This is a great concept Hannah, thank you for sharing! There will most likely be an asymptote of diminishing returns at some point, but the concept is robust. We just need adequate recycling companies and the benefit of recycling must be significant compared to landfilling. That seems to be one of the major challenges. As there are less raw materials in these renewable energy products, the economic value of them is lower, which reduces incentive to recycle.
Maybe we could get to a nice situation where my 2011 5KW solar array is worth more as scrap material than the cost of a new 5KW array.
Unlikely.
But the most important resource - especially for roof top - is land. Which is why when the FIT ends in 2031, I will probably replace the 5KW array with a Peroskovite-Silicon multi junction array generating 10KW.
Optimism abounds ! Congratulations on overlooking the obvious input that you omitted !
Something that is currently and ALWAYS in short supply.............MONEY !
So , every 15 to 20 years we have to replace these pieces of infrastructure , transport them to some place that will recycle them [ it's a "dirty business" ] and reclaim A PORTION of the material to
re-use........and it certainly isn't anywhere near your optimistic 80% either ! And it COSTS a lot to do it !
So......more material HAS TO BE MINED , processed and incorporated into the NEW PANELS or TURBINES or whatever "magic apparatus you have in mind" and "Joe Public" is locked into a system of electronics forever , like it or not , and when it FAILS , [ breakdowns , poor maintenance , shortage of material , adverse events ......storms , earthquakes , strikes , war etc. ] the human race will grind to a halt ! At least COAL and OIL and GAS can , and currently does , provide sufficient energy from diverse sources to maintain continuity and allow expansion of INDUSTRY and better living conditions for everyone ! They also provide the essential raw materials for FERTILISER , and CARBON DIOXIDE FOR PHOTOSYNTHESIS by plants [ both land and sea organisms ] without which the planet would suffocate and / or starve . You MAY remember Fagin's quote : I think I'd better think it out again !
Trends in solar PV prices give lots of reasons to be optimistic.
No, we don't have to replace these pieces of infrastructure every 15 to 20 years. We can leave them to generate for double that length of time. We will only replace them if there is a business case to do so. In a typical domestic situation, the panels are replaced when the FIT expires (20 to 25 years), and replaced with a much more powerful version.
(Some friends just replaced their 2004 panels with a whopping great 3KW, with a new 12KW array, plus battery).
At present, the industry is scaling up so fast that recycling is almost irrelevant. There just aren't that many 20 to 30 year old panels to recycle. The only thing that really matters is the world can currently produce 1TW of panels per year. If deployed at that rate then in 30 years, these panels will produce more energy - at less cost - than we currently get from coal, oil and gas combined.
And in case you haven't noticed, the atmosphere isn't actually shot of CO2 at the moment.
Hi Alex : "........the atmosphere isn't actually short of CO2 at the moment." It's 417 ppm.
Actually , it is at the lower margins of sustaining life. Below 150 ppm photosynthesis STOPS ! That means NO OXYGEN is produced ! Prior to the Industrial Revolution is was as low as 180 ppm. and crops failed and plagues exterminated many people worldwide !
Fortunately , people STOPPED burning dried-dung and trees and started burning coal with immediate benefits ! CO2 levels rose above subsistence levels , crops , animals and people thrived....and that is continuing today ! We are STILL in a ICE-AGE with ice at both poles . We live in a warm-interglacial now , but these don't usually last long , so perhaps the extra CO2 may extend that a little bit which means that the 8 billion people will be able to live. Another GLACIAL PERIOD will soon put paid to that idea !
Currently , the Earth is NOT WARMING , only a bit at the poles , so the climate is becoming "MILDER" with less variation....the nights are cold , but LESS COLD !
The optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth is irrelevant. The issue is that CO2 concentrations are about 50% above what we have evolved to deal with:
Whether we are interglacial or ice age is also irrelevant. The Earth is about 1.5C warmer than it was. It was last this warm 120,000 years ago. No doubt it was very pleasant for any homo sapiens around; but not if they were in London or New York and under 8m of sea water.
Alex....I admire your persistence....but.......120,000 years ago people did not live where they live today.......and they were undoubtedly adaptive and smart enough to move to higher land as the water level rose...........until we had the DUTCH who built walls and pushed the water back !
It is STILL possible to do this ! Look at the Netherlands and the Thames Barrier.
YOU SAY : "The optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth is irrelevant. The issue is that CO2 concentrations are about 50% above what we have evolved to deal with: " Really !? Alex....was it all those Polar Bears driving around in their "ICE" SUV's churning out CO2 that caused the ice to melt and retract in this last ICE-AGE HIATUS ? No...I think not ! AND C02 concentrations DO MATTER when it comes to photosynthesis.........the higher the better , the higher the less water is lost and the more drought tolerant and productive the plants [and the plankton ] become ! More food on the land and in the seas.
YOU SAY : "......50% above what we have evolved to deal with:"
No....that's not true in any sense of the word. We can tolerate at least 16 times the present day concentration and still thrive and function well !
AND : "A study across 854 cities in Europe found that cold-related deaths were around ten times higher than heat-related ones. A detailed study across England and Wales found that cold-related deaths were two orders of magnitude higher. The same is true for China."
We are warm blooded mammals with a body temperature of about 37 degrees Celsius .....so....obviously....we evolved at a time when the planet was WARM and probably about 37 degrees Celsius !
Like all mammals, whales are warm-blooded. A baleen whale's core body temperature is about 36.6˚–37.2˚C (98–99˚F) – about the same as that of a human. So , IF YOU BELIEVE [ and it has to be "belief"because the only evidence is PROXY EVIDENCE ] that GLOBAL WARMING is down to the CO2 CONCENTRATION in the atmosphere , then IT MUST HAVE BEEN HIGH [ by your own reasoning ] WHEN PROTO-HUMANS and HUMANS EVOLVED !
You haven't considered the possibility that THE WARMING and THE COOLING CYCLES are simply NATURAL PHENOMENA and that humans "are just along for the ride" ????? So far , 99.9% of every life form on planet Earth that has EVER EXISTED has gone extinct ! Even David Attenborough is on borrowed time !
........As for WATER VAPOUR , which can vary from 0% to 4% in the atmosphere compared to CO2 which is 0.0417% , there is insufficient CO2 to have anything but a tiny effect on heat retention ! During the day , the Earth heats from the sunlight and during the night the heat is discharged back into space !
There is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT , that is a spurious comparison ! A lie !
Take the ROOF OFF A GREENHOUSE and see how much heat is retained !
The Earth's atmosphere is AN OPEN SYSTEM , with conduction , convection and radiation flying everywhere. It is only when there is CLOUD COVER that there is some heat retention at night and COOLNESS by blocking sunlight during the day. The rest is POLITICIANS DISTORTING and EXAGGERATING "FACTS" for their own purposes , and SPROUTING NONSENSE !
The EARTH IS FINE ! The "Climate Change Crowd" are either mentally deranged or worse.....power mad !
"to-hell-with-humans"............and all the rest of their anti-human "greens" dogma and diatribe !
And....yes.....I am pleased that there is an improvement in sentiment and engagement in the subject and NOT just blind adherence and conformity to what "Big Brother" has been dictating , unopposed , for so long now !
Propaganda Minister Goebbels reputedly said :“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And didn't "WE" get that treatment with COVID RESTRICTIONS too !!!!
Below is a comprehensive analysis of the main claims and arguments found in the quoted comments, along with their likely sources and background. A concise summary appears at the end.
1) Claim: “Before the industrial era, atmospheric CO₂ was so low (~150 ppm) that crop failures were commonplace. Only the burning of coal, oil, etc., saved plants and prevented harvest failures.”
Fact Check: Preindustrial CO₂ Concentrations
• Before industrialization (roughly before 1750), the atmospheric CO₂ level was about 280 ppm—not 150 ppm. Values between 150 and 180 ppm are typical for Ice Ages (glacial periods), which happened much further in the past (for example, 20,000 years ago).
• During the so-called Little Ice Age (15th–19th century), CO₂ levels were still around 280 ppm, maybe slightly lower, but certainly not as low as 150 ppm.
• About 150 ppm is sometimes cited as a rough lower threshold below which certain plants struggle with photosynthesis. However, Earth’s atmosphere over the past few thousand years never dropped to that exact threshold. Certainly not during periods relevant to “modern” agriculture or documented harvest failures.
In short, while there were indeed famine and crop failures in premodern times, the primary causes included:
• Unfavorable weather events in certain years (e.g., prolonged rain, cold snaps, local droughts),
• Lack of adequate grain storage,
• War, plague, political instability,
• Limited transport and trade networks,
• No synthetic fertilizers or advanced knowledge of soil fertility.
They were not caused by CO₂ levels of ~280 ppm.
2) Claim: “Today’s large yields result only from the higher CO₂ concentration.”
Actual Reasons for Higher Yields
• Modern agriculture: Higher yields today mainly result from:
• It is true that in controlled-environment greenhouses, elevated CO₂ can enhance plant growth. However, in open-field agriculture, other limiting factors like water availability, nutrient supply, pests, soil quality, heat stress, etc., usually matter far more than small increments in ambient CO₂.
• Many field experiments show that if CO₂ is already sufficient, other constraints—like limited nitrogen in the soil—can cap overall productivity, meaning that extra CO₂ by itself does not guarantee higher total yield.
3) Claim: “CO₂ is actually too low; we need more of it—after all, we’re still in an Ice Age, so climate protection is pointless.”
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
• Observed data clearly show that the concentration has risen from about 280 ppm (around 1850) to over 420 ppm, primarily due to human activities (fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc.).
• This rapid rise within ~170 years is unprecedented in the context of the past few million years, and ecosystems struggle to adapt so quickly. Consequences include accelerated Arctic and glacier melting, sea level rise, and shifts in extreme weather patterns.
• It is correct that we are technically in a broader “Ice Age” era (the Pleistocene), currently in a warm interglacial. Yet, the naturally expected next glacial cycle is tens of thousands of years off. Meanwhile, we are causing the opposite trend right now: a rapid warming on the scale of mere centuries or decades.
4) Narrative: “CO₂ is good for plants, so more CO₂ from fossil fuels is beneficial—thus no need for climate action.”
This is a well-known deflection and reassurance narrative within parts of the climate-skeptic community. It often originates from interest groups (e.g., certain lobby organizations) that wish to keep fossil fuel consumption high and thus seek arguments to discredit or delay climate mitigation efforts.
You cannot always pinpoint each comment on YouTube to a specific lobby network, but statements like “CO₂ is just plant food—no problem!” are standard talking points that have been systematically circulated for decades by certain think tanks (often with ties to the oil and gas industry). Examples in the U.S. include the Heartland Institute or Cato Institute. In Europe, a range of conferences or blogs promote the same line of argument.
5) Where does this style of disinformation come from?
• Industrial lobbying: As far back as the 1970s, internal research at major oil companies (e.g., Exxon) confirmed the reality of human-caused climate change. Publicly, however, they funded studies, PR campaigns, and agencies that cast doubt on the science (“Doubt is our product”—originally from the tobacco industry playbook, later also employed by some fossil-fuel interests).
• Ideological motives: Some individuals oppose climate policies mainly out of a broader dislike of government regulation (taxes, environmental laws, etc.).
• Misinformation and conspiracy theories: The internet and social media accelerate the spread of such claims. Users frequently repeat and reshuffle them, passing them along in comment sections.
It is impossible to prove whether that particular comment is directly financed by an “oil and gas mafia” or just from someone who has absorbed these talking points. The narrative, however, fits known disinformation strategies used in climate discourse.
6) Brief Summary
1. Historical CO₂ Levels
• Preindustrial levels were ~280 ppm.
• 150–180 ppm belongs to Ice Age conditions (e.g., ~20,000 years ago), not to the early industrial period.
• Past famines and crop failures happened for many reasons (e.g., adverse weather, wars, diseases), not because of “insufficient CO₂.”
• Higher atmospheric CO₂ is not the main cause of the 20th-century agricultural boom.
3. Climate Change
• The current surge to over 420 ppm is driving anthropogenic global warming.
• While slightly elevated CO₂ can stimulate plant photosynthesis under certain greenhouse conditions, overall, the rapid warming—and resulting climatic disruptions—pose far greater risks to agriculture and ecosystems worldwide.
4. Sources of Disinformation
• The story “CO₂ is plant food, so no worries” is a common theme from climate-skeptical think tanks, some funded by fossil-fuel industries.
• Online comment sections often contain these talking points, repeated or paraphrased by individuals.
Conclusion: The claim that preindustrial CO₂ levels caused crop failures and that fossil fuels “saved” agriculture is factually incorrect. Today’s high yields are overwhelmingly the result of modern agricultural science and technology. Misrepresenting CO₂ as the savior of crops is part of a broader campaign to downplay the seriousness of human-caused climate change. These arguments align with well-known talking points often promoted (and sometimes funded) by elements of the fossil-fuel lobby (colloquially, “oil and gas mafia”)—or simply propagated by individuals who have encountered and believed these narratives.
You cannot recycle most of the material needed, since it has not been mined yet. Refer to Simon Michaux's work done at the Finland Geological Survey. Here's a link to his latest publication: https://tupa.gtk.fi/julkaisu/bulletin/bt_416.pdf
Does an increase in materials efficiency mean that a single panel now provides 4x the amount of generated power? So recycling doesn't necessarily mean more panels, just panels with increased output? Great progress in any case.
Will improvements in material efficiency keep increasing or is there an intrinsic peak of how much it can increase? I would assume the latter. But any developments in recycling and material efficiency are certainly a positive thing.
I think Maximilian Fichtner Director of the Helmholtz Institute in Ulm is an expert on batteries who might help in collecting data on materials used in batteries:
The information is sort of available in dribs and drabs. For example " EV batteries can have up to 20 kg of Co in each 100 kilowatt-hour (kWh) pack. Right now, Co can make up to 20% of the weight of the cathode in lithium ion EV batteries." from a DOE website. As in many technical fields, insiders have access to all sorts of info, but trade secrets still limit the details.
Actually, there's all sorts of stuff out there. For example, there's about 2-2.5g of silicon per watt in a solar panel, but other sites point out that there's lot of other stuff like EVA and tempered glass. Of course, some things like tempered glass and the aluminum mounting hardware can just be reused without recycling.
Great piece on circularity for clean tech. It's something I've set up a company with some old colleagues to try and address! (Along with quantifying some of the social and broader environmental impacts of clean tech so we can improve and really rely on it in the long term!) We're in a data gathering stage, and we think some of the big impacts lie in the power electronics for solar, wind and storage. The company is called "FairFlow Energy". It would be great to collaborate on a shared dataset!
Besides challenges of recovering the material im mostly skeptical about the fact that the recovery rates can keep going down forever. This super cirularity can only be achieved for more than 1-2 "cycles" if we can continue reducing material intensity, and the increase in panel demand doesn't grow much more than the reduction in material intensity. Maybe theres already enough material to sustain quite alot of demand, so would be good to build a simplified temporal model that takes into account demand, and material intensity.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop of how fast things are really moving in this space. The ruthless push for optimization and cost reduction is bearing fruits. However, I remain skeptical that we achieve a high enough recovery rate for end-of-life solar panels, unless we globally define easy and accessible pathways for recycling them as customers. Given no easy alternatives, most people, especially in less developed countries, will default to throwing them on the trashheap or into a landfill.
There may also be the problem of increasing solar panel and battery life spans. If they last longer, they'll be locking materials into older technology, but when they are finally recycled, they'll get even larger multiples.
I think the comment that the mass of lithium.used in Li-ion batteries will fall is questionable. I commented on this before here where I calculated that the excess Li over the stated capacity of the battery id only about 10%. Faraday's laws can be used to show this. I can't comment on cobalt and nickel, as I don't know their role. I expect they may stabilise the Li in some way in which case there may be scope for some reduction. Also, iron phosphate Li-ion batteries exist
There no real examination of wind turbines here. I think the scope for reducing material.use is less, limited by the robustness of the structures required andthe maturity of turbine and aircraft technology. Is balsa wood still one of the preferred "fillers" for the blades.
The comment about putting old batteries in new phones surprised me. It should be the other way around. Surely the environmental impact of the phone is far greater than the battery? Why change phones so frequently?
Thanks Hannah. As you say this is an interesting area, and it shows just how easy it is for us to omit indirect effects from otherwise good analyses, and so incorrectly assess their feasibility.
To complete the model we need to include the energy and material inputs of the recycling itself, as well as the proportion of waste this creates, and the underlying costs. All these are parameters to find the configuration that minimises waste... there's no point a perfect circular flow if the recycling itself causes more harm than mining virgin materials, or redirects scarce resources from more important endeavours.
Going back to those indirect effects… As the quantity of key materials becomes smaller, recovery costs will rise, so reducing the viability of recycling the products. And in turn, recycling processes will improve over time. And new alternative materials may be adopted so the original ones are not needed at all in the replacement products. So many variables.
Nice on the margin, but we need at least twenty times as much PV power generation capacity as we have today. Possibly as much as two hundred times, if we want to electrify all the things and also want everyone to have a good standard of living.
By the time recycling starts to be meaningful this material efficiency improvement cycle will have run its course.
Two things matter more than pure number of atoms: the embodied energy in PV production stations, and durability. Not recycling something because it last for 100 years is better than recycling the thing every fifteen years.
This is a great concept Hannah, thank you for sharing! There will most likely be an asymptote of diminishing returns at some point, but the concept is robust. We just need adequate recycling companies and the benefit of recycling must be significant compared to landfilling. That seems to be one of the major challenges. As there are less raw materials in these renewable energy products, the economic value of them is lower, which reduces incentive to recycle.
Maybe we could get to a nice situation where my 2011 5KW solar array is worth more as scrap material than the cost of a new 5KW array.
Unlikely.
But the most important resource - especially for roof top - is land. Which is why when the FIT ends in 2031, I will probably replace the 5KW array with a Peroskovite-Silicon multi junction array generating 10KW.
Optimism abounds ! Congratulations on overlooking the obvious input that you omitted !
Something that is currently and ALWAYS in short supply.............MONEY !
So , every 15 to 20 years we have to replace these pieces of infrastructure , transport them to some place that will recycle them [ it's a "dirty business" ] and reclaim A PORTION of the material to
re-use........and it certainly isn't anywhere near your optimistic 80% either ! And it COSTS a lot to do it !
So......more material HAS TO BE MINED , processed and incorporated into the NEW PANELS or TURBINES or whatever "magic apparatus you have in mind" and "Joe Public" is locked into a system of electronics forever , like it or not , and when it FAILS , [ breakdowns , poor maintenance , shortage of material , adverse events ......storms , earthquakes , strikes , war etc. ] the human race will grind to a halt ! At least COAL and OIL and GAS can , and currently does , provide sufficient energy from diverse sources to maintain continuity and allow expansion of INDUSTRY and better living conditions for everyone ! They also provide the essential raw materials for FERTILISER , and CARBON DIOXIDE FOR PHOTOSYNTHESIS by plants [ both land and sea organisms ] without which the planet would suffocate and / or starve . You MAY remember Fagin's quote : I think I'd better think it out again !
I suggest that you take "his" advice seriously !
Trends in solar PV prices give lots of reasons to be optimistic.
No, we don't have to replace these pieces of infrastructure every 15 to 20 years. We can leave them to generate for double that length of time. We will only replace them if there is a business case to do so. In a typical domestic situation, the panels are replaced when the FIT expires (20 to 25 years), and replaced with a much more powerful version.
(Some friends just replaced their 2004 panels with a whopping great 3KW, with a new 12KW array, plus battery).
At present, the industry is scaling up so fast that recycling is almost irrelevant. There just aren't that many 20 to 30 year old panels to recycle. The only thing that really matters is the world can currently produce 1TW of panels per year. If deployed at that rate then in 30 years, these panels will produce more energy - at less cost - than we currently get from coal, oil and gas combined.
And in case you haven't noticed, the atmosphere isn't actually shot of CO2 at the moment.
Hi Alex : "........the atmosphere isn't actually short of CO2 at the moment." It's 417 ppm.
Actually , it is at the lower margins of sustaining life. Below 150 ppm photosynthesis STOPS ! That means NO OXYGEN is produced ! Prior to the Industrial Revolution is was as low as 180 ppm. and crops failed and plagues exterminated many people worldwide !
Fortunately , people STOPPED burning dried-dung and trees and started burning coal with immediate benefits ! CO2 levels rose above subsistence levels , crops , animals and people thrived....and that is continuing today ! We are STILL in a ICE-AGE with ice at both poles . We live in a warm-interglacial now , but these don't usually last long , so perhaps the extra CO2 may extend that a little bit which means that the 8 billion people will be able to live. Another GLACIAL PERIOD will soon put paid to that idea !
Currently , the Earth is NOT WARMING , only a bit at the poles , so the climate is becoming "MILDER" with less variation....the nights are cold , but LESS COLD !
The optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth is irrelevant. The issue is that CO2 concentrations are about 50% above what we have evolved to deal with:
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Whether we are interglacial or ice age is also irrelevant. The Earth is about 1.5C warmer than it was. It was last this warm 120,000 years ago. No doubt it was very pleasant for any homo sapiens around; but not if they were in London or New York and under 8m of sea water.
Alex....I admire your persistence....but.......120,000 years ago people did not live where they live today.......and they were undoubtedly adaptive and smart enough to move to higher land as the water level rose...........until we had the DUTCH who built walls and pushed the water back !
It is STILL possible to do this ! Look at the Netherlands and the Thames Barrier.
YOU SAY : "The optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth is irrelevant. The issue is that CO2 concentrations are about 50% above what we have evolved to deal with: " Really !? Alex....was it all those Polar Bears driving around in their "ICE" SUV's churning out CO2 that caused the ice to melt and retract in this last ICE-AGE HIATUS ? No...I think not ! AND C02 concentrations DO MATTER when it comes to photosynthesis.........the higher the better , the higher the less water is lost and the more drought tolerant and productive the plants [and the plankton ] become ! More food on the land and in the seas.
YOU SAY : "......50% above what we have evolved to deal with:"
No....that's not true in any sense of the word. We can tolerate at least 16 times the present day concentration and still thrive and function well !
AND : "A study across 854 cities in Europe found that cold-related deaths were around ten times higher than heat-related ones. A detailed study across England and Wales found that cold-related deaths were two orders of magnitude higher. The same is true for China."
We are warm blooded mammals with a body temperature of about 37 degrees Celsius .....so....obviously....we evolved at a time when the planet was WARM and probably about 37 degrees Celsius !
Like all mammals, whales are warm-blooded. A baleen whale's core body temperature is about 36.6˚–37.2˚C (98–99˚F) – about the same as that of a human. So , IF YOU BELIEVE [ and it has to be "belief"because the only evidence is PROXY EVIDENCE ] that GLOBAL WARMING is down to the CO2 CONCENTRATION in the atmosphere , then IT MUST HAVE BEEN HIGH [ by your own reasoning ] WHEN PROTO-HUMANS and HUMANS EVOLVED !
You haven't considered the possibility that THE WARMING and THE COOLING CYCLES are simply NATURAL PHENOMENA and that humans "are just along for the ride" ????? So far , 99.9% of every life form on planet Earth that has EVER EXISTED has gone extinct ! Even David Attenborough is on borrowed time !
........As for WATER VAPOUR , which can vary from 0% to 4% in the atmosphere compared to CO2 which is 0.0417% , there is insufficient CO2 to have anything but a tiny effect on heat retention ! During the day , the Earth heats from the sunlight and during the night the heat is discharged back into space !
There is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT , that is a spurious comparison ! A lie !
Take the ROOF OFF A GREENHOUSE and see how much heat is retained !
The Earth's atmosphere is AN OPEN SYSTEM , with conduction , convection and radiation flying everywhere. It is only when there is CLOUD COVER that there is some heat retention at night and COOLNESS by blocking sunlight during the day. The rest is POLITICIANS DISTORTING and EXAGGERATING "FACTS" for their own purposes , and SPROUTING NONSENSE !
The EARTH IS FINE ! The "Climate Change Crowd" are either mentally deranged or worse.....power mad !
@Trevor, this is not the right place to argue against the science.
If you want to do that, there are plenty of flat-Earther web sites that will appreciate your comments.
Ha Ha Ha ! Very good Alex. !
As soon as "YOUR FACTS" fall out of alignment with "THE PROVEN FACTS"
you revert to abusing the opponent !
And no.......there are NOT plenty of flat-Earther web sites by comparison
with all the "Catastrophic Climate Change" sites where the newish
ALTERNATIVE RELIGION is constantly promulgated , hoping that the "noise" will
drown-out or frighten off the informed and reinforce and reassure the lazy indoctrinated adherents !
Now......"science" is beginning to prevail over nonsense , and even the almighty biased "media" are now generally regarded with suspicion and doubt !
Look at HOW WRONG ALL the anti-Trump "Media" pollsters were !
Even "St Greta of Global Warming" is receiving more unfavourable treatment !
So.....it's the beginning of the end for the fear-mongers and those with the
" save-the-whales" , "save-the-forests", "save-the- planet" BUT........................
"to-hell-with-humans"............and all the rest of their anti-human "greens" dogma and diatribe !
And....yes.....I am pleased that there is an improvement in sentiment and engagement in the subject and NOT just blind adherence and conformity to what "Big Brother" has been dictating , unopposed , for so long now !
Propaganda Minister Goebbels reputedly said :“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And didn't "WE" get that treatment with COVID RESTRICTIONS too !!!!
Can they still move? There's a big anti-immigrant backlash in the US and Europe.
Sorry....I omitted THIS :
5000- 7000 ppm. The main contaminant of submarine air is CO2.
In ordinary buildings 1000 ppm is usually considered as a maximum concentration.
This value is not based on health effects but on the rate of ventilation.
In submarines, higher CO2 concentrations are permitted, usually 5000- 7000 ppm.
So....417 ppm is well within "human tolerance".....so........NOT A PROBLEM at 417 ppm.
Below is a comprehensive analysis of the main claims and arguments found in the quoted comments, along with their likely sources and background. A concise summary appears at the end.
1) Claim: “Before the industrial era, atmospheric CO₂ was so low (~150 ppm) that crop failures were commonplace. Only the burning of coal, oil, etc., saved plants and prevented harvest failures.”
Fact Check: Preindustrial CO₂ Concentrations
• Before industrialization (roughly before 1750), the atmospheric CO₂ level was about 280 ppm—not 150 ppm. Values between 150 and 180 ppm are typical for Ice Ages (glacial periods), which happened much further in the past (for example, 20,000 years ago).
• During the so-called Little Ice Age (15th–19th century), CO₂ levels were still around 280 ppm, maybe slightly lower, but certainly not as low as 150 ppm.
• About 150 ppm is sometimes cited as a rough lower threshold below which certain plants struggle with photosynthesis. However, Earth’s atmosphere over the past few thousand years never dropped to that exact threshold. Certainly not during periods relevant to “modern” agriculture or documented harvest failures.
In short, while there were indeed famine and crop failures in premodern times, the primary causes included:
• Unfavorable weather events in certain years (e.g., prolonged rain, cold snaps, local droughts),
• Lack of adequate grain storage,
• War, plague, political instability,
• Limited transport and trade networks,
• No synthetic fertilizers or advanced knowledge of soil fertility.
They were not caused by CO₂ levels of ~280 ppm.
2) Claim: “Today’s large yields result only from the higher CO₂ concentration.”
Actual Reasons for Higher Yields
• Modern agriculture: Higher yields today mainly result from:
• Synthetic fertilizers (Haber-Bosch process),
• Improved seed varieties (hybrids, advanced breeding, genetic modification),
• Pesticides and herbicides,
• Mechanization (tractors, harvesters),
• Refined agronomic practices (soil testing, crop rotation, scientific research, weather forecasting).
• It is true that in controlled-environment greenhouses, elevated CO₂ can enhance plant growth. However, in open-field agriculture, other limiting factors like water availability, nutrient supply, pests, soil quality, heat stress, etc., usually matter far more than small increments in ambient CO₂.
• Many field experiments show that if CO₂ is already sufficient, other constraints—like limited nitrogen in the soil—can cap overall productivity, meaning that extra CO₂ by itself does not guarantee higher total yield.
3) Claim: “CO₂ is actually too low; we need more of it—after all, we’re still in an Ice Age, so climate protection is pointless.”
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
• Observed data clearly show that the concentration has risen from about 280 ppm (around 1850) to over 420 ppm, primarily due to human activities (fossil fuel burning, deforestation, etc.).
• This rapid rise within ~170 years is unprecedented in the context of the past few million years, and ecosystems struggle to adapt so quickly. Consequences include accelerated Arctic and glacier melting, sea level rise, and shifts in extreme weather patterns.
• It is correct that we are technically in a broader “Ice Age” era (the Pleistocene), currently in a warm interglacial. Yet, the naturally expected next glacial cycle is tens of thousands of years off. Meanwhile, we are causing the opposite trend right now: a rapid warming on the scale of mere centuries or decades.
4) Narrative: “CO₂ is good for plants, so more CO₂ from fossil fuels is beneficial—thus no need for climate action.”
This is a well-known deflection and reassurance narrative within parts of the climate-skeptic community. It often originates from interest groups (e.g., certain lobby organizations) that wish to keep fossil fuel consumption high and thus seek arguments to discredit or delay climate mitigation efforts.
You cannot always pinpoint each comment on YouTube to a specific lobby network, but statements like “CO₂ is just plant food—no problem!” are standard talking points that have been systematically circulated for decades by certain think tanks (often with ties to the oil and gas industry). Examples in the U.S. include the Heartland Institute or Cato Institute. In Europe, a range of conferences or blogs promote the same line of argument.
5) Where does this style of disinformation come from?
• Industrial lobbying: As far back as the 1970s, internal research at major oil companies (e.g., Exxon) confirmed the reality of human-caused climate change. Publicly, however, they funded studies, PR campaigns, and agencies that cast doubt on the science (“Doubt is our product”—originally from the tobacco industry playbook, later also employed by some fossil-fuel interests).
• Ideological motives: Some individuals oppose climate policies mainly out of a broader dislike of government regulation (taxes, environmental laws, etc.).
• Misinformation and conspiracy theories: The internet and social media accelerate the spread of such claims. Users frequently repeat and reshuffle them, passing them along in comment sections.
It is impossible to prove whether that particular comment is directly financed by an “oil and gas mafia” or just from someone who has absorbed these talking points. The narrative, however, fits known disinformation strategies used in climate discourse.
6) Brief Summary
1. Historical CO₂ Levels
• Preindustrial levels were ~280 ppm.
• 150–180 ppm belongs to Ice Age conditions (e.g., ~20,000 years ago), not to the early industrial period.
• Past famines and crop failures happened for many reasons (e.g., adverse weather, wars, diseases), not because of “insufficient CO₂.”
2. Modern Yields
• Primarily boosted by:
• Synthetic fertilizer (Haber-Bosch),
• Improved breeding (hybrids, GMO),
• Pesticides, mechanization,
• Better farming methods, storage, trade, weather forecasting.
• Higher atmospheric CO₂ is not the main cause of the 20th-century agricultural boom.
3. Climate Change
• The current surge to over 420 ppm is driving anthropogenic global warming.
• While slightly elevated CO₂ can stimulate plant photosynthesis under certain greenhouse conditions, overall, the rapid warming—and resulting climatic disruptions—pose far greater risks to agriculture and ecosystems worldwide.
4. Sources of Disinformation
• The story “CO₂ is plant food, so no worries” is a common theme from climate-skeptical think tanks, some funded by fossil-fuel industries.
• Online comment sections often contain these talking points, repeated or paraphrased by individuals.
Conclusion: The claim that preindustrial CO₂ levels caused crop failures and that fossil fuels “saved” agriculture is factually incorrect. Today’s high yields are overwhelmingly the result of modern agricultural science and technology. Misrepresenting CO₂ as the savior of crops is part of a broader campaign to downplay the seriousness of human-caused climate change. These arguments align with well-known talking points often promoted (and sometimes funded) by elements of the fossil-fuel lobby (colloquially, “oil and gas mafia”)—or simply propagated by individuals who have encountered and believed these narratives.
Fossil fuel power plants are a much more mature technology, but they need to be rebuilt every 20-40 years with more frequent minor maintenance.
You cannot recycle most of the material needed, since it has not been mined yet. Refer to Simon Michaux's work done at the Finland Geological Survey. Here's a link to his latest publication: https://tupa.gtk.fi/julkaisu/bulletin/bt_416.pdf
Does an increase in materials efficiency mean that a single panel now provides 4x the amount of generated power? So recycling doesn't necessarily mean more panels, just panels with increased output? Great progress in any case.
Will improvements in material efficiency keep increasing or is there an intrinsic peak of how much it can increase? I would assume the latter. But any developments in recycling and material efficiency are certainly a positive thing.
I think Maximilian Fichtner Director of the Helmholtz Institute in Ulm is an expert on batteries who might help in collecting data on materials used in batteries:
https://www.uni-ulm.de/en/nawi/faculty-of-natural-sciences/nawi-detailseiten/news-detail/article/wissenschaftspreis-der-stadt-ulm-fuer-prof-maximilian-fichtner/
The information is sort of available in dribs and drabs. For example " EV batteries can have up to 20 kg of Co in each 100 kilowatt-hour (kWh) pack. Right now, Co can make up to 20% of the weight of the cathode in lithium ion EV batteries." from a DOE website. As in many technical fields, insiders have access to all sorts of info, but trade secrets still limit the details.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/reducing-reliance-cobalt-lithium-ion-batteries
There's a good page at Mining. It also explains the cathode coding.
https://www.mining.com/web/the-key-minerals-in-an-ev-battery/
Actually, there's all sorts of stuff out there. For example, there's about 2-2.5g of silicon per watt in a solar panel, but other sites point out that there's lot of other stuff like EVA and tempered glass. Of course, some things like tempered glass and the aluminum mounting hardware can just be reused without recycling.
https://en.tongwei.com.cn/news/36.html
Great piece on circularity for clean tech. It's something I've set up a company with some old colleagues to try and address! (Along with quantifying some of the social and broader environmental impacts of clean tech so we can improve and really rely on it in the long term!) We're in a data gathering stage, and we think some of the big impacts lie in the power electronics for solar, wind and storage. The company is called "FairFlow Energy". It would be great to collaborate on a shared dataset!
Besides challenges of recovering the material im mostly skeptical about the fact that the recovery rates can keep going down forever. This super cirularity can only be achieved for more than 1-2 "cycles" if we can continue reducing material intensity, and the increase in panel demand doesn't grow much more than the reduction in material intensity. Maybe theres already enough material to sustain quite alot of demand, so would be good to build a simplified temporal model that takes into account demand, and material intensity.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop of how fast things are really moving in this space. The ruthless push for optimization and cost reduction is bearing fruits. However, I remain skeptical that we achieve a high enough recovery rate for end-of-life solar panels, unless we globally define easy and accessible pathways for recycling them as customers. Given no easy alternatives, most people, especially in less developed countries, will default to throwing them on the trashheap or into a landfill.
There may also be the problem of increasing solar panel and battery life spans. If they last longer, they'll be locking materials into older technology, but when they are finally recycled, they'll get even larger multiples.
great information
I think the comment that the mass of lithium.used in Li-ion batteries will fall is questionable. I commented on this before here where I calculated that the excess Li over the stated capacity of the battery id only about 10%. Faraday's laws can be used to show this. I can't comment on cobalt and nickel, as I don't know their role. I expect they may stabilise the Li in some way in which case there may be scope for some reduction. Also, iron phosphate Li-ion batteries exist
There no real examination of wind turbines here. I think the scope for reducing material.use is less, limited by the robustness of the structures required andthe maturity of turbine and aircraft technology. Is balsa wood still one of the preferred "fillers" for the blades.
The comment about putting old batteries in new phones surprised me. It should be the other way around. Surely the environmental impact of the phone is far greater than the battery? Why change phones so frequently?
Great article, very thought provoking. Thanks.
Thanks Hannah. As you say this is an interesting area, and it shows just how easy it is for us to omit indirect effects from otherwise good analyses, and so incorrectly assess their feasibility.
To complete the model we need to include the energy and material inputs of the recycling itself, as well as the proportion of waste this creates, and the underlying costs. All these are parameters to find the configuration that minimises waste... there's no point a perfect circular flow if the recycling itself causes more harm than mining virgin materials, or redirects scarce resources from more important endeavours.
Going back to those indirect effects… As the quantity of key materials becomes smaller, recovery costs will rise, so reducing the viability of recycling the products. And in turn, recycling processes will improve over time. And new alternative materials may be adopted so the original ones are not needed at all in the replacement products. So many variables.
Nice on the margin, but we need at least twenty times as much PV power generation capacity as we have today. Possibly as much as two hundred times, if we want to electrify all the things and also want everyone to have a good standard of living.
By the time recycling starts to be meaningful this material efficiency improvement cycle will have run its course.
Two things matter more than pure number of atoms: the embodied energy in PV production stations, and durability. Not recycling something because it last for 100 years is better than recycling the thing every fifteen years.