3 ms·

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 edi

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
        There are wrong places to put each of these technologies. Electric vehicles don't make sense on a coal power grid. But that's what we're doing here. Coal doesn't make sense at all. Keep downvoting. It only serves to show that I'm right and you're not listening.
        sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        I don’t have enough karma to downvote. US electricity is about 20% from coal [0], and almost certainly trending downward. I agree that there are wrong locations/applications for most technologies. But I don’t think you can make a robust science-based argument that wind and solar are worse than gas or coal for the US in terms of net CO2. Or that the Nature article I posted is full of lies or hype. [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I am not making those claims. I'm making the claim that blanket policy is not a good solution EVER because it ignores the nuance of reality. And as I'm not able to reply, you can say that saying so is incredibly unpopular. Why? Because of marketing and hype meant to ensure that people who don't want to destroy a forest in the name of solar will not be heard while corporate interests profit in the name of green energy that's anything but green. Regardless I fault the downvoting and the yelling over rational thought, just as we can see in this thread. You guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil are the evil. You guys are the reason our environment is being destroyed because you imagine that what works in your neighborhood is best for everyone and you vote that way without imagining what a blanket policy on electric vehicles means for places still on coal. Anyway, sure 80% of the POPULATION is on nuclear. But MOST traffic is goods delivery not your driving around a nuclear powered super metropolitan. Those goods travel through the middle of the country where there is no nuclear and won't be for a very very long time. You can read for yourself about why nuclear is essentially at a halt in the US. It's mostly to do with the high cost of meeting safety guidelines that didn't exist when existing plants were built. Ignoring the supply chain doesn't make you green. You get to live comfortably near nuclear and make decisions for everyone else. But you're making awful ones that ruin our natural resources, destroy our land, and show blatant disregard for how things work outside of your bubble. You may not see it, but I see every day how "green" energy is destroying the environment right outside my door. We simply need more care, discussion, and nuance in energy policy. Screaming down every discussion and drowning it with irrelevant research isn't going to help the environment. It's going to destroy it.

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
      There are wrong places to put each of these technologies. Electric vehicles don't make sense on a coal power grid. But that's what we're doing here. Coal doesn't make sense at all. Keep downvoting. It only serves to show that I'm right and you're not listening.
      - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
        I don’t have enough karma to downvote. US electricity is about 20% from coal [0], and almost certainly trending downward. I agree that there are wrong locations/applications for most technologies. But I don’t think you can make a robust science-based argument that wind and solar are worse than gas or coal for the US in terms of net CO2. Or that the Nature article I posted is full of lies or hype. [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I am not making those claims. I'm making the claim that blanket policy is not a good solution EVER because it ignores the nuance of reality. And as I'm not able to reply, you can say that saying so is incredibly unpopular. Why? Because of marketing and hype meant to ensure that people who don't want to destroy a forest in the name of solar will not be heard while corporate interests profit in the name of green energy that's anything but green. Regardless I fault the downvoting and the yelling over rational thought, just as we can see in this thread. You guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil are the evil. You guys are the reason our environment is being destroyed because you imagine that what works in your neighborhood is best for everyone and you vote that way without imagining what a blanket policy on electric vehicles means for places still on coal. Anyway, sure 80% of the POPULATION is on nuclear. But MOST traffic is goods delivery not your driving around a nuclear powered super metropolitan. Those goods travel through the middle of the country where there is no nuclear and won't be for a very very long time. You can read for yourself about why nuclear is essentially at a halt in the US. It's mostly to do with the high cost of meeting safety guidelines that didn't exist when existing plants were built. Ignoring the supply chain doesn't make you green. You get to live comfortably near nuclear and make decisions for everyone else. But you're making awful ones that ruin our natural resources, destroy our land, and show blatant disregard for how things work outside of your bubble. You may not see it, but I see every day how "green" energy is destroying the environment right outside my door. We simply need more care, discussion, and nuance in energy policy. Screaming down every discussion and drowning it with irrelevant research isn't going to help the environment. It's going to destroy it.