Twitter and The Musk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They cost more emissions in the long run when you consider battery production, weight, shortened life, difficulty to maintain in colder weather.

No, they actually don't. The emissions caused by production are definitely an issue, but even without further improvements on that front - there are some promising technologies that appear to be coming soon - they are still a better option than standard internal-combustion vehicles. The charging issue of course depends greatly on what we do with the overall power-generation infrastructure.

The other point of course is that we just have to get off of using oil for as many products as possible as soon as possible as the world supply continues to head in the wrong direction.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, they actually don't. The emissions caused by production are definitely an issue, but even without further improvements on that front - there are some promising technologies that appear to be coming soon - they are still a better option than standard internal-combustion vehicles. The charging issue of course depends greatly on what we do with the overall power-generation infrastructure.

The other point of course is that we just have to get off of using oil for as many products as possible as soon as possible as the world supply continues to head in the wrong direction.

We've been hearing about promising technologies for decades. Electric grids will fail if they don't emerge soon. England is already headed back to coal to keep the lights on. Germany's in worse shape because predicting a warmer-than-average winter to make the numbers work and getting a colder-than-average start means serious trouble on the horizon. They are spending a fortune keeping the lights on, and that means poorer countries are having difficulty getting fuel and those blackouts are already starting. Our only hope - that we learn from the lessons Germany and other countries are going to experience the next few years.

You have factor in so much when you replace the gasoline method with electric. Mining, the availability and transport of (enormous amounts of) copper and rare-earth metals, construction of the batteries, the shorter lifespan, the increasing inefficiency of charging as the batteries slowly die, the increased need for charging capacity (already a huge issue - people in Finland were just told they shouldn't use the heaters in their electric cars as they go through a long sub-freezing period), the cost of replacing a useless battery and all the materials that went into its production, the cost of recycling and the damage that does to the environment. When you add it all up, especially combined with the increasing cost of electricity, the additional weight you have to transport, and the eventual end (surely it musk end) of the subsidies... it's very bad for the environment and even worse for the financial health of those who invest in the technology. I wouldn't get a Tesla even if the government subsidies dropped the MSRP in half.

The only answer with today's technologies (it was going to be hydrogen just around the corner 20 years ago, and hydrogen is making a comeback in today's speculation) is to ban personal transportation. But that's not realistic for those of us who live outside of major city centers. So, herd us together in mega-cities like London or Beijing? I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

and the eventual end (surely it musk end) of the subsidies...

I see what you did there.

I'd love to get away from fossil fuels for the pollution and dependency on foreign powers but you want be sure that it all really is better for the environment to go electric.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Some of this was already addressed, but most businesses are also not producing cutting-edge products in a business that has been deemed important to national goals or in the case of Tesla, even national security/future of the species on Earth.

To be sure, there are other ways to handle this. We could take an approach such as just saying we don't care if we develop alternative, more climate-friendly forms of transportation and just let the private sector do it whenever it feels like it. We could also take a more heavy-handed approach and just demand increased emission standards and the like regardless of whether there is a viable product at a price consumers can afford, and watch the carnage that would unfold in the economy. We've decided carrot is a better approach than stick, and that there are some areas in which just letting events unfold as they will is harmful - or in the case of climate change, catastrophic. What we are doing in terms of developing EVs is entirely inadequate, but it is something.

One can advocate for other alternatives, but in the broad strokes I don't think those other ways are better. I also don't think it makes sense to lump companies that are operating in these critical areas in the same basket with others that are just making common-use widgets or services of whatever type. That's not to say those products don't matter, they absolutely do, but they are far more replaceable and not nearly as vital to the growth of essential technologies.

Tesla was worth over a trillion dollars just over a year ago. A TRILLION DOLLARS. I just don't understand why we have to pay for charging stations and thousands in rebates for a company that is well-capitalized.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They cost more emissions in the long run when you consider battery production, weight, shortened life, difficulty to maintain in colder weather. Already, people around the world are being told if they have them they can't charge them at peak times.

This is an interesting topic re: are EV's significantly better than gas, internal combustion engines when factoring everything such as extraction of minerals, production etc.

From what I've been reading on current articles, it does seem overall EV's will be better for the environment as a whole when factoring in "duration, life of vehicles". But there are other articles that say to the contrary and it's not clear to me if there are bias involved (on either side).

I figure MIT is pretty reputable.

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? | MIT Climate Portal

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Although many fully electric vehicles (EVs) carry “zero emissions” badges, this claim is not quite true. Battery-electric cars may not emit greenhouse gases from their tailpipes, but some emissions are created in the process of building and charging the vehicles.

Nevertheless, says Sergey Paltsev, Deputy Director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, electric vehicles are clearly a lower-emissions option than cars with internal combustion engines. Over the course of their driving lifetimes, EVs will create fewer carbon emissions than gasoline-burning cars under nearly any conditions.

They also talked about the batteries.

One source of EV emissions is the creation of their large lithium-ion batteries. The use of minerals including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are crucial for modern EV batteries, requires using fossil fuels to mine those materials and heat them to high temperatures. As a result, building the 80 kWh lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla Model 3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2 (exactly how much depends greatly on what energy source is used to do the heating).1 This intensive battery manufacturing means that building a new EV can produce around 80% more emissions than building a comparable gas-powered car.2
:
In countries that get most of their energy from burning dirty coal, the emissions numbers for EVs don’t look nearly as good—but they’re still on par with or better than burning gasoline.

I think below is where I land. Basically, we're pretty mature with carbon based vehicles and just beginning with EVs. There is much greater efficiency gains to be had with use of EVs.

And while internal combustion engines are getting more efficient, EVs are poised to become greener by leaps and bounds as more countries add more clean energy to their mix.
:
“Once we decarbonize the electric grid—once we get more and more clean sources to the grid—the comparison is getting better and better,” Paltsev says.

[Ksyrup]

I'm definitely going to strongly consider a hybrid or EV for my next car in a couple of years. My wife has an SUV and will be the vehicle we take on long trips. I use my car mostly for around town and commuting an hour to work and back. For 95% of my driving, I can simply plug in at home.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tesla was worth over a trillion dollars just over a year ago. A TRILLION DOLLARS. I just don't understand why we have to pay for charging stations and thousands in rebates for a company that is well-capitalized.

I support it and my rationale is we are trying to accelerate consumer adoption of EVs and not make Tesla richer.

Tesla will likely get richer as a byproduct and so will other auto makers that succeed in their EV strategy. But that's the price to pay to get more & quicker adoption.

The budgeted cost is $7.5B for the charging stations. It ties with one other as the least cost in the bill. If it spurs adoption, its a pretty good investment and also in our strategic interest (e.g. less reliance on our frenemies).

Understanding the Recent Infrastructure Legislation

$7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations. The Biden Administration asked for this funding to build significantly more charging stations for electric vehicles across the nation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm definitely going to strongly consider a hybrid or EV for my next car in a couple of years. My wife has an SUV and will be the vehicle we take on long trips. I use my car mostly for around town and commuting an hour to work and back. For 95% of my driving, I can simply plug in at home.

Cost is the main consideration. But range anxiety is #2 for me.

Per my prior post on wanting more charging stations nationwide to accelerate consumer adoption ... would your wife be more willing to consider an EV if she knows she can get charged up approx 80% in 20-30 min while taking her trip?

[Ksyrup]

Probably. We haven't really talked about it for her. Mine makes sense since work is an hour away and we don't take long trips in my car.

I saw this report about convenience of chargers and there's a long way to go until I would feel comfortable taking a long trip - both because of anxiety, but also because I don't want to spend an hour or more waiting around to charge, even if I find one along the way.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...t-158187589983

[Edward64]

I have read chargers are like 80% in 20-30 min (unless its like the old home plug in). If the infrastructure bill puts in chargers like in your video, yeah it'll be a catastrophic failure for sure.

500,000 charging stations for $7.5B. That's about $15K per charger.

My SIL got a Tesla but her condo unit did not have any chargers. She could use the regular outlet which is very slow or buy her own charger. She chipped in with some other owners and shares one now.

[Edward64]

Great, it will be 4-packs of fast chargers.

Four fast chargers every 50 miles—US unveils EV infrastructure plan | Ars Technica

About five years from now, a common complaint about electric vehicles—range anxiety—will be a thing of the past across much of the US.

Starting this year, the federal government will begin doling out $5 billion to states over five years to build a nationwide network of fast chargers. The plan initially focuses on the Interstate Highway System, directing states to build one charging station every 50 miles. Those stations must be capable of charging at least four EVs simultaneously at 150 kW.
:
Once states have completed the Interstate charging network, they’ll be able to apply for grants to fill in gaps elsewhere. The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, a new agency formed to help the Transportation and Energy Departments administer the program, will allow case-by-case exceptions to the 50-mile requirement if, for example, no grid connection is available nearby.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Great, it will be 4-packs of fast chargers.

Four fast chargers every 50 miles—US unveils EV infrastructure plan | Ars Technica

How fast is a "fast charger"? Is it comparable to the ~2 minutes it takes me to fill a gas tank?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Bobble

How fast is a "fast charger"? Is it comparable to the ~2 minutes it takes me to fill a gas tank?

Won't be that quick (and from personal experience, it'll probably take reg fill-up about 10 min with CC stuff and a cranky hose). C&D link below has more info.

There are 3 levels.

https://www.caranddriver.com/shoppin...charging-time/

Recharging an EV battery with a 120-volt source—these are categorized as Level 1 according to SAE J1772, a standard that engineers use to design EVs—is measured in days, not hours

If you own or plan to own an EV you'll be wise to consider having a 240-volt Level 2 charging solution installed in your home. A typical Level 2 connection is 240 volts and 40 to 50 amps.

For the absolute fastest charging possible, you'll want to plug into a Level 3 connection, colloquially known as a DC fast charger. These are the EV equivalent of filling that barrel with a fire hose.

So, the guestimate is ...

manufacturers often claim that fast-charging will get your EV's battery to "80 percent charge in 30 minutes."

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tesla was worth over a trillion dollars just over a year ago. A TRILLION DOLLARS. I just don't understand why we have to pay for charging stations and thousands in rebates for a company that is well-capitalized.

I don't care if it was a trillion trillion dollars, it's not just about Tesla. If you have a better solution for speeding up EV adoption by the public, including the necessary infrastructure to make it viable and not just the cars themselves, that doesn't involve subsidizing the companies who make the vehicles, let's hear it.

I'm not being sarcastic. There might be one. But absent such a solution, my biggest problem with it is that we aren't spending nearly enough on this kind of thing and should be doing a lot more - here, on nuclear power, on development of alternative fuels and products for replacing oil in other sectors. Not just EVs, but that's an important element.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We've been hearing about promising technologies for decades. Electric grids will fail if they don't emerge soon.

To clarify, was referring in terms of technologies to improvements in battery technology.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

the cost of replacing a useless battery and all the materials that went into its production, the cost of recycling and the damage that does to the environment. When you add it all up, especially combined with the increasing cost of electricity, the additional weight you have to transport, and the eventual end (surely it musk end) of the subsidies... it's very bad for the environment and even worse for the financial health of those who invest in the technology.

You keep saying this, and I maintain it just isn't true. The profile of the electricity grid is an important factor, and it depends on what assumptions you make there. Having said that, I'll cite a few data points:

- Argonne National Laboratory, developer of the Greet model for evaluating emissions for both EV and gas-powered vehicles over their lifetimes, has estimated that on average the emissions for gas-powered vehicles will be much higher.

- A Reuters analysis of different scenarios found that even in the worst-case scenario of charging entirely from a coal-powered grid, EV emissions are still better, though not by a particularly large margin. This is because the initial cost of production is off-set by the fact that engines in EVs are about 95% energy efficient, while internal combustion engines are only about 20%. There is simply a huge gain in how well they use the energy.

Here's an article about another, older study: Even electric cars powered by the dirtiest electricity emit fewer emissions than diesel cars, says new study | Electrek

- Damien Ernst, who claimed just a few years ago that to break even with a gas-powered vehicle in terms of emissions, an EV would need to be operational for 700,000 km, has revised that estimate greatly downward to 150,000 at most and sometimes half that amount, which is well less than the expected lifecycle of vehicles. This is just one illustration of what has generally happened when people take a serious look at the increasing amount of data available

- The estimated life of batteries is about 20 years. In other words, way longer than most people are going to be driving the car anyway. It's not like they are going to have to be constantly replaced.

I'm not aware of significant recent studies funded by independent parties - i.e. not the oil industry for example - that contradict these. Do you have contrary ones to cite?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't care if it was a trillion trillion dollars, it's not just about Tesla. If you have a better solution for speeding up EV adoption by the public, including the necessary infrastructure to make it viable and not just the cars themselves, that doesn't involve subsidizing the companies who make the vehicles, let's hear it.

I'm not being sarcastic. There might be one. But absent such a solution, my biggest problem with it is that we aren't spending nearly enough on this kind of thing and should be doing a lot more - here, on nuclear power, on development of alternative fuels and products for replacing oil in other sectors. Not just EVs, but that's an important element.

100%. Any efforts to regulate private industry into creating this infrastructure will fail. Tesla or any other company will find every loophole, do the bare minimum, and fuck us all for a little more profit. This has to be done by the government. The fact that will likely make a smug fuck like Elon Musk a little more wealth is an unfortunate side effect, but one that has to happen if we believe this is required as part of a climate change solution.

[GrantDawg]

It is far just about Tesla. Tesla is not going to be the main creator of electric cars in the next few years. Every major automaker is offering more in more EV's ievery year. Just in Georgia, Hyundai and Kia have plants being built to produce EV's, as well as the Rivian plant that is being built. Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan....Tesla's market-share is declining and going to continue to decline deeply. Musk acting like an asshat on Twitter pissing the people who were buying Tesla's, isn't going to help slow that decline.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To clarify, was referring in terms of technologies to improvements in battery technology.



You keep saying this, and I maintain it just isn't true. The profile of the electricity grid is an important factor, and it depends on what assumptions you make there. Having said that, I'll cite a few data points:

- Argonne National Laboratory, developer of the Greet model for evaluating emissions for both EV and gas-powered vehicles over their lifetimes, has estimated that on average the emissions for gas-powered vehicles will be much higher.

- A Reuters analysis of different scenarios found that even in the worst-case scenario of charging entirely from a coal-powered grid, EV emissions are still better, though not by a particularly large margin. This is because the initial cost of production is off-set by the fact that engines in EVs are about 95% energy efficient, while internal combustion engines are only about 20%. There is simply a huge gain in how well they use the energy.

Here's an article about another, older study: Even electric cars powered by the dirtiest electricity emit fewer emissions than diesel cars, says new study | Electrek

- Damien Ernst, who claimed just a few years ago that to break even with a gas-powered vehicle in terms of emissions, an EV would need to be operational for 700,000 km, has revised that estimate greatly downward to 150,000 at most and sometimes half that amount, which is well less than the expected lifecycle of vehicles. This is just one illustration of what has generally happened when people take a serious look at the increasing amount of data available

- The estimated life of batteries is about 20 years. In other words, way longer than most people are going to be driving the car anyway. It's not like they are going to have to be constantly replaced.

I'm not aware of significant recent studies funded by independent parties - i.e. not the oil industry for example - that contradict these. Do you have contrary ones to cite?

What's interesting is that you cite a study from a group that exists to lobby governments to get to net zero. I doubt their biases are any different from any other group that exists to lobby for any other cause.

This is one baseline study - Just a moment... - it doesn't get into some of the more hard-to-figure costs, like where are you getting the materials and is slavery involved in extracting them. What do you do if EV sales become significant (right now, what, 2% of the cars on the road are EV?) and you need more materials than you could possibly extract? China is clearly trying to control world supplies of some of these materials, what's the price then? But look at the world supply of these rare-earth metals and mining today and extrapolate. At copper as well.

If you can get 20 years out of a battery, great. But keep in mind that real life doesn't have perfect weather, charges only between the ideal ranges, keeps everything in perfect condition. There are no 20-year-old Tesla batteries to check and the warranties supplied with the cars do not stand behind these claims - they know it's only theory. So if you're sitting at 100,000 miles and you're still getting over 90% of range, great, it worked. Congrats.

What did you win, then. If you can afford the entry cost, the taxpayers pay for the rest of your Tesla. They pay for your charging stations and you pay a nominal cost to "fill up". And what do you save on emissions themselves? Maybe something, maybe not (anything that shows maybe not is clearly written by the oil industry, I guess, and anything that shows it is - definitely not by lobbyists connected to the green industries). All the EV market is right now is wealthy people (almost 80% of EV owners have household incomes >$100k) feeling good about themselves while taking money from the government.

Let's assume EVs become a large share of the marketplace. How do they get charged? This $7.5 billion handout will put some charging stations out there. How long does it take to fast-charge a Tesla? 20 minutes? The handout gives you four of these at reasonable spots on the interstates. That should cover demand today - when I go past a single charging station these days, more often than not, it's empty. But if more people get them, that's a lot of waiting.

Still not an insurmountable problem. Right now, highway rest stops have 10-12 bays, let's say five minutes for a tank. So you could conceive of EV coverage with about 30-35 bays. Only eight times as much as what they're going to build in the next few years.

Where does the electricity come from for this? That is quite a drain. And as renewables come on line, so do relative dead periods. Already, at 2%, we're starting to see restrictions on home charging. And the Finland example I just gave you. You might spend (or the government might spend) a lot of money to install a charging station at your home (if your insurance company doesn't drop you), and then you can't use it a lot of the time. Once EV use becomes more common, this will only get worse. A lot worse.

We don't know where this is going. We have increased the cost of energy. We have reduced energy security (in the US, power outages have doubled in the last ten years alone). We have regions of the US and Canada (Michigan and the plains, California, Ontario) that are projected to produce less energy than they need in the very near future. The one technology we have that seems to help reach every goal the most - nuclear plants - for some reason are hated by the greens more than the dirtiest coal mines. And then we add this EV thing on top of it at enormous cost. And the wealthy people who feel good about their new EVs don't think for a minute how the increasing costs of keeping the lights on and the furnaces running affect the billions of people around the world who live on a few dollars a day.

[Honolulu_Blue]

A friend of mine recently drove from Maryland to the west coast of Michigan (for a board game weekend) and drove his Tesla. He said it was an absolute nightmare in terms of finding charging stations and then having to wait for his car to totally re-charge. It added hours to his trip and he said he'd never do it again.

The infrastructure isn't close to being there and the problems will be worse on big travel weekends - like Memorial Day - when, all of a sudden, you have a lot more folks on the road.

I don't think it's a question of "if" EVs become a major share of vehicles on the road, but when. It's happening. I work for a major OEM and we are switching to EVs and plan to be full electric by 2035, which isn't that far off. Most OEMs are doing the same. The rules being made in Europe and California (primarily) are really driving the industry in that direction.

I don't know if the infrastructure will be there or not, I am guess not. So, it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out and if OEMs reverse or slow down some of these decisions.

With respect to Tesla, I love seeing them go down. I've hated Musk long before it was cool. This whole Twitter debacle and his personal tweets are really hurting Tesla. Not to mention Tesla, like so many other OEMs, are really struggling in terms of supply issues. Tesla is at critical juncture business-wise and Musk being distracted with Twitter isn't helping. In addition, as has been stated before, Tesla is seeing and going to see an unprecedented level of competition in the EV space in the US, Europe and China. That's going to hurt them.

Finally, one big reason Tesla has been profitable is through the sale GHG (greenhouse gas) credits. Because Tesla's fleet is entirely EV, they don't need any of the GHG credits they generate. As a result, they can sell their entire inventory to other OEMs that need these credits to offset the emissions their ICE vehicles create. This has been a massive windfall and source of revenue for Tesla. Once other OEMs begin to have more and more EVs in their fleets, the market for these GHG credits dries up so will a major source of revenue for Tesla.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't care if it was a trillion trillion dollars, it's not just about Tesla. If you have a better solution for speeding up EV adoption by the public, including the necessary infrastructure to make it viable and not just the cars themselves, that doesn't involve subsidizing the companies who make the vehicles, let's hear it.

I'm not being sarcastic. There might be one. But absent such a solution, my biggest problem with it is that we aren't spending nearly enough on this kind of thing and should be doing a lot more - here, on nuclear power, on development of alternative fuels and products for replacing oil in other sectors. Not just EVs, but that's an important element.

Make more stringent emissions standards that force automakers into converting to EV. Or simply ban combustion engines by a certain date.

If you can't do any of that, offer low-interest loans to the companies if you feel it necessary. Or the government gets a stake in the company for providing them with the handouts. Or just make the cars ourselves if it's that vital to national security.

The current setup is just welfare for billionaires and propping up unprofitable industries.

[Flasch186]

Capitalism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mota]

I know someone who is a multi millionaire. His kid was bad at hockey, yet somehow he kept on making the rep team year after year, because the dad would host some pretty cool parties, and hired a few of the other dads on the team.

One thing we overheard during one of the tryouts is the dad telling his son "you better skate hard or else you won't make the team", and then both of them started laughing. He made the team. (he was the lowest scoring forward on the team the previous year, and also did not play defensively at all). He also made the private school hockey team which is elite, because their family paid for the naming rights for the arena. I mean, the team could've cut him, but they probably wouldn't have received that juicy donation.

The kid also goes to a private school, so he is surrounded on a daily basis by other rich kids. Guess what, when there are opportunities, they are most likely going to be available to the kid with all the rich contacts, vs. the public school kid whose parents are struggling to make ends meet, as well as the other friends in their class.

So yes, maybe the kid was not given millions of dollars, but he had opportunities well beyond what a normal person would get. I'm sure that it was similar with Musk. It's easy to work on startups if you're not worried about paying rent, or buying food.

[Solecismic]

No, it's not easy to start a business.

It may even be harder for the hockey kid, since he has learned that hard work is something only other people do to build something.

Society seems obsessed with what other people have. This goes far deeper than money. The whole Puritan world view was all about worrying that people were having fun in ways you weren't having fun.

This is no different.

Parents want their kids to have better lives. We can argue that the hockey kid might have a better life because he'll have a lot of money regardless of whether he works. But he might not. Parenting is tough. Money is one important piece, but there are many others that kid might be behind on, because his parents might have their own weaknesses.

At least there are only so many hockey arenas that need names.

So, one example. I found that I'm a pretty decent math/science teacher when I only have one pupil and he happens to be my son. So I taught him a lot. Maybe a bad idea because he complained throughout school that he didn't learn anything in those classes. If my son goes on and has success in the world of technology, did he earn that? Was it wrong of me to try and pass along my expertise?

What about, on a different scale, a parent in a poorer area that knows a lot about nutrition and tries to provide good meals, never gets fast food? Is that an unfair advantage, given that many parents don't know a lot about nutrition. Their kids go to school, maybe don't learn as well because of a lack of balanced meals.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Or just make the cars ourselves if it's that vital to national security.

This is the agree-to-disagree point for me. I mentioned some of the issues with the 'stick' approach earlier in the thread, but this proposed solution is something that I am as confident as I can be in anything that it would be an unmitigated disaster. We also clearly have irreconcilable disagreements on what terms like 'welfare for billionaires' mean.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What's interesting is that you cite a study from a group that exists to lobby governments to get to net zero.

Our discussion is about emissions, is it not? When it comes to that, a group that thinks lowering emissions is a good idea would seem to be appropriate. It's totally different than one which favors a particular industry. Citing one from the traditional auto or oil or EV side for example is a bias that's on one side of the discussion. The only net-zero bias is 'this is a discussion worth having'.

On the study you cited, a couple of points. One is that it's not recent, it was published a decade ago. We know a lot more than we did then. Secondly, despite that fact it agrees with what I said on almost every point regardless. Even using a very conservative figure for vehicle operational life, it still concluded that EVs come out ahead on total emissions in every scenario except for the worst-case scenario of relying totally on coal. Including scenarios that don't require any 'greening' of the power grid. And more recent studies show that even in a coal-based power grid still favors EVs.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What do you do if EV sales become significant (right now, what, 2% of the cars on the road are EV?) and you need more materials than you could possibly extract? China is clearly trying to control world supplies of some of these materials, what's the price then? But look at the world supply of these rare-earth metals and mining today and extrapolate. At copper as well.

That's true of basically everything though. I know people on this board don't like my proposed solutions, but countries that aren't friendly to 'us' ... whoever us is defined to be ... are going to try to monopolize resources. As we are on the other side. We aren't saying 'let's stop using oil because it's easy for OPEC to manipulate the price'. If we want to avoid a situation in which any other country can cause problems by controlling resources we need, then we have to backwards at least a literal century in the technology we use, and possibly further than that.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

All the EV market is right now is wealthy people (almost 80% of EV owners have household incomes >$100k) feeling good about themselves while taking money from the government.

Early adopters always skew that way though. Only wealthy people can afford to buy new cars, period.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Where does the electricity come from for this? That is quite a drain. And as renewables come on line, so do relative dead periods. Already, at 2%, we're starting to see restrictions on home charging. And the Finland example I just gave you. You might spend (or the government might spend) a lot of money to install a charging station at your home (if your insurance company doesn't drop you), and then you can't use it a lot of the time. Once EV use becomes more common, this will only get worse. A lot worse.

MIT has estimated that the US power grid is capable of supporting 150 million EVs. That's over half the current operational vehicles. We'd need to upgrade some to go all the way, for certain. But a lot of that is infrastructure changes that need to happen anyway. I don't get the point of using examples like Finland. Is Finland having issues because there's no possible way for them to make more electricity? Of course not. It's largely because of how reliant they are on imports. This is a problem, but it is not one without solutions. Certainly EVs need to be accounted for in the electrical grid, but that's no different than needing to account for oil supply for gas-powered vehicles.

That sort of feeds into the points about convenience, getting enough charging stations and other infrastructure, and so on. All of those do need to happen, but similar issues need to be accounted for under *any* forseeable circumstance, including continuing to rely on oil which is not going to be viable indefinitely no matter how much we might like it to be. EVs aren't a perfect solution by any means, but they are best one we currently know of. Hydrogen is far further behind from an infrastructure point of view and is not as efficient, has similar transportation/storage issues to what gasoline has, is expensive to produce from an energy standpoint, and so on. It's better than continuing to rely on oil/gas, but I've yet to see a good reason to favor it over EVs.

[Edward64]

Re: rare earth metals, there is hope!

[url="https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Japan-to-begin-extracting-rare-earth-metals-from-seabed-in-2024"]

Aiming to reduce its reliance on China for rare earth metals, Japan will begin in 2024 to extract the essential materials for electric vehicles and hybrids from the mud on the deep sea bottom in an area off Minami-Torishima Island, a coral atoll in the Pacific Ocean about 1,900 kilometers southeast of Tokyo.

Tokyo plans to begin work to develop extraction technologies starting next year.

Mud rich in rare earth metals has been found on the seafloor at a depth of 6,000 meters in the target area. To get at it, Japan first needs to develop technologies to extract the resources from depths of 5,000-6,000 meters.

Rare earth is a blanket term referring to 17 rare metals. Japan currently relies on imports for nearly all its rare metal needs, including 60% from China.

On what is under the sea ...

Global trove of rare earth metals found in Japan's deep-sea mud | Science | AAAS

A "semi-infinite" supply of rare earth metals used in batteries, electric vehicles, and other green energy technologies has been found in deep-sea mud about 1850 kilometers southeast of Tokyo, The Wall Street Journal reports. Japanese researchers estimate the roughly 2499-square-kilometer region of seabed holds more than 16 million tons of rare earth oxides, including 780 years' worth of the global supply of yttrium, 620 years' worth of europium, 420 years' worth of terbium, and 730 years' worth of dysprosium, they write this week in Scientific Reports. The find could challenge China's dominance on the rare earths' world market, but extracting such metals from seabed sludge is expensive and difficult; scientists say it could take up to 5 years to figure out the best method.

Misc notes

• It's pretty far away from Japan so wondering does this place really belong to Japan or will it turn out to be a free for all. Apparently Japan does own this atoll
• If there are rare earth metals that exist and can be extracted from the oceans, have to assume they exist in other places under the ocean and there'll be investments made to find them

[Edward64]

PSA. I borked the thread with the link above. Took me a while to find the thread that fixed that problem.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Help Mods ... "I screwed up a Thread"

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

MIT has estimated that the US power grid is capable of supporting 150 million EVs. That's over half the current operational vehicles. We'd need to upgrade some to go all the way, for certain. But a lot of that is infrastructure changes that need to happen anyway.

I have read (even before this discussion) that US electric grid cannot (or not ready to) support projected EV growth. I googled on "us electric grid and EV" and have found yes/no. Some are not "mainstream" sites and partisan (e.g. oilprice.com says "no"), but we do have WaPo and Reuters articles saying "no".

A 2019 .gov analysis says

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...%20Nov2019.pdf

The overall conclusion the analysis in this paper demonstrates is that, based on historical growth rates, sufficient energy generation and generation capacity is expected to be available to support a growing EV fleet as it evolves over time, even with high EV market growth. The analysis also points out that growth in incremental energy generation associated with the future EV market scenarios considered here may reverse the trend over the last 10 years of near-zero growth

There is a section also on challenges

... it acknowledges several potential challenges at the distribution level

[Brian Swartz]

I think there's a big difference between 'can't' and 'not ready to'. I would also take MIT as a source over WaPo or Reuters. Certainly we'll need to upgrade the grid over time - to me the biggest point is that we'll need to do that to a lesser degree anyway, so the question isn't if, it's a matter of scale. And it's also not something unique to EVs as mentioned - any other energy source also requires it, just in different ways/sectors.

[Solecismic]

My concern with the MIT source is that it's a group dedicated to net zero. Just because there's a prestigious university behind an analysis piece doesn't make it unbiased. In fact, the university climate these days... no one who isn't dedicated to the cause would be allowed to enter the field. Only existing tenured faculty may not agree, and they are under a lot of pressure.

The 250 million... never heard even close to that elsewhere. The goal, I thought, was 20 million by 2030. But that would require an investment of about $5,000 per EV in new technology just to upgrade the grid. Who pays? The taxpayers - again to support the wealthy.

However, plans to upgrade the grid often add instability. The grid needs to work even on its worst day. As this takes place, the number of power outages increases and the cost of electricity skyrockets.

I'll also note that the MIT plan, and others that get to 20 million (all I've found is from groups that in their mission statement indicate that bias - I'm not OK with that - they're the ones demanding this expensive transformation) talk about ideal charging situations. You will not be able to charge whenever you need a charge.

In addition, many of these plans refer to off-loading, when your EV battery is essentially added to the grid when that power is needed elsewhere. Again, you will not be able to use your EV whenever you want. And if it's being off-loaded, that can decrease the life of the battery considerably. People will not want to do that, and they may not have a choice.

Ultimately, this is going to be very expensive - personal transportation may no longer be an option for poor people - which might make upward mobility very difficult in many areas. And it's going to involve a lot more government control over our daily lives. Most of all, it's going to put billions of people into energy poverty, when reliable energy is what has fueled the incredible increase in our quality of life over the last 100 years.

Ask yourself if it's worth it.

[PilotMan]

I'd say that's a chain of events that is far from inevitable, and in fact, only follows a linear line of thinking where there is no change in behavior in spite of what seem to be, a multitude of awful occurrences in a row.

A large chunk of people today don't seem to care about the poor not being mobile now. Not sure this is going to change that suddenly, or make them care any more.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is the agree-to-disagree point for me. I mentioned some of the issues with the 'stick' approach earlier in the thread, but this proposed solution is something that I am as confident as I can be in anything that it would be an unmitigated disaster. We also clearly have irreconcilable disagreements on what terms like 'welfare for billionaires' mean.

Thanks for the discussion.

Decades of propaganda have convinced people like you that $200 for a poor person to buy groceries is welfare but covering billions in business expenses for a well-connected person is just how things need to be done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Society seems obsessed with what other people have.

Well what they have is our tax dollars. Seems something we should care about.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The 250 million... never heard even close to that elsewhere. The goal, I thought, was 20 million by 2030. But that would require an investment of about $5,000 per EV in new technology just to upgrade the grid. Who pays? The taxpayers - again to support the wealthy.

Some points are being conflated here. Unless I miss what you are referring to, the point I referenced is the grid being capable of supporting 150 million vehicles. Not having that by any set date.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

all I've found is from groups that in their mission statement indicate that bias - I'm not OK with that - they're the ones demanding this expensive transformation

This is one of the key points. You can't just assess the transformation cost in isolation. It's incredibly cheap compared to the alternative. Our current reliance on oil is not sustainable, full stop. That's even if we don't care about the environmental damage. The choice isn't 'EV or status quo'. Status quo isn't an option. Hydrogen at present is a worse alternative. What other serious candidates do we have?

On the bias ... I would say it's like having a bias in favor of gravity. Should we be taking studies from flat earther's seriously? There's a point at which there's an entry-level requirement - particularly when this discussion begin as a comparison of emissions, which is an assumption that it actually matters what emissions are higher and what are lower - of accepting certain scientific realities. If someone thinks we have practically infinite oil on the planet or that it doesn't matter how much we pollute, no they aren't ever going to be convinced. But I would also say those are scientifically unserious positions.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ultimately, this is going to be very expensive - personal transportation may no longer be an option for poor people - which might make upward mobility very difficult in many areas. And it's going to involve a lot more government control over our daily lives. Most of all, it's going to put billions of people into energy poverty, when reliable energy is what has fueled the incredible increase in our quality of life over the last 100 years.

This is a lot of presumption to be frank. More government control is not inevitable. The power grid could be changed in ways that do that and which are unstable. It could also be changed in ways that are not, which is one of many reasons why I agree with you on nuclear power. If it's done badly, sure that's a problem. But the answer to that is 'don't screw it up', not 'don't even try to do it well'. There simply is no good reason why it has to put people into energy poverty.

If I was trying to come up with a good way to do that, I would keep us as reliant on oil as possible. If you want a worldwide economic disaster, that's the best and most reliable way to make that happen. It feels to me like the big objection here centers around 'why can't we just keep things the way they are'. Answer; again leaving aside the environment, that is just not sustainable. We are going to run out of oil at the prices and volume it is available now, we are already seeing the beginnings of that, it is going to get much worse before we are ready for it at our current pace of transition away from it, and barring a magical invention of some kind it is an inevitable crunch. We have a very long track record now of decades now not having a single year finding as much oil as we are using, and we see all the time whenever there is a moderate spike in oil prices how vulnerable we are to not running out, but relatively minor fluctuations in supply.

The expensive option is not transforming, by multiple orders of magnitude. We'd all like a better option than EVs I presume, but it's the best choice we have by far and we are decades behind where we need to be as it is. There isn't time to wait for something better.

[Solecismic]

The "full stop" is where I stop taking this seriously, honestly. So, we do away with plastics, asphalt, fertilizers, the millions of products and inventions that depend on fossil fuels? Our standard of living drops considerably, and our planet cannot possibly support anywhere near the billions already here.

All this "full stop" stuff, plugging your ears, covering your eyes, refusing to discuss anything... it's a religion, not science. It's sad, because this is what's going to lead to enormous suffering, the "let's sacrifice everything, let China produce everything, pretend all this is having even the tiniest impact on the climate, but above all, do not question me" approach.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The "full stop" is where I stop taking this seriously, honestly. So, we do away with plastics, asphalt, fertilizers, the millions of products and inventions that depend on fossil fuels? Our standard of living drops considerably, and our planet cannot possibly support anywhere near the billions already here.

TBF I did not read the full-stop ("Our current reliance on oil is not sustainable, full stop") to imply do way with all the other oil dependent products. I read it as do not continue or increase this pace, but reduce.

[Solecismic]

The question doesn't seem to be about urgency. The free market has always solved these problems in time.

This is simply a refusal to even entertain the thought that maybe those holding "the end is near" signs are wrong. They always have been.

[Brian Swartz]

Edward64 is correct on how I meant it. Thanks for putting it so well.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

full stop" stuff, plugging your ears, covering your eyes, refusing to discuss anything... it's a religion, not science. It's sad, because this is what's going to lead to enormous suffering, the "let's sacrifice everything, let China produce everything, pretend all this is having even the tiniest impact on the climate, but above all, do not question me" approach

On the contrary, I'm arguing for opening our eyes to the reality in front of us. I'm on the opposite side of refusing to discuss, but that discussion has to be based on the facts as we know them, not on wishful thinking.

The free market has absolutely not always solved these problems in time. That's just plain not true, and 'in time' has already passed. I'm open to being rebutted with facts. So far in this thread, one outdated study that mostly agreed with position I articulated had been cited. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong on oil, on the basic facts of the situation. A few guiding questions:

- How is the fact that China is trying to monopolize rare earths different than them trying to monopolize aluminum (which we already need), OPEC (who controls 80% of the world's oil reserves) /others trying to control the supply of crude, or any other key resource? If you think it's a viable course of action to be resource-independent in the modern world, explain why & how as it relates to these resources.

- Global consumption of crude oil is over 35 billion barrels per year (as of 2016, it's higher now), and rising. The last time we discovered that much was roughly 1980. 2015 was the best recent year, at just over 20 bn. And it's actually worse than that sounds, because most of what is being discovered is expensive to extract. What logical reason do we have to say this is sustainable?

- Most estimates say we have 45-50 years of oil left. Of course we don't have anywhere near that long before economic disaster; that happens when we can't produce the amount we need at an affordable price. Estimates on when that point arrives vary, but the pessimistic end is less than a decade, the optimistic end 15-20 years from now barring another shale-oil level breakthrough; that would buy us another 5-10 years, but given the number of products we depend on affordable oil for my argument is simple; we need to be phasing absolutely as many of them as we can out now and replacing them with alternatives. That both buys more time and makes the eventual shortfall that much easier to absorb. Anything that 'might be possible a decade from now' is simply too late to matter. My question here is what basis do we have to say this isn't a crisis, that we have any responsible path other than transitioning as much as possible as soon as possible off of oil dependency? What basis do we have to say we have plenty of time to wait for inventions to show up and time to refine them, implement them, and so on before the crunch hits?

I will say I do find the 'free market will solve it' argument tempting. I'd like to believe that. I think a fairly cursory view of human history belies that though. We have had a brief period of about 150 years, depending on how you measure it, of cheap and widely available energy based on consuming resources which are not renewable. This is something that just from a logical point of view has never been sustainable. I don't want to bury my head in the sand and say 'let the millennials figure it out'. IMO the facts as I understand them admit only one conclusion; the time for correcting course isn't just here, it's long past. Mitigating the damage, or not, are the only remaining possibilities.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The 250 million... never heard even close to that elsewhere. The goal, I thought, was 20 million by 2030. But that would require an investment of about $5,000 per EV in new technology just to upgrade the grid. Who pays? The taxpayers - again to support the wealthy.

Taxpayers are currently paying for our access to cheap oil. Except instead of some wealthy Americans reaping the benefits, it's some Arab princes. Instead of it creating jobs for Americans, it's slave labor in the Middle East.

This country has spent TRILLIONS in taxpayer money to fight wars and provide defense in the Middle East over the past few decades for greater access to oil. Not to mention the massive loss of life of military personnel and civilians (including those on American soil through blowback).

We've spent billions trying to destabilize parts of Central and South America so we could obtain cheap oil leading to an influx of poor immigrants from those countries (which also costs taxpayers money). We spend billions in foreign aid to countries so companies can import their oil.

Then you have your oil and gas subsidies which top $16 billion a year. That doesn't include the access to federal lands and infrastructure to obtain and transport that oil. Or the environmental and financial impact when one of these companies blasts a bunch of crude into the Gulf and shrugs their shoulders.

You're pretending there is a free market for oil in this country when there is not. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the cost to subsidize renewable energy is anywhere in the same realm as the cost we currently pay for access to cheap oil.

[Solecismic]

We don't have infinite time, but if we continue to restrict exploration, ban new leases, ban fracking, then we run out sooner. I don't think anyone knows how much is left, just what is essentially proven.

If we spend that time forcing a solution that isn't viable, then if we do run out in 50 years or 100 years, we're screwed. But the bigger problem is that we are trying to commit to goals less than ten years from now that will render us helpless.

Remember that in the '70s, the same argument was made, consumption has increased dramatically, and yet we have more in proven untapped oil remaining than we had then. That doesn't mean we should relax and assume that's forever.

For me, and I am not an oil industry executive nor do I have a doctorate in physics, I do not understand why we're not planning and building nuclear plants as fast as humanly possible. They are far safer today than they were in decades past. The used fuel rods are easily buried in concrete or steel drums. But they take a long time to build and regulations don't always make sense. They aren't zero-carbon, but they're a lot closer than anything else. And they provide consistent power, so you don't need to invent giant batteries and "redeploy" millions of acres of farmland and forest. That will buy us time to figure out how to keep the world's economy going while our brightest and best work on new solutions.

In the meantime, energy reliability and independence is vital. Cooperation doesn't mean anything to China or Russia. They will leverage what they have to get what they want, which is a world governed in the manner they want to govern it. No more individual human rights. No more individual freedom. There is a price to be paid for energy dependence. There is a price to be paid for congratulating ourselves for reducing emissions in the US by outsourcing all our manufacturing to Asia. And even if you're in the "end is near" crowd, surely you understand that global emissions are still increasing and Asian countries are not going to stop. They'll send us all the solar panels and batteries they can make, they'll even pretend they rely on them themselves, but they are building new power plants as fast as they can - coal, whatever. It won't be enough, though.

When we look at what's happening in Europe, most notably Germany and the UK, with energy prices. It's easy to blame Russia's attack on Ukraine, but this was a long time in the making, and there's no end in sight. This winter has already been tough. Next winter will be worse. People should not have to choose between keeping warm and eating healthy meals. Many people are already faced with this, and the UK and Germany are trying - adding endlessly to their debt right now - but they're not solving the underlying problem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We don't have infinite time, but if we continue to restrict exploration, ban new leases, ban fracking, then we run out sooner.

None of that is happening.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Remember that in the '70s, the same argument was made, consumption has increased dramatically, and yet we have more in proven untapped oil remaining than we had then.

The set of facts then was completely different. We were discovering more oil than we were consuming. That hasn't happened for more than forty years.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That will buy us time to figure out how to keep the world's economy going while our brightest and best work on new solutions.

In the meantime, energy reliability and independence is vital.

Such independence is impossible as long as we rely on oil.

My biggest frustration with this discussion is the dismissal of what we have actual evidence for, combined with assertions of future happenings for which don't have evidence. There is no coherent standard of evidence/factual basis that I can discern. Whatever else that means, I think it means there's little more I can usefully say if we aren't going to head-on address ideas such as how the goal of energy independence is completely in conflict with continued reliance on oil, and similar.

[Solecismic]

Every time I look at something you quote, it's from a group that's dedicated to this goal of zero carbon that simply isn't feasible with today's technology. Of course they say it is.

But their approach is already multiplying energy costs and reducing reliability. That much we see - no study is necessary. Read the NERC site if you don't believe the reliability part.

And adding millions of EVs - it just doesn't make sense - both from a manufacturing perspective and a where will the electricity come from perspective, since current policy changes are already causing instability without a large number of EVs. And the more unreliable pieces you put into the grid, the more backup you need.

Anything I quote will somehow connect to something you won't like, I'm certain. Your source said the Heritage Foundation was simply a front for oil companies. I doubt it is, but there's no sense in playing this game because you're only going to repeat what they repeat, no matter who I quote. I hadn't planned on quoting the Heritage Foundation, but they have written about this issue.

And I'm not going to take seriously studies done by groups created to lobby for these green billions our government throws out there like candy these days.

So, we might as well not argue. I think your side is a religion, and I'm an agnostic on the issue. You have to convince me that it's worth spending trillions to convert something that was already working just fine. I don't have to convince you of anything - you're the one who is adamant that it has to be done this minute at any cost, no matter how many people are hurt.

The US has been close to energy independence in recent years, but the current administration has gutted investment and development and because of that, I worry that our economy will be in full depression within a few years. Mostly because of energy costs and unreliability and China putting the squeeze on when it's time.

[Galaril]

I guess we can just keep driving over the cliff then. SMH.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Anything I quote will somehow connect to something you won't like, I'm certain.

I will say one bit more about the idea of facts and data. This right here is just a complete and total lie. There's still been one source total cited on your side. Did I say anything about who it was connected to? No. I talked about the fact that it A) backed up what I said in almost every particular, and B) was based on bad data - a decade-old understanding of EV technology and a very low estimate of vehicle lifecycle. I assessed the quality of what it said and found that to be quite lacking.

If someone - you or anyone else - brings up contrary data to what i've said about how much oil we have, how much is being discovered or consumed, what emissions actually are - all that is open to discussion. There is no monolithic 'net zero groups think X' bit going on here. There are quite different proposals even within those groups. But it's impossible to get to a point of reasonable assessment when we can't even get to a point on engaging on what the facts are. Instead it's just presumption and generalities with almost no concrete information to either verify or refute. Remember, I used to be on your side of these issues 20 years ago. I just couldn't stay there in light of the increasing amount of evidence demonstrating where the reality actually is.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I guess we can just keep driving over the cliff then. SMH.

At least the gas will be affordable.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I will say one bit more about the idea of facts and data. This right here is just a complete and total lie. There's still been one source total cited on your side. Did I say anything about who it was connected to? No. I talked about the fact that it A) backed up what I said in almost every particular, and B) was based on bad data - a decade-old understanding of EV technology and a very low estimate of vehicle lifecycle. I assessed the quality of what it said and found that to be quite lacking.

If someone - you or anyone else - brings up contrary data to what i've said about how much oil we have, how much is being discovered or consumed, what emissions actually are - all that is open to discussion. There is no monolithic 'net zero groups think X' bit going on here. There are quite different proposals even within those groups. But it's impossible to get to a point of reasonable assessment when we can't even get to a point on engaging on what the facts are. Instead it's just presumption and generalities with almost no concrete information to either verify or refute. Remember, I used to be on your side of these issues 20 years ago. I just couldn't stay there in light of the increasing amount of evidence demonstrating where the reality actually is.

Let me try and summarize.

We can agree that there are at least 50 years of oil remaining based on current knowledge and storage. I don't know if we can agree on the chances that more will be discovered.

In the '70s, when we last went through this argument, production increased and known reserves are still, today, higher than known reserves then. But we went through a round of massive changes based on that worry, which triggered inflation and the worst somewhat long-term economic period in my lifetime.

We can agree that mankind cannot rely on oil reserves forever. We disagree on whether the timeline suggests that we immediately, "full-stop" (you can tell this is what frustrates me) dismantle what is working for us today and switch to unreliable, expensive alternatives.

So the path of divergence there is, I think, you - this starts now, and me - we don't have a good solution now, let's spend just a fraction of the money we're spending on unreliable energy sources and double-down on new research.

I have referenced the NERC site (link - https://www.nerc.com/Pages/default.aspx), which tracks outages and is responsible for assessments on what we need for a stable, reliable energy grid. Major outages are increasing in frequency. Several areas of the US and Canada are projected to be producing less energy than peak demand in the very near future.

I would argue that mankind's standard of living depends on reliable energy and many of the products (like plastics and fertilizers) that we create from fossil fuels.

Life expectancy:

File:Life expectancy by world region, from 1770 to 2018.svg - Wikipedia

Eliminating fossil fuel use is more than just changing cars or how electricity is produced. If we stop making fertilizer, people will starve in many places around the world. With the increase in life expectancy has come a dramatic increase in world population. They need to eat.

This dramatic transition comes at an enormous cost. If you look at subsidies to the people just to keep the furnace on and the lights on, Germany (which is several years ahead of us in this transition) has already approved 10% of its GDP (it is spending 7% now) just paying people's energy bills. That's a world-high, but others are catching up (the UK just approved 5% of GDP). Right there, that alone is a recession. And it doesn't even begin to cover the cost of the transition itself.

So the "full-stop" has a monumental cost. And yes, I understand that means begin the transition, not complete it today. We are full-stopping, beginning the transition. And it is already causing enormous harm in Europe, which is years ahead of us.

This is not to say that we shouldn't try technologies like EVs. That might mean research money to companies like Tesla - a lot of research money. Where we might disagree is whether the products themselves should be subsidized to wealthy middle-class Americans at taxpayer expense.

I don't know if you're right and the studies showing EV use saves on emissions are valid. Or the opposite is true. I read this summary a while back, and that one came under a lot of attack, but they stand by the analysis.

IFO INSTITUTE STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON CLIMATE-SAVING CREDENTIALS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

But even if it does save emissions, the more important piece today is whether the electric grid can handle the increased demand of charging. You dismissed, out of hand, the experiences in European countries as irrelevant. I don't agree, since if we have more EVs, it makes sense that we push limits as Europe already does.

Many long-term plans include restrictions on EV charging, even a requirement that EVs be used as batteries and feed into the system when demand is otherwise high. This would lower battery life. We disagree on whether the 20 years theorized by Tesla can be used as a benchmark for EV analysis or cost. No Tesla battery is 20 years old. Their warranty doesn't guarantee you 20 years. That's because they know it's just theory and your mileage may vary. The estimate doesn't include use in colder weather or non-ideal charging based on need and certainly not on this plan for feeding power back into the grid. I'd have to check, but it may also be specific to one type of charging. Does the super-fast charging create more wear?

I just don't think the EV transition should start now. Cost, convenience, need... it only makes sense if full-stop is a requirement. The technology simply isn't economical yet. That combined with the artificial strains we're already placing on the grid, sacrificing reliability, sacrificing security, spending hundreds of billions on subsidies... it seems insane to me.

We have plenty of time. It took about 150 years to more than double human life expectancy. Fossil fuels are a huge part of this. Understanding that we are burning billions of years of the "bodies" of plants and animals long past, it will, of course, run out at some point. At some point we will need full-stop.

It is not today. However, we've already started. If we continue that transition today, resources that we desperately need to find something viable for the future will be spent simply trying to keep people alive today. When you're spending up to 10% of GDP, as Germany plans, just to pay the electric bills... that's a sign that you're causing a lot of harm with your policies.

You would call these "generalities." I don't. I'm only trying to show that starting this transition early has an enormous cost.

[albionmoonlight]

$TSLA down another 9% today.

Pretty soon it’ll be cheaper to buy the entire company than it will to buy one of their cars.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

IFO INSTITUTE STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON CLIMATE-SAVING CREDENTIALS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

This is quite the site you're citing. Seems like a big fan of Mike Lindell and company. Very sane, rational people.

[albionmoonlight]

Rod Hilton: "He talked about electric cars. I don't know anyth…" - Mastodon