The amount of rare metals to mass produce electric cars and upgrade the infrastructure to facilitate this is massive and will deplete the earth of rare metals extremely fast.

What do you think misc?

I don't think it's a pipe dream but I do agree we aren't nearly there yet with our technology.

*insert lithium mining pics*


We need to perfect asteroid mining if we really want to do some of these projects.

Also there are people talking about sea floor mining and **** to try to get some metals.

I'm sure this complex issue can be easily distilled into a meme

Renewables and green energy are not electric cars.

I work in the industry. Do some research instead of believing stupid memes.

The meme is enough to destroy the "green" argument.

Even this boomer can see what a total farce it really is.



Only if tech gets really better and we have almost no need for rare metals could this "green" dream be possible but as it is now, it's more a dystopia.

Of course it is, electri cars are a big part of the green hysteria and maybe the future will bring real green energy but for now most of the western world uses coal, gas and oil to produce electricty.

And I know about the potential future green energy sources but that's all still decades away;

- molten salt reactors (aka thorium/natrium reactors)
- nuclear fusion (hope ITER doesn't flop)
- Geo thermal energy
...

Another BIG problem is the recycling of "green" energy products. Not only talking about batteries but also windturbines and solar panels that are very hard to recycle and also full of rare metals...


It's a big fcking farce.

Bonus: 70% of rare metals are in the hands of the chinese

Green energy is only deferring the impact. It just puts it somewhere else.

This from a guy whose house, and cabin are off grid. (my shop is not)

The logistics are a tough obstacle as well. At great cost to ourselves we installed two charging stations at the marina I work out of.

They are always full cuz rich tesla fold drive them here from Toronto to their cottages. There aren't many electric cars here, and we cant handle any more. We are at capacity for the number of charging stations our electrical service can handle, plus they cost a ton to put in.

And coordinating people charging their cars is already a nightmare.

wouldn't say it's a joke and a pipe dream but people talk about green energy like it doesn't have drawbacks as it is right now. current infrastructure doesn't exist to accommodate everything to be replaced with "green energy".

oil is so ubiquitous in so many different products it would be impossible to replace all of it. not to mention the left is all up in arms about it, and anybody that doesn't agree with their stupid and untenable ideas is a climate change denier. no you stupid bitch, we are just a denier of your hysterics.

they'd rather have oil/gas imported from some third world country than being able to control and regulate their own supply, because that's still the two predominate options right now

Green Energy is a joke because it doesn't make sense to just substitute a different source of electricity. The best thing for the environment is to avoid consumption, which is terrible for many industries.

Eliminating a commute through working from home is a better solution than driving an electric car to a building that is used for less than half the day.

nuclear is the future, its clean and produce a lot of energy

I love how my ex gf’s vegan, lesbian sister sh!t’s all over Chick Fil A and how they donated to homophobic groups or whatever. So she boycotts them on her SMARTPHONE made from sweat shop labor, lmao.

She posted about she’d be happy to pay $.50 cents more for a fast food sandwich if it means giving the employees a more livable wage.

Oh yea? Are you willing to pay $10,000 + for your smartphone so that another kid doesn’t have to slave away putting that sh!t together you self-righteous fuk? I think not.

"avoid consumption" indeed. Or atleast minimize it, if we continue like this there won't be anything left for the future generations.

We need something different than neo-liberal capitalism, atleast some system that acknowledges the scarcity of resources and doesn't need eternal "growth" like a cancer.

The real issue here is that there are just way too many damn people, and population growth is not slowing down.

Same story for your "renewable energy". Those will still require huge amounts of rare metals and to this date these "renewables" can hardly be recycled.

It is slowing down in the west and countries like Japan and South Korea. (also China I think)

But yeah, Africa and India are the biggest problem. They will have a baby boom the coming decades.

This. We could already be mostly 'green' energy producing if people weren't stupid and scared of nuclear

A lot of truth to this. Unfortunately, we are going to breed until it is a VERY big problem.



Really we need a break through in energy storage like LED technology.

That was a great video

Repped

Green energy does have its problems. I was just reading a write up on that yesterday that I found interesting. It can be read here ~

"Don't Get Discouraged About The Preposterous Plans To Eliminate Fossil Fuels"

[URL=https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-6-5-dont-get-discouraged-about-the-preposterous-climate-scare]https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/...-climate-scare[/URL]

excerpt:

It’s easy to get discouraged about the “climate” scare, otherwise known as the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to “save the planet.” Sometimes it seems that all you can hear are preening politicians and academics and journalists and “scientists” shouting about the immediate “existential crisis” that requires the prompt end of fossil fuels and that your energy use (but not theirs) must be severely restricted.

Just today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement warning that the next ten years are our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:

We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .

The few people pushing back get shouted down and drowned out. How could this possibly end well?

When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think. The reasons are simple: the magical “renewables” don’t work and are ridiculously expensive. And when the people figure this out, as they inevitably will, the anti-fossil-fuel jihad can quickly turn toxic for the left.

As background, recall a story from my own New York State that I covered a little over a year ago. Economic growth in certain regions of the state — particularly Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island — had led the local gas utility, National Grid, to propose a new pipeline under New York Harbor to provide needed additional capacity; but the pipeline got blocked by the Governor’s minions at the behest of anti-fossil-fuel zealots. By the fall of 2019 the utility had run out of pipeline capacity and started refusing natural gas hookups to new customers. Quickly 3000 customers had been refused, and a political outcry had begun. If the Governor actually believed his own climate rhetoric, at that point he would have stood up and admitted that he was the one who had blocked the pipeline and told the people that they needed to do without the gas and must get far-more-expensive electric heat and stoves for the good of the planet. But no. Instead, the Governor quickly caved to the homeowners and businesses who wanted the gas, and cynically issued statements placing the blame on the utility. The utility responded by implementing a program of sending the gas in compressed form in thousands of trucks. As far as I can determine, that temporary non-solution remains in place today. Meanwhile, the state is supposedly doubling down with a new plan to ban all new natural gas heating by 2025. Do you believe it will actually occur?

The fact is that fossil fuels are cheap and they work and, when confronted with the reality of what doing without them actually means, the people are not going to give them up. Recent days have brought a number of new data points that deserve noting:

Over in the UK, the nominally Conservative governments of Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have supposedly committed the country to achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. It may sound nice, but only little by little do the people get to find out the practical effects. During the month of May the government let it drop that there would be a ban on gas boilers by 2035, and everyone using gas for heat would need to switch to electric — at a cost estimated at tens of thousands of dollars per home. At the moment, the UK has nearly 24 million homes with gas heat, compared to fewer than 2 million with electric heat. The political blowback was immediate. From the Spectator, May 25: “[I]t is steadily becoming apparent just how politically costly the net zero commitment could be. . . . A government threat to ban gas boilers in existing homes by 2035, and to fine homeowners if they failed to meet the deadline, seems to have lasted less than a day. It was reported on Tuesday morning that ministers were considering including such a ban in a new heat and buildings strategy to be published next month – but by the afternoon the government appeared to have backtracked, and said there wouldn’t be any fines.”

In the U.S., a very similar story as to natural gas is beginning to play out politically. The Wall Street Journal reports on May 31 that “[m]ajor cities including San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and New York have either enacted or proposed measures to ban or discourage the use of the fossil fuel [natural gas] in new homes and buildings.” So far those proposed bans have proceeded without major political blowback; but then, the effective dates remain several years in the future, and as I reported a few days ago, here in New York there has been little press coverage of the practical consequences, and I think that very few people yet know what their masters are planning for them. But meanwhile, some Republicans are smart enough that they are starting to figure out that this could be a great political issue. Per the Journal: “The bans in turn have led Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana to enact laws outlawing such municipal prohibitions in their states before they can spread, arguing that they are overly restrictive and costly. Ohio is considering a similar measure.”

Climate crusaders think they are making serious headway in forcing the big, evil Western-based oil majors to reduce their “carbon footprints” and back away from the oil extraction industry. The International Energy Agency said in May that all new oil and gas production must stop by 2022 in order for the world to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell seem to be making at least some noises about complying with demands to back away from fossil fuels. But does that mean that oil will not be produced to fulfill consumer demand? Get real. This kind of nonsense just gives an opening for the Russians, and other such unsavory characters, to step in to fill the void. Gizmodo reports on May 28 about a truly enormous new oil project from Russian oil giant Rosneft that has recently begun construction in the Arctic: “The project, called Vostok Oil, is owned by Rosneft, which is controlled by the Russian government. . . . The proposed project is dauntingly huge. Rosneft said that it anticipates exporting 25 million tons of oil a year by 2024, 50 million tons by 2027, and 115 million tons by 2030. [115 million tons is around 850 million barrels.] (The company plans to make 15 entirely new towns for the estimated 400,000 workers needed.)”.

The crusaders against fossil fuels mainly talk about the electricity sector, where replacing coal and natural gas with wind and solar can at least seem plausible to the poorly informed. But the electricity sector only accounts for about 25% of energy use in the U.S., and plenty of other major sectors like agriculture, industry, airplanes and shipping — using in the aggregate far more energy than the electricity sector — have no realistic strategies for getting rid of fossil fuels.....

And capitalism works so well with population expansion...no incentive to decrease population across the board.

Money has fukked us, unfortunately. No politician is going to win ever on a depopulation platform. We all like paved roads and schools.

And the alternative method of governing (commies, etc) dont work because its chit.

A.L.L. Leukemia 2009 - 2012
Brain haemorrhage 2009
Hip replacements 2010 & 2011
Eating Disorder 2016 -
Collapsed Talus 2020 -

Dang, stay safe brah

I've been banned from Teslaforums twice for questioning green tech.

Stay safe, brahs.

It's a religion for those idiots.

Not really an option since that just turns into a small group of elites deciding who gets what.

I can't see a system like that ever "working" unless the world is being run by some type of AI.

The goals they want to meet to reduce carbon emissions are impossible to reach with current tech and without using nuclear power.

There is zero infrastructure, Green energy generation is not cheap enough yet and battery tech isnt up to snuff yet either.

Its just like the recycling craze of the early 2000's, which is total BS because 80% of it get sent to the south pacific to get burned. Nothing you do as a person will make a dent in the overall problem. Its all power generation and industry causing the problems.

We need to do it, but the time to actually make the move has passed. Now we get to watch people argue for the next 20 years while the amazon burns and the great barrier reef dies.

Green energy is all about 1 thing: deindustrialization of the Western world, and the rise of China to the top.

China has built more coal fored plants than all of europe combined, not a peep from anyone.

All about destroying the West- destroying your way of life, standard of living, and your families future along with it.


Anyone who works in/around the utility industry knew "green energy" for 100% of demand was a flat out scam and lie from the word GO

in theory it's great, but in reality it's just a talking point and a political means for getting large budgets pushed through with bs tacked on hidden behind the false dream that something comes from nothing

I think our part of the world will struggle hard in getting rare earths, NIMBYism will have the more extreme environmentalists up in arms about trying to build domestic mines that will impact wildlife or disturb indigenous cultural sites

But if it’s being produced by an impoverished child in a third-world country, then it’s ok