I should add that Michaux's total battery amounts are not 150x too high but “only” around 10x too high because electric transportation will indeed require a lot of lithium batteries.
But still: all his estimates for the really critical stuff are TEN TIMES TOO HIGH! @KetanJ0
He also assumes stationary batteries use Nickel Cobalt and Manganese while experts will tell you they will use the heavier but cheaper and longer lasting LFP (lihtiumphosphate) batteries that use zero nickel and cobalt. Or flow batteries. Or sodium batteries. (No lithium needed.)
Now look at this “smoking gun” from his report again, knowing everything is 10x too high, stationary storage will hardly use nickel and cobalt, and copper can usually be replaced by aluminum if you can live with slightly thicker wires.
It's complete nonsense!
Lithium is the most serious problem. There is more than enough of the stuff in total (and 5000x more in seawater if we want to go crazy) but we need to scale up mining 10x the coming decades.
Still: the amount we need is TINY compared to other metals.
And although we should certainly make mining cleaner and safer, please understand that the materials we need for the transition to sustainable energy are a drop in the bucket compared to building materials, agriculture, and fossil fuels.
We should get our priorities straight!
In total 0.1% of the earths surface is used for mining. Maybe 0.0001% for the stuff everybody is talking about when they think of renewables.
The reduction in coal mining alone dwarfs the increase in the stuff we need for renewables.
To put it differently: if we all eat 1% less meat (or if we make cultured meat cheaper and healthier), we save more species than if we abandon all mining that’s needed for the shift to renewables. ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
And don’t get me started on EROI (Energy Return On Investment), something Michaux is also droning on about.
As soon as EROI is much higher than 1 it stops being an issue.
The EROI of wind and solar is closer to 20.
It’s a total non issue. @MLiebreich
As for renewable minerals being the new oil… 1) Amounts (in kg and $$$) are TINY compared to fossil and found everywhere. 2) When oil deliveries stop => everything stops. When lithium deliveries stop => less new electric cars. 3) You BURN fossil fuels. You can recycle minerals.
Does all this mean I see no problems?
I see lots of problems!
Less meat, smaller vehicles (preferably electric or human powered), less long distance flying, recycling, circular economy... we must change radically to stay within planetary boundaries! doughnuteconomics.org/news/42
And I agree wholeheartedly with the people saying resource use (also for renewables) should become super important!
Especially in rich countries we should get more locally and/or from sustainable and just sources. There's plenty of work to do there!
But using nonsensical calculus to satisfy myopic fantasies is not the way to solve the climate crisis.
Some solutions are better than others and renewables are a darn good option if we want cheap and abundant energy while staying within planetary boundaries.
/end
This is frankly unbelievable. Prigozhin, the boss of the brutal Wagner mercenaries from Russia, describing the conflict in a way that Ukraine prime minister Zelensky could have done.
In an effort to reach more people I will screenshot and "explain" his most important utterings.
He says there were two objectives of the military operation that both failed spectacularly: denazification and demilitarization.
("You had ONE job...")
He starts with denazification.
Here he recognizes that it wasn't exactly a successful "hearts and minds campaign".
He claims Russia took Ukraine from a non-country to a famous country. (Thereby making it harder to assimilate into the Russian empire.)
The piece replaces numbers by 3 bad rules of thumb:
1) Exception: EVs bought by people who drive little.
2) Minimal impact: EV production emits CO2 sooner than it saves CO2.
3) Error: EVs drive on fossil fuel while the mix is not 100% green yet.
1) Exception: EVs bought by people who drive little.
This is true. An EV earns back it's extra emissions during it's first 30k km's or so. So if you e.g. drive 5k km per year: drive your old car as long as possible.
I've been blocked for saying extreme scenarios are less likely (e.g. by @KHayhoe after saying that of RCP8.5) and I'm probably still on the blocklist she hands out like candy.
But also for saying climate change is real and urgent. Or for advocating for less meat eating.
You might think twitter is full of "nazi's" or "sexists" or "snowflakes" or "idiots" but we are not going to solve our problems and overcome the increasing polarization in our society by refusing to talk to those we disagree with.
To predict bottlenecks you must research 3 things:
1) How fast mining can grow: "The best cure for high prices is high prices" as they say in mining.
2) How reserves are developing: we usually find more continuously.)
3) How we can substitute: that's key!
Now unlike @JohnLeePettim13 I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I clearly researched it more thoroughly and here's a thread debunking this nonsense.