"Weakness of the study" is literally my point in its entirety. I just went for the obvious problems, which were outlined in the study, rather than noting that study also missed items as that is far less obvious.
Both your arguments are wrong in the context of this discussion, on the merits you're presenting them. Read my previous post and its points, instead of just reposting flawed arguments that already have been debunked.
You make it sound like it's somewhere even in a remote ballpark of 100%. Reality is, it's in low single digits in northern climes during winter. And this discussion is in no way, shape or form about "remote communities", than can be shrugged off with "anyway". You're talking ~million people metropolises.
There's the other side to this coin too. Most people who would upgrade after a couple of years, while their old hardware was working were suddenly faced with not really wanting to upgrade due to prices.
So they didn't, and many of them likely noticed that there isn't actually anything coming out that can really overtax their three-ish years old hardware.
I wonder just how badly nvidia and amd managed to shoot themselves in the foot by essentially forcing the "upgrade every couple of years" people face the fact that their old hardware performs just fine for much longer and now that games are made primarily with console ports in mind, benefits from newer hardware are minimized to the extreme.
It isn't dead yet. There's a slowdown in sales because everyone who was mining ethereum and its derivatives is now waiting for bitmain to spin up production to meet new demand. So no new buys, as difficulty is expected to rise soon with massive influx of ASICs.
But if people have the hardware running, my understanding is that difficulty isn't yet up to the point where it wouldn't make sense to mine (expecting price to rise in the future, as much of ethereum mining was making loss at the moment of being mined).
One end of the problem you're missing is that there's such a thing as polar night. As in "no Sun at all, even during the day".
Other half is precipitation, which in sub-zero temperatures is snow and icing. Unless you want to spend a lot of energy just clearing your panels of snow and ice, while getting minimal returns because while Sun is up at some point during the day, it only lasts a few hours at best and is so low on horizon, it doesn't produce all that much power even when it's up.
Two problems. One is that we've seen countless papers that suggest it's "economically feasible to mine whatever resource we want from salt water and brine". Essentially all of them never materialise into working technology.
Other is the fact that pretty much everyone and their grandma is currently investing in mining lithium, all while expecting massive price rises because this is a commodity that doubled its price in last six years and is growing at around 20% a year now, on an accelerating growth trend. So they're tapping utterly uneconomical sources that do indeed cost far more than currently usable ones.
Now if you actually read the study, it relies on the exact opposite for its claims. It's claiming that lithium batteries need to get cheaper.
I like how you always start with denying the obvious in your post, and end up contradicting yourself in the end.
At least this time you saved me time of reading several paragraphs of garbage before admitting to my statement being correct. And as usual, cutting the key part from the quote.
Reminder for those that missed the good old greenpeace grade quote master above, the full sentence he partially quoted was:
>solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest.
Have you noticed why lithium mining came back? At all?
Because its price doubled in last ten years. And it's growing at almost 20% yearly now, at an accelerating pace. Because mining is expensive, and we're running out of easy to access and mine veins rapidly, which keeps driving the costs up in addition to demand.
So yes, we'll have the boom in mining, as indicated by the high risk investor company that you cited. Do you realise that they are confirming my point, in that they're expecting a massive rise in lithium price?
Like I noted, I'm talking about the study. Study specifically cites lithium batteries. There's always a chance that things like sodium batteries will become acceptable.
#1 and #2 are fudged to the extreme to get the outcome they're gunning for. #4 is equally fudged and is in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #5 is also in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #3 is likely true in the assumption on coal, but it's highly unlikely to be replaced with what study claims.
First of all, if you are to try to deploy lithium batteries on world scale as spinning reserve replacement, lithium prices will not just go through the roof - they'll go into outer space. The reason we have cheap lithium now is because we get lithium by literally vaporising water in the driest desert on the planet. If you want to increase production by orders of magnitude, as this kind of project would require, you'd have to go for less economic ways of making lithium. And that means orders of magnitude higher costs. So much for #1 and #2. Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest. So linear scaling of low hanging fruit adoption for decades on is literally the infamous xkcd level of "you're getting married tomorrow, so you'll lots of wedding cakes for next year at a linear rate of one a day".
As for the #4, UK makes for a great example here. CCGTs replacing coal, because to meet CO2 targets, you can get roughly twice the energy from natgas that you would get from coal for the same emission of CO2. It's also mutually exclusive with their claims in #1 and #2, showing that whatever model they're using, it appears to contradict itself.
The only things to take away are #3 and #5. #3 will likely be sorta, kinda correct in that we'll probably switch from goal mostly to CCGTs, and #5 is likely correct that as long as "lithium prices go to outer space" scenario of #1 and #2 doesn't happen (another internal contradiction in the model), a significant portion of locomotion will go electric.
When it comes to plastic waste, the opposite is actually true. This is because most of such waste is packaging.
If you were to ever go to a market in poor countries, one of the first things you'll note is that when you buy your daily products, they come in daily doses, packaged as such. Tiny shampoo packages, tiny soap packages, tiny deodorant, etc. Even food is commonly sold packaged as "this is your portion for the next meal".
This is because people in poor countries can't afford to pay for a bottle that will last them a month. That's a month you have to pay up front. Poor overwhelmingly live day to day, and products are portioned to match this need.
So for the same amount of product, you get order(s) of magnitude more plastic waste. Which is why the plastic garbage problem is far worse in Pacific and primarily originates from poor countries on the West end of Pacific.
We already had that stage when it was legal. Wikipedia page for cocaine has amazing ads from late 1800s and early 1900s for cocaine.
It was utterly devastating for communities, because unlike marijuana, cocaine is actually extremely addictive for overwhelming majority of people and directly overrides one of our primary motivational systems.
I'm guessing they're actually doing the same thing that is usually done in popular science when talking about "cocaine in rivers". They're talking about benzoylecgonine, which is the metabolic end product of cocaine in human metabolism.
Slashdot Mirror
At which point, you get hit with additional damages for intent to circumvent the law.
"Weakness of the study" is literally my point in its entirety. I just went for the obvious problems, which were outlined in the study, rather than noting that study also missed items as that is far less obvious.
Both your arguments are wrong in the context of this discussion, on the merits you're presenting them. Read my previous post and its points, instead of just reposting flawed arguments that already have been debunked.
You make it sound like it's somewhere even in a remote ballpark of 100%. Reality is, it's in low single digits in northern climes during winter. And this discussion is in no way, shape or form about "remote communities", than can be shrugged off with "anyway". You're talking ~million people metropolises.
You clearly didn't read the contents of the link. Go and read them.
There's the other side to this coin too. Most people who would upgrade after a couple of years, while their old hardware was working were suddenly faced with not really wanting to upgrade due to prices.
So they didn't, and many of them likely noticed that there isn't actually anything coming out that can really overtax their three-ish years old hardware.
I wonder just how badly nvidia and amd managed to shoot themselves in the foot by essentially forcing the "upgrade every couple of years" people face the fact that their old hardware performs just fine for much longer and now that games are made primarily with console ports in mind, benefits from newer hardware are minimized to the extreme.
Key part seems to be confirmable by other parties - that being nvidia being forced to accept hundreds of thousands of GPUs from Taiwanese OEMs.
It isn't dead yet. There's a slowdown in sales because everyone who was mining ethereum and its derivatives is now waiting for bitmain to spin up production to meet new demand. So no new buys, as difficulty is expected to rise soon with massive influx of ASICs.
But if people have the hardware running, my understanding is that difficulty isn't yet up to the point where it wouldn't make sense to mine (expecting price to rise in the future, as much of ethereum mining was making loss at the moment of being mined).
I'm referencing central claims of this study, not generalist claims.
One end of the problem you're missing is that there's such a thing as polar night. As in "no Sun at all, even during the day".
Other half is precipitation, which in sub-zero temperatures is snow and icing. Unless you want to spend a lot of energy just clearing your panels of snow and ice, while getting minimal returns because while Sun is up at some point during the day, it only lasts a few hours at best and is so low on horizon, it doesn't produce all that much power even when it's up.
Supraconductive wiring that works at Earth surface temperatures would indeed rapidly solve most of world's energy problems.
Two problems. One is that we've seen countless papers that suggest it's "economically feasible to mine whatever resource we want from salt water and brine". Essentially all of them never materialise into working technology.
Other is the fact that pretty much everyone and their grandma is currently investing in mining lithium, all while expecting massive price rises because this is a commodity that doubled its price in last six years and is growing at around 20% a year now, on an accelerating growth trend. So they're tapping utterly uneconomical sources that do indeed cost far more than currently usable ones.
Now if you actually read the study, it relies on the exact opposite for its claims. It's claiming that lithium batteries need to get cheaper.
I like how you always start with denying the obvious in your post, and end up contradicting yourself in the end.
At least this time you saved me time of reading several paragraphs of garbage before admitting to my statement being correct. And as usual, cutting the key part from the quote.
Reminder for those that missed the good old greenpeace grade quote master above, the full sentence he partially quoted was:
>solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest.
Have you noticed why lithium mining came back? At all?
Because its price doubled in last ten years. And it's growing at almost 20% yearly now, at an accelerating pace. Because mining is expensive, and we're running out of easy to access and mine veins rapidly, which keeps driving the costs up in addition to demand.
So yes, we'll have the boom in mining, as indicated by the high risk investor company that you cited. Do you realise that they are confirming my point, in that they're expecting a massive rise in lithium price?
Like I noted, I'm talking about the study. Study specifically cites lithium batteries. There's always a chance that things like sodium batteries will become acceptable.
You didn't read the argument. Also, opium in purities available at the time is far less addictive than modern cocaine.
Finally, opium is also legal for medical uses. Morphine for example is a common pain relief of last resort.
So the first scenario is true. Thanks for doing the legwork on the abstract.
I read the source rather than opinionated drivel on ars technica.
https://about.bnef.com/new-ene...
#1 and #2 are fudged to the extreme to get the outcome they're gunning for. #4 is equally fudged and is in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #5 is also in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #3 is likely true in the assumption on coal, but it's highly unlikely to be replaced with what study claims.
First of all, if you are to try to deploy lithium batteries on world scale as spinning reserve replacement, lithium prices will not just go through the roof - they'll go into outer space. The reason we have cheap lithium now is because we get lithium by literally vaporising water in the driest desert on the planet. If you want to increase production by orders of magnitude, as this kind of project would require, you'd have to go for less economic ways of making lithium. And that means orders of magnitude higher costs. So much for #1 and #2. Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest. So linear scaling of low hanging fruit adoption for decades on is literally the infamous xkcd level of "you're getting married tomorrow, so you'll lots of wedding cakes for next year at a linear rate of one a day".
As for the #4, UK makes for a great example here. CCGTs replacing coal, because to meet CO2 targets, you can get roughly twice the energy from natgas that you would get from coal for the same emission of CO2. It's also mutually exclusive with their claims in #1 and #2, showing that whatever model they're using, it appears to contradict itself.
The only things to take away are #3 and #5. #3 will likely be sorta, kinda correct in that we'll probably switch from goal mostly to CCGTs, and #5 is likely correct that as long as "lithium prices go to outer space" scenario of #1 and #2 doesn't happen (another internal contradiction in the model), a significant portion of locomotion will go electric.
It is. That's why heroin was used in the past to literally bring China to its knees.
Or they actually used cocaine on eels to get a great abstract that sounds sensational, but makes their study utterly pointless for real life.
Or eels in question actually have a metabolic reaction to the aforementioned end product of human metabolizing cocaine.
When it comes to plastic waste, the opposite is actually true. This is because most of such waste is packaging.
If you were to ever go to a market in poor countries, one of the first things you'll note is that when you buy your daily products, they come in daily doses, packaged as such. Tiny shampoo packages, tiny soap packages, tiny deodorant, etc. Even food is commonly sold packaged as "this is your portion for the next meal".
This is because people in poor countries can't afford to pay for a bottle that will last them a month. That's a month you have to pay up front. Poor overwhelmingly live day to day, and products are portioned to match this need.
So for the same amount of product, you get order(s) of magnitude more plastic waste. Which is why the plastic garbage problem is far worse in Pacific and primarily originates from poor countries on the West end of Pacific.
We already had that stage when it was legal. Wikipedia page for cocaine has amazing ads from late 1800s and early 1900s for cocaine.
It was utterly devastating for communities, because unlike marijuana, cocaine is actually extremely addictive for overwhelming majority of people and directly overrides one of our primary motivational systems.
I'm guessing they're actually doing the same thing that is usually done in popular science when talking about "cocaine in rivers". They're talking about benzoylecgonine, which is the metabolic end product of cocaine in human metabolism.
I have in fact understood the point, that being trolling.
Much better. Ad hominem, combined with a lot of pointless citations of irrelevant points. Enjoyable read. Much higher quality trolling.
Shame it's still trolling.