3 ms·

It gets worse. There isn't enough of a lot of different metals to build the renewable energy capacity to replace fossil fuels: https://www.counterpunch.org/202

It gets worse. There isn't enough of a lot of different metals to build the renewable energy capacity to replace fossil fuels: https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/08/23/is-there-enough-metal-to-replace-oil/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/08/23/is-there-enough-meta...

thoughtstheseus 4y ago
In hindsight we should’ve replaced the fossil fuel industrial base back when oil was $10 a barrel.
stephen_g 4y ago
None of the researchers I read on renewable tech took that study seriously. From what I recall, I believe it makes some incredible assumptions that are very sketchy. Like assuming the need for massive amounts of grid storage (like four weeks or more), and assuming it’s all a single battery chemistry (that contains cobalt even though most stationary storage has already moved to other chemistries). In the real world, the actual grid storage requirements won’t be anything like that, there are other battery chemistries that might take over some of the market from lithium-based ones (like sodium or sulphur based), lots of storage will be pumped hydro, some will be flow batteries (not just vanadium but zinc-bromide), plenty of copper conductors can be switched to aluminium, energy efficiency measures (like heat pumps) will reduce the amount of energy needed compared to gas heating, etc. etc.
- switchbak 4y ago
  I find it hard to take seriously an article that suggests we'll still be using the same battery chemistry some 28 years from now. The number of compounding innovations likely to take place between now and then is certainly a lot based on historical precedent, and I think it's bonkers to not factor that in. If scarcity is really that much of an issue, even a less efficient chemistry could supplant lithium. But a more likely outcome is we'll use something novel that we can't foresee from this moment in time. And the future science journalists will write about how we don't have enough of that either.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    You know lithium ion batteries were developed in 1980, and practical versions didn't come out until almost 10 years later, right? Battery tech does not move quickly.
    - switchbak 4y ago
      (Battery) tech moves a lot quicker when there's such a big profit incentive from even marginal gains. Cell phones, power tools, EVs, energy storage, are all big money makers that add huge incentives. That didn't exist anywhere near to that degree in 1980. You're also talking about a tech that was very early in its growth/learning curve. We have had many irons in this fire for a very long time, we have seen continuous incremental improvements, and I expect that to continue. Obviously lithium based chemistries are very well known and studied, and I expect them to hang around a very long time. But 28 years is an eternity in these circles, and if lithium scarcity becomes a big issue, yes I do expect that we'll invest a lot of research and money into finding workable alternatives.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  The four week grid storage requirement is completely bonkers, dunno where the researches got that from. Even if we'd need it, batteries are the single worst way to do it with current tech :D
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  > plenty of copper conductors can be switched to aluminum Aluminum is cheaper than copper today. Don't you think, if it would be viable solution to use aluminum instead of copper, it would have already happened?
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    Funny enough, it is happening, just sneakily. Copper-clad aluminum is pretty common.

thoughtstheseus 4y ago

In hindsight we should’ve replaced the fossil fuel industrial base back when oil was $10 a barrel.

stephen_g 4y ago

None of the researchers I read on renewable tech took that study seriously. From what I recall, I believe it makes some incredible assumptions that are very sketchy. Like assuming the need for massive amounts of grid storage (like four weeks or more), and assuming it’s all a single battery chemistry (that contains cobalt even though most stationary storage has already moved to other chemistries). In the real world, the actual grid storage requirements won’t be anything like that, there are other battery chemistries that might take over some of the market from lithium-based ones (like sodium or sulphur based), lots of storage will be pumped hydro, some will be flow batteries (not just vanadium but zinc-bromide), plenty of copper conductors can be switched to aluminium, energy efficiency measures (like heat pumps) will reduce the amount of energy needed compared to gas heating, etc. etc.

switchbak 4y ago
I find it hard to take seriously an article that suggests we'll still be using the same battery chemistry some 28 years from now. The number of compounding innovations likely to take place between now and then is certainly a lot based on historical precedent, and I think it's bonkers to not factor that in. If scarcity is really that much of an issue, even a less efficient chemistry could supplant lithium. But a more likely outcome is we'll use something novel that we can't foresee from this moment in time. And the future science journalists will write about how we don't have enough of that either.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  You know lithium ion batteries were developed in 1980, and practical versions didn't come out until almost 10 years later, right? Battery tech does not move quickly.
  - switchbak 4y ago
    (Battery) tech moves a lot quicker when there's such a big profit incentive from even marginal gains. Cell phones, power tools, EVs, energy storage, are all big money makers that add huge incentives. That didn't exist anywhere near to that degree in 1980. You're also talking about a tech that was very early in its growth/learning curve. We have had many irons in this fire for a very long time, we have seen continuous incremental improvements, and I expect that to continue. Obviously lithium based chemistries are very well known and studied, and I expect them to hang around a very long time. But 28 years is an eternity in these circles, and if lithium scarcity becomes a big issue, yes I do expect that we'll invest a lot of research and money into finding workable alternatives.
theshrike79 4y ago
The four week grid storage requirement is completely bonkers, dunno where the researches got that from. Even if we'd need it, batteries are the single worst way to do it with current tech :D
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
> plenty of copper conductors can be switched to aluminum Aluminum is cheaper than copper today. Don't you think, if it would be viable solution to use aluminum instead of copper, it would have already happened?
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Funny enough, it is happening, just sneakily. Copper-clad aluminum is pretty common.