ADVERTISEMENT

Solar + BESS

Lithium is everywhere. As a species, we have barely looked for it.




This find a year ago in India made them the 5th largest known deposit in the world. Only 5.9 million tons.

There is a dark side to everything. Is there a dark side to lithium mining as well?

"when we think of extraction, we think of fossil fuels like coal and gas. Unfortunately, lithium also falls under the same umbrella, despite paving the way for an electric future.. Lithium can be described as the non-renewable mineral that makes renewable energy possible - often touted as the next oil."

"lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination. As demand rises, the mining impacts are “increasingly affecting communities where this harmful extraction takes place, jeopardising their access to water"
 
I’m not sure . I’m not familiar with it at all. What’s 1:1 metering? I guess I’d like to find one that doesn’t require a big initial down payment. I don’t have huge house. Maybe 1400 sq ft.
There are tons of financing options that require no money down. In fact, I don’t know of any that does require down payment. As long as you have good credit you’re good to go. Who is your utility company?
 
There are tons of financing options that require no money down. In fact, I don’t know of any that does require down payment. As long as you have good credit you’re good to go. Who is your utility company?
It's Austin Utilities
 
There is a dark side to everything. Is there a dark side to lithium mining as well?

"when we think of extraction, we think of fossil fuels like coal and gas. Unfortunately, lithium also falls under the same umbrella, despite paving the way for an electric future.. Lithium can be described as the non-renewable mineral that makes renewable energy possible - often touted as the next oil."

"lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination. As demand rises, the mining impacts are “increasingly affecting communities where this harmful extraction takes place, jeopardising their access to water"

There is no question that the extraction of resources is bad for the environment.

There is also no going back from our energy dependent way of life.

We need to find the least bad path forward.

Lithium can be recycled so you only have to extract it once. Once you burn that gallon of gasoline or burn the coal it's lifetime is over. Need to go mine or drill again.

Even if we take your position at face value that the initial impact of lithium is worse, it's better in the longerm.
 
I'd like to think you realize there is a difference between climate change and the average temp in AZ vs IA.
The CLIMATE in AZ vs IA is different.
And predictable, many years out.

So, clearly, you do not understand climate.
 
Please give 1 model, not a bunch averaged together. Averaging them together means they can't figure out a way to do it right with 1.

They do not "average them together", Cletus.

They run model ensembles and identify the ranges, including error bars.
Do you not understand how error bars work? They are integral to science.
 
They do not "average them together", Cletus.

They run model ensembles and identify the ranges, including error bars.
Do you not understand how error bars work? They are integral to science.
The error bars are the problem. If you have a wide enough range for error on a large number of predictions, you can never be wrong.

You still haven't posted the climate model you think is accurate. Its pretty easy to create a model that follows the observed trend, but this doesn't mean the same model will predict the future.

The models lose credibility because if I make 100 predictions for the climate 20 years out, its likely that 1 of them would be close. But that also means that I was wrong on 99 of them. This makes the climate models unactionable.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PackerHawkeye1
I installed Solar myself on the roof of my home in 2017. Before installing solar my bills averaged about $100 per month. After installing solar my bill is about $15 per month. I installed 13 south facing panels on the front of my house. The materials cost about $7000 before tax credits. I bought premium american made panels vs cheaper options that were available.

My savings are about $1000 a year if you don't take into account utility company increases. My system is 100% paid off already. I imagine my bill right now would be around $150-$200 a month compared to the $15 a month I am paying now. My panels have survived baseball sized hail, and the Derecho with no damage at all.

The process was not very difficult and the manufactures provide very good instructions. If I would of hired a company to install them for me the cost would of been around $14000. Which is why leasing may be a good option for some people. Back in 2017 I paid about $350 for 350 watt panels, today it looks like panels ranging from 400-500 watts are costing about $250-$275 each and I would only need 9 or 10 panels vs 13.

If your power company has good net metering rules, and your house/yard allows good coverage solar power is a no brainer. But take my experience into account before signing onto a long term leasing deal. If you don't have the money or can't finance it at a good rate leasing can be a good option. But if you have the money paying for it up front is a much better deal assuming you find a good installer or do it yourself.
 
climate258-2.jpg
 
The error bars are the problem.
No; they are not.

And they aren't "wide enough" to encompass anything.
As has already been noted for you, they were accurate enough in the 1990s to predict where we are today.

Chuck Hagel now sees this, and the video of his interview where he asserts Exxon and other fossil fuel companies "lied" to us is posted for you. Chuck knows the models even back then were correct. And he regrets his actions to prevent more forward-thinking climate action 30 years ago.
 
There is 1 major problem here, climate change is not defined by 4 years. But I would still be interested in seeing the model you are talking about. Maybe this will be the one to prove me wrong.

Please give 1 model, not a bunch averaged together. Averaging them together means they can't figure out a way to do it right with 1.
Joe clings or rather gets a hard on every time Al Gore opens his yap.

All of Al's predictions have come and gone and were proven false. This global warming group is nothing but a cult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82
Ever seen these?

Think you know more than him? Bet you won’t watch.



Six Facts About the Non-problem of Global Warming​


Yes, the Climate Is Changing. No, It's Not an Emergency | Opinion​


Is global warming merely a natural cycle?​

 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82
Joe clings or rather gets a hard on every time Al Gore opens his yap.

All of Al's predictions have come and gone and were proven false. This global warming group is nothing but a cult.
There are so many variables that the climate cult refuse to acknowledge.
1. Historical data sets are not always complete and accurate, so they have tried to estimate temps which leads to possible errors.
2. The US has the most complete data set, but most of the world is not nearly as well documented (makes it difficult to know a historical global average when you don't have the data)
3. They run programs to try and compile accurate data, but the programs themselves are bias toward today's readings and tend to decrease historical numbers. Old mercury thermometers were just as accurate if not more accurate than what we do today. no one really knows how accurate historical data is, much less being able to predict the climate 20 years in the future.
4. Previous models have way overestimated climate change, but we are supposed to believe the ones from today are totally accurate

The climate cult act as if all this stuff is totally settled science and there is no way it could be wrong. Science is always evolving and is never settled, so they should treat it as that. I also wish people would recognize how politics have impacted climate research and what is published. There is a very specific agenda that is being pushed and in the process they are pushing away people who question it. This sends up huge red flags as to their motives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RicoSuave102954
1. Historical data sets are not always complete and accurate, so they have tried to estimate temps which leads to possible errors.
This is a false flag.

Those datasets have been reviewed by dozens of researchers - inclusive of your old buddy, Anthony Watts, who was part of the BEST study. Ol' Anthony thought he had a hole in the arguments/data, and said he'd stand by the results, however they came out.

Unfortunately for Anthony, the results came out supporting the mainstream climate scientists, and changed the mind of his co-author, Robert Muller.

yet here you are, pushing this tired, old, disproven narrative.
 
4. Previous models have way overestimated climate change, but we are supposed to believe the ones from today are totally accurate
Also false.

James Hansen's prediction WAY UNDERESTIMATED the warming we've seen.
 

Six Facts About the Non-problem of Global Warming​


Yes, the Climate Is Changing. No, It's Not an Emergency | Opinion​


Is global warming merely a natural cycle?​


So no, you didnt and wont watch. Scared?
 


“Some of their positions have attracted controversy, including their defense policy recommendations for the Iraq War, their analysis of the financial crisis of 2007–2008, and their energy and environmental policies based on their more than two-decade-long opposition to the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.”

AEI's board is chaired by Daniel A. D'Aniello. Current notable trustees include:[12]


Energy and environmental policy

According to AEI, it "emphasizes the need to design environmental policies that protect not only nature but also democratic institutions and human liberty".[77] American historian of science Naomi Oreskes notes that this idea became prominent during the conservative turn towards anti-environmentalism in the 1980s. Corporations claimed to uphold a kind of laissez-faire capitalism that promoted individual rights by pushing for deregulation. To do this successfully, companies would fund think tanks like AEI to cast doubt on science and spread disinformation by arguing that environmental dangers were unproven.[88]
 
Last edited:

“Some of their positions have attracted controversy, including their defense policy recommendations for the Iraq War, their analysis of the financial crisis of 2007–2008, and their energy and environmental policies based on their more than two-decade-long opposition to the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.”

AEI's board is chaired by Daniel A. D'Aniello. Current notable trustees include:[12]


Energy and environmental policy

According to AEI, it "emphasizes the need to design environmental policies that protect not only nature but also democratic institutions and human liberty".[77] American historian of science Naomi Oreskes notes that this idea became prominent during the conservative turn towards anti-environmentalism in the 1980s. Corporations claimed to uphold a kind of laissez-faire capitalism that promoted individual rights by pushing for deregulation. To do this successfully, companies would fund think tanks like AEI to cast doubt on science and spread disinformation by arguing that environmental dangers were unproven.[88]
So?
 


“The Tesla Semi is a huge win for clean air. Here is why. Diesel particulate matter is extremely toxic, and the compression ignition engine is the reason. Let me explain.

When diesel fuel is ignited under pressure, the carbon gets converted to activated carbon. Activated carbon has a phenomenal surface area. Products of combustion include Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and other toxic volatile organic compounds. These compounds are all floating around in the exhausted and they adhere to the surface of the activated carbon my small electrostatic charges.

Think of it like this. The turbulent flow in the exhaust causes carbon particles to bounce around in the exhaust stream like little ping pong balls in a lottery tumbler. This effectively scrubs all/most of the VOC’s out of the exhaust.

These are tiny particles (sub micron in size), now coated with toxics, and are so small they pass deep into your lungs where they can cross the membrane and get directly into your blood.

And a semi is not used like most vehicles. The fleet operator wants to put as many miles on the road as possible. So every semi that gets replaced with a Tesla is a huge win for air quality and public health.

A big thank you to the entire @Tesla team for helping all of us breathe a little easier.

Please repost this to help educate people in this important issue. Thanks.”


@RicoSuave102954 did you know that people who live near highways have a 20% increased risk of cancer? (including children of course) and it is primarily due to diesel engine exhaust.
 


“The Tesla Semi is a huge win for clean air. Here is why. Diesel particulate matter is extremely toxic, and the compression ignition engine is the reason. Let me explain.

When diesel fuel is ignited under pressure, the carbon gets converted to activated carbon. Activated carbon has a phenomenal surface area. Products of combustion include Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and other toxic volatile organic compounds. These compounds are all floating around in the exhausted and they adhere to the surface of the activated carbon my small electrostatic charges.

Think of it like this. The turbulent flow in the exhaust causes carbon particles to bounce around in the exhaust stream like little ping pong balls in a lottery tumbler. This effectively scrubs all/most of the VOC’s out of the exhaust.

These are tiny particles (sub micron in size), now coated with toxics, and are so small they pass deep into your lungs where they can cross the membrane and get directly into your blood.

And a semi is not used like most vehicles. The fleet operator wants to put as many miles on the road as possible. So every semi that gets replaced with a Tesla is a huge win for air quality and public health.

A big thank you to the entire @Tesla team for helping all of us breathe a little easier.

Please repost this to help educate people in this important issue. Thanks.”


@RicoSuave102954 did you know that people who live near highways have a 20% increased risk of cancer? (including children of course) and it is primarily due to diesel engine exhaust.
Wonder with a heavy load if it can go 12 miles between charges?
 
Where are you buying electric and where are you buying diesel?

Damn, I love EVs but keep it real.

That post was from December 2022.

“Assuming utility electricity costs…” Ie the amount it costs Tesla or others to produce. With no mark up. Not home retail rates. That’s the way I read it.

& yeah 6.5 mpg for diesel is way generous, it’s more like 4.5 to 5 mpg per a guy I know who has driven semis for 25 years and drives all over the country every year.
 
Last edited:
That post was from December 2022.

“Assuming utility electricity costs…” Ie the amount it costs Tesla or others to produce. With no mark up. Not home retail rates. That’s the way I read it.

& yeah 6.5 mpg for diesel is way generous, it’s more like 4.5 to 5 mpg per a guy I know who has driven semis for 25 years and drives all over the country every year.
Yeah, you're still full of shit. Be better.
 
I'm not mad at all, I'm just calling you out for suggesting that we are charging Tesla Semis for 3.5 cents per Kwh.

Who’s we?

You still don’t get it. He is saying costs, the cost, not the marked up commercial rate. Which is as low as 9-10 cents a kWh in some states.


So if you want to talk about something else completely, like commercial rates, then 3X his expense calculation and STFU.

If Tesla generates electricity to operate the Tesla Semis internally and their utility rate is 3.5 cents, ie their costs to generate the electricity. Then yes his calculation makes sense.

I dont think I can dumb it down any further for you.
 
Who’s we?

You still don’t get it. He is saying costs, the cost, not the marked up commercial rate. Which is as low as 9-10 cents a kWh in some states.


So if you want to talk about something else completely, like commercial rates, then 3X his expense calculation and STFU.

If Tesla generates electricity to operate the Tesla Semis internally and their utility rate is 3.5 cents, ie their costs to generate the electricity. Then yes his calculation makes sense.

I dont think I can dumb it down any further for you.
You are the one posting misleading bullshit It's pretty clear that's pretty much what you do.
 
Click this link, notice different rates for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial?

You are comparing the lowest wholesale rates for electric and comparing them to the highest retail rate at the pump. That's just being dishonest. If you want to compare average wholesale to average wholesale you would have a valid point. Or if you were to compare average retail to average retail, you would also have a valid point. Tesla would come out on top either way. But what you posted was just the type of horseshit that the anti EV people will run with.
Don't be dishonest.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT