Unsustainable
-
Stolen from a blog that highlights a long presentation video on why the so-called "green revolution" simply can't happen.
tl;dr version - We don't have enough stuff.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video - it's over an hour long, and I gotta get dressed.
"The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues."
Link to videoSnippets that the blog quotes:
This one shows the principal metals needed for a wind and solar energy system, and compares those requirements with actual production of those commodities as of 2019, the last “normal” pre-covid year. Note that 189 years worth of copper production, 400 years of nickel production, 9,921 years of lithium production, 1,733 years of cobalt production, 29,113 years of germanium production, and so on, would be needed for the first 20 years of wind and solar installations. Then we would have to do it all over again.
This chart looks at known global reserves of key minerals, as a percentage of what would be needed to replace fossil fuels. Note, for example, that known lithium reserves amount to less than 3% of what would be needed to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and batteries, for the first 20 years. Known cobalt reserves amount to less than 4% of what would be needed for the first generation, and so on. Keep in mind, too, that mining projects typically take something like 20 years to come on line.
One last screen shot: the “green” energy vision would require between 6 and 7 times all the copper that has ever been mined through thousands of years of human history, for the first 20 years. That doesn’t count the current, growing demand for copper:
-
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Next question?
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Next question?
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
@George-K said in Unsustainable:
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Next question?
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
When Africa runs out of Cobalt (EV batteries) and the Water Wars start in the west...
-
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Next question?
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
@George-K said in Unsustainable:
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
Let the greenies be green, more power for us.
-
@George-K said in Unsustainable:
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
Let the greenies be green, more power for us.
@Axtremus said in Unsustainable:
@George-K said in Unsustainable:
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
Nuclear.
Yup. Now, how you gonna convince the greenies of that?
Let the greenies be green, more power for us.
Like most things of the Left, they know what is best for everybody. Therefore, everybody will be green.
-
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
You can imagine it being 1845 and this guy saying “we’ll never have lighting for 1B homes. There just aren’t that many whales in all the seven seas!”
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
You can imagine it being 1845 and this guy saying “we’ll never have lighting for 1B homes. There just aren’t that many whales in all the seven seas!”
-
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
You can imagine it being 1845 and this guy saying “we’ll never have lighting for 1B homes. There just aren’t that many whales in all the seven seas!”
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
You can imagine it being 1845 and this guy saying “we’ll never have lighting for 1B homes. There just aren’t that many whales in all the seven seas!”
Exactly. People always try to predict the future assuming things will stay the same in science. Look at the increase in food production.
-
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
You can imagine it being 1845 and this guy saying “we’ll never have lighting for 1B homes. There just aren’t that many whales in all the seven seas!”
@jon-nyc said in Unsustainable:
I’m always a little skeptical about these Paul Erlich style analyses though, they assume the technology doesn’t develop.
I've been testing batteries for 33 years (it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it...), mostly associated with wireless technology rather than cars - the results we get now are significantly different from those I got in 1989, and development is not slowing down.
I still think there are much better solutions.
-
...somebody played this at our last battery committee. Still a favourite
Link to video
