Do you mean induction stoves are e-waste? Why? They should be perfectly durable, no moving parts, simple operating principle. They aren't even super expensive and their price is going down.
Far more things that can go wrong with them though (at least compared to a standard gas stove). "Repairability" for electronics is considered a competitive disadvantage where companies want to force you to buy a whole new device instead of fixing the blown capacitor (or whatever the issue is). Although the right to repair movement seems to be making some headway recently, so maybe all is not lost. Touch screens (with…
EVs are still better than ICE. They simply need less maintenance. Same applies to induction stoves.
No it's not. Finance bros like to tell themselves that, so that they can justify their place in morality.
If the commodities market can't set prices through discovery, then the government has to by fiat. Neither are great, but one is definitely preferred.
When speculators were allowed into the oil markets rather than actual buyers, the price jumped to like $120 barrel in like 2007. They had to stop it because hedge funds could just drive the price up indefinitely. See Bitcoin.
No it's not. Finance bros like to tell themselves that, so that they can justify their place in morality.
I can give you a great example of the positive aspect of speculation. Look at the futures market. Speculators are a big part of the liquidity of the futures market. Price of wheat is $60/bushel. Farmer won't harvest for another 6 months and is worried prices will drop. They can secure a future and lock in the price now. Wheat purchasers aren't on the other side of that trade, because why would they lock in a higher p…
They can also drive down the price. They can also inflate prices so much that actual buyers switch products.
A couple hundred dollars is a LOT for many people including myself. Just saying, not everyone has silicon valley salaries.
Yes… it’s also significantly cheaper than I high end gas stove? We’re talking about appliances here, OP was comparing a high end gas stove’s output to electric. My point is that my couple hundred dollar unit can replicate many of the things OP was claiming you’d need to buy a $5,000-$10,000 gas stove for (though I am in no way suggesting that these are equivalent in functionality to each other).
That's just really a different class altogether. I doubt my gas stove cost more than 200 new :)
But the thing about a cheap gas stove is that it performs as well as a high end one, at least for a one person household like mine. If I'd invest in induction it would all get much more expensive to get the same performance.
Yes… it’s also significantly cheaper than I high end gas stove? We’re talking about appliances here, OP was comparing a high end gas stove’s output to electric. My point is that my couple hundred dollar unit can replicate many of the things OP was claiming you’d need to buy a $5,000-$10,000 gas stove for (though I am in no way suggesting that these are equivalent in functionality to each other).
That's just really a different class altogether. I doubt my gas stove cost more than 200 new :) But the thing about a cheap gas stove is that it performs as well as a high end one, at least for a one person household like mine. If I'd invest in induction it would all get much more expensive to get the same performance.
If that is your opinion, I kind of doubt that you would have that much of an issue with an electric stove, at least not the ones that OP was complaining about. An expensive gas range is going to perform significantly differently from a $200 one. At least, if all we are talking about is “heat goes into pan”.
Edit: Look, I don’t mean to come across as though I have an issue with your budget or choices, but you’re derailing a conversation that was in response to someone claiming that electric was inferior specifically in comparison to high end gas stoves. Your $300 range isn’t going to put out the 15-25k Btus that OP was talking about, which was why I made the comparison to a relatively less expensive induction device. I personally use that device for a significant amount of my cooking as I rent a unit that only has an underpowered 2 burned stove.
Shipping concentrates is pretty standard in mining low-grade resources. Near the mine, there's usually some kind of plant to extract the good stuff and discard the dirt. Otherwise, there's a huge amount of wasted effort shipping dirt and rocks around, and dumping them someplace. What's shipped out usually needs more processing. What's left behind is usually the big environmental headache with mining.
Lithium traditionally has seen refinment of concentrates take place some distance from the primary hole in the ground; Western Australia is soon opening refinement facilities "not far" (couple of hundred km) from the primary mine (Greenbushes). Generally digging hole -> concentrate (in this case (Lithium) the concentrate is Spodumene) is a largely mechanical process - crushing, grinding, screening, centrifuge, sepera…
> A legacy of the Pinochet era in Chile is the privatisation of minerals and water, which gives companies ownership of those resources in an area. While mining operations squeeze this already dry region even drier, communities lose their access to potable water, leaving them relying on tankers to deliver it. “We used to have a river before that now doesn’t exist. There isn’t a drop of water,” says Rivera. “And not on…
Once upon a time, my conception of oil drilling was roughly that there were these giant tanks of oil underground, and to extract it we more or less stuck a straw down and sucked it out. And that one day, the well would make the same sound as the straw as you're finishing a milkshake, and we would suddenly have no more oil available. Then circa 2002 I got a job at an oil well services company, and learned a lot of com…
Pedantically, there is a "limited" amount of these resources right? Like "if you drill deep enough there's always more" feels incompatible with the fact that these resources are all downstream of actual geological effects. Or is it really actually "dig deep enough and we find stuff" has almost always been true, making this distinction without a difference? Just can't help thinking about lakes and acquifers drying up.…
Sure, for any sort of mineral or metal there's a hard limit to how much there is in the Earth's crust, and while the oil was created by a natural process, that process doesn't take place on a time frame that's useful to humans (and might not take place at all now that bacteria has evolved).
We don't sit around fretting about the limited supply of palladium or something, because there's never been as much of it that was easy to extract as we wanted. We do worry about lithium, because right now it's economic to extract it in very large quantities and we know that won't last forever. But my point is that we won't transition from the current abundance to "every last atom of mineable lithium has been extracted and if you want more you have to dig up a landfill and pull it out of discarded CR2032 batteries" overnight. When we've dug up all the lithium available at the current price, there will still be plenty more at a slightly higher price, and when that's used up, there will be more at a price slightly higher still, and so on. Yeah, there's a limit, but long before we hit the limit, the gradual price increases will have push society to find a way to go on without copious amounts of newly mined lithium.
Google has noticeably deteriorated in recent weeks. Does anyone have insight into that? Like more or too much gpt? The first link here is an article from 2021: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Over+85%25+of+lithium+is+produced+...
I see plenty of results from Google about this string, from multiple sources and multiple types (video, news and classic links). Unclear about that deterioration.
Right, but Google doesn't show everyone the same results. The earlier poster clearly didn't get a very good search result. If google search is bad for some people or in some cases, it should be a concern for everyone because you would never know when you are getting that poor result.
just like people against nuclear. we can see that live in germany
This is nothing like nuclear. I know the facts about nuclear and are vehemently opposed to it for environmental risk reasons.
If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.