10 ms·

What about the emissions involved in mining lithium, making the batteries, dealing with the batteries once they're exhausted, and in generating the electricity.

What about the emissions involved in mining lithium, making the batteries, dealing with the batteries once they're exhausted, and in generating the electricity. Also, what about the emissions involved in building and maintaining the road infrastructure?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Necessary and solvable (if we've decided cars as a transportation method are here to stay, which appears to be the case in most countries). Lithium is evaporated in ponds, transport of which can move to electric. Lithium batteries can be recycled. All heavy vehicles (including for road infra work) can be electrified. Electricity is ubiquitous, and batteries will only decline in cost. This is not my opinion, these are facts. As long as we keep ramping battery and renewables production, we'll get ahead of the emissions. To reduce emissions, you must displace combustion in all its forms, and destroy demand for fossil fuels. Renewables push out coal and natural gas on the grid, utility scale batteries push out natural gas due to price volatility (hat tip to Saudi Arabia on their current efforts to destroy the US fracking industry through pumping at full capacity, utilities desperately require stable prices for their fuels which is unlikely to happen if shale production declines due to low oil prices, which will prompt more rapid battery uptake), cheap/clean energy drives demand for EVs due to lower cost per mile than internal combustion (EVs are roughly half the cost per mile to operate as an internal combustion vehicle).
- djehh3r7d 7y ago
  Your last paragraph makes it impossible to take any of the rest of your argument seriously and it's hard to believe anyone with knowledge on the topics would agree without some asterisks. The rise of natural gas in the US from fracking has done more to cut down their emissions than every renewable category combined (the metrics exclude nuclear for those curious). Similarly, you're stoked at the idea of SAUDI ARABIA, of all people, solidifying its market leverage. Seriously, you consider the Saudis preferable to the Americans? The country whose loose grasp of its extremists enabled 9/11. That Saudi Arabia? You'd rather see OPEC, the group that America stood with Israel against over the Yom Kippur War, grow instead of the Americans? Get a clue, your agenda is nonsensical.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > Seriously, you consider the Saudis preferable to the Americans? It does not matter to me if you're the House of Saud or US frackers, if you're pumping oil I want you out of business. My agenda is the end of fossil fuels, and I don't much care how we get there. Saudi Arabia requires $80/barrel to fund their state (Russia is ~$40/barrel), a highly unlikely long term market price for oil even with Saudi Arabia increasing their market share. So, if they can drive US shale (which is heavily leveraged using debt [1]) out of business before they decline, kudos. The planet, nor carbon emissions, care not about geopolitics. Not buying oil from an authoritarian regime who funds terrorism is also an option if you're not a fan of Saudi Arabia (see: tariffs and embargoes). Why getting off oil is never the first option is always strangely not prioritized. Can't complain they're terrible folks (which they are!) but do nothing to migrate away from depending on them. It's been almost 50 years since the 70s oil embargo, and the US is still pathetically behind (compared to resources available) electrifying transportation. We have only ourselves to blame. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-energy-companies-have-the-highest-debt-and-the-most-at-risk-as-the-oil-market-collapses-2020-03-10 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-energy-companies-hav...
    - djehh3r7d 7y ago
      There's no point continuing this discussion. You're clearly not going to be persuaded and your positions are blatantly ignorant to anyone who has experience in the domains. The fact you couldn't be bothered to actually address being wrong about renewables in the US vs. natural gas proliferation in terms of emissision reduction exemplifies this and it's only made more obvious by your Ayn Rand style of "no price too high" politics and your equivocating on company debt without any effort to explain why you think the debt is relevant here. To top it all off, your defense of decrying debt is an /opinion/ article from MarketWatch of all places. Was Motley Fool busy?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Happy to have the chat!

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Necessary and solvable (if we've decided cars as a transportation method are here to stay, which appears to be the case in most countries). Lithium is evaporated in ponds, transport of which can move to electric. Lithium batteries can be recycled. All heavy vehicles (including for road infra work) can be electrified. Electricity is ubiquitous, and batteries will only decline in cost. This is not my opinion, these are facts. As long as we keep ramping battery and renewables production, we'll get ahead of the emissions. To reduce emissions, you must displace combustion in all its forms, and destroy demand for fossil fuels. Renewables push out coal and natural gas on the grid, utility scale batteries push out natural gas due to price volatility (hat tip to Saudi Arabia on their current efforts to destroy the US fracking industry through pumping at full capacity, utilities desperately require stable prices for their fuels which is unlikely to happen if shale production declines due to low oil prices, which will prompt more rapid battery uptake), cheap/clean energy drives demand for EVs due to lower cost per mile than internal combustion (EVs are roughly half the cost per mile to operate as an internal combustion vehicle).

djehh3r7d 7y ago
Your last paragraph makes it impossible to take any of the rest of your argument seriously and it's hard to believe anyone with knowledge on the topics would agree without some asterisks. The rise of natural gas in the US from fracking has done more to cut down their emissions than every renewable category combined (the metrics exclude nuclear for those curious). Similarly, you're stoked at the idea of SAUDI ARABIA, of all people, solidifying its market leverage. Seriously, you consider the Saudis preferable to the Americans? The country whose loose grasp of its extremists enabled 9/11. That Saudi Arabia? You'd rather see OPEC, the group that America stood with Israel against over the Yom Kippur War, grow instead of the Americans? Get a clue, your agenda is nonsensical.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > Seriously, you consider the Saudis preferable to the Americans? It does not matter to me if you're the House of Saud or US frackers, if you're pumping oil I want you out of business. My agenda is the end of fossil fuels, and I don't much care how we get there. Saudi Arabia requires $80/barrel to fund their state (Russia is ~$40/barrel), a highly unlikely long term market price for oil even with Saudi Arabia increasing their market share. So, if they can drive US shale (which is heavily leveraged using debt [1]) out of business before they decline, kudos. The planet, nor carbon emissions, care not about geopolitics. Not buying oil from an authoritarian regime who funds terrorism is also an option if you're not a fan of Saudi Arabia (see: tariffs and embargoes). Why getting off oil is never the first option is always strangely not prioritized. Can't complain they're terrible folks (which they are!) but do nothing to migrate away from depending on them. It's been almost 50 years since the 70s oil embargo, and the US is still pathetically behind (compared to resources available) electrifying transportation. We have only ourselves to blame. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-energy-companies-have-the-highest-debt-and-the-most-at-risk-as-the-oil-market-collapses-2020-03-10 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-energy-companies-hav...
  - djehh3r7d 7y ago
    There's no point continuing this discussion. You're clearly not going to be persuaded and your positions are blatantly ignorant to anyone who has experience in the domains. The fact you couldn't be bothered to actually address being wrong about renewables in the US vs. natural gas proliferation in terms of emissision reduction exemplifies this and it's only made more obvious by your Ayn Rand style of "no price too high" politics and your equivocating on company debt without any effort to explain why you think the debt is relevant here. To top it all off, your defense of decrying debt is an /opinion/ article from MarketWatch of all places. Was Motley Fool busy?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Happy to have the chat!