Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 144436 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 22 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #510 –
And for the greenies, I've seen the following first-hand, I've actually been to Borneo training people for advanced manufacturing, this is an uncomfortable truth for the local Nimbys who spend all day protecting the planet by driving to protests in their Green EVs and self-organising via their smart phones.

If it's got a battery in it, this is how you get it, and not just the nickel!
https://www.wired.com/story/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city/
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #511 –
Seems to me that the story is a fairly common tale of business going to war with attempts to restrain environmental damage and harm to workers. Those attempts are commonly rubbished as “red tape” and freedom means that companies can do what they want in order to increase profits. I wonder how powerful unions are in Indonesia. I’m thinking they’re impotent if they even exist.

The same dilemma taints the clothing industry (sweatshops), coffee and chocolate production (child and slave labour), and even in homes around Australia where stone benchtops are installed at the cost of silicosis being inflicted on installers. In Dubai, simply building sports stadiums cost thousands of lives where migrant workers were considered expendable and treated as slaves.

And I don’t think mining and fossil fuel industries are any more responsible when they operate in countries where they can override regulation. I’m thinking Dubai is no more caring about workers in the oil industry than it was when it was preparing for the World Cup.

That said, as with other industries where attempts are being made to limit harms inflicted by essentially lawless operators in the supply chain, the same should occur in the EV industry. The same problem will arise as in other industries: manufacturers who refuse to deal with unethical producers will be undercut by manufacturers who only care about obtaining the cheapest materials.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #512 –
Coal’s Quicker Exit Means Australia Needs More Energy Spending, Bloomberg
Quote
“Urgent and ongoing investment in renewable energy, long-duration storage and transmission is needed to reliably meet demand from Australian homes and businesses,” AEMO Chief Executive Officer Daniel Westerman said in a statement.

Utilities are rushing to shutter aging coal operations citing the eroding viability of the plants amid competition from cheaper solar and wind. Origin Energy Ltd. last year moved up the retirement of the Eraring Power Station in New South Wales by seven years, while AGL Energy Ltd. advanced its closure plans by a decade. The companies intend to add new renewable energy generation and battery storage as a replacement.

Investment in large-scale renewable energy projects in Australia jumped 145% in 2022 to about $5.9 billion, with around 5 gigawatts of solar and wind installed, BloombergNEF analysts including Tushna Antia said in a January report. Spending is forecast to remain strong with at least a further 3.7 gigawatts of projects expected to reach financial close this year, the analysts said.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #513 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Seems to me that the story is a fairly common tale of business going to war with attempts to restrain environmental damage and harm to workers.
Yet focussing on those miners and companies would be missing the point.

The Green Endorsed triple baseline accounting companies buy the raw materials for the EVs, Batteries and SolarPVs of those Indonesian mining operations, all the while claiming that the products they make(EVs, Batteries and SolarPVs) are responsibly sourced and environmentally sound. It's bogus economics because the true cost isn't included, the true cost is NIMBY!

Why am I not surprised to find the opinion of mining, or the opposition to it, changes subject to the perspective?

Good luck to those resource companies but beware the hand that feeds you, you are about to be strung up as the enemy the moment a better alternative is found and you'll be accused of a deception as part of the process. Ignorance is bliss! ::)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #514 –
Focussing on the miners and companies is the point. That doesn’t change whether the end user is an EV manufacturer or not. And it doesn’t change whether the mine is a nickel mine or an open-cut coal mine. Proper regulation should be imposed which protects workers and the environment.

Does the mining of nickel and lithium in Australia kill people at the same rate as nickel mining in Indonesia? If not, why not?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #515 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Focussing on the miners and companies is the point. That doesn’t change whether the end user is an EV manufacturer or not.
If you want us to all be driving EVs soon, in a low carbon gas free cooking era, mining can't ever end!

Production of the raw materials needs to ramp up almost 1000% to make the claimed targets.

The only way to control the market is to vote with your feet, and the SolarPV and EV makers won't do that, because the product cost goes through the roof and all of a sudden it's Greeness is offset by not being so cheap, or vice versa! They claim the high ground at the moment, Greenest and Cheapest, but it's bogus accounting because there is a cost NIMBY.

Don't mention the war!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #516 –
I see you didn’t bother to say whether the employment and environmental practices of mineral mining in Australia are better than those in Indonesia. I’m guessing that means they are.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #517 –
Quote from: Mav – on
I see you didn’t bother to say whether the employment and environmental practices of mineral mining in Australia are better than those in Indonesia. I’m guessing that means they are.
Actually, for the direct employees there is not much difference, but for the subcontractors and residents in the surrounding areas it is very different.

There is no EA, R or C in Indonesia, if you get a permit to mine the officials are probably already crooked and on the books, and you'll be long long gone before somebody has to step in and make restitution, and even then it only happens if there is another project they want to start. I was going to mention in the earlier post, I've been to Gempol not just in passing but visiting the site as part of my regular visit to Surabaya, but I thought you might step in on a tangent so I didn't mention it!

But in reality is that really much worse than here, were you can be an identified crook and still avoid responsibility while you keep trading, at least there the operation was halted?

My focus isn't so much about highlighting what is being done wrong, and I'm certainly not opposed to it being fixed, but I have a big problem with all the finger-pointing that comes from entities are not really any better! The finger-pointing is actually an enabler for the crooks and profiteers.

The reality of Lithium EV Batteries and SolarPV Panels for example, when we visit factories in SE Asia with representatives from the EU or Australia, we will tour a pristine showroom like facility, that looks immaculate and high tech, white tiled and stainless steel, rust and dust free, like a Bond Villain's Swiss Mountain Lair completely transparent. But the reality is the bulk of the product they will receive is going to come from a sweatshop 10km down the road that has no address, no air-conditioning and dirt floors that they will never see, they know that, but after the tour they accept plausible deniability, pat each other on the back and head back to Alps for the opening of the winter season!

I rally and rally for change, but it's never going to happen, I can see the only way for SE Asia to get out of this mire is through wealth creation. But here in NIMBYVILLE, we are addicted to our low cost EVs and square kilometres of SolarPV, after all that smog is never crossing our border is it?

There was real irony when Australia's recycling shipments were rejected recently for being too dirty, what was in the containers was probably cleaner than the compound they were being unloaded in! I visited one of the recycling enterprises a few years back, it's basically a tip built across a river, and you just have to know where all that recycling gets rinsed, and they are not employing engineers! Probably that is where that recycled plastic dashboard panelling comes from for your EV.

I accept such is life, but why should either side be able to hide in plain sight?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #518 –
I agree that there should be complete accounting for externalities so attention can be paid to ameliorating production chains. But expanding the base for green technology is important as we have a chicken and egg problem. Delaying a switch to green fuel for cars means the infrastructure won’t improve and that will be a disincentive to switch over. That would gladden the hearts of fossil fuel advocates everywhere. As I’ve noted previously, battery technology is improving dramatically. Far from wanting to allow EV manufacturers to hide dirty links in their supply chain, a full accounting of externalities will spur R&D into cleaner battery technology.

It’s a bit like carbon offsets and the definitions of renewable energy which can be used to distort efforts to battle climate change. I still can’t understand how the EU was allowed to get away with including wood-fired power plants in its contribution to that fight. Make sure all externalities are included and shell games are eliminated. That might be a big problem for blue hydrogen which relies on optimistic assurances that greenhouse gases will disappear as if by magic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #519 –
Quote from: Mav – on
I agree that there should be complete accounting for externalities so attention can be paid to ameliorating production chains. But expanding the base for green technology is important as we have a chicken and egg problem. Delaying a switch to green fuel for cars means the infrastructure won’t improve and that will be a disincentive to switch over. That would gladden the hearts of fossil fuel advocates everywhere. As I’ve noted previously, battery technology is improving dramatically. Far from wanting to allow EV manufacturers to hide dirty links in their supply chain, a full accounting of externalities will spur R&D into cleaner battery technology.

It’s a bit like carbon offsets and the definitions of renewable energy which can be used to distort efforts to battle climate change. I still can’t understand how the EU was allowed to get away with including wood-fired power plants in its contribution to that fight. Make sure all externalities are included and shell games are eliminated. That might be a big problem for blue hydrogen which relies on optimistic assurances that greenhouse gases will disappear as if by magic.
What is referred to as Hydrogen of any hue is already a very very green fuel, the short term problem is that it's initial resource sourcing emit the same filthy wastes as those raw materials being ejected from Borneo mines in the search of a better battery or SolarPV. So by comparison why is a Lithium battery or a SolarPV considered green by comparison, the sourcing for those sectors are some of the filthiest industries on the planet, perhaps even worse than the Newcastle Blue Hydrogen given the emissions in Borneo occur in obscurity?

The contradiction is obvious, although many will try to spin thinly veiled excuses in the detail, the dishonest appraisal of one industry versus another exposes a political motive not a green motive.

If the world isn't doing everything it can possibly do everywhere all at once, it isn't doing anything at all!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #520 –
All the Indonesian mines have to do is promise that they’ll bury the pollutants in the ground or convert them into chemicals which can be used by industry in unlimited quantities and the problem goes away, no? It doesn’t matter if they can do as promised. Once everything is rolling along, regulators and governments will be pressured to fudge the data so the magic happens.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #521 –
Quote from: Mav – on
All the Indonesian mines have to do is promise that they’ll bury the pollutants in the ground or convert them into chemicals which can be used by industry in unlimited quantities and the problem goes away, no?
Yes, bury them for now, it is a bit like all that recycling of lithium batteries, wind turbine blades and SolarPV, .................. eventually after we dig them up! ::)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #523 –
Another development which illustrates the folly of trying to use the current state of battery technology against EV cars.

Leclanché reports breakthrough in environmentally-friendly battery production, Electrive.com.

Quote
Swiss battery manufacturer Leclanché says it has made a breakthrough in the environmentally friendly production of modern G/NMCA cells. Leclanché is able to reduce the cobalt content in NMCA electrodes from 20 to five per cent in an environmentally friendly water-based process.

In the process, Leclanché completely eliminates the use of the highly toxic organic solvents (NMP, short for N-methylpyrrolidone) that are otherwise common in the production process. According to Leclanché, the new G/NMCA cells offer a 20 per cent higher energy density compared to conventional NMC cells – with the same size, weight and very good performance. The “G” stands for the graphite in the anode, NMCA for a cathode based on nickel-manganese-cobalt-aluminium oxide.

One thing is clear: NMCA cathodes based on water-based binders are easier to dispose of and recyclable. The newly developed G/NMCA cell is said to have a nickel content of around 90 per cent, which increases the energy density and allows the cobalt content to be significantly reduced by 15 per cent. At the same time, according to the company, it offers a longer service life, high cycle stability and good chargeability.

Thanks to the high volume density and high cycle stability, the new cells are said to be particularly well suited for “electric cars as well as heavy-duty applications such as ships, buses and trucks” . Leclanché’s new G/NMCA cells are expected to be available on the market in 2024.
…
Company representatives also emphasise in the release, however, that the real breakthrough lies in the production that is now possible. “With the water-based production of the high-capacity NMCA cathodes, we have reached a decisive milestone in lithium-ion technology,” says Hilmi Buqa, Vice President R&D at Leclanché. “Until now, producing them using environmentally friendly processes was considered impossible. But, now we have mastered the process.”

Leclanché has been using aqueous binders in its battery production for many years. Among other things, because the previous production processes based on these binders did not allow for such high energy densities as were required for automotive use, Leclanché batteries have so far mainly been used in commercial vehicles and in the shipping industry for hybrid ferries or electric ships.

By the way, with the water-based process, Leclanché can already dispense with energy-intensive processes for drying, flashing off and recycling the solvents. Energy consumption is therefore said to be ten to 30 per cent lower.

It’s encouraging that this announcement comes from a company that is already producing batteries for commercial vehicles and ships and this gives some credibility to the claim that the new batteries will be released in 2024.

This won’t be the last improvement to the production process. But it underscores that criticisms of the current technology and production processes might be buried more quickly than CCS can bury carbon dioxide.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #524 –
It's a bit early to call these advances solutions, while I'm all for the science and the technology, the modern trend to crow early is a bit disturbing.

They crow early because they need funding, this stuff costs big dollars, and like the COVID vaccines they can't be funded by private investment, it has to be government funding of some sort. So the sell, sell, sell the developments, even if it's only still lab scale.

But everyone knows this, even the Hydrogen naysayers in the battery industry use this repeated trend to talk down hydrogen by labelling it as a "new technology", that is despite much of the hydrogen economy R&D being older than Wind, SolarPV, LIoN or even Modern EVs!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"