You're ignoring the part where only 40% of the energy in coal or natural gas is converted into electricity at the power plant. Then there are transmissions losses. Then charging losses.
LOL Not ignoring that at all. That is why solar on rooftops, manufacturing, commercial, and residential would be such a win. No transmission losses, because you are generating the energy in the city where you need it. Add grid scale batteries to that, and you have a real win-win situation.
Solar on your rooftop will not be even 10% of what's required to charge your car. Furthermore, people will be charging their cars at night. How Is any kind of solar going to handle that?
I love how you denier cult dingbats toss out bullshit lies without any supporting evidence and expect everybody to just believe you. I know you are used to getting away with that kind of dumbshitery 'cause it works fine when you talk to the gullible rightwingnuts at your little denier cult get-togethers, but it doesn't work so well with normal people who, unlike you fools, have far above room temperatures IQs.
In the real world....
How much does it cost to charge an electric car with solar power?
(excerpt]
...Right up front you have a choice to make. Do you want to be pragmatic and decide that a kWh of solar is a kWh of solar, whether it’s sent to the grid or used to charge your car’s battery? Or do you want to make absolutely sure every kWh used for the car comes from solar, even though it will cost more money?
The decision here is between a solar panel system on your roof, or solar plus storage: batteries that capture the kilowatt-hours and can be used to charge your ride when the sun isn’t shining. We pragmatists know that a kWh generated is a kWh earned, and we’re happy to send our panels’ generation off onto the grid and draw power from the utility company at night to charge our panels.
But calculating the cost of solar without battery storage and trying to figure out what percentage of that goes into charging your car if you plug it in at 5 pm or 7 pm is way too hard. We’re pragmatists, remember? So we’re going to assume since you have an EV and you want to charge it with solar, you’re gonna get some batteries to do it. Easy peasy. Sort of.
(continued)
Okay, idiots like you irritate Me no end.
That's probably because you are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we are talking about, Dorkwind.
How much carbon did it take to make all those solar panels...
Anywhere from not 'very much' to 'none at all', numbnuts.
You seem to be asking, in your ignorant way, how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the manufacture of solar panels?
Studies have shown that, even using just the fairly dirty energy from the grid, the current generation of solar panels produce enough clean, carbon-emission-free energy in the first year or two of operation to pay back the carbon debt from the energy used in manufacturing them. After that they produce carbon-emission-free energy for another 25 or 30 years (or more).
However, the factories that produce solar panels are rapidly becoming self-powered; or in other words, they are installing enough of their own panels to power their own further production of more panels, thus reducing the carbon emissions of panel manufacture to almost zero.
Carbon Footprint of Solar Panels
FACT: A PV system meeting half of the electrical needs of a typical household would eliminate approximately half a ton of sulfur dioxide pollution from the air, and 600 lbs. of nitrogen oxides. In contrast, any pollutants produced in the manufacturing process are minimal and largely recycled.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy conclusively demonstrates through research at the National Center for Photovoltaics that Photovoltaic (PV) systems avoid far more carbon dioxide and other pollution through their clean energy production than are introduced by the manufacturing of PV systems.
“An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household’s electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide.”
The study concludes, “PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!”
...and how much carbon was burned to make all those cars?
Manufacturing just the electric vehicle itself, not including the battery pack, involves less carbon emissions than the same sized gas powered car. The current Lithium-ion batteries up the total emissions to a little bit greater than regular cars, by about 15%.....but the new battery technology discussed in the OP will reduce that by quite a bit, since they don't require the production and transport of Lithium.
It is the total life-cycle emissions of the vehicles that matters the most though.
But what are the global warming emissions of electric cars on a life cycle basis—from the manufacturing of the vehicle’s body and battery to its ultimate disposal and reuse? To answer this, the Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive, two-year review of the climate emissions from vehicle production, operation, and disposal. We found that battery electric cars generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when pollution from battery manufacturing is accounted for. Over their lifetime, battery electric vehicles produce far less global warming pollution than their gasoline counterparts—and they’re getting cleaner.
(
source)
Then there is the problem of solar being efficient in a very narrow range of the globe. Outside those zones the efficiency drops dramatically not to mention that availability of the source due to weather.
More ignorant bullshit. Who's feeding you this crap anyway?
In the real world, solar is a viable source of energy over most of the planet, although it is somewhat more efficient closer to the Equator.
Here a good map of the strength of the solar irradiance around the world. As you are looking at this map, keep in mind that Germany was leading the world for many years in harvesting solar energy and they are down towards the bottom of the scale in solar energy received.
(source)
Why don't you have a go at presenting ALL the sides of the data, the good with the bad. At least you won't look like some crazed lunitic worshiping a non-existent deity.
It is hilarious that you imagine that an ignorant bamboozled rightwingnut like yourself could possibly
know "
ALL sides of the data" when you obviously don't know even the basic facts about these issues.
As it is, you look like a crazed lunatic worshiping fraudulent propaganda memes in a cult of reality denial.
