Times are changing

[unterstutzung87]

Yeah electric is a joke as of now. Charging is way too slow and range gets wrecked by cold weather or pulling any kind of load. ( Electric 18 wheelers just lol ) The infastructure is not even close to being able to handle it. Not to mention how awful making and disposing of batteries is for the enviroment, you couple all of that with the slave labor used to mine lithium and its going to be a no from me. They, meaning the manufacturers and the goverments have a TON of work to do before they get my money for electric vehicles. I will gladly vote with my dollar until then.

 

[unterstutzung87]

Yup.
But already the unsubsidized cost of wind and solar beats all other methods of electricity production. Right now, wind and solar are inevitable. It's going to get harder and harder to Justify the long-term investment in any other kind power plant in places where solar and wind can compete.

The biggest problem is storage to counter the inconsistencies of wind and solar. But major advancements are happening with batteries. A production advancement was announced today for a production-ready technology achieving 500 Wh/KG. Another company has announced achieving energy densities in the laboratory as high as 1200 Wh/KG.

Elon Musk said once you hit 400 Wh/KG electric aircraft start to get interesting.

Of course standardized micro fission reactors or achieving fusion will be total game changers for electric energy generation.

Micro fission is the only way I see any of this working.

 

[cobrajeff96]

Or better yet, fusion. Maybe.

 

[ttocs]

wind has its downfalls as well. Have you heard or seen the places where they are disposing of the wind turbine blades they have to replace every 10 years was it?

 

[GTamas]

Are e-fuels being discussed in the US? Here in Europe it's getting discussed on government level lately as a future alternative to getting rid of all the ICEs. The technology is not efficient enough yet, but with more development I could see it as a (expensive) way to keep our beloved cars running.

E-fuel is synthetic gasoline made from C02 and Hydrogen + electricity. It is 100% compatible with existing ICE systems. Both H and unfortunately CO2 are plenty in the atmosphere, but CO2 extraction is technologically not solved yet. Still it could be harvested for example from the exhaust of factories locally and thus reduce emissions. Efficiency needs to be improved her as well.
And it of course only makes sense of the energy for production is coming from green sources.

Problem is that currently it takes more energy to produce e-fuel than it contains at the end... and then there is that ICE engines have a thermal of only 25%. So overall EVs will be always more efficient and one day will take over majority of the car fleet in developed countries. And hopefully we will have the option to buy e-fuels for our Stangs and other hobby cars.

 

[RAU03MACH]

You want clean air
stop the spraying the sky with all that crap

 

[ju015dd]

You want clean air
stop the spraying the sky with all that crap

Amen

 

[95opal]

Nobody ever said anything about fossil fuels running out.

If that's all the problem was, then it would be a self-correcting problem as it got harder and harder to extract it would become less and less profitable to do it.

The biggest problem is the CO2 that gets dumped in the air from burning it. It's the biggest driver in global warming.

Lmao co2 isnt the biggest driver of global warming. Money is.
There is no such thing as global warming. Hell nobody even knows what earths temp should be. Stop believing the scammers.

John Coleman, the Founder of the Weather Channel, Debunks Man-Made Global Warming

#JohnColeman, the Founder of the #WeatherChannel, Debunks Man-Made #GlobalWarming. Anthropogenic Global Waring is a Hoax. The question is, "Is #CO2 the earth's Thermostat?" Carbon dioxide has nothing

rumble.com

 

[maillemaker]

No part of this really needs to exist as a culture war issue. You want renewable liquid fuel that doesn't dig carbon out of the ground? There's a five thousand mile wide patch of sargassum stretching from Florida to Liberia and it mashes just like moonshine.

You want to cut the emissions from freight ships burning bunker fuel? Legislate long warranties & right-to-repair on consumer goods so it won't be profitable to sell cheap disposable junk. We'll buy better quality goods less frequently and sail fewer ships as a result.

Doesn't need to be a zero sum game we can all win here.

Personally, I think the answer is atmospheric processing - direct carbon capture. However, it's going to take the power output of about 100 nuclear reactors to do it. It's only an energy problem. It's simple to dissociate carbon from oxygen and then you get a neat source of nearly pure carbon for downstream use.

 

[maillemaker]

wind has its downfalls as well. Have you heard or seen the places where they are disposing of the wind turbine blades they have to replace every 10 years was it?

New turbine blades can be recyclable. But even if they are not, the resultant scrap is relatively inert.

 

[maillemaker]

Lmao co2 isnt the biggest driver of global warming. Money is.
There is no such thing as global warming. Hell nobody even knows what earths temp should be. Stop believing the scammers.

John Coleman, the Founder of the Weather Channel, Debunks Man-Made Global Warming

#JohnColeman, the Founder of the #WeatherChannel, Debunks Man-Made #GlobalWarming. Anthropogenic Global Waring is a Hoax. The question is, "Is #CO2 the earth's Thermostat?" Carbon dioxide has nothing

rumble.com

Virtually all climate scientists and NASA say that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic in nature (man-caused). This is a serious problem in the world today because people are denying basic scientific understanding because they can find some nook or cranny on the internet that convinces them that lots of people believe bunk.

 

[95opal]

Virtually all climate scientists and NASA say that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic in nature (man-caused). This is a serious problem in the world today because people are denying basic scientific understanding because they can find some nook or cranny on the internet that convinces them that lots of people believe bunk.

Sounds like all the doctors on covid. My advice to you is stop listening to propaganda

 

[maillemaker]

Sounds like all the doctors on covid. My advice to you is stop listening to propaganda

I had Covid. Hammered me flat. My step-brother died from it.

There's an old saying: "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not use reason to get into." That's the boat you're in, and there's no changing your mind because you didn't use reason to make it up in the first place.

 

[shovel]

Personally, I think the answer is atmospheric processing - direct carbon capture. However, it's going to take the power output of about 100 nuclear reactors to do it. It's only an energy problem. It's simple to dissociate carbon from oxygen and then you get a neat source of nearly pure carbon for downstream use.

Yeah why use a naturally volunteering organism that exploits hundreds of thousands of square miles of benign open water to capture energy from a naturally occurring nuclear reactor when you can build something smaller and weaker and charge more money for it?

 

[maillemaker]

Yeah why use a naturally volunteering organism that exploits hundreds of thousands of square miles of benign open water to capture energy from a naturally occurring nuclear reactor when you can build something smaller and weaker and charge more money for it?

Because burning anything is going to dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if it's a perfect net-zero emission (which it can't be) where you grow back more organism which captures the carbon, it doesn't solve the current excess problem we already have. Growing things to burn them will not solve the problem, whether it's trees, corn, or seaweed.

This is not to say that biofuels have no place in energy generation and consumption in the future. They almost certainly do.

It's just not a solution to the atmospheric CO2 problem.

 

[cobrajeff96]

So overall EVs will be always more efficient and one day will take over majority of the car fleet in developed countries.

Their operation on the road seems to be quite more efficient than ICE cars, but currently it requires more carbon output in the factories to produce EVs than it does ICE cars. And power grid generation and distribution to the charging stations is likely mostly from non-green sources (mentioned earlier by someone else). So about the only 'green' advantage of EVs is just the driving part. I might think that it's a drop in the bucket for now, but sure in a couple decades if they do phase out most or all ICE production than it may be statistically significant over the [very] long run. Maybe. Only time will tell.

I would think Malankovich Cycles have more impact on climate than anything man-made over only one century's worth of carbon output. We're still technically in an ice-age, a warm inter-glacial period.

 

[shovel]

It's just not a solution to the atmospheric CO2 problem.

Yes, stopping the bleeding is not a solution to bleeding to death.

Well, as ever, achievable good has no enemy like hallucinated perfection. Enjoy your death.

 

[maillemaker]

Their operation on the road seems to be quite more efficient than ICE cars, but currently it requires more carbon output in the factories to produce EVs than it does ICE cars. And power grid generation and distribution to the charging stations is likely mostly from non-green sources (mentioned earlier by someone else). So about the only 'green' advantage of EVs is just the driving part. I might think that it's a drop in the bucket for now, but sure in a couple decades if they do phase out most or all ICE production than it may be statistically significant over the [very] long run. Maybe. Only time will tell.

I would think Malankovich Cycles have more impact on climate than anything man-made over only one century's worth of carbon output. We're still technically in an ice-age, a warm inter-glacial period.

Centralized power generation will always be more efficient than decentralized power generation. So even if all electricity were generated with dirty fuel, it would still be less dirty than every vehicle burning dirty fuel. Moreover, you can more easily control, monitor, and enforce pollution requirements with power plants than you can with vehicles (how many here have no catalytic converters on their cars?)

Yes, stopping the bleeding is not a solution to bleeding to death.

Well, as ever, achievable good has no enemy like hallucinated perfection. Enjoy your death.

As I said, I'm not saying biofuels aren't a good idea. I'm just saying they won't solve the atmospheric CO2 problem.

That is going to have to be addressed.

 

[shovel]

I'm just saying they won't solve the atmospheric CO2 problem.

No man you said since it's only a partial but very real and achievable solution we should definitely not do it because it's not a flawless and permanent panacea delivered with a big red bow. Anything less is to be argued about ad infinitum and absolutely never under any circumstances to be attempted. Don't you know how this works?

 

[95opal]

I had Covid. Hammered me flat. My step-brother died from it.

There's an old saying: "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not use reason to get into." That's the boat you're in, and there's no changing your mind because you didn't use reason to make it up in the first place.

Lmao ive lived through 50 plus years of the climate hoax and im still here. I remember about 7 years ago when NASA admitted they havent figured out how to get threw the Van allen belt. Yet want you to believe they landed on the moon with a computer with less processing power than a cell phone. As for the climate scientists call them what they are...activists. Go back to 2018 when 500 legit scientist wrote a letter to the UN about the hoax. Go look at how NOAA has fugged temp figures over time or do any type of real research into the subject besides NASA and the science activists said so. Youd be surprised how easily they pull the wool over your eyes.