What we call “renewables” currently is not the future because it’s all contingent on having non-renewables to make the “renewables”. We need to somehow invent batteries and solar panels that can be made using nothing non-renewable, but we’re not even close.
There’s more astroturfing for renewables than against it.
Solar panels are 90% recyclable and most parts can be easily separated by hand. The aluminum, glass, silver and copper can then be simply melted down. The only reason it isn’t more common is that the labor costs are more expensive than buying virgin raw materials - a capitalism problem, not a technical problem.
Likewise, most batteries are recyclable by simply separating the electrodes and melting them down. For alkali metals like Lithium and Sodium you have the complication of having to work in an inert space but that doesn’t make it impossible, just more work (Edit: Ask a chemistry graduate, they have probably done this in a glove box before). Again, it’s a problem of the labor cost of recycling being prohibitive, not a technical problem. Lithium batteries are 98% recyclable.
The suggestion that 98% recyclable batteries are somehow less sustainable than oil-based fuels that are literally burnt up and completely unrecoverable is ludicrous.
There a difference between being recyclable and being economically viable to recycle them. It’s not economically viable to reclaim the recyclable material from solar panels, especially in Australia where you’d have to pay someone $40/hour + super + taxes + everything else to do it. It’s not a “capitalism problem”.
I didn’t say that batteries are less sustainable than oil. Batteries, however, require oil to be manufactured - like all the “renewables”, and they’re not economically viable to recycle even the recyclable parts. As wholesale costs reduce they become even MORE unviable to recycle.
There is simply no know replacement for oil, and there is no “renewable” energy without non-renewable materials. This is the problem that needs to be solved, and we are still not even close.
If you your saying is true, then the Astroturf campaigns that are funded by the Fracking Companies would focus on the unrecyclability of turbine fins/blades, solar panels and lithium batteries.
In this case, they would be sued by battery and solar panel manufacturers and it would go to court.
Instead, the astroturfing campaigns focus on ridiculous claims like “birds will get hurt when they fly into turbine blades” and “high-tension power lines look ugly and hurt my feelings”.
Are you saying you disagree that “renewables” are made by and using non-renewable materials? Or that there’s no astroturfing by the pro “renewables” side? Simon Holmes a Court alone spends tens of millions of dollars a year astroturfing.
What we call “renewables” currently is not the future because it’s all contingent on having non-renewables to make the “renewables”. We need to somehow invent batteries and solar panels that can be made using nothing non-renewable, but we’re not even close.
There’s more astroturfing for renewables than against it.
This is simply untrue. Here’s an in depth Technology Connections video about renewable power, including the ease of recycling both solar panels and batteries
Solar panels are 90% recyclable and most parts can be easily separated by hand. The aluminum, glass, silver and copper can then be simply melted down. The only reason it isn’t more common is that the labor costs are more expensive than buying virgin raw materials - a capitalism problem, not a technical problem.
Likewise, most batteries are recyclable by simply separating the electrodes and melting them down. For alkali metals like Lithium and Sodium you have the complication of having to work in an inert space but that doesn’t make it impossible, just more work (Edit: Ask a chemistry graduate, they have probably done this in a glove box before). Again, it’s a problem of the labor cost of recycling being prohibitive, not a technical problem. Lithium batteries are 98% recyclable.
The suggestion that 98% recyclable batteries are somehow less sustainable than oil-based fuels that are literally burnt up and completely unrecoverable is ludicrous.
There a difference between being recyclable and being economically viable to recycle them. It’s not economically viable to reclaim the recyclable material from solar panels, especially in Australia where you’d have to pay someone $40/hour + super + taxes + everything else to do it. It’s not a “capitalism problem”.
I didn’t say that batteries are less sustainable than oil. Batteries, however, require oil to be manufactured - like all the “renewables”, and they’re not economically viable to recycle even the recyclable parts. As wholesale costs reduce they become even MORE unviable to recycle.
There is simply no know replacement for oil, and there is no “renewable” energy without non-renewable materials. This is the problem that needs to be solved, and we are still not even close.
If you your saying is true, then the Astroturf campaigns that are funded by the Fracking Companies would focus on the unrecyclability of turbine fins/blades, solar panels and lithium batteries.
In this case, they would be sued by battery and solar panel manufacturers and it would go to court.
Instead, the astroturfing campaigns focus on ridiculous claims like “birds will get hurt when they fly into turbine blades” and “high-tension power lines look ugly and hurt my feelings”.
That’s some bizarre and nonsensical logic.
Are you saying you disagree that “renewables” are made by and using non-renewable materials? Or that there’s no astroturfing by the pro “renewables” side? Simon Holmes a Court alone spends tens of millions of dollars a year astroturfing.