A lot of those issues are downright lies. They are created by ass holes who don't like oil and are willing to lie to get their way.
We have ALWAYS used vertical fracking. We now know how to drill down and then bend the pipe horizontal. Horizontal uses a ton less holes than vertical. Far, far less footprint on the surface. The fracking is the same technology that has been used for years.
It is a long, long way in our future.
EVERY SOLUTION will be temporary. That is the way technology progresses.
Oh no no no no no no. Tell me we just did not agree on something. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The claim that we have enough gas for multiple generations is another propaganda narrative. It's probably true in that if we keep on burning natural gas and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere we'll engineer a population crash and there will be so few people in subsequent generations that they won't need much gas, even if theye retain the technology to to keep on extracting it
It's a long way off in the severely restricted future that the fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to set up.
From the way the greedy fossil carbon extraction industry want it to go, where they de young but rich.
Back then a single industry didn't have the capacity to wreck the carrying capacity of the entire planet.
With greater power comes greater responsiblity, but the powerful are always enthusiastic about evading it.
Some solutions are remarkably destructive. Let's concentrate on solutions that can keep working for the foreseeable future. Your foresight isn't up to much, so you don't get to pick.
Why do you think that they can't melt down? And they will still generate loads of radioactive waste, some of which will stay radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. We've had nuclear reactors for some 70 years now, but we haven't got a single long repository for nuclear waste that will keep it safely confined for a few hundred thousand years. Your foresight isn't up to much, so you may not have noticed.
The great thing about academic science and engineering is, that given the laws of Nature as currently understood are not being broken, it tells you a little about what might be possible and an enormous amoiunt about what is impossible.
People working on 'renewable technology' are completely wasting their time and your money.
It hasn't delivered anything in 20 years and it never will. Every single great white hope turns out to be a business basket case.
Renewable energy was only ever a virtue signalling move by the EU to sell German windmills to gullible governments. And get their electorates to pay for it.
If you want to reduce emissions, its a bust. Its made no difference whatsoever.
I very much doubt it.
Horse and cart if the Greens get their way.
There is only one substitute for hydrocarbon fuel and that is nuclear power. And its going to be massively hard to remodel industry to use that, and its a dead cert there wont be enough lithium to make the EVS from/ Zil lanes only for the Party apparatchiks. Everyone else gets to cycle.
Or bite the bullet and start manufacturing diesel.
The problem is all the engineering effort and tax payer money is going into the dead end of 'renewables' instead of working out how an all nuclear electric society will work
Gasoline from coal was very prevalent during the apartheid embargo years in S Africa. SASOL made a lot of it along with ethanol from maize waste. Low octane blend that worked OK at 5000 feet in the Transvaal and Vraistaat.
And still is, though the pointy headed greentard wiki editors cant help adding in their bit
*Secunda plant*
"The Sasol plant in Secunda produces 160,000 barrels of fuel from coal every day, which is used to power buses, planes, and automobiles in the country. The plant is both the largest coal-to-liquids plant and the largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world."
The lead is full of other heavy metals where I assume lithium is full of other alkali metal salts like sodium. Lithium mining probably requires more water.
I see that lithium is more abundant than lead but the problem is supply and demand. Lead has been in use for many years and easily recyclable where the lithium business has just taken off.
As a chemist, I would not have large lithium batteries in my house. If a charged battery ignites you cannot extinguish it and there goes your house. Gasoline in ICE vehicles has high energy but requires oxygen whereas in EV's all the energy is self contained.
Once again you do yourself no favours through showing your own ignorance on the subject.
If you were capable of reading you would be aware there are different classes of lead acid battery, some only capable of 80 charge / discharge cycles, and then only to 50%.
You're clearly lacking the comprehension skills to understand that Lithium, if treated well can typically last in excess of 3,000 cycles. Look at some of the batteries classed as NCC class A.
<snip selective prejudice/>
It's coming down in price. You just need to look further.
Which, thankfully is a rare event. You can also get burns from battery acid and now the primary source of acid in acid attacks.
Twaddle. It has to burn to CO2, and that is creating a problem, and one that is getting rapidly and progressively worse.
Renewable technology is fine. No more progress actually required - though we can expect a lot more of it.
We just need a lot more solar panels and wind turbines than we've made so far. We are making a lot more of both, but it takes time.
It has told us a lot about what might be possible, and we've exploited quite a lot of that, and - as we get to know more - other possibilities will show up. "Impossibilities" are less interesting.
Not the opinion of the Australian electricity generating industry. They won't invest in anything else, give or take a few grid scale batteries and some pumped hydro storage, because renewables produce electric power more cheaply than any other source. They don't produce it exactly when you want it, but grid storage dealks with that.
Total nonsense.
formatting link
A bizarre assertion, and a total lie.
You are a gullible sucker for climate change denial propaganda. It does lead you to make fatuous assertions.
This is an imaginary Green Party that only exists in climate change denial propaganda. It is true that engineering a population crash that would allow the tiny residual human population to get by with Stone age technology would reduce CO2 emissions, but it's not a solution that any Green Part anywhere has advocated.
Solar cells and wind turbines are doing fine at the moment, and delivering power more cheaply than you can get by burning hydrocarbons. We need more of them, and they are being manufactured rapidly.
Nuclear power plants seem to take a lot longer to put together, and they aren't cheap, and the don't offer cheap electricity.
There's quite a lot of lithium being mined, and when the price started to go up many more deposits became worth mining, to such an extent that extent that price went down quite a lot recently.
Sensible people do invest in getting their electricity from the cheapest possible source. Gullible twits believe what the fossil carbon extradtion industry tries to tell them.
He did have a bit more sense than you seem to have.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.