These two points need to be emphasized. Yes, a reset would be very welcome, but far too much money and influence is entrenched in there. Oil is one of, if not the most lucrative, profitable businesses in human history. It won't let alternatives come along without a serious fight.
Hmm, I had both on there. When I edited a typo from my phone it may have removed one of the links. It was a very thorough study that really considered the negative impacts. So definitely not a "PRO EV!" piece. Was trying to give a balanced approach. I'll see if I can find it again.
www.nature.com
I read several articles so I'm not sure if I had a favorite just google NZ eliminates subsidy for farming. The one thing I never quite got a handle on was "inflation control measures used by NZ" finance is not my area!
I've published in both Science and Nature (in my area of expertise which is not batteries or EV) and you have to remember that there is always an editor, editorial board and reviewers. As hard as editors and reviewers try to be objective they are human and usually under pressure to win research funding. Coming out against politically popular topics and opinions could impact their career.
Thanks, appreciate it.Hmm, I had both on there. When I edited a typo from my phone it may have removed one of the links. It was a very thorough study that really considered the negative impacts. So definitely not a "PRO EV!" piece. Was trying to give a balanced approach. I'll see if I can find it again.
Edit: Also from Nature: a bit more digestible for an easy read. It does reference several papers, though.
Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough?
Reducing the use of scarce metals — and recycling them — will be key to the world’s transition to electric vehicles.
A good tidbit:
But some researchers complain that electric vehicles seem to be held to an impossible standard in terms of the environmental impact of their batteries. “It would be unfortunate and counterproductive to discard a good solution by insisting on a perfect solution,” says Kamath. “That does not mean, of course, that we should not work aggressively on the battery disposal question.”
That’s the American way of problem solving in the past quarter century. If it ain’t perfect, it ain’t worth doing.
Pretty much. Or "if we don't understand something 100%, it can't be true/real." It's all or nothing, black or white, ones and zeroes.
In my field I can recognize reviewers by their editorial comments, after 40 years I pretty much know who they are and what they are going to say. When you drill down to specific topics the world gets small very fast and opinions show through. The challenge for an editor is taking somewhat biased reviews and reaching an unbiased conclusion. You are right the better journals are better, but I will stand my ground that they are not perfect! Fraud accounts for a majority of retractions.
Who decides if it is sound? The most prestigious journals have the most retractions. In my opinion, 0% retraction is bad and we want our best researchers pushing limits.
Maybe when I fully retire I'll be less anonymous!
I see these type of arguments ALL the time on basically any controversial issue. If a solution isn't 100% perfect than it should basically be disregarded according to many. People are afraid of change and the amount of energy put in to formulating their opinions is often minimal.
Same as the guys yelling at clouds.
Dude, you could literally say the same about the pro EV crowd. It has to be 100% carbon free, or nothing. Which is why I proposed a hybrid system of effiecient fossil fuel/renewable bio diesel use with electric motors and batteries.
I don't recall seeing any pro-EV folks here saying it has to be 100% carbon free, or nothing.
