The EV thread prompted this

[paindonthurt]

When do people realize or admit they don’t really know how much something affects the environment?

what I mean is, we don’t really know the true effect of EVs long term. Battery disposal. Using way more electricity which uses tons of fossil fuels, etc.

Take Drax for instance. Drax is a power company in the UK. They converted coal power plants so they could burn wood pellets. The UK government heavily subsidized this industry bc it was “green”. This started years ago.

The pellets are made in the USA and Canada. Southern yellow pine and Canadian fur trees. Obviously southern yellow pine grows really fast comparatively to other trees.

Drax didn’t clear cut forest for pellet production. They actually pushed against that, but if a land owner was going to clear cut, they would only take raw materials from that if it couldn’t be used as board lumber. So anything small, any chips produced from saw mills, any scraps. AS GREEN AS IT GETS!

Now Drax is being blasted by environmentalists for destroying environments, etc.

So where does it end? If we go 100% green more people will suffer than if we don’t. FACT.

 

[The Peeper]

and what's the carbon footprint for producing those pellets in MS and shipping them from MS to the UK? Not to mention the carbon produced in burning them for power?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

This is the old complex issues question. Most of the population is unable to think in complex issues and is totally unable to understand unintended consequences. I drove across the country last year and saw all those windmills in the plains. Just irritated me how many of them were just sitting still. So you just spent millions of dollars and it generates absolutely nothing for long periods of time.

There is an excellent documentary called Mystery in Yellowstone that illustrates the unintended consequences situation. The show is about a study about why the Elk population was in decline after the wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone environment. The obvious thought for the study was the wolves were eating the Elk. That ended up not being the issue. The issue ended up being the population growth of Lake Trout (which reproduce in the lake) in Yellowstone lake. The large population of the large lake trout were eating the smaller native cutthroat trout and rainbow trout which use rivers to reproduce. The river spawning trout would spend time in the lake and would travel the rivers when it is time to reproduce. These river trout were a high protein source of food for the Bear population. The Bears which were now hungry and have much better sense of smell were able to find young elk and they dramatically increased their intake of elk as food to replace the decrease of the amount of trout available.

The Yellowstone Rangers have gone on to a plan to decrease the Lake Trout populations to try and counteract the problem. The Lake Trout were first discovered in 1994 in Yellowstone lake. They figured some illegal introductions happened in the 1980s from nearby lakes. Maybe some dummy said "boy it would be nice to catch big lake trout in Yellowstone lake".

 

[aTotal360]

The problem with the Gretas is that you can never be green enough, and they are happy with outsourcing the ugly parts of being green to other parts of the world. Out of sight, out of mind. They just want the badge.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

and what's the carbon footprint for producing those pellets in MS and shipping them from MS to the UK? Not to mention the carbon produced in burning them for power?

Not to mention the diesel burned to harvest, transport, and process the pellets.

A lot of materials and energy is spent to build the plants, and how much fuel oil is burned to cargo ship it to Europe?

Enviva just spent millions to get a pellet plant built in AL, only to be shuttered. The stock is now in OTC. Lots of fuel wasted into carbon in the name of “green energy”.

*correction, Amory plant shuttered, Epes apparently still producing*

 

[Dawgbite]

Not to mention the diesel burned to harvest, transport, and process the pellets.

A lot of materials and energy is spent to build the plants, and how much fuel oil is burned to cargo ship it to Europe?

Enviva just spent millions to get a pellet plant built in AL, only to be shuttered. The stock is now in OTC. Lots of fuel wasted into carbon in the name of “green energy”.

*correction, Amory plant shuttered, Epes apparently still producing*

Enviva built a new plant in south Ms , Lucedale I think. The Amory plant was built in the wrong location, it was never going to be successful.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Enviva built a new plant in south Ms , Lucedale I think. The Amory plant was built in the wrong location, it was never going to be successful.

I think Enviva filed bankruptcy.

 

[aspendawg]

I've watched many engineers and PhDs, FAR more technically versed than I am, walk through EV data from a fleet perspective: total cost of ownership, energy demand, carbon abatement, and the role of feedstocks like coal, renewable natural gas, and wind. For most light-duty vehicle applications the conclusions are sensible, and electrification is generally a net environmental benefit. The problem is that, for many people, the discussion becomes a zero-sum argument and views can get unhelpfully dogmatic.

 

[aspendawg]

Another side note: I now work extensively with renewable natural gas, capturing methane from landfills and dairy farms and conditioning it for the grid and heavy-duty transport. Many waste and delivery fleets already, almost exclusivley, run on CNG. Methane measured on a tonne-for-tonne basis causes much more short-term warming than CO2, so preventing methane from reaching the atmosphere is a major win. Capturing that methane and using it as fuel also replaces diesel, and CNG engines burn cleaner and run quieter. There are opinions that any gas that's technically a 'fossil fuel' is not truly renewable (regardless of the feedstock), but that view is unnecessarily binary. Both EVs and CNG trucks can contribute to emissions reductions, and we should look to find a 'rational middle' as it's never going to be a one size fits all... it will more than likely be a mosaic solution that will get us where we need to be.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I've watched many engineers and PhDs, FAR more technically versed than I am, walk through EV data from a fleet perspective: total cost of ownership, energy demand, carbon abatement, and the role of feedstocks like coal, renewable natural gas, and wind. For most light-duty vehicle applications the conclusions are sensible, and electrification is generally a net environmental benefit. The problem is that, for many people, the discussion becomes a zero-sum argument and views can get unhelpfully dogmatic.

I agree with this. Those deep dives are fascinating. A dogmatic stance either way eliminates the humility that requires curiosity.

Both sides do it. The same people who don't want to discuss things like carbon offset don't want to know the dirty little secrets of an industry that's been dogmatically labeled as "green".

 

[Shmuley]

Do a deep dive on recycling. If you dare.

 

[paindonthurt]

and what's the carbon footprint for producing those pellets in MS and shipping them from MS to the UK? Not to mention the carbon produced in burning them for power?

I don't know. But whats the carbon footprint for the alternative?

 

[paindonthurt]

Not to mention the diesel burned to harvest, transport, and process the pellets.

A lot of materials and energy is spent to build the plants, and how much fuel oil is burned to cargo ship it to Europe?

Enviva just spent millions to get a pellet plant built in AL, only to be shuttered. The stock is now in OTC. Lots of fuel wasted into carbon in the name of “green energy”.

*correction, Amory plant shuttered, Epes apparently still producing*

Enviva's problems wasn't the demand of pellets. B/c when Enviva took a dive, drax almost bought them to keep up pellet production. Enviva had some serious internal issues.

My guess is really sticky fingers by multiple high ups.

 

[paindonthurt]

I've watched many engineers and PhDs, FAR more technically versed than I am, walk through EV data from a fleet perspective: total cost of ownership, energy demand, carbon abatement, and the role of feedstocks like coal, renewable natural gas, and wind. For most light-duty vehicle applications the conclusions are sensible, and electrification is generally a net environmental benefit. The problem is that, for many people, the discussion becomes a zero-sum argument and views can get unhelpfully dogmatic.

Those same people walked through the same process with burning wood pellets and agreed it was a good idea (i still think it is), but now a group of extremists hate it.

 

[paindonthurt]

Another side note: I now work extensively with renewable natural gas, capturing methane from landfills and dairy farms and conditioning it for the grid and heavy-duty transport. Many waste and delivery fleets already, almost exclusivley, run on CNG. Methane measured on a tonne-for-tonne basis causes much more short-term warming than CO2, so preventing methane from reaching the atmosphere is a major win. Capturing that methane and using it as fuel also replaces diesel, and CNG engines burn cleaner and run quieter. There are opinions that any gas that's technically a 'fossil fuel' is not truly renewable (regardless of the feedstock), but that view is unnecessarily binary. Both EVs and CNG trucks can contribute to emissions reductions, and we should look to find a 'rational middle' as it's never going to be a one size fits all... it will more than likely be a mosaic solution that will get us where we need to be.

I agree we should look for alternatives, BUT we should never be the country who is sacrificing the most to save the world. Why? B/c if we handicap ourselves some other @SS hole will try and capitalize off of our weakness which is a net negative for the world.

CHINA
RUSSIA

 

[skip dog]

When do people realize or admit they don’t really know how much something affects the environment?

what I mean is, we don’t really know the true effect of EVs long term. Battery disposal. Using way more electricity which uses tons of fossil fuels, etc.

Take Drax for instance. Drax is a power company in the UK. They converted coal power plants so they could burn wood pellets. The UK government heavily subsidized this industry bc it was “green”. This started years ago.

The pellets are made in the USA and Canada. Southern yellow pine and Canadian fur trees. Obviously southern yellow pine grows really fast comparatively to other trees.

Drax didn’t clear cut forest for pellet production. They actually pushed against that, but if a land owner was going to clear cut, they would only take raw materials from that if it couldn’t be used as board lumber. So anything small, any chips produced from saw mills, any scraps. AS GREEN AS IT GETS!

Now Drax is being blasted by environmentalists for destroying environments, etc.

So where does it end? If we go 100% green more people will suffer than if we don’t. FACT.

What I have decided is th those screaming the loudest and talking the most about the environment and green energy know exactly nothing!

while I have an opinion on the environment and going green, and I’ll save it for another day

 

[HailStout]

We live in a world where my side is 100% right and your side is 100% wrong. Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. No one with any sense would argue that. Ideally we would use pure clean energy. No one would argue that. It seems simple if you put it that way, but the issue is in no way simple. The problem is that because of the my side versus your side mentality, no one who is an actual grown up will take the wheel. We need fossil fuels right now. Hard stop. We just do. At the same time we should be working our asses off to working towards “clean energy”. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, despite what the politicians would tell you. It’s almost like they may have ulterior motives for the agendas they push.