@mr_washee_washee How do you propose to balance the grid without wind?
Solar panels are indeed mostly silicon, but they’re not entirely made of silicon. They also use “minor metals” (indium, gallium etc) in smaller quantities. They certainly use copper, steel and aluminium.
The inverter for a solar panel might contain rare earths. The big ones for long range HVDC interconnectors very likely do.
Whatever we build will involve some amount of mining.
However given the enormous cost of the status quo, renewables are a step forward.
@mr_washee_washee I’ve seen people argue that nuclear actually has the lowest material requirement overall. I’m not entirely convinced by that argument though!
By all means reduce the number of cars, but some of the things we will need to do to achieve that will take significant time - especially fixing housing and building more rail.
However there will still be vehicles, even if they are only buses.
i am no expert of the subject, but only time will prove what direction of research is sustainable, be it for renewable energy production, or 0 carbon emitting transportation.
@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.
@mr_washee_washee Either way, the technologies already exist and need to be deployed rapidly.
The alternative is burning more fossil fuels.
Which is both more expensive and *vastly* more dangerous. We need rapid progress towards sustainability, because it’s the *total* carbon emitted that matters.
Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest (in fact they must peak as soon as possible). The UK, for instance, has agreed to reduce its emissions by 68% by 2030 (compared to 1990), a target that it will almost certainly miss according to the last CCC report.
alot of countries are going to miss their net 0 emission goal. there’s no need to compromise one own life style if governements arent serious about radical change. might as well keep driving ur fossil fuel car; u can’t stop private jets from flying or corproates from making extra revenue on the exepnse of the environement
in a nutshell yea. bring up an ev that isnt dependant on rare earth metals and i would gladly embrace it, cause even the motors use rare neodymium
@mr_washee_washee @suodrazah So do wind farms. Are you opposed to them too?
use solar. silicium is abundant
@mr_washee_washee How do you propose to balance the grid without wind?
Solar panels are indeed mostly silicon, but they’re not entirely made of silicon. They also use “minor metals” (indium, gallium etc) in smaller quantities. They certainly use copper, steel and aluminium.
The inverter for a solar panel might contain rare earths. The big ones for long range HVDC interconnectors very likely do.
Whatever we build will involve some amount of mining.
However given the enormous cost of the status quo, renewables are a step forward.
@mr_washee_washee I’ve seen people argue that nuclear actually has the lowest material requirement overall. I’m not entirely convinced by that argument though!
By all means reduce the number of cars, but some of the things we will need to do to achieve that will take significant time - especially fixing housing and building more rail.
However there will still be vehicles, even if they are only buses.
i am no expert of the subject, but only time will prove what direction of research is sustainable, be it for renewable energy production, or 0 carbon emitting transportation.
also mr_wahsee_washee is me
@mr_washee_washee Delaying the technologies that we know work, continuing to dig up more fossil fuels, and giving it a veneer of credibility by funding more research is a classic delayer tactic. Delay being a stage of denial.
.
@mr_washee_washee Either way, the technologies already exist and need to be deployed rapidly.
The alternative is burning more fossil fuels.
Which is both more expensive and *vastly* more dangerous. We need rapid progress towards sustainability, because it’s the *total* carbon emitted that matters.
Emissions must peak by 2025 at the latest (in fact they must peak as soon as possible). The UK, for instance, has agreed to reduce its emissions by 68% by 2030 (compared to 1990), a target that it will almost certainly miss according to the last CCC report.
alot of countries are going to miss their net 0 emission goal. there’s no need to compromise one own life style if governements arent serious about radical change. might as well keep driving ur fossil fuel car; u can’t stop private jets from flying or corproates from making extra revenue on the exepnse of the environement