Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 2 42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Any transition to electric from fossil fuels would mean an exponential increase in SF6 into a quantum leap. That would pose a serious problem with a substance which only builds and does not dissipate. In the USA the vast majority of electricity and therefore SF6 is produced by burning FF, surely even you can understand that! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 2 On 3/29/2024 at 5:23 PM, Ron Wagner said: My comment was on the etymology of the word smog! Nope it wasnt, you said this "The Spanish explorers first commented about the smoke in what became Los Angeles. " 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 3 23 hours ago, Rob Plant said: clean air act 1970 Jesus cant you read either??? Rob, you are again ignoring the big picture. Use of fossil fuels has increased drastically while pollution has decreased drastically. Your complaints are disconnected with reality,. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Rob, you are again ignoring the big picture. Use of fossil fuels has increased drastically while pollution has decreased drastically. Your complaints are disconnected with reality,. Lets simplify this shall we. Do you accept that if you burn any FF it causes air pollution? If you say yes then you agree with all the sane people on the planet. If you say no then you are unfortunately one of the mentally challenged on this planet. Lets see which one you are. Catalytic converters on vehicles have made a huge difference to air quality but this does not mean cars produce no pollution, there is no correlation of more cars equals less air pollution, just the opposite. Edited April 3 by Rob Plant 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE April 3 (edited) 19 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Do you accept that if you burn any FF it causes air pollution? If you say yes then you agree with all the sane people on the planet. If you say no then you are unfortunately one of the mentally challenged on this planet. Lets see which one you are. Catalytic converters on vehicles have made a huge difference to air quality but this does not mean cars produce no pollution, there is no correlation of more cars equals less air pollution, just the opposite. He knows exhaust is bad to breathe but lies to himself and others; for what reason I don't know. Catalytic converters are great. Eco will say they are highly effective (which they are) so therefore fossil fuels are fine. However, he will ignore the fact they do not work when cold so the when you start your car the exhaust is essentially untreated. As you know Rob it is the regulations that are lowering pollution, eco can't understand that his "more cars = less pollution" correlation is garbage. Did you know the number of Nick Cage movies are correlated with risk of drowning? Or that cheese consumption is correlated with dying of strangulation by your own bed sheets. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Edited April 4 by TailingsPond 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloodman33 + 22 TJ April 3 Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016 Analysis reveals many big producers increased output of fossil fuels and related emissions in seven years after Paris climate deal Jonathan Watts Global environment editor Wed 3 Apr 2024 19.01 EDT Share A mere 57 oil, gas, coal and cement producers are directly linked to 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since the 2016 Paris climate agreement, a study has shown. This powerful cohort of state-controlled corporations and shareholder-owned multinationals are the leading drivers of the climate crisis, according to the Carbon Majors Database, which is compiled by world-renowned researchers. Although governments pledged in Paris to cut greenhouse gases, the analysis reveals that most mega-producers increased their output of fossil fuels and related emissions in the seven years after that climate agreement, compared with the seven years before. In the database of 122 of the world’s biggest historical climate polluters, the researchers found that 65% of state entities and 55% of private-sector companies had scaled up production. During this period, the biggest investor-owned contributor to emissions was ExxonMobil of the United States, which was linked to 3.6 gigatonnes of CO2 over seven years, or 1.4% of the global total. Close behind were Shell, BP, Chevron and TotalEnergies, each of which was associated with at least 1% of global emissions. The most striking trend, however, was the surging growth of emissions related to state and state-owned producers, particularly in the Asian coal sector. This expansion, which has continued since, runs contrary to a stark warning by the International Energy Agency that no new oil and gas fields can be opened if the world is to stay within safe limits of global heating. Climate scientists say global temperatures are rapidly approaching the lower Paris target of 1.5C above the pre-industrial era, with potentially dire consequences for people and the rest of nature. “It is morally reprehensible for companies to continue expanding exploration and production of carbon fuels in the face of knowledge now for decades that their products are harmful,” said Richard Heede, who established the Carbon Majors dataset in 2013. “Don’t blame consumers who have been forced to be reliant on oil and gas due to government capture by oil and gas companies.” The Carbon Majors research has helped to change the narrative about responsibility for the climate crisis by apportioning emissions to the entities that profit from taking fossil fuels out of the ground rather than the individuals that later burn and discharge them in the form of emissions. This ongoing study has been cited in climate lawsuits and was the basis for the Guardian’s 2019 series, The Polluters, which named and shamed the 20 companies behind a third of all carbon emissions. The database has now been updated and was relaunched on Thursday on a dedicated public access website, which is hosted by InfluenceMap. It includes a striking comparison between long-term emissions trends dating back to 1854, and more recent developments since the 2016 Paris deal. The historical record encompasses 122 entities linked to 72% of all the fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution, which amounts to 1,421 gigatonnes. In this long-term analysis, Chinese state coal production accounts for 14% of historic global C02, the biggest share by far in the database. This is more than double the proportion of the former Soviet Union, which is in second place, and more than three times higher than that of Saudi Aramco, which is in third. Then comes the big US companies – Chevron (3%) and ExxonMobil (2.8%), followed by Russian’s Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company. After that are two investor-owned European firms: BP and Shell (each with more than 2%) and then Coal India. The 21st century rise of Asia becomes apparent when the historical records are compared with data from 2016-2022. In this recent period, the China coal share leaps to more than a quarter of all CO2 emission, while Saudi Aramco goes up to nearly 5%. The top 10 in this modern era is dominated by Chinese and Russian state entities and filled out with those from India and Iran. Western capitalism does not appear until the 11th placed ExxonMobil with 1.4%, half of its historical average. The picture may change again in the future. The United States is by far the world’s biggest oil and gas producer even if operations are fragmented among many different companies rather than one state behemoth. President Biden has granted licences to multiple new exploration projects. Gulf states are also planning to step up their output. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell all have net zero emissions targets, though their definitions of that goal and methods to achieve it vary. Many of the companies on the list have made some investments in renewable energy. Daan Van Acker, program manager at InfluenceMap, said many of the entities in the Carbon Majors database were moving in the wrong direction for climate stability. “InfluenceMap’s new analysis shows that this group is not slowing down production, with most entities increasing production after the Paris agreement. This research provides a crucial link in holding these energy giants to account on the consequences of their activities.” Heede argues that fossil fuel producers have a moral obligation to pay for the damages they have caused and exacerbated through their delaying tactics. He cites the proposal made by Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, for oil and gas companies to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar to a loss and damage fund. He was also encouraged by actions to hold fossil fuel firms to account. As examples, he cited the billboards that sprang up in Houston, Texas, after a hurricane that declared: “We Know Who Is To Blame” beside the names of oil companies, or the campaign in Vermont to create a climate superfund paid for by polluters that would allay the rising costs from floods, storms and heatwaves. “This is a threat to civilisation as we know it,” he said. “If business as usual continues we won’t have a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. We must collect political, corporate and political will to avoid the worst threat that climate change poses. We can do this.” The Guardian approached Exxon, BP, Chevron, Total Energies, Coal India, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom for comment. A spokesperson for Shell said: “Shell is committed to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, a target we believe supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. We continue to make good progress on our climate targets, and by the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operations by 2030, compared with 2016.” 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE April 4 I found this correlation quite fitting for the forum (pun intended). Do you think the number of websites on the internet will increase over time? Well then consider this: 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 4 On 4/2/2024 at 4:12 AM, Rob Plant said: In the USA the vast majority of electricity and therefore SF6 is produced by burning FF, surely even you can understand that! If you attempt to transition to electricity there will be an exponential increase in SF6 AND CO2. That is easy to understand. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 4 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: If you attempt to transition to electricity there will be an exponential increase in SF6 AND CO2. That is easy to understand. No there doesnt have to be "an exponential increase in SF6" and why should it lead to increased Co2, surely its the opposite?? Eco electricity consumption is going up massively on a global basis so SF6 is a problem I agree but the majority of global electricity generation is from FF, it doesnt matter whether that powergen is from FF or renewables you'll still get SF6! Are you advocating the world stops using electricity now? Transitioning to EV's and electrifying the world doesnt have to lead to increases in SF6 There are ways to mitigate SF6 Best Practices to Reduce SF6 Emissions | US EPA Also TailingsPond posted research from a German company that potentially will negate this altogether. SF6 was around as soon as switchgear was being used so its hardly a new problem but we need to reduce it wherever we can. The national grid will be SF6 free by 2050 and 50% reduced by 2030 from 2019 levels. Eliminating SF6 emissions | National Grid Group Enjoy the transition! Edited April 4 by Rob Plant 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM April 4 7 hours ago, Ecocharger said: If you attempt to transition to electricity there will be an exponential increase in SF6 AND CO2. That is easy to understand. to transition to electricity there will be an exponential increase in........ CO2 wrong again.............peak fossil fuels is here now and do not worry...you can re-purpose your clunker into a homeless shelter or rent it out to an immigrant Foreign Policy China's Coal Use Expected to Peak in 2024 2024 may be remembered as a pivotal moment in China's campaign to tackle climate change. In its annual World Energy Outlook, released last... . Nov 1, 2023 IEA – International Energy Agency Global coal demand expected to decline in coming years - News - IEA Latest IEA market report sees lower demand to 2026, based on current policies, but stronger actions are needed to drive a steeper decline... . Dec 15, 2023 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM April 4 IEA – International Energy Agency Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world's additional electricity demand over the next three years ... Renewables are growing rapidly and nuclear power is on track to reach new all-time high next year, enabling low-emissions generation to... . Jan 24, 2024 Scientific American Renewable Power Set to Surpass Coal Globally by 2025 Renewable energy will surpass coal power by 2025 and, with nuclear energy, will account for nearly half the world's power generation by 2026... . Jan 25, 2024 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 4 On 4/3/2024 at 3:52 AM, Rob Plant said: Lets simplify this shall we. Do you accept that if you burn any FF it causes air pollution? If you say yes then you agree with all the sane people on the planet. If you say no then you are unfortunately one of the mentally challenged on this planet. Lets see which one you are. Catalytic converters on vehicles have made a huge difference to air quality but this does not mean cars produce no pollution, there is no correlation of more cars equals less air pollution, just the opposite. You are trying to wiggle out of this one, Rob. The truth is that fossil fuel use has drastically increased at the same time as pollution levels have drastically decreased. In the larger picture, that means that fossil fuels are not a problem. The real pollution problems are associated with lithium, for which NO solution has been found. Further, any attempted transition away from fossil fuels to electric will cause increased CO2 and exponential increases in SF6, which will destroy whatever progress is made in greenhouse gas reduction. Either way, the "transition" is a bust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 4 10 hours ago, Rob Plant said: No there doesnt have to be "an exponential increase in SF6" and why should it lead to increased Co2, surely its the opposite?? Eco electricity consumption is going up massively on a global basis so SF6 is a problem I agree but the majority of global electricity generation is from FF, it doesnt matter whether that powergen is from FF or renewables you'll still get SF6! Are you advocating the world stops using electricity now? Transitioning to EV's and electrifying the world doesnt have to lead to increases in SF6 There are ways to mitigate SF6 Best Practices to Reduce SF6 Emissions | US EPA Also TailingsPond posted research from a German company that potentially will negate this altogether. SF6 was around as soon as switchgear was being used so its hardly a new problem but we need to reduce it wherever we can. The national grid will be SF6 free by 2050 and 50% reduced by 2030 from 2019 levels. Eliminating SF6 emissions | National Grid Group Enjoy the transition! You failed to read the new research on CO2 increase due to any "transition". How could you miss this? Conclusively: EVs are less energy efficient than internal combustion engine automobiles. As a result, they will fail to gain widespread adoption." https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion "Mitigating carbon emissions is central to the case for electric vehicles. Advocates argue that displacing fossil fuels is essential to curbing global warming. We disagree. Replacing ICEs with EVs will materially increase carbon emissions and may worsen the problem. Manufacturing an electric vehicle consumes far more energy than an ICE. Most of this additional energy is spent mining the materials for and manufacturing an EV’s giant lithium-ion battery. Mining companies use energy-intensive trucks, crushers, and mills to extract each battery’s nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper. The manufacturing process consumes vast amounts of energy as well. Many analysts eagerly tout the carbon savings from displaced fossil fuels without adequately accounting for the battery’s increased energy consumption. Once these adjustments are made, most, if not all, of the EV’s carbon advantage disappears." "At nearly $4 billion annually, Norway spends as much on EV subsidies as on total highway and public infrastructure maintenance. " "Despite 20% of all vehicles on the road now being electric, Norway’s gasoline and diesel demand fell by a mere 4%." "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically." In other words, if you think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 4 (edited) 10 hours ago, Rob Plant said: No there doesnt have to be "an exponential increase in SF6" and why should it lead to increased Co2, surely its the opposite?? Eco electricity consumption is going up massively on a global basis so SF6 is a problem I agree but the majority of global electricity generation is from FF, it doesnt matter whether that powergen is from FF or renewables you'll still get SF6! Are you advocating the world stops using electricity now? Transitioning to EV's and electrifying the world doesnt have to lead to increases in SF6 There are ways to mitigate SF6 Best Practices to Reduce SF6 Emissions | US EPA Also TailingsPond posted research from a German company that potentially will negate this altogether. SF6 was around as soon as switchgear was being used so its hardly a new problem but we need to reduce it wherever we can. The national grid will be SF6 free by 2050 and 50% reduced by 2030 from 2019 levels. Eliminating SF6 emissions | National Grid Group Enjoy the transition! You are out to lunch, old man. There is absolutely ZERO data in your references, just a list of "Hopes". That EPA blurb gives ZERO data, it is useless, of course, just like your other reference. That German research is over six years old and nothing has happened....looks like it is another nothing. SF6 is set to undergo exponential increases which will take the electrical solution out of consideration. Your proposed solutions would make the greenhouse gas situation worse rather than better. That is the type of neanderthal thinking we can do without. Panic without reason. Edited April 4 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 4 The reinsurance business is irretrievably connected to the fossil fuel business, and there is no getting out of it. Further, the renewables sectors are not good insurance risks and are money-losers, just like every other aspect of the renewable nonsense. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Anti-Oil-Activists-Up-Their-Game-Against-Insurers-Of-Big-Oil.html "It's doubtful that the insurance industry would be willing to drop clients that bring it between $1.6 billion and over $2 billion in premium income annually. The threat of reputation damage is unlikely to be enough to make that industry use its superpower to kill oil and gas." "...insurers are losing money on the business they do with wind and solar companies because of weather-related events and, in the case of offshore wind, what one publication called "engineering deficiencies." That goes hand in hand with the higher premiums insurers are slapping on EVs because of the huge write-off risk for these vehicles compared to ICE cars." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM April 4 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You failed to read the new research on CO2 increase due to any "transition". How could you miss this? Conclusively: EVs are less energy efficient than internal combustion engine automobiles. As a result, they will fail to gain widespread adoption." https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion "Mitigating carbon emissions is central to the case for electric vehicles. Advocates argue that displacing fossil fuels is essential to curbing global warming. We disagree. Replacing ICEs with EVs will materially increase carbon emissions and may worsen the problem. Manufacturing an electric vehicle consumes far more energy than an ICE. Most of this additional energy is spent mining the materials for and manufacturing an EV’s giant lithium-ion battery. Mining companies use energy-intensive trucks, crushers, and mills to extract each battery’s nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper. The manufacturing process consumes vast amounts of energy as well. Many analysts eagerly tout the carbon savings from displaced fossil fuels without adequately accounting for the battery’s increased energy consumption. Once these adjustments are made, most, if not all, of the EV’s carbon advantage disappears." "At nearly $4 billion annually, Norway spends as much on EV subsidies as on total highway and public infrastructure maintenance. " "Despite 20% of all vehicles on the road now being electric, Norway’s gasoline and diesel demand fell by a mere 4%." "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically." In other words, if you think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. you must be brain dead........... try getting your big sister to read to you the linked articles below here is the highlight The report finds that the increase in electricity generation from renewables and nuclear appears to be pushing the power sector’s emissions into structural decline. Global emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease by 2.4% in 2024, followed by smaller declines in 2025 and 2026. The decoupling of global electricity demand and emissions would be significant given the energy sector’s increasing electrification, with more consumers using technologies such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. Electricity accounted for 20% of final energy consumption in 2023, up from 18% in 2015, though meeting the world’s climate goals would require electrification to advance significantly faster in the coming years. IEA – International Energy Agency Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world's additional electricity demand over the next three years ... Renewables are growing rapidly and nuclear power is on track to reach new all-time high next year, enabling low-emissions generation to... . Jan 24, 2024 Scientific American Renewable Power Set to Surpass Coal Globally by 2025 Renewable energy will surpass coal power by 2025 and, with nuclear energy, will account for nearly half the world's power generation by 2026... . Jan 25, 2024 Edited April 4 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 5 (edited) 12 hours ago, notsonice said: you must be brain dead........... try getting your big sister to read to you the linked articles below here is the highlight The report finds that the increase in electricity generation from renewables and nuclear appears to be pushing the power sector’s emissions into structural decline. Global emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease by 2.4% in 2024, followed by smaller declines in 2025 and 2026. The decoupling of global electricity demand and emissions would be significant given the energy sector’s increasing electrification, with more consumers using technologies such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. Electricity accounted for 20% of final energy consumption in 2023, up from 18% in 2015, though meeting the world’s climate goals would require electrification to advance significantly faster in the coming years. IEA – International Energy Agency Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world's additional electricity demand over the next three years ... Renewables are growing rapidly and nuclear power is on track to reach new all-time high next year, enabling low-emissions generation to... . Jan 24, 2024 Scientific American Renewable Power Set to Surpass Coal Globally by 2025 Renewable energy will surpass coal power by 2025 and, with nuclear energy, will account for nearly half the world's power generation by 2026... . Jan 25, 2024 Read more carefully. "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically." In other words, if you think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. Edited April 5 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 467 April 5 On 4/2/2024 at 5:09 AM, notsonice said: CO2 will also increase with more electrical energy.???? outright wrong as you always are No, the future is not electrical.?????only a Luddite would state stupid comments as you always do tackling methane emmissions and SFP are important and should be done now Peak carbon (CO2) emissions is here now and it is down hill for carbon as the Green Agenda heads uphill RFI World's carbon emissions could start to fall for first time in 2024 Global carbon emissions may have peaked in 2023 – the hottest year in history – as efforts to step up renewable energy and step back from... . Jan 1, 2024 WSJ China's Carbon Emissions Are Set to Decline Years Earlier Than Expected China's rollout of 300 gigawatts of new wind and solar power last year was for the first time enough to cover its new electricity demand. . 1 month ago The Guardian Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says Global carbon emissions from electric power may peak this year, report says ... Carbon emissions from the global electricity sector may peak this... . Oct 4, 2023 Energy Post The link between global GDP growth and CO2 emissions is weakening rapidly. Will emissions peak well before 2030? Global CO2 emissions can peak well before 2030 · Rapid growth in clean energy investment. · A growing trend of electrification globally, in... . 1 month ago There might have been misunderstanding. Electricity has become the basic necessity disregard before, now or in the future. " How it should be generated" might be the topic of dispute... There is a dispute probably because we use the word of absolutism " should" .......... What if we use " could"? There has been a reply/ post regarding a course " back yard meteorology". It shows an experiment that says " if the air is too clean, no obvious or little water vapour will condense to become water". Do you realize most of the modern rain making attempts failed because they added something not suitable e.g. salt, metals etc? Guess what does it take?? '-' 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 5 14 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You are trying to wiggle out of this one, Rob. The truth is that fossil fuel use has drastically increased at the same time as pollution levels have drastically decreased. In the larger picture, that means that fossil fuels are not a problem. The real pollution problems are associated with lithium, for which NO solution has been found. Further, any attempted transition away from fossil fuels to electric will cause increased CO2 and exponential increases in SF6, which will destroy whatever progress is made in greenhouse gas reduction. Either way, the "transition" is a bust. Ok you confirmed that you have issues! I suggest to start with a reading course, followed by some basic logic lessons and then the world will start to feel like a totally different place to you. I wish you well on your exciting adventure into education. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 5 14 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You failed to read the new research on CO2 increase due to any "transition". How could you miss this? Conclusively: EVs are less energy efficient than internal combustion engine automobiles. As a result, they will fail to gain widespread adoption." https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion "Mitigating carbon emissions is central to the case for electric vehicles. Advocates argue that displacing fossil fuels is essential to curbing global warming. We disagree. Replacing ICEs with EVs will materially increase carbon emissions and may worsen the problem. Manufacturing an electric vehicle consumes far more energy than an ICE. Most of this additional energy is spent mining the materials for and manufacturing an EV’s giant lithium-ion battery. Mining companies use energy-intensive trucks, crushers, and mills to extract each battery’s nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper. The manufacturing process consumes vast amounts of energy as well. Many analysts eagerly tout the carbon savings from displaced fossil fuels without adequately accounting for the battery’s increased energy consumption. Once these adjustments are made, most, if not all, of the EV’s carbon advantage disappears." "At nearly $4 billion annually, Norway spends as much on EV subsidies as on total highway and public infrastructure maintenance. " "Despite 20% of all vehicles on the road now being electric, Norway’s gasoline and diesel demand fell by a mere 4%." "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically." In other words, if you think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. Your link is from an investment house and just their opinion backed up by nothing! Here is how long it takes for an EV to gain parity with an ICE vehicle on carbon emissions due to mining for the battery. It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months. Life-cycle GHG emissions of an EV compared to an ICEV (cotes.com) The 45 years your link suggests is utter BS!! For your info Norway's main source of powergen is hydro so you're looking at 6 months catch up period as above. Electricity production - Norwegian Energy (energifaktanorge.no) Try again and use a reputable source next time. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP April 5 (edited) 15 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You are out to lunch, old man. There is absolutely ZERO data in your references, just a list of "Hopes". That EPA blurb gives ZERO data, it is useless, of course, just like your other reference. That German research is over six years old and nothing has happened....looks like it is another nothing. SF6 is set to undergo exponential increases which will take the electrical solution out of consideration. Your proposed solutions would make the greenhouse gas situation worse rather than better. That is the type of neanderthal thinking we can do without. Panic without reason. So you just choose to ignore all of the EPA best practices to reduce SF6 emissions, and ignore the achievements of the National Grid. Thats fine Eco, its your choice to do so, let me know when you and the other ostriches have had enough of the sandpit. You missed this from the EPA Recycle SF6 gas at equipment servicing or disposal. Using gas cart recovery equipment to off-load and transfer SF6 for maintenance and recycling reduces emissions. It is critical to follow correct procedures when using service carts and to ensure that gas carts are properly maintained And you clearly missed this from the national grid link Achievements to date We have reduced our SF6 emissions by more than 80% since the year 2000. We piloted a non-SF6 69 kilovolt (kV) vacuum circuit breaker in 2012 and have since installed an additional twelve 69 kV vacuum circuit breakers. In vacuum circuit breakers, circuits are broken in a vacuum which helps to interrupt the current and prevent arcing which could damage the equipment. So if SF6 emissions have reduced by 80% in the last 24 years where does that leave your "exponential increased SF6"?? Edited April 5 by Rob Plant 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE April 6 (edited) 21 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Read more carefully. "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. ICE vehicles have upfront manufacturing emissions too, but with no mitigating factors. Edited April 6 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM April 6 21 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Read more carefully. "Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically." In other words, if you think that it is important to reduce CO2 levels, the plan would be to eliminate EVs. 80 kwh battery produces 10400 pounds or 5.2 tons of CO2 for a 80 kwh battery for mining manufacturing etc .( CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases per kWh for all in carbon footprint for a ev battery manufactured is 130 pounds today....A 2021 paper by the International Council on Clean Transportation reported CO2-equivalent emissions at roughly 132 pounds per kWh for batteries sold in the U.S.) and for a average Ice vehicle (13,500 miles per year) produces 5.4 tonnes of CO2 per year. The amount of CO2 produced per mile during gas vehicle operation also varies depending on the vehicle's fuel efficiency, but the U.S. average is 400 grams per mile and we know a metric tonne is 10 percent bigger than a US short ton so it takes around 10 to 11 months of ICE operation to equal a 80 kwh battery mining/processing/construction etc) Ecochump you obviously do not know how to read nor do any basic math.....this puts you in the same IQ range of old-dickhead. The range ?? I put it at 85 to 90 45 years???? dude you really should repeat the 6th grade, join old-dickhead he really needs a friend in the remedial adult section in his elementary school 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 6 21 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Your link is from an investment house and just their opinion backed up by nothing! Here is how long it takes for an EV to gain parity with an ICE vehicle on carbon emissions due to mining for the battery. It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months. Life-cycle GHG emissions of an EV compared to an ICEV (cotes.com) The 45 years your link suggests is utter BS!! For your info Norway's main source of powergen is hydro so you're looking at 6 months catch up period as above. Electricity production - Norwegian Energy (energifaktanorge.no) Try again and use a reputable source next time. Rob, your material is way out of date. I already showed you that long ago. No, the use of hydro electricity in Norway des not overcome the problem. EVs are not manufactured in Norway,in case you did not know. Read carefully. "Norway imports all domestic EVs. As we discussed, EV manufacturing is incredibly energy-intensive, mainly to build the battery. In Norway’s case, none of this additional energy is reflected in their domestic demand figures. China manufactures most lithium-ion batteries and 80% of all EVs. Coal accounts for 60% of their total energy supply. We estimate an average EV consumes 60 MWh to manufacture, of which the battery represents half. Therefore, manufacturing Norway’s 579,000 EVs (all the EVs on the road today in Norway) requires 35 twh, equivalent to 25% of the total annual Norwegian electricity demand. Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Noway’s EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway’s EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. Even if China were to reach its overly ambitious targets for wind, solar, and nuclear power by 2035, we calculate that the carbon “payback” would still exceed twenty years. Realistically, the only way for EVs to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions would be with a widespread move to carbon-free energy in EV manufacturing. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL April 6 (edited) 21 hours ago, Rob Plant said: So you just choose to ignore all of the EPA best practices to reduce SF6 emissions, and ignore the achievements of the National Grid. Thats fine Eco, its your choice to do so, let me know when you and the other ostriches have had enough of the sandpit. You missed this from the EPA Recycle SF6 gas at equipment servicing or disposal. Using gas cart recovery equipment to off-load and transfer SF6 for maintenance and recycling reduces emissions. It is critical to follow correct procedures when using service carts and to ensure that gas carts are properly maintained And you clearly missed this from the national grid link Achievements to date We have reduced our SF6 emissions by more than 80% since the year 2000. We piloted a non-SF6 69 kilovolt (kV) vacuum circuit breaker in 2012 and have since installed an additional twelve 69 kV vacuum circuit breakers. In vacuum circuit breakers, circuits are broken in a vacuum which helps to interrupt the current and prevent arcing which could damage the equipment. So if SF6 emissions have reduced by 80% in the last 24 years where does that leave your "exponential increased SF6"?? You ignored my criticism of your reference. YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS, so that is useless material. Are you allergic to numbers? If not, give us some. Simply repeating meaningless propaganda without actual numbers doesn't cut it. The "new" research you keep repeating is over six years old, and apparently nothing has emerged from that research. That is also worthless. Edited April 6 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members