Thanks for the pointer. It all sounds nice, but as I said in another comment, I'll believe it when I see it. Another thing perhaps worth noting is that I don't see anything in the article that would change the very large amount of mining that will be needed for a big expansion in the number of electric vehicles, especially of lithium and…
Thanks for the pointer. It all sounds nice, but as I said in another comment, I'll believe it when I see it. Another thing perhaps worth noting is that I don't see anything in the article that would change the very large amount of mining that will be needed for a big expansion in the number of electric vehicles, especially of lithium and copper. I expect that will put a damper on the expansion. I don't think environmentalists really grasp right now just how much mining will be required for the "electrify everything" future.
It isn't that environmentalists don't really grasp the how much mining will be required, they just choose to ignore or lie about it. The same way they ignore/lie about the environmental damage associated with renewables as a result of how much of the earth's landmass would have to be covered by wind and solar installations to generate sufficient electricity. Reality doesn't factor into the 'climate change' agenda.
Yes, the quantity of mining is huge. Convince me it is a large percentage of total mining. Include fossil fuels in an arguably appropriate way.
Wind doesn't really "cover" land and it can share space with numerous other activities. As for solar, an engineering prof working on solar tech shared with me his calculation of solar needed to meet current US grid power needs. If in the southwest, an area about 1/3 of Illinois. Obviously more if distributed to cloudier and more northern locales. On the other hand, there are a lot of roofs where solar doesn't have any competition for space.
No amount of solar can meet US grid power needs until there is cost-effective electricity storage -- which gets us back closer to the subject in the original post.
The discussion is about whether these improvements that would make EVs very competitive with ICE vehicles will happen soon, or at all. Arguing the batteries still won't be sufficient for grid storage is a red herring.
You're the one who made the comment about solar and the power grid. I was merely responding to it. I agree that some of the issues of storage for cars and the grid are different, but they do share some of the same issues.
Wind ''can share space with numerous other activities." Such as? And who exactly wants to 'share space' with wind? Not the elites with 'luxury beliefs' (like 'climate change') discussed in the other link, as far as I know. Why don't you volunteer to 'share space' with wind and put your beliefs into practice? The calculations of an engineering prof, or anybody at any US academic institution, have no credibility with me. Who knows what unrealistic assumptions went into these calculations. And then there's Michael Schellenberger's sad story about the California desert tortoises that died after being relocated to make way for a solar farm. Poor tortoises. A fitting metaphor for the whole climate change agenda.
Thanks for the pointer. It all sounds nice, but as I said in another comment, I'll believe it when I see it. Another thing perhaps worth noting is that I don't see anything in the article that would change the very large amount of mining that will be needed for a big expansion in the number of electric vehicles, especially of lithium and copper. I expect that will put a damper on the expansion. I don't think environmentalists really grasp right now just how much mining will be required for the "electrify everything" future.
It isn't that environmentalists don't really grasp the how much mining will be required, they just choose to ignore or lie about it. The same way they ignore/lie about the environmental damage associated with renewables as a result of how much of the earth's landmass would have to be covered by wind and solar installations to generate sufficient electricity. Reality doesn't factor into the 'climate change' agenda.
Yes, the quantity of mining is huge. Convince me it is a large percentage of total mining. Include fossil fuels in an arguably appropriate way.
Wind doesn't really "cover" land and it can share space with numerous other activities. As for solar, an engineering prof working on solar tech shared with me his calculation of solar needed to meet current US grid power needs. If in the southwest, an area about 1/3 of Illinois. Obviously more if distributed to cloudier and more northern locales. On the other hand, there are a lot of roofs where solar doesn't have any competition for space.
No amount of solar can meet US grid power needs until there is cost-effective electricity storage -- which gets us back closer to the subject in the original post.
The discussion is about whether these improvements that would make EVs very competitive with ICE vehicles will happen soon, or at all. Arguing the batteries still won't be sufficient for grid storage is a red herring.
You're the one who made the comment about solar and the power grid. I was merely responding to it. I agree that some of the issues of storage for cars and the grid are different, but they do share some of the same issues.
Wind ''can share space with numerous other activities." Such as? And who exactly wants to 'share space' with wind? Not the elites with 'luxury beliefs' (like 'climate change') discussed in the other link, as far as I know. Why don't you volunteer to 'share space' with wind and put your beliefs into practice? The calculations of an engineering prof, or anybody at any US academic institution, have no credibility with me. Who knows what unrealistic assumptions went into these calculations. And then there's Michael Schellenberger's sad story about the California desert tortoises that died after being relocated to make way for a solar farm. Poor tortoises. A fitting metaphor for the whole climate change agenda.
"Such as? "
Mostly agriculture but I suspect there are other possibilities.
"The calculations of an engineering prof, or anybody at any US academic institution, have no credibility with me. "
Make the calculation yourself. It really isn't that hard. Just takes a little time.
"Michael Schellenberger's sad story about the California desert tortoises "
Thankfully, fossil fuels never have killed any animals.