3 ms·
1) it's not the money, it's the EROEI 2) at scale, panels recycling does become a very real issue 3) It's not the abundance, it's the mine-able ore at high enou
by polotics 2y ago
1) it's not the money, it's the EROEI
2) at scale, panels recycling does become a very real issue
3) It's not the abundance, it's the mine-able ore at high enough concentration that matters
4) solar panels, read the docs please
5) again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3, early oil was in the hundreds, nuclear is at around 50
After having gotten 0/5 in terms of correctness on actual facts, maybe tone down the sneer?
- pfdietz 2y agoEROEI of renewables is fine, some well-debunked garbage studies not withstanding. No, at scale recycling doesn't become a "real issue" in the sense of being a showstopper. It would be nice if it could save some money (recover aluminum frames, say) but it's only a "nice to have". "High enough concentration" is dependent on technology. Like other mineral resources, one can expect lithium extraction technology to keep ahead of demand. The doom and gloomers on this sort of thing are never right. Stationary storage doesn't even require lithium; there's a large variety of storage technologies that could be used instead (including some like pumped thermal that use nothing more than cheap materials like common steel.) > solar panels, read the docs please Empty nonsense. Solar panels are not toxic. Please stop making things up. > again, it's the EROEI, maybe panels and wind scrap a 3 Completely wrong.
- polotics 2y agoyou wrote: "EROEI of renewables is fine" I am sorry, but "fine" is a text string, not a number. About your "Completely wrong." I hope you take the time to consider sources, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19300926 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... As you wrote about "well debunked" studies then please please^3 debunk this one. Thank You