zlacker

That's assuming the situation follows your specified path.

In reality, an economy transitioned to tech beyond fossil fuels probably enjoys much greater production dynamics. For instance, the US could build out nuclear power to satisfy base board power and then grow that base by which ever rate it decided per year. At some point, mass desalination of sea water becomes affordable because electricity drives down the price. There, too, sea water is a huge resource for literally every mineral we could need (lithium, gold, uranium, you name it). Further, any co2 removed from the ocean will then be scrubbed from the atmosphere-provided the removed water eventually finds its way back, and it would. With more water and more electricity, more of the land is usable for things like habitation, commercial/industrial, and agriculture purposes. (The US and globe has a ton of unproductive land which can be productive with some combination of water+fertilizer.) There's a relationship between the growth of power produced by an economy and its yearly growth of gdp.

The above will also take place with solar. Eventually we will have the tech to power things off whatever sun they get through the paint/coating on their surface.

At some point, the other national players will see those benefits going to other nations and change accordingly. Or they will be left in the past.

>>ianai+(OP)
You'll still mine oil for tires and roads, and you'll have gasoline as a byproduct. You'll use the gasoline to mine lithium and to transport used batteries. And you'll bury the batteries somewhere out of sight. Just like we're doing with nuclear. None of these solutions actually help preserve live. Life can thrive in a carbon rich atmosphere. It has before. But many years from now when the lithium batteries decay and the nuclear stores erode, life on Earth will actually cease.

>>trimet+n2
We just fundamentally disagree on the criticality of hydrocarbons.

In your version of the future, we’re all dead. In mine, the future might include a better life for all.

>>trimet+n2
There is no problem mining oil for tires and roads. The carbon is sequestered. The problem is burning fossil fuels and producing CO2. Also, tires and roads are a byproduct of refining, and much less is produced than gasoline.

Mining lithium doesn't require gasoline. Mining can be electrified like many other things. Probably easier to electrify than long distance transport since it is short distances.

Nuclear waste is not a danger in the far future. The radioactive products decay on short time scale. Most of them are gone in century, but they want to store them for.

Lithium batteries aren't a problem if they did decay. Lithium is a common, non-toxic metal. Some batteries, like lead acid in every car, have toxic metals but is small scale overall and not that dangerous.

>>ianbur+Wp
Not nuclear in a century? Who sold you that? It doesn't matter. We can't discuss the pros and cons because downvotes prevent me from commenting. The choice is made for you. Enjoy. Knowingly or unknowingly, I'm sure you're destroying the environment. And since we can't discuss it, you can't convince me otherwise. I'll vote against you until I die because we can't discuss the topic. How can I learn if you're right?

>>ianai+Q4
In your version of the future, we create the battery and the nuclear problems and we still have to deal with the hydrocarbon problem. In my version we discuss what to do about the hydrocarbon problem.

>>ianbur+Wp
> The problem is burning fossil fuels and producing CO2.

That's one problem. But I'm aware that CO2 is not the ONLY danger to the environment. Hopefully you are also aware of that and can discuss the topic beyond only CO2. We obviously wouldn't replace CO2 with methane, right? So let's talk about the environment, not just CO2.

>Mining lithium doesn't require gasoline.

Name one mine that doesn't use gasoline to mine, haul, store, or transport. Good luck.

>The radioactive products decay on short time scale.

At least 3% of the waste from any reactor is extremely harmful for many thousands of years. The other 97% is irrelevant. Why did you bring it up? Seems dishonest.

Citation: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...

>Lithium batteries aren't a problem if they did decay.

Sure if you manage to keep them all really far away from each other. High concentrations of anything is a problem. Even a basic Wikipedia search can help you here. Leaked evaporation pools, water contamination, huge amounts of water usage in production, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_lit...

Go ahead and keep downvoting. Each downvote proves exactly what I'm saying; it's unacceptable to even discuss better solutions.