General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

They know exactly how to preserve their power, no matter in what political system.
democracy has proven to be, by far, the most resilient form of tyranny to date. a regime change not accompanied or provoked by a major collapse is hardly imaginable.

so we are patiently waiting for a major collapse!

 
An interesting video from the fully charged youtube channel about the economic sustainabilty of investments in fossil fuels:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpoaJ259FHE


It mixes other stuff in the video, but here is the link to the bnp paribas asset management document:

There is still one issue that I don't understand about ELVs. Since last year the USGS global reserve of lithium went down from 16 Mt to 14 Mt. Not because 2 Mt was spent, but due to adjusting the reserve. To make a Tesla Model 3 with the smallest 50 kWh battery pack you need ~10 kg of lithium. We have one billion cars worldwide. To replace those with 50 kWh Model 3's we would need 10 Mt of lithium. That would be more than 70% of the reserve.

Also we still don't recycle lithium. The other day I talked to a very happy owner of a Model 3. He told me that the battery pack comes with an eight year warranty, or 100.000/120.000 miles. He also told me that he had spoken to several Tesla owners that had their battery pack exchanged on the warranty after only one year. It seems that Tesla is counting on most owners not driving the maximum milages within the eight years, and then they replace the batteries on those who drive much.

Any of you have any experience with battery pack life?
 
"Begins to emerge the idea of a global government dedicated to climate change and that would abolish physical borders and authorize the right of interference in all the countries."

Oh, this quote was meant to draw attention to a point that you disagree with? Please do elaborate, then, because the way I read it was that you are endorsing the idea.
I'm not sure what's worse - that people expect their governments to solve this problem for them or the notion that we need a global authority. :)
 
Air traffic down in Sweden, weighed down by the "shame of flying".

In the face of the climate emergency, more and more Swedes are ignoring the plane and preferring the train, contributing to the decline of air transport in the Scandinavian kingdom.

It is urgent to invent the plane that does not pollute.
 
Any of you have any experience with battery pack life?
Not for EVs specifically (unless you count the odd drone/RC), but I use and build a lot of lithium batteries for various projects (mostly getting old laptops no one makes parts for working again).

People with EVs likely want them replaced sooner rather than later because even if it's got a huge warranty, it doesn't take many charge cycles, or a lot of time, for even the best lithium batteries to show appreciable wear. Looking it up, the Tesla warranty is for 70% of original charge retention. A heavy user could probably hit that in a couple of years, and wouldn't need to hit that before the car had noticeably lower range than new.

IMO, pure EV's are stuck in a relatively small niche without a shift away from batteries like this, or some radical advances in battery technology. Fuel cells would probably be better, but there is less infrastructure for supplying viable fuels than for supplying electricity directly.
 
Not for EVs specifically (unless you count the odd drone/RC), but I use and build a lot of lithium batteries for various projects (mostly getting old laptops no one makes parts for working again).

People with EVs likely want them replaced sooner rather than later because even if it's got a huge warranty, it doesn't take many charge cycles, or a lot of time, for even the best lithium batteries to show appreciable wear. Looking it up, the Tesla warranty is for 70% of original charge retention. A heavy user could probably hit that in a couple of years, and wouldn't need to hit that before the car had noticeably lower range than new.

IMO, pure EV's are stuck in a relatively small niche without a shift away from batteries like this, or some radical advances in battery technology. Fuel cells would probably be better, but there is less infrastructure for supplying viable fuels than for supplying electricity directly.
There are a other issues. The higher the temperature of the battery, the faster it degrades. Charging it faster does not degrade the battery because of the charging rate, but because faster charging causes the temperature in the battery to increase. Right now we are seeing more and more fast chargers popping up, and that will inevitably lead to lower battery lifetimes. If we hypothetically spent 70% of the lithium on EVs (ELVs?), and they last less than 8 years, then without recycling, we would all have to walk in the next decade.

Regarding fuel cells, hydrogen cars also use rare elements. Also, the current hydrogen production comes from fossil resources. We could produce hydrogen by splitting water using electricity from a wind turbine, but it's currently cheaper to make it from natural gas. Once people realize that their hair is on fire, we wont have a global sustainable production of hydrogen unless we start now and use tremendous amounts of work, resources and energy to build it, while also solving the other "challenges" we face.

All in all, no matter how you look at it, the best solution is to reduce transportation as much as possible.
 
There is still one issue that I don't understand about ELVs. Since last year the USGS global reserve of lithium went down from 16 Mt to 14 Mt. Not because 2 Mt was spent, but due to adjusting the reserve. To make a Tesla Model 3 with the smallest 50 kWh battery pack you need ~10 kg of lithium. We have one billion cars worldwide. To replace those with 50 kWh Model 3's we would need 10 Mt of lithium. That would be more than 70% of the reserve.

Also we still don't recycle lithium. The other day I talked to a very happy owner of a Model 3. He told me that the battery pack comes with an eight year warranty, or 100.000/120.000 miles. He also told me that he had spoken to several Tesla owners that had their battery pack exchanged on the warranty after only one year. It seems that Tesla is counting on most owners not driving the maximum milages within the eight years, and then they replace the batteries on those who drive much.

Any of you have any experience with battery pack life?
Tesla is probably not the best choice to base a determination on. Don't get me wrong, i'd not turn down a Tesla if offered one, and i think in terms of energizing the debate and 'taking on' the traditional petro-chemical industry dominence in the auto-motive sector (and the whole distorted and corrupt influence that has had on modern society), Tesla will go down in history as a postive force (assuming we have a future in 200 to 300 years!).

I see them as mostly a creative and envolpe-pushing business, to force the change we all need to adapt to. So they are great at showing what can be done (on a shoe-string as well vs the traditionalists) rather than providing that prefect quality and everyday working persons experience. Tesla are very much at the top end of the EV scale, with a hand-crafted boutique appeal.

Your better off looking at the likes of the Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe for a general better idea on battery issues imho. For what it is worth (as this 'evidence' is hard to track down as EV's are still relatively new) that fully charged youtube channel is a great source of info, and i have heard that the Zoe's battery (even from those shorter range first gen vehicles) has been holding up better than predicted, so much so that in the Zoe owners forums it is now often recomended to look for those super cheap second hand Zoe's as they still keep about 80-90% of their battery range even from those first released versions. Renault themselves have said they are surprised they are lasting as well as they seem to be. And on top of that base line there have been huge improvements in batteries even these last 5 years. The new Zoe has a range of around 230 miles, compare that to the first gen which was more around 90 miles! And keep in mind that the automotive industry has pricked it's ears up to the potential of EV's, when people like VW say they are going full electric in the next decade (or it might even have been sooner!) that shows where we are heading more than the specs of the latest Tesla imho.

Batteries are an issue (as they have always been), but people like Tesla push that research all the time and we are already seeing a reduction of some of the troublesome minerals in the latest gen of batteries, i fully suspect that kind of improvement to carry on to reduce the impact of the battery manufacture problem.
 
Tesla is probably not the best choice to base a determination on. Don't get me wrong, i'd not turn down a Tesla if offered one, and i think in terms of energizing the debate and 'taking on' the traditional petro-chemical industry dominence in the auto-motive sector (and the whole distorted and corrupt influence that has had on modern society), Tesla will go down in history as a postive force (assuming we have a future in 200 to 300 years!).

I see them as mostly a creative and envolpe-pushing business, to force the change we all need to adapt to. So they are great at showing what can be done (on a shoe-string as well vs the traditionalists) rather than providing that prefect quality and everyday working persons experience. Tesla are very much at the top end of the EV scale, with a hand-crafted boutique appeal.

Your better off looking at the likes of the Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe for a general better idea on battery issues imho. For what it is worth (as this 'evidence' is hard to track down as EV's are still relatively new) that fully charged youtube channel is a great source of info, and i have heard that the Zoe's battery (even from those shorter range first gen vehicles) has been holding up better than predicted, so much so that in the Zoe owners forums it is now often recomended to look for those super cheap second hand Zoe's as they still keep about 80-90% of their battery range even from those first released versions. Renault themselves have said they are surprised they are lasting as well as they seem to be. And on top of that base line there have been huge improvements in batteries even these last 5 years. The new Zoe has a range of around 230 miles, compare that to the first gen which was more around 90 miles! And keep in mind that the automotive industry has pricked it's ears up to the potential of EV's, when people like VW say they are going full electric in the next decade (or it might even have been sooner!) that shows where we are heading more than the specs of the latest Tesla imho.

Batteries are an issue (as they have always been), but people like Tesla push that research all the time and we are already seeing a reduction of some of the troublesome minerals in the latest gen of batteries, i fully suspect that kind of improvement to carry on to reduce the impact of the battery manufacture problem.
A Leaf or a Zoe still typically is sold with a 40 kWh battery pack, against a small 50 kWh Model 3. That's still 80% demand for lithium, meaning 57% of the reserve, and practically no lithium is recycled.

Now start walking, while considering that walking causes you to exhale more CO2 (using 280 W), than sitting still thinking of nothing using (120 W) ;) If you walked 24/7, your carbon footprint would almost triple, as sitting still you produce half a ton of CO2 per year. Depending on who you ask, a sustainable CO2 emission level is 1-3 ton per year per capita. That CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, but it is also caused by your body burning carbon and the carbon contains solar energy from a plant. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, nomatter where it came from. Since CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth (Liebig), plants are currently absorbing as much CO2 as they can, given the current state of the system. They're full :sick: All the energy humans vitally need comes through plants (autotrophs), and the more physical work we do using our body, the more carbon we need to "burn" through respiration. To increase the plants' CO2 uptake you will have to have more plants, and you don't get that from cutting down the -beeep- rainforrest!


We'd better start doing better. The time it took us to go from 7.6 billion to 7.7 was scary short (~a year).
 
A Leaf or a Zoe still typically is sold with a 40 kWh battery pack, against a small 50 kWh Model 3. That's still 80% demand for lithium, meaning 57% of the reserve, and practically no lithium is recycled.

Now start walking, while considering that walking causes you to exhale more CO2 (using 280 W), than sitting still thinking of nothing using (120 W) ;) If you walked 24/7, your carbon footprint would almost triple, as sitting still you produce half a ton of CO2 per year. Depending on who you ask, a sustainable CO2 emission level is 1-3 ton per year per capita. That CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, but it is also caused by your body burning carbon and the carbon contains solar energy from a plant. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, nomatter where it came from. Since CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth (Liebig), plants are currently absorbing as much CO2 as they can, given the current state of the system. They're full :sick: All the energy humans vitally need comes through plants (autotrophs), and the more physical work we do using our body, the more carbon we need to "burn" through respiration. To increase the plants' CO2 uptake you will have to have more plants, and you don't get that from cutting down the -beeep- rainforrest!


We'd better start doing better. The time it took us to go from 7.6 billion to 7.7 was scary short (~a year).
When i moved into my home, close to 30 years ago, there was just one tree in the garden. Now there are close to 40, established, in the ground and many more seedlings, in pots. The leaves dropping everywhere, may up-set the neighbours; but I believe I leave very little, if not no, carbon footprint. Strange, because I have not been planting them, for that reason; just because I like planting trees. To leave something, worth while behind. Plus. I can over fill a wheelie bin with apples and pears; for my cider and rums. Dozens of kilos of Walnut and Hazelnuts. Still no Acorns though and I may not see any in my own lifetime.
 
On a topic that thrives on casting blame on others by making someone else the bad guy, it looks like we're going to all have to take a long hard look in the mirror and do some serious self evaluation: https://bizfluent.com/info-8699749-do-computers-pollute-environment.html
That is what I have said: How deep do we really want to look at this carbon issue, on a personal level? Veggies fart more than omnivores, little mopeds and scooters, pollute more than Ferraris. So some people need to be careful, about what they are preaching.
 
On a topic that thrives on casting blame on others by making someone else the bad guy, it looks like we're going to all have to take a long hard look in the mirror and do some serious self evaluation: https://bizfluent.com/info-8699749-do-computers-pollute-environment.html
And roughly every 2-3 years the total energy consumption caused by global bit flipping doubles. I tried to calculate the doubling time, while including more and more energy efficient technology, but still found that given the current rate of growth, we would need roughly the current total global energy consumption just to run our smartphones, servers and VR boxes in roughly 30 years. Every time you calculate the global system, the calculation collapse like physics in a black hole, and it's always those 30 years...
 
On a topic that thrives on casting blame on others by making someone else the bad guy, it looks like we're going to all have to take a long hard look in the mirror and do some serious self evaluation: https://bizfluent.com/info-8699749-do-computers-pollute-environment.html
Indeed, and much of the impact of that is from the general 'technology' sector. How many people have a smart phone now (not me or my family, but we are the exception to the rule) etc? We have topics on some of the specific details in this very thread (Apple's use of chinese 'tech cities' and pollution levels from that etc). You can look to buy less environmentally damaging tech, we also have links about that back in the thread. For example when building a PC i prefer to use Gigabyte where possible (mobo, gpu etc) as they have one of the best environmental records in that sector. Avoid stuff built by Foxconn etc. When i build a gaming PC i aim at parts that use as little electricity as possible (my GPU is a 1050Ti for example). My ten year old laptop (now running Linux Mint since it's installed Vista is gone) is my connection to the internet and forums etc, and it works fine for that so i will keep it until it dies etc.

We have covered much of this before as it is an important part of the individual change we need to think about going forward. In general i buy very little new technology, while also needing some to be able to work etc, so it is a fine balance to aim for. But this is also about the change in the type of thinking we do over ever part of our lives, from the technology we buy and use to the cars we drive to how we run modern green/clean economies. If we want a future for our grandkids (or their own kids) we have no choice now but to change how we live our lives, not for the worse just smarter more green and with less of a selfish concern for 'now' over the future.

---------------------

And part of the hidden cost to man made climate change, that probably most of us have not thought about:

'After the wildfire: treating the mental health crisis triggered by climate change':


The nightmares kept coming and David Leal knew he was in trouble. A navy veteran with a can-do attitude and a solidly middle-class IT job at a hospital in Santa Rosa, California, he didn’t think of himself as mentally vulnerable. But when the Tubbs fire snatched his house off the face of the earth in the early morning hours of 9 October 2017, it hit him hard.

“Long story short, I went through a lot of PTSD,” Leal says, as we tour his nearly rebuilt home in Santa Rosa’s Coffey Park neighborhood. Wildfires are not uncommon in the mountains outside of this northern California town, but residents can’t remember one like this: the fire jumped six lanes of Highway 101, into the city, and licked up about 1,300 of the suburb’s 2,000 homes as if they’d just evaporated. Leal thought, I live in the city; it’s not supposed to burn.
And this kind of thing gets to the crux of the issue, and why we are slow to 'do the right thing' as fast as we should be; because until it happens to 'you' we tend to brush of these stories as 'someone elses' problem (because it is, until it is not). Soon though we will all be feeling the very real direct effects from the climate change we have all been complicit in 'brewing'. So these stories from the current day survivors of such events are important to help encourage us all to do better (with our life choices and votes etc).
 
Last edited:
And roughly every 2-3 years the total energy consumption caused by global bit flipping doubles. I tried to calculate the doubling time, while including more and more energy efficient technology, but still found that given the current rate of growth, we would need roughly the current total global energy consumption just to run our smartphones, servers and VR boxes in roughly 30 years. Every time you calculate the global system, the calculation collapse like physics in a black hole, and it's always those 30 years...
But just consider the savings on people using/buying digital goods instead of physical ones. As direct replacement, no need to manufacturing, shipping of DVD discs and players - same goes for books. Further to that, people spending more time online means less time for other activities - going out and doing stuff that are inherently producing more CO2. Just consider mass tourism.

Actually people spending time online and buying digital goods is the only way to keep the economic growth without the pollution (at least in countries with cleaner energy mix).
 
Also you need to factor in the 'Hubris of scientists', and i don't mean that in a derogatory sense at all, but history is littered with examples of scientists who's maths just was not able to factor in ALL the real world aspects (heck even Einstien one of the smartest people that has ever lived, could not deal with the 'quantum' nature of the science he was an expert in understanding!).

So for every scientist that shows we some equations on the back of a napkin and tells me 'it can't be done' i just like to point at the history of science and mankinds climb from hunter-gatherer. It can be done, it is just that you have not worked it out yet (and have a beter chance of doing so in collaberation with a bunch of other scientists perhaps?).

---------

Anyway it seems the USA is perfectly able to utilize solar to the maximum, shame it has such a trogolodyte for a President holding that potential up:

'Solar power could replace all US hydro dams using ‘just 13% of the space’:


Banks of solar panels would be able to replace every electricity-producing dam in the US using just 13% of the space, according to a new study.

The researchers say this “surprisingly modest” figure provides a “tantalising” vision of what could be achieved if the nation phased out a power source that, while renewable, takes a significant toll on ecosystems.

As it stands, hydropower is an essential component in the nation’s power mix, contributing over 6% of its electricity and offering a flexibility that is not always provided by other renewables.

But with existing infrastructure nearing the end of its lifespan, and growing concerns about its environmental impact, US dams are increasingly being removed from service altogether.

If hydro dams are not replaced, other technologies will need to step into the breach, and the new paper – published in Nature Sustainability – suggests the mass rollout of solar power is a potential option.

While the researchers emphasise their results are “clearly theoretical”, they highlight the capacity of alternative renewables to replace hydro dams – which could also take pressure off disrupted US waterways.
And while we obviously don't have the luxery of space or climate in the UK (and other smaller northerly nations etc), we do have plenty of wind and waves to work with.
 
Also you need to factor in the 'Hubris of scientists', and i don't mean that in a derogatory sense at all, but history is littered with examples of scientists who's maths just was not able to factor in ALL the real world aspects (heck even Einstien one of the smartest people that has ever lived, could not deal with the 'quantum' nature of the science he was an expert in understanding!).

So for every scientist that shows we some equations on the back of a napkin and tells me 'it can't be done' i just like to point at the history of science and mankinds climb from hunter-gatherer. It can be done, it is just that you have not worked it out yet (and have a beter chance of doing so in collaberation with a bunch of other scientists perhaps?).

---------

Anyway it seems the USA is perfectly able to utilize solar to the maximum, shame it has such a trogolodyte for a President holding that potential up:

'Solar power could replace all US hydro dams using ‘just 13% of the space’:




And while we obviously don't have the luxery of space or climate in the UK (and other smaller northerly nations etc), we do have plenty of wind and waves to work with.
I get and like what your have said about solar power.

However: I believe that the world, or large nations; should not become dependent on, ground based, solar power.

Why?

Well if we take, history and science and the facts, that the human race has become aware of. Then we know that volcanic eruptions, block out the sun. We also know, that 'big' volcanic are inevitable. It is not a case of if it will it happen; but when it will happen? We already have, recorded history, of mini ice ages; caused by volcanic eruptions; the last in the northern hemisphere, was less than 250 years ago. I am not talking about a Planet killer, like Yellowstone. Just in volcanic turms; an above average eruption.

When this happens; ground based solar power, becomes, obsolete.
 
So for every scientist that shows we some equations on the back of a napkin and tells me 'it can't be done' i just like to point at the history of science and mankinds climb from hunter-gatherer. It can be done, it is just that you have not worked it out yet (and have a beter chance of doing so in collaberation with a bunch of other scientists perhaps?).
Do you know the meaning of the word "hubris", or was this ironic?

Anyway it seems the USA is perfectly able to utilize solar to the maximum, shame it has such a trogolodyte for a President holding that potential up:
Nope. For exactly the same reason that solar and wind can't provide baseload or spot power supply. The article even pointed that out. I bet that trogolodyte would have noticed that.
 
I get and like what your have said about solar power. However: I believe that the world, or large nations; should not become dependent on, ground based, solar power.
Absolutely. The article was mostly about replacing the ageing Hydro-electric dams in the USA with Solar. Any future energy plan needs to take into account and use all the various forms of green energy production (for the best flow and stability of the system), that also includes storage. I would mention this to Talarin also. Some of these systems are pretty mature and are in a position to make sense (the cost of solar vs oil etc), however we need to do a lot of work in coming up with a system that works well in all scenarios, and that is what the money in the markets is moving us towards (as we get more reports like that ParisBNP one etc). We are not there yet (in having a system in place to switch the coal/oil/gas plants off), but moving in the right direction, as is the money.

Do you know the meaning of the word "hubris", or was this ironic?
Yes, and no. Given time and the desire i could rattle of a list of where 'science' has failed it's hubris test (should we start with Icarus? and yes i know that is a 'myth' before you want to make any more snide remarks to try to call into account my intelligence etc). I often find scientists get so wrapped up in the little details they have a hard time seeing a bigger picture, which is fine as you need those little details for things to work well, but it certainly leads to mistakes, as history is littered with, which is also fine as that is the path of progress. What is not good is when people are just unwilling to change their minds, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (as in the situation around AGW?).
Nope. For exactly the same reason that solar and wind can't provide baseload or spot power supply. The article even pointed that out. I bet that trogolodyte would have noticed that.
You seriously think Trump would even bother his butt to know anything about green energy, like at all, perhaps other than 'it's bad' (because it hurts his investments and business interests of his friends)?! I think you give him too much credit! lol. Trump does not care about the well being of most of us, i think that is pretty obvious (in that it is likely a medical issue (Sociopath/Psychopath), so he can't really help it).

---------------------
In other news we have an example of some of the complications that AGW brings to the mix:


Africa’s tropical land released close to 6bn tonnes of CO2 in 2016, according to data taken by satellites.

This means that, if Africa’s tropical regions were a country, it would be the second largest emitter of CO2 in the world – ahead of the US, which currently emits 5.3bn tonnes of CO2 a year.

The region’s 2016 emissions were “unexpectedly large”, the authors write in Nature Communications. This is because the land surface is covered by tropical forests and peatlands, environments which typically absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

The high rate of CO2 loss in 2016 could be associated with a “strong” El Niño, scientists tell Carbon Brief. El Niño is a natural phenomenon that periodically affects weather in many parts of the world. In the African tropics, it can cause unusually high temperatures and drought.

Other causes of CO2 emissions could include “substantial land-use change”, including deforestation and fires associated with agriculture, the study says.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom