How Much Extra Carbon Does One EV Battery Consume Before Its First Charge?

And what does Theanos have to do with anything?

On April 10, 2013, KUC experienced "… probably the biggest nonvolcanic slide in North America’s modern history." 

The slide produced enough debris to bury New York City’s Central Park 66 feet (20 meters) deep. There were two rock avalanches 95 minutes apart. Each rock avalanche lasted about 90 seconds.

"University of Utah researchers later reported the landslide moved at an average of almost 70 mph (113 kph) and reached estimated speeds of at least 100 mph (160 kph)."

Nearly 100 million cubic yards (70 million cubic meters) - 160,000,000 tons of waste material. Nobody was injured. But the event was so devastating that KUC's ability to produce ore was in jeopardy.

The entire mine shut down. No ore. No milling. No smelting. No acid. The acid cutoff was catastrophic for operations that depended on it. In the pit, 6 million tons of waste were dug up and hauled to build a new access road and after many months, there was a small amount of ore.

Ore production continued at a significantly reduced rate for an extended period. KUC had to spend some $1 Billion to move the waste and recover from the incident.

Whatever the cost, 160 million tons of waste had to be moved. Dozers. Massive Diggers. Massive haul trucks. Steel. Tires. Lubricating oil. Batteries. And an ocean of Diesel Fuel wasted hauling waste.

WIND-SOLAR-BATTERY machines exist solely to "save" CO2. Yet their production incurs CO2. So, a baseline question is how much is the "carbon debt" incurred in producing the CO2-saving machine.

Yet, obtaining the data to accurately estimate the full "carbon debt" incurred in producing machines as complex as, say, a $43 Billion offshore wind installation, whose sole reason for their existence is to “save” CO2, is impossible. “Sustainable Business” in what sense of the word?

Let's consider a simple example that's easier to digest: The EV. Usually, the additional carbon incurred in producing an EV compared to a gasoline vehicle is simply wished away. Only the "fuel" differences are compared: "If you can't see it, it doesn't exist."

The narrative is so compelling that politicians worldwide have passed magic laws compelling society to use 100% EVs ASAP. Virtue. Save the Planet. Stop Climate Change. BUT, how much CO2 does the venerable EV actually "save" compared to the EVIL ICE?

https://reason.com/2021/03/05/californias-zero-emission-car-mandate-is-empty-virtue-signalling/

The answer is: Nobody Knows.

A growing body of research points to the likelihood that widespread replacement of conventional cars with EVs would likely have a relatively small impact on global emissions.

And it’s even possible that the outcome would increase emissions.

Mark P. Mills

Depending, naturally, on whose marketing materials you believe.

The Theranos fraud has been aptly characterized as "Selling a Promise." Gullible people were manipulated into investing billions of dollars based on a Promise that the technology worked. But nobody bothered to check the science until the money was spent.

Compelling narratives have a way of convincing us of their veracity without even a modicum of evidence. And so it is with the EV. Calculating the "embedded carbon" in a single EV battery is "devilishly" difficult.

SO much so that the published, peer-reviewed estimates of the "embedded" CO2 in a simple EV battery vary from each other by as much as 600%. Imagine a court of law where the expert opinions were 600% apart. The highest estimate equated the EV with a gasoline car.

Now imagine buying an EV whose creation has already released as much CO2, even before the first charge, compared to a gasoline car over its lifetime. What is the truth? Nobody knows.

Fortunately for EV manufacturers and their political buddies, but unfortunately for us as the newest Theranos shareholders, nobody cares because science and facts don't matter in their fantasy world detached from objective reality.

After years of chaos and failure, the Theranos investors finally wised up and decided to check the science, validate the promises upon which one of Silicon Valley's most promising "disruptive" business was based. The EV promoters deserve similar fact-checking.

With governments worldwide mandating the universal adoption of EVs for the common good, we taxpayers and consumers are de facto shareholders in this massive endeavor--kind of like being forced to buy Theranos stock based on PROMISES without evidence.

Question: How many lifecycle assessments included the actual CO2 emissions incurred by KUC moving 160 million tons of pure waste? Answer: None. And the same goes for the billions of tons of material that will be moved decades from now to reclaim KUC's 72,000 acres. These indirect impacts just don’t count.

In a court of law, the proponent of an action bears the Burden of Proof - BOP. In the Theranos fraud trials, the government was required to prove criminal violations beyond a reasonable doubt. And for good reasons. Imposing criminal sanctions marks the zenith of governmental power.

But then again, so does the government’s power to levy taxes. Yet in the court of public opinion, all that’s required to force the population of the planet to become joint Shareholders in a Theranos-style Promise is an Excel Spreadsheet showing it will Change the Climate.

If I were Canadian, I may ask to see the Investment Portfolio supporting my investment in a simple project, like the Tavers Solar Project, the largest such project ever built in Canada.

I would want to know how many gallons of petroleum, tons of coal, cubic meters of methane were purchased and burned, in total, to create the project. This was a Fossil Fuel Subsidy using my money. I would want to know the total tons of GHG emitted to produce a project whose sole existence is to save GHG.

If excess transmission, transformers, etc were required (Tavers has piles of it), 100% of the Carbon+GHG should count. It was all built to save carbon and GHG. The whole thing. Transportation. Construction.

Investors in a scheme promising to rid the world of oil, coal, and methane should naturally be required to account to its investors how much of the same the scheme’s investors would be required to (avert the gaze) purchase first to “save much more later.”

Now that we have accurately made the “devilishly” hard fossil fuel accounting spreadsheet, the next task is to prove up all the Evil Fossil Fuels the machine will finally start saving. Don’t hold your breath.

In a court of law, the BOP in a civil action is a “preponderance of the evidence.” That means the finding of fact is “more likely than not.” To me, that means 51% or more. The finder of fact weighs competing evidence.

I didn’t appreciate how much the BOP matters until the close of the first bench trial I conducted as a pro tem judge. And I had been a trial court clerk and a lawyer for years by then.

The case involved two counter suits, several written items of evidence, and several witnesses. The courtroom was packed. The evidence concluded. And suddenly everybody was looking at me, waiting for my ruling. And I panicked when I realized it was my turn. And I was mute.

Silence. Embarrassment. What now? The main case was a close call. I was struggling. Claim. Defense. Law. After what seemed to be an eternity, I had a Joycean epiphany: Burden of Proof! Duh.

The Plaintiff had the BOP. The Plaintiff failed to persuade me. So the plaintiff lost. It wasn’t because he was lying. He just failed to bring his best witness who had the best personal knowledge of the facts.

Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, the Defendant did persuade me that his evidence was more likely than not correct. So I entered a counter-judgment.

Back to the Canadian solar project that the government forced everybody to build—and to pay for the amazing power it will assuredly generate to “save” carbon and evil fossil fuels. The best part! Show Me the Savings! I mean I’m ready to see Evil Coal power plants bite the eternal dust all the way to the Black Hades where they spawned. I paid my money. When’s the blasting?

Turns out that closest city to the Tavers Solar Project, Calgary, hosted the Winter Olympics in 1988. And for good reasons.

Turns out that that the Alberta grid is 54% gas but (here we go!) 36% Evil Coal.

Surely the largest solar plant in all of Canada is going to save the world mountains of evil black lumps! Payday! Our forced investment is finally going to pay off! Don’t hold your breath.

Turns out that coal power plants run as baseload. They don’t typically cycle without a need to incur the expense and loss of efficiency in doing so (think - accelerator peddle). Coal runs full throttle. Fortunately for Albertans who like electric light in the winter, gas plants cycle! And they’ve got 54%.

Seems to me that Albertans just bought mountains of coal from China—and petroleum—mining up and refining all the minerals for those solar panels in exchange for a modest amount of gas fuel. But I don’t have the burden of proof.

Seems to me that buying mountains of coal and oceans of petroleum from my political adversaries, tyrants, and cartels to save 0 coal and 0 petroleum wasn’t such a good investment.

Then again, I’m just a dumb lawyer asking frivolous questions. I don’t even know the first thing about Excel. And math isn’t my strong suit.