zlacker

>>Brajes+(OP)
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

>>alexch+Ei
Electric cars vastly reduce the environmental impact of cars. Everyone who's run the numbers agrees on this [1][2][3]. Battery vehicles aren't that much heavier than gasoline vehicles, and the volume of metals needed to make a battery is a tiny fraction of the volume of oil needed to fuel a car across its lifecycle. Power plants are much more efficient than small engines in cars, and as the grid decarbonizes the emissions of battery electric vehicles move towards zero. Electric cars really are far better for the planet than burning gas, there isn't a catch.

I get the worries, Lithium mining causes ecological damage, but every sort of resource extraction causes ecological damage. Every kilogram of pollution generated from lithium mining prevents many times more pollution generated from oil extraction and emissions. Lithium, cobalt, and the rest aren't exotic materials, the battery industry is huge and has many decades of experience building batteries.

Synthesizing hydrocarbons is an important technology. But that process is incredibly energy intensive, and it's much more efficient to use electricity to just charge a battery. The scale of production of synthetic hydrocarbons isn't anywhere close to where it would need to be to make a dent in climate change. I think that electrofuels will be very important in aviation - they're the only apparent pathway to run jet engines without emissions. But it will be a long time, if ever, before that technology is mature enough to fuel passenger vehicles at a meaningful scale.

[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...

[2] https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...

>>whats_+9r
It's not just that. Solar is already cheaper than other generation methods, except that it's intermittent. So it needs some kind of storage technology.

The batteries in electric vehicles are a storage technology, so all you have to do is charge your car while the sun shines. If you need the batteries anyway it makes much more sense to put them there so you can also stop burning gasoline.

>>Anthon+it
Yeah I became convinced over the last couple of years that solar + batteries is pretty much the solution and all the technology is here, everything else (degrowth, nuclear) is a politically infeasible distraction. We need larger scale and faster adoption which is a whole set of challenges on its own (see CA lagging behind Texas for example in what is a complete self-own)

>>lovecg+bv
> all the technology is here, everything else (degrowth, nuclear) is a politically infeasible distraction.

You need to replace fossil fuels with <whatever you think is the solution>. If you are convinced that solar + batteries can do it, then you need to rethink about orders of magnitudes.

Even nuclear cannot reasonably replace fossil fuels in the timeline that we need (i.e. before global instability that may well slow down many things). Solar is far behind.

Also never forget that we are living a mass extinction right now (it is happening, it is a measurable fact), and that is solely due to human activity in a world with abundant energy. If you find a solution to replace fossil fuels, you may save what remains to be saved on the climate front, but you will finish killing biodiversity. I don't know about you, but that is catastrophic to me.

Conclusion: we need to use much less energy, and therefore we need to be more minimalistic and stop growing just for the sake of growing. It's called "degrowth", but some people don't like that word because they think it means "go back to Middle Age". Instead it just means: engineers (like everybody else) need to work hard on clever solutions that rely less on energy. That's not Middle Age, it's just not the Silicon Valley world.