As far as I know, they still haven't figured out a way to get more energy out of fusion than they put it.
As far as I know, they still haven't figured out a way to get more energy out of fusion than they put it.
so what are the world reserves of lithium and other such materials, when can we expect 'peak lithium' to occur?
Up until Nov 7th there were only two countries in the world that had not agreed to sign the terms of the Paris Climate agreement. Syria and the USA. Today Syria announced it will join the agreement leaving the USA as the only country in the world not willing to participate.
President Trump announced in June that the US would withdraw from the climate accord, a process that will be complete in 2020.
"We are getting out", he said. "We will start to renegotiate and we will see if there is a better deal. If we can great. If we can't that fine".
I do not think the earth negotiates with anyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/syria-paris-climate-agreement/index.html
Here's the most recent I could find quickly from 2008.
Lithium Abundance - World Lithium Reserve
And here is an article from The Motley Fool website discussing some of the problems with a different type of pollution using lithium.
Tesla Motors' Dirty Little Secret Is a Major Problem -- The Motley Fool
Does seem to be a bit of a dilemma do we trade one form of pollution for another? Plus the increased need to add to the electrical grid to provide charging stations. I don't think the fusion reactors of the future will be effective. Have not found a reference to the reactor study in Europe. Lots of other articles but none that mentioned any experimental designs in the works yet.
In an earlier post there was mention of the ITER fusion project. I have found a web page that actually does discuss the possible power output and it does not look good for the project.
The ITER Power Amplification Myth | New Energy Times - LENR News and Scientific References
Last edited by gneebore; 11-08-2017 at 03:37 AM.
With the recent exciting news about Tesla's introduction of a battery powered semi freight truck tractor with specs that have the trucking industry abuzz, I was wondering where does the raw material Lithium come from and how is it produced. Thanks for the article from the Motley Fool stating that the USA imports 95% plus of this raw material from South America and the harmful effects it has on the environment.
As I can see the results of both a shallow tropical ocean and glaciers from ages past, I don't think the Earth takes anything humans do very seriously.
Something that bugs me about this whole human caused climate change thing is this: pretty much all the people claiming that don't actually live like they think its a problem. Kudos to you for discussing this on an online forum - the supposedly official sponsors of climate change all seem to fly around on pollution spewing jets to environment destroying resorts for their discussions of the issues. Sorry if you've heard this before, but I'm curious on your take on this.
SalesServiceGuy flies carelessly on fuel burning machines where he can take advantage of impoverished nations and bless them with his presence.
Your question could be worded a bit better but I think you are trying to make a link between the perceived over size eco impact of a few global climate leaders.
If so, the most visible Global Climate change leader is the former VP of the USA, Al Gore. I would respond that Al Gore's carbon footprint does not matter. Yes he flies around in private jets and lives in a big house while suggesting to citizens various ways to reduce their use of electricity and fossil fuels.
Climate change deniers lead personal attacks on Al Gore as a way of trying to cast doubt on established climate science and distract attention from the most serious global threat that humans around the world face.
The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issues of climate change) and poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier and perhaps more rhetorically effective than debunking climate science itself.
Climate change advocates who don't live a carbon neutral lifestyle are not hypocrites because for the most part they are not asking you to live a carbon neutral lifestyle. They are asking governments, utilities, energy companies and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please without contributing to global warming.
The reason climate advocates don not intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they are insignificant to the big picture on climate. They do suggest that you elect politicians who are climate friendly.
This is not to say that celebrities and wealthy people should be given carte blanche to consume as much dirty energy as they want. If we are to take this hypocrisy argument seriously, then every rich person who wants to advocate for climate action must live in the smallest home possible, bicycle to work and not fly anywhere plus give all of their speeches via Skype.
People like Al Gore are using their wealth for good. Al Gore has devoted his life to making sure we act in time to avert a global climate crisis. The lowering of carbon emissions resulting from his efforts dwarfs whatever his own personal carbon footprint might be.
The most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people will not be effected by climate change. If rising sea levels threaten their vacation properties, they can just move. They will always be able to afford air conditioning no matter how high electricity rates climb. The irony is that the vulnerable working class and poor people are likely to be hit the hardest by climate change.
Bookmarks