Despite the heresy of critical thinking today, there is always lively and healthy debate on climate science, provided that argument on both sides is uncensored, this is what real scientists care about, debate, research and investigation of theories is what drives genuine science. However, with media censorship, it appears that climate science has become a one sided story in the main stream media, is it because today journalists are told what to write? Or perhaps they have no scientific research skills? Or maybe the reason is politicians are always looking to leverage and silence healthy debate to control people and make more money.
Scientism is a politically driven growing phenomena, which we have seen creeping into all fields of health and environmental issues, especially over the last two years. It is a critical problem that leads to corruption and pollutes real science. Moreover, it is used to influence and manipulate public opinion, especially on social media. What we have seen and are seeing as a result is a push towards undemocratic regulations and policies that are imposed upon people, removing their freedom without their consent, without public participation or consultation on these decisions that affect our lives and future. There is a lack of public education, awareness, consent or review with issues involving science. So its easy for scientism to creep in and become a product of conflict of interests in elite political and corporate driven agendas, which the public should be able to freely discuss and debate without censorship in professional arenas.-Read Trust the Science or the Silenced.
Over the years, Evolve to Ecology has intensively been covering environmental issues, we have looked at empirical data, science journals, and followed the money trails of bankers and politicians, those invested in Agenda 21 and Agenda 30. The evidence suggests that focus on CO2 levels and the possibility of a newly assigned climate credit scoring on individuals is more about social engineering, power and greed than genuine science or care for the environment. Lets explain why
We have worked in the Amazon rain forest with our indigenous friends the Shiwiar, Waorani and others from Ecuador, and with their ongoing battle, we have shared their stories on how politicians and military work with foreign oil and mining companies to forcefully and illegally remove indigenous people from their own ancestral land, ancient precious rainforest. The governments hand in hand with foreign oil companies exploit the Amazon, ripping up the rain forest to get to the blood of the Amazon under the precious trees and soil. Have global governments ever come to the rescue when indigenous people were being murdered? Never once had I witnessed any government, intervene or call out and actively resolve this problem. If they really cared, why do they ignore this ongoing activity, because they are the ones with stake holds behind the foreign oil companies that continue to destroy the Amazon rainforest in Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia and other South American countries.
Twelve years ago, I interviewed a number of alternative energy innovators on recorded podcasts and listened to their stories on how certain authorities actively suppressed alternative green technologies that could have cancelled out all pollutants and emissions. The details of these were published in my first book The Silent Ecocide. Environmentally friendly technologies like these had not only been ignored as solutions to pollution, but the innovators of these technologies have also suffered, when authorities had gone after these inventors and either lynched them, financially ruined them, ended their lives or taken their devices away and slandered their public reputations, while they are also denied any patenting rights, all patents are military controlled. Whichever way this happens, those at the top have aggressively stopped alternative energy inventors to market their green technology to the public, this has been going on for decades.
Nikola Tesla, is the most famous individual in history who was persecuted, he was an aether innovator who knew how to harness wireless electricity from the aether, he was defunded by JP Morgan and other elites, who wanted to control electricity production keeping it on the wired grid to grow their own wealth and power interests, therefore Nikola Tesla was vilified and left in financial ruin due to systematic persecution and slander, then after he died in poverty, Jan. 7, 1943, the U.S. government agents promptly swept into the hotel where Tesla had been living and ceased his invention notes and files. Why is it we have wireless electromagnetic frequencies but not wireless electricity which Tesla had shown was possible, there is a disparity in our modern technology today that makes no sense.
Stanley Meyers is one of the most recent well known alternative energy innovators with his water car than was able to use the first kind of water fuel technology, though he was never credited with this. He had difficulty getting his inventions out into the world for the same reasons, officials persecuted his work and accused him of lies, in 1996 he was taken to court in Ohio for fraud on account that the water fuel cell he was using had already been developed technology of the electrolysis fuel cell, and was just being marketed as an original idea. Allegedly, there was no evidence, besides eye witness reports, that the car actually ran, although colleagues and friends of his had stories to support his claims, then during a business meeting with foreign investors at a restaurant, Meyers was eventually poisoned according to his brother, although the official coroners report was he experienced a cerebral aneurysm and somehow he had his blueprints stolen.
There seems to be a pattern in these stories from many other alternative energy and alternative health technology inventors of being persecuted, publicly slandered, or they died mysteriously or had been murdered. All these stories echoed the same vein of experiences by innovators which leads one to believe there was an active oppression which started more than seventy years ago.
Electric cars and nuclear energy
Today, electric cars are being presented as a solution, some believe nuclear powers stations are a common way to produce electricity, in reality around 10% of the world’s electricity is generated by about 440 nuclear power reactors. When I wrote The Silent Ecocide in 2015, there were less nuclear power stations than there are today, so a lot of money is being invested into the construction and expansion of nuclear power stations. About 55 more reactors are under construction in 15 countries, equivalent to approximately 15% of existing capacity. While some tout nuclear energy as the future, it is certainly is not clean energy or safe, as it produces uranium and plutonium nuclear waste each year, which requires expensive depositories to be built that usually end up in the ocean without a thought for what will happen in the future.
The USA which is only 5 percent of the world’s population, consumes 25 percent of the world’s nuclear power, so the amount of nuclear waste created per person, per year is around 40 grams, which is an incredible amount, it seems lunacy when you learn that it takes 3 million years for nuclear waste to decay.
Ticking time bombs are our legacy, relics for future civilizations to discover?
One nuclear power station generates 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year, there are 440 currently generating power, this means that altogether 880,000 metric thousand tons of nuclear waste is generated globally each year, and with 55 more nuclear power stations under construction it will be more.
”Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year. The price for a closed facility: more than $8 million, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute”- Source LA times
The cost of the project is up to 26 billion dollars to build a nuclear waste repository. Perhaps we need nuclear waste credits instead of carbon credits assigned to each individual to mitigate nuclear waste consumption?
About 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have been stored at 72 private locations across the United States, enough to cover a football field to a depth of about 66 feet, according to the Government Accountability Office.
There is a Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) outside Carlsbad, N.M, 98-foot-wide, two-mile-long ditch with steep concrete walls-”33 feet deep, that bristles with magnets and radar reflectors will stand for millennia as a warning to future humans not to trifle with what is hidden inside Paired with 48 stone or concrete 105-ton markers, etched with warnings in seven languages ranging from English to Navajo as well as human faces contorted into expressions of horror, the massive installation is meant to stand for at least 10,000 years, twice as long as the Egyptian pyramids have survived.”
”The plutonium ensconced in the salt mine at the center of this installation will be lethal to humans for at least 25 times that long—even once the salt walls ooze inward to entomb the legacy of American atomic weapons. And WIPP will only hold a fraction, though a more deadly fraction, of the amount of nuclear waste the U.S. plans to store at Yucca Mountain in Nevada or some other site designated to replace it as a permanent repository for the residue of nuclear reactions.”- Scientific American- Nuclear waste lethal trash or renewable energy source
Most of the nuclear waste ends up staying on-site at the nuclear power plants because there is nowhere else to put it.
Remember Fukushima
Japan’s, Fukushima Nuclear radiation melt down disaster, occurred after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami that took place on the 11 March, 2011 which has been contaminating the Pacific ocean with a continuous outpouring of radiation, especially from one of the radiation core rods that melted and was lost. This was kept very quite. Over the last decade scientific readings by academic scientists and global civilian nuclear radiation monitoring groups have found dangerous levels of Cesium 134 and Cesium 137, Strontium and other radionuclides in seaweed and sea life as far reaching out to the Californian Pacific ocean, sea life in the Pacific has been dying off at an alarming rates over the last decade as a result, but no funding or official investigations have been done. Due to lack of funds for deeper research, there is also a lack of information as a result scientists cannot properly measure or monitor the implications over the years of bioaccumulation on marine life food chains and ecosystems or how this radiation leak has impacted neighbouring ocean life ecosystems. Instead it has already been forgotten about and through lack of funding, and without the support and attention of governments to investigate, this really is the largest scale silent ecocide presently still impacting the Pacific ocean, this and the on going effects of the Mexican Gulf Oil disaster have had a profound impact on marine life and will undoubtedly continue to have a detrimental effect on ecology and on human health.
Japan plans to release Fukushima nuclear plant’s wastewater into the sea next year, 12 years on from the disaster. The country’s nuclear regulator today approved plans by the site’s operator to release the treated radioactive water in 2023, saying the environmental risks are minimal!-Source. There are many environmental scientists and ecologists that would disagree, looking at the data from the impact on the ocean ecology already.
Governments mostly ignore and supress the outcome of the Fukushima crisis and promote nuclear power as the safest and cleanest, with electric cars as a solution? Surprisingly, a lot of nuclear power stations are build near or on fault lines, so we cannot say this won’t happen again somewhere.
Do we have enough energy power sufficient for everyone to drive an electric car?
So far when pilot studies were tried in California, regular power outages have occurred which means so far we do not have the capacity for everyone to drive an electric vehicle let alone recharging stations.
France is the only EU country that boasts 56 operable nuclear reactors, which provides 70 percent nuclear power and they have built hundreds of recharging stations along their roads. Most countries lack this type of infrastructure, especially the United States, and the UK is having to renew and update most of its nuclear power stations. It doesn’t appear that they are prepared for going fully electric with power shortages becoming an ongoing problem in Western countries, especially if it is mandatory to use electric vehicles, wouldn’t it be better to encourage a diversity of different fuel systems for vehicles, instead of one type, so as to avoid power outages?
Then there are the natural resources required for electric vehicles and their batteries, materials like cobalt and neodymium which means that most countries will be required to alliance with China, the leading supplier of these resources. China mines about 70% of the world’s supply of “rare earths,” including neodymium, which is an essential ingredient in electric motors. China controls about half of global lithium production and about 85% of the world’s supply of cobalt, a critical ingredient in the batteries used in electric vehicles.
The UK’s climate goals are not realistic, their requirement is that all its vehicles be converted to electricity by 2050. Natural History Museum, Professor Herrington and his team set out to investigate how many resources were required so this could be fulfilled, what they found was that it would take two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters of the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production, just for the UK to convert to electric vehicles- Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK by 2050
We know the United States, is much larger as a country and has many more people driving cars, so that would be a near impossible vision to fulfil, if it is already shown to be unfeasible in the UK.
An article published by The New York Post in 2019 stated that –
”Even if cobalt, neodymium and the other commodities needed to produce millions of electric vehicles were widely available — and not controlled by the Chinese government — mining and smelting the vast quantities of material needed to make those automobiles will itself require enormous amounts of energy, and therefore mean more carbon dioxide emissions.”- Robert Bryce – Why we can’t possibly switch everyone to electric cars
China controls about half of global lithium production and about 85% of the world’s supply of cobalt. Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium resources. Together with Chile and Argentina, the so-called South American “lithium triangle” holds almost 60 percent of the planet’s known lithium deposits.
Lithium batteries require a great deal of energy to mine and extract the resource, at least 500, 000 tons of earth have to be shifted to produce just one car battery and they are a problem to dispose of causing more serious pollution.
Hemp batteries are not only more eco friendly, but 8 times more powerful than the lithium batteries which is a depleting resource. Hemp fibres are also a graphene alternative for a fraction of the cost. Since graphene can cost a fortune to produce, hemp fibre could prove to be extremely useful- Hemp battery direct
CO2
CO2 in its natural cycle gets sequestered back into the forests, plants, tree respiration, soils, oceans, underneath the Earth’s moving plate tectonics, geological rocks, carbon dioxide sequestering can increase if we plant thousands more trees, as trees store carbon in their trunks as well as roots and soil ecosystems. so why aren’t the wealthiest governments running continual tree planting programs? Ethiopia planted millions of trees a few years ago, if one of the world’s poorest countries has achieved this, there is no excuse for Western countries to follow their example. As this is the simplest solution if they really are that concerned about Carbon emissions. Politicians and Bankers love focusing on CO2 emissions because they can make millions from Carbon taxing and trading on the stock market.
Your Carbon Credit Quota
Mastercard and the United Nations have partnered to make a credit card that tracks your purchases to monitor your carbon consumption. Once the limit is met the card will not work.
First they invite people to volunteer then will make it more mandatory, they are want to limit people’s freedom with individual carbon credit roll outs starting with pilot DO credit card schemes, . Although its great to be conscious of what you are consuming and producing in terms of waste, its not really a viable system that is sustainably contributing to the environmental balance like planting more trees and taking care of forests and peat bogs which sequester thousands of tons of carbon and are a great carbon sink. Neither is this focusing on solutions to the cause of pollution or our energy production problems.
Just focusing on CO2 as a cause for influencing temperature is a common unscientific assumption among many, that negates other Earth and ecological influences. The satellite space weather data has shown that there have not been any significant temperature rises over the last 15 years. The Vostok ice-core data have shown many times throughout their 420,000 year recorded history, temperatures have fluctuated and at times were shown surpassing CO2 levels. We cannot negate all other factors that influence climate cycles, such as Solar Mass Ejection activity, Geological records and activity such as Volcanic eruptions, atmospheric gas changes, UV radiation etc.
The media driven global warming narrative is a politically funded movement that aims at taking away much of our freedom with individual climate credit quotas. Then there are some climate protestors who call themselves The Extinction Rebellion, that use strange symbology and creepy performances in their public marches, which looks more like an illuminati parade, is that really about climate? When speaking to some climate activists, if you ask them why the United Nations IPCC report on ‘Global Warming’ ignored 33 scientific papers out of 45. They don’t even know that is a fact nor can they the reasons why, they instead may accuse you of being a climate denier, (rather than a critical thinker or someone who believes in the integrity of non- biased science). Or if you ask them what are the solutions they propose? Most will regurgitate the same ideology as the government and media, few will respond with out of the box thinking. Many climate protestors won’t consider the environmental impact or cost of nuclear power, nor do they have other solutions for alternative energy. They also don’t seem to be aware of the climate credit social scoring system looming over our heads or the unrealistic demands that electric vehicles would put on as a much larger burden to deplete minerals and resources that are in finite supply, if it was mandatory for everyone to drive an electric car, production of the minerals required for the manufacturing of electric automobiles will also demand enormous amounts of energy, and therefore far greater carbon dioxide emissions.
It would be great to see more environmentalists researching the bigger picture beyond the government dictated solutions, or engaging on viable solutions to help the environment, rewilding wasteland, planting more trees, environmental education, diversifying alternative energy solutions, instead of herding themselves and the rest of us into more limited freedoms with government regulations enforcing climate lockdowns, or assigned carbon credit limits for each individual, where we chose between travel to work and heating our homes in winter. As this is the reality we are heading towards should we all go along with the official narratives and government solutions.
Meanwhile, the central digital bank currencies are being put into place, which means there will be no cash in circulation, a few years from now, in Europe it will go into effect in some EU countries in 2023 and we will all be using our cell phones to pay for everything just like they do in China. Report here -Gaining momentum – Results of the 2021 BIS survey
on central bank digital currencies
Conclusion
It is not viable for the entire world to switch to electric vehicles, we do not have enough mineral resources to go around the globe to achieve demand and supply, nor the capacity of electric power energy to fulfil this demand, it is neither greener or more sustainable, It is in fact far more costly and detrimental with billions more needed to dispose of more nuclear waste being produced, even if we had the minerals to achieve electric vehicle production on such a large scale.
The environmental impact is far more costly with more nuclear waste being produced and a total depletion of precious minerals of cobalt, neodymium and lithium even for one country small country it is not possible to meet these demands. Neodymium, cobalt and Lithium are resources that China has a monopoly on and even if we had enough of these resources, the energy to mine and manufacture vehicles creates a detrimental impact on the mining and energy expended to do this as well as smelt and manufacture the cars emits even more CO2 emissions, which is an oxymoron.
The oligarchs, governments and super corporations will only ever steer society to choose solutions that keep the 1 percent elite in power, while controlling the energy grid and limiting energy consumption to the people. When are super corporations held accountable for their environmental impact or for their energy consumption? When are the 1 percent elite held accountable for their lavish lifestyles that will never be affected by any regulations imposed on the rest of humanity.
Then there are very few politicians that genuinely do care about the environment, the few that do, have a very difficult time to get their proposals funded or supported by others. Especially if this means taking power and finances away from those that have the most control. As stated earlier in this article, those who have the power, also have a habit of stamping out real viable solutions along with the innovators that came up with these new technologies, so we are being kept in stagnation rather than evolution. We are living in times where we are seeing our personal freedoms diminish, first it was for the health of all, now it is under the guise of mitigating carbon emissions to care for the environment.
The UK recently debated a ban especially on domestic flights. As a result Green lockdowns are being encouraged across the EU, they claim on their webpage Coronavirus lockdowns was their inspiration, they have an app called GOME that monitors, tracks and traces, your daily lifestyle and coaches you on how to be more green. We will soon see more limitations on our ability to travel and energy consumption will be limited severely by assigning carbon credit limits to each individual, which really are another type of social credit scores.
A look at Solutions
How is limiting each individual’s freedom a better solution instead of exploring other alternative solutions such as diversifying more alternative energy to invest in and chose from.
Carbon dioxide is significant for chemical reactions, and one opportunity could be to look at carbon dioxide as a valuable resource for the synthesis of other precious elements, as well as sequestering it back to the natural cycle, the result would also provide cleaner energy materials and off grid resources. A scientific research group in 2019 announced at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), have been experimenting with Carbon dioxide and how it could be applied in a way to increase the development of Graphene, an essential material that could revolutionise clean alternative energy harnessing, with Carbon dioxide. They discovered they could utilise carbon dioxide combined with hydrogen gas is converted directly into graphene at temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Celsius with the help of specially prepared, catalytically active metal surfaces. Graphene, is a technological material which is currently the subject of intense study, especially because it has some properties that make it useful in producing alternative energy, as it is a great electromagnetic conductor. Now this adds even more exciting developments to the possibilities of nanotechnology when applied to exotic alternative energy possibilities of the future of free energy, especially for the Solar industry.
Back in 2011, Justin Hall-Tipping was the first scientific pioneer to use graphene in Nano Solar energy, which is a huge innovation in nanotechnology, that few people still have not heard much about today. This technology could make nuclear and coal power stations obsolete. Tippin and his group of nano-tech and solar energy scientists produced a clear film of transparent plastic, that you can stick to your window, turning a window of any building into a an electricity generator or a modern power station to produce all your power needs or send others energy if they need it.
The entrepreneur, Justin Hall-Tipping, told his story on TED in 2011, how he sought out the world’s leading nanotechnology scientists to harness the electron and create energy through nanotechnology, now they have a company called Nanoholdings, which consisted of team of scientists, investors and innovators working at the cutting-edge of nanotechnology to develop solutions to the world’s growing energy problems. Working in partnership with the world’s best universities, they have developed products and companies that will revolutionise the way we use and generate energy.
Imagine you live in a building that has very large windows, you can use each window much like a solar panel, simply by using a thin plastic film with energy harnessing systems, embedded inside the film as fine or finer than a human hair, the plastic sheet can be stuck onto the window panes of a house or office building to use the light and heat energy beaming in through the window. This becomes a powerhouse using graphene nanotechnology to convert light energy from the sun to power up the building for heat or to cool or generate electricity and if it is not required there, it can then be sent to someone else who needs it more. However, a decade since his TED presentation, which has also been taken off the TED site, his website Nanoholdings seems to have disappeared off of the face of the internet and so has any trace of Justin-Hall Tipping’s amazing solar transparent film. I fear the same fate has taken Justin and his technology as other alternative energy pioneers.
More recently, other science teams have also created transparent solar cells, not as efficient as Hall-Tipping’s solar transparent window films, but it is important to have a variety of different teams working on these new technologies due to their possible oppression. In 2019 researchers at the University of Michigan have developed a technique to manufacture their highly efficient and semi-transparent solar cells at scale, 10 percent more efficient and a 30 year long life span, these can be brought to home windows.
Biofuels produced from recycled waste rather than land grabs, such as recycled coffee grounds and recycled vegetable oil or hemp oil used in place of diesel fuel in diesel engines, which has been proven effective when used in public transport pilot studies, or recycling ocean plastic and blending it with ethanol to create a viable clean fuel that can be much cheaper than oil and clean up the plastic waste in the oceans and on landfill sites also, or the simple act of everyone of us planting trees, if we see this and next generations planting millions more trees or taking care of the rainforest and oceans, we are likely to build a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future.
by
Carlita Shaw
References
Fukushima Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity
Why we can’t possibly switch everyone to electric cars
Related Evolve to Ecology Articles
Dr Patrick Moore on Climate, Energy and Population
Thierry Baudet on the Dutch Farmers Resistance
Ecuador Triumphs after 18 days of Strikes
Hot Topics that need to be discussed at the 2021 Climate Conferences
Save the Soil, Save the World- The Need to Grow
Regenerative Farming, Encouraging Biodiversity, Soil Regeneration and Carbon Storage
Opportunities with Sustainable Philippines-Aquaponics School in Panglao, Philippines.
44 Percent of Earth’s Land Requires Biodiversity Conservation
Save Our Pollinators, Save Our World
Only 19% of Earth’s land is still ‘wild’
Uncovered-The Ecological Solutions of Mycology
Across Latin America, palm oil violations abound — with little accountability
Ecocide to become a Punishable Crime
The Connection between Depression & Environmental Degradation
500,000 Pounds: Total Materials Extracted and Processed per Electric Car Battery
A lithium EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds.(a) While there are dozens of variations, such a battery typically contains about 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt, 60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper,(b) about 400 pounds of steel, aluminum, and various plastic components.(c)
Looking upstream at the ore grades, one can estimate the typical quantity of rock that must be extracted from the earth and processed to yield the pure minerals needed to fabricate that single battery:
• Lithium brines typically contain less than 0.1% lithium, so that entails some 25,000 pounds of brines to get the 25 pounds of pure lithium.(d)
• Cobalt ore grades average about 0.1%, thus nearly 30,000 pounds of ore.(e)
• Nickel ore grades average about 1%, thus about 6,000 pounds of ore.(f)
• Graphite ore is typically 10%, thus about 1,000 pounds per battery.(g)
• Copper at about 0.6% in the ore, thus about 25,000 pounds of ore per battery.(h)
This means that accessing about 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over 1,500,000 pounds of earth—a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds per battery. The precise number will vary for different battery chemistry formulations, and because different regions have widely variable ore grades. It bears noting that this total material footprint does not include the large quantities of materials and chemicals used to process and refine all the various ores. Nor have we counted other materials used when compared with a conventional car, such as replacing steel with aluminum to offset the weight penalty of the battery, or the supply chain for rare earth elements used in electric motors (e.g., neodymium, dysprosium).(j) Also excluded from this tally: the related, but non-battery, electrical systems in an EV use some 300% more overall copper used compared with a conventional automobile.(k)
Some useful references (a) Helena Berg and Mats Zackrisson, “Perspectives on Environmental and Cost Assessment of Lithium Metal Negative Electrodes in Electric Vehicle Traction Batteries,” Journal of Power Sources 415 (March 2019): 83–90.
(b) Marcelo Azevedo et al., “Lithium and Cobalt: A Tale of Two Commodities,” McKinsey & Company, June 22, 2018; Matt Badiali, “Tesla Can’t Make Electric Cars Without Copper,” Banyan Hill, Nov. 3, 2017; Amit Katwala, “The Spiraling Environmental Cost of Our Lithium Battery Addiction,” Wired, Aug. 5, 2018.
(c) Paul Gait, “Raw Material Bottlenecks and Commodity Winners,” in Electric Revolution: Investing in the Car of the Future, Bernstein Global Research, March 2017; Fred Lambert, “Breakdown of Raw Materials in Tesla’s Batteries and Possible Bottlenecks,” electrek.co, Nov. 1, 2016; Matt Bohlsen, “A Look at the Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Nickel Sector,” Seeking Alpha, Mar. 7, 2017.
(d) Hanna Vikström et al., “Lithium Availability and Future Production Outlooks,” Applied Energy 110 (2013): 252–66.
Some useful references (a) Helena Berg and Mats Zackrisson, “Perspectives on Environmental and Cost Assessment of Lithium Metal Negative Electrodes in Electric Vehicle Traction Batteries,” Journal of Power Sources 415 (March 2019): 83–90.
(b) Marcelo Azevedo et al., “Lithium and Cobalt: A Tale of Two Commodities,” McKinsey & Company, June 22, 2018; Matt Badiali, “Tesla Can’t Make Electric Cars Without Copper,” Banyan Hill, Nov. 3, 2017; Amit Katwala, “The Spiraling Environmental Cost of Our Lithium Battery Addiction,” Wired, Aug. 5, 2018.
(c) Paul Gait, “Raw Material Bottlenecks and Commodity Winners,” in Electric Revolution: Investing in the Car of the Future, Bernstein Global Research, March 2017; Fred Lambert, “Breakdown of Raw Materials in Tesla’s Batteries and Possible Bottlenecks,” electrek.co, Nov. 1, 2016; Matt Bohlsen, “A Look at the Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Nickel Sector,” Seeking Alpha, Mar. 7, 2017.
(d) Hanna Vikström et al., “Lithium Availability and Future Production Outlooks,” Applied Energy 110 (2013): 252–66. (i) DOE, Industrial Technologies Program, Mining Industry Bandwidth Study, prepared by BCS, Inc., June 2007; Glencore McArthur River Mine, “Overburden.” The seven tons of overburden per ton of ore mined is highly variable.
(j) Jeff Desjardins, “Extraordinary Raw Materials in a Tesla Model S,” visualcapitalist.com, Mar. 7, 2016; Laura Talens Peiró and Gara Villalba Méndez, “Material and Energy Requirement for Rare Earth Production,” JOM 65, no. 10 (October 2013): 1327–40.
(k) Copper Development Association, “Copper Drives Electric Vehicles,” 2018.
Some are debating the Cat Fuel estimates for a 12 hour shift various estimates from these different people who have worked with the machines. https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/cat-994-fuel-consumption.94089/ There is a lot to consider such as if the vehicle is taking the load to much of a distance or dumping it next to digging site, the bucket load might vary, and how many bucket loads would it take for it to make 500,000 Ib, some say around 4 or 5 others say 1, depends on bucket size fitted. Then weight of the vehicle which would weigh be more than 500,000 Ibs, then there is the burn rate if the load is in a sand and gravel pit it has to work harder and the loader might burn 60 to 100 times more fuel. Some experienced Cat workers said the gallons of fuel per hour would range between 60 and 70 US gallons then if the vehicle is working a 12 hour shift that would be around 720 to 840 plus 60 to 100 percent more so that would be around or under the estimation of the Caterpillar in the main article photo, which is just to illustrate the point, there are variables that we have to assume and some we don’t have information on so I included links for those who care to focus on this point of the article rather than the entire article, which has verifiable sourced links backing up other figures in the article, aside from the main photo header. Thanks
Factors affecting burn rate
1. Machine Application: The type of work the machine performs is a primary factor. In a difficult load-and-carry application (in a sand-and-gravel pit, for instance), says Caterpillar, a loader might burn 60 to 100 percent more fuel than the same machine in a truck-loading application in an aggregates yard.
2. https://www.constructionequipment.com/home/blog/10727772/thinking-through-fuel-burn-rates
[…] The Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles- Carbon credits, Nuclear Power, Alternative Energy […]
[…] The Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles- Carbon credits, Nuclear Power, Alternative Energy […]
[…] The Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles- Carbon credits, Nuclear Power, Alternative Energy […]
[…] The Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles- Carbon credits, Nuclear Power, Alternative Energy […]