7 ms·

They may feel that way, but that seems emotional rather than rational. The choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, bi

They may feel that way, but that seems emotional rather than rational. The choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells which can still involve petrochemicals (but don't have to). There are no perfect options, and strapping enough solar panels or wind turbines to a vehicle (car, bus, train, airplane, etc) to make it drivable is just not even remotely feasible. No doubt the petrochemical companies want to continue existing, but shifting the transportation infrastructure away from directly burning gasoline and natural gas is a net win even if in the short term there are still hydrocarbons involved. Going all in on electric vehicles only is not diversifying the solution space enough.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells Storage also includes flywheels and pumped hydro. Hydrogen is mostly a farce.
- kbolino 2y ago
  The key adjective there is "small-scale". There are many more alternatives when size is not an issue. Flywheels are very useful but their energy density is too low to be the primary power source for a vehicle.
Workaccount2 2y ago
The dirty mining and manufacturing of batteries is the dumbest red herring there is. It's like saying we need to get rid of toilet paper because it cuts down so many trees. Hydrogen on the other hand clearly is pushed by fossil fuels since it leaves the door open for them to be a major player.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Hydrogen/syngas right now is the only way forward for long distance sea or plane travel, since batteries are too heavy.
  - koverstreet 2y ago
    We're going to get a 4x energy density improvement from lithium sulfur batteries, just as soon as production ramps up.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Wikipedia lists the energy density of kerosene as 9.7k Wh/L, and lithium sulfur at 550 Wh/L, which is not great.
      - zardo 2y ago
        Hydrogen isn't so great either.
      - koverstreet 2y ago
        But burning kerosene is much less efficient, and turbine engines have a much lower power density than electric motors, so knock 2/3rds off the the kerosene number. 550 Wh/L would also be for the first lithium sulfur batteries to market, they'll double that down the road.
  - Galaxeblaffer 2y ago
    hydrogen definitely not the only way for long distance sea, nuclear would just make so much more sense. and for place travel it also such the same as batteries, first of all its an explosive gas and second we only get less than 20%. hydrogen is just not a good solution to anything other than being a byproduct in the natural gas industry.
    - kbolino 2y ago
      Though it may never prove viable, hydrogen from electrolysis of water creates no emissions other than oxygen. While large ships may be able to use nuclear power directly, the risks of a tenfold increase in small floating nuclear reactors in civilian hands are not trivial. Hydrogen provides a way to keep power generation centralized, secure, and efficient while also distributing it where needed. But this assumes an extreme excess of power, something only possible with nuclear or large-scale renewables, which may never come to pass in sufficient quantities or without even bigger problems.
- sva_ 2y ago
  > It's like saying we need to get rid of toilet paper because it cuts down so many trees. Better not to trigger the bidet crowd.
epistasis 2y ago
What dirty mining for batteries? Please be specific. This story was always a PR drive that focused on the "dirtiness" of batteries but never compares it to the dirtiness of all the other parts of competing technologies. And talking about the "dirtiness" of batteries but not every other single part of our industry (steel for everything, all the nasty stuff for electrolyzers, etc.) is all part of prioritizing emotional over rational. Public discussion of our energy system is definitely more emotional than rational, and I would argue that the emotional side of things means that we do a lot more fossil fuels and dirty tech, whereas a more rational approach would have us on far more solar and storage than we currently are, or plan to do.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  There’s a lot of pressure for batteries to become cleaner too, which has resulted in a lot of money going into R&D of more effective chemistries comprised of more readily available materials. It’s difficult to express the sheer momentum we have in this field right now and it would be a shame if cold water got dumped on it by negative public perception, cooling investments. It’d be a textbook example of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good and of squandered potential.
- kbolino 2y ago
  Batteries require specific minerals that are largely unique to them. The amount of lithium, for example, needed for all other purposes combined is dwarfed by the amount used to make batteries. Of course all industry and mining is dirty, the question is of unique costs to each solution. You don't need to mine nearly as much lithium, even if you account for all the infrastructure and logistics, to make and distribute biofuel. But then you need to dedicate a lot of arable land, which will have other effects. The point is not to remove batteries from the discussion but to include all solutions.
coldpepper 2y ago
Mining affects a limited local area. CO2 emissions affect the whole planet.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells Storage also includes flywheels and pumped hydro. Hydrogen is mostly a farce.

kbolino 2y ago
The key adjective there is "small-scale". There are many more alternatives when size is not an issue. Flywheels are very useful but their energy density is too low to be the primary power source for a vehicle.

Workaccount2 2y ago

The dirty mining and manufacturing of batteries is the dumbest red herring there is. It's like saying we need to get rid of toilet paper because it cuts down so many trees. Hydrogen on the other hand clearly is pushed by fossil fuels since it leaves the door open for them to be a major player.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Hydrogen/syngas right now is the only way forward for long distance sea or plane travel, since batteries are too heavy.
- koverstreet 2y ago
  We're going to get a 4x energy density improvement from lithium sulfur batteries, just as soon as production ramps up.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Wikipedia lists the energy density of kerosene as 9.7k Wh/L, and lithium sulfur at 550 Wh/L, which is not great.
    - zardo 2y ago
      Hydrogen isn't so great either.
    - koverstreet 2y ago
      But burning kerosene is much less efficient, and turbine engines have a much lower power density than electric motors, so knock 2/3rds off the the kerosene number. 550 Wh/L would also be for the first lithium sulfur batteries to market, they'll double that down the road.
- Galaxeblaffer 2y ago
  hydrogen definitely not the only way for long distance sea, nuclear would just make so much more sense. and for place travel it also such the same as batteries, first of all its an explosive gas and second we only get less than 20%. hydrogen is just not a good solution to anything other than being a byproduct in the natural gas industry.
  - kbolino 2y ago
    Though it may never prove viable, hydrogen from electrolysis of water creates no emissions other than oxygen. While large ships may be able to use nuclear power directly, the risks of a tenfold increase in small floating nuclear reactors in civilian hands are not trivial. Hydrogen provides a way to keep power generation centralized, secure, and efficient while also distributing it where needed. But this assumes an extreme excess of power, something only possible with nuclear or large-scale renewables, which may never come to pass in sufficient quantities or without even bigger problems.
sva_ 2y ago
> It's like saying we need to get rid of toilet paper because it cuts down so many trees. Better not to trigger the bidet crowd.

epistasis 2y ago

What dirty mining for batteries? Please be specific. This story was always a PR drive that focused on the "dirtiness" of batteries but never compares it to the dirtiness of all the other parts of competing technologies. And talking about the "dirtiness" of batteries but not every other single part of our industry (steel for everything, all the nasty stuff for electrolyzers, etc.) is all part of prioritizing emotional over rational. Public discussion of our energy system is definitely more emotional than rational, and I would argue that the emotional side of things means that we do a lot more fossil fuels and dirty tech, whereas a more rational approach would have us on far more solar and storage than we currently are, or plan to do.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
There’s a lot of pressure for batteries to become cleaner too, which has resulted in a lot of money going into R&D of more effective chemistries comprised of more readily available materials. It’s difficult to express the sheer momentum we have in this field right now and it would be a shame if cold water got dumped on it by negative public perception, cooling investments. It’d be a textbook example of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good and of squandered potential.
kbolino 2y ago
Batteries require specific minerals that are largely unique to them. The amount of lithium, for example, needed for all other purposes combined is dwarfed by the amount used to make batteries. Of course all industry and mining is dirty, the question is of unique costs to each solution. You don't need to mine nearly as much lithium, even if you account for all the infrastructure and logistics, to make and distribute biofuel. But then you need to dedicate a lot of arable land, which will have other effects. The point is not to remove batteries from the discussion but to include all solutions.

coldpepper 2y ago

Mining affects a limited local area. CO2 emissions affect the whole planet.