Comments by "Simon" (@Simon-dm8zv) on "Going Green With Lithium Has Environmentalists Torn" video.

  1. It's a misconception to think that lithium mining will be just there to supply luxury EV manufacturers. We eventually need lithium for any type of road vehicle, including the millions of commercial vehicles that keep the world running. Even if we would manage to drastically reduce consumerism in general, which I totally agree on, we still need vehicles to transport goods and people around.
    132
  2. Wait, is this the concept Elon talked about at Battery Day when he mentioned 'lithium mining from sand'?
    4
  3.  @meckhardt2112  Correct, I did not state that nobody needs a car. Batteries are simply the most efficient and practical way to store energy so they deserve all the focus.
    3
  4. Not the majority, but a large part indeed. Comparable to transport emissions. We need to do both: get rid of factory farming AND stop burning fossil fuels.
    3
  5. Not really. Hydrogen is a horribly inefficient way to store electric energy. Nuclear power requires mining too and the waste management is obviously another big downside.
    3
  6.  @meckhardt2112  Exactly, batteries will also play a massive role in public transportation.
    2
  7.  @meckhardt2112  Yeah catenary wires are great. Should definitely be the preferred choice over batteries. It is not a universal solution however as it won’t be an option in less densely populated areas.
    2
  8.  @Thedarkrainbow356  20% is pretty good already and driving electric is ALWAYS cleaner. The grid becomes greener every year, it is a gradual process.
    2
  9.  @PG-3462  Solid state batteries would require lithium as well.
    2
  10.  @Blue_Collar_Hunter  lol
    2
  11. Batteries are not an energy source...
    2
  12. Electric cars are always cleaner than diesel or gasoline equivalents. They get even better every year as the grid gradually shifts to more renewables.
    2
  13. Hydrogen is too inefficient.
    1
  14. Hydrogen fuel cells are waaaay too inefficient.
    1
  15. It will be a combination of many solutions. Renewable energy, electric vehicles, the end of animal agriculture, recycling, bio-based materials, decline of population, etc.
    1
  16. @Daylen Crews It would require insane amounts of energy because it is horribly inefficient.
    1
  17.  @PG-3462  I don't think manufacturers are that concerned about lithium. It is far from rare and relatively easy to extract or mine. Materials like cobalt and nickel are much more problematic. Also, I think the main reason for the development of solid state batteries would be the performance of the battery itself (i.e. energy density) and chemical safety.
    1
  18.  @PG-3462  A vegan diet does not require food to come from the other side of the world. Basic vegetables grow pretty much anywhere and even if it has to come from some area farther away it still is much better than animal agriculture emission wise. Also: the food for the animals would in your example have to come from far away as well so it is not a valid argument.
    1
  19. ​ @PG-3462  1) There is plenty of protein in vegetables and plenty of fat in nuts. Of course you can live all year round without animal products. Millions of people have been doing so for a long time. All nutrients in animal products come originally from plants. The animal is just an unnecessary extra step. 2) Grass fed meat and dairy is not the solution. It is even worse because it causes many times more greenhouse gas emissions. 3) Invalid argument. Animal products are still horribly inefficient. It does not make much of a difference when they sometimes consume waste materials. There are much better solutions for organic waste streams like biogas plants. That way methane is converted to CO2 which has less of a greenhouse effect than methane itself. 4) The majority of all phosphorus mined is used for animal feed production. So it actually is the other way around, a vegan diet leads to a decrease of phosphorus mining: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044043/meta A vegan diet is much better in pretty much any way possible because it simply decreases the amount of organic material required in general due to its overall efficiency.
    1
  20. ​ @PG-3462  1) Not relevant. Again, having to get some food from far away is still much better than local animal agriculture. Here is a very clear report: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es702969f#.YLXojrrS8Rw 2) Grass fed is not the solution. Here you go: https://awellfedworld.org/issues/climate-issues/grass-fed-beef/ 3) Using food waste for methane (bio gas) production is a much better waste solution than feeding it to farm animals because it results in much lower emissions. We don't need manure as a fertilizer, it is perfectly possible to crow crops without it. Look up biocyclic vegan agriculture. 4) What are you talking about?! I am in favor of lithium mining. Look at my comment at the top. Again, the majority of phosphorus is mined for animal agriculture. And of course it is also possible to recover phosphorus from human waste streams as in pee. So once more: all the points you mentioned are absolutely no reason to maintain agriculture.
    1
  21.  @kidvicious2227  Availability of lithium is not an issue at all.
    1
  22.  @kidvicious2227  It is far less polluting than pumping and burning oil.
    1
  23.  @pennynutter  All not relevant because life cycle emissions of an electric car are far lower than a comparable ICE car.
    1
  24. Too inefficient. 👎🏻👎🏻
    1
  25. It is a whole lot better than cars driving on diesel or gasoline.
    1
  26.  @clayallsman4471  Driving electric is always cleaner, even on coal. Michal Moore doesn’t know anything, his documentary is completely out of date and based on wrong data.
    1
  27. In pretty much any way possible.
    1
  28. They are not.
    1
  29. Not really. EV emission gains are pretty significant, even if non renewable energy is used to charge them.
    1
  30. Still the cleanest solution.
    1
  31. Nope. Electric cares are better DESPITE the emissions that are related to the production of them.
    1
  32.  @illeatmyhat  You still need batteries to store the energy from whatever source you prefer.
    1
  33.  @illeatmyhat  Yeah, I am mainly referring to vehicles. EV adoption is not, and won't be, an overnight event. It is a relatively slow process and the grid will grow accordingly. This might take a decade or two.
    1
  34. Not really.
    1
  35. He is obviously referring to preventative solutions.
    1
  36. Nobody denied that and we also need lithium for public transport.
    1
  37.  @niccarter284  Only 60% fossil is pretty good. An electric car is always cleaner, even on fossil electricity.
    1
  38. Prevent*
    1
  39. What are you talking about? MANY companies are working on recycling facilities for EV batteries. But first we need to mine a lot of materials to create enough batteries to recycle in the first place.
    1
  40. It is not because it is horribly inefficient.
    1
  41. Well it is mainly the burning of coal that is very bad regarding emissions. Open strip coal mining is of course invasive to the landscape but that is about it.
    1
  42. Lol
    1
  43. It's not a scam. Electric is always cleaner.
    1
  44. We also need loads of batteries for public transportation.
    1
  45. Recycling.
    1
  46. Lithium ion batteries can be recycled. Look up Redwood Materials.
    1
  47. and he is right
    1
  48. Cars that run on air are horribly inefficient and would thus require much more electricity than any EV ever will.
    1
  49. To a certain degree yes. Anything that is mass produced is bad for the environment. Bottom line is that EVs are way better than diesel or gasoline cars.
    1
  50.  @inibrasiumthefirst2680  No problem.
    1
  51. Yeah but not for road vehicles.
    1
  52. Of course.
    1
  53.  @keystonerider1308  You are wrong.
    1
  54.  @keystonerider1308  Yes I have but that is not relevant. Have you ever done emission calculations? You probably do not realize one electric car only requires 10 kg of lithium.
    1
  55. Nothing lasts forever. We will always need new stuff eventually. And by the way, driving an old car long enough causes a lot more CO2 emissions than building an EV.
    1
  56. It takes A LOT of solar to ‘crack water’...
    1
  57.  @yokemonkey  At what pressure and voltage?
    1
  58.  @yokemonkey  You mean about 10 bar?
    1
  59.  @yokemonkey  1,5 L of hydrogen at 10 bar pressure is about 1,3 grams. 1 kilogram of hydrogen delivers 33 kWh of energy. So 1,3 grams of hydrogen = 0,04 kWh of energy, or 40 Wh. Your generator running for 1 minute at 12 A and 11,5 V consumes 2,3 Wh. This can never be the case as you will always need to input at least as much as you would output (actually a lot more due to all the losses). Are you sure of that 10 bar? And how do you compress the hydrogen?
    1
  60. Guess what has been done over the past decades (and still is being done)? Massive amounts of research towards batteries. Lithium ion is and will remain the best solution for a long time.
    1
  61.  @pauladriaanse  First you need to turn electricity into hydrogen, then you need to compress it for storage, then you need to transport it to a refueling location, and then it needs to be converted back to electricity inside the car to power the electric motors. This eventually results in a total efficiency of about 30%.
    1
  62. All cars need to be replaced eventually. It's just a natural process.
    1
  63. Well the material does not get burned right?
    1
  64. LOL yeah lets wait before all energy is 100% renewable before we start developing EV technology... xD
    1
  65. So what do you propose as an alternative?
    1
  66. There is plenty more applications for lithium.
    1
  67. Where do you see that?
    1
  68. "60%coal, 20% nuclear and only 20% renewable" You realize that is actually pretty good already? It results in much lower emissions than any diesel of gasoline car is ever capable of. Scaling up vegetable oil usage in vehicles will inevitably result in food vs fuel conflicts. Closed carbon cycle fuels are very inefficient and require MUCH more electricity than EVs would.
    1
  69.  @nobodysbusiness87  I am sorry, but that is wrong. An electric car is always more efficient than using synthetic fuel, despite the losses in generation and distribution. The losses in production, distribution and combustion of synthetic fuels are MUCH larger. Here is a nice chart: https://images.app.goo.gl/t2sfVgRrrqVmp7ya9 And the diesel generator Tesla charger is a nice anecdote, but obviously not an average situation.
    1
  70.  @nobodysbusiness87  EVs simply charge directly from the grid, so emissions depend on the location. Here is the most extensive and recent study on EV battery production: https://www.ivl.se/download/18.34244ba71728fcb3f3faf9/1591706083170/C444.pdf Here is a nice video on battery recycling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w78-aSTIDY&lc=UgwhxAHlY9d1C6Nnw1B4AaABAg.9NlRCKxnzUF9NlVjyHfOOt Solar panel production is a different subject and in my opinion not relevant now. You can use any source of electricity you like to charge EVs, nuclear included. Let me know if you need more information.
    1