Some EV's have gearboxes and some do not. Many EV motors will last up to 1 million miles. The newest wind turbines are direct drive, and sure they have bearings that probably have to be lubricated. They could be lubricated with synthetics? They do not consume any fuel, which is obviously *much* higher quantities.
That reminds me -- all ICE's should have to amortize the oil changes, and the manufacture of filters, etc. that are used as part of their regular maintenance. So, there is more carbon in their footprint.
Matt -- I'm sorry, but we have all taken oil for granted, and we may forget all the effort that goes into it. It is an amazingly dense energy fuel (something like 63 sticks of dynamite per gallon?), but the BTU conversion is 33.4-34kWh per gallon.
All the steps I listed I was well aware of, long before Robert Llewellyn's video. Give me some credit, okay? I've been following renewable energy and efficiency and sustainable living since the 1970's.
All those steps take energy to accomplish, and without them we have no gasoline; or no electricity.
The source to wheels equations for oil and for electricity have to take into account each and every energy input. And when electricity and natural gas and petroleum fuels are used as part of the process to produce gasoline or electricity, then they must be included in the carbon footprint.
Just a quick stab at wind, hydro, and others, how do they lubricate these machines? How much oil consumption is there for the gearboxes and bearings?
I dont know, but they are not 100% free of oil.
They probably use oil like most machines though I don't really know. Speaking of which, IMHO, oil is too valuable as a lubricant to waste on transportation.
@Neil: I've given you well to wheels analysis. All you have is FUD. I could write a paper, fit to publish, on this topic, and it wouldn't sway you in the least, because some activist journalist telling you what you want to hear came to different conclusions.
Where is this WTW analysis? If you're referring to the Argonne report you linked earlier, it only shows refinery efficiencies, not WTW. (It also excludes the extra processing of oil sands, so even it's not complete.)
Quote:
@04Sentra: I agree, nuclear is a great way to reduce the carbon intensity of the grid and provide an affordable way to displace fossil fuel consumption.
Nuclear is not a good option because it produces too much highly hazardous waste... at least until we have the will to ignore the naysayers and build some reprocessing plants, that is. Right now we're throwing away more energy in radioactive waste than we're actually extracting from the fuel.
The newest wind turbines are direct drive, and sure they have bearings that probably have to be lubricated. They could be lubricated with synthetics?
Well,
Lots not be terribly silly in assuming that synthetics are made from powdered puppies. Synthetics are modified petroleum products, meaning they came from the same well as everything else. We are not talking about a lubricant that is made absent of oil as we know it.
Organic chemistry can make plastics from soybeans and calabar beans, etc., so synthetic oil could easily come from many different renewable sources.
On nuclear, the uranium has to be mined and enriched, and transported, so the fuel has some carbon footprint. Building the power plant with lots of concrete -- which has a large carbon footprint because it has to be "baked" for a long period of time. And the plant has to be decommissioned at the end of it's (~50 year?) life span, which adds some more carbon, and the spent fuel has to be processed and stored for extremely long periods of time.
That, and the potential for terrorism with any radioactive nuclear material is a very big drawback for nuclear power.
I think we need to use deep drilling for geothermal heat to boil water, instead of nuclear power.
Nuclear doesn't produce climate changing emissions.
It doesn't use non-renewable fossil fuel, but that's about the only thing nuclear energy has got going for it.
Quote:
The waste is dangerous
That's something of an understatement.
The number of accidents with both the nuclear installations and their waste may be low, but their potential is huge.
Quote:
but it is stored not released into the environment
Uranium and the like are mined and refined as well, and it usually isn't a pretty work environment.
Waste is always stored in the environment, no matter how good you try to contain it. While it's not regularly released into the environment, it's a perpetual threat to the environment.
There have been spills caused by accidents or improper storage.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong I'm not pro-nuke, I'm pro-efficiency and solar, but in the short term increased use of nuclear can green the grid until production capacity from renewables (wind, solar, etc.) can catch up.
That's the only use of nuclear energy that I can agree to.
The installations (and the waste) are there, so let's use them to the full of their possibilities while renewable energy sources are developed and put to good use.
But I wouldn't call that making the grid cleaner.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
The Following User Says Thank You to euromodder For This Useful Post:
@Clev: The W2W anaylsis I was referring to is this one. The beauty of a top-level analysis is it accounts for all the steps in between.
Neil and I have been clashing as a result of our failure to see eye to eye on technical issues including KWh/gal equivalence, aerodynamics, climate change, local economies, and so many other topics. This has been going on for perhaps six months now, and we've polluted threads on topics ranging from the X-Prize to the Morelli Shape. Enough is enough.
Nanotechnology is helping to improve batteries. Recent breakthroughs are allowing the possibility of recharging batteries in seconds, so the 100 years of no battery improvement isn't entirely accurate.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
