5 ms·

Solar energy isn't free, it takes a lot of metals just to turn solar energy into electrical energy (including batteries for storage) and they don't last forever

Solar energy isn't free, it takes a lot of metals just to turn solar energy into electrical energy (including batteries for storage) and they don't last forever. Here's a link to a talk from an associate professor doing an estimation of how much metals are needed to switch to renewable energy: https://youtu.be/MBVmnKuBocc?t=2406 https://youtu.be/MBVmnKuBocc?t=2406

adrianN 4y ago
Solar energy is the cheapest form of energy we have. Storage is a bit more expensive, but judging from the amount of metals the video proposes they want to go all-in on battery storage, whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium, precisely because the amount of resources it needs are much smaller.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  Hydrogen would also help with re-using all the ICE cars we have (and will continue to have) on the roads. Definitely not a panacaea, and super-inefficient, but that's OK if we're just using it for storage/transportation.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    super-inefficient?
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      as in it's only worth doing if you have nothing else to do with the energy (like when you have too much wind/sun etc)
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        That's just the concept of energy storage. And even if we lose a significant fraction it's often not an issue given how cheap solar is.
        disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        Sure, but it would be better if we had more efficient methods of doing it.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium What experts? Power to gas has been really energy inefficient with little sign of improving from what I know. It can't really compete with pumped hydro even where pumped hydro makes less to no sense it seems.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Efficiency (almost) doesn't matter. Cost and scalability matters. Pumped hydro and batteries are wonderfully efficient, but they're a lot more difficult to scale than infrastructure for storing, transporting, and burning a gas.
chongli 4y ago
Wow, that was a bucket of water in my face the likes of which I’ve never felt before! We are 100% completely screwed! We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future. The picture this professor paints is so incredibly bleak that it puts the war in Ukraine and a potential war in Taiwan into perspective. Imagine if all the passengers on the Titanic had nuclear weapons. That’s the situation we’re in. And there are no lifeboats.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  Except that all these problems are soluble. We can adapt to climate change. We can create new (clean!) energy sources. Solar is getting more efficient every year. There are new storage solutions appearing every year. As TFA says, despair is not the answer. We can (and will) overcome all these problems.
  - throwanapple 4y ago
    Can you expand more on those new storage solutions?
    - marcus_holmes 4y ago
      here let me google that for you... https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2022/02/17/4-energy-storage-solutions-that-will-help-the-planet-achieve-net-zero/?sh=78f2d78d4ce4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2022/...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future. Don't make the mistake of confusing energy use with quality of life. People like to make such alarmist statement around standard of living but we should instead ask ourselves what makes for quality of life. A good example is planned obsolescence in technology: it greatly increases energy usage and pollution without making consumers happier (on the contrary they hate it)
goatlover 4y ago
This isn't the first time someone has predicted an end to economic growth soon because of peak raw resources having been attained. We can go all the way back to the numerous failed predictions of Elrich's Population Bomb book. The idea that we're close to the pinnacle of what technology and science can achieve is ridiculous given the immense cosmic time scales and resources available. We're nowhere near the limit of what's possible.

adrianN 4y ago

Solar energy is the cheapest form of energy we have. Storage is a bit more expensive, but judging from the amount of metals the video proposes they want to go all-in on battery storage, whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium, precisely because the amount of resources it needs are much smaller.

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
Hydrogen would also help with re-using all the ICE cars we have (and will continue to have) on the roads. Definitely not a panacaea, and super-inefficient, but that's OK if we're just using it for storage/transportation.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  super-inefficient?
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    as in it's only worth doing if you have nothing else to do with the energy (like when you have too much wind/sun etc)
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      That's just the concept of energy storage. And even if we lose a significant fraction it's often not an issue given how cheap solar is.
      - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        Sure, but it would be better if we had more efficient methods of doing it.
modo_mario 4y ago
>whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium What experts? Power to gas has been really energy inefficient with little sign of improving from what I know. It can't really compete with pumped hydro even where pumped hydro makes less to no sense it seems.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Efficiency (almost) doesn't matter. Cost and scalability matters. Pumped hydro and batteries are wonderfully efficient, but they're a lot more difficult to scale than infrastructure for storing, transporting, and burning a gas.

chongli 4y ago

Wow, that was a bucket of water in my face the likes of which I’ve never felt before! We are 100% completely screwed! We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future. The picture this professor paints is so incredibly bleak that it puts the war in Ukraine and a potential war in Taiwan into perspective. Imagine if all the passengers on the Titanic had nuclear weapons. That’s the situation we’re in. And there are no lifeboats.

marcus_holmes 4y ago
Except that all these problems are soluble. We can adapt to climate change. We can create new (clean!) energy sources. Solar is getting more efficient every year. There are new storage solutions appearing every year. As TFA says, despair is not the answer. We can (and will) overcome all these problems.
- throwanapple 4y ago
  Can you expand more on those new storage solutions?
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    here let me google that for you... https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2022/02/17/4-energy-storage-solutions-that-will-help-the-planet-achieve-net-zero/?sh=78f2d78d4ce4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2022/...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
goodpoint 4y ago
> We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future. Don't make the mistake of confusing energy use with quality of life. People like to make such alarmist statement around standard of living but we should instead ask ourselves what makes for quality of life. A good example is planned obsolescence in technology: it greatly increases energy usage and pollution without making consumers happier (on the contrary they hate it)

goatlover 4y ago

This isn't the first time someone has predicted an end to economic growth soon because of peak raw resources having been attained. We can go all the way back to the numerous failed predictions of Elrich's Population Bomb book. The idea that we're close to the pinnacle of what technology and science can achieve is ridiculous given the immense cosmic time scales and resources available. We're nowhere near the limit of what's possible.