https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/lithium-ore-nevada-major-deposit-electric-car/
Maybe we just haven’t looked hard enuff.
Just like NiCad batteries lithium batteries will be history and we’ll be using what comes next.
Here is both a storage solution and a way to still be able to use “petrol” engines. A significant amount of research is going into use of hydrogen (which we have lots of) in engines currently using petrol. It might revive my favorite engine, the rotary, Mazda is one of those doing such research.
dave
Eventually hydrogen will be the source.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a41103863/hydrogen-cars-fcev/
For now. Most new tech starts out pricey. Someone has to pay fopr the research.
Look at how much battery prices are falling.
dave
It depends what you mean by existential. Life on earth? Definitely not. Human life on earth? Unlikely. We're way too resilient and adaptable.
Which isn't to say we should do nothing, but one of the first casualties of crisis thinking is rationality. Mistakes get made and sometimes they're costly.
Crisis always makes me nervous...
Maybe we just haven’t looked hard enuff.
Just like NiCad batteries lithium batteries will be history and we’ll be using what comes next.
Here is both a storage solution and a way to still be able to use “petrol” engines. A significant amount of research is going into use of hydrogen (which we have lots of) in engines currently using petrol. It might revive my favorite engine, the rotary, Mazda is one of those doing such research.
We are long past the point of no return, we will have to tech our way out if we wish to survive. If you don’t embrace the problem, you are part of the problem. We need to clean up out “litter” including the greenhouse gases caused by humans sucking ancient carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. And all the microPlastics everywhere.
dave
We could have had "free energy" for a century if Nikola Tesla wasn't cancelled by the Morgan banking family.. but that is speculation of course 😉
Green hydrogen is inefficient because converting electricity to hydrogen and back is inefficient. Better use the electricity right away or store in batteries. But again, to build the infrastructure we will end up with earth being a giant mining pit.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It doesn’t matter as much if converting Hydrogen to electricity is inefficient so long as we can do it on a large enough scale, such as electrolysis of sea water using solar, wind, wave etc.
But s very real possibility. And if humans do survive some distopian future with a very significant reduction in the quantity of humans.
dave
All technology is expensive at first, as we all know.
Could you afford the first telephone, cell phone, car, record player, calculator, computer, fiber network, etc. etc?
What about that Tek you lusted after in 1970? Of course not. What's the point of stating the obvious?
Last edited:
Let’s throw fusion into the mix. After being 35 years away for most of my life, it is getting close. There are fusion plants expecting to be putting power onto the grid by the end of the decade and being profitable within a decade after that. Even if it takes twice as long…
One in the UK if IIRC.
Likely never small enuff to put int he Delorean so we will still need batteries or hydrogen (use of hydrogen in airplanes in a very specific goal since trying to lift the weight of batteries off the ground means miniscule range (a battery powered plan in testing here now, the goal to be able to fly from Victoria harbour to Vancouver harbour (≈100 km).
dave
One in the UK if IIRC.
Likely never small enuff to put int he Delorean so we will still need batteries or hydrogen (use of hydrogen in airplanes in a very specific goal since trying to lift the weight of batteries off the ground means miniscule range (a battery powered plan in testing here now, the goal to be able to fly from Victoria harbour to Vancouver harbour (≈100 km).
dave
Last edited:
Our first LaserWriter cost $14,500 CAD. Now i know peopole who find it cheaper to buy a new one when the toner runs out. And the new one is considerably better.
dave
On-land wind farms in Scotland tend to be built on acidic land. The immense sub-ground level concrete foundations for the towers are quite alkaline and this alkaline content
leaches into the (usually wet) land eventually getting into the water table. This change will upset the whole ecology of each region.
leaches into the (usually wet) land eventually getting into the water table. This change will upset the whole ecology of each region.
There was supposed to be a loink with that.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/lithium-ore-nevada-major-deposit-electric-car/
dave
There's more money to be made by selling cheaper items to many, rather than expensive items to a few.
That gives much better stability to your business, too. Business 101.
I think we can halt the supposed earth warming due to
us humans by 1. stop using tubes with their horrendous heat and 2. stop using powerful class-a amps with their enormous heat sinks. Audiophiles may save the planet! 🍻
us humans by 1. stop using tubes with their horrendous heat and 2. stop using powerful class-a amps with their enormous heat sinks. Audiophiles may save the planet! 🍻
Speaking of less harmful energy the state of affairs has been thread-jacked! Most of this happens when no one speaks of efficiency and % of harmful byproducts. Now I am no scientist but I am pretty good at numbers. If someone states that a power plant puts out such an amount of CO2 in an hour. And then screams about how bad that is without providing efficiency of the plant we are left with the standardized test answer of "Not enough information." When a company touts there car as having such a range per charge but does not give efficiency the its the same. Speaking of EVs the damage done to the environment from the manufacturing of the cars doesn't seem to ever be in the brochures. I am not advocating either one but just giving the example of how the scientific / objective sides of the arguments have been thread-jacked. This seems to happen from most view points. Some real world examples might be cannabis, EVs, natural gas stoves, paper products. A lot of people think that paper comes from virgin forests. A lot of people will say it comes from tree farms, some tout that it is recycled. This is ok but without percentages and amounts of harmful products used per amount of product created. ( I'm thinking of bleach on this.) the discussions are moot and the real best solution can not be found.
rant gone sideways
Jeremy
rant gone sideways
Jeremy
They just closed it, apparently it's gone as far as it can, and they're going to dismantle it to check how well it's held up. There's another project starting up in 2026 and of course there's that monster in France.
Small modular reactors show promise. Fission though. My view is that if we're serious about a climate emergency nuclear fission is our best bet here and now.