We must look at consumption at all levels. I tell my kids with every dumb text they send, they sacrificed a few electrons. The entire world plugs their cell phones in every day because the battery is down but probably for no good reason in most cases. Do yourself and the world a favor and decrease your screen time. I am also not a fan of daytime running lights on cars. If there is true safety data in support, then I am all for it. There are just so many places an individual can cut down on consumption.
This changes everything (maybe)
- Thread starter Ohmess
- Start date
New tech's potential to significantly reduce energy storage costs
www.sydney.edu.au
Low-cost battery built with four times the capacity of lithium
Researchers are hoping that a new, low-cost battery which holds four times the energy capacity of lithium-ion batteries and is far cheaper to produce will significantly reduce the cost of transitioning to a decarbonised economy.
www.sydney.edu.au
That is the only thing humans can do that has impact in the short term. But it is pretty un-PC in America to ask people to conserve or to incentivize conservation thru economic tools (higher energy consumption taxes). Suggesting Americans tighten their energy belts is a fast way to get into a bar fight in any conservative drinking establishment.
I’m doing my part by driving less, working from home, and delaying the purchase of a new DD. At home, the home thermostat is set so low that I have no choice but to snuggle with my SO to stay warm at night.
One of the few smart things I’ve done is enroll in my towns collective electricity purchasing agreement 4 years ago. I opted for the highest % of renewable sourcing (wind/solar), which was 6% more expensive in 2018. Since mid 2021 My electricity rate is perhaps 20% below the average fossil fuel electrical rates. The lower cost doesn’t promote conservation, but it does encourage building out more renewable elec capacity.
John
Yes, the lasers put out 2.05 megajoules of energy, and the pellet released roughly 3.15 megajoules. However, the lasers require more than 300 megajoules worth of electricity to produce around 2 megajoules of ultraviolet laser light. In other words, even if the energy from the fusion reactions exceeds the energy from the lasers, it's still only around one percent of the total energy used. We have got a long way to go to make this a viable source of energy.Here’s an article that gives a much better explanation of what they achieved. It’s not break even when you include all of the facility’s energy use.
Scientists achieve a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Here’s what it means. — National Geographic
A U.S. lab has successfully sparked a fusion reaction that released more energy than went into it. But there’s still a long way to go toward fusion as a clean energy source.apple.news
and I was speaking of lithium recycling specifically, still does not exist.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-so-why-arent-we-recycling-lithium-batteries/
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-so-why-arent-we-recycling-lithium-batteries/