ev's are they clean?

i found this on another site. imo it has some quite interesting facts. but am not sure. if any of you find anything wrong with this source, please let me know. always looking to learn. yes! there are some things i don't know about. lol ha,ha,ha, that is why i'm asking for your thoughts on this. thanks;

Makes you think about going green.
This is an excellent breakdown.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent 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 extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Obviously copied/pasted. I encourage you to pass it along too.

 

So you are saying the quicker we get away from fossil fuels creating our electricity the better???

 

61falcon- heck no!!! where did you get that from my post? from my source: "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure. did you happen to read that. well i don't think so, it seems you ignored it. or just came up with a "silly" comment. well a lot of people do that when they don't have a coherent answer to a statement or question. you see i asked for a good answer, and got non-sense. but that happens.

 

Are EVs clean? Depends how often you wash it and how dirty your environment is.

 

Your source is correct. There is nothing green about green other than the graft. As for the rest, mostly they are Degrowthers. They are for whatever inhibits the economic growth of the United States. Understand these two things and you can more accurately predict them than if you listen to their claims.

 

This is more proof that electric vehicles are not going to save us unless we also stop using polluting fuels to create the energy. EVs may not be spewing CO2 into the air, but the power plants do, and there is more demand for electricity with so many EVs. We must change how we generate power.

 

I saw somewhere that, if every country were to meet its EV goals, the net effect on global temperature would be 1/10,000 of one degree. I think it makes sense to develop battery powered electric vehicles for a number of reasons but reducing temperature isn't one of them.

 

When the EV's require new batteries the prohibitive cost will drive the owner back to the internal combustion engine.

 

There is also a matter of efficiency. There is an energy loss in the generator required to generate the electricity. There is an energy loss in the power lines required to transmit the electricity. There is an energy loss when the electricity is used to charge the battery. There is an energy loss when the battery discharges. There is an energy loss in the electric motor. All of those energy losses are manifested by heat generation. Although each energy loss may be small, the sum total can be very significant and the sum total can result in the electric car being much less efficient than an internal combustion engine.

 

I don't know about efficiency but the internal combustion engine is time tested and proven technology. It is the fuel that is the problem. Natural gas is much less toxic and mixed with 20% hydrogen even less so. I would rather chance a natural gas fueled vehicle than an electric one on a long trip. Add a little O2 and you got a rocket.

 

Household solar supplemented by a nuclear grid - use of hydro and geothermal where available. Small scale household wind power in mountain states where its usually windy as.

Problem solved.

 

You're thinking of the batteries of two decades ago. They've made improvements on the longevity. By the time the batteries are so old that they'll no longer take a charge, the car is old enough that you'd likely be buying a new one soon, anyway.

https://blog.evbox.com/ev-battery-longevity#:~:text=Under current estimates, most EV,costs associated with battery replacement.

"Under current estimates, most EV batteries will last somewhere between 10-20 years before they need to be replaced."

Some of us keep cars longer than that, but most Americans don't maintain their vehicles properly, hence the popularity of scams ... er, I mean, services ... like Car Shield. Few would keep a car longer than 15 years.

I'll back that up with my own car, a 2009 Lincoln, so old that the GPS doesn't include a lot of the places in this small, growing city, but it only has 62,000 miles on it and I'll keep it for at least another five years. My last car, a 2004 BMW Z4, had 138,000 on it when I gave it to my son three years ago, and it is still in excellent condition. All of my cars were purchased used, btw. I prefer things that are broken it a little.

 

Works for me, but in order to make that a reality for all, and not just those who can afford the cost of equipment and installation/setup, we will need to spend major chunks of tax dollars as part of the infrastructure bill. Which, of course, will lend itself to corruption on the part of corporations that don't want to pay to have their facilities upgraded. And on and on it goes. It's so hard to have anything nice, isn't it?

 

i used to drive a natural gas bus, these required special mechanics & locations to work on them. also these tanks are under high pressure, you rupture one of these tanks and you could have a big----bang!!! imo these are rolling bombs. not saying your wrong. just that natural gas fueled vehicles can easily become bombs if in a accident.

 

Then you tell me why new batteries in today's gasoline vehicles only lasts 6 years or less. And you have to pay to have them disposed of. Also tell me why my battery in my electric weed trimmer only lasted 2 years? These are all modern batteries.

Who's estimate? Sounds like advertising puffery to me.

So you don't own an EV? You just made the case for owning a gasoline vehicle.

 

The purpose of electric cars is to move the pollution created in first world nations to third world nations so the wealthy progressive elites in first world nations can virtue signal about driving "clean cars".

It's all about the NIMBY.

 

LOL! You know damned well I can't solve your battery issues. Talk to the manufacturers, ffs.

No, I don't own an EV. What difference does that make? I linked you to facts. If you don't like them, that's not my problem.

 

There were a couple of the local green's posting on a facebook page trying to slam us dirty ICE drivers about gas prices and how they drive their clean EV's and just plug them in. I had to remind them that their electricity comes from the big steam plant up the river that burns coal and natural gas. The messaged thread went dead.

 

Too many liberals and people who just "dream" never think through the logical steps of a process.

 

It is true that electric vehicles are not green - not even close.

This is not news to people who actually know what they're talking about. And the statement above is nonsense. Going green is good. But you have to know how. Buying an EV is not "going green".

The Tesla is nothing but a novelty.

 

Very good and very accurate. You forgot to mention that the actual construction of an EV is not a "green" process

As a curious aside, why do they call it green after removing CO2 when everything green requires CO2?????

 

lets start with: you said trump is favorable to putin? really? what nation did putin invade when trump was in office. who invaded (crimea) under who's president? now who invades the rest of ukraine? who is president now? none of this happened under trump. unlike now putin was more afraid of what trump would do. not like now biden and bobo are the ones who are afraid of what putin will do. see the difference? probably not!!

now this, quote: This is not news to people who actually know what they're talking about. And the statement above is nonsense you seem to be calling many liberals---dumb!!!! because the people who buy electric cars ---don't---know what they are talking about. that comes from your quote. lol

quote; And the statement above is nonsense the---truth---is never nonsense!!!!

 

Biden is great. He is a man of integrity. Trump would be supporting putin. He still hasn't even denounced putin. Why not? Because trump is no better than putin.

Yes. I'm a physicist who has studied the energy problem for over 40 years. I do know what I'm talking about. And those of us who study this problem know the electric cars used today are nothing but a novelty - a toy. They might be practical one day but for now many electric cars are really powered by coal. And the batteries are an environmental nightmare.

 

I saw somewhere that is wrong.

 

It's weird that Putin didn't invade Ukraine back when there was a POTUS in office who would've supported him.

That seems like a serious tactical blunder on Putin's part.