this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024

208 points (85.9% liked)

Technology

58303 readers

9 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

208

The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk (rmi.org)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk::The unstoppable rise of batteries is leading to a domino effect that puts half of global fossil fuel demand at risk.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 208 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thats a weird way to frame it.

The rise of vaccines puts viruses at risk.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 9 months ago (2 children)

As soon as I read the title I thought "did fossil fuel barons write the title because who would phrase it that way?"

[–] [email protected] 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The article is by Rocky Mountain Institute, which is a think tank focused on clean energy transitions. And the rest of the language in the article is much more positive - batteries will enable a shift away from fossil fuels.

So yes, very odd word choice in the title given that the rest of the article generally views fossil fuel displacement to be a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

It's for the click bait

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

I read the title and thought "Good, but can we do more?"

[–] [email protected] 76 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh no! …. Anyways.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

I was going to say "Oh no?" But yours works too!

[–] [email protected] 64 points 9 months ago

The unstoppable rise of title is leading to a domino effect that puts all my sanity at risk.

This story is Analyst begging us to think of the fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Title.

Title. title.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Good.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 46 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Batteries take “rare earth metals” like cobalt.

Some Lithium-Ion batteries use Cobalt, but many don't. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate, for example, is a popular variant without any Cobalt. There is a push going on to move to battery chemistries without Cobalt or to reduce the actual amount of Cobalt where it is still required.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lithium production does still take an insane amount of water to produce

[–] [email protected] 48 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Wait until you hear about the oil refining process!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago

My car meme groups keep recirculating a shitty gotcha anti-EV screenshot of a post listing out how many tons of rock get processed for the minerals, the gallon-per-hour rate of the mining trucks, generators, transportation, blah blah blah as if petroleum just naturally drips put of weeds and into their gas tanks. But I guess if you dilute into the ocean and atmosphere, it doesn't really count because you can't see it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Or in the case of Canada, to separate oil out of the ground!

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Current Li-ion batteries have numerous issues, but fortunately there are several alternatives too. Bringing a new battery chemistry to production scale hasn’t been easy, but we’re taking small steps like that every year.

We may still need lithium, nickel or manganese in the near future, but the demand for cobalt (per cell) has been decreasing gradually. Who knows which alternative ends up dominating the market after a few decades

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago

People think your comment is pro fossil fuels because it's literally a pro fossil fuel talking point. This is the kind of stuff they parrot. Dumb people think that having batteries somehow makes EVs equivalent to ICE when it comes to environmental impacts and will repeat exactly what you wrote while ignoring all the other facts.

You can be right and still be a mouthpiece spreading oil propoganda.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I agree that no battery is perfect. But unlike gasoline, you can use a rechargeable battery over and over, then it gets recycled.

It's a far better solution. And better batteries will come along to replace what we use now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And petroleum products don't? I don't get your argument Lithium mining is pretty bad but nowhere near as bad as oil/fossil fuels

Fracking contaminates ground water, when you pump oil out it get replaced with what? Water, once again contaminating everything it touches. Plus this doesn't happen with Lithium mining either

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Rare earths for alloys in oil pipes. Cobalt to refine fossil fuels. Noble metals in catalytic converters. "Do as I say, not as I do "

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Funny how people are overly concerned about cobalt in EV batteries but never cellphone batteries.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Funny how people are overly concerned about gotcha games online rather than considering what the poster is trying to highlight or say.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Almost like I'm pointing out that they don't actually give a shit about cobalt.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nah, people hate nuance, it's now the age of false dichotomy. Where you either offer my position unconditional non-critical support, or you are offering my opponents unconditional non-critical support.

I said something similar about nuclear power a while ago and got a similar response.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Is there an environmental cost with fossil fuels?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The fossil fuel industry is dying

Upvote to make it die faster

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Upvote to make it die faster

goddamn if that were only what it took...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Won't someone please think of the fossils.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

We do, every election.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

This is the second click bait article I've seen today from L4sBot.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So invest in batteries tech dumbfuck oil robbers

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Oohoho I have so many old batteries at home I was gonna take to recycling. Fuck that, I'm gonna be rich!!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Oh won't sinecure think of the oil barrons!

Wait, what's that? They're shifting their focus to plastics and the life that recycling works even though nobody wants to pay to make it work?

Well shit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

It's nice to get some good news on occasion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

TIL: About RMI, or, the Rocky Mountain Institute. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMI_(energy_organization) So the kinda “Huh?” headline makes sense.

One of their focuses is changing energy usage patterns by changing demand.

In several sections, with minimal numbers and many helpful charts, the article takes us thru how evolving battery technology will lead to lessened fossil fuel demand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

So what's some good battery stock?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

This chart is pretty shocking, and makes IEA look like idiots. Or maybe it's malice? The IEA's founding purpose was to protect the Oil industry. Supposedly they now also work to "promote clean energy transitions"... but if that's their goal they don't seem to be doing a very good job.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Correct. You should add the label that this chart compares forecast demand for EVs vs actual demand, along with the revised forecasts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

My favorite is the IEA forecast for Solar adoption

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

OK, but who's going to be transporting all those batteries? Lorries, that's who.