Open Thread August 8, 2023-Are Electric Vehicles Green?
I saw this the other day while looking for commentary to bring to AB. You can read the rest at the NYT. An easy read. Starter topic. Maybe EVs are not so environmentally friendly the way we are manufacturing them, the materials and the amounts used, and how we mine them.
Raw materials can be problematic.
“Like many other batteries, the lithium-ion cells that power most electric vehicles rely on raw materials — like cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements — that have been linked to grave environmental and human rights concerns. Cobalt has been especially problematic.”
For example, “Mining cobalt produces hazardous tailings and slags that can leach into the environment, and studies have found high exposure in nearby communities, especially among children, to cobalt and other metals. Extracting the metals from their ores also requires a process called smelting, which can emit sulfur oxide and other harmful air pollution.”
As taken from: NYT, March 2, 2021, How Green Are Electric Vehicles? Hiroko Tabuchi and Brad Plumer
Executive summary – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, Analysis – IEA, Paris.
I had thought you would be able to get into the NYT article. I was allowed to do so yesterday. The Executive Summary I just linked to, is excellent and worth a read. If I am given permission, I will repost parts of it and some graphs.
The climate-friendly cows bred to belch less methane
Reuters – August 8
… The arrival of commercially available genetics to produce dairy cattle that emit less methane could help reduce one of the biggest sources of the potent greenhouse gas, scientists and cattle industry experts say.
Burps are the top source of methane emissions from cattle. Semex, the genetics company that sold Loewith the semen, said adoption of the low-methane trait could reduce methane emissions from Canada’s dairy herd by 1.5% annually, and up to 20%-30% by 2050. …
If adopted widely, low-methane breeding could have a “profound impact” on cattle emissions globally, said Frank Mitloehner, professor of animal science at University of California Davis, who was not involved in developing the trait.
Some dairy industry officials remain unconvinced about low-methane breeding, saying it could lead to digestion problems.
Canada’s agriculture department said in an email that it has not yet assessed the methane evaluation system underlying the product but that reducing emissions from livestock was “extremely important.”
Livestock account for 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is the second-biggest greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. …
And, methane is a much more potent (25x) greenhouse gas than CO2.
The Importance of Methane
A Convenient Untruth
June 5, 2019
A Greener World
By Simon Fairlie. This article was originally printed in the Spring 2019 (Volume
Ruminants, and particularly cattle, are habitually cast as climate villains, responsible for large amount of greenhouse gas emissions. According to a much quoted United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figure, livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions.1 Eighty percent of these emissions come from ruminants, half being methane, and a quarter nitrous oxide.
As a result, there are innumerable scientific papers comparing the environmental impact of dairy and beef unfavorably with pork and poultry, with vegetarian diets, with milk substitutes, with test-tube meat and so on. Virtually all of these papers and the FAO’s figure of 14.5 percent are flawed because they employ a formula for equating the climate impact of methane emissions with that of carbon dioxide—through the unit known as “CO2 equivalent”—which is highly misleading.
Nearly all the mainstream media and the public remain unaware of what is in effect a calumny against ruminant livestock farmers. Myles Allen and colleagues at the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University, UK, have published useful material designed to explain this dubious accounting to non-scientific readers.
Comparing apples and pears
Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) act upon the global temperature in very different ways. For the first few years after it has been released into the atmosphere, a given quantity of methane will have a much stronger global warming impact than the same amount of CO2. The standard metric for equating the two gases, Global Warming Potential (GWP100), currently estimates that over 100 years a kilo of methane has 28 times as much global warming effect as a kilo of CO2, or 34 times as much if you take into account certain feedback mechanisms. The FAO’s calculation that livestock cause 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is based on the 34 figure.
However, methane degrades in the atmosphere relatively quickly—it has a half-life of about 10 years—whereas CO2 is cumulative; that is to say a single emission of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years, and a series of them will accumulate, continually increasing the amount of global warming.
The difference in behavior between the two gases can be seen in the graphs (right). If emissions of the two gases are rising, then the global warming effect also rises, but more steeply in the case of CO2. If emissions of the two gases are constant, then the warming effect of methane is relatively constant, whereas the warming effect of CO2 increases as it accumulates in the atmosphere. Finally, if emissions of both gases are falling, then the net warming effect of methane begins to drop (in other words the drop in emissions has a cooling effect), whereas the warming effect of CO2 continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate, and only becomes constant when emissions cease altogether.
This means that a single pulse of CO2 can be equated to a sustained increase in the emissions rate. A farmer who has been keeping the same number of cattle on their land for several decades will not be increasing global warming significantly because the methane will be disappearing from the atmosphere almost as fast as it is being added. The same applies to a nation, or indeed the world, if its total cattle population remains stable over a number of decades.
But a single emission of CO2, say from using a tractor to spread artificial fertilizer, will remain in the atmosphere and continue to have a warming effect more or less indefinitely. And repeated emissions of CO2 from annual use of diesel and applications of fertilizer will accumulate in the atmosphere, causing the global temperatures to increase. GWP100 fails to account for this crucial difference, resulting in perverse assessments of the relative performance of the two gases and frequent exaggeration of the role played by methane…
{ a lot more at the link above that goes to the veracity and references }
Holy oops! I did not know the mouse was loaded – I am so sorry my friend.
Ron:
Thanks for posting this rebuttal. It saved me time. I wish Michael Smith was around. I am sure he would add to this.
Really excellent post on methane and carbon dioxide emissions.
Ron
There must be some kind of way outta here
Said the joker to the thief
There’s too much confusion
I can’t get no relief
I asked the audience if there was a greenhouse difference between methane released into the air, and methane burned in a power station. Got no answer.
Can’t pursue the question without hurting feelings.
I did not reply to “How good would that be for the economy?” for the same reason.
Doesn’t look to me like you got much of an answer to apples and pears.
So what’s the point of talking to them?
Setting aside the mode of propulsion there’s the car itself, which is no different than the other cars of those makes and models: they’re made out of plastic, a petroleum by-product, a ‘fossil fuel.” But for the motors and the fuel, they’re the same car
I have an eMini; we were well aware of the trade-offs before buying it …
@Ten,
I used to say that it made no sense to drive an EV here in RI, since 84% of electricity is generated by natural gas, so your fuel is really methane. But then there’s this:
“EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+electric+vehicles+more+efficient+than+gas&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS849US853&oq=EVs+more+efficient+than+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390i650l2.9208j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
It’s noticeable, the first time you drive one, it is scary fast. Nimble
I’m actually (currently) not too far north of you, I don’t think the sources are that different. It’s not like back home where it’s all hydro. The important part for me is I’ve been driving it for nine months now without seeing an appreciable increase in my power bill.
energy is consumed getting the gasoline to the service station, etc from crude in the ground.
energy is consumed generating electricity, gas/diesel turbines, boiler systems etc which have ‘efficiencies’. power lines’ transmission resistance consumes watts…. hydrocarbon generation has much the same supply chain as the car.
over the weekend on google time with a few other old guys from college years we talked of old times etc. the 50 year old son of one of our deceased group attends was explaining his job. he is the only one in the group working!
he is working ‘system engineering’ and related his company exceeded their 5 year group in two years. interestingly he did not call it system engineering, which suggests he thought us old guys might not be familiar.
it seems that the engineering/statistical science to maximize a function constrained by multiple variables, externalities if you will, is sorely needed.
he related they will hire anyone capable!
optimization studies are needed in energy and many other places.
Ten Bears:
Look at the resources needed to build them. And they are building bigger and heavier vehicles because it sells. The behind the curtain costs, the resources used up, and the energy needed may not equate to a wash of good and bad. Your mini may be the best as compared to an F150 with a large heavy battery.
The NYT article gets it right.
My next pickup …
Ten Bears:
I just added a link which is interesting. At leat it was to me. It is at the end of this posting.
The Big Ifs… if we all (most of us?) switch to electric vehicles, “if we can make our grids zero-carbon, then vehicle emissions drop way”
How Green Are Electric Vehicles?
NY Times – March 2, 2021
In short: Very green. But plug-in cars still have environmental effects. Here’s a guide to the main issues and how they might be addressed.
Argument about the value of any particular climate action ignores the stiffness of the multiply interlocked economic system. Switching to electric vehicles is valuable not merely in itself, but also in providing economic and climate incentives for acceleration of green electricity. A stiff interlocked economic system needs to be attacked by government nudges at multiple points, in order to achieve climate goals.
Just as a thought experiment, would it be carbon “favorable” to move quickly to EV and power it by whatever means possible in tandem? Do thermal efficiencies of large power plants versus millions of ICEs offset burning more coal, gas or oil to make the needed electricity? There certainly would be all kinds of questions about making investments possibly needed, but is the basic concept carbon “favorable”?
not a trace of anyone’s willingness to consume less.
How good would that be for the economy?
But maybe when Gen Z fully stops having kids …
Millennials and Gen Z won’t have enough kids to sustain America’s population
The Fortune story above, but not behind a paywall
(Not where the quote above came from, by the way.)
Fred,
With all those robots, then they will not need as many people. Getting the robots to pay their fair share of taxes might take a bit though.
Robotic consumers are called for.
dobbs
don’t see ow not having kids is infantilizing. wanting time for yourselves is perhaps the best reason to not raise the retirement age. meanwhile another reason i hear for not wanting kids is not wanting them to grow up in a world that is going to hell.
that said, i think i agree about the infantilizing of the population,,,but not for the reasons here suggested. another thing that strikes me is the growing disappearance of anything like family life… the inevitable consequence of the way we make our livings…and the political pressure exerted by those who get the profits to make “making money” the reason for living.
to all those women who prefer selling real estate and sex in the city, i would not second guess or try to interfere with your choices. but it does look like a Brave New World to me.
I think you’re wrong here. Apart from family size that is already discussed, there is good evidence that heating and cooling trends are moving to settings driving less consumption in both summer and winter. Heat pumps are making steady gains. People are frequently shocked at how much better fuel is used in recreational fishing for example. Boats have considerably less drag, outboards burn less at typical cruise conditions that dominate boating due to both engine and prop improvements. Even trailers and towing regimes for powerful vehicles have been greatly improved over the past 40 years. Throw in information technology reducing the trial and error of finding fish, recreational fishing is doing darn well at using fuel better. I do not own a boat, if that matters here. Will the world meet the current “plans”? Almost certainly not, but progress is on-going.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
January 15, 2022
Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide, 2000-2023
(Parts per million by volume)
2000 ( 369.71) (Low)
2001 ( 371.32)
2002 ( 373.45)
2003 ( 375.98)
2004 ( 377.70)
2005 ( 379.98)
2006 ( 382.09)
2007 ( 384.02)
2008 ( 385.83)
2009 ( 387.64)
2010 ( 390.10)
2011 ( 391.85)
2012 ( 394.06)
2013 ( 396.74)
2014 ( 398.81)
2015 ( 401.01)
2016 ( 404.41)
2017 ( 406.76)
2018 ( 408.72)
2019 ( 411.65)
2020 ( 414.21)
2021 ( 416.41)
2022 ( 418.53) (High)
July
2023 ( 421.76)
Here is the so far definitive model:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html
December, 2008
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer and James C. Zachos
Abstract
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~ 3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, * is ~ 6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm ** to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. *** An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects. ****
* Surface reflectivity of sun’s radiation
** Currently ~ 420 ppm: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
*** Net change in radiant emittance or irradiance
**** https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf
A brief extract from the latest Paul Krugman column in the NY Times.
Climate Is Now a Culture War Issue
NY Times – August 7
question for the student
is the CO2 created by burning methane worse or better for the climate than just emitting the methane without burning it?
ref: 8:03am 8th instant.
I’ve offered my views on this many times before.
In short, burning the methane produced by oil drilling it is better than letting it leak into the atmosphere. Because methane is 25x worse for the environment than the CO2 which results from burning the methane.
However, found on the web…
Now, it happens this is from SoCalGas, ‘the nation’s largest natural gas distribution utility’, so veracity might be questioned by some.
I believe the SoCalGas rationale is incorrect. So too did James Hansen of NASA.
Burning CH4 produces CO2, the CO2 will have a more severe climate effect than the CH4.
EPA: Importance of Methane
Climate change and trace gases.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007
Dobbs
thanks for the reply. except for the problem of hurting feelings, my question as directed at the idea (?) that somehow burning methane to produce power was contributing to the problem of methane in the atmosphere. though by now i am pretty sure the author of that comment would say “i never said that.”
meanwhile, then, i should answer “How good would that [less consumption] be for the economy?”: this is very frustrating for me. It misses the whole point: we are going to have to consume less to save the planet. The economy will take care of itself. “the economy” is an abstraction. all it means is the rate at which we spend money..and make money for the “investor class.” There will always be an economy. There will not always be what makes life worth living.
If you gave up your need for a big house or a more expensive car, your happiness would not be impaired, though you might find that hard to believe . The investor class might have to do with more shampagne and less private jets. On the other hand if you think your happiness depends on trips to las vegas so you can pee in a golden urinal and maybe watch some poor girl display her wares to give you a thrill… you will naturally desire that until you find you can no longer go for a walk in the cool of the evening.
Think of it as “Your money or your life!”
I have just a few years left to be worrying about this, Mrs Fred a few more probably. I drive a 15 year old low-mileage Saab that get gets 25 mpg, and do not intend to replace it. My kids do not intend to have kids of there own.
Hopefully the rest of humanity can figure out how to survive. Best of luck!
oh, as to infantilizing: the absence of any experience of family life does seem to make grown up kids (adult, as in adult movies) susceptible to the argument that Social Security is the old stealing the kids futures. because, you see, the kids will never get old themselves, so see no need to pay for their own futures.
dobbs
remarkably selfless of you.
Well, I guess I’ve been ‘infantilized’. (That’s a new one on me.)
Wikipedia: … Infantilization can happen to older adults which leads to denying them autonomy in their care, such as through being excessively controlled or being addressed with baby talk, as if they were a child incapable of understanding complex topics. …
dobbs
i think it was you who introduced “infantilize” into the conversation. do you mean that people are strting to use baby talk when they talk to you. or do you mean that you care for nothing but your imediate pleasures?
i think that having kids…and raising them …is our (individual) last best chance at not remaining infants our whole life. for some people this creates an awareness of the virtue of caring about other people’s children. it may not fit the Ayn Randian model of “enlightened selfishness,” or even the behaviorist model of “science,” but it is an idea that has inspired serious thought, and even the untestable (they say) idea of virtue, or sanity, since we became human.
It is true that ‘infantilize’ does appear in an uncited quote I posted above, as a lead in to the idea that the most recent generations are not having kids ‘so much’. (My sister’s three kids have 8 kids between them, however.)
James Hansen says world is approaching a ‘new climate frontier’
The Guardian – July 19
James Lovelock, a British scientist & environmentalist, also a nuclear power advocate, eventually decided that ‘we are toast’, as far as Global Climate Change is concerned.
James Lovelock – Wikipedia
James Ephraim Lovelock CH CBE FRS (26 July 1919 – 26 July 2022) was an English independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
So now this is an Open Thread.
Two law professors active in the Federalist Society Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
NY Times – August 10
An enormously long link to the 126 page article as yet unpublished
(If you follow this link, click on ‘Open PDF in browser’.)
Special Counsel Proposes January Date for Trump’s Election Interference Trial
NY Times – August 10
sorry i have been unable to contribute to this thread, but i’ve just been too busy; the full cycle carbon footprint of EVs is a subject ive discussed extensively with my Sierra Club friend over the years…bottom line is that i still don’t feel i have enough information to answer the question posed by this post one way or the other…i would probably start my answer with “depends…
here are excerpts from an op ed that appeared on “the Hill” last week, addressing some of my concerns…right wing think tank cites dictate consumption with appropriate grains of salt:
EPA is ignoring the glaring problem with dirty electric vehicles – The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has launched a new regulatory effort to force a massive transportation shift to electric vehicles (EVs) with its proposed “multi-pollutant emissions standards” for light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning with model year 2027. This is a complex policy nostrum, poorly thought through and replete with adverse consequences that proponents are determined to ignore.
The harsh realities of EVs are the reason regulatory agencies have tried so hard to force ever more such vehicles upon the market in ways insulated from democratic accountability.
Even this all-cost-no-benefit outcome is only one major problem. Another is the array of environmental and cost implications of obtaining the materials needed to produce EV batteries.
As a crude generalization, EV batteries weigh a half ton or more. Each contains roughly 30 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of cobalt, 130 pounds of nickel, 190 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper and about 400 pounds of steel, aluminum and plastics.
Mark P. Mills of the Manhattan Institute has done the attendant arithmetic on the amount of mining needed to produce these quantities for a single EV battery. By his estimate, each battery requires the extraction of 20,000 pounds of lithium brines, 60,000 pounds of cobalt ore, 10,000 pounds of nickel ore, 2,000 pounds of graphite ore and 12,000 pounds of copper ore.
This tally excludes three to seven tons of what is known as the “overburden” for each ton of ore — that is, “the materials first dug up to get to the ore.” It also excludes the environmental burden involved in extracting and refining materials to produce the steel, aluminum and other less uncommon materials that go into EV batteries.
In the context of the EPA’s climate justification for its proposed rule, Mills makes an obvious point that the proponents of forced EV adoption have avoided. “The variables and uncertainties in emissions from energy-intensive mining and processing of minerals used to make EV batteries are a big wild card in the emissions calculus,” he writes. “Those emissions substantially offset reductions from avoiding gasoline and, as the demand for battery minerals explodes, the net reductions will shrink, may vanish, and could even lead to a net increase in emissions.”
“Similar emissions uncertainties,” Mills adds, “are associated with producing the power for EV charging stations.”
Consider also the cost implications of a massive increase in the demand for the needed minerals. At a global level, scale diseconomies in the production of such minerals are a certainty, as production expands toward mineral resources less concentrated — that is, ores more costly to exploit.
For lithium, the largest reserves are located in Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, the U.S., Australia and China. It is obvious that a supply crunch and rising prices are inevitable. “Earth has approximately 88 million tonnes of lithium,” Popular Mechanics recently noted, “but only one-quarter is economically viable to mine as reserves.”
The same supply-price dynamic exists for cobalt, nickel, graphite and copper. Note that China is among the major suppliers of all of these. It is not unreasonable to expect that political considerations will influence Chinese supply behavior, a potential problem in various short-run scenarios.
Proponents of a massive shift toward EVs have attempted to avert attention from this central reality of mineral needs. This does not bode well for policymaking. EVs are expensive — on average about $20,000 more than their conventional counterparts — and will become more so.
Direct purchase subsidies in the U.S. are subject to several conditions; far from reducing costs, they merely shift them onto taxpayers. The indirect subsidies take the form of higher prices on conventional vehicles, the inexorable implication of the mandated market shares for EVs. And EVs’ operating costs do not differ by much from those of conventional vehicles, once depreciation is included in the cost comparison.
The very fact that massive subsidies are needed to make EVs even marginally competitive suggests that the lack of enthusiasm on the part of consumers is no accident. EVs cannot satisfy a wide range of consumer needs, and they also create their own set of environmental problems.
The EPA’s proposed rule should not be finalized.
RJS
“The very fact that massive subsidies are needed to make EVs even marginally competitive suggests that the lack of enthusiasm on the part of consumers is no accident. EVs cannot satisfy a wide range of consumer needs, and they also create their own set of environmental problems.”
Very True. Automotive is tossing these out there randomly rather than take the time to improve on them.