Toxic Cost of Going Green

[H3LZSN1P3R]

People seem to be searching for all of the reasons why EVs won't work. The technology works, you just can't tow a trailer with it.

or live where it gets cold…

 

[Great White North Eh]

Or where it gets cold or hot. Here in Alberta we ran out of magic pixies last summer and the government pleaded with people to not warsh your clothes and cook your supper at the same time. It ain’t gonna work.

 

[H3LZSN1P3R]

Has anyone seen the Diesel electric setup Edison motors is working on? This is the only sustainable setup for all climates i have seen yet its currently only big trucks but some good stuff that could be adapted in the automotive industry.

 

[ranchhopper]

Here is another one for the greenies I pass a place where they are putting up a new solar array taking out a minimum of 50 acres on both sides of the road. They are taking this land out of food production for good and what happens when the flow of government subsidy money stops who cleans this all up after they go bankrupt and leaves the taxpayer on the hook after the politicians pushing this have already banked their millions of dollars made off this. We have acres of 250,000 square foot warehouses in huge industrial parks why cant these be put on the roofs of these buildings instead of taking large chunks of food producing farmland for this like most agendas pushed by politicians absolutely no forethought of what the consequences of their actions produce.

 

[jsalbre]

Here is another one for the greenies I pass a place where they are putting up a new solar array taking out a minimum of 50 acres on both sides of the road. They are taking this land out of food production for good and what happens when the flow of government subsidy money stops who cleans this all up after they go bankrupt and leaves the taxpayer on the hook after the politicians pushing this have already banked their millions of dollars made off this. We have acres of 250,000 square foot warehouses in huge industrial parks why cant these be put on the roofs of these buildings instead of taking large chunks of food producing farmland for this like most agendas pushed by politicians absolutely no forethought of what the consequences of their actions produce.

I’m not going to address the rest of your post, but as for who cleans it up, no one does. Solar panels last for an insane length of time and don’t degrade much at all.

 

[arx237]

I’m not going to address the rest of your post, but as for who cleans it up, no one does. Solar panels last for an insane length of time and don’t degrade much at all.

Hehe... "Not my problem" ?

Industry standard is 25-35 years and there are plenty of financial incentives to replace them. The solar boom started in the early 2000's and we are already seeing these early panels being retired. They are not easy to recycle either but luckily some solar companies are investing in recycling training and facilities for the coming demand. Whether that is enough remains to be seen but at the end of the day someone is going to need to clean it up or its no better than powerplants fueled by coal, whale oil or whatever else greta thunburg disapproves of.

 

[ppine]

Green energy is here to stay and will continue to increase. People are stuck in entrenched technologies of the past. Change is not easy, but it is coming.
Fossil fuels are getting harder to recover. We fight wars over oil. The Saudis are doing everything they can to reduce world supply. Energy independence will require more green energy. We still import oil from many different countries.
I like diesels going forward because they are an agile technology that can run on hydrogen, algae, wood ethanol and plenty of other things.

 

[gimmie11s]

Thread has potential!!!

 

[gimmie11s]

Green energy is here to stay and will continue to increase. People are stuck in entrenched technologies of the past. Change is not easy, but it is coming.
Fossil fuels are getting harder to recover. We fight wars over oil. The Saudis are doing everything they can to reduce world supply. Energy independence will require more green energy. We still import oil from many different countries.
I like diesels going forward because they are an agile technology that can run on hydrogen, algae, wood ethanol and plenty of other things.

 

[Blythkd1]

We fight wars over oil.

We have fought wars over oil but that's behind us. We were energy independent not long ago and it was cheap. If fossil fuels are so hard to get now, why was energy so cheap when we were basically producing all we needed on our own?

If we moth ball all our legacy power sources, coal, oil, gas, nuclear, etc., the next war may be over all the materials it takes to build green energy infrastructure, batteries and the like. China controls most of it and they know it.

Green energy is fine as a supplement but if we keep heading down this ridiculous path thinking we're going to completely switch out our existing power grid for green sources, WE ARE DOOMED.

And on another note, as we switch over more and more to green energy, it won't matter that most cars charge at night unless we're going to cover our country with battery banks. Where I live the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't blow. Not to mention, we won't be able to source enough materials to build all those batteries anyway, see 2 paragraphs above.

This whole green energy thing sounds good but the longer we head down that path, the closer our country gets to the bottom of the toilet bowl, just circling around. If we don't change course, it will be the end of life as we know it.

 

[Dave01]

This whole green energy thing sounds good but the longer we head down that path, the closer our country gets to the bottom of the toilet bowl, just circling around. If we don't change course, it will be the end of life as we know it.

As I read this thread, it seems like lots of people talk in extremes. "end of life as we know it" is a good example.

I'm in the green energy industry, my company collects used cooking oil from restaurants, cleans it, and sells it to renewable energy plants that make either biodiesel or renewable diesel to blend into the heating oil or diesel markets. I also ran a hydropower some years ago, have installed solar on several commercial buildings.

I'm definitely an environmentalist and strongly in favor of green energy. But .... I thought I'd join the discussion because I don't think I'm a nutcase (though maybe I am, who knows ). I'm not in favor of simply ending various fossil fuels before we are prepared to do so. I even think some legacy coal plants need to keep running for some years, though I certainly wouldn't build any new ones. I'm in favor of building nuke plants, to my mind if we want to move toward green energy and speed up the reduction of fossil fuel use, nuclear is the answer. 2 US plants are approved right now, one starting construction, and some older plants are getting a 2nd look at extending their useful life.

What I'm curious about for those on this thread who are opposed to green energy is this. Are you simply opposed to all green energy efforts, wind, solar, etc.? Or would you be ok with a blended solution like I'm thinking about?

 

[Dave01]

On the electric car subject ... it's not as simple as "we don't have the power or the grid capacity to charge them". Electric cars are another part of a good environmental solution, but it's more than that. They are incredibly low maintenance, and as they become more affordable will be a very good choice for those on a budget.

There is a pilot program in a couple of communities where families are signing up for a shared energy agreement. They agree to plug their cars in when not in use, and the program monitors demand and adds the electric car battery capacity to the grid at times it's needed. The result is the group enjoys lower electric rates because they charge at off peak times and contribute at peak times. For those concerned about discharging their cars the software lets you decide that, you can stop if your battery drops to 60% as an example, or set whatever parameters you want.

 

[Enve46]

As I read this thread, it seems like lots of people talk in extremes. "end of life as we know it" is a good example.

I'm in the green energy industry, my company collects used cooking oil from restaurants, cleans it, and sells it to renewable energy plants that make either biodiesel or renewable diesel to blend into the heating oil or diesel markets. I also ran a hydropower some years ago, have installed solar on several commercial buildings.

I'm definitely an environmentalist and strongly in favor of green energy. But .... I thought I'd join the discussion because I don't think I'm a nutcase (though maybe I am, who knows ). I'm not in favor of simply ending various fossil fuels before we are prepared to do so. I even think some legacy coal plants need to keep running for some years, though I certainly wouldn't build any new ones. I'm in favor of building nuke plants, to my mind if we want to move toward green energy and speed up the reduction of fossil fuel use, nuclear is the answer. 2 US plants are approved right now, one starting construction, and some older plants are getting a 2nd look at extending their useful life.

What I'm curious about for those on this thread who are opposed to green energy is this. Are you simply opposed to all green energy efforts, wind, solar, etc.? Or would you be ok with a blended solution like I'm thinking about?

Thank you for commenting on here. I have a mutual friend in a similar field as you that has said the same thing about nuclear and I'm all for it. Another thing they mentioned is how hugely inefficient most "green" energy is and that they alone are not sustainable to support our needs, of today. I doubt anyone in here is against green energy but I won't speak for anyone but myself. I don't trust the information we are received from those who are supplying it cause it's always tied to an agenda, usually monetary, with little regard for opposing facts.

On the electric car subject ... it's not as simple as "we don't have the power or the grid capacity to charge them". Electric cars are another part of a good environmental solution, but it's more than that. They are incredibly low maintenance, and as they become more affordable will be a very good choice for those on a budget.

There is a pilot program in a couple of communities where families are signing up for a shared energy agreement. They agree to plug their cars in when not in use, and the program monitors demand and adds the electric car battery capacity to the grid at times it's needed. The result is the group enjoys lower electric rates because they charge at off peak times and contribute at peak times. For those concerned about discharging their cars the software lets you decide that, you can stop if your battery drops to 60% as an example, or set whatever parameters you want.

On the EV side of things, the mining argument is the one you're going to hear more often than not. It's MORE than proven the harm that's done by mining for lithium, the amount of fuel that's burned daily to do it, and the lack of recycling for lithium batteries are on top of it all. Toyota actually has come out and said this EV movement is extremely wasteful, rather hybrid systems are far more sustainable. You can take ONE EV's battery and make 65 hybrid versions. Here's the article with the data...

https://www.thedrive.com/features/toyota-is-right-we-need-more-hybrid-cars-and-fewer-evs-heres-why

What's more, EVs aren't the future and they're being produced so much that they are now sitting on dealers lots. Less maintenance does not mean they're more friendly to use, especially the ranges some of the EVs offer, it's downright awful when you can twice the distance from a hybrid car and avoid the hassle of a pure EV.

 

[Dave01]

Thank you for commenting on here. I have a mutual friend in a similar field as you that has said the same thing about nuclear and I'm all for it. Another thing they mentioned is how hugely inefficient most "green" energy is and that they alone are not sustainable to support our needs, of today. I doubt anyone in here is against green energy but I won't speak for anyone but myself. I don't trust the information we are received from those who are supplying it cause it's always tied to an agenda, usually monetary, with little regard for opposing facts.

On the EV side of things, the mining argument is the one you're going to hear more often than not. It's MORE than proven the harm that's done by mining for lithium, the amount of fuel that's burned daily to do it, and the lack of recycling for lithium batteries are on top of it all. Toyota actually has come out and said this EV movement is extremely wasteful, rather hybrid systems are far more sustainable. You can take ONE EV's battery and make 65 hybrid versions. Here's the article with the data...

https://www.thedrive.com/features/toyota-is-right-we-need-more-hybrid-cars-and-fewer-evs-heres-why

What's more, EVs aren't the future and they're being produced so much that they are now sitting on dealers lots. Less maintenance does not mean they're more friendly to use, especially the ranges some of the EVs offer, it's downright awful when you can twice the distance from a hybrid car and avoid the hassle of a pure EV.

I know what you mean about trusting the information. I speak with people in the solar industry, and a group of friends and I are really interested in EV tech so share a bunch of info. If you get away from the policy/politics/lobbying info sources and just read about tech you can get pretty good info. Solar and wind are not inefficient, in fact grow more efficient and cost effective as the tech improves. But, I'm definitely not saying they are on a scale now or in the next 10-15 years to replace fossil fuels, again I'm in favor of a blended solution.

On mining, you are absolutely right in that it's a major problem. There is tech advancing on synthesizing the lithium that is pretty far advanced, I'm hopeful that this will lessen the mining needs over time.

Like you, I prefer hybrids to straight ev's for my purposes, though I have many friends with EV's that find the 250 mile range works for 98% of their driving needs. A buddy of mine has a Chevy Volt, I thought about buying one 5-6 years ago, he loves it and while he burns like 2 gallons of gas a month he says having the unlimited range allows him to have the 1 car and not need a 2nd for long trips. I can't understand why Chevy dropped the hybrid model.

 

[Enve46]

I know what you mean about trusting the information. I speak with people in the solar industry, and a group of friends and I are really interested in EV tech so share a bunch of info. If you get away from the policy/politics/lobbying info sources and just read about tech you can get pretty good info. Solar and wind are not inefficient, in fact grow more efficient and cost effective as the tech improves. But, I'm definitely not saying they are on a scale now or in the next 10-15 years to replace fossil fuels, again I'm in favor of a blended solution.

On mining, you are absolutely right in that it's a major problem. There is tech advancing on synthesizing the lithium that is pretty far advanced, I'm hopeful that this will lessen the mining needs over time.

Like you, I prefer hybrids to straight ev's for my purposes, though I have many friends with EV's that find the 250 mile range works for 98% of their driving needs. A buddy of mine has a Chevy Volt, I thought about buying one 5-6 years ago, he loves it and while he burns like 2 gallons of gas a month he says having the unlimited range allows him to have the 1 car and not need a 2nd for long trips. I can't understand why Chevy dropped the hybrid model.

They didn’t sell well. Remember the BMW i thing, back in 2018 I almost leased one for $179/mth cause they couldn’t give them away. Yes they look hideous but I was driving a rare M3 at the time and parking in garages with careless people wasn’t appealing. But not long ago the only hybrid that sold well was the Prius. Once the government started more and more tax incentives people started taking notice. But then, you could buy a better, nicer looking hybrid from Toyota, BMW, Honda etc for similar money. Chevy is smart in my opinion, they’re releasing a new generation V8 that will capture a huge market that has no desire for an EV or hybrid, like me.

As far as the green energy stuff, I’m down here in Florida and actually have friends that have sold/are selling solar, the tech seems to be improving and FPL will even pay you to use the power generated from your solar panels. I think it’s a great idea but our rates have gone up severely recently, which they claim is due to the fuel/oil costing more- well if that’s the case and more and more people have solar, where’s those savings?!? I am a fan of solar power as from what I’ve read and been told, which could be complete ********, it seems to be a sure way to generate self sufficient power. Being that our power grid is so vulnerable to attacks- a complete other story- having solar panels to help keep basics working is highly appealing. Wind and water are too limited to availability, from my understanding- correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Blythkd1]

As I read this thread, it seems like lots of people talk in extremes. "end of life as we know it" is a good example.

I'm in the green energy industry, my company collects used cooking oil from restaurants, cleans it, and sells it to renewable energy plants that make either biodiesel or renewable diesel to blend into the heating oil or diesel markets. I also ran a hydropower some years ago, have installed solar on several commercial buildings.

I'm definitely an environmentalist and strongly in favor of green energy. But .... I thought I'd join the discussion because I don't think I'm a nutcase (though maybe I am, who knows ). I'm not in favor of simply ending various fossil fuels before we are prepared to do so. I even think some legacy coal plants need to keep running for some years, though I certainly wouldn't build any new ones. I'm in favor of building nuke plants, to my mind if we want to move toward green energy and speed up the reduction of fossil fuel use, nuclear is the answer. 2 US plants are approved right now, one starting construction, and some older plants are getting a 2nd look at extending their useful life.

What I'm curious about for those on this thread who are opposed to green energy is this. Are you simply opposed to all green energy efforts, wind, solar, etc.? Or would you be ok with a blended solution like I'm thinking about?

You don't sound like a nutcase, sounds like we agree on many things. And I apologize if I came off as a nutcase with the comment, "end of life as we know it." I did not mean we would all be dead. What I meant was, when the liberals get everything the way they want it, which means total control, if and when energy won't support our needs, they will decide what all of us need to use electricity for and when we need to use it. They won't be happy until they control our thermostats, our vehicles, our lives in general. I don't know about you but that would be the end of life as I know it. Do I think we will get there? Hope not. I keep hoping that the few fighters in Washington will keep the nutcases at bay, or at least somewhat.

I stated that I'm ok with most of the green energy sources as supplemental. It just won't work as a 100% solution, not the sources we have right now anyway. But the nasty folks pushing all this agenda in Washington don't care. They won't be the ones that do without.

 

[Dave01]

I'm going to stay out of the politics side of the subject.

On the solar, people putting up solar isn't going to reduce fuel costs for everyone. What it does is reduce the energy cost for the homeowner or business that puts it up. And using the energy isn't a good solution for most people, the way to do it is net meter into the grid. It varies widely by state, not sure what the deal is in FL, but where I live there's about a 6-7 year payback on an installation, after that you are saving quite a bit and the panels, while they may degrade 10-15% after 20 years, are pretty much maintenance free with a long life. To me owning the array is the only way to go, I don't like the various lease programs where someone else owns the array on your roof.

And yes, that early BMW i vehicle was really ugly, almost unbelievable that they thought it was a good idea.

 

[Blythkd1]

Nothing wrong with folks investing in energy savings at home, I've done it myself. We took advantage of a govt program several years ago to install a ground source heat pump with a 15 year payback. Reducing energy consumption doesn't seem like it could ever be a bad thing. If someone wants to install a system that potentially pays them back for excess energy, more power to them.

I typically try to stay out of politics on the forum as well but this thread has been about politics since post #1.

 

[Will_T]

I'm not in favor of simply ending various fossil fuels before we are prepared to do so.

This is the issue in a nutshell so to speak. I don't think anyone, (or almost no one), would be resistant if the economy and the technology was really prepared for the change. But at this point we are not and if we are going to do it right, the change to greener technology is going to need to happen over a longer period than most of us would like.

 

[Enve46]

I'm going to stay out of the politics side of the subject.

On the solar, people putting up solar isn't going to reduce fuel costs for everyone. What it does is reduce the energy cost for the homeowner or business that puts it up. And using the energy isn't a good solution for most people, the way to do it is net meter into the grid. It varies widely by state, not sure what the deal is in FL, but where I live there's about a 6-7 year payback on an installation, after that you are saving quite a bit and the panels, while they may degrade 10-15% after 20 years, are pretty much maintenance free with a long life. To me owning the array is the only way to go, I don't like the various lease programs where someone else owns the array on your roof.

And yes, that early BMW i vehicle was really ugly, almost unbelievable that they thought it was a good idea.

My understanding, which again could be wrong, if I have a neighbor who has solar panels, FPL can use the electricity those panels generate for the local grid. Now, I am so far from knowledgeable on just how much that means as far as power distribution but when I see the amount of people buying solar panels for their houses, you would start to think it was subsidize part of the increase costs of other electricity. Maybe I’m wrong and more hopeful than anything but it’s a big recruiting position down here right now, selling solar. I gave up my office selling insurance in January but I lost more than one six figure earner to solar. That tells me there’s a big market with substantial growth that betting sales people great income. We are moving to Tn at the end of this month and we rent here but if I wasn’t moving I’d 100% get solar. Between state and federal incentives it’s a no brainer. I’ve become more aware of the vulnerability of our power grid that has zero government involvement in its security, so I’ve been trying to educate myself in solar, but I’m still very ignorant to it. I am not a big fan of clearing land and creating these huge solar fields but I don’t see any disadvantages to putting panels on roofs, they’re already there.