Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Lithium: The False Profit of Electrification || Peter Zeihan" video.

@Tom-dt4ic What's your point, that because bad things happen once in a while, the whole thing is crap? Yes, actually. You never put all your eggs into one basket when it comes to energy sources. It should be gas, diesel, electric, natural gas, propane and whatever makes the most sense for each case.
11
@danharold3087 Which is an interesting story, but it has no bearing on my comment that you don't put all your eggs in one basket. You use the energy source that makes the most economic and practical sense.
6
@tboneforreal They have a diesel generator at virtually all gas stations to account for this possibility. They don't rely on one energy source. Thank you for making my point for me. Great example.
5
@ryanweible9090 It's not clear that EVs are the answer, even if you accept the doomsday scenarios of climatists. Everything we do have "environmental damage" from some viewpoint. Is mining and refining lithium good for the environment? Is mining and smelting copper good for the environment? How about running diesel ships across the ocean to deliver cobolt and other minerals needed for EVs, is that good for the environment. Unless we're willing to go back to a lifestyle of approximately 1750 we're always going to be damaging the environment in some way shape or form. Or you could look at it through the lens of least harm. Yes, every form of industrialized activity harms the environment, but is the alternative worse?
5
Do you know why the Permian Basin has so much oil? It's because at one time that entire region was covered in sea water and lots of marine life. Do you know why that area is now a sandy desert? The climate changed. It has always changed. It will never stop changing.
4
@colinmacdonald5732 It's because so-called renewables generally have a lifespan of about 1.5 to 2.2 decades and have to be rebuilt. Ironically if you're looking at the long-term, nuclear plants have the least harmful impact on the environment because they can run for 80+ years.
4
it's clear lithium was a great breakthrough, but it's not the answer for cars or for storage of non-baseline electricity sources (wind and solar).
3
@sunnyinsanya2 He's an analyst, and he's reacting to what experts are saying. If you say solid state batteries are imminent, he'll ask you "When will they build these factories to produce them commercially?" And if you don't have a date, they become "long range"
3
It's fairly impossible to get an EPA permit for a lithium mine in the US
2
No doubt this will trigger a bunch of EV evangelists that will tell you not only are current EV's great, if you don't believe so, then you're ignorant, trying to kill Gaia, and it's so much cheaper than gas car that it's a no-brainer, you only charge at home, and they just went from New York to Los Angeles in their Tesla and it was not a issue.
1
@serafinacosta7118 It reminds me of how the evangelists claim that a new battery for EVs is right around the corner. Any day now. They just saw a YouTube video on it...
1
Sodium Ion Batteries have less energy density than Lithium, meaning less range. They're cheaper, which makes sense for city-only cars.
1
Lithium batteries are now the legacy technology where costs have to be amortized over an additional 6-10 year period. So that's the time horizon for any new battery technology.
1
@junkerzn7312 Yeah, but you're never going to get fast charge times with lithium batteries. It's not an engineering problem it's a science problem. The greatest gains in lithium batteries have already been made. We're at the tweaking level of improvements.
1
@MarcosElMalo2 It is impossible to stop climate change, and even if it were, changing from gas to EVs wouldn't be "the answer"
1
@Withnail1969 Copper is preferred because it absorbs heat quickly (which you want when it's touching your CPU). Your computer depends on a fan blowing across that heat sink to cool the copper.
1
@Withnail1969 That's good we can't, because if we did, the plants would die, and then everything else would shortly after that.
1
@Withnail1969 In fact, by long-term CO2 levels, we're actually at a relative low point of CO2 in the atmosphere today. As CO2 levels rise, expect to see more of the earth greening, with more food being grown in far northern and southern latitudes (we're already starting to see this in Canada).
1
@Withnail1969 Then we'd better get used to a world with more CO2 in it, because if long-term trends hold true, CO2 levels and planet temperatures will rise again as they have for billions of years. And I mean that in the sense of _even if every human was gone from the planet_. I suspect we will survive and thrive as humans have for hundreds of thousands of years. Glaciers cycles occur every 100,000 years and with our last glacial age being was 20,000 years ago, so we currently in a warming phase of the earth. And I don't mean that we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth, and take care of it so our ecology is supporting life. But our ability to affect either warming or cooling of the earth is extremely limited. To bring this back home, I'm not against the concept of EVs, but the current versions simply aren't up to expectations of a majority of car buyers, and government mandates about banning sales of certain types of cars are going to have the opposite effect that is intended.
1
"RECYCLING of Lithium from spent batteries will begin to make a significant contribution." Perhaps, but history has shown us this is unlikely to happen. The only real recycling happening today is for aluminum and steel. We no longer recycle much paper or plastic, and virtually every bit of waste produces is put in landfills. And by the way, it's not the common people pushing "climate change" it's the rich people pushing climate change because it's extremely profitable. The brainwashing is so bad that people take that Greta Thunberg seriously. A kid on the spectrum repeating her programming over and over.
1
@azhardav That's the whole reason the crazies want to get rid of gas stoves. Hardly a myth. The crazies think that everything should be electrified; California is banning gas powered lawn equipment. You can claim "myth", but it's the reality of the crazies.
1
@colinmacdonald5732 I never say what I have or don't have to make sure I can be fully independent. But a great story; my financial advisor was asked by another client (and I promise you, I'm not going to say he's great and you should use him) if everything went to hell, what would retain the most value. It was an interesting question so he went back to the the experts back at corporate, and their answer was "A gun and ammunition".
1
@jager6863 Underground is the way to go in neighborhoods, although in my neighborhood, the underground cables failed because rodents chewed through them underground! Hard to believe! The electrical companies have the equivalent of a 440V extension truck where they can reel out cable and lay it on the ground past the break.
1
@MinusEighty You sure showed him with your withering critique. He's reeling from the after effects.
1
@oDubnobasswithmyhead Yeah, we're not even close to being ready for that, and there's short-to-medium term investments being made except to keep the status quo. Long term yes, but growth of EVs will be limited by the grid. My hunch is there will be an EV electricity surcharge put on EV charging at home to pay for grid enhancements and additional capacity, and EV owners will claim that it's not fair at that point.
1
@MinusEighty Educate him in.... playing the piano? Integral calculus? Roping Steer? Throwing a curve ball?
1
@oDubnobasswithmyhead The whole EV thing makes little sense, except the crazy left who doesn't want anyone to own a personal car, they believe everyone should live in a city, and should never travel more than 15 minutes from where they live. Sort of like prison, but you have to pay to live there.
1
@MinusEighty Every paper that claims that assumes that charging the cars would be done with off-season and offpeak extra capacity, but that's not how that works. Unless you want to futher burden EV's as the car that can only be charged when the electric company lets you, you'd need to assume that in every time zone, people will want to recharge their car when they get home from work, so consumers will want to charge from 4 PM to 7 PM all at the same time. That's the capacity you need to build in every state
1
Only if you can take those in your luggage on the plane.
1
@ianhumboldt9574 Without researchers we'd be pushing EVs with NiCads in them. The reality is the Lithium based batteries are not the answer for EVs. We need a chemistry that charges quickly 5-10 minutes, is not sensitive to full charges or full discharges, and can give range equivalent to today's gasoline and diesel cars. If we don't get there, the EVs you care about so much will not get the traction you seem to want.
1
@iamalmostanonymous Actually it is the chemistry of Lithium that drives those issues You mention the anode as part of the battery, lithium interacts with graphite in a way that is unique, which interferes with the recharging process. There are many peer reviewed papers out that about issues with using lithium in batteries, unfortunately, it's the only battery chemistry that delivers something that even gets within 1/10 of what we need in terms of energy density. That's why we should continue research and not settle in on Lithium. Lithium is great for hand tools and phones, less great for moving anything bigger than that.
1