New study suggests EVs are supercharging an impending environmental crisis (msn.com)

The amount of copper required is apparently not available for mining!

" As per a new study titled "Copper mining and vehicle electrification" by Cornell professor Lawrence M. Cathles and University of Michigan Earth & Environmental Sciences professor Adam Simon, copper cannot be mined quickly enough to make the wires and other components needed to fulfill the current goals toward renewable energy."

 

New study suggests EVs are supercharging an impending environmental crisis (msn.com)

The amount of copper required is apparently not available for mining!

" As per a new study titled "Copper mining and vehicle electrification" by Cornell professor Lawrence M. Cathles and University of Michigan Earth & Environmental Sciences professor Adam Simon, copper cannot be mined quickly enough to make the wires and other components needed to fulfill the current goals toward renewable energy."

EVs are green. Reality need not apply.

 

So the obvious solution is to recover scrapped copper from landfills and scrapped electrical appliances. and recover it from torn down buildings. Scrap wires and pipes. And less disruptive than mining for it.

 

...and recover it from torn down buildings. Scrap wires and pipes.

The homeless already got to it...scrap or otherwise.

 

After having a 500' triplex run of 400MCM cable that I had ordered for a project and had seen in the warehouse stolen from our on-plant construction warehouse the vendor showed me a video of his fenced in storage lot. It showed the guy coming over the 10' chain linked fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top. He goes around cutting sections of copper cable that he can carry from the large wooden spools and throws them over the fence. After he has all he can handle he goes back and scales the fence. However, in crossing the barbed wire he somehow gets his ankle between two of the strands and falls. He then hung by his ankle outside the fence several hours until daylight when you then see the patrol car arrive and help remove him and take him into custody. We also caught the guys raiding our construction warehouse as they had the bad habit of returning for more a few nights later and due to the well beaten down trail across the wilds of the plant to the back fence the police had staked it out and took them also into custody.

 

Now the challenge will be to recover the value and cost of the cable made unusable by the criminals. The current price of that size cable in my area is several dollars per foot.

 

Joeyd, Joeyd. RE:""EVs are green ""
Sure Locally are. But Globally....
The production environmental damage is 2x as much as Diesel. There are tons of proof for this.
The human child slave-labor usage 1000 000 000 fold larger.
The exploitation environmental impact (globally).... if bad Diesel have engine efficiency about 39% but good today have at least 43% and best of best near 49% (yet last at Miller cycle not in Carnot cycle) then just witchcraft a bit to sniff out the EV fuel efficiency! The loss in electric motor at least 4% or maybe 6%. The loss in the inverter.driver/controller etc no less than 8% but more probable about 12-13%, the loss in battery discharge - different authors contradict each other, but somewhere between 8 and 12% they agree. The battery chemical energy loss at recharge no less than 10%, the battery charger loss between 12-13% and 6%, the loss in low voltage power lines, no less than 20-30%, the loss in high voltage power lines, about 22-25%, the loss in TEC what generates electricity - 75% if ordinary type and 60-65% if most ever ultra-modern with double energy recovering. Thus multiply this all and look, is it over or below the 15% of efficiency - like Stephensson locomotive!
Okay, probably You may have an illusions about why not to feed those EV by Solar or Wind energy? If so, ask WHEN You are outside of home driving and when want to recharge? Ist it happen at nighttime? Sure Your land is bit larger than mine where one side sun is jumping up, while another is sliding down the horizon, but long-range transport have efficiency dramatically low. Thus locally there is no Sun when needed and there is plethora of Sun when unneeded. Similar of wind energy, it rarely pass with when its needed and mostly is not available when have to be here now.
Thus, one of most important Energetics Law of nowadays - if want to install 1 GW of Solar or Wind, MUST install beforehand the 2 GW of TEC what is on "hot jump" regime - consuming a huge resources to be warm, but producing nothing. Thus, factual environmental cost of EV is AT LEAST 3x more dramatic as drow above. The EV is truly suicide of Planet not an any Save of it.

And, last but no least!
CO2 IS NOT the "bad gas" but instead it makes all the green grass and trees to bloom up multiplicative.
There are data, duplicating CO2 concentration, the biomass global tonnage may even 10x.
The human may stand up at least 100x concentration of today. The global CO2 balance is regulated by Ocean keeping the total accumulated CO2 for many many orders over that amount be find in the Atmosphere. And there the only one law of Chemistry regulates the atmospheric concentration - the Temperature, because at hot T the CO2 solubility DECREASES (not increases as would seem more logical). Thus it explains WHY NASA data files (welcome in their site!!- its public!) why FIRST is happening temperature increase and ONLY THEN happens CO2 concentration increase. The result what is happening before the Cause?? Then this is first case in the Science history where something similar indeed is true.
And what about the Stephan-Boltzmann law? In which degree of Temperature is proportional the thermal radiation of black-body? I was taught that in fourth. Okay, take the in-flux of energy, average T is 5772 K what corresponds to roughly 450 nano meters of wavelength. What is out-coming radiation - its by Wien second law is around 10...12...15 micro meters. So, divide (approx) 10 000/500=40 and make a 40 in step 4 what gives a 0.4 millionth part of influx But thats was maximum out-flux, CO2 may eat up only part of it, thus the Earth ecosystem is even more stable. If UNO data shows nowadays Human caused Total CO2 out-flux is about 3% of Natural, then do You INDEED are SURE that God All-mighty made out Planet so much dramatically unstable that changing that flux for one milliardth (billionth) part the whole Planet will collapse? For me it sounds absurd!
Okay, go in-deep. Take the other tool labelled Beer-Lambert Law. It descriptive the ability of gaseous or liquid environment to absorb the part of irradiation energy. Math there contains few logarithms, sorry for that, but Herr Majesty Excel digests it by an appetite, thus let make a tiny but spectacular examination - take the CO2 constants published by IPCC and ut in that Beer equation. I did it and did multiple times and cases. I imaginative a "total fail" experiment guessing that something awful happened and now CO2 is taking 99% of planet atmosphere. How much more energy will be absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere layer?The answer is surprising a bit. Few percents more than today. I repeated that examination. Imagine situation when CO2 is only 10x more than today. Result - for about 1/1000 of percent larger absorbed energy flux.
And then I remember for WHAT US are hunting the Assange! His stolen private e-letters between highest positions of IPCC head persons. Where they talked how to hide the clear contradictions with the Science of the Global Warming Hypothesis.
Your`s PhD candid for Env Sci and Manag, in past - 11 years for State prime Leading inspector for Air Bassin Environmental issues, Now 25 years for - Scientific researcher at laboratory of atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy of State University, professional MSc Phys+radiophys and PhD Phys candid at stage of dissertation is written. You may not blame me as badly informed person.
Ah, ya, my friend, the local physicist having hit his 100 year birthday next month, is very keen to philosophy on the GW hypothesis, thus he invented a wonderful device able to measure perfectly the energy fluxes. I asked him - flux looking on Sun is about 1 000 000 fold larger than those coming out of Earth staying in dark cellar, when measurer is cryogenic (sorry, not to liquid helium but only LN2). More over - his every conversation drilled idea is - inside the atmosphere the MAIN energy transfer happens NOT by an irradiation (rays model) but with DIFFUSE irradiation (no concrete angle for rays). Thus the out-flux identically have NO ANY concrete direction, or other words, CO2 may not be able to absorb those out-flux part if that part not exist (roughly).

In main lines I dont like a Trump. His pro-russian politics is dreadful. But his Environmental politics was truly sound, including the idea that EV ARE NOT anything clean or good. He probably had a good adviser set for environmental issues.

 

Joeyd, Joeyd. RE:""EVs are green ""
Sure Locally are. But Globally....
The production environmental damage is 2x as much as Diesel. There are tons of proof for this.
The human child slave-labor usage 1000 000 000 fold larger.
The exploitation environmental impact (globally).... if bad Diesel have engine efficiency about 39% but good today have at least 43% and best of best near 49% (yet last at Miller cycle not in Carnot cycle) then just witchcraft a bit to sniff out the EV fuel efficiency! The loss in electric motor at least 4% or maybe 6%. The loss in the inverter.driver/controller etc no less than 8% but more probable about 12-13%, the loss in battery discharge - different authors contradict each other, but somewhere between 8 and 12% they agree. The battery chemical energy loss at recharge no less than 10%, the battery charger loss between 12-13% and 6%, the loss in low voltage power lines, no less than 20-30%, the loss in high voltage power lines, about 22-25%, the loss in TEC what generates electricity - 75% if ordinary type and 60-65% if most ever ultra-modern with double energy recovering. Thus multiply this all and look, is it over or below the 15% of efficiency - like Stephensson locomotive!
Okay, probably You may have an illusions about why not to feed those EV by Solar or Wind energy? If so, ask WHEN You are outside of home driving and when want to recharge? Ist it happen at nighttime? Sure Your land is bit larger than mine where one side sun is jumping up, while another is sliding down the horizon, but long-range transport have efficiency dramatically low. Thus locally there is no Sun when needed and there is plethora of Sun when unneeded. Similar of wind energy, it rarely pass with when its needed and mostly is not available when have to be here now.
Thus, one of most important Energetics Law of nowadays - if want to install 1 GW of Solar or Wind, MUST install beforehand the 2 GW of TEC what is on "hot jump" regime - consuming a huge resources to be warm, but producing nothing. Thus, factual environmental cost of EV is AT LEAST 3x more dramatic as drow above. The EV is truly suicide of Planet not an any Save of it.

And, last but no least!
CO2 IS NOT the "bad gas" but instead it makes all the green grass and trees to bloom up multiplicative.
There are data, duplicating CO2 concentration, the biomass global tonnage may even 10x.
The human may stand up at least 100x concentration of today. The global CO2 balance is regulated by Ocean keeping the total accumulated CO2 for many many orders over that amount be find in the Atmosphere. And there the only one law of Chemistry regulates the atmospheric concentration - the Temperature, because at hot T the CO2 solubility DECREASES (not increases as would seem more logical). Thus it explains WHY NASA data files (welcome in their site!!- its public!) why FIRST is happening temperature increase and ONLY THEN happens CO2 concentration increase. The result what is happening before the Cause?? Then this is first case in the Science history where something similar indeed is true.
And what about the Stephan-Boltzmann law? In which degree of Temperature is proportional the thermal radiation of black-body? I was taught that in fourth. Okay, take the in-flux of energy, average T is 5772 K what corresponds to roughly 450 nano meters of wavelength. What is out-coming radiation - its by Wien second law is around 10...12...15 micro meters. So, divide (approx) 10 000/500=40 and make a 40 in step 4 what gives a 0.4 millionth part of influx But thats was maximum out-flux, CO2 may eat up only part of it, thus the Earth ecosystem is even more stable. If UNO data shows nowadays Human caused Total CO2 out-flux is about 3% of Natural, then do You INDEED are SURE that God All-mighty made out Planet so much dramatically unstable that changing that flux for one milliardth (billionth) part the whole Planet will collapse? For me it sounds absurd!
Okay, go in-deep. Take the other tool labelled Beer-Lambert Law. It descriptive the ability of gaseous or liquid environment to absorb the part of irradiation energy. Math there contains few logarithms, sorry for that, but Herr Majesty Excel digests it by an appetite, thus let make a tiny but spectacular examination - take the CO2 constants published by IPCC and ut in that Beer equation. I did it and did multiple times and cases. I imaginative a "total fail" experiment guessing that something awful happened and now CO2 is taking 99% of planet atmosphere. How much more energy will be absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere layer?The answer is surprising a bit. Few percents more than today. I repeated that examination. Imagine situation when CO2 is only 10x more than today. Result - for about 1/1000 of percent larger absorbed energy flux.
And then I remember for WHAT US are hunting the Assange! His stolen private e-letters between highest positions of IPCC head persons. Where they talked how to hide the clear contradictions with the Science of the Global Warming Hypothesis.
Your`s PhD candid for Env Sci and Manag, in past - 11 years for State prime Leading inspector for Air Bassin Environmental issues, Now 25 years for - Scientific researcher at laboratory of atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy of State University, professional MSc Phys+radiophys and PhD Phys candid at stage of dissertation is written. You may not blame me as badly informed person.
Ah, ya, my friend, the local physicist having hit his 100 year birthday next month, is very keen to philosophy on the GW hypothesis, thus he invented a wonderful device able to measure perfectly the energy fluxes. I asked him - flux looking on Sun is about 1 000 000 fold larger than those coming out of Earth staying in dark cellar, when measurer is cryogenic (sorry, not to liquid helium but only LN2). More over - his every conversation drilled idea is - inside the atmosphere the MAIN energy transfer happens NOT by an irradiation (rays model) but with DIFFUSE irradiation (no concrete angle for rays). Thus the out-flux identically have NO ANY concrete direction, or other words, CO2 may not be able to absorb those out-flux part if that part not exist (roughly).

In main lines I dont like a Trump. His pro-russian politics is dreadful. But his Environmental politics was truly sound, including the idea that EV ARE NOT anything clean or good. He probably had a good adviser set for environmental issues.

While every fact you asserted is true, there are those (even here on this site) who would rather see you dead than believe you.

 

Joeyd, Joeyd. RE:""EVs are green ""
Sure Locally are. But Globally....
The production environmental damage is 2x as much as Diesel. There are tons of proof for this.
The human child slave-labor usage 1000 000 000 fold larger.
The exploitation environmental impact (globally).... if bad Diesel have engine efficiency about 39% but good today have at least 43% and best of best near 49% (yet last at Miller cycle not in Carnot cycle) then just witchcraft a bit to sniff out the EV fuel efficiency! The loss in electric motor at least 4% or maybe 6%. The loss in the inverter.driver/controller etc no less than 8% but more probable about 12-13%, the loss in battery discharge - different authors contradict each other, but somewhere between 8 and 12% they agree. The battery chemical energy loss at recharge no less than 10%, the battery charger loss between 12-13% and 6%, the loss in low voltage power lines, no less than 20-30%, the loss in high voltage power lines, about 22-25%, the loss in TEC what generates electricity - 75% if ordinary type and 60-65% if most ever ultra-modern with double energy recovering. Thus multiply this all and look, is it over or below the 15% of efficiency - like Stephensson locomotive!
Okay, probably You may have an illusions about why not to feed those EV by Solar or Wind energy? If so, ask WHEN You are outside of home driving and when want to recharge? Ist it happen at nighttime? Sure Your land is bit larger than mine where one side sun is jumping up, while another is sliding down the horizon, but long-range transport have efficiency dramatically low. Thus locally there is no Sun when needed and there is plethora of Sun when unneeded. Similar of wind energy, it rarely pass with when its needed and mostly is not available when have to be here now.
Thus, one of most important Energetics Law of nowadays - if want to install 1 GW of Solar or Wind, MUST install beforehand the 2 GW of TEC what is on "hot jump" regime - consuming a huge resources to be warm, but producing nothing. Thus, factual environmental cost of EV is AT LEAST 3x more dramatic as drow above. The EV is truly suicide of Planet not an any Save of it.

And, last but no least!
CO2 IS NOT the "bad gas" but instead it makes all the green grass and trees to bloom up multiplicative.
There are data, duplicating CO2 concentration, the biomass global tonnage may even 10x.
The human may stand up at least 100x concentration of today. The global CO2 balance is regulated by Ocean keeping the total accumulated CO2 for many many orders over that amount be find in the Atmosphere. And there the only one law of Chemistry regulates the atmospheric concentration - the Temperature, because at hot T the CO2 solubility DECREASES (not increases as would seem more logical). Thus it explains WHY NASA data files (welcome in their site!!- its public!) why FIRST is happening temperature increase and ONLY THEN happens CO2 concentration increase. The result what is happening before the Cause?? Then this is first case in the Science history where something similar indeed is true.
And what about the Stephan-Boltzmann law? In which degree of Temperature is proportional the thermal radiation of black-body? I was taught that in fourth. Okay, take the in-flux of energy, average T is 5772 K what corresponds to roughly 450 nano meters of wavelength. What is out-coming radiation - its by Wien second law is around 10...12...15 micro meters. So, divide (approx) 10 000/500=40 and make a 40 in step 4 what gives a 0.4 millionth part of influx But thats was maximum out-flux, CO2 may eat up only part of it, thus the Earth ecosystem is even more stable. If UNO data shows nowadays Human caused Total CO2 out-flux is about 3% of Natural, then do You INDEED are SURE that God All-mighty made out Planet so much dramatically unstable that changing that flux for one milliardth (billionth) part the whole Planet will collapse? For me it sounds absurd!
Okay, go in-deep. Take the other tool labelled Beer-Lambert Law. It descriptive the ability of gaseous or liquid environment to absorb the part of irradiation energy. Math there contains few logarithms, sorry for that, but Herr Majesty Excel digests it by an appetite, thus let make a tiny but spectacular examination - take the CO2 constants published by IPCC and ut in that Beer equation. I did it and did multiple times and cases. I imaginative a "total fail" experiment guessing that something awful happened and now CO2 is taking 99% of planet atmosphere. How much more energy will be absorbed by CO2 in atmosphere layer?The answer is surprising a bit. Few percents more than today. I repeated that examination. Imagine situation when CO2 is only 10x more than today. Result - for about 1/1000 of percent larger absorbed energy flux.
And then I remember for WHAT US are hunting the Assange! His stolen private e-letters between highest positions of IPCC head persons. Where they talked how to hide the clear contradictions with the Science of the Global Warming Hypothesis.
Your`s PhD candid for Env Sci and Manag, in past - 11 years for State prime Leading inspector for Air Bassin Environmental issues, Now 25 years for - Scientific researcher at laboratory of atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy of State University, professional MSc Phys+radiophys and PhD Phys candid at stage of dissertation is written. You may not blame me as badly informed person.
Ah, ya, my friend, the local physicist having hit his 100 year birthday next month, is very keen to philosophy on the GW hypothesis, thus he invented a wonderful device able to measure perfectly the energy fluxes. I asked him - flux looking on Sun is about 1 000 000 fold larger than those coming out of Earth staying in dark cellar, when measurer is cryogenic (sorry, not to liquid helium but only LN2). More over - his every conversation drilled idea is - inside the atmosphere the MAIN energy transfer happens NOT by an irradiation (rays model) but with DIFFUSE irradiation (no concrete angle for rays). Thus the out-flux identically have NO ANY concrete direction, or other words, CO2 may not be able to absorb those out-flux part if that part not exist (roughly).

In main lines I dont like a Trump. His pro-russian politics is dreadful. But his Environmental politics was truly sound, including the idea that EV ARE NOT anything clean or good. He probably had a good adviser set for environmental issues.

What I see is that while certainly pollution should be reduced, and energy efficiency improvement is good,
I see a less honest goal in the whole exercise. Consider that the initial group shouting the loudest were the ones who had been for decades telling us how terrible it was that part of the world was living so very well, while a different part of the world was lacking so many things that we had. They were living about the same as they had been for hundreds of years, with not much change at all. So we must do something for them.
And these folks shouting loudly were so totally ignored that the silence was quite loud.
So a different flag was created and raised and suddenly it got attention. Wisdom tells us that when one tactic totally fails that a different approach should be used. So now, first it was "Global Warming", which then became "Global Climate Change" and that has got attention. AND it has altered who gets attention paid to their agenda.

The climate has changed before, at least a few times. Consider that those dinosaurs had a warmer climate for a while, and when it got cooler they died off. And certainly they did die off. So the earth was cooler for a while. And then, I think, some time after the "Dark Ages" had been around for quite a while, about 1000 AD to 1250 AD, or so, things warmed up a bit and a renisance began.
My point being that perhaps the heat output of the sun varies a bit on a much longer cycle than folks have been measuring it.

 

Doesn't matter what we do with carbon, the elephant in the room is waste heat.

 

Doesn't matter what we do with carbon, the elephant in the room is waste heat.

The conversation needs to exclude the lazy use of the single word "CARBON", which is a major component of all living things, as well as a whole lot of other stuff.
The problem is claimed to be CARBON DIOXIDE, a much different thing.
LAZY USED of words is a big force in producing misunderstanding among the majority who are totally clueless. And certainly, misunderstanding is able to lead to incorrect actions.
Even the broad term "Green House Gasses" is better to use. But probably we can't fix LAZY, either.

 

So sorry for offending your sensibilities.

 

Now the challenge will be to recover the value and cost of the cable made unusable by the criminals. The current price of that size cable in my area is several dollars per foot.

It all gets sold back by the thieves as scrap. The scrap yards started making them remove the insulation so they would start a big fire and burn it all off before selling. I'm sure the scrap dealers knew it was stolen but bought it anyway about the same as pawn brokers do. But 1500' of 400MCM got it into felony grand larceny territory and from the trail I found going to some apartments parking lot on the back fence they had been at it for quite a while and who knows how much they had carried off. I'm sure they didn't carry off 3 500' pieces of 400MCM in one night. Our Electric Shop was adjacent to the back of construction warehouse and the guys who worked nights as shift electricians said they had guys open their shop door and walk into the shop at late night hours looking around and bolted when they saw someone else in the shop. They had cut a hole in the siding at the back of the constantly locked warehouse to get in. Our plant manager was furious when he heard about it and thought it was being stolen by plant personnel so they were off the hook when they caught the thieves. The fence at the wooded area behind the apartment complex had discarded corrugated cardboard Foxboro boxes all over the ground and a couple of ash piles where they had burned the insulation off.

 

The conversation needs to exclude the lazy use of the single word "CARBON", which is a major component of all living things, as well as a whole lot of other stuff.
The problem is claimed to be CARBON DIOXIDE, a much different thing.
LAZY USED of words is a big force in producing misunderstanding among the majority who are totally clueless. And certainly, misunderstanding is able to lead to incorrect actions.
Even the broad term "Green House Gasses" is better to use. But probably we can't fix LAZY, either.

Hi,

I'm not so sure about that because everyone refers to Carbon as in Carbon Footprint. Here, I think we all know what it means without an exact definition. Maybe the rest of the world could use a refresher though

 

EVs are green. Reality need not apply.

It is all about politics and there is nothing any reasonable people can do to stop it.

 

New study suggests EVs are supercharging an impending environmental crisis (msn.com)

The amount of copper required is apparently not available for mining!

" As per a new study titled "Copper mining and vehicle electrification" by Cornell professor Lawrence M. Cathles and University of Michigan Earth & Environmental Sciences professor Adam Simon, copper cannot be mined quickly enough to make the wires and other components needed to fulfill the current goals toward renewable energy."

Hi,

The fact that electricity somehow became the savior of mankind really baffles the heck out of me.

 

The climate has changed before, at least a few times. Consider that those dinosaurs had a warmer climate for a while, and when it got cooler they died off. And certainly they did die off. So the earth was cooler for a while. And then, I think, some time after the "Dark Ages" had been around for quite a while, about 1000 AD to 1250 AD, or so, things warmed up a bit and a renisance began.
My point being that perhaps the heat output of the sun varies a bit on a much longer cycle than folks have been measuring it.

I've wondered about the same thing for a long time now. The earth changes whether we are here or not.
That, and the weather can't be predicted with good enough accuracy to demand we make all these unreasonable changes in an attempt to 'fix' the problem, the problem that may have no solution in the first place.

I have no problem believing that we are seeing a global rise in temperature. I have a huge problem believing the cause is just us.

 

I have a huge problem believing the cause is just us.

Or that it is catastrophic.

 

“We have met the enemy and he us.”

 

“We have met the enemy and he us.”

I see you've decided it's time to choose sides.