An Inconvenient History

Electric Cars Aren’t Green: The Truth About EVs and Emissions

What’s the Real Cause of Global Warming?

Global Warming: An Inconvenient History | Watch

Story by John Dyson, M.Sc. Atmospheric Sciences

• Battery Production Emissions

Electric vehicles, or EVs, have been hailed as a solution to the pressing issue of vehicular emissions. However, the production of their batteries tells a different story.

The manufacturing process, particularly for lithium-ion batteries, is incredibly energy-intensive. This results in significant carbon emissions, often surpassing those from the production of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

The extraction and processing of raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel require substantial energy, typically derived from fossil fuels. As a result, the environmental cost of producing an EV battery can be surprisingly high. It is a paradox where a vehicle meant to reduce emissions starts its journey with a hefty carbon footprint. This initial environmental debt is a critical consideration when evaluating the true “greenness” of electric

Electricity Source Matters

The emissions associated with EVs are not solely confined to their production phase. The source of electricity used to charge these vehicles plays a pivotal role in determining their environmental impact. In regions where electricity is predominantly generated from fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, EVs indirectly produce more emissions. This means that while the vehicle itself might not emit harmful gases, the power plants supplying its energy might. The contrast becomes apparent when comparing areas with renewable energy sources, where EVs can genuinely reduce emissions. Thus, the advantages of EVs are closely tied to the energy mix of the local grid. The greener the grid, the greener the EV. Understanding this connection is essential for comprehensively assessing the environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

Energy Efficiency

Despite the challenges posed by battery production and electricity sourcing, EVs have a significant advantage: energy efficiency. Compared to ICE vehicles, EVs convert a higher percentage of the energy from their fuel source into actual movement. This means that even when charged from fossil-fuel-heavy grids, they often generate fewer emissions over their lifetime.

The efficiency of electric motors, which have fewer moving parts, contributes to this benefit. For instance, while an ICE vehicle might use only 20% of its fuel energy for propulsion, an EV can use up to 80%. This efficiency plays a crucial role in offsetting the emissions produced during the battery manufacturing process. In essence, the longer an EV is in use, the more it can capitalize on its efficiency edge over traditional vehicles.

Mining Impacts

The materials required for EV batteries, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, are extracted through mining processes that pose environmental and ethical challenges. Mining can lead to land degradation, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity in affected areas. Moreover, the mining industry is often criticized for poor labor practices, including hazardous working conditions and child labor.

The demand for these materials has surged with the rise of EVs, intensifying the pressure on mining operations worldwide. This situation creates a complex ethical dilemma for consumers and manufacturers alike. While the shift to electric vehicles aims to reduce emissions, it is important to address the impacts of mining to ensure that the entire supply chain is sustainable and responsible. Balancing these conflicting interests is crucial in the pursuit of a truly green transportation future.

Lifecycle Emissions

To fully understand the environmental impact of EVs, it is vital to consider their lifecycle emissions. This encompasses emissions from manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Over their entire lifecycle, EVs typically produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than ICE vehicles. This advantage becomes more pronounced as electricity grids transition to renewable energy sources.

The initial carbon footprint from battery production can be mitigated by the vehicle’s efficiency and the potential for cleaner energy during its operational phase. However, achieving this requires a collective effort to shift towards sustainable energy sources and improve battery production methods. The lifecycle perspective underscores the importance of long-term planning and investment in renewable energy to maximize the benefits of electric vehicles.

Recycling Challenges

As the number of electric vehicles on the road continues to grow, so does the challenge of battery recycling. While technologies for recycling EV batteries are improving, a significant portion of used batteries still goes unrecycled. This raises questions about waste management and the sustainability of the EV industry.

Efficient recycling processes are essential to recover valuable materials and reduce the need for new mining operations. However, the development and implementation of such processes are still in progress. The ability to recycle batteries effectively will play a crucial role in minimizing the environmental impact of EVs and ensuring their long-term viability as a green transportation solution.

Comparative Air Pollution

One of the most significant advantages of EVs is the elimination of tailpipe emissions. This reduction in local air pollution is particularly beneficial in urban areas with dense populations. Cleaner air contributes to improved public health and a better quality of life.

However, it is essential to note that tire and brake particulate pollution remains an issue for all vehicle types, including EVs. These particulates can contribute to air pollution and pose health risks. While EVs offer a cleaner alternative to ICE vehicles, addressing these non-tailpipe emissions is crucial for achieving comprehensive air quality improvements. A holistic approach to reducing vehicular emissions is necessary to realize the full potential of electric vehicles in urban environments.

Future Potential

The environmental impact of EVs is poised to decrease as renewable energy sources become more prevalent and battery technologies improve. The ongoing advancements in recycling processes also hold promise for reducing the industry’s environmental footprint. As grids transition to cleaner energy and battery production becomes more efficient, the benefits of EVs will become increasingly pronounced. The potential for electric vehicles to contribute to a sustainable future is significant. However, realizing this potential requires continued investment in renewable energy infrastructure and responsible supply chain practices. By addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by EVs, we can work towards a greener and more sustainable transportation landscape.

Green Energy is Not Free: Who’s Really Paying the Price for Renewables?

The Differences Between Green Energy, Renewable Energy and More

Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, have been our country’s primary source of power for decades. However, the process of getting fossil fuels out of the ground and into your home creates pollution and damages ecosystems. That’s why more and more people have been pushing for cleaner, renewable energy solutions. These include green energy, clean energy, sustainable energy and more.

Although terms like renewable energy, green energy and clean energy are often used interchangeably, there are actually some key differences that set them apart. Here, we’ll take a look at various types of renewable energy solutions, what makes them different from one another and how they’re helping us move toward a future that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels.

What is renewable energy?

Renewable energy is created through the use of naturally occurring resources that replenish themselves over time. So, although there’s not an unlimited amount of these resources available at any one moment, you’ll almost never have to worry about a renewable resource running out entirely. And since renewable energy produces fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants than traditional fossil fuels, they can help to make your home more sustainable.

In 2019, the amount of energy provided by renewable sources equaled 11.4% of total U.S. energy consumption. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration anticipates that renewable energy consumption in the United States will continue to increase through 2050.

Types of renewable energy sources

To better understand what renewable energy is and how it works, it helps to take a look at some examples of renewable energy sources and the technologies that power them. Among the most common of these sources are:

Solar energy. To create solar energy, photovoltaic cells on solar panels trap sunlight. Then, an inverter converts the sunlight into electricity that can be used in your home.
Wind energy. Wind energy works by harnessing air movement to rotate the blades on large wind turbines. The turbines then convert the kinetic energy of the rotation to mechanical power and, eventually, electricity.
Hydroelectric energy, or hydropower. One of the first energy sources used to generate electricity was hydropower. In this process, the force of running water turns the blades in a turbine, which then spins the generator that produces electricity.
Geothermal energy. Geothermal energy comes from heat located deep within the earth’s interior. It works by drilling wells into the ground, which then allows steam or water to reach the surface and power the turbines that create electricity.
Biomass energy. Biomass is a renewable material that comes from plants and animals. Some common biomass sources include wood, agricultural crops and municipal solid waste. Biomass can be converted into energy using several different methods, but the most popular approach is burning the biomass to heat buildings or power steam turbines that make electricity.
Marine energy. Although it’s still an emerging technology, marine energy leverages the ocean’s natural movements to produce energy. There are a few different types of marine energy sources being developed, such as wave energy, tidal energy, and energy from ocean currents.

Other types of energy, explained

The United States has access to a variety of energy resources, from fossil fuels to renewables. However, not all types of energy in the United States fit neatly into one of these two categories. For example, energy can also be classified as green, clean, sustainable, or alternative. Below, we’ll define these types of energy and explain what differentiates them from renewable energy.

What is green energy?

Green energy, or green power, represents the energy sources that have the least amount of environmental impact. These types of energy sources don’t release harmful carbon emissions, meaning they’re effective at helping you reduce your carbon footprint. Some examples of green energy include electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal and other low-impact sources.

Green energy vs. renewable energy

Green energy is actually a subset of renewable energy and includes those renewable energy resources that offer the greatest environmental benefit. So, although all green energy resources are renewable, not all renewable resources are considered green. For example, wind power is green and renewable; burning wood is renewable (because you can grow more trees) but not green (because it releases pollution into the atmosphere).

What is clean energy?

Clean energy is energy that doesn’t emit any harmful greenhouse gases or pollutants during the generation process. This means that all green and renewable energy sources are also clean by definition. That said, an energy source doesn’t have to be renewable to be considered clean. For example, nuclear power is a clean energy source despite the fact that it doesn’t naturally replenish over time.

What is sustainable energy?

Sustainable energy comes from sources that can’t be depleted over time, meaning they don’t need to be regularly replenished. Some examples of sustainable energy sources include both solar and wind energy. Compare these sources to wood, crops and other biomass materials that are capable of being depleted and require time — as well as possible human intervention — to replenish.

What is alternative energy?

Alternative energy is sourced in a way that doesn’t damage ecosystems, emit greenhouse gases or have any negative impacts on the environment. So, while energy sources like biomass and hydropower are renewable, they affect the environment too much to be considered alternative. For example, sourcing biomass materials can lead to deforestation, and hydropower systems can negatively influence the habitats and feeding cycles of both water and land animals.

Making the switch to renewable energy sources

Have you ever wondered how you can help shrink your carbon footprint? It’s easier than you think. For example, you can get started with renewable energy certificates (RECs) and carbon offsets. Or you may decide to take a bigger leap and find a solar provider for your home. Ultimately, anything you can do to begin shifting away from fossil fuels will help ensure that our environment thrives well into the future.

Constellation currently offers customers in 11 states renewable home energy solutions that include plans sourced by 100% wind power. Find out how a fixed-rate renewable energy plan can help you achieve price certainty and predictability through your entire contract period while also helping to support the environment.

Green Energy is Not Free: Who’s Really Paying the Price for Renewables?

THE TAXPAYERS.

THE GREEN DEAL IS A SCAM

The true reality is, nuclear energy is the most efficient and cost effective energy source that exists, and no; it isn’t like the 70s or 80s; the plants are way safer, the byproduct is way less hazardous and after a short time isn’t even toxic anymore. In fact, toxicity of the waste dissipates significantly on a daily basis. It’s nothing like the days of Chernobyl and 3 mile Island. Best of all, it’s actually reliable. Of course, the so-called green energy people aren’t going to tell you about that. SMH

That is not true. Nuclear plants are the most expensive way to produce power and cannot even compete with coal/natural gas let alone wind/solar. The capital costs are enormous, and they require 24/7 staffing, associated management, safety departments, etc.

Plus, nuclear plants need a steam loop, sophisticated control system, and a lot of instrumentation.

They are very complex, and the costs are pretty high, especially up front.

Some companies, such as Microsoft, have moved away from touting wind and solar to promoting nuclear energy. Why? Artificial Intelligence requires huge data centers needing a steady, city-sized, amount of energy. Wind and solar are too inefficient to provide that amount of consistent energy.

The power companies are guaranteed a Return On Investment, by law. They love it when the cost for generating electricity doubles every five years, because, then, their sales double, and their profits double, and their stock price doubles, all the while they’re paying a dividend to the shareholders.

Guess who the biggest proponents of ‘Green Energy’ are?

Big part of why a lot of us say that green energy isn’t.

The Costs of solar and coal are comparable now.

The nice thing about solar though, is that if cells continue to produce acceptable generation after their expected lifespan, it’s basically free.

No mine to mine, no coal to haul, no ash to dispose of.

You still need coal and oil to make solar panels and move a lot of earth which wrecks the environment. The chemicals needed are toxic and poisonous.

True American

There are actually companies in China that make solar panels with energy from the sunlight hitting the solar panels they installed for electricity.

Similar to what people in the stone age said to discourage metal use “You still need stones to make metal!”

Electricity is all well and good. The panels themselves are made from fossil fuels.

But at some point their first solar panels were made using fossil fuel (in China primarily very dirty coal).

And it is highly unlikely that the rare earth elements they use were mined using energy from wind or solar.

Energy cannot be produced for free; it is simply a matter of how well hidden the environmental costs are.

China’s national price of electricity is far cheaper than the U.S. average… largely because of renewable power.

Wind and solar are easily China’s cheapest power sources, coming in at less than $.02/KWH LCOE.

U.S. average is $.13/KWH.

Coal-fired electricity costs $.10/KWH in the U.S., but that doesn’t include the $3,500/KWH (yes, $3,500!) to construct a coal plant, where the $.02/KWH LCOE is the TOTAL cost for solar in large “farms”.

But now tell everybody how many families in China don’t have electricity because they can’t afford it, the electricity they do have is entirely unreliable because wind and solar don’t even produce power; they only charge batteries. Also, the solar farms that have been put up completely destroy actual farming land and wreck the soil, and studies are showing that they create more heat and are more damaging to the atmosphere.

Wind turbines are also more harmful to the environment, killing more wildlife, are full of toxic materials, and are even less effective and reliable than solar and just like solar; they only charge batteries and do not produce energy. Now let’s get into the awesome batteries that these two unreliable sources charge.

The mining for the materials for said batteries literally leaves giant holes in the planet miles wide and deep, and the toxicity of theses things is way worse than the panels and windmills combined and when they reach the point of being useless, which only takes a couple of short years, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done with any of them.

The things are so toxic that once they’re no longer functioning or able to hold a charge the materials from the panels, wind mills and batteries can’t ever be burned, buried, or dropped in landfills because they’re so toxic to the entire environment. But hey, who cares, because it’s cheaper in China…..to those that can afford it.

fossil fuel extraction and waste disposal is way worse for wildlife than any wind farm.

Solar is far cheaper to build and operate than coal or gas.

Only nuclear power comes close, but requires 30 years to pay off.

Nuclear doesn’t come close.

Even fully depreciated coal plants cannot compete with wind and solar, not even natural gas.

Coal and Gas were made expensive because of Obama and his regulations. Trump under his 1st term removed them, which Biden promptly returned. It is not the actual cost that is high, it is the regulations that made coal and Natural Gas expensive. Remove the regulations and they both become affordable again.

Solar panels are made from aluminum, sand, copper and a little bit of rare metals (silver, maybe a tiny bit of indium, gallium). They are 100% recyclable also! Although they easily last for more than 30 years. Most carry a 25-year warranty!

What I did not see mentioned in the slide show is the impact on wildlife especially from ocean wind farms. It’s surprising that the environmentalists who are lobbying for these wind towers don’t seem to care about this collateral issue. Animals that navigate by echolocation such as whales are especially affected as are any of the marine life that live on the ocean floor.

What this kind of article always seems to lack is a comparison to fossil fuel driven energy production. If manufacturing costs, environmental impact, and social inequality of fossil fuels are all lower than renewables, then this type of argument has a case. Otherwise it doesn’t.

Yes, producing energy is ALWAYS going to have a cost, and will probably always have a negative impact on the environment in some way. But if renewables have less negative impact, that is what matters. No one (hopefully) says that renewables are perfect. We don’t need perfection right now, we need better. And renewables are better.

Ask the opposite question:

Why are we ALL paying the price for Fossil Fuels?

Fossil fuels companies receive taxpayer money of $800 Billion per YEAR.

Gasoline would cost over $10 per gallon if we had to pay its true cost.

Toxic waste, oil spills, lung cancers, and oil and methane leaks from uncapped wells cost money and lives, yet we NEVER question this!

Is fossil fuel extraction, transportation and refining free? What about the cost of wars because of oil resources? Then dependency on foreign countries? Common fossil fuel industry, stop your propaganda.

It seems that the leftist brain worms somehow create a blind spot when China is concerned: world’s largest polluter, largest coal burner, biggest methane producer, ChiCom runs most slave labor camps and outside-China environmental disaster mining operations.

Conventional power isn’t free either. In fact it is more expensive. Green energy is the most cost effective solution.

wiscony

The US taxpayers, like always!

When you say this to a lib or a dem politician, they just put their fingers in their ears and go la la la. They don’t want to hear it.

Taxpayers with subsidies or the gift that keeps on giving.

The Taxpayers and End users

We’re all paying the price for ignoring climate change as billion dollar climate disasters keep proliferating.

What is ‘green’ supposed to mean?

Big $$

They don’t produce CO2. Or NOx and SOx. Or millions of tons of coal ash. Or radioactive waste. Or infect our homes with radon.

First, CO2 is necessary for plant life to flourish. Second, radon is naturally occurring and not due to someone “infect[ing] our homes with radon.”

This California city lost thousands of homes to fire. Santa Rosa’s rebuilding has lessons for L.A.