[Rushtalk] Batteries are only a storage device! (They are eviroromentally a disaster)
John A. Quayle
quaylejohn at aol.com
Mon Mar 14 20:23:21 MDT 2022
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Batteries are only a storage device! (They are environmentally a disaster) I have no problem with electric vehicles. Forcing them on us before they become practical (price and infrastructure) is my issue. Nor do I have a problem trying to clean up the earth but there has to be a cost/benefit analysis component. China and India are the world's largest polluters and are exempt from any "world regulations." The US has reduced its pollution output more than any other industrialized country. Humankind has always figured out solutions to problems and I doubt this will be the exception. However, the human race becoming extinct in the next 12, 10 or 8 years, whatever the current leftist hysteria is, has been predicted since the 70's and we are still here and getting better.
On 3/14/2022 5:47 PM, Stephen Frye wrote:
I can’t because …
There are indeed serious issues examine and solve before making the knee-jerk jump to electric. What I don’t understand is digging in our heels and sticking our fingers in our ears. This is going to happen. As fast as Biden’s green team wants it? No. But to me this exactly fits into the oft heard paradigm “if the solution isn’t 100%. The we shouldn’t do anything.” This planet will run out of oil. When? I doubt anybody knows. I doubt anybody really wants to know.
Stephen, I am not a geologist, nor do I play one on TV. The brother of one of my best friends is a geologist and tells me that the United States alone, has 300 years worth of crude beneath its crust. I have no basis for comparison, so I've taken his word on this - wrong or right. I have no "correct perspective here. Yes, I'm against EVs because I feel they are being shoved down our throats, whether we want them or not. When someone forces me to do something against my will, I tend to get combative. Just wait until my kids put me in a retirement home in a few years (10? 15??). I will be a handful! Dennis is correct......we lack the proper capacity on our grid to handle more than 10% of EVs..............
It’s like knowing when we are going to die. I agree that having electric forced on us causes immediate and harsh push back. Especially when it comes to oil. Oil is viewed by many as life blood. I remember when I was really young I asked my dad if we would run out of gas. His answer: not in our lifetime. Such a typical response. We preach against the growing debt being kicked down the road, but we live and breathe kicking oil down the road - “ain’t my problem.” Again, I am not suggesting some quantum leap into electric. That will backfire. But I can’t condone “I don’t wanna “ either. I agree; right now there seems to be plenty. But we will run out. Why in the world would we sit back and ignore that reality when we have the opportunity to aggressively prepare? At the end of the day, like so much else, our politics too often drive our thinking.
Get Outlook for iOSFrom: Rushtalk<rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> on behalf of Dennis Putnam via Rushtalk<rushtalk at csdco.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 2:23:28 PM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com <rushtalk at csdco.com>
Cc: Dennis Putnam <dap1 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] Batteries are only a storage device! (They are eviroromentally a disaster) 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 iOSFrom: 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 for Windows
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk