2年前

The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk

The Rise of Batteries in Six Charts and Not Too Many Numbers - RMI

The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk::The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk.

Hacker News @lemmy.smeargle.fans

bot @lemmy.smeargle.fans

BOT

2年前

The Rise of Batteries in Six Charts

rmi.org /the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-too-many-numbers/

50 评论

Thats a weird way to frame it.
The rise of vaccines puts viruses at risk.
- As soon as I read the title I thought "did fossil fuel barons write the title because who would phrase it that way?"
  
  The article is by Rocky Mountain Institute, which is a think tank focused on clean energy transitions. And the rest of the language in the article is much more positive - batteries will enable a shift away from fossil fuels.
  So yes, very odd word choice in the title given that the rest of the article generally views fossil fuel displacement to be a good thing.
  
  I read the title and thought "Good, but can we do more?"
Oh no! …. Anyways.
- I was going to say "Oh no?" But yours works too!
The unstoppable rise of title is leading to a domino effect that puts all my sanity at risk.
This story is Analyst begging us to think of the fossil fuels.
Title.
Title. title.
Good.
- Eh...
  Batteries take "rare earth metals" like cobalt.
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/cobalt-mining-in-the-congo-green-energy/100802588
  There's an environmental cost, and a huge cost on a personal level to the people who mine it.
  It's like if your house is burning down, but then a flood comes and puts out the fire.
  Sure, the fire is out, but now your house is underwater. We're just switching one problem for another, not really solving anything
  Edit:
  Not sure why so many people think this comment is pro fossil fuels...
  But I'm not going to repeatedly explain the very basic concept that with two bad things, one is sometimes less bad.
  I really really thought people would already know that...
  
  Batteries take “rare earth metals” like cobalt.
  Some Lithium-Ion batteries use Cobalt, but many don't. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate, for example, is a popular variant without any Cobalt. There is a push going on to move to battery chemistries without Cobalt or to reduce the actual amount of Cobalt where it is still required.
  
  Current Li-ion batteries have numerous issues, but fortunately there are several alternatives too. Bringing a new battery chemistry to production scale hasn’t been easy, but we’re taking small steps like that every year.
  We may still need lithium, nickel or manganese in the near future, but the demand for cobalt (per cell) has been decreasing gradually. Who knows which alternative ends up dominating the market after a few decades
  
  People think your comment is pro fossil fuels because it's literally a pro fossil fuel talking point. This is the kind of stuff they parrot. Dumb people think that having batteries somehow makes EVs equivalent to ICE when it comes to environmental impacts and will repeat exactly what you wrote while ignoring all the other facts.
  You can be right and still be a mouthpiece spreading oil propoganda.
  
  I agree that no battery is perfect. But unlike gasoline, you can use a rechargeable battery over and over, then it gets recycled.
  It's a far better solution. And better batteries will come along to replace what we use now.
  
  And petroleum products don't? I don't get your argument Lithium mining is pretty bad but nowhere near as bad as oil/fossil fuels
  Fracking contaminates ground water, when you pump oil out it get replaced with what? Water, once again contaminating everything it touches. Plus this doesn't happen with Lithium mining either
  
  Funny how people are overly concerned about cobalt in EV batteries but never cellphone batteries.
  
  Nah, people hate nuance, it's now the age of false dichotomy. Where you either offer my position unconditional non-critical support, or you are offering my opponents unconditional non-critical support.
  I said something similar about nuclear power a while ago and got a similar response.
  
  Is there an environmental cost with fossil fuels?
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
The fossil fuel industry is dying
Upvote to make it die faster
- Upvote to make it die faster
  goddamn if that were only what it took...
This is the second click bait article I've seen today from L4sBot.
Won't someone please think of the fossils.
- We do, every election.
It's nice to get some good news on occasion.
Oh won't sinecure think of the oil barrons!
Wait, what's that? They're shifting their focus to plastics and the life that recycling works even though nobody wants to pay to make it work?
Well shit.
So invest in batteries tech dumbfuck oil robbers
- Oohoho I have so many old batteries at home I was gonna take to recycling. Fuck that, I'm gonna be rich!!
TIL: About RMI, or, the Rocky Mountain Institute. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMI_(energy_organization) So the kinda “Huh?” headline makes sense.
One of their focuses is changing energy usage patterns by changing demand.
In several sections, with minimal numbers and many helpful charts, the article takes us thru how evolving battery technology will lead to lessened fossil fuel demand.
This chart is pretty shocking, and makes IEA look like idiots. Or maybe it's malice? The IEA's founding purpose was to protect the Oil industry. Supposedly they now also work to "promote clean energy transitions"... but if that's their goal they don't seem to be doing a very good job.
- Correct. You should add the label that this chart compares forecast demand for EVs vs actual demand, along with the revised forecasts.
- My favorite is the IEA forecast for Solar adoption
OK, but who's going to be transporting all those batteries? Lorries, that's who.
So what's some good battery stock?

50 评论