I don't see any problems with carbon dioxide removal, aside from potential local environmental problems. The methods include reforestation, adding iron to the ocean and grinding up serpentine.

Solar radiation management, like adding sulfates to the air, has lots of global environmental effects, and it doesn't do anything about acidification of the oceans.

It's best to consider these separately.

Tapes has a crapload of drawbacks, write speed, read speed, the fact it's sequential (random access is painful) but it remains popular because you can drop it, smash it, submerge and then freeze it and all you have to do is roll the tape into a new case.

Maybe they have fixed it, but I heard some old stories about dropping tapes corrupting them.

The lithium in a modern battery is not aqueous, which is the default in your table. What the result would be in a modern electrolyte, I don't know.

Nicely written post, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Hydrogen is not the strongest reducing agent amount the stable elements. If you go by electronegativity it is cesium. Cesium is rather heavy, though.

Lithium would make a very good cathode (if we could just control the dendrites), but it's not what lithium-ion batteries use. Transition metal compounds are far from ideal for cathodes, but they have the advantage that we can make them work pretty well.

Lithium-sulfur is potentially the next battery after lithium-ion, if only we can make them last long enough.

This asteroid is only around 1 km in diameter. An impact would be distinctly annoying, but civilization, and most people, should survive.

At one cycle a day that will take awhile.

Cui has previously touted results of a different battery after only eight cycles, so 150 is quite an improvement. They are still a long way from having something ready to sell, and they don't claim otherwise.

I think you ask too little. What get me are quotes like this;

The team is looking at a price point of $25,000 for an EV battery range of 300 miles, which would be competitive with a 40 mpg gasmobile.

That's not actually what the team said, it is a paraphrase of something Chu said about what is desirable in an EV. The author apologizes in the first comment.

Don't blame the researchers for the idiocy of the article's author.

150 charge/discharge cycles is not very much. That is only 5 months use.

Initial testing of batteries is usually done at C/20, or less than one cycle per day. I don't know if they sped this up any, but it would still take quite a while for 150 cycles. You're asking too much from a research project.

We just need better robots!

I used to show up at work before 6 and leave after 19. I only did this three days a week, though. It was totally at my discretion how I put in my 40 hours, but it was too long a drive to do it more often, and driving during rush hours was also not appealing.

But since I am long retired, I chose the last option.

By the year 2200, sea level is expected to rise somewhere between 4 and 30 inches.

A more reasonable guess might be around a meter by 2100, plus or minus a half meter. What will happen in 2200 will depend too much on our actions before then to say much.

...this for ex (300 miles of power) which was just announced...

There is a lot of marketing speak at your link, and very little technical information. Some of it is just wrong, like the implication that rare earths are heavily used in batteries. My bet is it is a scam.

Way to go, Al. The stupidity of your colleagues was supposed to be a secret!

I watched the show. I may have missed the final episode (I don't remember) but it definitely lasted more than one season. It was a lighthearted children's show, and your ending would be completely out of character for it. I believe Wikipedia.