Big Mistake Was Posted Here

[Kip Powick]

 

deicer posted links that clarify  the erroneous video that was here (concerned energy renewal)

 

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-prageru/

and 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/is-there-a-shift-from-disbelieving-climate-change-to-attacking-renewables/

 

Thank you for your patience

 

 

 

 

 

[conehead]

I guess it was aviation related if you consider the propeller blades on those windmills.

[deicer]

When one considers the fact that 'Prager U' isn't an actual university, but rather a right wing propaganda outfit, you have to take their videos with a very large grain of salt.

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-prageru/

Then one has to fact check the content and confirm it is propaganda.

Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy | Ars Technica

Welcome to the internet, just because somebody puts up fancy looking and sounding content, you still have to fact check.

[Seeker]

Personally I think Kip folded the thread too early.

Prager U has a conservative base but that does not make it propaganda unless you're going to call everything all media organizations produce propaganda due to a slant one way or the other.   The Ars Technica article both unfairly maligns Prager U and downplays the significant issues associated with renewables.  Here's just one article I found quickly from the World Bank:

Minerals and Metals for a low carbon future

It is clear that meeting the Paris climate target of not exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (2°C) (and making best efforts to reach 1.5°C) global warming over this century will require a radical (that is, to the root) restructuring of energy supply and transmission systems globally.1 Furthermore, the technologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift (wind, solar, hydrogen and electricity systems) are in fact significantly MORE material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems (Vidal, Goffé, and Arndt 2013).

Simply put, a green technology future is materially intensive and, if not properly managed, could bely the efforts and policies of supplying countries to meet their objectives of meeting climate and related Sustainable Development Goals. It also carries potentially significant impacts for local ecosystems, water systems, and communities.

Don't like the World Banks's view?  How about Foreignpolicy.com.  Using deicer's favourite bias check site shows them as "least biased".  They say this:

Path to clean energy will be very dirty

The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

The problem here is not that we’re going to run out of key minerals—although that may indeed become a concern. The real issue is that this will exacerbate an already existing crisis of overextraction. Mining has become one of the biggest single drivers of deforestation, ecosystem collapse, and biodiversity loss around the world. Ecologists estimate that even at present rates of global material use, we are overshooting sustainable levels by 82 percent.

Lithium is another ecological disaster. It takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce a single ton of lithium. Even at present levels of extraction this is causing problems. In the Andes, where most of the world’s lithium is located, mining companies are burning through the water tables and leaving farmers with nothing to irrigate their crops. Many have had no choice but to abandon their land altogether. Meanwhile, chemical leaks from lithium mines have poisoned rivers from Chile to Argentina, Nevada to Tibet, killing off whole freshwater ecosystems. The lithium boom has barely even started, and it’s already a crisis.

 

 

 

[deicer]

If one assumes that only virgin resources are used, then yes, the above may be correct.

However, as history has shown, need creates a market, and recycling of batteries when they reach a critical level will have a vast impact on using new ore.

It's a long read, but it explains the future of recycling batteries quite well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x

Abstract

The world is shifting to electric vehicles to mitigate climate change. Here, we quantify the future demand for key battery materials, considering potential electric vehicle fleet and battery chemistry developments as well as second-use and recycling of electric vehicle batteries. We find that in a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide dominated battery scenario, demand is estimated to increase by factors of 18–20 for lithium, 17–19 for cobalt, 28–31 for nickel, and 15–20 for most other materials from 2020 to 2050, requiring a drastic expansion of lithium, cobalt, and nickel supply chains and likely additional resource discovery. However, uncertainties are large. Key factors are the development of the electric vehicles fleet and battery capacity requirements per vehicle. If other battery chemistries were used at large scale, e.g. lithium iron phosphate or novel lithium-sulphur or lithium-air batteries, the demand for cobalt and nickel would be substantially smaller. Closed-loop recycling plays a minor, but increasingly important role for reducing primary material demand until 2050, however, advances in recycling are necessary to economically recover battery-grade materials from end-of-life batteries. Second-use of electric vehicles batteries further delays recycling potentials.

[Seeker]

Yes, it all comes down to whose assumptions you trust.

From your article:

"demand is estimated to increase by factors of 18–20 for lithium, 17–19 for cobalt, 28–31 for nickel, and 15–20 for most other materials from 2020 to 2050, requiring a drastic expansion of lithium, cobalt, and nickel supply chains and likely additional resource discovery"

"advances in recycling are necessary to economically recover battery-grade materials from end-of-life batteries."

So, we hope additional resource discoveries will be made and we hope advances in recycling technology will be made.

The Prager U video takes a pessimistic view while the Ars Technica article takes an optimistic view.  We'll know in 50 years who was right.

 

 

[Kip Powick]

1 hour ago, seeker said:

The Prager U video takes a pessimistic view while the Ars Technica article takes an optimistic view.  We'll know in 50 years who was right.

 

Which you and I, and probably deicer, will never know   

[Seeker]

Eat your fiber, exercise, think happy thoughts - you never know!

[deicer]

[dagger]

20 hours ago, seeker said:

Yes, it all comes down to whose assumptions you trust.

From your article:

"demand is estimated to increase by factors of 18–20 for lithium, 17–19 for cobalt, 28–31 for nickel, and 15–20 for most other materials from 2020 to 2050, requiring a drastic expansion of lithium, cobalt, and nickel supply chains and likely additional resource discovery"

"advances in recycling are necessary to economically recover battery-grade materials from end-of-life batteries."

So, we hope additional resource discoveries will be made and we hope advances in recycling technology will be made.

The Prager U video takes a pessimistic view while the Ars Technica article takes an optimistic view.  We'll know in 50 years who was right.

 

 

A Canadian company happens to be establishing itself as a global leader in lithium battery recycling. 

 

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/canadas-li-cycle-claims-100-materials-recovery-commercially-acheivable

 

 

[Johnboy]

Ah the great green reset all on display on the AEF the airline website. Should pretty much be the proverbial "final nail" for our beloved industry except for Emirates  and China Southern of course.