Thursday, April 11, 2019

TECHNOLOGY and GAIA


Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases and the next Ice Age

 Part 4: Electricity's dirty secrets

 For those who worry about global warming, use of fossil fuels, and CO2 and CH4 emissions, electricity is seen as the white knight or Holy Grail solution.

But this is very much delusional thinking, and a prescription for economic and societal disaster.

Why?

Truth #1 - Electricity is not the clean, environmentally friendly energy many think it is. Too often, this is blind, NIMBY (not in my back yard) thinking. 

Truth #2 – Electricity transmission lines and transformers often crash and this would become the norm.

TRUTH #3 – Electric vehicles are electricity HOGS; and, if prevalent, would alone ‘fry’ the electric grid system.

_____________________________________________________________________

Electricity generation - ‘dirty secrets’

Electricity from national grids in North America mostly comes from coal and natural gas plants which emit CO2. 

In the USA the 2017 statistics were[i]:

·       Coal                30%
·       Natural gas     32%
·       Nuclear           20%
·       Hydroelectric    7%
·       Wind                 6%
·       Biomass           2%
·       Solar                1%
·       Geothermal  < 1%
·       Oil, etc,            1%



Nuclear Power

While nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases, no one has yet come up with a way to store still radioactive spent fuel rods which will remain toxic for centuries. 

Leaks of radioactive water back flowing into the sea or lake source are fairly common.  Over 100 leaks have been officially recorded by 2014 worldwide [ii] and in Canada alone, mostly in Ontario, there have been 10 such incidents.[iii]  In Britain (UK) 7, in France, 12, in India 6 reported, Japan 20, and U.S.A. 50.[iv]  The Wikipedia listing does not include the 2016 Florida discovery that the Turkey Point nuclear plants have been leaking radiation into the water system for up to 4 decades, and threatening Florida’s drinking water [v].

Of course, any reactor disasters that leak massive radiation into the air are lethal, and at least 3 such events have come close to Armageddon -- only minutes away from nuclear reactor meltdown: at Three Mile Island (1979), at Chernobyl (1986) and Japan's Fukushima plant disaster (2011).

At Fukushima, air borne radiation which  settled around the plant and also downwind,  made 800 sq. km of towns, villages and agricultural land  'permanently radioactive according to UN standards.[vi]

If the Fukushima plant had not been on the seacoast but inland (i.e., instead using lake water) the permanent  radioactive zone would have been some 1600 sq. km!!!

And the exclusion zone at Chernobyl is still 4143 sq km! [vii]


Put simply, nuclear power plants are ‘bombs’ waiting to go off ‘slowly’ or with a sudden ‘bang’, and everyone needs to become warned that nuclear power is suicidal.


Note: While nuclear plants do not emit CO2, their conical towers constantly release massive amounts of steaming water vapour (H2O) -- even when working properly, 

This affects local humidity, weather and cloud formation[viii].

And water vapour is the world’s main greenhouse gas, dwarfing all others.

(While currently CO2 accounts for 0.039%[ix] or 39 molecules out of every 100,000 air molecules, and methane (CH4) is  a microscopic mire 2 molecules per 1,000,000 molecules[x],  H2O as water vapour can be as high as 4% = 100% humidity, but overall is 1% at sea level and over the entire planet 0.4%[xi],. That is, 4 H2O molecules out of every 1000 molecules in the air! And this does not include counting the H2O in clouds!



Hydro electricity

Even hydro electricity is not 'pure' and CO2 and methane (CH4) free. 

If a massive retaining dam is made from cement/concrete, then for every ton of cement used a ton of CO2 is emitted in its production.[xii] 

Hoover dam (1935) and Three Gorge Dam (China, 2012) are two of many such concrete-CO2 manufacturing monsters .[xiii]

Even if the dam is earthen or infilled with rock, the artificial 'lake' created above the dam has ecological effects.  

Microscopic phytoplankton, algae and water plants will absorb CO2 from the air as it sinks and through photosynthesis release oxygen - which is all good. 

But, simultaneously, all natural and man-made lakes are major sources of methane (CH4) as it is released 4 different ways from sediment and plants[xiv].  

According to 2004 and 2011 studies in Sweden and America, involving over 474 freshwater sources, all fresh water streams, rivers, lakes and man-made reservoirs emit far more methane (CH4) than previously thought[xv]: even more than all the world's oceans[xvi] (which cover 75% of the planet).

In fact, it is estimated that man-made reservoirs account for 7% of methane greenhouse gases[xvii].
____________________________________________________________


Plug-in electric cars -- ‘dirty secrets’

 CO2 footprint

As for electric cars, they may not produce any CO2 or other tail pipe gases, but they are not ‘pure’ either.

According to the American, interactive Alternative Fuels Data Center website in the U.S. overall, the electricity needed to power an all electric vehicle for a year (from a mix of coal and natural gas, etc. sources) generates 4,352 lbs of CO2 equivalent emissions.

While this may be surprising, advocates like to note an all gasoline fueled vehicle generates 11,435 lbs of CO2 equivalent, [xviii] or just over 2 ½ times as much.

But such a comparison ignores a major source of CO2 equivalents – the manufacture of massive battery packs used in all electric vehicles.

According to a mid-west U.S. 2017 study reported by Auto Express, 
Tesla's Model S ‘life cycle’ has a greater carbon footprint than a 3 cylinder gas engine Mitsubishi Mirage[xix]. 

Whether it's life cycle CO2 footprint is comparable to that of a Honda Civic or even a Jeep SUV is hotly debated on the internet [xx]. 


 Distance and range  

EPA distance figures are for ideal, mild weather circumstances; no use of a heater or A/C.  Such numbers are, therefore, misleading and even dangerous in North American winter driving.
As noted in the previous blog, the sub-compact Chevy Bolt's maximum EPA range of 238 miles  drops substantially in typical Canadian and northern U.S.  sub-zero winter weather.
Its 60 kWh battery pack  loses not just the manufacturer's acknowledged 20% -25% but up to a whopping 40% in real world cold driving.
So a full battery recharge which should allow for 238 miles becomes, in cold weather, as little 142.8 miles!!!

Recharging
Whatever the vehicle or brand or battery pack size - 24 kWh to 100 kWh, the laws of physics are the same. 
A standard 120 volt plug at standard 15 amps will generate 1800 watts maximum, and for a continuous electric car recharge that can be down to 1400 watts output[xxi].  I.e., a recharge rate of 1.8 kWh or as little as 1.4 kWh whether you plug in a compact Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt or large Tesla model S or X.
The rate for recharging is essentially the same.

So, as stated by a Chevrolet dealership website, expect the Bolt’s (60 kWh) battery pack to take 1 hour to produce 4 miles of travel time at 120 volt plug in;[xxii]
Expect it to take 12 hours to generate a 48 mile drive.[xxiii]
 A  half-fill up (119 miles) takes almost 30 hours!!!!  (119/4 = 29.75)     
A  full recharge: from empty to the maximum 238 miles, almost 60 hours!!!!!!!!  (238 /4 = 59.5).  
And the same would apply to all other electric vehicles.

**** Of course, as noted in the previous blog, recharging outdoors in typical sub-zero Canadian and northern U.S. winter cold weather -- with freezing batteries - takes much, much longer.  


Hidden subsidies
·       Electric vehicles get major government rebates and discounts – as everyone knows.  All subsidized by the gasoline/diesel engine public.

·       Even the low cost of recharging from a home or workplace electric socket is a distortion and unfair.
The price of gasoline and diesel include government taxes designed to defray the costs of road and bridge building and maintenance.
THERE ARE NO SUCH CHARGES WHEN ELECTRIC VEHICLES 'tank up' at home or elsewhere.
So when and if electric vehicles become pervasive, watch out.   As gasoline/diesel usage drops and their tax dollar contributions to roadwork and bridges fall, expect electric vehicles to be somehow appropriately taxed.           
The EV free lunch will be over!

Brown-out and Blackouts 
Whatever the source of electricity, delivery to homes, factories, industry and electric cars, is at the mercy of transmission wires and transformers -- and their failures. 

These can be from a mechanical or computer glitch affecting a neighbourhood,  a town, a city, or even a much larger region covering states or provinces on a common grid network. 

·       November 9, 1969. a  faulty relay at an Ontario station triggered major blackout across all of the East Coast: New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,Vermont, Quebec, and Ontario affecting 30 million people for some 13 hours[xxiv].   

·       March 13, 1989 - Solar electro magnet storm targets Quebec, Canada shutting down all electricity to some 6 million people for 12 hours[xxv].   
While these glitches are often brief -- ranging from hours to a day or so, common and frequent acts of nature impact far worse. 
Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, snowstorms, ice storms, wildfires  and tree toppling gale-force winds tend to be large scale and disruptive for weeks or months. 

So going all electric, i.e., ending drilling for and use of fossil fuel natural gas and petroleum and even coal, is a recipe for disaster.   

2. Even the goal of a world with only all electric car is a utopian impossibility. 
Why?  Because electric car batteries are electricity HOGS!
As explained in an earlier blog, if every street in Toronto (pop. 2.5 million) had      2 cars plugged in overnight (at even 120 volts and when electricity demand is low), it would still 'fry the grid' as the demand would be enough to overload transformers and damage electricity transmission wires. 

Again, any electric vehicle plugged in at 120 volts draws from 1.4 kW to 1.8 kW every hour.   A 10 hour plug in uses 14 kW to 18 kW.
Q: How does this compare with household appliances?
According to https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-information/how-to-save-energy/power-table  (when converted from watts to kilowatts), the typical appliance draws as current:
water heater – 4.5 kW (though it cycles on and off)
Central A/C  (small unit of 24,000 BTU) --   3.8 kW
Window A/C (large unit of 10,000 BTU) -- 0.9 kW
Refrigerator (16cu ft) at 1.2 kW per day or 0.05 kW per hour (1.2 /24 = 0.05)

Furnace blower fan   = 0.8 kW
So, at 1.4 kW to 1.8 kW, a plug-in car requires for each hour of recharging some   30 times as much electricity as a refrigerator, up to twice as much as a large window A/C,  and close to twice as much as the  furnace blower fan which keeps your house warm or central A/C cool.
Aside from skyrocketing your electricity bill, such recharging – even at night when factories and industry are closed and the commercial demand for electric current is reduced, plugging numerous electric cars into the grid would overload and crash the system.
 FACTS:   In the U.S. in 2017 there were 272,480,900 car, trucks and motorcycles registered[xxvi].
In 2018, there were 17,334,481 new car purchases of which 361,307 were all electric vehicles.[xxvii]  That just 2% of car sales!
So imagine what the electricity grid would have to cope with if 10% or 20% or – heaven forbid – 50% of all new cars sold drained 1.4 kWh to 1.8 kWh from the grid (at just 120 volts)  for 8 to 12 hours daily/nightly!!! 
Brownouts, crashes and blackouts galore!
And, of course, if all 272,000,000+  vehicles were all electric, we would have to permanently revert to kerosene lamps and candles for illumination, ice box ‘refrigerators’,  and forget about any central heating for winter and air conditioning in summer heat!
Also, say goodbye to TV and any other entertainment/media currently plugged into a wall – including your smart phone recharger!!!!

Wind and Solar Power
These two sources of electricity touted as ‘clean and renewable’ are also problematic.
Firstly, they are not available 24/7 as a ‘baseline’ grid power source: as the sun does not shine 24 hours a day and winds do not blow strongly or at all 24 hours a day.
They are, at best, temporary, backup supplies – unless massive investment in battery storage is added; and all such batteries have large greenhouse gas emissions in their production.

Wind Turbines
1.     Again, wind turbines require wind.  And they must face incoming wind or they do not work. So only areas with constant, high winds that consistently come from one direction are prerequisites.  Otherwise, the blades sit motionless and ‘asleep’,
And not that many locations on this planet meet these criteria.

2.     Regular maintenance and damage to blades and turbine motors is often ignored when promoting this technology.

General Electric has learned this lesson the hard way. News has only now been made public that the company continues to spend this year alone half-a-billion dollars to replace blades damaged in  2015 and others in 2017, and the related turbine damage: when blades are no longer balanced and turning property.[xxviii]

And such replacement/duplication (and triplication, etc. over time) add to wind turbines’ manufacturing CO2 footprint.

3.     Birds are also being slaughtered en mass as they get ‘whacked’ and ‘sliced’ by wind turbine blades: during mass migrations and even when birds or flocks move from one local feeding/water area to another. According to the Audubon Society, 140,000 to 328,000 birds are killed in North America each year.  And this continues even after the wind turbine industry has installed radar and six (6) other methods to warn off birds[xxix].

4.     Bats are also falling prey to wind turbines.  Surprisingly, their sonar-like echolocation systems are ineffective and they are being killed in the hundreds of thousands annually in the U.S. alone.  A seven (7) year study in Texas, published in 2017, has found bats, when foraging for food, are attracted to turbines as turbines themselves attract all kinds of bugs, including crickets and moths.[xxx]

5.     The documentary, Big Wind, [xxxi]highlights the problems of living near wind turbines: constant whistling noises that disturb sleep and are an annoyance during daytime outdoor activity and even indoors: as walls reverberate the whistling. Ground voltage leakage ‘zaps’ bare animal and human feet -- both outdoors and indoors -- and have been connected to sudden skin soars, cardiovascular and other human health issues, cow nosebleeds, damaged feet and animal trauma.

At an official inquiry in Grey Bruce County, Ontario, Dr. Hazel Lynn’s, the county’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, ruled that wind turbines near human habitation and animal areas are  ‘hazardous to health”.

Consequently, many communities, conservationists, and especially farmers with livestock are opposed to wind turbines in human, livestock and wild animal locations.

Even offshore turbines may have an impact on fish populations and altered wind patterns.


Solar panels[xxxii]

This technology, first discovered in the early19th century and explained by Albert Einstein in 1905, is, as stated earlier, not available 24 hours a day on Earth; unlike its use with satellites and space probes which can aim their solar panels permanently sunward.

The technology also requires the panels face the sun at the proper angle, have minimal or no cloud cover intervening, no rain and no snow or hail, and no sandstorms or other debris which can alight and require removal and cleaning;  think your car’s windshield.

Such regular maintyenance on the popular idea of installing solar panels on steep roofs is dangerous and potentially life threatening.

Finally, at present, solar panels only convert 20% to 40% of sunlight into electricity.  The rest becomes heat which can both damage the panels and any roofing materials underneath.


Conclusion
All the above facts need to be taken into account when promoting so-called ‘green’, ‘clean energy’ electricity.

Put simply, electricity -- which arrives via a coated thick wire and wall plugs: to illuminate your home, run TV and other entertainment units, computers and smart phones, appliances and refrigerators, power tools, etc. or to do similar tasks at a workplace is not greenhouse gas free.

No
The push to go electric for land transportation: cars, SUVs, trucks, buses and highway transports is oblivious to the sources of that electricity and is NIMBY (not in my back yard) mindset. 

Seeing only wires and wall plugs covers up the simple fact that somewhere else -- nearby or further away -- CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as water vapour (H2O) and methane (CH4) are being released into the air in massive amounts.

CO2, H2O and CH4 emissions are constantly circulated by the planet's winds, so those greenhouse gases may well be floating over your head.

And, of course, going all electric for the cars and trucks of the USA is utopian, blinkered thinking and insanity.

Transformers and electricity cables will spark and sizzle and fry – and stop!!!.

So, logic and wisdom require the use of the planet’s full bounty and resources; fossil fuels being major ‘gifts’ of Gaia.

P.S.  As the old saying goes, “Never put all your eggs in one basket”.   
r is it free for plug-in electric vehicles.


[iv] Ibid.
[viii] https://sciencing.com/percentage-water-vapor-atmosphere-19385.html
[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure
[x] See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane where number is given as 1850.5  per BILLION molecules
[xi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
[xiii]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam and   https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/faq.html#weight   
[xvii] Ibid. Page 1 introduction.
[xviii] https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html. Tap on a column to get the exact numbers of CO2.
[xxiii] ibid.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
[xxvii] https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/12/us-ev-sales-surpass-2-for-2018-8-more-sales-charts/
[xxviii] “GE shares fall after CEO forecasts negative 2019 industrial cash flow” ,Globe and Mail, March 6, 2019,  B5.

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)