Does the world have enough lithium to power all the electric vehicles and stationary batteries needed to transition the world to 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything?
More info
pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/...
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
Video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKBT...
As WindWaterSolar continues to displace fossils on CA's main grid, what is clear is that fossils are a temporary convenience, not a necessity.
Fossil gas down 60% in 2026 v 2023.
19 straight and 85 out of 109 (78%) days in 2026 with WWS meeting >100% of demand for part of the day.
Largest renewable project in U.S. history - 3.5 GW of wind in New Mexico - begins delivering power to California and Arizona.
@CaliforniaISO has taken operational control - will count as in-state wind
Will speed up California's push for 100% WindWaterSolar
www.eenews.net/articles/lar...
Pennsylvania has up to 750,000 of inactive oil and gas wells.
Now the state will use some of those wells to build a clean, renewable electricity source, enhanced geothermal.
wjactv.com/news/local/p...
More on EGS
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
Largest renewable project in U.S. history - 3.5 GW of wind in New Mexico - begins delivering power to California and Arizona.
@CaliforniaISO has taken operational control - will count as in-state wind
Will speed up California's push for 100% WindWaterSolar
www.eenews.net/articles/lar...
Fossil gas use 60% lower in 2026 than in 2023 on the CaliforniaI SO grid
83 of 107 (78%) days and 17 straight in 2026 with WWS meeting >100% of demand for an average of 4 hr every day this year
51% of all demand met by WWS in 2026, 3x that of gas
Batteries up 324% and solar up 69% in 2026 v 2023
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/17/n... @nduic.bsky.social @brianvad.bsky.social @profstrachan.bsky.social @michael-sterner.bsky.social @jeroahola.bsky.social @drpauldorfman.bsky.social @aukehoekstra.bsky.social @mzjacobson.bsky.social
Despite Trump, the U.S. will have 6 GW of offshore wind operating by 2027
All 5 developers have won court victories to complete their projects.
72% (4.3 GW) of the 6 GW are installed or operational
www.offshorewindca.org/maps
Firebrick storage powered by WindWaterSolar electricity has huge potential to replace fossil furnaces at low cost
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
A Scotland distillery claims a world first - it produces & stores 1,200C heat with low and 0 carbon electricity, not fossils
www.bbc.com/news/article...
U.S. grid-battery production has gone from 0 in 2024 to 145 GWh/year by the end of 2026, enough to provide batteries to support all wind and solar in the U.S.
www.electronicdesign.com/technologies...
From April 2025 to 2026, CAISO installed
4.656 GW batteries
1.534 GW solar
0.308 GW wind
bringing totals to
16.04 GW/64.16 GWh batt
22.577 GW solar
8.681 GW wind
CAISO queue is
17.1 GW batt
19 GW sol
0.8 GW wind
0 bio, gas, nuc
This is why WWS will ultimately supply 100% of demand 24/7/365
My op-ed in today's Albany Times Union: NY should not embrace nuclear power, as its too expensive and too slow to deploy. Renewable energy is available much faster, and at far less cost, and with less risk.
www.timesunion.com/opinion/arti...
Eliminating emissions of CO2 by 2050 (80% by 2030) reduces CO2 to 350 ppm by 2100 without your additional removals because the e-folding life of CO2 upon a decrease of CO2 is 90 years.
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
So, again, you are mistaken about your understanding.
You are not helping at all if you are pushing carbon removal. I am not trying to be mean, but this is my expertise (for 37 years) and it is not yours. If you want to help, focus on eliminating emissions.
The opposite.
Stopping 1 tonne of CO2 emissions eliminates 1 tonne from the air
Far easier, more efficient, less expensive to stop 1 tonne of emissions by replacing fossils with WWS than to remove 1 tonne.
As such, money spent removing 1 tonne instead of stopping emissions increases CO2
Period.
Issues with biochar:
-pyrolysis increases air pollution
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16...
-needs energy to gather waste
-needs equipment
-needs money with no return on investment
Probs increase with scale
Using same money to replace fossils with WWS avoids most issues, so biochar=opportunity cost
New Nuclear Is Too Late and Too Costly for the Climate Crisis. Dr Paul Dorfman, Bennett Scholar, makes a clear and evidence based case: new nuclear power cannot play a meaningful role in addressing the climate or energy crises.
bennettinstitutesussex.org/stories/nucl...
WindWaterSolar met 73% of 24-hour demand and a peak of 139% of demand on 4/14 on the CAISO grid.
WWS has also met 50.5% of all 2026 demand, and it is not even summer.
14th day straight and 80th of 104 (77%) with >100% WWS.
Fossil gas down 60%, batteries up 324%, solar up 70% in '26 v '23.
And the US, for example, has >90,000 dams, but only 2,500 of these have hydro. Not sure why you don't focus on the 97% of dams without hydro.
(a) Hydro already exists in over 150 countries and is the largest WWS source in many of those countries, (b) our plans do not call for growing hydro - just using existing hydro more efficiently, (c) geothermal is part of water. Water stays.
With the discovery of 30% more world lithium resources in one year, battery-electric vehicle and stationary battery storage prices should continue to drop rapidly, facilitating world electrification and the inevitable transition to 100% WindWaterSolar across all energy sectors.
Nope. That paper does not even analyze the issue let alone dispute our findings or even mention our findings. They do not look at the full system, which is necessary to analyze the issue.
New data: no shortage of lithium in the world for a 100% WWS transition.
USGS says known world Li resources increased 30% from 115.1 in 2024 to 150 million tons in 2025
Enough for 19 b BE cars (1.5 b cars+trucks in world now)
US now has most Li, 20% of world total
pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/...
No-one has even disputed, let alone shown scientifically, in the peer-reviewed record, that our conclusions that CC/DAC increase CO2/air pollution/etc, due to opportunity costs, which are published in several papers, are incorrect, so I'm not sure who these "other scientists" you refer to are.
This is why we use a combo of WindWaterSolar
Wind breaks new CAISO output record-when it is needed-at night-10:40PM 4/8: 6.699 GW
Ignoring batteries, WWS also met highest % 24-h demand YTD (69.1%)
Gas down 59.3%, solar up 74.5%, batteries up 329% '26 v '23
74 of 98 days (75.5%) '26 with>100% WWS
Natural CC = reducing deforestation, increasing reforestation (planting trees). Also includes using land for more carbon intense purposes. Everything else is synthetic (e.g., if it involves equipment / energy it is synthetic).
Phoenix seems to do bioenergy with carbon capture, which only increases CO2 and air pollution and pipelines and saddles consumers with tens of $billions in costs for decades. Greenwashing.
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
Why Public Banks Should Not Support Nuclear Power
New 10-author report
www.urgewald.org/sites/defaul... @drpauldorfman.bsky.social @ckemfert.bsky.social
Breaking: Microsoft Pauses Greenwashing Scheme (Carbon Removal Purchases)
carbonherald.com/microsoft-pa...
No net CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere by any synthetic CDR method, ever
All CC, DAC increase CO2, air pollution & fossil mining and infrastructure, & costs because, even in the best case of using RE to power them, that RE can no longer displace more CO2.
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/j...
