Civilization Runs on Ammonia, Plastic, Steel, and Cement—for Now
Vaclav Smil’s How the World Really Works offers hope and despair for techno-optimists.

How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going by Vaclav Smil, Viking, 336 pages, $28
For techno-optimists like me, Vaclav Smil's How the World Really Works is something of a downer. But it's rough on the catastrophist crowd too.
Smil has done interdisciplinary scholarship on food, energy, and the environment at the University of Manitoba, and his book is a clear, concise discussion of the material bases sustaining human life and rising prosperity. It opens by analyzing the sources of energy that power the modern world.
As Smil points out, the prosperity enjoyed in modern developed countries would have been unthinkable without the huge increases in energy that have been supplied by burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Until the 19th century, almost all useful energy available to humanity derived from plants: They fueled our heat, they fueled our light, and they fed our muscles and the muscles of our draft animals. Smil calculates that the increasingly efficient use of growing fossil fuel supplies over the past 220 years has led to a 3,500-fold increase in the availability of useful energy.
Put in terms of physical labor, this increased access to energy is equivalent to having 60 adults working nonstop, day and night, for every person on earth. For people living in rich developed countries, it is equivalent of 240 such laborers apiece. "An abundance of useful energy underlies and explains all the gains—from better eating to mass travel; from mechanization of production and transport to instant personal electronic communication—that have become norms rather than exceptions in all affluent countries," Smil writes.
Smil recognizes that climate change is likely to pose significant problems as the century advances. While Smil acknowledges that humanity needs "to pursue a steady reduction of our dependence on the energies that made the modern world," he persuasively argues that the coming transition "will not (it cannot be) a sudden abandonment of fossil carbon, nor even its rapid demise—but rather its gradual decline."
To show the difficulty of transitioning from fossil fuels, Smil points to the Energiewende, Germany's vast buildout of solar and wind energy. This has cost Germans around $400 billion so far, yet the share of fossil fuels in the country's primary energy supply has fallen just slightly, from 84 to 78 percent. In the International Energy Agency's 2020 sustainable development scenario, he notes, even aggressive decarbonization still leaves fossil fuels accounting for 56 percent of primary energy demand in 2040. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2021 International Energy Outlook report projects that the world in 2050 will be consuming more oil, natural gas, and coal than it is using now.
Smil next tackles the realities of food production for nearly 8 billion people. He observes that mid-20th-century predictions of imminent global-scale famines did not come true. In fact, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 65 percent of the world population of 2.5 billion people were undernourished in 1950. By 2019, the rate of undernourishment had fallen to 8.9 percent of 7.7 billion people. In other words, the world in 1950 could supply adequate nutrition to 890 million people, and that rose nearly 8-fold to more than 7 billion in 2019.
These increases in agricultural production have occurred in large part because we have substituted fossil fuels for human labor and fertilizers. Smil calculates that farming and fishing consume about 4 percent of recent annual global energy use. Reducing the waste of a third of food, cutting back a bit on meat eating (from 220 pounds per person annually U.S. to 85 pounds per person in France), and ending the use of biofuels would go a long way toward providing adequate nutrition for the world's growing population while reducing humanity's deleterious effects on the biosphere.
Smil then turns his attention to what he calls the "four pillars of modern civilization": ammonia, cement, steel, and plastics.
Ammonia is used as a source of nitrogen to fertilize crops. The world currently produces 150 million tons of nitrogen fertilizers, largely using natural gas as feedstock. Smil calculates that "nearly 4 billion people would not have been alive without synthetic ammonia," thus making the "synthesis of ammonia perhaps the most momentous technical advance in history." While rich countries can cut back on their use of nitrogen fertilizers, African crop productivity remains low because the farmers on the continent currently have access to only 5 percent of the world's supply.
Plastics—the next pillar—are produced using fossil fuel feedstocks. Global production of plastics has increased from 20,000 tons in 1925 to 2 million tons in 1950, 150 million tons in 2000, and 370 million tons in 2019. Smil decries the "irresponsible dumping" of "these diverse and often truly indispensable synthetic materials."
The third pillar is steel, found everywhere from the skeletons of our bridges and buildings to the turbines that generate electricity. The world uses 1.8 billion tons of the metal annually, of which 1.3 billion tons are produced using virgin materials. Making steel uses about 6 percent of the world's primary energy supply.
And then there's the fourth pillar: cement. Humanity consumes 4.5 billion tons of this each year. From their apartment towers to their roads to their sewers, from their bridges to their subways to their airport runways, modern cities are, in Smil's words, "embodiments of concrete." And cement constitutes 10 to 15 percent of concrete's final mass. In 2018 and 2019, Smil notes, China produced nearly as much cement (4.4 billion tons) as the United States did during the entire 20th century (4.56 billion tons).
If the world's poor countries aim to replicate China's post-1990 experience over the next 3 decades, Smil calculates, that would entail a 15-fold increase in steel output, a 10-fold rise in cement production, a doubling of ammonia synthesis, and a 30-fold expansion of plastic manufacture. "Modern economies will always be tied to massive material flows," writes Smil. "And until all energies used to extract and process these materials come from renewable conversions, modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on the fossil fuels used in the production of these indispensable materials."
Smil next outlines the history of globalization. He notes its considerable advantages but questions the brittleness of our world-spanning supply chains. He also has an excellent chapter on understanding natural and technological risks. He points out that, thanks to technological progress and rising wealth, global life expectancy has greatly lengthened over the past century and the risk of dying from a natural disaster has massively declined.
Humanity's biggest impacts on the natural world, Smil notes, are agriculture and climate change. He is fairly confident that food production can be intensified and food waste cut, which would leave more land and sea for nature. But given humanity's dependence on fossil fuels, solving climate change will be difficult. Smil is scathingly dismissive of "quantitative fables" that project that decarbonization can be fast, cheap, and easy. He does believe that various reasonable steps—increasing energy efficiency, insulating buildings, reducing food waste, promoting electric vehicle transportation—can slow the rate of future warming. Nevertheless, he notes that "even a tripling or quadrupling of the recent pace of decarbonization would still leave fossil carbon dominant by 2050."
Let me briefly detour here for a bit of techno-optimist special pleading. The costs of solar power have dropped by 80 percent over the past 10 years, although intermittency remains a problem. And if regulatory authorities would get out of the way, safe new nuclear reactors could be sources of cheap and steady electricity. Recent research suggests that the worst-case scenarios for climate change are implausible and that average global temperature is likely to increase by around 2.2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average by the end of this century.
Peak farmland is near, while biotech advances are enabling such resource-sparing products as microbe-fermented milk and cellular meat production in vats. An expanding number of startups claim to be able to manufacture ammonia much more cheaply than the current energy-intensive processes. For example, the Canadian company Hydrofuels says that it can produce carbon-free ammonia at a tenth the cost of conventional ammonia.
The Brimstone Energy startup claims that it can manufacture cement at the same cost using widely available calcium silicate, which contains no carbon, instead of calcium carbonate limestone. Several innovators have recently developed infinitely recyclable plastics and new energy efficient enzymes that break down current plastics into reusable molecules.
On the other hand, when it comes to energy use and carbon emissions, steel production remains a tough nut to crack.
In any case, Smil has delivered both techno-optimists and Malthusian pessimists a sobering dose of realism about the scale, mass, and inertia of the material underpinnings of modern civilization. "A realistic grasp of our past, present, and uncertain future is the best foundation for approaching the unknowable expanse of time before us," Smil concludes. How the World Really Works amply supplies that foundation.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Civilization Runs on Ammonia, Plastic, Steel, and Cement—for Now
We'll be returning to wood, stone,
animal hides and feces once everything gets reset.Well. feces is already being recommended to replace synthetic fertilizer.
Ecoli anyone?
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. (res-15) All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
...an example of feces.
The Brimstone Energy startup claims that it can manufacture cement at the same cost using widely available calcium silicate, which contains no carbon, instead of calcium carbonate limestone.
I thought carbon was only a sin if it made it into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. Why is it a sin when used as a building material?
I believe you need to heat calcium carbonate to "burn" off the carbon and free up lime.
Thanks. That makes more sense.
So fire and brimstone, eh?
One of the big problems is that the alternatives offered by "greenies" do little to make any significant contributions to a better life.
Windmills use tons of steel and concrete as well as other metals (copper, neodium etc.) and have a useful life of at most 25 years.
Oh the blades last about 2 to 5 years before needing to be replaced. Their usefullness decreases exponentially as the get dinged up. There is a reason the props on an aircraft are checked before every flight.
...and of course they can't be recycled and end up in landfills.
And even if they could be recycled, recycling is basically the process of putting energy into a material to get it back into a useful space. How much lifetime of those blades would be spent just generating the energy necessary to recycle them?
Which is why residential recycling in many areas of the country goes straight to landfills. It is cheaper to bury it because there aren't many markets for most of the items being "recycled".
Significantly reduced lifecycle carbon costs – like 1-2% relative to coal, right.
Fossil fuel processing uses lots of equipment of varying periods of use as well.
"Smil recognizes that climate change is likely to pose significant problems as the century advances."
Unless he tells you the mechanics of how and why this is true, why should I listen to him. This is a loaded statement that you take at face value without any serious questioning
I despise two things in that sentence -- "recognizes" as if it's a universal truth recognized by all sane people, and the very phrase "climate change" as if it is something new and unusual.
The only problems caused by the climate change industry are self-imposed by the luddites themselves. There is no need to "transition away" -- markets will solve the scarcity problems, as they always have; see Britain's shift from wood to coal to oil for a prime example, and how despite "running out" of wood forcing a natural market change to coal, Britain never was deforested. That is how markets work, for Pete's sake! As coal and oil and gas become naturally scarcer / more expensive, markets will shift to fission and/or fusion and/or something yet unknown.
The idea that solar and wind can ever be anything more than a rich fool's toys is laughable. The very resources they seek to exploit are unreliable and unpredictable, the exploitation tools are enormously expensive, they take up great gobs of land, and they require enormous restructuring of the electric grid to distribute.
The only possible reason for optimism over "renewable" energy is the lesson they will provide for future generations. They will be a fading memory in 50 years, ancient history in 100 years, and future generations will look back on this solar+wind era like we now look back on Prohibition. Of course no one will dare speak of the true lesson -- government overreach. There will be all sorts of euphemisms and statist excuses, but no reality.
'"recognizes" as if it's a universal truth'
Given it is already observed, describing as a truth doesn't seem a stretch. Maybe old school, less politicized concepts of truth at play. Tropical reefs have already been trashed, biodiversity lost. Wildfires, sea level rise, already "significant" problems.
'"climate change" as if it is something new and unusual'
Spiking CO2 in earth's atmosphere by 50% in a century is new and unusual in geologic terms, certainly over the course of the existence of humans, as is the apparent pace of resulting greenhouse warming.
"markets will solve the scarcity problems"
CO2 is a pollution problem, not a scarcity problem.
"That is how markets work"
Negative externalities are a known efficiency hazard for markets, econ 101 stuff.
"The idea that solar and wind can ever be anything more than a rich fool's toys is laughable"
The combination of "Luddite" as a pejorative and this sort of hostility to energy innovation is an interesting combo. Both solar and wind have become dramatically more cost competitive *even with fossil fuels free-to-pollute subsidy*.
Your concerns are a litany of arguments for fossil fuel rent seeking, continually undermined by ongoing market and technology innovation. You are welcome to bet against markets and innovation, but be aware of the track record of that.
"fading memory in 50 years"
Pretty solid denial of physics underlying this prediction.
Almost every word of your comment is wrong.
The Great Barrier Reef has completely recovered, as have most others. They are very robust, as seen by their survival for millions of years including many hundreds of thousands with higher CO2 levels than today.
CO2 levels are increasing because the world is getting warmer, not the reverse.
CO2 is plant food, not a pollution problem. The amount of vegetable mass has grown about 15% in 25 years - that feeds lots of people and livestock.
Solar and wind are cost competitive ONLY because there is a backup system based on fossil fuels that provides power during the night and when the wind is still. If you factor in the cost of the backup the cost of the solar/wind equipment is simply an add-on to the cost of fossil infrastructure, so inherently more expensive even if solar cells are free.
Fossil fuel rent-seeking? Like paying hundreds of millions for exploration/drilling rights? Like the Fed tax on gasoline sales?
I work in the bio-energy/bio-chemical sector. There are some wonderful products and technologies, but they won't be relevant to the fuel supply for at least 50 to 100 years. And their impact on CO2 production is always mis-represented because the program does not take into account materials of construction properly and the CO2 produced by burning them is discounted.
We would need to build one world scale nuclear plant every week until 2050 (1500 plants) to replace the current electrical infrastructure; it ain't happening.
The focus on AGW is a crime against the environment. While alarmists bitch we are losing species - and their irreplaceable DNA that took eons to evolve - that can provide innumerable benefits to mankind. That is where our efforts should be concentrated.
"The Great Barrier Reef has completely recovered"
Hopelessly uninformed. Coral specimens can be hundreds of years old. It's been 6 years since 2016-17. Weedy coral growing over what died isn't full recovery. The weedy coral doesn't recover biodiversity or even shore up protection against the next rounds of cyclones and inevitable bleaching, because bleaching rounds are coming hotter and faster as the ocean warms.
Sorry, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, and could easily find that out reading some marine biology sources online.
"including many hundreds of thousands with higher CO2 levels than today"
Paleo history shows the opposite – reef gaps millions of years long after die-offs in sharp climate change events. Even in the slower temp changes of the last ice age there's evidence of quatorial retreat.
Yeah they might grow back in thousands of millions of years, but that's the opposite of fine in human terms.
All of which is irrelevant since if coral have a magic power that keeps them from dying there's no sign of it, ~half wipeout in the last big 2016-17 rounds.
"CO2 levels are increasing because the world is getting warmer, not the reverse"
Physics denial on a level not worth spending a lot of time on. This is going to be a case of "You can’t use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn’t use reason to get into." Learn radiative transfer, physics.
"CO2 is plant food, not a pollution problem"
The pollution problem comes from CO2's spectroscopic qualities, not its photosynthesis properties. This is entry-level confusion.
"Solar and wind are cost competitive ONLY because there is a backup system based on fossil fuels"
Everyone knows this tired 'government must pick fossil fuels' anti-innovation trope. If free-polluting protection for fossil fuels had been addressed 30 years ago these technologies would be much farther along, even *with* the negative externality problem they have become cost competitive. There is no fundamental obstacle just many lines of innovation that need to improve (pumped hydro, molten salt, liquid air etc. etc).
"We would need to build..."
All of the above, and no there is no hard requirement to remove all fossil fuels by 2050. You are advocating for peddle to the metal, completely transform the earth in the next century levels of emissions, right? Anything that reduces emissions reduces impact. Pretending 'we can't do perfect so we can't do anything' is again not a reason-based approach.
"While alarmists bitch we are losing species - and their irreplaceable DNA that took eons to evolve - that can provide innumerable benefits to mankind. That is where our efforts should be concentrated"
Eh... you are contradicting yourself. You were just cheering the loss of coral biodiversity above.
pedal lol.
Smil makes a throwaway statement so he isn't canceled and people will sell his book.
So you agree he is full of crap and wrong.
Elon could get value for money by paying Reason as much as it takes to retire Ron and replace him with Vaclav.
I'll have to read the book, but based on the review of one biased cornucopian, erm, techno-fetishist (and I am not seeing any serious rebuttal to Malthus' doom saying), it seems like the shit engineers have known for 50 years or so.
Funny you mention this. My wife sent me a nature article that was "ground breaking reaserch that will aid the decobonization of society" it was a paper about thermal management of IC. I told her yeah we discuss this and research this all the time and the paper is showing really poor performance.
She asked why is it being touted as some huge thing. I didn't have the heart to tell her
Look at what writers were saying about plant-based meat substitutes over the past decade - the sales were growing rapidly, doubling most years. It was the wave of the future and meat was to soon be part of our past.
Then the growth in sales stopped and even fell off a bit in the last two years. This is probably because the 5 - 10% of the market that would eat the stuff was in fact the entire market for it.
Electric cars are probably something like this. Techno early adaptors, who like to be on the leading edge of anything new, and rich people wanting to publicly show off both their eco-credentials and wealth are the market now. Some corporations buy electric vehicles just as MLB moved the All-Stars to Denver to show how much they care.
Once the market has sold to all these buyers, it will grind to a quick stop. Don't be expecting the general public to buy electric cars unless someone holds a gun to their heads. Poorer Latinos in LA could never afford to buy them, even used. Rural Americans won't want them either.
Dreams of an electric future are just dreams.
Electric vehicles would by dynamite if they were left to markets. Quiet, lots of low speed torque, no need for all the accessories on an internal combustion engine, incredible potential to be cheaper and more reliable.
All the EV problems arise from government distorting the market, forcing adoption before it is ready from prime time. Basic arithmetic says lithium batteries and rare earth motors are dead ends. Markets would find alternatives if left alone, but no, the fucking idiots in charge refuse to look at simple arithmetic and see that the current technologies cannot be the future. It is as utterly impossible as someone trying to force the adoption of propeller airplanes for supersonic travel, and yes, all this talk of "electric jets" shows the idiots in power really are that stupid.
A government that tells industries that they have to invent non-existent technology to stay in business is very wise or very stupid. And the people who work in our government have a serious wisdom deficit.
The costs of solar power have dropped by 80 percent over the past 10 years, although intermittency remains a problem.
Ban clouds. Problem solved.
Or take the California route, and hire kids to nag people on TV to use less electricity between 4 and 9 PM, when wind and solar are less available. (Supposedly, the wind picks up here around 4 PM every day.)
To keep California Golden.
Or apply IQ in markets and technology. We'll see which view prevails.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/most-promising-long-duration-storage-technologies-left-standing
Put in terms of physical labor, this increased access to energy is equivalent to having 60 adults working nonstop, day and night, for every person on earth.
One of the reasons for slavery in the ancient world?
Yes. It is. There was so much more that needed to be done.
Even 100 years ago, most people in the professional class would have a full time, live-in servant, and 50 years ago, women stayed home full time because a household needed that much labor. Most of that work is now done using machines, which frees us significant amounts of time.
"Reducing the waste of a third of food, cutting back a bit on meat eating (from 220 pounds per person annually U.S. to 85 pounds per person in France), and ending the use of biofuels would go a long way toward providing adequate nutrition for the world's growing population while reducing humanity's deleterious effects on the biosphere."
FFS, here we go. Ok:
"Food Waste" is a red herring. The better term for "Food Waste" is "Food Surplus". And historically, "Food Surplus" was the goal, not the problem. Because the alternative of "waste" is "shortage", or as the sky-god worshipers of the past called it, "famine".
Reducing food waste isn't going to be this zero-cost win. We have food waste because it is cheaper (in money which is ultimately energy) to throw food out than it is to transport it elsewhere or preserve it. It happens because it is better to have food where we need it, when we need it, than it is to waste productive resources dealing with point-in-time shortages.
Take my family (please). The wife and I plan meals and bring in groceries once a week. Periodically, we have meetings run late, or changes in school plans and a meal doesn't get cooked, and we end up throwing out rotten ingredients. If you myopically focus on waste, you think this is a problem. But for my family, it was a win. We paid money for the option to use food. The alternative was that we needed food one night, didn't have it, and needed to go to the store for a single meal. This is a massive waste of our productivity.
These activists need to keep their grubby mitts off of our food supply. They have already fucked up our energy markets beyond all recognition. And now they think that they can micromanage the types of food we eat, and how much we have available. Stop it. Just Stop it. Let markets figure this out.
These people are literally telling us that they want to stop "Food Surpluses". They are crazy. Don't let them.
Did you know it's against the law to sell misshaped vegetables? That's why the ones in the store all look perfect.
I am pretty sure this is a myth, or at least depends on local laws that don't run the entire gamut of the country. But even if we DIDN'T have laws against misshapen fruits and veggies, the truth is that consumers won't buy them in the store (very likely) and that's ok.
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1086055092321697794
That's a good summary from someone in the Ag industry. TL;DR, odd shapes are hard to ship to stores, and tend to end up bruised, or otherwise damaged which leads to rot of the food, and everything around it. But that's ok, because this sort of food tends to end up being turned into canned soups and juices.
Of course this is generally only happens when you have large farms that benefit from scale. When you get back to "Farm to Table" local farmers in the green belt under power lines in your city, they don't produce enough volume, and will tend to throw away their misshapen foods that aren't bought by restaurants, because none of the rich folk would be caught dead serving mutant cucumbers that might be mistaken for GMOs.
My favorite line from that Twitter rant:
"The "eat ugly fruit!" movement is classist as FUCK. You've got to have a debilitating level of ignorance to assume that if Whole Paycheck Market doesn't stock ugly fruit, it must be getting "wasted.""
"Misshapen vegetable" was my nickname in the gym showers.
The EU is well-known for idiotic laws on food shapes and sizes. I like small apples and bananas and other fruit/veggies because it gives me the option of a light snack or close to a full meal; the EU doesn't want me to have that choice.
Activists would prefer the Soviet system where store shelves were mostly bare (kind of like the infant formula shelves now) and people would line up for hours for a loaf of bread, which insured that it wouldn't be "wasted".
Agreed. The concept of "food waste" is like doing an algebra problem where you didn't put the parenthesis in the right place. It's not a problem, it's a desirable feature. If there was only EXACTLY as much food as everyone needed to eat, we'd be teetering on the edge of famine all the time. Which, to the enviro crackpot win, I'm sure is a feature.
"If there was only EXACTLY as much food as everyone needed to eat, we'd be teetering on the edge of famine all the time."
And what really boils my blood is that these discussions are always started by Top Men that foolishly think they COULD make all the interventions in the market necessary to get us to EXACTLY as much food as we need.
Just consider this little nuance- Much of what we call "Food Waste" isn't actually food waste. Just like "Single Use" Plastic Bags were never single use. As noted above in the Sarc sub-thread, even food rejected for human consumption often gets plowed back into the field where it helps compost the soil, or it gets fed to animals. As the banning of "Single Use" plastic bags has instead increased the consumption of plastic in those regions, somehow getting rid of this food waste will mean additional transportation, fertilizer, livestock feed or other replacements for what is being efficiently used today.
Oh, and by the way:
Do you know who the largest owner of farm land in the united states is? Bill Gates. Yes. The Gates Foundation owns more farm land in the country than any other private owner.
Do you know what Bill Gates is particularly bad at (other than operating systems)? Farming. My family lives near one of the farms they took over. They didn't plant their winter wheat last year. The irrigated areas are not getting watered correctly and as a result, half the crop underperformed last year.
If I had just an ounce more paranoia, I'd think Bill Gates really is a Super Villain trying to starve this country into a great reset.
I'm sure he is looking for a tax break on his 'failed" crop.
What version of Windows are the combines using?
Doesn't matter they all suck.
Maybe they're running linux and couldn't find a driver for them.
Man I'm on fire today. I crack myself up.
I thought linux was the new PC name for the character in Peanuts.
They'll never get that blanket away from linux.
No worries -- the surplus food will now be used to feed crickets so we have plenty of protein to eat.
"The costs of solar power have dropped by 80 percent over the past 10 years, although intermittency remains a problem."
That's great news; now you can something that doesn't work very well cheaper than before. Except it still doesn't work very well.
Progress is great.
Actually this is the solution for solar intermittency. Have a strong excess of supply and a storage battery. As solar panels become cheaper, this actually becomes a viable solution as you need at least three times your desired power output.
Now find those batteries.
Good Question!! But, if there is a market, no doubt some entrepreneur will take advantage of it. They may fail before they succeed, but that is the nature of the game.
It is possible that lithium, a both uncommon (but not rare) and expensive (dirty?) to mine, may soon be available in large quantities, at less cost than today.
An interesting article on lithium "mining" in the Salton Sea
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/how-the-shrinking-troubled-salton-sea-could-supply-the-u-s-with-green-lithium/vi-AAWURao?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=056f7fe251d146cba7203058638a2266&category=foryou
Of course lithium ion batteries have a bad habit of sometimes bursting into flame and are notoriously difficult put out. Hence the warning to not charge EVs in your garage.
Even hover boards were bursting into flame.
Hence the warning to not charge EVs in your garage.
I don't know if this is true. It's certainly good advice, but I don't know of an industry directive on that. If you can find one, I'd love to read it though.
Sorry I don't recall exactly where I saw it but I believe it was from GM.
It is true. A lithium battery that "punches through" the insulation is pretty much a pile of thermite.
Yes, that is true. But I don't know if any manufacturer is telling its customers to charge their thermite grenade outside the garage because it could go off. Seems like an admission of liability.
Found it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/gm-warns-some-bolt-ev-owners-dont-park-them-inside-or-charge-them-unattended-overnight.html
And those mythical solar cells in that mythical quantity.
One of the many green fraudsis the touted capacity of solar and wind power. They are all rated capacity. Once you factor in night, clouds, wrong winds, and everything else, they have an actual capacity something like 1/5 their rated capacity.
Their costs also don't factor in subsidies.
It's fraud from one end to the other.
Agreed and don't forget to add in taxpayer funded subsidies.
When Germany went all in on green they subsidized the installation and guaranteed the rate of return. People fell over themselves trying to jump on the band wagon.
Of course it didn't produce the promised results, but hey give them a participation prize.
Why is everyone fixated on batteries?
Use the solar power to pump water uphill into a reservoir.
At night, during cloudy days, the water is allowed to run downhill powering generators.
Next sunny day pump the water uphill again.
Not mentioned is that concrete is a major source of greenhouse gases and thus global warming. Not in it's finished state, but in it's production and installation. It contributes about 8% of global CO2 emissions.
Wood, on the other hand, is an efficient sequestration of carbon. So all this "green" talk about 3D printing concrete houses is silly. Wood is better. And it's renewable. Just a thought.
Sure, let's build road, skyscrapers, dams and bridges out of wood.
CO2 is 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere, so concrete - which brandy says contributes 8% of CO2 in the atmosphere - is far, far, FAR from a "major source of greenhouse gases and thus global warming".
Fucking imbecile.
Aw, give him a breal. The disinformation board hasn't gotten around to correcting "greenie" misinformation.
We are the indirect result of an oxygen catastrophe. Prior the catastrophe CO2 levels were approximately 70% of the atmosphere by volume. Well before anything remotely related to human walked the Earth, plant life strangled itself down to the very edge of 0.02% CO2 where it cannot survive. Even if we increased the amount of CO2 10-fold to 0.4%, the vast majority of humanity would survive the CO2 concentrations. Even if we increased it another 10-fold, to 4%, humanity would likely die out but large portions of plant life would survive. Even if we increased it another 10-fold to 40%, the heat and CO2 concentrations would not exceed the conditions that lead to photosynthetic life overrunning the planet and bringing about the oxygen catastrophe.
Not to mention that large areas being covered with concrete or otherwise paved (i.e. cities) is throwing off the historical temperature comparisons because of the daily heat trapping effects.
Also, where the hell are our nukes! Nuclear energy folks! Anyone serious about combating climate change has to be in favor of carbon free nuclear power. Until we see environmentalists start advocating for nuclear power, we know they aren't being serious. They're more interested in pointing fingers and laying blame than in actually trying to solve the problem.
See linked Reason article:
https://reason.com/2022/05/23/americas-nuclear-reluctance/
Like so much of modern America over regulation kills innovation.
People are scared of nuclear power because lemmings like brandy bought the Three Mile Island media scare
There's a dark and foreboding documentary on Netflix right now about 3 mile island. While I haven't watched it, the trailer seems to present itself like America's version of Chernobyl, the EXCELLENT HBO series which documented that disaster. I simply can't bear to watch a Chernobyl-like documentary on 3 Mile Island where fewer people died than died in Ted Kennedy's car.
You're in California. Ask them why if they care about the environment they are decommissioning what few nuclear plants they have and want to take out the hydroelectric dams too.
To save the planet, of course.
Leaving it in good shape for the rise of the cockroach.
While this book sounds interesting, I am generally skeptical of books which present far-reaching narratives which try to explain how "everything works". Guns, Germs, and Steel would be one example.
However... what's interesting to me is there seems to be a lot of basic truth in the foundations of what he's arguing and... this is why Putin's thesis on wealth is probably close to the mark.
Sure, you can have Silicon Valley where people are really good at making Emojis and apps with 'like' buttons, but if you control the oil, fuel, agriculture and other natural resources, then you have the real wealth. Interesting discussion. I might get this book.
Same as it's always been
Heard a funny quote last night.
"If America is an empire, it's the strangest imperial power in history. Empire is supposed to enrich its citizens and bring foreign treasures home. America impoverishes its citizens and sends it's treasure overseas."
Such a lie.
Civilization runs on love, understanding, toleration and acceptance...unless of course you disagree with a proggie.
Sounds like a Hitler writing a new propaganda book.
Carbon, Carbon, Carbon, Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change, Footprint, Footprint, Footprint.....
Oh whoops; never-mind plants crave CO2 (carbon).. Oh whoops; never-mind the climate is actually 'cooling' (bring on the Global Cooling scare again...) And never-mind, never-mind anything and everything EXCEPT that 'central planning' is cure all...
"never-mind plants crave CO2"
I think you mean plants crave *brawndo*. It's got electrolytes.
https://youtu.be/kAqIJZeeXEc?t=23
"never-mind the climate is actually 'cooling'"
Insert facepalm gif. Let me guess, "no warming since 2016!"
Life inside the alternative science bubble.
"'central planning' is cure all"
Not what pro-market economists think.
https://www.austriancenter.com/central-planners-wont-solve-climate-change/
Biden could take a bit out of obesity by replacing welfare payments to indigent indigenes withFood Waste Stamps, redeemable in cash for a dollar per thousand calories of fast food presented