Copper is one of the most basic materials for the energy transformation. Miners would have to remove some 40 million tonnes of underlying rock, and then extract, crush, and process nearly 25 million tonnes of ore to get 110,000 tonnes of copper, enough for 30,000 Megawatts of electricity. This in theory would power a city of about 9 million people. But since wind turbines are only about 45% efficient with optimal conditions, ie wind, this is in fact reduced to about 25%, because the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and this is enough to supply a city of just a bit over 2 million.
A smallish 3MW turbine uses 4.7 tonnes of copper. 53% goes on cables and wiring, 24% on turbine/power generation, and 23% on transformers.
In addition to copper, a typical 3MW turbine will need 335 tonnes of steel, 1200 tonnes of concrete, 3 tonnes of aluminium, 2 tonnes of rare earth elements, and zinc and molybdenum.
What rare earth metals might we need?
To get the following rare earths we need:
9000 kg of purified rock to get 1kg of vanadium
17,000 kg of rock for 1kg of cerium
55,000 kg of rock for 1kg of gallium
1,300,000 kg of ore for 1kg of lutecium
By 2035 the demand for these metals will increase many times, and the demand for cobalt may increase by a factor of 24. Remember, all these require mining operations which considerably destroy the countryside, as well as contaminate it with toxic waste. The mining industry is the second most polluting industry in the world.
What the landscape could end up like. Mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It is estimated 40,000 children work in these mines and many die of mine collapse, while others will develop lung cancer from inhaling the dust from the metals they mine.
It is estimated 40,000 children work in these mines and many die of mine collapse, while others will develop lung cancer from inhaling the dust from the metals they mine.
The raw material cost for a back-up battery or for that matter an EV battery is about 50-70% of battery costs. It has been suggested from reliable sources that the cost for cobalt could increase by a factor of 24 by 2035. Let’s suppose lithium and cobalt only increase in price by a factor of 10 say by 2030. Let’s take the conservative view that the cost of the raw material for an EV battery is 50% of the cost of the battery. Now a reasonable battery cost at present is $5000. That’s about the price of a good second hand Leaf battery. So half of this is raw material costs. That is $2500. If lithium and cobalt increase by a factor of ten by 2030 then the raw materials for a battery will now be $25,000. This means the cost of an EV battery will now be $50,000. From $2500 to $50,000 is a 1000% increase!
This means the cost of a battery will rise by 1000%. This means electric vehicles will be unaffordable. The cost of a Tesla battery in 2030 could be close to $200,000! You will not be able to sell your vehicle if the battery needs replacing. So an EV battery which now cost $5000 will by 2030 cost considerably more than $50,000. It will also make back–up power using storage batteries for solar and wind, totally unaffordable. The move to net zero is futile with “green energy.”
Demand for critical minerals will rise exponentially after 2030 and by 2040 if this folly carries on it is projected the demand for lithium will be 42 times that at present and cobalt 24 times at least. In the meantime, governments are ploughing on seemingly oblivious to the futility.
There’s more bad news for the green fraternity. Estimated supply of lithium and cobalt by 2030 is only half that needed, while copper fears a little better with about 80% being able to be supplied. Copper prices are predicted to skyrocket.
Entrepreneur and inventor Saul Griffith says” We should be making wind turbines 10 times faster than we are now. We need to be making solar cells 10 times faster than we do. We need to be making batteries and electric vehicles 10 times as fast as we do today.”
Once die-hard environmentalists are now supporting or at least passively accepting new mines and the wholesale destruction of pristine wilderness to maintain the flow of minerals required to supply their green energy delusions.
The turbine tower
The tower is typically made out of rolled steel. The cheapest supply is from-China. Cast iron is made from iron ore in blast furnaces. Blast furnaces use large amounts of coke which all the time churns out vast amounts of carbon dioxide! The carbon level in the metal is reduced in a converter where oxygen is forced to react with carbon to form-carbon dioxide.
Another method is the electric arc method using steel scrap. This uses a large amount of electrical energy and huge volumes of water. The cones and gearbox castings are made in Poland. These casting can weigh over 60 tonnes. Pollution controls in Polish operations leave a lot to be desired. In Poland a large proportion of the electrical energy is supplied by the largest coal burning power station on the planet.
The turbine blades are made from carbon fibre and plastic compounds. Toxic compounds are used in the manufacture. This includes epoxy. Leading edge erosion sends fine particles including epoxy, a long distance from the turbine. All this material needs to be transported to the site with enormous transportation and fuel bills, as generally the areas are remote. Although the lifespan of a turbine is quoted as 25 years, the economic lifespan is 15 years and often as low as ten years. The replaced turbine blades go into landfills. Turbines not only do not go when there is no wind, but they automatically shut down when the wind speed exceeds 25 meters per sec., otherwise they self-destruct. Turbines in the sea need much more maintenance. Their life is also shorter.
What is the cost of a turbine?
The average cost of a 3 MW turbine is around 4 Million dollars US
Large offshore turbines can cost tens of millions of dollars each.
The most powerful 12 MW turbine costs up to $400 million US.
What happens at the end of life for wind turbines and solar panels?
The turbine blades are not usually recycled due to the cost plus the difficulty of separating out the toxic components. So most go into landfills to be there for a very long time, leaching chemicals into the groundwater. Millions have already been buried. Of course we have climate cultists telling us that they do not want a small amount of radioactive waste from nuclear power stations buried and sealed in a cave. They would rather have hundreds, possibly thousands, of acres of turbine blades and old solar panels buried under the soil.
Efforts are being made to try and recycle the blades
This means the cost of a battery will rise by 1000%. This means electric vehicles will be unaffordable. The cost of a Tesla battery in 2030 could be close to $200,000! You will not be able to sell your vehicle if the battery needs replacing. So an EV battery which now cost $5000 will by 2030 cost considerably more than $50,000. It will also make back–up power using storage batteries for solar and wind, totally unaffordable. The move to net zero is futile with “green energy.”
Demand for critical minerals will rise exponentially after 2030 and by 2040 if this folly carries on it is projected the demand for lithium will be 42 times that at present and cobalt 24 times at least. In the meantime, governments are ploughing on seemingly oblivious to the futility.
There’s more bad news for the green fraternity. Estimated supply of lithium and cobalt by 2030 is only half that needed, while copper fears a little better with about 80% being able to be supplied. Copper prices are predicted to skyrocket.
Entrepreneur and inventor Saul Griffith says” We should be making wind turbines 10 times faster than we are now. We need to be making solar cells 10 times faster than we do. We need to be making batteries and electric vehicles 10 times as fast as we do today.”
Once die-hard environmentalists are now supporting or at least passively accepting new mines and the wholesale destruction of pristine wilderness to maintain the flow of minerals required to supply their green energy delusions.
The turbine tower
The tower is typically made out of rolled steel. The cheapest supply is from-China. Cast iron is made from iron ore in blast furnaces. Blast furnaces use large amounts of coke which all the time churns out vast amounts of carbon dioxide! The carbon level in the metal is reduced in a converter where oxygen is forced to react with carbon to form-carbon dioxide.
Another method is the electric arc method using steel scrap. This uses a large amount of electrical energy and huge volumes of water. The cones and gearbox castings are made in Poland. These casting can weigh over 60 tonnes. Pollution controls in Polish operations leave a lot to be desired. In Poland a large proportion of the electrical energy is supplied by the largest coal burning power station on the planet.
The turbine blades are made from carbon fibre and plastic compounds. Toxic compounds are used in the manufacture. This includes epoxy. Leading edge erosion sends fine particles including epoxy, a long distance from the turbine. All this material needs to be transported to the site with enormous transportation and fuel bills, as generally the areas are remote. Although the lifespan of a turbine is quoted as 25 years, the economic lifespan is 15 years and often as low as ten years. The replaced turbine blades go into landfills. Turbines not only do not go when there is no wind, but they automatically shut down when the wind speed exceeds 25 meters per sec., otherwise they self-destruct. Turbines in the sea need much more maintenance. Their life is also shorter.
What is the cost of a turbine?
The average cost of a 3 MW turbine is around 4 Million dollars US
Large offshore turbines can cost tens of millions of dollars each.
The most powerful 12 MW turbine costs up to $400 million US.
What happens at the end of life for wind turbines and solar panels?
The turbine blades are not usually recycled due to the cost plus the difficulty of separating out the toxic components. So most go into landfills to be there for a very long time, leaching chemicals into the groundwater. Millions have already been buried. Of course we have climate cultists telling us that they do not want a small amount of radioactive waste from nuclear power stations buried and sealed in a cave. They would rather have hundreds, possibly thousands, of acres of turbine blades and old solar panels buried under the soil.
Efforts are being made to try and recycle the blades
Turbine blades being buried. They will be there for hundreds of years.
As far as solar panels are concerned each is a toxic cocktail of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. As it leaches into the water table it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on water supplies, the environment generally, and human health. It would cost about $30 to recycle one solar panel but the cost of dumping in a landfill is only 1 or 2 dollars. So most go into landfills. The International Renewable Energy Agency has indicated that this waste could total 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. How much valuable land would this take up?
As far as solar panels are concerned each is a toxic cocktail of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. As it leaches into the water table it’s not difficult to imagine the effect on water supplies, the environment generally, and human health. It would cost about $30 to recycle one solar panel but the cost of dumping in a landfill is only 1 or 2 dollars. So most go into landfills. The International Renewable Energy Agency has indicated that this waste could total 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. How much valuable land would this take up?
Dumped solar panels. This lot have not even been buried.
A further word about solar panels. A whole solar farm can be destroyed in a matter of minutes by a hail storm. Immediately there is the fear that toxic chemicals from the damaged panels will leak into the water supply. Meanwhile a nuclear power station carries on as usual. Just to digress for a moment. Latest news from the US is that nuclear waste is now being recycled and reused. Storage of nuclear waste may now become less of a problem.
A further word about solar panels. A whole solar farm can be destroyed in a matter of minutes by a hail storm. Immediately there is the fear that toxic chemicals from the damaged panels will leak into the water supply. Meanwhile a nuclear power station carries on as usual. Just to digress for a moment. Latest news from the US is that nuclear waste is now being recycled and reused. Storage of nuclear waste may now become less of a problem.
Most of these solar panels have been destroyed in a hail storm. Note also the acres of good flat land taken up. More waste to be buried.
To Summarise:
The demand for more mines will grow. More children will be killed by mine collapses and by the inhalation of dust containing toxic metals. More countryside will be decimated. China receives most of the mined metals for processing. Toxic waste from metal refining may contaminate waterways. Land beneath wind farms in particular is often contaminated with oil sprayed off the turbines. This in addition to contamination from turbine fires which make surrounding fields unusable for stock. The demand for minerals will far outstrip the supply so building of wind and solar farms and EV’s may come to a halt. The projected very high cost of batteries will make back-up batteries for wind and solar, and EV batteries unaffordable.
Reference: Stop these things.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
To Summarise:
The demand for more mines will grow. More children will be killed by mine collapses and by the inhalation of dust containing toxic metals. More countryside will be decimated. China receives most of the mined metals for processing. Toxic waste from metal refining may contaminate waterways. Land beneath wind farms in particular is often contaminated with oil sprayed off the turbines. This in addition to contamination from turbine fires which make surrounding fields unusable for stock. The demand for minerals will far outstrip the supply so building of wind and solar farms and EV’s may come to a halt. The projected very high cost of batteries will make back-up batteries for wind and solar, and EV batteries unaffordable.
Reference: Stop these things.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
15 comments:
Again IB throws the word “cult” at those who are persuaded by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and who don’t have their heads buried in the sand like AGW denialists do.
We really do need to decarbonise our energy production – solar and wind generation are among the ways of achieving this.
Copper is also an important component in other technologies: telecommunications, integrated circuits for computing, medical devices, car components (wiring, radiators, connectors, brakes), anticorrosive coatings for ship hulls, and so on and on.
What is the logical consequence of IB’s line or argument here? That we forego all modern technology?
LFC
Ian, you barely touch on the huge increases needed for the transmission system.
All the same things involved in the generation are required for transmission eg, the iron ore mined in Australia, a ship burning sulfur and oil takes it to China where it's smelted into iron and steel, shipped to NZ to build towers anchored into the ground with loads of concrete.
Similar process to create the power cables from copper and aluminum.
Repeat for the transformers and yard gear.
In other words, huge resources are required to satisfy the uneducated brain cells in the woke greenies.
Thanks for continuing to trying to educate the unthinking masses.
Ian is correct. It would be easier to convince the Pope to support abortion than get an alarmist to debate logically.
The leader of the opposition in Oz, Peter Dutton has stated that if he becomes the PM next year
Australia will have nuclear power. The majority of Aussies now support nuclear power.
The link below is to a smart you man who debates the issue with a Labor MP.
17-year-old nuclear activist takes on Chris Bowen on ABC panel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0VHQ6th23w
There is much more I will add later
I note Barry Brill's article in this forum dated August 25th 2023 which cites the research of atmospheric physicist Dr John Clauser who seems to be very much in the same camp as Ian Bradford.
Dr Clauser won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work.
Farmers are now being encouraged to sell or rent their land to entities that will use it for solar farms, wind farms, and other “cult climate” initiatives.
What’s more, many farmers are being incentivised to reprioritize the use of their land away from cultivating it for food production, in other words, farmers are getting paid more to get their land into the “cult program” as opposed to farming it.
Meanwhile, China, India and Russia are stocking up on food supplies, making it a major national security priority for its people.
Why is this? Do they know something?
Anon 7:56am. Please visit the web and specically ISOGO power plant - Yokohama and you will find in the middle of a huge city attached to Tokyo a huge NEW coal fired power plant that is super high capacity and proves that coal can be clean burning and virtually eliminates NOx SOx and carbon dioxide . Isogo has an anti pollution contract with the city to enforce a minimal pollution target for base load power . It is NOT fantasy or conjecture but FACT.
What a sad article. Not a single positive idea in the thing. It's just another an anti-mining rant, full of doom, gloom, and spurious assumptions. One glaring example; Bradford is presuming the price of lithium will rise by a factor of 10. Pity Yahoo Finance is reporting that since November 2022, the average price of battery-grade lithium carbonate in China has plunged from $84,500 per metric ton to $18,630, or about a 78% decline. What else in the article would not survive a rigorous fact-check? Those 48,000 children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo perhaps. Given that the wellbeing and prosperity of our entire society is built on the products of mining, it's a bit rich to mindlessly demand that we "Stop these things". Emotional rhetoric is easy in our post-truth age.. But verifiable evidence is rather more useful if you are trying to make a point.
It's good to see other points of view.
The Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the UN, has publicly stated: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it.”
So the message to LFC is a 'consensus' is not science, it is politics and propaganda
Research on any opposing point of view is not funded or discredited.
Many can see the climate is changing, there are a few less frosts than when we were kids. it's the mitigation that's the problem.
So stop with the petty name calling already.
Of course – putting aside the question of AGW for a moment – a huge omission from IB’s analysis here and in his previous article is any mention of the adverse environmental effects caused by the fossil-fuel industry during extraction and refining, and in fossil-fuel use. These include toxic waste, nitrogen, sulfur and black-carbon particulates in the air, ocean acidification, and oil spills on land and at sea.
CB: Nuclear energy also has serious drawbacks.
TL: As I noted a while ago on this forum, John Clauser is a fairly recent AGW denier. He is a notable physicist but not a notable climate scientist. Clauser believes incorrectly that cloud cover is the primary driver of GW. See for example this article – web search doi:10.1073/pnas.2026290118
If the argument is that Nobel prizewinners are so brilliant that we should follow their opinions, there are at least 101 Nobel laureates who agree with AGW – web search "101 Nobel Laureates Statement to Climate Summit World Leaders"
Even if we wish to be more cautious and limit our Nobel prizewinners to experts in the relevant field, then such an argument still implies AGW must be true because Manabe, Hasselmann and Parisi won the Nobel prize for physics on AGW.
Anon 23rd at 6.28pm: There is a scientific consensus because the evidence for AGW is compelling; it is not “propaganda”. See for example peer-reviewed article – web search doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 and also my previous comments on articles about this consensus.
Re petty name calling: Firstly, it is IB throwing out “cult” and “propaganda” against those who aren’t being antiscientific about AGW. In an earlier post IB even called the IPCC a “cult leader”. Secondly, “AGW denialist” is simply descriptive. Adding “conspiracist” is likewise descriptive in calling out the ridiculous, handwaving conspiracy put forward by AGW denialists such as IB that climate scientists throughout the world – in countries of diverse cultures and political persuasions – are colluding to fabricate data and scientific results. I do understand AGW denialists’ motivation in doing this, given the science is clearly and robustly confirming that AGW is occurring.
LFC
Anonymous, Ian Bradford's qualifications follow his article. You also rubbish a Nobel prizewinner and I suppose other climate scientists like Dr Curry and Dr Koonin.
I challenge you to give your name and qualifications.
CB at 8.30pm: I’m guessing you’re responding to me?
1. I didn’t “rubbish” a Nobel prizewinner, but stated the facts. Even though John Clauser is a physicist, he isn’t a climate scientist, has described himself as being a “denier”, and has been shown to be wrong about climate science. I backed that up with a peer-reviewed science article for others to read and consider for themselves.
I could also respond: Do you rubbish the (at least) 101 Nobel prizewinners who agree that AGW is occurring and are very concerned? And do you rubbish Manabe, Hasselmann and Parisi who won the Nobel prize for physics on AGW?
2. Regarding Dr Curry, I made brief comments a while back.
Dr Koonin is a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist, and is actually an AGW denialist. There is a good, brief review of some of the errors in his book Unsettled at Science Feedback (the review is supported by peer-reviewed articles) – web search "Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin's new book Unsettled"
3. This forum permits anonymous comments. The reasons I gave IB some time back still apply. Plus, given how disrespectful IB and others can get on this forum, I’m not keen to be hassled IRL.
I have noted earlier as well that I am a science graduate just as IB is. But that isn’t particularly important I think; it is the work and results from expert climate scientists that should be front and centre when considering AGW.
LFC
I’m afraid that Anonymous has been seduced by an organisation called Climate Feedback who spreads blatant misinformation by using words like science, consensus and peer review to camouflage their real purpose of promoting climate alarmism. Keep up the good work Ian.
Anonymous, You are good at cherry picking. The experts you quote from COP28 recommend tripling nuclear power yet you claim you know more than sveryone. Do you have PhD?
Anonymous, the scientist is not settled.
Experts Debunk Viral Post Claiming 1,100 Scientists Say ‘There’s No Climate Emergency’
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082022/experts-debunk-viral-post-claiming-1100-scientists-say-theres-no-climate-emergency/
A little while back a cult EXPERT was asked to look at the method of operation of the climate alarmist movement. He did so over a period of months, and then went to his check list of ten points. He ticked all of them off. He concluded that the climate alarmist movement was indeed a cult. So it is his label not mine but I agree. Those who think humans are causing climate change are cult members.
Decarbonise is a term for cleaning carbon out a a car engine. If we had 420 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere we would have a problem. 420ppm of carbon dioxide is no problem at all. And finally for LFC. Sadly you miss the point. The reason why we need to stop using these precious metals for monstrosities like wind turbines is so that we will have enough for all the things you mention.
Then for yet another anon. I am not the slightest bit interested in the downturn of Li price in one country China at present. If you bothered to do some reading you would find out why this is happening in China. I am concerned about 2030 and beyond. There is a current downturn in EV car sales. Many manufacturers are now making smaller EV's so they will be cheaper, so sales will pick up. Govts are still pushing wind and solar. ( The NZ and Australian govts are a case in point). So the demand for LI will continue at a pace.
For C.B. The nuclear waste in fission reactions is now being recycled. All but 4% is recycled but a company is working on recycling the final 4%-so there will not be any nuclear waste from fission reaction power stations. Then there are Thorium nuclear power stations being built too where waste is not a problem So what's you argument C.B?
COP 28: Over 20 countries pledged to triple the world's nuclear capacity by 2050 !!!!
Finally; it is interesting that climate alarmists don't put their names. At least I have the guts to put my name to things I write.
Post a Comment