[panick21_]

My reaction was not pro-fossil fuel but rather that I think the use of 'renewable' as a statement of general positivity is idiotic.

Sure there is a theoretical closable cycle in batteries, but guess what, the same can be said for fossil fuels. Just use energy to turn air and water back into fuel, boom cycle closed.

What matters is not if something is 'renewable' but if its a strategically correct thing to do in regards to climate and energy security.

Calling lithium 'renwable' is ridiculous. Its literally just a fixed resource on our plant like iron or copper or whatever.

[adrienthebo]

> Sure there is a theoretical closable cycle in batteries, but guess what, the same can be said for fossil fuels.

On geological time scales involving massive deposition of organic material.

In contrast, lithium can be recovered from batteries with an industrial shredder and chemical processing.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable in a trivial sense but are grossly different in a practical sense; treating them as equivalent is a borderline specious argument.

[unethical_ban]

Besides brushing off the difference in difficulty between refreshing our petroleum stock on the planet and recycling lithium, I think the point of the original use of "renewables" is the push toward renewable energy for all possible things, such as transport, and the part lithium currently plays in that plan.