Batteries Produce More CO2 Than Coal and Gasoline.

[Sunking]

OK this is one of those Dan Keagle post no one likes or wants to hear. I really hope it pissis Dan and Jflorey off. I am not real happy about it myself but always suspected it. Trust me you'll never hear the USA media or Liberals breath a word of this and will try to deny it.

It is well known lead acid batteries from birth to grave have a negative EROI. For you Millennials and Liberals that means it takes more energy to make a battery, than you will ever be able to take from it. Same is true for all batteries. What was not known was if that applied to Lithium batteries. Well EV, RE,, and Solar Fans; it is time to have your bubbles popped. IVL (Swedish Environmental) a very far left Green Mafia group published a rreport that in a nutshell states: A a set of batteries Tesla uses in their EV's produce more CO2 emissions than a Luxury 8-cylinder gasoline car produces in 8 years. That does not even count all the CO2 emissions used to generate all the electricity you use to charge the batteries. In case you forgot most of your electricity is generated by Natural Gas and Coal.

What does that mean you ask Dan? Well it means if you are off-grid or drive an EV's you are a heavy polluter,

Here is a list of source material. Read it and weap Dan. The Dems and US Media are having a PITY PARTY today over election results in Congressional Distt 6 of GA yesterday. Please join them.

IVL Report
Climate Change Watch Dog
Guardian

Please note all those are very far left publications having to admit defeat Dan.

[bcroe]

Darn, we are back to pumped storage, rail cars pushed up a mountain, and flywheels. Guess the highways will
need to be electrified like trains. However recharge power around here comes from the Byron nuke. Bruce Roe

[Sunking]

Nuke is the way to go. Dirt cheap fuel right here in the USA. over a million years of it.

[jflorey2]

A a set of batteries Tesla uses in their EV's produce more CO2 emissions than a Luxury 8-cylinder gasoline car produces in 8 years.

Let's look at the details. From the report:
=================================
The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used in the battery factory consists of more than half of the fossil fuels. In Sweden, the power production is mainly of fossil-nuclear and hydropower why lower emissions had been achieved.
=================================

So more than half of the CO2 loading they are assuming comes from a dirty energy mix. What is the Tesla factory using? Oh, you are going to REALLY hate this:

==============================
Tesla's Gigafactory will produce as much renewable energy as it uses (net zero energy)

Michael Graham Richard
Energy / Renewable Energy
November 16, 2015

The battery 'Gigafactory' that Tesla is building in Nevada is the centerpiece of its whole mass-market electric car strategy. Without it, the company will have trouble securing enough battery supply to make hundreds of thousands of EVs (which they plan to do for the upcoming, more affordable Model 3, to be unveiled in March 2016), and it will have trouble reducing its prices enough to attract Mr. and Mrs. Everybody (the Gigafactory is expected to slash costs by at least 30% through economies of scale and high-tech manufacturing).

A lot has been written about how big the Gigafactory will be: It's going to be one of the largest building on Earth (how it ranks will depend how much the original plan is expanded), and it will produce more batteries when it is fully operational than the whole world was producing in 2013, as you can see in the graph below.

But relatively little has been written about another very cool aspect of the project: It will be a 'net zero' energy consumer and have carbon neutral operations.
=======================

Looks like you got burned by the fake media again. You bought what they told you hook, line and sinker - and it bit you in the ass.

[DanKegel]

IVL Report

At first glance, I like that report. Nothing wrong with trying to estimate lifecycle CO2 emissions from battery production!
It said the largest contribution is from the CO2 generated to make the electricity used to manufacture the batteries... and as jflorey2 said, it assumes a fairly dirty source of energy.
So that will decrease as we move towards cleaner electricity.
Its estimate for a Nissan Leaf's battery's embodied co2 is 24kWh / 6 = 4 tons of co2.

But don't forget, making the motor of a conventional car emits a lot of CO2, too -- on the same order of magnitude as the battery in an electric car.
So to compare apples to apples, you have to compare lifecycle emissions of the two kinds of cars. That's what
the report ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf did;
it estimated that manufacturing a Leaf-sized gas-powered car emits about 7 tons of co2,
manufacturing a Leaf used a little more, but the lower emissions while driving fairly quickly made up the difference... even for a Tesla.

[Sunking]

Yeah Jeff I expected you to counter. What else can you do just like Tesla and Panasonic who heve to defend their defenseless stance. Let not anyone forget you work for Tesla, Own a Tesla, and own Tesla Stock. You also forget Tesla is not the only manufacturer or the sole Lithium battery manufacture. If only the factory really used RE fuel and was actually fully and fully operational. Read your own text., it is lip service full of BS and false promises.

Fact is Batteries regardless of type are negative EROI plain and simple. Tesla is not using a dedicated nuke plant for their own use, Only a full can believe Tesla or any factory is CO2 neutral. Even lefty Green Mafia is feeding on itself.

Glad I pissed you and Dan off. My pleasure.

[NEOH]

The energy sources used to produce electricity have really changed in the past 15 years in the USA ...

In 2001
===============
50% = Coal
21% = Nuclear
19% = Natural Gas
05% = Petroleum
05% = Renewable

In 2016
===============
34% = Natural Gas
30% = Coal
20% = Nuclear
15% = Renewable
01% = Petroleum

[adoublee]

Better to produce more CO2 than depend on any organization or design with nuclear.

[karrak]

Easiest way to get around the problem of fossil fuels being used to generate the electricity is put solar panels on the roof to cover the power used by your car.

Simon

[SunEagle]

Better to produce more CO2 than depend on any organization or design with nuclear.

That kind of funny since the French have been using nuclear for decades without any issues.

Maybe the problems that have come up are due to companies being stingy and stupid in their design and application. At least that is how I would classify the 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima disasters.

[SunEagle]

Easiest way to get around the problem of fossil fuels being used to generate the electricity is put solar panels on the roof to cover the power used by your car.

Simon

Really!!!. That is one of the most lame statements I have heard yet from you.

Unless your car has a tiny tinker toy motor, a solar panel will provide next to nothing in the way of powering it.

[adoublee]

That kind of funny since the French have been using nuclear for decades without any issues.

Maybe the problems that have come up are due to companies being stingy and stupid in their design and application. At least that is how I would classify the 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima disasters.

Nothing funny about nuclear. It's only a matter of time and only takes one "accident" and everyone pays for the profits of a few.

[J.P.M.]

Easiest way to get around the problem of fossil fuels being used to generate the electricity is put solar panels on the roof to cover the power used by your car.

Simon

I bet two lifesytyle adjustments that might be added before the panels or an EV that would improve the environment and cost picture, and also maybe make the journey around the problem shorter before throwing panels at the problem: Drive more energy efficient vehicles less.

[SunEagle]

Nothing funny about nuclear. It's only a matter of time and only takes one "accident" and everyone pays for the profits of a few.

You are correct. There is nothing funny about any type of electrical generation technology. Yet it seems nuclear scares the crap out of people even though you have a better chance of getting hit by an EV or natural gas bus then being overdosed from a nuclear plant.

I still say those that are afraid of nuclear better not be afraid of the dark because more than likely they will be in the dark when RE isn't there for you.

[NEOH]

France had been the worlds largest Net Exporter of electricity, with about 75% produced from Nuclear & 15% from Hydro
Recently though, France had to import electricity from Great Britain
France has a goal to reduce electricity generated with Nuclear from 75%, down to 50%.
The plan is to install more Wind & Solar.
The power generation plants in France have one of lowest CO2 emissions per capita, in the world.
3,300 people die in car crashes every day, that is more than all nuclear power plant accidents combined ever.
Mining for coal and drilling for oil is not risk free.
Coal kills 4,000 people, for each 1 person killed by nuclear ( per watts produced )
So, which energy source is SAFER?