3 ms·

All sources anyone will cite I will shoot down faster than you've shot down this article. The fact of the matter is that nearly all publication is influenced by

All sources anyone will cite I will shoot down faster than you've shot down this article. The fact of the matter is that nearly all publication is influenced by some source of funding. Including the "use solar for everything" camp. So let's be realistic, and scientific, first and foremost. Start by accepting that most of what most people know about solar is marketing. Unless they happen to be environmental chemists, at least by education, if not profession. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-env... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01735-z https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environmen... I can keep going... If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. It is a hope for the future based on an assumption that adoption and technological advancement will eventually create a negative carbon scenario. But we're far from that scenario today.

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
The first link is from a think tank started by a Koch brother and appears to have a history of being funded by coal and denying climate change, second is an editorial, and the 3rd discussed cobalt and nickel problems and does not even mention LFP (which in my opinion makes it either too old, biased, or uninformed to be relevant).
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  The downvote on the comment you replied to is from a random guy on the internet. Should I care more about that than you care about the articles I posted? Or maybe the bigger picture is that what matters is how much we as individuals and as a society care about stringent qualifications for what we call science? Hopefully you see the irony in your response now.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Your claim was: If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. Your three links do not support that claim, they all iterate around toxic waste by products of concentrate processing - which is a real problem but not a carbon problem, and a problem that for now is of a lesser order than toxic waste by products of copper mining. None of this deep science, more material process engineering. The solutions to the issues in your three links are to move processing to first world nations that have a greater incentive to make better tailings dams, to transition mining trucks away from fossil fuels and onto local electricity from solar and hydrogen - you'll see if you look about that processing is already moving an that companies such as Rio Tinto are already transitioning to renewable electricy generation.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      Those articles are not related to that claim. Of course. But surely you don't think mining lithium with giant gas powered machines and then shaking it into a separator with more gas powered machines, and then hauling it across the ocean with more gas powered machines is carbon neutral, do you? If you do, let me know, I'll go ahead and help you find those articles that do support that claim. My assumption is that you don't actually need my help for that.
      - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        In the case of batteries, it obviously matters what you do with them. Put them in an EV and offset a new ICE on the road? Then yes, significant lifecycle CO2 reduction. You are implying that it’s easy to find lots of scientifically rigorous publications that show solar, wind, and/or batteries (to be used in better integrating wind or solar to the grid) have an objectively worse CO2 impact than gas or coal [0]. I don’t think that’s true. [0] I think nuclear doesn’t count, because it is too expensive in the US. Maybe (hopefully) one day it will be economically viable.
        trimethylpurine 3y ago

sunshinesnacks 3y ago

The first link is from a think tank started by a Koch brother and appears to have a history of being funded by coal and denying climate change, second is an editorial, and the 3rd discussed cobalt and nickel problems and does not even mention LFP (which in my opinion makes it either too old, biased, or uninformed to be relevant).

trimethylpurine 3y ago
The downvote on the comment you replied to is from a random guy on the internet. Should I care more about that than you care about the articles I posted? Or maybe the bigger picture is that what matters is how much we as individuals and as a society care about stringent qualifications for what we call science? Hopefully you see the irony in your response now.
- defrost 3y ago
  Your claim was: If you imagined that RIGHT NOW batteries and solar are DECREASING the carbon footprint you are simply wrong. Your three links do not support that claim, they all iterate around toxic waste by products of concentrate processing - which is a real problem but not a carbon problem, and a problem that for now is of a lesser order than toxic waste by products of copper mining. None of this deep science, more material process engineering. The solutions to the issues in your three links are to move processing to first world nations that have a greater incentive to make better tailings dams, to transition mining trucks away from fossil fuels and onto local electricity from solar and hydrogen - you'll see if you look about that processing is already moving an that companies such as Rio Tinto are already transitioning to renewable electricy generation.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Those articles are not related to that claim. Of course. But surely you don't think mining lithium with giant gas powered machines and then shaking it into a separator with more gas powered machines, and then hauling it across the ocean with more gas powered machines is carbon neutral, do you? If you do, let me know, I'll go ahead and help you find those articles that do support that claim. My assumption is that you don't actually need my help for that.
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      In the case of batteries, it obviously matters what you do with them. Put them in an EV and offset a new ICE on the road? Then yes, significant lifecycle CO2 reduction. You are implying that it’s easy to find lots of scientifically rigorous publications that show solar, wind, and/or batteries (to be used in better integrating wind or solar to the grid) have an objectively worse CO2 impact than gas or coal [0]. I don’t think that’s true. [0] I think nuclear doesn’t count, because it is too expensive in the US. Maybe (hopefully) one day it will be economically viable.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago