This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Thursday 31 March 2022
BATTERIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION
Read this paper to see the hidden issues of environmental damage as a result of the increased use of batteries.
THis is what drives the whole situation towards clean energy. The massive co2 difference between the energies. I am giving a talk on the minerals and metals that it takes to build the 100% clean energy system. As much work as it is to make the new system, its so much better than the misery of the carbon pollution energy of the present and the future.
In response to the article posted on 27th March (entitled "energy Crisis, Time for a Radical Re-think) you wrote - "Rare earth metals are not necessary for batteries or wind turbines." I asked you to substantiate that statement, which you could not do. Now read the very interesting report you linked to. Here is an extract:
To cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050 we must radically ramp up production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and power lines.
Those technologies are far more mineral-intensive than are the equivalent fossil fuel technologies. “A typical electric car requires SIX TIMES the mineral inputs of a conventional car,” writes the International Energy Agency (IEA), “and an onshore wind plant requires NINE TIMES more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant of the same capacity.”
We also need to mention the massive energy needed to extract and refine these minerals. While there may be enough of them in theory, in practice they are spread out across the globe and locating them in sufficient concentration to make extraction economically viable will become more and more difficult, leading to them becoming more and more expensive. Oil and gas are still relatively abundant by comparison.
These are not arguments put forward by people who are ideologically opposed to seeing a new technology replace fossil fuels, as you have implied. Many highly respected experts are making these points simply because they are valid. If a new technology is superior to the current one then it will automatically be adopted, but if it is being forced on the public despite being more costly and less reliable it will ultimately fail, no matter how much the government try to foist it on us.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/minerals-and-the-clean-energy-transition-the-basics-2
ReplyDeletehttps://img.canarymedia.com/content/uploads/Mineral-extraction-and-processing.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&w=1168&s=c4b9494e623b35c49d31d9be37f55df5
THis is what drives the whole situation towards clean energy. The massive co2 difference between the energies. I am giving a talk on the minerals and metals that it takes to build the 100% clean energy system. As much work as it is to make the new system, its so much better than the misery of the carbon pollution energy of the present and the future.
In response to the article posted on 27th March (entitled "energy Crisis, Time for a Radical Re-think) you wrote - "Rare earth metals are not necessary for batteries or wind turbines." I asked you to substantiate that statement, which you could not do. Now read the
ReplyDeletevery interesting report you linked to. Here is an extract:
To cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050 we must radically ramp up production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, electric vehicles, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and power lines.
Those technologies are far more mineral-intensive than are the equivalent fossil fuel technologies. “A typical electric car requires SIX TIMES the mineral inputs of a conventional car,” writes the International Energy Agency (IEA), “and an onshore wind plant requires NINE TIMES more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant of the same capacity.”
We also need to mention the massive energy needed to extract and refine these minerals. While there may be enough of them in theory, in practice they are spread out across the globe and locating them in sufficient concentration to make extraction economically viable will become more and more difficult, leading to them becoming more and more expensive. Oil and gas are still relatively abundant by comparison.
These are not arguments put forward by people who are ideologically opposed to seeing a new technology replace fossil fuels, as you have implied. Many highly respected experts are making these points simply because they are valid. If a new technology is superior to the current one then it will automatically be adopted, but if it is being forced on the public despite being more costly and less reliable it will ultimately fail, no matter how much the government try to foist it on us.