Off Topic Zero emissions?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Probably the best post ever published on the subject of "zero emissions". Absolutely worth the read!
(Translated from English):
“Batteries don’t create electricity – they store electricity generated elsewhere, especially through coal, uranium, natural gas-powered power plants, or diesel-powered generators.” So the claim that an electric car is a zero-emission vehicle is not true at all.
Since forty percent of the electricity produced in the USA comes from coal power plants, therefore forty percent of electric cars on the road are coal-based.
But that's not all. Those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution should take a closer look at the batteries, but also wind turbines and solar panels.
A typical electric car battery weighs a thousand pounds, about the size of a suitcase. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. There are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells inside.
To make each BEV battery, you'll need to process 25,000 pounds of salt for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of resin for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore from the copper. Overall, you have to dig out 500,000 pounds of earth’s crust for a battery. "
The main problem with solar systems is the chemicals used to turn silicate into the silicon used for the panels. To produce sufficiently pure silicon, it must be treated with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichlorothane and acetone.
In addition, gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium diselenide and cadmium telluride are needed which are also highly toxic. Silicon dust poses a hazard to workers and the plates cannot be recycled.
Wind turbines are the nonplusultra in terms of cost and environmental destruction. Each windmill weighs 1,688 tons (equivalent to the weight of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard-to-win rare-earths Neodym, Praseodym, and Dysprosium. Each of the three blades weighs 81,000 pounds and has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years, after which they must be replaced. We cannot recycle used rotor blades.
These technologies can certainly have their place, but you have to look beyond the myth of emission freedom.
“Going Green” may sound like a utopian ideal, but if you look at the hidden and embedded costs in a realistic and unbiased way, you’ll find that “Going Green" is doing more harm to the Earth’s environment than it seems. Has.
I'm not opposed to mining, electric vehicles, wind or solar energy. But I show the reality of the situation.
Copied / pasted obviously. I invite you to pass the text along. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6909203447728771073


I've read and watched crap about this and that over the years and I've come to the conclusion I don't give a fúck anymore <laugh>

I loved driving my diesel land rover over rare plants whilst showering them in smog and thrashing my 3 litre BMW up cùntry lanes .
Fook em ;)
Especially the whingey whiney green cùnts.
<laugh>
 
I've read and watched crap about this and that over the years and I've come to the conclusion I don't give a fúck anymore <laugh>

I loved driving my diesel land rover over rare plants whilst showering them in smog and thrashing my 3 litre BMW up cùntry lanes .
Fook em ;)
Especially the whingey whiney green cùnts.
<laugh>
<laugh><laugh><laugh><laugh><laugh><laugh><applause><applause><applause><applause><applause>:emoticon-0148-yes::emoticon-0148-yes::emoticon-0148-yes::emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nig
For me Hydrogen is the way forward, you will never eliminate pollution and particularly THC, the Total Hydro Carbons are a huge issue, take for instance your vehicle tyres, they give off THC's.
Anything we manufacture will have an element of pollution. To blame motor vehicles which go through strict homologation is wrong.

Charity is a failure of government and so is pollution in the first instance
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
When politicians say we are reducing emissions , what they really mean is that we are mostly exporting them.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of coal are burned every year in China, India and elsewhere to make things that are used in the West but no longer made here.

Then we call ourselves cleaner, and lecture those countries on their emissions. Without a blush!

Solar panels are indeed an amalgam of many metals, some rare, of silica and coal. This requires an enormous amount of mining. This is all melted together , often in coal furnaces. No lesser figure than Michael Moorer, ultra green and left wing film maker has made a documentary on this, with a fellow environmentalist. Worth watching, though mainstream outlets won't show it. You can find it on YouTube. To be fair to them, they started with the aim of promoting Solar Energy but were so shocked at the industry they ended up exposing a lot of dodgy dealing.

But they are still going to be part of the future, including an absolutely enormous farm being built in Morocco, from which an undersea cable to Devon will provide 3gw to the UK by about 2026. More later.

Wind is obviously expensive, but it is getting cheaper, and once the storage of energy tech develops more solutions, will be genuinely useful. It is now of course, and currently provides the bulk of the almost 20% that renewables give us. .

Nowt as cheap and relatively clean as gas though. We should be making far more use of what we have, instead of shipping it in .

But all energy has a price. And unless those objecting to it are prepared to live in houses which are sometimes cold and sometimes without electricity, it has to be paid. In all its forms.
 
Last edited:
For me Hydrogen is the way forward, you will never eliminate pollution and particularly THC, the Total Hydro Carbons are a huge issue, take for instance your vehicle tyres, they give off THC's.
Anything we manufacture will have an element of pollution. To blame motor vehicles which go through strict homologation is wrong.

Charity is a failure of government and so is pollution in the first instance

Hydrogen is a handy possibility, especially in controlled areas, but it has two big drawbacks.

It does not occur naturally and costs a lot of energy to make it. It is also very volatile, and will be completely unsuitable for houses, without completely new pipework, and other equipment. It is ten times more flammable than natural gas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COYCS
Hydrogen is a handy possibility, especially in controlled areas, but it has two big drawbacks.

It does not occur naturally and costs a lot of energy to make it. It is also very volatile, and will be completely unsuitable for houses, without completely new pipework, and other equipment. It is ten times more flammable than natural gas.

I don't know that much about it, but I have just had a new (gas) boiler installed, and the gas engineers reckon hydrogen in due course will work. They mocked heat pumps having installed a few.
 
Hydrogen is a handy possibility, especially in controlled areas, but it has two big drawbacks.

It does not occur naturally and costs a lot of energy to make it. It is also very volatile, and will be completely unsuitable for houses, without completely new pipework, and other equipment. It is ten times more flammable than natural gas.

I was referring to vehicle use. As l said anything manufactured will create pollutants and successful manufacturering comes with penalties in emissions.
 
I don't know that much about it, but I have just had a new (gas) boiler installed, and the gas engineers reckon hydrogen in due course will work. They mocked heat pumps having installed a few.

Aye Hydrogen will work, but it really is volatile and expensive to make. It's true it doesn't have emissions, but the power used to make it does!
 
  • Like
Reactions: COYCS
Moving away from cars we live on an island with ocean all around with tides. There must be some way to effectively and economically harness that power to generate electricity.

There are a couple of schemes underway to look at this.

As you say, the tides are there, and they are always there. But it is a difficult engineering task, and there are people already claiming that it will have severe effects on marine life in the area.

Long way down the line I'd say, as the money is being put elsewhere, public and private.
 
There are a couple of schemes underway to look at this.

As you say, the tides are there, and they are always there. But it is a difficult engineering task, and there are people already claiming that it will have severe effects on marine life in the area.

Long way down the line I'd say, as the money is being put elsewhere, public and private.

There is an experimental place in Scotland looking into wave and wind power where companies can put their projects through test conditions for their research teams.
As @rowley said wave power has a lot of ironing out if it has a future.