Who would have thought?
I mean who would have thought that the way to save the environment is to flood the world with giant batteries.
Batteries are among the most toxic, environment-destroying products in human history.
How have we come to this state where batteries have become clean and green and renewable?
The Growth Death Cult.
The bottom line is that when it comes to saving our lifestyles or saving the environment, we choose to save our lifestyles, save capitalism.
Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
Batteries are a faaaaar better, far cleaner, option than burning archaic single use fossil fuels.
Replying to @ClintonAnderson@universeodon.com
Oh yeah? The day we're selling batteries as an environmental solution is the day we are surely doomed.
"Renewable" batteries:
Lithium
Nickel
Cobalt
PFAS forever chemicals
Volatile electrolytes
"Lithium-based batteries pose several health risks throughout their life cycle"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492600114X
Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
@gerrymcgovern @ClintonAnderson
Every solution to every problem bears its own costs and presents its own problems that have to be solved.
Batteries paired with solar and wind seem to offer the single most plausible mechanism for mitigating the existential threat of carbon fuel-driven environmental destruction.
Replying to @HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social
@HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern
Solar... Wind... Hydro.... Hell, I'm not even very opposed to nuclear as a carry over while we put Oil&Gas into its long overdue coffin and bolt it shut forever
Replying to @ClintonAnderson@universeodon.com
@ClintonAnderson
Hydro is absolutely environmentally devastating. Hydro does multiple--multiple--environmental harms. It's just these harms are hidden in remote areas and where Indigenous live. Hydro is absolutely horrible for nature--and is a methane bomb factory
Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
@gerrymcgovern @HeavenlyPossum
Aaaaand it's still orders of magnitude more desirable than burning dinosaur shit
Not to mention it's far down list of preferable choices, after solar, after wind, I'd say even after nuclear
So, again, what's your solution?
Replying to @ClintonAnderson@universeodon.com
@ClintonAnderson
Actually, no. I've seen studies that when the true and total costs of hydro were accounted for, it had just as big an impact as fossil fuels.
Hydro doesn't just devastate where the dam is built. It destroys river systems and related ecosystems. It destroys marine systems that the rivers used to flow into. etc etc. And it's a methane bomb as the vegetation that was covered by the dam rots
Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
@gerrymcgovern @HeavenlyPossum
I'm sorry, I cannot take the bullshit assertion that "hydro is just as bad as oil & gas" seriously.
Have better days, eh
I'm out.
Replying to @ClintonAnderson@universeodon.com
Decades of research suggests that hydropower has a far greater climate impact than once thought. Now a growing chorus of scientists want to change the conversation about it.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14072023/todays-climate-hydropower-methane-clean-energy/
“Over the past 20 years, international studies of dams and their reservoirs confirmed in dozens of peer-reviewed research papers that dams and reservoirs are net contributors to climate change.”
https://www.patagonia.com/stories/what-is-the-future-of-dams-in-a-hot-chaotic-world/story-135155.html
Inside Climate News‘Giant Methane Factories’: Hydropower Has Long Been Touted as Clean Energy. But Is It? - Inside Climate NewsMark Easter couldn’t help but feel disappointed when he learned about a new study from Stanford University, which drew connections between the ongoing drought in the American West and an increase in U.S. carbon emissions. The study, published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that U.S. carbon emissions increased […]Replying to @gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green
@gerrymcgovern @ClintonAnderson
Net contributors, at a vastly lower rate than oil and gas.