It's not that they cannot. They don't have an incentive to do it.
If I'm being paid for my performance while I'm a CEO, why would I spend money today (and hurt my performance today) to fix a problem that MIGHT affect the company in 20 years
Does the lithium, cobalt, etc. not undergo a material change as the battery is used? Meaning, is the lithium in a brand new battery the same as the lithium in a battery that's been used for years?
> Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.
and that's what they're supposed to do. Make the most profits while abiding by the law. As consumers start caring more about sustainable supply chains so will producers. When their profits get hurt because consumers choose a more sustainable product, then you'll see change. As long as consumers don't care and just want the cheapest thing (which unfortunately has been the great majority of people for the past 100 years) the producers won't care either
I keep seeing this argument that companies are responsible for pollution. While yes it's true, why do you think those companies are polluting? It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" They are creating products/services for people.
So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution
I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
some people (like me) don't have separation of work/life balance. I get emails 24 hours a day. Markets move every second from sunday evening until friday afternoon. I'm constantly on my phone or in front of my computer.
So I would rather do this while sitting in comfortable sweatpants at home rather than wasting 3 hours getting dressed, commuting, etc. to do the exact same thing I would be doing anyway. Plus I get to eat healthier food, save money on food, clean my place more, spend time with family more, go workout when there's a lull in the markets, etc.
So while for some work/life balance is better with a separation, for me and many others, work/life balance is drastically improved by not going into the office
Yea, they graze under/around solar panels but that's pretty much all you can do for a solar farm. Wind gives you more opportunity to use the land.
I don't see the solar site management thing happening by the way. A lot of time and effort goes into land siting and selection. It won't be that easy to just pack it up and move.
Nothing and some companies are looking at that. It changes the dispatch characteristics but that's not a big deal.
I can see this happening more in the future when you kind of run out of space and have increased demand for power. First thing you'll probably do is upgrade the turbines to be bigger/more efficient. Then if you've maxed that out you can start adding solar panels underneath the turbines.
At the end of the day it's about lowering your costs to generate the power you need.
Large solar farms take up a lot of land. Much more than wind does. It also makes that land useless for anything else other than solar.
Large wind farms generate more power than solar on a per acre basis and have a lot of land that can be used for cow/sheep grazing, buildings for other purposes, and so on.
Solar is getting so cheap that people can use them for "local solar" (in the industry, that's called distributed generation).
Rooftop solar on residential homes usually power the house first, then the battery of the house, then the grid. This could change if net metering is allowed though but usually only after your batteries are topped up.
Also you could just not have batteries (since it's so expensive). In that case any excess power will just go directly to the grid.
If I'm being paid for my performance while I'm a CEO, why would I spend money today (and hurt my performance today) to fix a problem that MIGHT affect the company in 20 years