Hi.

I'm analyzing Net zero emissions from another angle today.

source

What do you think? Do batteries create electricity, or do they merely store electricity generated elsewhere, particularly through coal, uranium, natural gas, or diesel generators?
The claim that an electric car is a zero-emission vehicle is far from the truth, given that 60.2% of electricity in the United States is produced from fossil fuels. Consequently, 60.2% of electric cars in the U.S. can be considered carbon-based.

Bot - No! No!, the discussion doesn't end there. Those enthusiastic about electric vehicles and the green revolution should scrutinize not only the source of electricity but also the components of batteries, as well as wind turbines and solar panels.

The typical electric car battery weighs around 450 kg and is roughly the size of a suitcase. It comprises 11 kg of lithium, 27 kg of nickel, 20 kg of manganese, 14 kg of cobalt, 91 kg of graphite, and 180 kg of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside, there are over 6000 separate lithium-ion cells.

To produce each Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) battery, you need to process 11,340 kg of lithium salt, 13,600 kg of cobalt ore, 2,268 kg of nickel resin, and 11,340 kg of copper ore. In total, you have to excavate 226,800 kg of earth for a single battery.

The Solar Panel Conundrum

The major issue with solar systems lies in the chemicals used to transform silicon into the coating for panels. To obtain pure silicon, it must be treated with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, fluorine, trichloroethane, and acetone.

And here's more: gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium diselenide, and cadmium telluride, all extremely toxic substances, are required. Silicon dust poses a hazard to workers, and the grit cannot be recycled.

Wind Turbines: A Better but Still Flawed Alternative

Turbines are somewhat more favorable in terms of costs and environmental impact. Each wind turbine weighs 1,688 tons (equivalent to the weight of 23 houses) and contains 1,300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, and 24 tons of fiberglass, along with rare and heavy metals like neodymium and dysprosium. Each of the three blades weighs 5,216 kg and has a lifespan of 15 to 20 years, after which they must be replaced. Unfortunately, we currently lack efficient methods to recycle worn-out rotor blades.

Soooo...
Certainly, these technologies have their place, but you, me and everyone else (who will be charged soon for carbon prints) must look beyond the myth of emissions-free utopia.

Becoming environmentally friendly might sound like a utopian ideal, but if we examine the hidden and embedded costs realistically and impartially, we'll discover that the "green movement" does more harm to Earth's environment than meets the eye.

I'm not opposing mining, electric vehicles, wind, or solar energy. Instead, I'm just facing the reality head-on. The purported green revolution, when viewed critically, may inflict more damage on our planet than we realize.

What do you think?

With respect,
Zpek

Posted using STEMGeeks