6 ms·

Why don't you think we can use renewables to reach 100%? People have done calculations on it using existing tech? For my country, those calculations were done

by olau 6y ago

Why don't you think we can use renewables to reach 100%? People have done calculations on it using existing tech? For my country, those calculations were done by a government body in 2014, and they estimated that the total cost would be somewhat higher, but not astronomical. But since then, the prices have fallen much faster than they anticipated.

sjwright 6y ago
Unless there’s a massive breakthrough in battery tech, the manufacturing of sufficient batteries would be a guaranteed environmental disaster.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  Lithium mining has an impact similar to oil extraction. (On average -- oil sands and fracking are worse, conventional oil production is better). But since batteries can be used a few thousand times and then can be recycled efficiently, the volume required is a tiny fraction of the petroleum requirements. Other materials are used in even smaller quantities. Cobalt is a disaster, but grid batteries don't use cobalt, they generally use nickel & iron. It is a large environmental impact. But compared to the alternative, it's very green.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    I was speaking in absolute terms. When speaking in relative terms to a newly built fossil fuel plant you are most likely correct. You'd be hard pressed to find a plausible source of energy that's worse for the environment (immediate AND long term) than burning dirty sequestered carbon sources like coal and oil. When speaking in relative terms to a newly built nuclear plant—the context of my response—batteries would be significantly worse per KWh of baseload energy supplied.
orwin 6y ago
Because it need to be 350%, not 100%.
pif 6y ago
> Why don't you think ... It's not what I think: it's what we can be sure of! If we ever get to the point where we can keep the same living standards as of today, with no fossil and no nuclear, well: let it be! Should we push for it? Yes, we should! Should we pay more taxes in order to push for it? Yes, we should! Should we bet on it and risk our living standards? No, thank you!

by olau 6y ago

sjwright 6y ago

Unless there’s a massive breakthrough in battery tech, the manufacturing of sufficient batteries would be a guaranteed environmental disaster.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Lithium mining has an impact similar to oil extraction. (On average -- oil sands and fracking are worse, conventional oil production is better). But since batteries can be used a few thousand times and then can be recycled efficiently, the volume required is a tiny fraction of the petroleum requirements. Other materials are used in even smaller quantities. Cobalt is a disaster, but grid batteries don't use cobalt, they generally use nickel & iron. It is a large environmental impact. But compared to the alternative, it's very green.
- sjwright 6y ago
  I was speaking in absolute terms. When speaking in relative terms to a newly built fossil fuel plant you are most likely correct. You'd be hard pressed to find a plausible source of energy that's worse for the environment (immediate AND long term) than burning dirty sequestered carbon sources like coal and oil. When speaking in relative terms to a newly built nuclear plant—the context of my response—batteries would be significantly worse per KWh of baseload energy supplied.

orwin 6y ago

Because it need to be 350%, not 100%.

pif 6y ago

> Why don't you think ... It's not what I think: it's what we can be sure of! If we ever get to the point where we can keep the same living standards as of today, with no fossil and no nuclear, well: let it be! Should we push for it? Yes, we should! Should we pay more taxes in order to push for it? Yes, we should! Should we bet on it and risk our living standards? No, thank you!