🇳🇱
There is legit scientific prototypes of solar panels made from non-mined biodegradable materials... if they will become viable and when is another question. But there is no fundemental limits in physics that would make it out of the realm of possiblity.
I think I even remember solar panels made with microorganisms that reproduce.
Metal is biodegradable, and doesn't necessarily need to be mined (for example it can be extracted from ocean water, though its not efficient). But the conductors might be hard to do non-metal... only non metal conductors I know of are ceramics and they still need mining I think.
It's an interesting challenge. However, the point of sustainability is thinking & developing long-term solutions. Therefore, finite resources and pollution is "off the table".
Sooner or later a system that uses finite resources will either have to find alternatives or try to recycle what it can. In the context of fossil fuels, there isn't anything left that can be reused.
Finite resources are perfectly fine. Its not like when you use a finite resource it disapears... whe you use copper the copper still sits on the surface of the earth ready to be used again when its done, you never use it all up.
There are only a few truly concerning resources, and its not because they are finite, but because of other reasons: Helium because it cant be made and escapes the atomosphere, and fossile fuels because it converts into harmful gases that cause other issues.. you can apply this to a few other things of course, but overall having a finite amount isnt the top concern
Evidently, when we use a finite resource for fuel, once it's combusted, its usefulness is effectively over.
Whilst we can recycle metals, metal degrades over time. For example, electricity degrades the conductors. That's why electronics eventually malfunction.
Plastics that are made from crude oil can only be recycled a limited number of times. Fundamentally, when plastic is made from crude oil, that product will either one day be microplastic particle pollution or, if it's burnt, air pollution (plastic will degrade until it's not useful. But it's not biodegradable).
> Evidently, when we use a finite resource for fuel, once it's combusted, its usefulness is effectively over.
Not at all, fuels are completely reversable reaction. Hydrogen is the simplest to understand, but it applies to fossil fuels too.. burn the fuel and you get co2 and water (though there is no co2 with hydroen)... add energy back and you get the fuel from water again.
The issue is that when we dont reverse the reaction all that CO2 gets in the air, which is more the issue than anything else, reversing the reaction isnt the issue though.
> Whilst we can recycle metals, metal degrades over time. For example, electricity degrades the conductors. That's why electronics eventually malfunction.
Only partly true.. Yes metals oxidize, but no that doesnt mean the metals disappear. Just means its in its oxide form. When you recycle metals you can (and usually do) convert it back into its metal form from its oxides. So no the metal isnt lost and is still fully recoverable when/if it degrades.
> Plastics that are made from crude oil can only be recycled a limited number of times. Fundamentally, when plastic is made from crude oil, that product will either one day be microplastic particle pollution or, if it's burnt, air pollution (plastic will degrade until it's not useful. But it's not biodegradable).
Yes plastics have limits, and issues, but that isnt because the material disappears, its more that it just isnt economical to take short-chain polymers and reconstitute them, especially when new plastic is much cheaper and easier... so while you are right plastics have limited recyling chances in any practical sense that isnt entirely relevant here.
>fuels are completely reversable reaction
I'm just going to explain how this point is magical thinking (not practical) and then leave this conversation.
> burn the fuel and you get co2 and water
What fuel are you referring to? (hydrogen fuel has no carbon element)
Most fuels that are used are carbon base fuels (e.g., "fossil" fuels). In the context of solid carbon-based fuels, most of the carbon is emitted as carbon particles (e.g., smoke or the micro-carbon particles that are emitted when liquid or gas carbon-based fuels are burnt).
Whilst in theory any chemical reaction can be reversed. Reversing the chemical reactions that occur when fuels are burnt is not practical (i.e., pie-in-the-sky thinking).
You are aware that the use of fuel is for the energy that is converted into heat (also expansion, thrust, etc). Once that energy has been used (the chemical reaction \ work done) it generally disperses into the environment. The pollution is the byproduct (e.g., carbon particles or carbon dioxide)
You're inferring unpractical ideologies. However, if you had a time machine you could go back in time before the fuel was incinerated. Even better, go back in time before all the coal, oil, forests, etc, were burnt and those actions will have been reversed (not done).
In summary, this article https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020 explains a practical and achievable way to grow food sustainable, restore nature, and help people live a low-ecological impact lifestyle. I realize that using fewer resources and power won't align with many people's agendas. However, that's a real solution, not some ideology based on "completely reversing" the burning of fuels.
The general problem is that technologists, not ecologists, are trying to think of ways to reduce their ecologically degrading activities rather than really thinking about restoring the nature-based solutions (that the industry has degraded & continues to want to degrade. In the name of profit).
@Empiricism_Reloaded @TruthSandwich
> I’m just going to explain how this point is magical thinking (not practical) and then leave this conversation.
It isnt magical thinking or practical.. we arent talking about if it is practical, we are talking about the fact that it is doable... why isnt it practical? Cause we have much cheaper fossil fuels... thats it... We can and do reverse the reaction for hydrogen production all the time, it isnt affordable an option, but yes very doable.
> What fuel are you referring to? (hydrogen fuel has no carbon element)
You clearly arent reading what I said, in that very sentence I specifically stated hydrogen has no CO2 element.
> You’re inferring unpractical ideologies. However, if you had a time machine you could go back in time before the fuel was incinerated. Even better, go back in time before all the coal, oil, forests, etc, were burnt and those actions will have been reversed (not done).
I am not proposing practical solutions, because the most practical solution is fossil fuel, thats why we use it. Nor am I suggesting this is a "second best". You seem to forget where this started from and why we are discussing it. You are trying to claim that things mined fromt he ground are bad. I am suggesting they arent because they dont disapear once we use them, so simply being mined from the ground doesnt necceseraly make it bad, it is other factors (like many you reiterated) that make some things taken from the ground bad, and fossil fuels was exactly one I touched on.
To reverse the action would require energy!
The general scientific conclusion is that renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, and thermal is the most practical way to generate electrical energy.
Good luck with your reversible fuel idea.
Jesus christ... the reversable fuel idea isnt mine, it is one very well funded and established in the scientific community. It also isnt contrary to wind and solar it compliments it... The energy usually comes from wind or solar (or nuclear or wherever) to reverse the fuel int he first place.. the process of creating the fuel consumes the same amount of CO2 as it produces when burned. So it is a type of wind/solar energy, it is still a fuel (and in many cases a fossil fuel) and it is carbon neutral.. this isnt some pipe dream I came up with, its reality and already done. Now im not saying its a better option than electric cars, but it is a viable and already accomplished thing.
"but overall having a finite amount isnt the top concern"
Have you heard of peak oil?
Have you watched this video? https://youtu.be/-xr9rIQxwj4
There is also the point that we have vast amounts of metal in circulation. If we considered metal as a precious resource within a circular economy, we could minimize mining practices.
At the moment, mining is unsustainable because of its scale. The current economy is a resource and power "hungry" system. For example, whilst renewable energy is a way to reduce greenhouse gases, for it to be sustainable, we have to power down some aspects of the economy. But, rather than use what metal is already in circulation, the mining industries are planning on mining metals from the sea bed (more habitat destruction). That evidently can't go on without their being serious consequences.
Nature has done that.
Phytoplankton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton
@freemo @TruthSandwich
I haven't researched the specifics. Though I'd be interested to talk to a materials scientist regarding non-metal conductors.