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
GEOTHERMAL
Just saw a fascinating webinar and you should too if geothermal interests you.
It explains how techniques from fracking are creating a game-changer in the last few years that can reduce the cost of energy systems without fossil fuels.
🧵
The webinar by prof. Roland Horne from @Stanford is about Enhanced Geothermal Systems or EGS that he defines as using fracking to make the area between the infusion and extraction well permeable for water.
He focuses on @fervoenergy, a company founded by two @Stanford alumni (one from his program) that has for the first time in history used the horizontal boring technique from fracking in geothermal.
This eviscerates the last credibility of @Toyota regarding EVs.
They (esp. Gill Pratt) have been pushing the story we should buy their hybrids instead of full EVs because lithium batteries are and will stay the bottleneck
Grid congestion is THE bottleneck for economic growth and sustainability in the Netherlands.
But it doesn't have to be!
When we combine Dynamic Line Rating with Peak Shaving we could move three times more electricity with the current grid!
🧵
What is Peak Shaving?
Peak shaving means that you take measures to lower the peaks in electricity usage. Peaks are what limits use of a power line. In the example graph below you can see the demand is too high a few yours per week. But there is more than enough capacity overall
Adjusting only the 2.5% of electricity demand that causes the biggest peaks adds 25% of capacity.
Removing 17% of energy from the peaks (e.g. with dynamic pricing, batteries, smart charging, etc. etc.) provides 50% more capacity.