^ Getting lithium out of its raw states can be a pretty environmentally unfriendly process, mainly (with the brine process) in the amount of water it consumes and rarely puts back into the ecosystem. But that can be remedied with good management, and once the lithium is out it's very recyclable. Seeing obstacles and insta-decrying the proposition is lacking imagination.
I'm not "insta-decrying" anything. Solar has a huge and lengthy list of obstacles that have been studied for decades- technological, environmental, economic, safety (all those batteries), etc. and yet is being advocated for against far better options for purely ideological reasons. There are much better ways to improve the environment. Sadly, one of those ways is going to have to be enacting legislation to protect habitat and farm-land from being destroyed by mega-solar.
Obviously coal is bad. However, the future I want for my children is not one where millions of acres are sacrificed to large-scale solar farms while hundreds of millions of tons of caustic lithium batteries are produced (requiring enormous mining operations) and disposed of each year to get us through the nights and cloudy days (as Musk / Tesla is currently advocating). Being renewable and carbon free doesn't mean the impacts will be small. I'd much rather they have a few small, modern nuclear plants running off recycled nuclear waste, of which we already have enough to last for centuries without the need for further mining.
Well, maybe they'll just use something else than Lithium in batteries; see no drama at all. Science fixes everything.
Or we could go for Sodium-Ion batteries. Salt is more plentiful and less toxic (obviously) than Lithiumhttp://phys.org/news/2015-03-na-ion-batteries-closer-li-ion.html
Myself, I've got nothing against a modern nuclear design, but 70 years of bad PR has made regular nuclear use not probable unless strangely enough it becomes a strategic decision (like the Chinese are running ahead in energy production because of it).
flaneur wrote: »
That's funny looking pavement under those solar panels.
A 50 year old style reactor and a 9.1 earthquake (one of the 4-5 biggest in the world for 1000 years), plus the biggest tsunami in a 1000 years in Japan, and what took the plant down.... Putting the electricals for the pumps for the cooling pools in the basement. If the electrical plant had been at 20 feet instead (completely doable), there would had been no issue at all despite that massive earthquake.
Are you really obliviously to the huge drop in ecological output that happens when you block out the sun, are you content with replacing actual diverse ecosystems with a little bit of quack grass, or is this a pathetic attempt to be clever?
So you don't foresee any ecological complications resulting from building a billion refrigerator sizes batteries to give us energy when solar doesn't? That's every bit as short-sighted as the fossil fuel economy ever was.
Yeah, you might be right, but in that case sacrificing the environment and future of our planet on the altar of some terrorist boogie-man is exactly what Greenpeace should be protesting. The actual threat of dying from terrorist activities occurring in the US is far, far less than the chance of being killed by getting trampled by a moose. Time to get our priorities straight.
The technology is already there and it is already happening.How do you think the grid meets the demands during peak and off peak hours without storing ?Hydroelectric and Thermal power plant can provide only so much power?