- Location
- Grand Junction, CO
The EV debate; Electric or Internal Combustion vehicles?
- Thread starter Greg
- Start date
Houndoc
Registered User
- Location
- Grantsville
I have had similar thoughts.
Clearly you will be able to generate enough energy to create the so-called perpetual motion, but I also find it hard to believe it would not generate enough to significantly extend an EVs range.
This hits the nail on the head as to why discussions on EVs are so difficult.
You made the comment in fairly absolute terms that an EV is more time consuming, when in reality it is more time consuming for drives that make up well under 1% of trips (data shows that 99% of drives are under 100 miles).
Well all know that EVs, like any other vehicle ever made, are not the perfect vehicle for everyone in every situation.
Spork
Tin Foil Hat Equipped
- Location
- Saratoga Springs, UT
Someone mentioned EV motorcycles... I've seen a lot of small stuff but when you get to stick a plate on it and drive it on the street the number of bikes goes way down. HD has the livewire, Zero motorocycles and maybe one or 2 others. The problem is a lot of these EV are as much or more than a traditional bike. I love the concept of driving a bike back and forth to work but read max speed of 50mph and 30 mile range. Is this ever going to be a thing?
- Location
- Stinkwater
Believe it. Entropy is like death, there's no getting around it. You cannot and will not ever get as much energy out of a system as what you put in.
What might work is something like regenerative braking, where louvers or something open and allow the turbines to spin while you're decelerating anyway, and capture some of that energy that would be lost as heat otherwise. But I expect that it wouldn't be much unless they were big turbines and you were decelerating from F1 car speeds.
...and regen braking using the electric motor as the generator, is already a thing. And is most likely much more efficient than a wind thingy.
Pike2350
Registered User
- Location
- Salt Lake City
Hyundai did this on the Sonata hybrid. It only fit 200w of solar and is meant more as a way to offset the loss of power while it sits...not really to extend the range...but supposedly after 8 hours in sun it could add a whopping 3 miles of range.
That's ultimately the problem...not nearly enough power generated, even covering the whole car in panels.
Hyundai's solar car roof isn't as dumb as it sounds | TechCrunch
The new hybrid Hyundai Sonata has solar cells built into its roof. After baking in the sun all day, the car can add 3-4 miles to its range. That might
techcrunch.com
85CUCVKRAWLER
Active Member
- Location
- Tooele
Ok.... well... my resume is an "expert" in the automotive industry and i am just typing out what major insider concerns are as to why consumers havent picked up EV's as readily as ICE's. Also, what i have outlined in this thread is not "1%" of driving like you have qouted, seemingly out of thin air.
further, i would question your crendentials as someone minmally understanding of basic engineering to state that attaching "turbines" to an Ev would "significantly extend an EVs range".
Maybe we should attach treadmills to EV's as well?
lmao
- Location
- Stinkwater
Well what percentage is it then? You claimed "your driving experience is signifcantly worse and/or delayed" and that seems like a pretty big leap to me too. I was gonna let it pass but if you're an expert, well...
It seems reasonable to me that "scooting around town and returning to your home charger" describes the vast majority of driving that most people do, even most of us on here, and exactly what EVs are well suited for. But I'm not an expert, and don't claim to be one. If you are gonna claim to be an expert, I'd like to see some numbers to back up your assertion. What percentage of trips in personal vehicles on personal time are NOT running local errands and commuting to/from work or school or whatnot?
- Location
- Stinkwater
But anyway, an electric Audi on portals seems like fun. Only a top speed of 108 but I think I could probably cope...
www.off-road.com
Audi Unveils Q6 e-tron Offroad Concept with Groundbreaking Portal Axles - Off-Road.com
During the World Cup weekend in Kitzbühel, Austria, Audi introduced the Q6 e-tron offroad concept, a prototype electric vehicle designed for serious off-road p...
www.off-road.com
85CUCVKRAWLER
Active Member
- Location
- Tooele
https://aaafoundation.org/wp-conten...2-AAAFTS-American-Driving-Survey-Brief_v3.pdf
30% of driving trips are for "errands"
51% for communting
average commuting time was ~28 minutes one way
average 60 minutes behind wheel each day
As my first post suggested, if you have a charging station at your place of work and at home, great, awsome. but if not, this situation does not work for you as you need to find a charging station somewhere in-between beyond a normal gas station. Meaning you have to spend extra time at a charging station beyond a normal fuel-fill-up.
To add: lets say you only have a charging place at your home, you could probably make this work. But back to my oringial post, what if you live in a condo/apartment/non-garage having home and your employer cannot provide a charging station? Then this situation cannot work, which is what MOST Americans notice and choose not to participate in.
>oh well why dont employers provide charging stations?
Why dont they have free gas stations a well?
>why dont we make apartment owners put into chargers?
Should they also put in free gas stations?
>home owners should put in their own chargers
Ok sure, but its certainly a downside of owning an EV, as they have to pay out of pocket for a charging station at their house
Last edited:
- Location
- Stinkwater
So by these numbers, 81% of trips are "scooting around town and returning home to your charger". This site indicates that nationwide, people travel an average of just over forty miles a day, commute and errands included. I'm sure EV ranges are inflated by the manufacturers, but I'm seeing average ranges of around 200 miles. So an average driver in an average EV can probably go at least two days without needing to charge. When they do need to charge, odds are they're parking for a while anyway and doing something else, so that's not really taking a huge chunk out of their day.
And to address the rest of your post, they do need to have access to a charging station for sure. But parking garages and malls and apartment/condo managers everywhere are installing charging stations as fast as they can, because they don't want to lose the business of EV drivers. So are truck stops and gas stations. So are cities and towns. Easy access to chargers is already here in many areas, and it's coming to the rest relatively quickly. And all of that is perfectly acceptable. Your analogy to "free gas stations" doesn't really work, because folks are still paying for the electricity, and part of what they pay is defraying the cost of installation of the charging station.
EVs are clearly not perfect for everyone in every situation yet. May never be. But I don't think it's fair to say that an EV automatically makes the average driving experience "significantly worse or delayed".
85CUCVKRAWLER
Active Member
- Location
- Tooele
So your rebuttal here re-enforces my point; consumers have anxiety over charging stations and that anxiety is not set to dwell anytime soon. Mainly due to the massive infrastructure constriants on charging stations. This is a Canadian article, but CA claims they need 469,000 charging stations by 2035 (yes, four hundred thousand).
This anxiety is real, and it prevented 32% of potential CA conumers from buying an EV.
https://thefutureeconomy.ca/op-eds/..._medium=Social+Media&utm_campaign=Rob+Safrata
(fun note in this article too, charginging stations are highly concentrated in urban and high-income areas, so at the bottom of the EV debate is actually a clash of social classes)
Putting into context the situation here in America, the Biden regime attempted to install tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of chargers arcross America and only installed a hand full. Why? Most likely due to incompetance, but they also had real hurdles to the construction. Property owner hesitance, infrastructure constraints, building code restraints, etc etc, the list goes on.
So instead of MORE charging stations being built in the future, we here in America have hit a plateu in EV charging station construction. Further, with Trump now expected to gut all EV mandates within the next few weeks, i would forsee that the construction of EV charging stations to grind to a near-halt.
Trump's opinion in regard to EV's is the same opinion that Toyota has had since the beginning, and is now the opinion of Ford. Which is; Hybrid vechiles are the way of the future. Hybrids resolve all the issues with charging anxiety, range anxiety, and incorporates an already massive and extremely refined fuel distribution network.
- Location
- The Village of Kay
Some interesting points are discussed in this thread. I am not surprised it has very political undertones because most people have ignored the common sense issues to jump on the blue team, or red team bandwagon. Being in the Oil industry myself, I am biased as well, but try to look at things from both sides to understand the whole debate.
Are EV's fun to drive, and give a different user experience than ICE vehicles? Absolutely! An EV gives you supercar performance for the 1/4 the cost!
Do they provide a solution for folks that want to transfer their money away from Oil and Gas companies toward Electric Utilities? Yes. But big bad oil companies are not anywhere near as cynical and evil as they are made out to be. They are for profit companies, like every other non government business, that are providing a service that keeps the world moving. Electricity companies have the same goals - operate a profitable business and provide a service to their customers. For the record, I am in favor of removing ALL subsidies for both electricity production and oil and gas industries. Stop using our tax money to subsidize these industries and let them stand on their own.
Do EV's have a place in our transportation system? Absolutely! They fit a niche that can help with the general goal of offering options for consumers, and work very well in places that have been outlined already for commuters and errand running.
Are they the end all, be all, of vehicle and transportation needs? Hell no! There are far too many issues with charging, longevity, range, and other issues for them to replace ICE vehicles 100%.
Are EV's saving the planet? Absolutely not. You are truly lying to yourself if you say you are driving an EV to save the planet. Are there fewer emissions from driving and commuting in an EV? Yes, the vehicle itself does not emit, but you are ignoring all the other environmental impacts that come from producing the vehicle and powering the vehicle.
Anyone willing to look at the discussion from a common sense standpoint (both sides of the political spectrum) will see that EV's are WORSE for the planet than ICE vehicles at this time. Maybe that changes in the future, but it simply isn't the case today.
For a biased, but fact based book, I highly recommend reading Fossil Future by Alex Epstein. For a biased watch, also presenting facts, watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore. Surprisingly, both the book and the movie point out the same fallacies and issues with "Green" energy, but come to different conclusions (a topic for another thread).
First, let's take a closer look at batteries. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite are all essential materials for lithium-ion batteries, but their extraction can have serious environmental and social consequences.
Now let's look at the false narrative that Solar and Wind are our saviors. There has already been a discussion about this, with Corban chiming in and providing insight from AZ.
In Fossil Future, Alex Epstein challenges the narrative that wind and solar are cheaper than natural gas and nuclear. This narrative is both misleading and shortsighted, driven by surface-level comparisons and ignoring the hidden costs and complexities of renewable energy. Epstein shows that while wind and solar may appear cheaper on paper, they are actually far more expensive when you consider the full picture.
As Corban pointed out, to ensure reliable electricity supply, wind and solar require backup power from dispatchable sources—typically natural gas or coal plants, which can be turned on or off as needed. A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that for every megawatt of wind or solar capacity, approximately 0.5 megawatts of backup natural gas capacity is needed to maintain grid reliability. In some regions, this can mean building or maintaining additional gas plants that are only used intermittently. This backup infrastructure doesn’t come for free. A 2020 study from the Journal of Cleaner Production estimated that integrating high levels of renewables into the grid could increase the overall cost of electricity by 20-50% due to the need for backup and energy storage.
Additionally, energy storage solutions like batteries, which are often touted as a way to solve the intermittency problem, come at a high cost. The cost of utility-scale battery storage, according to the EIA, is about $350 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2024, and it’s expected to remain expensive for the foreseeable future. To store enough energy to reliably supply power through the night, for example, would require vast amounts of expensive battery capacity. The high cost of storage further drives up the overall cost of wind and solar when integrated into the grid, not to mention the same battery issues outlined above relating to EV's.
Even when we ignore backup and storage costs, wind and solar still fail to deliver the kind of reliable power we need. Natural gas plants, in contrast, are flexible and can provide power on demand, making them ideal for balancing supply and demand at all times. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), during periods of high demand, gas-fired plants often ramp up to provide critical peaking power. In fact, during the February 2021 winter storm in Texas, gas and nuclear plants were the primary sources of power when wind and solar generation plunged due to freezing temperatures. Wind and solar could not meet the demand, highlighting their failure as reliable, baseload power sources.
The true cost of energy is also impacted by the lifespan and maintenance costs of different power sources. Wind turbines have an average lifespan of 20-25 years, with ongoing maintenance costs that can add up over time. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the annual operation and maintenance costs for wind turbines can range from $10 to $20 per MWh. Solar panels typically last 25-30 years but also require maintenance, and the cost of replacing inverters (which generally last 10-15 years) adds up.
In contrast, nuclear plants, despite their high initial capital costs, have an operational lifespan of 60 years or more, with relatively low ongoing maintenance costs. A study by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that nuclear plants have some of the lowest maintenance costs of any power generation technology, averaging just $15 per MWh in operating expenses. Over the long term, nuclear power offers more stable costs because of its durability and the ability to generate a consistent, high output of power.
Another key point Epstein emphasizes is that the environmental costs of wind and solar are often downplayed. Just like the discussion about batteries for EV's, wind turbines require rare earth metals like neodymium and dysprosium, which are mined in environmentally destructive ways, often in countries with poor labor standards. Similarly, solar panels rely on materials like silicon, cadmium, and tellurium, and their production process generates significant CO2 emissions.
Moreover, the disposal of solar panels and wind turbines at the end of their lifespan presents another environmental challenge. A report from the European Commission in 2020 found that the recycling of wind turbine blades is problematic, and the disposal of large quantities of blades in landfills could lead to significant environmental harm over time. The US is solving this problem by shipping our spent panels and blades to India for disposal, continuing the thought that if we aren't killing the environment in the US, we aren't harming the planet...
When you factor in the costs of intermittency, storage, backup power, and the environmental impact of production and disposal, the economic case for wind and solar energy falls flat. While natural gas and nuclear power may have higher upfront costs, they provide reliable, consistent, and long-lasting energy. It appears that the correct path forward is a mix of all available power sources where each makes sense, but likely MUCH more nuclear.
The false narrative that wind and solar are inherently cheaper and better for the environment than fossil fuels and nuclear power overlooks these critical factors, leaving us with an incomplete and misleading picture of the true costs of energy. Epstein’s central argument is that, to build a truly affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy future, we must focus on technologies that can deliver high levels of dependable power without the hidden costs and risks of unreliable renewables. And that, in many cases, means embracing fossil fuels and nuclear power, not pushing them aside in favor of political or ideological goals.
Are EV's fun to drive, and give a different user experience than ICE vehicles? Absolutely! An EV gives you supercar performance for the 1/4 the cost!
Do they provide a solution for folks that want to transfer their money away from Oil and Gas companies toward Electric Utilities? Yes. But big bad oil companies are not anywhere near as cynical and evil as they are made out to be. They are for profit companies, like every other non government business, that are providing a service that keeps the world moving. Electricity companies have the same goals - operate a profitable business and provide a service to their customers. For the record, I am in favor of removing ALL subsidies for both electricity production and oil and gas industries. Stop using our tax money to subsidize these industries and let them stand on their own.
Do EV's have a place in our transportation system? Absolutely! They fit a niche that can help with the general goal of offering options for consumers, and work very well in places that have been outlined already for commuters and errand running.
Are they the end all, be all, of vehicle and transportation needs? Hell no! There are far too many issues with charging, longevity, range, and other issues for them to replace ICE vehicles 100%.
Are EV's saving the planet? Absolutely not. You are truly lying to yourself if you say you are driving an EV to save the planet. Are there fewer emissions from driving and commuting in an EV? Yes, the vehicle itself does not emit, but you are ignoring all the other environmental impacts that come from producing the vehicle and powering the vehicle.
Anyone willing to look at the discussion from a common sense standpoint (both sides of the political spectrum) will see that EV's are WORSE for the planet than ICE vehicles at this time. Maybe that changes in the future, but it simply isn't the case today.
For a biased, but fact based book, I highly recommend reading Fossil Future by Alex Epstein. For a biased watch, also presenting facts, watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore. Surprisingly, both the book and the movie point out the same fallacies and issues with "Green" energy, but come to different conclusions (a topic for another thread).
First, let's take a closer look at batteries. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite are all essential materials for lithium-ion batteries, but their extraction can have serious environmental and social consequences.
- Cobalt Mining: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) produces around 60% of the world’s cobalt, and mining practices in the region are often associated with human rights violations, including child labor and unsafe working conditions. Environmentally, mining cobalt also leads to deforestation, pollution, and soil degradation. According to a study by the European Commission, cobalt mining contributes significantly to the environmental footprint of electric vehicles.
- A report from the Environmental Impact of Lithium Extraction (2020) highlights the significant environmental impact of lithium mining, including water contamination and depletion of local aquifers.
- According to the International Nickel Study Group (2021), the extraction of nickel can lead to massive landscape destruction, toxic tailings, and pollution of nearby water sources.
- Battery Manufacturing Carbon Footprint: Producing a lithium-ion battery with a capacity of 50 kWh can result in emissions between 61 to 106 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery capacity, depending on the energy mix used in the manufacturing process. This means that a 50 kWh battery can have an initial carbon footprint of around 3,050 to 5,300 kg of CO2 before the vehicle is even driven, a stark contrast to the production of a conventional ICE vehicle, which typically emits about 6,000-8,000 kg of CO2 during production.
- Inefficient Recycling: Current lithium-ion battery recycling methods are energy-intensive and inefficient. According to the International Resource Panel (IRP), the recycling rate for lithium-ion batteries is less than 5% globally, leading to an accumulation of waste.
- Recycling Footprint: Even when batteries are recycled, the process still has a significant carbon footprint. A 2019 study from the University of Birmingham found that the carbon footprint of recycling lithium-ion batteries could still be as high as 2,500 kg of CO2 per ton of battery material processed, depending on the method used. This could contribute to greater emissions than simply continuing to operate an ICE vehicle, especially if the battery is not recycled efficiently.
Now let's look at the false narrative that Solar and Wind are our saviors. There has already been a discussion about this, with Corban chiming in and providing insight from AZ.
In Fossil Future, Alex Epstein challenges the narrative that wind and solar are cheaper than natural gas and nuclear. This narrative is both misleading and shortsighted, driven by surface-level comparisons and ignoring the hidden costs and complexities of renewable energy. Epstein shows that while wind and solar may appear cheaper on paper, they are actually far more expensive when you consider the full picture.
As Corban pointed out, to ensure reliable electricity supply, wind and solar require backup power from dispatchable sources—typically natural gas or coal plants, which can be turned on or off as needed. A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that for every megawatt of wind or solar capacity, approximately 0.5 megawatts of backup natural gas capacity is needed to maintain grid reliability. In some regions, this can mean building or maintaining additional gas plants that are only used intermittently. This backup infrastructure doesn’t come for free. A 2020 study from the Journal of Cleaner Production estimated that integrating high levels of renewables into the grid could increase the overall cost of electricity by 20-50% due to the need for backup and energy storage.
Additionally, energy storage solutions like batteries, which are often touted as a way to solve the intermittency problem, come at a high cost. The cost of utility-scale battery storage, according to the EIA, is about $350 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2024, and it’s expected to remain expensive for the foreseeable future. To store enough energy to reliably supply power through the night, for example, would require vast amounts of expensive battery capacity. The high cost of storage further drives up the overall cost of wind and solar when integrated into the grid, not to mention the same battery issues outlined above relating to EV's.
Even when we ignore backup and storage costs, wind and solar still fail to deliver the kind of reliable power we need. Natural gas plants, in contrast, are flexible and can provide power on demand, making them ideal for balancing supply and demand at all times. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), during periods of high demand, gas-fired plants often ramp up to provide critical peaking power. In fact, during the February 2021 winter storm in Texas, gas and nuclear plants were the primary sources of power when wind and solar generation plunged due to freezing temperatures. Wind and solar could not meet the demand, highlighting their failure as reliable, baseload power sources.
The true cost of energy is also impacted by the lifespan and maintenance costs of different power sources. Wind turbines have an average lifespan of 20-25 years, with ongoing maintenance costs that can add up over time. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the annual operation and maintenance costs for wind turbines can range from $10 to $20 per MWh. Solar panels typically last 25-30 years but also require maintenance, and the cost of replacing inverters (which generally last 10-15 years) adds up.
In contrast, nuclear plants, despite their high initial capital costs, have an operational lifespan of 60 years or more, with relatively low ongoing maintenance costs. A study by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that nuclear plants have some of the lowest maintenance costs of any power generation technology, averaging just $15 per MWh in operating expenses. Over the long term, nuclear power offers more stable costs because of its durability and the ability to generate a consistent, high output of power.
Another key point Epstein emphasizes is that the environmental costs of wind and solar are often downplayed. Just like the discussion about batteries for EV's, wind turbines require rare earth metals like neodymium and dysprosium, which are mined in environmentally destructive ways, often in countries with poor labor standards. Similarly, solar panels rely on materials like silicon, cadmium, and tellurium, and their production process generates significant CO2 emissions.
Moreover, the disposal of solar panels and wind turbines at the end of their lifespan presents another environmental challenge. A report from the European Commission in 2020 found that the recycling of wind turbine blades is problematic, and the disposal of large quantities of blades in landfills could lead to significant environmental harm over time. The US is solving this problem by shipping our spent panels and blades to India for disposal, continuing the thought that if we aren't killing the environment in the US, we aren't harming the planet...
When you factor in the costs of intermittency, storage, backup power, and the environmental impact of production and disposal, the economic case for wind and solar energy falls flat. While natural gas and nuclear power may have higher upfront costs, they provide reliable, consistent, and long-lasting energy. It appears that the correct path forward is a mix of all available power sources where each makes sense, but likely MUCH more nuclear.
The false narrative that wind and solar are inherently cheaper and better for the environment than fossil fuels and nuclear power overlooks these critical factors, leaving us with an incomplete and misleading picture of the true costs of energy. Epstein’s central argument is that, to build a truly affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy future, we must focus on technologies that can deliver high levels of dependable power without the hidden costs and risks of unreliable renewables. And that, in many cases, means embracing fossil fuels and nuclear power, not pushing them aside in favor of political or ideological goals.
Last edited:
- Location
- Draper, UT
A really interesting technology being developed is the molten salt reactor such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor).
They operate at atmospheric pressure, so no boom if they fail.
With no pressure vessel, they could be made with components built in a factory and assembled on site.
Self regulating. The fuel is suspended in a liquid which if it gets too hot, expands, the fuel moves farther apart, and the reaction slows.
In the event of a problem, no active cooling is needed (think coolant pump generatorsfailing drowning at Fukashima).
Can use existing nuclear waste as fuel.
If electricity were cheap enough, diesel fuel can be synthesized from atmospheric CO2 for a true carbon neutral fuel.
They operate at atmospheric pressure, so no boom if they fail.
With no pressure vessel, they could be made with components built in a factory and assembled on site.
Self regulating. The fuel is suspended in a liquid which if it gets too hot, expands, the fuel moves farther apart, and the reaction slows.
In the event of a problem, no active cooling is needed (think coolant pump generators
Can use existing nuclear waste as fuel.
If electricity were cheap enough, diesel fuel can be synthesized from atmospheric CO2 for a true carbon neutral fuel.
- Location
- The Village of Kay
Very interesting. I haven't heard of that yet. Will have to do some digging.
So I keep seeing people point to the carbon footprint of EV and renewable tech and I always get caught on the idea that EVs generate so much carbon NOW. Logically, Yeah no shit. NOW the EVs are using older tech to manufacture and power. Isn't that the point though? We use the previous fuel system to power the transition to a future fuel system. We used firewood to power our transition to coal to power our transition to fossil fuels to power our transition to nuclear to power our transition to renewables and the future. We have to use the energy source of the PAST to move things over to the future.
I spent 15 years finding dinosaur farts on drilling rigs that burnt 2500-3000gallons of diesel fuel a DAY. We use one energy form to step to the other. When I started out we were using giant 2-stroke screaming diesel motors to run the rigs but then we transitioned to 4stroke diesel. We now have several fully electric rigs that are wired directly into the local Grid. Baby Steps. Drilling and completing a well is a messy affair that uses tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to complete from surface to production. Comparing that to a mining operation for cobalt or copper is a fair comparison but some of us aren't so concerned about the environment as much as we are concerned about energy independence. Independence from the billionaires.
Lithium battery packs are, by weight roughly 2% lithium. Most of the battery is copper and aluminum. All of these materials are INCREDIBLY recyclable. It takes a lot of fossil fuel energy because we haven't transitioned to green energy recycling completely. Same with solar panels. Silicon of that degree of purity is INCREDIBLY VALUABLE. We are learning how to make this new energy system work at scale. It takes time and we are going to burn fossil fuels to get there.
My whole point is that EVs are here. They are a great technology that has some issues, as with most technologies. The future where we have energy independence from fossil fuels sounds like a good idea. Oil is an incredibly useful substance we should continue to exploit. I don't want to save the planet, I want to save my clan. My clan isn't billionaires that want to keep us enslaved to one technology. I want forward progress, not stagnant reliance on fossil fuels. Driving an EV is pretty sweet but so is my gas motorcycle with an engine larger than most hatchbacks made globally.
I will be long dead before the climate change boogy man gets me but I would like to tell the oil companies and power companies to **** off before I die which probably wont happen but I like baby steps in a better direction.
Maverick
old-school
- Location
- Anywhere, thanks to my geeky droid
I find it interesting that everyone gets worked up about EV charging, but nobody is batting an eye on the massive electrical load of AI.
- Location
- The Village of Kay
Valid point about technology catching up, but it isn't a linear transition from Firewood on to 100% renewables. Watch Planet of the Humans and some countries went BACK to burning wood because it is "Renewable." Idiocy! Further, even when nuclear came on to the scene, we never fully transitioned away from Coal and Natural Gas. Those forms of energy are here, are efficient, and are "cleaner" than they have ever been. Nuclear got a bad rep and is still working to overcome false beliefs it is unsafe. It would be a much better, cleaner, and sustainable source of electricity if we could adopt it more widely.
Please give this some more thought. Who are these evil billionaires you refer to? You are on the forum, so surely you have a computer at a minimum, and likely a cell phone. You likely enjoy watching TV or some form of entertainment.
Where do we find are all the billionaires? Here is a great article showing where they are all at.
- Finance and Investments: 427 billionaires. I guarantee your clan is dependant on these folks as they drive the world economy.
- Technology: 342 billionaires. Your phone, TV, Internet, and the EV's you want all fall into this category. You and your clan are still dependant on these billionaires.
- Manufacturing: 328 billionaires. Unless you are going to make everything you consume from start to finish, including your own batteries, car, etc, you are relying on these billionaires.
- Fashion and Retail: 285 billionaires. Where do you buy your goods? Maybe you aren't overly fashionable, but I am sure you use Amazon or other large retailers to get your goods. More evil billionaires taking the money right out of your pocket.
- Food and Beverage: 210 billionaires. Damn, more evil billionaires taking your money for your dependance on food and drink...
- Diversified: 201 billionaires. Diversified industries encompass a wide range of sectors, with billionaires involved in multiple business areas.
- Healthcare: 197 billionaires. The evil people working to keep us alive.
- Real Estate: 190 billionaires. The evil people buying, selling, and building all the infrastructure we use.
- Media & Entertainment: 104 billionaires. Self explanatory.
- Energy: 98 billionaires.
But wait a minute, you want Energy independence too. Where do all the materials come from for these EV's? Your thought process would transition us from dependence on foreign oil (40% of US crude supplies are imports) to dependence on foreign rare earth materials and battery minerals. Thus, there is no increase in true energy security, simply moving our dependance to countries that REALLY hate us (China, Congo, Bolivia, Indonesia) vs countries that kind of hate us (Canada supplies just above 50% of the crude we import today). That isn't independence and is simply a false argument.
Energy independence is not just about moving from oil to EVs—it’s about reducing dependence on any one resource or foreign-controlled supply chain. If your goal is to “tell the oil companies and power companies to **** off,” replacing them with reliance on Chinese-owned mineral supply chains does not achieve that goal.
So what is the answer? Maybe:
- Expand domestic mining and refining of lithium, nickel, and rare earth elements to reduce foreign dependence.
- Develop alternative battery chemistries, such as sodium-ion or solid-state batteries, that reduce reliance on scarce materials.
- Investing in renewable energy microgrids, home solar, and nuclear power to reduce the need for centralized energy control.
Last edited:
Pike2350
Registered User
- Location
- Salt Lake City
I also find it ironic that Gen Z is all about "saving the environment" but are some of the biggest users of Uber/Door Dash/Amazon and all the single serve/delivery platforms and Crypto...which also takes a HUGE amount of electricity to mine.