Is solar really better than oil?

[Alternatepriorities]

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

Amazing how much more "concern" there is about generally clean technologies not being perfect while ignoring the absolute filth and massive environmental destruction coming from the use of fossil fuels.

Not to mention a century of war, oppression and terrorism fueled by and fought over fossil fuels.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not more concerned about the NIMBY of metal production than fossil fuels. But if we are going to roll out a whole new supply chain worth 5% or so of our total GDP lets try not to repeat the same issues again. NIMBY with oil has been one of the prime drivers of both of the above problems.

I live in a resource rich state with a largely extraction based economy. Oddly many of the policy decisions about when and if those resources are going to be extracted are made on the other side of the continent. Time and time again I watch as extraction is prevented or delayed until it is suddenly in the best interest of Washington to do it and then suddenly none of the environmental concerns matter. When grandma is freezing no one cares about the polar bears... So it make sense to me to develop said resources at a slower more careful pace a little bit before it's an emergency.

One example. The north slope of Alaska has enough natural gas to supply a significant part of Japan's needs. Environmental and political bickering prevented the pipeline from getting built. Japan hasn't burned less gas, they're just more dependent on less friendly countries some of whom have twice the leakage rate from their pipelines... That's looking pretty foolish in light of the past year and suddenly building a pipeline is back on the table. But now it's likely going to be an ASAP job, even if no corners get cut, the urgency will require more waste of material during construction. It's exactly the same story as played out with the oil pipeline 50 years ago. The same story plays out with every big mining operation. There is a large new mine going in near the town where I grew up. Instead of processing the ore onsite they will truck raw ore 100 plus miles to another mine. No one I've talked to believes it's cleaner, but it made permitting easier.

[Posthumane]

I'll leave this here for your reading pleasure:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-amount-of-CO-2-emissions-of-vehicle-production-phase_tbl2_333046826

While this study is not perfect, it outlines how sensitive the emissions differences between ICE and BEV vehicles are to factors like location, lifetime distance driven, etc. The results of that study, for example, show that in the US a typical BEV wins out in emissions after about 60k km driven, whereas in Australia ICE vehicles are better throughout their lifetime due to a fairly fossil fuel heavy electrical generation grid. These factors can be modified of course - if you are charging from your own solar panels then the makeup of grid generation becomes irrelevant.

[TomTX]

I'll leave this here for your reading pleasure:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-amount-of-CO-2-emissions-of-vehicle-production-phase_tbl2_333046826

While this study is not perfect, it outlines how sensitive the emissions differences between ICE and BEV vehicles are to factors like location, lifetime distance driven, etc. The results of that study, for example, show that in the US a typical BEV wins out in emissions after about 60k km driven, whereas in Australia ICE vehicles are better throughout their lifetime due to a fairly fossil fuel heavy electrical generation grid. These factors can be modified of course - if you are charging from your own solar panels then the makeup of grid generation becomes irrelevant.

Every time I've dug into one of these studies, they've made idiotic assumptions. Examples:
1) Assuming the average car only lasts 100k km
2) Presuming carbon emissions from battery production are the same as they were in China over a decade ago when the industry was FAR less efficient
3) Presuming that the grid won't get any cleaner at all during the lifetime of the vehicles.

I'm not going to bother checking this one.

[BicycleB]

One of the concerns I have is that NIMBY will mean huge toxic messes elsewhere in the world rather than producing it here. Regardless of whether we run our cars on oil or metal the raw material has to be produced wisely and as responsibly as we know how. That’s not the same thing as producing it somewhere else with less regulation.

Amazing how much more "concern" there is about generally clean technologies not being perfect while ignoring the absolute filth and massive environmental destruction coming from the use of fossil fuels.

Not to mention a century of war, oppression and terrorism fueled by and fought over fossil fuels.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not more concerned about the NIMBY of metal production than fossil fuels. But if we are going to roll out a whole new supply chain worth 5% or so of our total GDP lets try not to repeat the same issues again. NIMBY with oil has been one of the prime drivers of both of the above problems.

I live in a resource rich state with a largely extraction based economy. Oddly many of the policy decisions about when and if those resources are going to be extracted are made on the other side of the continent. Time and time again I watch as extraction is prevented or delayed until it is suddenly in the best interest of Washington to do it and then suddenly none of the environmental concerns matter. When grandma is freezing no one cares about the polar bears... So it make sense to me to develop said resources at a slower more careful pace a little bit before it's an emergency.

One example. The north slope of Alaska has enough natural gas to supply a significant part of Japan's needs. Environmental and political bickering prevented the pipeline from getting built. Japan hasn't burned less gas, they're just more dependent on less friendly countries some of whom have twice the leakage rate from their pipelines... That's looking pretty foolish in light of the past year and suddenly building a pipeline is back on the table. But now it's likely going to be an ASAP job, even if no corners get cut, the urgency will require more waste of material during construction. It's exactly the same story as played out with the oil pipeline 50 years ago. The same story plays out with every big mining operation. There is a large new mine going in near the town where I grew up. Instead of processing the ore onsite they will truck raw ore 100 plus miles to another mine. No one I've talked to believes it's cleaner, but it made permitting easier.

@Alternatepriorities, thx for bringing up points I never knew about, especially the Japan example re North Slope, and more generally the lower environmental impact you're describing of doing mining projects systematically.

[Posthumane]

Every time I've dug into one of these studies, they've made idiotic assumptions. Examples:
1) Assuming the average car only lasts 100k km
2) Presuming carbon emissions from battery production are the same as they were in China over a decade ago when the industry was FAR less efficient
3) Presuming that the grid won't get any cleaner at all during the lifetime of the vehicles.

I'm not going to bother checking this one.

Do you have a source for more recent production data than what is used in those studies? If yes, it would be a fairly simple substitution to insert more updated figures into a generally sound methodology to come up with more current results. A study like this is only ever a snapshot in time; speculation about changes that could occur in the future are appropriate in the discussion section but you can't draw definite conclusions based on speculation alone. One of the main points addressed here is that a cleaner electrical generation grid lowers the total emissions of electric vehicles over their lifetimes, but you would have to look at the paper to know that.

[Alternatepriorities]

@Alternatepriorities, thx for bringing up points I never knew about, especially the Japan example re North Slope, and more generally the lower environmental impact you're describing of doing mining projects systematically.

You're welcome.

Here's another interesting one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine

Summary - The worlds richest known untapped copper deposit VS risking the worlds richest salmon fishery... The USACE said it could be done safely, the current EPA says it's not worth the risk... but what of the next administrations? And if they rush to get it operational in a single administration wouldn't that increase the risk?

It seems to me that leaving 56 billion pounds of copper in the ground is going to slow the green revolution just a little not to mention the other metals. I'm 100% certain it will be mined more cleanly than the mines in Indonesia, but I can't say with certainty that it won't hurt the fishery. The only reason I lean toward mining it is that I'm certain it will eventually be mined and if we wait until it's a national emergency more corners will be cut and the risks will be higher. On the optimistic side maybe if we wait we'll invent a cleaner way to mine it?

 

[nereo]

I'll leave this here for your reading pleasure:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-amount-of-CO-2-emissions-of-vehicle-production-phase_tbl2_333046826

While this study is not perfect, it outlines how sensitive the emissions differences between ICE and BEV vehicles are to factors like location, lifetime distance driven, etc. The results of that study, for example, show that in the US a typical BEV wins out in emissions after about 60k km driven, whereas in Australia ICE vehicles are better throughout their lifetime due to a fairly fossil fuel heavy electrical generation grid. These factors can be modified of course - if you are charging from your own solar panels then the makeup of grid generation becomes irrelevant.

Every time I've dug into one of these studies, they've made idiotic assumptions. Examples:
1) Assuming the average car only lasts 100k km
…
I'm not going to bother checking this one.

This particular one:
“ the CO2 emissions for replacing the battery with a new one should be added when the lifetime driving distance is over 160,000 km [100,000 mi]”

In other words it assumes the entire battery needs replacement the minute you exceed most manufacturer’s minimum warranties.  Note that several manufacturers already exceed this and California now requires 10y/150k. Most (all major?) batteries can replace individual cells at this point.

What irritates me about such assumptions is they do not make the corresponding assumption: “the CO2 emissions for replacing the entire engine, transmission and drive train should be added when the lifetime driving distance is over 160k/100miles”.  That would also be ridiculous.

[TomTX]

Do you have a source for more recent production data than what is used in those studies?

They exist. For example, the Pansonic/Tesla cells and packs produced in Nevada are supposedly sourcing 100% renewable energy and represent the majority of EV batteries produced in the USA.