The ''unicorn' or 'holy grail' of improvements in battery technology has been promised for decades now, but it has yet to materialize. If such improvement was physically possible, it would have happened by now, and whatever incremental improvement occurs in the future will never be sufficient to make solar and wind a feasible substitute …
The ''unicorn' or 'holy grail' of improvements in battery technology has been promised for decades now, but it has yet to materialize. If such improvement was physically possible, it would have happened by now, and whatever incremental improvement occurs in the future will never be sufficient to make solar and wind a feasible substitute for fossil fuels, regardless of their respective environmental impacts. I'm not against diversification of energy sources. I'm all for exploring alternatives to fossil fuels, not because of climate change, but simply because we may eventually run out of fossil fuels, or they may become prohibitively costly to extract. Maybe the answer is nuclear, or some other energy source that is yet to be invented. But battery technology combined with low-density, intermittent renewables is a dead end. The only thing keeping this con job going is rent seeking and ideological capture. Btw, my go-to on this topic is Schellenberger. He is what I call an honest progressive, a rare breed, and I detest progressivism. He is a true believer that use of fossil fuels contributes to climate change (I'm a skeptic, and in any event, the linkage is impossible to prove compared to other possible factors), but he has learned through practical experience from trying to implement renewables that they aren't the solution, and now advocates for nuclear along with natural gas. It is because he is a true believer but does not push the standard progressive narrative that I find him trustworthy, even though I don't agree with him on many topics.
This conversation has never been about ''unicorn,' 'holy grail,' or batteries needed for intermittent renewables. The cost/benefit for that requires far better/cheaper batteries than for a car and may never happen, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible.
As for cars, battery tech really doesn't need much more incremental improvement to be as good or better in most applications. Already better in a handful of situations.
The ''unicorn' or 'holy grail' of improvements in battery technology has been promised for decades now, but it has yet to materialize. If such improvement was physically possible, it would have happened by now, and whatever incremental improvement occurs in the future will never be sufficient to make solar and wind a feasible substitute for fossil fuels, regardless of their respective environmental impacts. I'm not against diversification of energy sources. I'm all for exploring alternatives to fossil fuels, not because of climate change, but simply because we may eventually run out of fossil fuels, or they may become prohibitively costly to extract. Maybe the answer is nuclear, or some other energy source that is yet to be invented. But battery technology combined with low-density, intermittent renewables is a dead end. The only thing keeping this con job going is rent seeking and ideological capture. Btw, my go-to on this topic is Schellenberger. He is what I call an honest progressive, a rare breed, and I detest progressivism. He is a true believer that use of fossil fuels contributes to climate change (I'm a skeptic, and in any event, the linkage is impossible to prove compared to other possible factors), but he has learned through practical experience from trying to implement renewables that they aren't the solution, and now advocates for nuclear along with natural gas. It is because he is a true believer but does not push the standard progressive narrative that I find him trustworthy, even though I don't agree with him on many topics.
This conversation has never been about ''unicorn,' 'holy grail,' or batteries needed for intermittent renewables. The cost/benefit for that requires far better/cheaper batteries than for a car and may never happen, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible.
As for cars, battery tech really doesn't need much more incremental improvement to be as good or better in most applications. Already better in a handful of situations.