all those toxic components come from 
>>> mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must 
>>> process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore 
>>> for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 
>>> pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the 
>>> earth's crust for just - one - battery."
>>> Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a 
>>> battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution 
>>> controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic 
>>> material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the 
>>> cost of driving an electric car?"
>>> I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building 
>>> the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend 
>>> to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the 
>>> ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project 
>>> is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
>>> The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to 
>>> process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure 
>>> enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, 
>>> sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and 
>>> acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, 
>>> copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also 
>>> are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the 
>>> panels cannot be recycled.
>>> Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental 
>>> destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and 
>>> contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 
>>> 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths 
>>> neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 
>>> pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be 
>>> replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
>>> There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look 
>>> beyond the myth of zero emissions.
>>> *"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at 
>>> the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you 
>>> can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's 
>>> environment than meets the eye, for sure.*
>>> Sent from Mail 
>>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9132637dc919417baa4b08da052a4eb4%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637827976518780666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=fmYWxAhTiXlcThwn%2BtmoxXYB6mZQUibrH%2BeGMiio%2B70%3D&reserved=0> 
>>> for Windows
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://galene.csd.net/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://galene.csd.net/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20220314/1e38768a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://galene.csd.net/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20220314/1e38768a/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list