Interesting read, and great numbers to have handy.

https://www.thepilot.com/opini...b2-c3b373ca5197.html

The world needs to find ways to reduce carbon gas emissions below today’s levels. My intent is not to disagree with the Green Movement but rather to provide some food for thought and deal with the question of whether the movement’s goals are within the art of the possible.

President Biden has declared that we will “achieve 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035,” have “net-zero emissions by 2050” and “cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.” Additionally, Democrats are pushing to have every car electric by 2040.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), regarded as the most important source for energy information, recently released a 287-page report titled “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.” Here are some findings:

Green Movement demands for minerals will explode by an estimated 4,200 percent (lithium), 2,500 percent (graphite), 1,900 percent (nickel) and 700 percent (“rare-Earth metals”).
These new mineral requirements translate into a massively enlarged mining industry, greater transportation, more/new refinement facilities and infrastructure that does not exist, and there are currently no plans to build them. This will cost at least hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. On average it takes over 16 years to move a mining operation from discovery to production. If we had a plan, 2036 would be the start point for putting a battery in the 1 billion vehicles in the world (290 million in the U.S.)

Electric vehicles (EV) currently account for about 30 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. One electric car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds with an average life of 7-10 years. To produce one battery requires processing about 250 tons of raw materials such as cadmium, cobalt, lead, lithium and nickel. To put a battery in every vehicle in the world — the Green Movement goal — would take 250 billion tons of Earth materials every 7-10 years.
Vehicles in the U.S. travel about 3 trillion miles per year, 10,344 miles per vehicle. The average EV can travel 200-300 miles per charge requiring about 40 recharges per year. Forty charges per year for 290 million U.S. vehicles equals 11.6 billion charging actions and probably 30-40 billion for the world. This represents an entirely new requirement for electricity. Where will it come from? The sun and the wind, says the Green Movement.
The American Wind Energy Association says it takes about 230 tons of steel, more than a thousand tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic blades to make a single wind turbine; all with a life-cycle of around 20 years.

To produce half the world’s electricity from wind, we will need about 3 million more turbines. Three million turbines at 230 tons of steel each equals about 690 million tons of steel from about 1 billion tons of iron ore. Then, in about 20 years another billion tons of iron ore. At what point do we exhaust the Earth’s supply of mineable iron ore?

As for solar, solar panels require rare-Earth materials which are not currently mined in the U.S. Demand for these elements is expected to rise 250-1000 percent by 2050. Additionally, solar requires even more cement and steel than wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity.

Also consider that China controls the majority of existing sources of copper (45 percent,) nickel (40 percent,) cobalt (60 percent,) lithium (55 percent) and rare earth metals (80 percent.) Today, the U.S. is not even a player. We are currently 100 percent dependent on imports for 17 key minerals. For another 29, over half of our needs are imported.

Five final thoughts, a wake-up call:

Supply and demand: Every day the requirement for electricity goes up and the supply of minerals goes down. Last year, about 400,000 natural gas workers produced about 35 percent of U.S. electric power. The same size labor force, 400,000, accounted for solar’s miniscule 0.9 percent share. At some point the cost of electricity will approach prohibitive numbers. Will the cost of an EV battery be out of reach for most of the world’s population?
Mining, transporting and refining billions of tons of earth materials will create a new and massive carbon footprint which could conceivably be greater than that saved by electric vehicles.
The Green Movement is based on a false premise; that is, wind and solar are “renewable.” Technically yes, but in order to harness wind and sun it will be necessary to process billions of tons of minerals, not an ounce of which is “renewable.”
The new demand for minerals will require huge quantities of water and about half the known lithium and copper sources are in water-shortage areas.
Finally, the vast majority of the 195 countries cannot afford any of the Green Movement requirements. Who pays?
Marvin L. Covault, Lt. Gen. US Army, retired, is the author of “Vision to Execution,” a book for leaders.

This would go great in the Biden thread

quote:

'Green' Goals May Not Be Very Feasable

Ya Think....No matter how you slice it, it's like NO Shit, on every level!

Good to see it in print, though...

quote:

The world needs to find ways to reduce carbon gas emissions below today’s levels.

If China disappeared entirely, we could meet any reasonable goals.

I have said many of the things in the article for years. The watermelons pushing this shit are ignorant of the environmental costs of mining, smelting and refining the needed metals, many of which come from countries that hate us (but are happy to take our money), are in states of civil war or other political instability, or both.

The Greenie Weenies will just reply that all of those rare Earth materials will be recyclable at the end of their life cycle.

Just a power grab by the left to tax and control all energy usage to enrich themselves and their cronies.

I spent the first couple years of my engineering career in automotive heating and cooling - changing from R12 to R134a because of the ozone hole. Al Gore said R12 is the most dangerous substance known to man and everyone was going to die of skin cancer if we didn't do something immediately. Well, we changed all the refrigerants to ones that are less efficient, require more power to get the same cooling, require bigger heat exchangers that take more energy to manufacture, require nasty synthetic lubricants that are carcinogenic, and various other things.

And you know what? No one cares. We "solved" that problem in the 90's and there is zero interest in the media to look back see if anything really changed.

Global Warming is the same. Once global cap and trade and carbon taxes are in place and all the politically connected get their cut, and the tax money rolls in, they will declare victory and you will hear nothing about global warming again. Something else will come up as new existential threat.

Now with more than a quarter century experience, with most of the last decades in the powertrain industry, it is easy to see through all the silliness. There is no free lunch. If anything was even close to the economic efficiency of petroleum we would be using it. Period.

Let's also not forget that the mining industry is usually most prevalent in poor 3rd world shitholes that are politically unstable. And that means more wars to protect our interests. Same shit different continent.

Well said Lefty.

quote:

Originally posted by Poacher:
Interesting read, and great numbers to have handy.

Interesting perspective thanks for posting Poacher. I have no idea if all the numbers in the article are correct but a couple came to my attention as possibly not.

quote:

....The American Wind Energy Association says it takes about 230 tons of steel, more than a thousand tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic blades to make a single wind turbine; all with a life-cycle of around 20 years.

To produce half the world’s electricity from wind, we will need about 3 million more turbines. Three million turbines at 230 tons of steel each equals about 690 million tons of steel from about 1 billion tons of iron ore. Then, in about 20 years another billion tons of iron ore. At what point do we exhaust the Earth’s supply of mineable iron ore?

Surely much of the 690 million tons of steel would be recyclable as steel and aluminum are two of the most viable products to recycle.

quote:

Supply and demand: Every day the requirement for electricity goes up and the supply of minerals goes down. Last year, about 400,000 natural gas workers produced about 35 percent of U.S. electric power. The same size labor force, 400,000, accounted for solar’s miniscule 0.9 percent share.

I believe solar contribution is closer to 2 1/2 - 3%, still minuscule but 3X what the article attributes.


My point being is when articles come out making a case like this one does, be careful referencing it until the numbers are first verified.

i have made some of these points continuously over the years here. This green stuff is complete and utter bullshit as it is presented today. Bullshit it is.

I like the technology capabilities of electric cars but you would have to be a duller than dull to think it’s better for the environment.


The problem is we have too many simpletons who only see the end results of no tailpipe emissions at the final stage.

These futuristic geniuses forget to factor in the cost of the dilithium crystals.

quote:

Originally posted by Poacher:
Interesting read, and great numbers to have handy.

[url=https://www.thepilot.com/opinion/column-green-goals-may-not-be-very-feasible/article_305bfb5a-d5d3-11eb-b7b2-c3b373ca5197.html]https:


Vehicles in the U.S. travel about 3 trillion miles per year, 10,344 miles per vehicle. The average EV can travel 200-300 miles per charge requiring about 40 recharges per year. Forty charges per year for 290 million U.S. vehicles equals 11.6 billion charging actions and probably 30-40 billion for the world. This represents an entirely new requirement for electricity. Where will it come from? The sun and the wind, says the Green Movement.

this is it for me: 'where will it come from?'

yes of course we can incrementally shift individual drivers toward supplementing their personal habits with EVs

but for millions and millions of drivers accounting for BILLIONs of miles driven ? personal, government, commercial, etc ?

our electrical grid is in shambles as it is now in many places : California, TX, etc. yes it can be improved but again that adds to the cost.

i don't see how its possible given current technology either but I'm just an average Joe consumer.

---------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
Surely much of the 690 million tons of steel would be recyclable as steel and aluminum are two of the most viable products to recycle.

Not necessarily. Over a good part of my truck driving career, I carried what we call "bolts" from Williams Forms in Golden, CO, to various windmill projects in the Mojave desert and the Columbia River Gorge. These bolts are really just 2" x 50' diameter threaded rod, give or take depending on specified requirements. Each truck brings 24T of rods, and it takes several truckloads of them for each windmill. The way a windmill stays upright is through a huge concrete ballast, with the rods inserted into steel rings embedded in this concrete and extending down and grouted into the bedrock. No exaggeration, the amount of concrete and steel is huge, like a 50'x30' ball. Maybe larger, IIRC.

I suppose it would be possible to extract all of that steel out of that concrete, but the amount of time and energy would be cost prohibitive. Furthermore, it would have its own so-called carbon footprint for recovery, thus further reducing a windmill's contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

In short, much of the steel used to build a windmill is below the ground and encased in concrete. It would be like recovering all of the steel cooling pipes out of the Hoover Damn at the end of its life. Possible? Yes. Feasible? No.

Simply a shift in political funding power from oil companies to green backed energy companies. Politicians push laws to force change today (and over time) in order to move the country from one political funding source to another.

Green energy companies have been heavily funded by leftist democrat politicians, the return will be massive funding to political coffers for those that made the green industrialists wealthy.

Petroleum is necessary for many things, not just fuel, it's not going to go away, you can't make plastic from the suns rays or wind....

One thing about the Democrats and their infinite wisdom is that they are very good at creating useless money dumps.

Most of the people pushing "Green Policies" are effectively idiots, the rest are grifters.
Civilization would come up with better options, at less cost if the free market were allowed to operate. However because the idiots and grifters are in charge, we will be subjected to the very foreseen, unintended consequences of idiotic policies.
Expect to see electricity rationing, huge price increases for all energy, and shortages of minerals and materials required for various government funded and directed projects. This of course leading to increased costs for "Green" vehicles and projects.