Journey to the Center of the Earth, anyone? Seems like it might possibly split the earth in two but who knows, maybe we'll all become Mole People? Crazy.
In an effort to ease fossil-fuel reliance, an MIT spinoff plans to dig the deepest holes on Earth
By David Abel Globe Staff,Updated March 18, 2022, 8:49 a.m.
Miles below ground, where pressures are intense and temperatures far exceed the boiling point of water, dense layers of super-hot rocks offer the promise of a natural, inexhaustible supply of clean energy.
Environmentalists have long dreamed of a way to reach those depths to tap the potential geothermal energy in those rocks, but the technological and financial barriers have been too great.
Now, officials at an MIT spinoff say they believe they’ve figured out how to drill as deep as 12 miles into the Earth’s crust, using a special laser that they say is powerful enough to blast through granite and basalt.
In the coming years, Quaise Energy, named for a section of Nantucket, plans to dig some of the deepest boreholes in history to reach rocks that can exceed temperatures of 1,000 degrees and surface a kind of heavy steam that has the potential to provide enormous quantities of energy. By the end of the decade, their hope isto capture the steam and use it to run turbines at power plants.
“By drilling deeper, hotter, and faster than ever before possible, Quaise aspires to provide abundant and reliable clean energy for all humanity,” said CarlosAraque, a former MIT student and employee, whose new company has raised $63 million to prove its technology. “This could provide a path to energy independence for every nation and enable a rapid transition off fossil fuels.”
Like nuclear fusion, a perennially elusive effort to harness the energy that powers stars, deep geothermal wells have long been viewed as a panacea for those hoping to displace our dependence on oil and gas with the energy from super-hot rocks. Shallower geothermal wells, which rely on the consistent heat underground, have long been a source of energy.
ok, have a basic understanding of its benefits. first question, what could go wrong? what if enough of these holes are drilled, the redulting release fundamentally alters that system underground, then what,
From what I can gather, earthquakes are one downside. But yea, uncharted territory and who knows? Break the earth in two?
initial thought is that heat + steam trapped for a purpose, release it?
I thought the schematic in the article illustrated water being pumped down, heated to steam to run turbines and the condensate being returned to be reheated? I didn’t think they were venting steam to be used as it was just high intensity heat.
Journey to the Center of the Earth, anyone? Seems like it might possibly split the earth in two but who knows, maybe we'll all become Mole People? Crazy.
In an effort to ease fossil-fuel reliance, an MIT spinoff plans to dig the deepest holes on Earth
By David Abel Globe Staff,Updated March 18, 2022, 8:49 a.m.
Miles below ground, where pressures are intense and temperatures far exceed the boiling point of water, dense layers of super-hot rocks offer the promise of a natural, inexhaustible supply of clean energy.
Environmentalists have long dreamed of a way to reach those depths to tap the potential geothermal energy in those rocks, but the technological and financial barriers have been too great.
Now, officials at an MIT spinoff say they believe they’ve figured out how to drill as deep as 12 miles into the Earth’s crust, using a special laser that they say is powerful enough to blast through granite and basalt.
In the coming years, Quaise Energy, named for a section of Nantucket, plans to dig some of the deepest boreholes in history to reach rocks that can exceed temperatures of 1,000 degrees and surface a kind of heavy steam that has the potential to provide enormous quantities of energy. By the end of the decade, their hope isto capture the steam and use it to run turbines at power plants.
“By drilling deeper, hotter, and faster than ever before possible, Quaise aspires to provide abundant and reliable clean energy for all humanity,” said CarlosAraque, a former MIT student and employee, whose new company has raised $63 million to prove its technology. “This could provide a path to energy independence for every nation and enable a rapid transition off fossil fuels.”
Like nuclear fusion, a perennially elusive effort to harness the energy that powers stars, deep geothermal wells have long been viewed as a panacea for those hoping to displace our dependence on oil and gas with the energy from super-hot rocks. Shallower geothermal wells, which rely on the consistent heat underground, have long been a source of energy.
ok, have a basic understanding of its benefits. first question, what could go wrong? what if enough of these holes are drilled, the redulting release fundamentally alters that system underground, then what,
So they do geothermal heating already. It's a hole drilled on an angle and works like a straw to heat or cool a house. It would be neat if they could figure a way to do that for homes in the suburbs.
These bigger cities would benefit from the deeper holes it would seem.
So if we are lucky geothermal could be ready by 2112?
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
Seems maybe it’ll be ready in 6 years. From the article:
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years latersomewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
So if we are lucky geothermal could be ready by 2112?
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
Seems maybe it’ll be ready in 6 years. From the article:
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years latersomewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So if we are lucky geothermal could be ready by 2112?
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
Seems maybe it’ll be ready in 6 years. From the article:
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years latersomewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
oh man. so many fault lines.......
I agree. This doesn't seem like a good idea. I am not an expert in this field but this seems as crazy and dangerous as fracking. There are too many unknowns and once we break something, we won't be able to fix it.
So if we are lucky geothermal could be ready by 2112?
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
Seems maybe it’ll be ready in 6 years. From the article:
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years latersomewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
oh man. so many fault lines.......
I agree. This doesn't seem like a good idea. I am not an expert in this field but this seems as crazy and dangerous as fracking. There are too many unknowns and once we break something, we won't be able to fix it.
They would have to shore the hole. An open hole not reinforced is just a recipe for disaster.
Look, they have done small scale geothermal before. Sweden or Norway puts it's Co2 back in the ground so we have things in place that resemble this.
So if we are lucky geothermal could be ready by 2112?
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
Seems maybe it’ll be ready in 6 years. From the article:
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years latersomewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
oh man. so many fault lines.......
I agree. This doesn't seem like a good idea. I am not an expert in this field but this seems as crazy and dangerous as fracking. There are too many unknowns and once we break something, we won't be able to fix it.
You mean like the climate? Maybe the west coast is the wrong location but continuing to rely on fossil fuels is also crazy and dangerous. Personally, I believe it’s too late. I may just live long enough to witness the end of life on earth as we know it.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Although as we all know, local weather is not an indicator of global climate, but I can't help but feel wary of the sense I get from the west coast weather this year. Since very early in January we have had very little rain (maybe and inch total) and it feels like summer- low 80's here in the foothills. Not too many years ago, we were snowed in for three days around this time date, and in my 26 years here in El Dorado County, we have had the traditional annual "snow on the dogwood" late winter/ early spring snow. Very doubtful this year. Crazy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.
Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.
I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.
Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.
I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
I've heard from other in BC as will as a number of family members and friends of mine in the greater Seattle/ Puget Sound area much the same Zod. I lived on the Olympic Peninsula for 3 or 4 years in the early 90s and I no doubt would notice the change if I spend some time up there again.
I always want to hear good news regarding climate change but it's hard to find, especially reading something like this from this morning:
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.
Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.
I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
I've heard from other in BC as will as a number of family members and friends of mine in the greater Seattle/ Puget Sound area much the same Zod. I lived on the Olympic Peninsula for 3 or 4 years in the early 90s and I no doubt would notice the change if I spend some time up there again.
I always want to hear good news regarding climate change but it's hard to find, especially reading something like this from this morning:
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.
Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.
I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
Weather in areas can be a tell tale sign though.
60 minutes did a special on wine and grapes. It mentioned that areas that were great for growing have become too wet and other areas are becoming new for growing because they are dryer.
I'm in Southwest BC, but I've felt the same way. It's hard to believe that when I was a kid we got more snow and the weather was colder in the winter. You could bank on the lake flooding into the flats, freezing over, and skating on it for weeks on end. Summers never used to be that great. 1 in 5 summers felt long, sunny and hot. Most of them were mediocre with 2 or 3 weeks of sunny weather in late july/early august.
Now it's generally warmer out, freezing to skate on is rare, and our seasons are more polorazied. Rainier wetter winters, and dryer warmer/longer summers.
I know you can't go by one's own location, but it also disturbs me how much the climate has changed here. Something i guess you only notice when you pretty much live in the same place your whole life
Weather in areas can be a tell tale sign though.
60 minutes did a special on wine and grapes. It mentioned that areas that were great for growing have become too wet and other areas are becoming new for growing because they are dryer.
And in NY its like an iceberg today, heat clicking on non stop. A certain portion of the electorate will never see through that.
The best thing we can do is get rid of coal. Interesting article in NYT about Manchin getting rich from coal. Not regular coal of course, but the very dirty kind. Nothing will get done until climate dominates elections. It’s time for Dems to prove to the US voters it’s time to act and voting Republican will do nothing short of destroying the planet. Be just as histrionic as the GOP during even numbered years in the autumn.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
I always find it surprising that people don't take this into account when they talk about how clean EVs are. Not to mention the humanitarian issues that go into getting some of these metals. Another thing, we have rare earth metals in the US but no one wants to mine them due to the environmental concerns and our lack of processing infrastructure. I'm not sure what is worse for personal transportation, but EVs aren't the silver bullet many are expecting.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
A few points on this.
There is a reason other companies are switching over to EV. Amazon, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren to name a few.
There is a massive influx of new reusable energy going to be created in the next 5 years to support our electrical grids and needs.
Mining rare earths has been looked at in ways of doing it cleaner in the US because we understand that we can't always keep buying them from China and our stock pile will eventually dwindle.
Doing nothing about our dependence on oil is unacceptable.
We as a country need upgrades to our grids and how we distribute the energy.
Doing all of this, recycling of batteries, etc is all a step in the right direction.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.
Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.
Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,674
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.
Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.
The sections I've seen in my years here have had the rails removed and the are a few places with rails and ties off to the side, so I'm guessing they have all been removed. And here in brodozer country, the will to reduce global warming is weak. Why am I here?!
But yes, it is a nice walk. I prefer regular earthen trails and we try to get out once in a while to go to the American River Conservancy trail which are a bit further away but not too far. Of course, that means driving and we try to keep our mileage down, so that doesn't happen as often as I would like. There is land enough for more parks around here but developers are eating that open space up like there's no tomorrow. Which takes us full circle. Ugh! So hard to remain optimistic!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
Since NY Times is a paywall, rather than copy and paste an article
from them (not an honest action and I have been guilty of that), I will
simply and very briefly summarize an article I read in the Times this
evening (3/29/22) and post this in the Ukraine thread as well:
The
gist of the article proposes the idea that if we discontinued our
addiction to oil (and, adding my own thought, most of our excess
driving), we could prevent wars like the one in the Ukraine and reverse
global warming. The U.S. and NATO funds Russia and it's military by
buying their oil. We are heating the planet by burning too much oil.
That, in a nutshell, is it. This needs to be considered.
6% of our oil comes from Russia.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste. The tech is emerging, but still is a long ways away from being a safe alternative. With its 60-70% improvement in carbon footprint, brings a cost,
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
Yes, which is why I said we also need to end our driving addiction. There currently is no technology that allows as many people on earth who drive as much as we do that will end degradation to the environment. And id some of us are privileged to drive, why should not all 8 billion of us be able to drive? And if all 8 billion of us did drive, we would see a collapse in environment even fast.
The simple truth is this: We need to end our addiction to oil and we need to end our addiction to driving.
High Speed Rails for the Future!!!!
I wish!
The problem with that, at least here in the U.S., is that the cost of high speed rail being built across a country this large is prohibitive. What would make much better sense at this point in history would be to revitalize current rail systems, refurbish existing lines that are not being used, and increase inter-urban rail and light rail systems in large metropolitan areas.
I don't mean to sound like an expert or know-it-all, but I've been reading up on this a lot for several years both through RailPac and Rail Passenger Association (previously NARP), and revitalization and expansion of current rail technologies is the most logical and doable choice.
I think the expansion and increased usage of light rail and commuter trains for metropolitan areas would go a long way towards helping. When I lived in the Bay Area, BART only serviced part of the region, it has been expanded greatly and needs to be expanded even more. The light rail in San Jose was just being implemented when I left and now it encompasses a large part of the South Bay and peninsula. I live in a rural area now, so mass transit isn't an option, but I do carpool with a coworker. Incentive programs for more people to consider that option might be an idea for further thought.
A similar story for me as well, Je. I grew up in the Bay Area and watch public transit grow well with the growth of the area. Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
Fun Fact! That El Dorado Trail can still be used for trains. All they have to do is apply. There was a law passed that all railways would be left just in case, and be used for parks or what not for now. So they can be transformed back into working railways again if they would need.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.
Sadly, for better or worse (it is nice to walk on) this is what most of the former rail lines up here look like now:
If they applied for it, the rails should be underneath that asphalt. That's a nice hike Brian.
The sections I've seen in my years here have had the rails removed and the are a few places with rails and ties off to the side, so I'm guessing they have all been removed. And here in brodozer country, the will to reduce global warming is weak. Why am I here?!
But yes, it is a nice walk. I prefer regular earthen trails and we try to get out once in a while to go to the American River Conservancy trail which are a bit further away but not too far. Of course, that means driving and we try to keep our mileage down, so that doesn't happen as often as I would like. There is land enough for more parks around here but developers are eating that open space up like there's no tomorrow. Which takes us full circle. Ugh! So hard to remain optimistic!
California has a bunch of land so places build out , not up.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
These bigger cities would benefit from the deeper holes it would seem.
In the meantime we in the US make bad heating/energy decisions that do more harm than good.
With $40 million raised just last month, he vows his company will complete a prototype of its drilling machines within two years, prove it can dig miles-deep boreholes two years later somewhere on the West Coast, and build a power plant by 2028.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
oh man. so many fault lines.......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Look, they have done small scale geothermal before. Sweden or Norway puts it's Co2 back in the ground so we have things in place that resemble this.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Satellite data shows entire Conger ice shelf has collapsed in Antarctica
Nasa scientist says complete collapse of ice shelf as big as Rome during unusually high temperatures is ‘sign of what might be coming’
(More at link).
Sorry folks, don't mean to be a downer. :-(
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
60 minutes did a special on wine and grapes. It mentioned that areas that were great for growing have become too wet and other areas are becoming new for growing because they are dryer.
And in NY its like an iceberg today, heat clicking on non stop. A certain portion of the electorate will never see through that.
The best thing we can do is get rid of coal. Interesting article in NYT about Manchin getting rich from coal. Not regular coal of course, but the very dirty kind. Nothing will get done until climate dominates elections. It’s time for Dems to prove to the US voters it’s time to act and voting Republican will do nothing short of destroying the planet. Be just as histrionic as the GOP during even numbered years in the autumn.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/climate/manchin-coal-climate-conflicts.html?referringSource=articleShare
This needs to be considered.
I agree that we need to get off the oil teet.
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2019/07/redefining-geopolitics-age-electric-vehicles/
Third, on access to resources. Without major technology breakthroughs, EVs will lead to increased demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and other strategic minerals. It is possible that access to these elements will be used, as oil has been, for energy “statecraft.” If U.S. control of oil supply choke points has long been recognized as a vulnerability for oil importers including China, China has in turn identified the growing demand for minerals needed for clean energy technology as a geostrategic opportunity. Some of the largest reserves of raw materials required for lithium ion battery production are found in fragile states with poor governance records, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to most of the world’s cobalt. Without a coordinated effort to build capacity in these countries, the risk of instability and conflict will rise.
..
Finally, EVs will have ripple effects with complex geopolitical and possibly even human security implications that are difficult to predict. The adoption of electric cars could wipe out US$19 trillion in revenue from the oil industry by 2040. That is a risk not just for oil producing states but for institutional investors globally, including pension funds, which means it also poses a financial risk for consumers.https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-their-batteries
But electric cars have their own dirty little secret: Every electric vehicle, and most hybrid vehicles, rely on large lithium-ion batteries weighing hundreds of pounds. One of the largest, the battery for the Mercedes-Benz EQC, comes in at 1,400 pounds. Typically made with cobalt, nickel, and manganese, among other components, these batteries cost thousands of dollars and come with an environmental burden: They require ingredients sourced from polluting mines and smelters around the world, and they can ultimately contaminate soil and water supplies if improperly disposed.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There is a reason other companies are switching over to EV. Amazon, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren to name a few.
There is a massive influx of new reusable energy going to be created in the next 5 years to support our electrical grids and needs.
Mining rare earths has been looked at in ways of doing it cleaner in the US because we understand that we can't always keep buying them from China and our stock pile will eventually dwindle.
Doing nothing about our dependence on oil is unacceptable.
We as a country need upgrades to our grids and how we distribute the energy.
Doing all of this, recycling of batteries, etc is all a step in the right direction.
True, we don't get a lot of oil fro Russia but that's why I mentioned NATO as well.
"Electric vehicles can be almost as bad regarding both geopolitical headaches and toxic waste."
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Even here in the Sierra foothills public transportation (buses and vans) has grown some but could be better. And as much as I love using our walking trail (El Dorado Trail), I would rather it was still a railroad like it was up until 1989 (7 years before I moved here). All we have left up here now is this little set up that families can ride on the one short remaining stretch of standard track that has not been pulled up. Fun, but not a commuter train.
I learned this from the Highline here in NY.