Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without arguing whether or not "Net Zero" is a desirable situation, even if we want to achieve it, we can't-- not enough copper, Li, Ni etc to get there.
While mineral supplies may limit the manufacturing of the necessary devices, the production of "Green Energy" is also a matter of chasing your own tail. The energy cost of producing the hardware for alternative energy generation does not pay for itself....The ultmate woke greens-- Google-- figured this out 12 yrs ago when they stopped their failed project to go all renewable. https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-it-wo...climate-change
While mineral supplies may limit the manufacturing of the necessary devices, the production of "Green Energy" is also a matter of chasing your own tail. The energy cost of producing the hardware for alternative energy generation does not pay for itself....The ultmate woke greens-- Google-- figured this out 12 yrs ago when they stopped their failed project to go all renewable. https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-it-wo...climate-change
In the aeticle you cited, there are several logical inconsistencies--
a) it claims Renewables would add in $10T over 30 yrs, or $33B/yr-- but leaves out the fact that that would eliminate the $200B/yr generated directly by the petoleum industry, and we;re not countng the indirect financial contributions or that from coal.
2) The artilcle ignores the cost of installing enough renewables. Exorbitant.
c) The article claims increased profits from renewables but that clearly flies in the face of real world experience-- German manufacturingm for instance, is on the verge of collapse due to the increased cost of electricity forced by renewables. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cost+of+en...t=avast&ia=web
But more to the point, we should really make policy decisons based on reality, not fantasies. As the second search above clearly shows, there just isn't enough of the essential materials to go "Net Zero" even if it were of some real advantage to do so. Documented in the first post here and apparently ignored by the authors of your citation-- world Li production is not adequate to even let little Grest Britain to go "all EV," let alone the rest of the world.
They may as well tell us how we will all profit when cold fusion produces all our power and we have all sprouted wings so we don't need airlines anymore.
The point of this thread was to discuss how, despite the fantasies of The Greens and potential benefits of "Net Zero" it is simply not attainable.
A little light reading to bring you up to speed...
But more to the point, we should really make policy decisions based on reality, not fantasies. As the second search above clearly shows, there just isn't enough of the essential materials to go "Net Zero" even if it were of some real advantage to do so. Documented in the first post here and apparently ignored by the authors of your citation-- world Li production is not adequate to even let little Great Britain to go "all EV," let alone the rest of the world.
They may as well tell us how we will all profit when cold fusion produces all our power and we have all sprouted wings so we don't need airlines anymore.
The point of this thread was to discuss how, despite the fantasies of The Greens and potential benefits of "Net Zero" it is simply not attainable.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. When you spell it out, it certainly does make sense.
Frankly, I am of the opinion that the best way to minimize our impact on the planet is to curb our reproduction, restrict our consumption and stop wasting as much as we do. Then, I am the one that is still driving my twelve year old economy vehicle, avoiding convenience packaging, and buying in bulk when possible. We don't have kids. DH says that is our biggest contribution to Net Zero!
Re: Population...a topic for another thread, but in short-- too complex an issue: limiting population growth has its risks-- economic, therefore, lifestyles/standard of living would be jeopardized...Note that aboriginal populations lived at the carrying capacity of their geographic areas (stable populations) and crashed calamitously when the envornment changed suddenly (drought or foreign invasions, for example)...There's probably an optimum growth rate related to the economic concerns rather than environmental....Half the world's people live within 50 miles of an ocean-- that leaves a heckuvalot of space for each of the rest of us.
Ironically, the Latin verb "populare" (noun "populatio, populationis, f") means "to devastate."
...
Ironically, the Latin verb "populare" (noun "populatio, populationis, f") means "to devastate."
Waste not, want not is my favorite. And I certainly agree that the Green movement has turned political, but all change eventually has to become political because we are a policy/law-based society. There is no other effective means to make a change. We no longer pay attention to social mores, and either the parents are no longer teaching, or the youth are no longer listening, so regulations and laws are all that remains.
Basically, our natural balance on Earth is a vastly complex system, widely controlled by environmental chemistry. The reason I named population is that because after we exceeded the natural restrictions through "technology" we've been consuming the natural resources that kept our environment in balance. In tandem, most of our wastes no longer biodegrade, and those that do (methane, CO2, feces -- and all its chemical compounds, organic and inorganic) is in such high levels that the natural processes cannot absorb and reprocess without imbalances occuring. Literally, our very existence in such numbers is killing off integral species, as well as atmosphere, air, and water. If one believed that God controlled the world, one would think we were set here to destroy what was wrought.
Finally, I can attest to the relationship between populace and devastation. We traveled the country for two years ('08-'10) to "see America," avoiding major highways as best we could, though we did visit urban areas as well as virtual ghost towns. We could always tell when we were approaching population by the strewn trash and accumulated junk.
Thank you for the recommended article. I will check it out.
Yea, the trouble with humanity is the people...I retired from Chicago to rural WI. The litter per ac is much lower up here, but I'm pretty sure the litter per capita is higher. Disheartening.
For two decades I've challenged people on these forums to name a natural resource (other than fossil fuel) that is in danger of depletion in the next two centuries...No candidates, No replies...Until now-- Li, Cu, Ni, Co etc-- all because of this senseless effort to force Unreliable Energy & EVs on the world....They have their very limited niches. ...Govts didn't have to insist that people install natural gas for heating or cooking or electric lights. Good ideas take care of themselves.
"Pollution" is no longer much of a problem. It's been decades since the Cuyahoga River burst into flames in Cleveland, and acid rain has been almost eliminated as a problem, but we've long ago passed the point of diminishing returns on regulatory obsrtruction to our lives....Do we really need laws on the books making murder or dumping poisons into the environment a crime...Shouldn't we all just kinda know that?
For two decades I've challenged people on these forums to name a natural resource ... ...No candidates, No replies...Until now-- Li, Cu, Ni, Co etc-- all because of this senseless effort to force Unreliable Energy & EVs on the world....They have their very limited niches. ...Govts didn't have to insist that people install natural gas for heating or cooking or electric lights. Good ideas take care of themselves.
Two points:
I think the Ni, Li on your list is more a factor of our need to continually upgrade our electronic devices, so the onus is not all upon the transition to "sustainable" energy. We are creating mountains of electronic component hazardous wastes just using our electronic gadgets and appliances.
As for natural gas, well -- there's that little thing about the paper introduced by a Stanford study on the hazards of natural gas. I don't really think good ideas are readily adopted, unless they are cheap to implement. Nothing these days is cheap.
Quote:
"Pollution" is no longer much of a problem. It's been decades since the Cuyahoga River burst into flames in Cleveland, and acid rain has been almost eliminated as a problem, but we've long ago passed the point of diminishing returns on regulatory obsrtruction to our lives....Do we really need laws on the books making murder or dumping poisons into the environment a crime...Shouldn't we all just kinda know that?
Yes, we SHOULD, actually we DO, but we also accept the myth that our jobs depend on trashing our air, water, soil, etc.
As for pollution, do not overlook that our water quality is sadly affected by runoff of more than just industrial wastes. In WI, while I was there I had to start buying bottled water because just putting a glass of tap water to my nose was making me ill. It reeked of cow dung. Here in WA, DH and I got our kayaks stuck on a what we thought was a sandbar outside of Carnation (the original dairy farm of Carnation milk). It wasn't sand. We went up to our butts in silt and offal when we got out to pull the 'yaks off the bar. When we were in Virginia at the mouth of the Chesapeake River, a local told me that they had been in court battles for decades because of the wastes that had so badly contaminated the river they couldn't use it without major processing -- more electricity.
Yep, Net Zero aint gonna happen until we reduce our population, and change our ways, and we both know that isn't going to happen until it's "game over."
The math of biology is a particular interest of mine...It's easy to get discouraged about many things related to population and the environment, but it's not nearly as bad as some may think. Reading the classic by JD Murray on the subject may improve your outlook-- available free --> https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._by_J_D_Murray
Knowing the stuff in this book showed me exactly what fools the govt thnks we are in how they dealt with us for the CoV thing. Fauci is either an ignorant incompetant or a liar...and probably a good deal of both.
Population concerns are local, not world-wide. I live in the drainage area of The Great Lakes, not only contianing 20% of the planet's fresh water, but also receiv ing 35 inches of precipitation each year. Conserving a gallon of water here does absolutely nothing to help the farmers of Zambia or the street people of LA. (BTW- if you could taste cow in the water, that was from a VERY shallow, unsafe well AND you have remarkabley sensitive taste buds.)...and all those sink holes in FL are from drwing too much water out for an expanding population. The coral base is losing the hyudraulic support it needs.
The report that NG is causing health problems is pure BS. Howmuch of the dust in your house coomes from incomplete burning of CH4?...Poorly done studies were combined to render an even less logical conclusion. Not worth the paper it was printed on.
Local problems need to be solved locally, not with universal edicts, usually made for the wrong reasons and based on faulty science.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 01-12-2023 at 02:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
