EU Says It Could Be Self-Sufficient In Electric Vehicle Batteries By 2025 (reuters.com) 87
The European Union could produce enough batteries by 2025 to power its fast-growing fleet of electric vehicles without relying on imported cells, European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic said on Tuesday. Reuters reports: As part of its plan to become climate neutral by 2050, the EU wants to boost local production of the building blocks for green industries -- including hydrogen fuel to make low-carbon steel and batteries to power clean vehicles. "I am confident that by 2025, the EU will be able to produce enough battery cells to meet the needs of the European automotive industry, and even to build our export capacity," Sefcovic told the online European Conference on Batteries. Today, China hosts roughly 80% of the world's lithium-ion cell production, but Europe's capacity is set to expand fast.
Europe has 15 large-scale battery cell factories under construction, including Swedish company Northvolt's plants in Sweden and Germany, Chinese battery maker CATL's German facility, and South Korean firm SK Innovation's second plant in Hungary. Sefcovic said by 2025 planned European facilities would produce enough cells to power at least 6 million electric vehicles.
Europe has 15 large-scale battery cell factories under construction, including Swedish company Northvolt's plants in Sweden and Germany, Chinese battery maker CATL's German facility, and South Korean firm SK Innovation's second plant in Hungary. Sefcovic said by 2025 planned European facilities would produce enough cells to power at least 6 million electric vehicles.
And Where Are They Getting The Lithium? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they discovered some large lithium deposits under the Bordeaux district in France. And open pit mining will commence shortly.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Perhaps they discovered some large lithium deposits under the Bordeaux district in France.
It's not real Lithum unless it comes from the Lith region.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean Lithuania?
Now you are just making up names of places. There's no "Lithuania".
Re: (Score:3)
Putin ? is that you ? Are you planning to invade a smaller country again ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No need for open pit mining when you can recover it from brine, one of the most environmentally friendly (and conveniently also cheap) ways to mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Get lithium from brine? Do you mean out of the sea? I assume you don't mean pickle brine.
There are places with brine that has high concentrations of lithium, I don't recall hearing about any of them being in Europe. Some of the best lithium salts comes from South America.
Re: (Score:3)
Cornwall is planning to extract lithium from brine, for one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I get it, people are extracting lithium from "brine" but brine is just a word for salty water. Where is this brine coming from? Is it from the ocean? Is it from a lake? Where is this lake? Is the brine produced from an underground salt deposit? Is the brine produced from the tears shed by Leftists still crying that Trump won an election four years ago? Can the brine be mine? Does the brine go fine with wine?
I'm sure that getting lithium from brine is quite lucrative, but where is this brine?
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was too obvious to mention and you were being facetious. The brine comes from underground salt deposits. Ocean salt is way too low in lithium content to make it worthwhile to extra with current technology, but obviously that may change as technology improves.
Re: (Score:2)
Good that you get brine is just a word for salty water. You're coming along fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Cornwall is planning to extract lithium from brine, for one.
It's possible that a company based in Cornwall is planning to do this...
What is certain is that a company, "British Lithium" [britishlithium.co.uk] is planning on extracting lithium from mined quartz in Cornwall. They are currently prospecting to find the best location for their open cast mine.
There's similar geology in ... hmm, can't actually remember, and I can't be arsed to look it up ... mainland europe, Croatia, Czech Republic, somewhere like that, where I believe mining is already underway.
I must admit, ever since reading a
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla model 3 SR+ sold in Europe do not use cobalt or rare earths for their batteries. Your trolling needs updating, you must somehow have missed that we are in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And Where Are They Getting The Lithium? (Score:4, Informative)
Could you be any more ignorant? I had already learned about the rare earth elements when I was 14, FFS, as part of learning the periodic table. My son is now the same age, and he too has learned the rare earth elements as part of learning the periodic table. This is not some abstruse knowledge.
Rare earths are the lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium: cerium (Ce), dysprosium (Dy), erbium (Er), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), holmium (Ho), lanthanum (La), lutetium (Lu), neodymium (Nd), praseodymium (Pr), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), scandium (Sc), terbium (Tb), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), and yttrium (Y).
Lithium is not a rare earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium is the 25th most common element on the planet. It's not remotely rare and sure as hell not classified as a rare earth element.
Deposits in Europe + making do with less (Score:5, Informative)
There are actually some sizable deposits in the Czech Republic. Otherwise, Australia and some South American countries in South America are large producers.
But yes, always keep mining at a minimum. Sharing cars instead of owning a personal motor vehicle (quite feasible in European cities), not getting a larger battery than needed and using electric bicycles (which require around 1% the amount of battery metals compared to a car) instead is good not only for metal housekeeping, but frequently also for other global and local environmental qualities.
When some lithium is in circulation and batteries finally wear out, recycling could and should be a source to avoid mining. Rönnskärsverken, a smelter and metal processing complex just some km from the planned Northvolt factory in Skellefteå (my family's old town) is AFAIK currently trying out methods for this.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually some sizable deposits in the Czech Republic. Otherwise, Australia and some South American countries in South America are large producers.
The south American countries in other places though, they hardly make any...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Typo.
Perhaps you could argue that there are European countries in South America too (a bit of France that hosts the rocket launch facilities, Falkland Islands, ...) but that was not my intention :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth bearing in mind:
- The batteries are likely to get to 750 discharge cycles before the EV is down to 80% of original range. That's 180k+ miles for a car with original range of 250 miles
- 180k miles = 7200 days' worth of driving for a typical European (25 miles per day per car). That's about 20 years
- So after 20 years, the car is down to 200 miles of range. If that's not good enough for you any more, it goes off for recycling
- Oh, hang on, wait
- It doesn't go for recycling yet
- It goes for re-use f
Re: (Score:2)
- And the lithium is always recoverable and reusable
Sure, we can get the lithium back out but it's not cheap or easy.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that cheap or easy today, but this will be happening in 20+ years' time (in meaningful volumes), when recovery techniques will be better and cheaper, and anyway that article is written from the perspective of recyclers trying to deal with many manufacturers' EVs, when in reality many manufacturers are setting up their own closed loops, including Renault, Nissan and Tesla, and they obviously have fast and easy insight into the chemistry, structure etc of the batteries in their own EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that cheap or easy today, but this will be happening in 20+ years' time (in meaningful volumes),
You don't know that.
I could say a lot of things will be possible in 20 years, doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
You misinterpreted my statement. What it meant was that recycling EV batteries is not a today issue, it's a 20 years from now issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems of recycling EV batteries is a today issue because old lithium batteries are already piling up, lithium demand is rising, this is driving up lithium prices. The problem of the costs of recycling lithium batteries may be solved only by lithium prices reaching a point where current processes of recycling lithium batteries become economically viable. This will make electric vehicle more expensive to produce. This will have an effect on consumer electronics because they need lithium batteries t
Re: (Score:2)
Where is your evidence that old lithium batteries *from EVs* are piling up? Go on, provide a link to a single piece of evidence that this is happening anywhere.
The oldest mass production EVs are only about 10 years old, and there's barely any of them because they didn't sell very well. Leaf and Zoe batteries are just just now starting to be used in small numbers in secondary applications. They've tested their closed-loop recycling, but there's no meaningful demand for recycling yet because the batteries are
Re: (Score:2)
Where is your evidence that old lithium batteries *from EVs* are piling up? Go on, provide a link to a single piece of evidence that this is happening anywhere.
Asked and answered.
https://grist.org/politics/mos... [grist.org]
And if we donâ(TM)t figure out how to recycle lithium-ion batteries â" particularly the big ones inside electric vehicles and those used for energy storage in the electric grid â" weâ(TM)ll eventually wind up with mountains of toxic e-waste.
Re: (Score:2)
May I introduce you to this marvel of language known as the conditional mood? One way you can spot it is by the use of the word "if". When you see it at the start of a sentence, it's a signal that it is describing a future possibility, not a present reality. Such as "if we don't figure out how to recycle [EV batteries], we'll *eventually* [i.e., at some point in the future, but not now] wind up with mountains of toxic e-waste".
So maybe try again with some evidence that *EV* batteries are piling up *today*.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it go back to recycle. My first car was a 20yr old Chevy Impala with rusted out floors. It was so heavy the used tires I could afford would barely make 200 miles. That 20yr old car your talking about is barely used. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And by the time the batteries need replacing the updated cells will be incredibly much cheaper, more power dense, and safe. Plus recycling will be better developed.
Re: (Score:2)
And by the time the batteries need replacing the updated cells will be incredibly much cheaper, more power dense, and safe. Plus recycling will be better developed.
Unlikely. New technology can't change the laws of physics, and the batteries we have today are already within spitting distance of physical limits. We are seeing diminishing returns. In fact we've been seeing diminishing returns for decades.
I can remember cordless tool batteries that completely sucked. A charge on a cordless drill might last a few screws, and the battery would be toast in about a year. Then later they held more charge, lasted longer, and cost less. The batteries we have today are just
Re: (Score:2)
the batteries we have today are already within spitting distance of physical limits
They are nowhere near that. Lithium air for one thing. And countless improvements are possible with Li-ion and lifepo.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you do this? You are wrong with literally every statement you make. Every time. Battery density has tripled in a decade, it's not been seeing diminishing returns for a decade. There's tons more tweaks. It's not all about chemistry, although there's more mileage there, it's also about nano-etching and more efficient packing and cell-to-body and better BMS and and and...
Additionally, what EV drivers care about is range, which is obviously not just dependent on battery but on the whole package including
Re: (Score:2)
For home use you don't want li-ion, you want lifepo. Unless you enjoy house fires and have money to (ahem) burn.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the chance and rely on the BMS. Anyway, it's all theoretical because it's going to be years and years before the battery packs from EVs start being retired in meaningful volumes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the chance and rely on the BMS.
Good for you. I'll rely on the chemistry and the battery management system. And I'll cut my risk of house fire dramatically compared to you.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think BMS stands for...?
And as I said, it's all theoretical because I, along with most other people, will not even have the chance of buying a home battery system based on second-use EV batteries for many years, because the batteries aren't there in volume.
Re: (Score:2)
BMS stands for "a layer of complexity with its own bugs and limitations". It's not theoretical, people are buying into the Tesla li-ion bullshit right now and paying too much to install a rampant explosion risk. BTW, your reading comprehension could be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Um.
So I write:
"I'll rely on the BMS"
and you reply:
"Good for you, I'll rely on chemistry and the BMS"
And you think it's *me* that has reading comprehension fails?
And in one post you say you'll rely on the BMS and in the next post you say the BMS is "a layer of complexity with its own bugs and limitations"? So presumably you mean you'll rely on the *unreliability* of the chemistry and the BMS? In which case, Christ but that's a convoluted and ineffective turn of phrase you've adopted there.
And if the issues
Re: Deposits in Europe + making do with less (Score:2)
Sharing cars instead of owning a personal motor vehicle (quite feasible in European cities),
Wait until I die first
Re:And Where Are They Getting The Lithium? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lithium is not the problem, cobalt and nickel are.
Lithium mines are in remote salt plains:
https://www.wired.co.uk/articl... [wired.co.uk]
They make the inhospitable salt covered area into another form of unlivable space.
The cobalt mines on the other hand:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl... [theguardian.com]
Are places of misery.
Re: (Score:2)
The cobalt mines on the other hand:
Are places of misery.
Every mine is a place of misery when it is run by a miserable boss. Coal mines are really no different from any other mine, your article just makes them appear to stand out because of conflict.
There's nothing inherent in a cobalt mine which prevents this issue from being fixed, though please, let's do something other than have the USA export democracy to it.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the 10 biggest lithium mines in the world are in Africa.
https://www.mining-technology.... [mining-technology.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of the 10 biggest lithium mines in the world are in Africa. https://www.mining-technology.... [mining-technology.com]
Apart from 2 on your list...
Mali [wikipedia.org] and Zimbabwe [wikipedia.org] are both in Africa. #9 and #10.
We can synthesize alternatives (Score:2)
For sure we need to get rid of oil for transportation fuel. But ffs figure out a better way than lithium batteries.
There is a better way, synthesized hydrocarbons. By using a carbon neutral energy source to power the synthesis process, and taking carbon from the air, the fuels are carbon neutral. Since they are drop in replacements for petroleum based fuels there's no need to replace every car, truck, train, ship, airplane, and so on to get carbon neutral transportation.
I like that this did mention fuel cell vehicles.
Fuel cells are not likely to come to market at any price people would be willing to pay any time soon. As it is now there's hydrocarbon synthesis fac
Re: (Score:3)
There is a better way, synthesized hydrocarbons. By using a carbon neutral energy source to power the synthesis process,
Why not use the electricity directly instead of using a liquid middle-man? You'll probably need half the energy infrastructure once you factor in all the inefficiencies and transportation that your system will need.
Plus: Your cars will still be worse than electric ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the electricity directly instead of using a liquid middle-man?
Because of lots of reasons. Reasons you have all heard before but claim are irrelevant because you cannot comprehend that someone might live a life quite different than your own.
I'm reminded of some actor that stated how he could not understand why anyone would buy a motor vehicle. He'd take his bicycle to work, and if he needed to get somewhere that his bike couldn't take him then he'd hire a cab, take a train, or buy a plane ticket. He could not comprehend that a plumber might need to take tools and p
Propane fuel cells (Score:2)
I anticipate a future where there's carbon neutral fuels on the market to go with some very nice electric hybrid cars. With an electric hybrid people can have all the advantages of an electric motor to spin the wheels with the lower mass and higher energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.
A better option would be propane made from renewables or nukes and then fuel cell cars working with propane fuel cells. There are some prototypes of propane fuel cells with around 32% efficiency. The overall efficiency after adding about 95% efficient electric drive is 30%. That is on the high side of combustion engines - sounds usable. If they can make the fuel cells almost maintenance free and preferably also more efficient then It would be a win since combustion engines require a lot of maintenance. A bi
Ethanol fuel cell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like that idea. Makes building a party van that much easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the electricity directly instead of using a liquid middle-man?
Because of lots of reasons. Reasons you have all heard before but claim are irrelevant because you cannot comprehend that someone might live a life quite different than your own.
Nope, you're being completely blind.
I can imagine all sorts of amazing cars that I would like to own but I accept that they're not going to be commercially available at a cheap price because the manufacturers have to cater to the average Joe, not me.
You're suggesting that the mainstream car should be a car powered by manufactured hydrocarbons, because... well you'd like that to be the case. It won't ever be commercial reality though, for many reasons. Too bad for you. You're free to install solar panels a
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Right up until the moment when getting liquid fuels is really expensive and you have to drive out of your way to get them instead of just plugging in your car when you arrive at home.
Plug in hybrids are a thing. So are natural gas vehicles, they "plug in" at home too.
Nobody is going to have to go out of their way to find fuel for their vehicles because the diesel engine will rule the road for a very long time. There is no practical long haul electric truck, and there likely never will be. This means filling stations will continue to exist for people that drive a diesel electric hybrid, they can fill up at the same places as the big trucks and since big trucks go everywhere the fillin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming everyone can plug in at home.
I'm not making that assumption. I'm pointing out to the battery electric vehicle advocates that IF people can plug in at home THEN a plug-in hybrid will be just as suited to short commutes as a battery electrics, AND offer a lower up front cost (due to the smaller battery which drives much of the cost) as well as the convenience of a quick refuel with hydrocarbons.
Tell them they have to switch to battery power cars and trucks. Force them to. And then watch them all starve to death as their food distribution networks stop completely.
I agree.
What the battery electric advocates keep going on about is the convenience of a refill/recharge at home, which is something that natural
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Synthesised hydrocarbons still get burned and thus still produce particulates and other nasties from tailpipes which then gets into all our lungs because cars are found where people are found. Carbon is not the only problem to address. Burning hydrocarbon also means all of us suffering noise and vibration from ICE engines, and losing the advantages of EV driving such as instant torque, home charging, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed your concerns in my previous post. We know how to make these a near nonissue and lacking better options this is the shortest path to carbon neutral transportation.
Also, people don't have to lose the advantages of the EV to gain the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels. Electric hybrids are a thing. Electric propulsion with power from an internal combustion engine is the norm in a great many cases. We are seeing this technology from trains and ships being scaled down to cars and trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't address my concerns.
1. I expressed a concern about particulates and other tailpipe emissions. You said suck it up buttercup we have no alternative, and hand-waved that it wasn't a big deal anyway. We do have an alternative, it's what we're discussing here: EVs. And respiratory diseases alone are a massive drag on the world's economies and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among children in particular, which is especially pernicious.
2. I expressed a concern about noise. You did not ad
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't address my concerns.
You didn't offer an alternative.
Synthesized fuels are not a perfect solution, nothing is. Synthesized fuels are the best we got right now. We can wait for something better but that is waiting for a ship that may never come to port. This isn't a choice between lowering CO2 emissions now with synthesized fuels or we can keep waiting. I suggest we try synthesized fuels now while we wait.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you *talking* about, I didn't offer an alternative?
I didn't say I did (although obviously the entire discussion was predicated on a comparison between two alternatives, EVs and synthetic hydrocarbons, so fuck knows why you think it was necessary for me to start talking about a third option).
You, however, said you addressed my concerns, and I pointed out that in fact you didn't.
Re: And Where Are They Getting The Lithium? (Score:2)
I don't know about other countries, but there's a lot of lithium in the Czech Republic and Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia [wikipedia.org] is a third world country?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure sure. You mean that China, the one that is dependent on Australia as a food source among other things.
That's a good news/bad news spin. (Score:2)
It means the EU will produce as many cells as are used in batteries in their borders, but it doesn't mean that they can supply themselves with the raw materials.
Also, part of the reason this can be so soon is that between COVID and Brexit we can expect reduced economic growth and therefore less demand than if neither of these things happened. If neither of those things happened it's likely that that milestone would happen a few years later.
And where will the power come (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
England has already reach the point of going an entire day using wind power, more wind mills and solar panels and the power will be there.
That's electricity, transportation was still powered by petroleum. If the UK wants to turn to electric vehicles for their transportation then they are a long, very long, way off from producing the energy they need from wind, solar, and hydro.
As it is now the UK gets half the energy it consumes from coal, oil, and natural gas. We use these fuels not because we find it amusing to dump CO2 into the environment. We use these fuels because they are an energy source. A plentiful, reliable, portable, energy de
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
England has already reach the point of going an entire day using wind power, more wind mills and solar panels and the power will be there.
That's electricity, transportation was still powered by petroleum.
A few years ago I'm sure you'd have been sat there saying that going for a single day using wind would be impossible.
We're only in 2021 and wind is only getting started. I know because I work with a company that's involved in wind farm planning in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
A few years ago I'm sure you'd have been sat there saying that going for a single day using wind would be impossible.
No, I would not claim it impossible because I can recall a few years ago when Germany made the announcement of providing all the power they needed for a day from wind alone.
We're only in 2021 and wind is only getting started. I know because I work with a company that's involved in wind farm planning in the UK.
I see the windmill parts going down the interstate every day around here. I have no doubt that the wind power industry is making large gains all over the world. Onshore wind power is certainly worthy of the growth it is seeing because it is inexpensive and low in CO2 emissions. What wind power cannot do is provide power on demand. Wi
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus, how do you manage to get things so confidently wrong all the fucking time?
1. The UK's national grid has extensively modelled the future power requirements of the electrification of the UK auto fleet. They've taken into account everything, including a range of potential speeds of adoption, and it's just a non-issue. UK power demand is already down by 20% from peak in 2002 (62GW down to 50GW), and 100% adoption of EVs only adds an extra 5GW of demand, ie well below the previous peak of what we have alr
Re: (Score:2)
3. In what world are winds around the UK lower in winter than summer? This is bonkers. The UK, notoriously, is much windier in winter than summer. And offshore winds are much more consistent than onshore winds, too. I dare you to find a single source that shows UK wind levels are lower in summer than winter. Go on, do it.
Here you go:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.co... [wordpress.com]
This is an interview with a man that spent a lot of time studying the problem, was considered enough of an expert on the topic to be appointed a science adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. I'm going to believe him far more than some rando on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I've now waded through that interview and nowhere in it does he claim that UK wind levels is windier in the winter than the summer. Nor does he have anything to say about offshore wind being inconsistent. The closest he comes is discussing a hypothetical seven day period of no wind in winter. But he doesn't have anything to say about how likely that scenario is.
If you think otherwise, feel free to quote from the article.
As for the actual facts: "Like precipitation, a winter maxima for wind speed is expecte
Re: (Score:1)
England has already reach the point of going an entire day using wind power, more wind mills and solar panels and the power will be there.
No it hasn't. We have managed a day without coal, but with nuclear, gas hydro and solar. And a mild summer non-working day at that.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ [templar.co.uk]
(You can download the whole dataset from there and search it if you like...)
Re: (Score:3)
Any moron that thinks we Coal is being used to power anything has no idea what they are talking about. Coal plants no longer exist in the EU. Oil is the bad guy, Natural Gas provides a significant reduction in C02, though not enough to make it to Carbon neutral. Nuclear is NOT the bad guy, it is the preferred method of reducing Climate Change. Toxic waste is minimal.
But in truth, Solar and Wind are in fact rising. They ARE how Europe is going to be powering the next decade.
And you totally failed to me
Re: (Score:2)
The studies have been done over and over and they keep coming to the same conclusion: even with traditional fossil-fuel-based electric grids electric cars still come out more efficient and less polluting than gas vehicles. Stationary power plants can be much more efficient than internal combustion engines because they don’t have size and weight constraints, they’re operated and maintained by dedicated staff, and they don’t have to operate at a variety of torques. It’s also easier to
They will need more nuclear power. (Score:1, Troll)
Self sufficiency is a good thing. Being self sufficient in getting vital minerals and manufacturing to make cars means a foreign nation can't take a nation hostage by withholding trade. Self sufficiency in food supply is also vital to not being subject to the whims of another nation.
What is as vital as food, minerals, and manufacturing is energy.
There's also a need to have energy that is reliable, minimally polluting, sufficiently abundant to provide the energy for a nation, and preferably low in CO2 emis
Re: (Score:1)
Self sufficiency is a good thing. Being self sufficient in getting vital minerals and manufacturing to make cars means a foreign nation can't take a nation hostage by withholding trade. Self sufficiency in food supply is also vital to not being subject to the whims of another nation.
What is as vital as food, minerals, and manufacturing is energy.
There's also a need to have energy that is reliable, minimally polluting, sufficiently abundant to provide the energy for a nation, and preferably low in CO2 emissions. There is only one energy source that meets these requirements, nuclear fission.
Dr. David MacKay spent the last years of his life showing the numbers on how it is impossible for most European nations to be energy independent without nuclear power. I know that there's many people that disagree with this but as Albert Einstein has said it doesn't take a thousand people to disprove a theory but only one with good data.
Dr. MacKay has made his data public in a book, a number of talks (some of which are on YouTube), and on a website. http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
After his book got some attention he was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. Let's just say that he knew what he was talking about and people can ignore his findings at their own peril.
Large nations may have the luxury to reach energy independence without nuclear power or fossil fuels. This would apply to only the top five or so nations in the world, such as Russia, Canada, China, USA, and Brazil. This comes at a cost of large areas of land converted to energy crops and solar collection facilities, and this carries problems of disturbing the ecosystem, displacing plants and animals, a diminishing biodiversity, and more. The materials for these so called "green" energy production systems will have to come from mining, lots of mining. This will all cost money, lots of money. Far more money than using nuclear fission power.
Or, instead of wasting time and money on energy sources that will drive nations into poverty, we can listen to the experts that talk about how we can use nuclear fission power, along with some windmills, hydro, geothermal, and some natural gas in the short term to replace coal and oil. We can synthesize carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels for aircraft, trucks, ships, and other vehicles where only hydrocarbons have the energy density to make them practical. We can electrify trains, use more electric cars, and perhaps a few other electric vehicles where that is practical. Large ships can be powered by nuclear reactors.
Being self sufficient is a great idea. Few nations can get to energy independence, and a carbon neutral economy, without nuclear fission power. This need for nuclear power will become apparent to these nations at some point, let's just hope it is sooner than later.
Moderating this as a troll doesn't make it any less true.
But it won't be self sufficient. (Score:2)