Renewables Growth Did Not Dent Fossil Fuel Dominance In 2022, Report Says (reuters.com) 261
Fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy market. According to the industry's Statistical Review of World Energy report, global energy demand rose 1% last year, but fossil fuels still accounted for 82% of supply. Reuters reports: The stubborn lead of oil, gas and coal products in covering most energy demand cemented itself in 2022 despite the largest ever increase in renewables capacity at a combined 266 gigawatts, with solar leading wind power growth, the report said. "Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again," said the president of the UK-based global industry body Energy Institute, Juliet Davenport. "We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris Agreement."
The annual report, a benchmark for the industry, was published for the first time by the Energy Institute together with consultancies KPMG and Kearny after they took it over from BP (BP.L), which had authored the report since the 1950s. Scientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels to have any hope of meeting the international Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming well below 2C above pre-industrial levels. You can view some highlights from the report here.
The annual report, a benchmark for the industry, was published for the first time by the Energy Institute together with consultancies KPMG and Kearny after they took it over from BP (BP.L), which had authored the report since the 1950s. Scientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels to have any hope of meeting the international Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming well below 2C above pre-industrial levels. You can view some highlights from the report here.
About 25 months early. (Score:3, Informative)
Ev's are at 4.6% of the new car market and are projected to be 10% by 2025 and over a third will be EV by 2030.
see:
âExplosiveâ(TM) growth means one in three new cars will be electric by 2030, IEA says
To summarize, ev sales have been growing much faster than projected. Based on actual sales in 2023, expected 2030 sales were revised upwards earlier this year.
---
My take: As ICE cars lose their network effect (and both maintaining them and fueling them gets more expensive), people will shift away from ICE even faster in the future. The automotive mechanic field will be less attractive and sometime between 2023 and 2030, I think EV will have longer range than ICE cars. On top of that , the number of gasoline stations will decline, prices will increase, and ICE car owners will start to have a bit of range anxiety. Finally, new kids- familiar with electric scooters and bicycles will more naturally transition to electric vehicles.
Re: About 25 months early. (Score:5, Informative)
A car, properly designed & built has a useful life of about 20 years, that means it takes 20 years for a car sold today to eventually be taken off the road. That also means about 5% of the worlds autos are replaced each year.
So, EV's currently account for almost 5% of new car sales - and when every new car sold is an EV, they will only be increasing the percent of EVs on the road by 5%.
Don't confuse the *rate* of new car sales with the *percent* of cars on the road.
Cars bought today will still be on the road in 2043, there are a large number of cars on the road from 2003 still.
Absent a few more "cash for clunkers" programs like we had her in the US, the vast majority of cars on the road thru 2035 or 2040 will likely still be ICE in my opinion.
Re: About 25 months early. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lithium (like almost all elements) is usually only created in a star near the very end of its life (not just supernovas but all stars). It is the very heaviest elements that are only created in supernova. That's how almost all heavy elements are formed. This is basic science and not at all controversial. The only other ways you can create other elements are nuclear fission or fusion. The fission products are called "nuclear waste" and Lithium isn't created there. For fusion, it takes absurd amounts of energy to make new Lithium. Those are the only 2 ways to make Lithium and only 3 ways to make new elements. You are talking about extraction and that is an entirely different thing. And it is limited by the amount of Lithium that fell to Earth millions of years ago. That includes those reserves in Chile which has most of the world's proven Lithium reserves. At current extraction rates, we have about 80 years of Li left. That's why ramping up 10x gives up only 8 years. And even at that rate of extraction, it probably isn't enough Lithium to make all cars EVs. That math just isn't there.
If you are going to try to slander me, at least prove you can remember what I said. But then again, when have facts or details mattered to you. You know, this isn't just an Internet debate. This stuff has real impacts on people's lives. Your lies and propaganda just delay or outright prevent solutions from being delivered to society. And you are doing all of this just to win an argument on the Internet. You could learn something about this topic but no...you put winning the argument above people's actual lives. How are you so petty that you want to win an argument more than actually help people?
PS Lithium mining is actually pretty clean. You just pump up brine and dry it. It is the other 10 elements or so that you need that require open pit mining and processing using strong acids which causes the environmental damage. Those elements are also in short supply. All the worlds car's is just a big amount of material
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lithium (like almost all elements) is usually only created in a star near the very end of its life (not just supernovas but all stars).
False. Lithium, being one of the lightest elements, is made long before the end of a star's life. Iron would fit that description, not Lithium.
It is the very heaviest elements that are only created in supernova.
You know that now, since you looked it up after recently claiming that Lithium could only be made in a supernova. Go pretend to know something else somewhere else. You've been misrepresenting yourself as knowing something of value around here for too long.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:About 25 months early. (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider cell phones, smart phones. 3rd world picked them up faster than the developed.
Also, renewables are more popular because of lack of reliable grids.
Consider an area where gasoline is hard to get - but an EV can charge using solar or wind power, provide power back to the home during lulls(like at night), etc...
We probably won't see the same cars being popular, but after a point they'll be better than petrol ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider an area where gasoline is hard to get - but an EV can charge using solar or wind power, provide power back to the home during lulls(like at night), etc...
In the real world, it is easier for developing countries to rely on gasoline for transportation, because it can be stored and easily refilled. Plus a lot of their cars are actually used ones coming from Western/Northern countries. Go in developing countries in Africa for instance, and count how many Tesla you see on the road.
What you say makes sense on paper, but the reality is just different for reasons you are not taking into account. As goes the saying: In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and
Re: (Score:3)
because those things actually solved for a lack of infrastructure. In Bush a smart phone is better than a PC because its relatively easy to run and manage even without reliable power. its relatively easy for some bell operator to keep a network of towers online which themselves might have wireless communications uplinks than it is for a utility to keep a grid online or an ISP to run new fiber or even copper.
Having that connectivity also solved a lot of business infrastructure problems. Mobile banking means
Re: (Score:2)
>> The developing world will not be buying EVs, The trend will not change for several generations.
Stop assuming BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Ev's are at 4.6% of the new car market and are projected to be 10% by 2025 and over a third will be EV by 2030.
see:
âExplosiveâ(TM) growth means one in three new cars will be electric by 2030, IEA says
To summarize, ev sales have been growing much faster than projected. Based on actual sales in 2023, expected 2030 sales were revised upwards earlier this year.
---
My take: As ICE cars lose their network effect (and both maintaining them and fueling them gets more expensive), people will shift away from ICE even faster in the future. The automotive mechanic field will be less attractive and sometime between 2023 and 2030, I think EV will have longer range than ICE cars. On top of that , the number of gasoline stations will decline, prices will increase, and ICE car owners will start to have a bit of range anxiety. Finally, new kids- familiar with electric scooters and bicycles will more naturally transition to electric vehicles.
There are 286 million vehicles on the roads in the US. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Annual new vehicles sold in the US total in 2022 was about 17 million. So even if 30% of those are EV that's about 6 million EV's added annually and another 12 million ICE's added as well..
Given cars last an average of 15 years https://news.harvard.edu/gazet... [harvard.edu] there will be hundreds of millions of ICE on the road for many years to come. Gas stations aren't going anywhere, in fact within 10 minutes of my house a new 16
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure? There's about the same amount of embodied carbon in the manufacture of both, with the exception of the battery. However, those batteries will get recycled (the raw materials are worth too much) and any future generations using those materials will have massively smaller loads. (Think of the difference between using aluminum cans as feedstock vs. bauxite.)
So maybe there's a carbon hit up to your 180000km on the first gen EV, but after that the payback and advantage is clear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citation here (Score:4, Informative)
Here's an actual citation https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com] (I couldn't find VWs numbers, but I only Googled for 5 mins).
Your number of 180,000km is higher than the most pesimistic ones I found.
The numbers along the sadder end of the scale are under the understanding that the electricity powering the vehicles is also generated from coal, but even then still produce less emissions than petrol cars. The hope is that electricity generation becomes cleaner, and EVs take advantage of that, and places that already have an abundance of green engery like Norway are estimated to be greener by 13.5ks
With all that said, I don't think your general point is wrong.
If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation. I'm a big fan of just replacing cars with public transport as much as possible. A dirty petrol bus will generally pollute a lot less than 20 of your most efficient cars. (and that's a bigger problem of city planning, attitudes, etc).
Re:Citation here (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a more recent study [ademe.fr] (google translate is a thing nowadays).
The numbers for France, which has a low-carbon grid (~50g CO2eq/kWh) are (chart from page 4 of the study):
- car with a 22kWh battery breaking even at 20000 kms
- car with a 60kWh battery breaking even at 60000 kms
- car with a 100kWh battery breaking even at 100000 kms
Again, this is with a low-CO2 emissions electricy grid. This is because manufacturing batteries is very CO2 emissions intensive. The bigger the battery, the higher the emissions. One way to counter-act that would be to make the manufacturing of the batteries cleaner. There are progress made in that direction, but not fast enough, and not at scale to allow an exponential growth of EV.
If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation. I'm a big fan of just replacing cars with public transport as much as possible.
Agree with you on that. We shouldn't think about keeping the old ways, and just replacing ICE with EV 1-to-1. Public transportation, biking, going on holidays closer from home, having a job closer from home... all are necessary adaptations.
Re: Citation here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not impossible for mining operations to ultimately use alternative sources of power, for example.
It is not impossible in the strict sense, however it is not happening in the next decade, at the scale that matters.
You can already buy stuff that is better for the environment, like the Teracube 2e [myteracube.com]. But it is usually more expensive than alternatives, and less powerful. Sad truth is that 99.9% people will choose cheap/power, which is the equivalent of short-term pleasure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Citation here (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an actual citation https://www.reuters.com/busine [reuters.com]... [reuters.com] (I couldn't find VWs numbers, but I only Googled for 5 mins). Your number of 180,000km is higher than the most pesimistic ones I found.
The numbers along the sadder end of the scale are under the understanding that the electricity powering the vehicles is also generated from coal, but even then still produce less emissions than petrol cars. The hope is that electricity generation becomes cleaner, and EVs take advantage of that, and places that already have an abundance of green engery like Norway are estimated to be greener by 13.5ks
With all that said, I don't think your general point is wrong.
If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation. I'm a big fan of just replacing cars with public transport as much as possible. A dirty petrol bus will generally pollute a lot less than 20 of your most efficient cars. (and that's a bigger problem of city planning, attitudes, etc).
Here is a more recent study [ademe.fr] (google translate is a thing nowadays).
The numbers for France, which has a low-carbon grid (~50g CO2eq/kWh) are (chart from page 4 of the study): - car with a 22kWh battery breaking even at 20000 kms - car with a 60kWh battery breaking even at 60000 kms - car with a 100kWh battery breaking even at 100000 kms
Again, this is with a low-CO2 emissions electricy grid. This is because manufacturing batteries is very CO2 emissions intensive. The bigger the battery, the higher the emissions. One way to counter-act that would be to make the manufacturing of the batteries cleaner. There are progress made in that direction, but not fast enough, and not at scale to allow an exponential growth of EV.
If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation. I'm a big fan of just replacing cars with public transport as much as possible.
Agree with you on that. We shouldn't think about keeping the old ways, and just replacing ICE with EV 1-to-1. Public transportation, biking, going on holidays closer from home, having a job closer from home... all are necessary adaptations.
At least BEVs actually have a carbon break-even point, which you don't even have with inefficient ICE outmoded vehicles and the fossil fuel industry that the parent poster is shilling for with his FUD and there is also some potential to clean up the plants that generate of the power used by mining and manufacturing industries. I'd be pretty happy with an EV that has a 40-50 kwh battery which would break even at 40-50.000 km largely because I live in a region where I have to travel long distances regularly. Most people could go about all of their commuting with something in the 15-25 kwh range. According to your figures those would have a break-even number of between 18-28.000 km. Public transport is nice but outside of large and wealthy towns and cities it rapidly becomes inadequate for what people need. A bus service that runs three times a day and a unprofitable train line that is constantly in danger of falling victim to politicians on a privatization crusade with the ensuing inevitable cost-cutting is just not enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be pretty happy with an EV that has a 40-50 kwh battery which would break even at 40-50.000 km largely because I live in a region where I have to travel long distances regularly.
What allowed people to live far from their workplace is abundant energy.
A study has shown that humans are willing to spend ~1 hour per day commuting to work, whether it's by bicycle, private car, or public transportation. The threshold at which people start feeling discomfort is approximately 1 hour, regardless of the travel speed. This means that the time savings from commuting are, in most cases, converted (over a shorter or longer period of time as people move farther away) into an increase in the distan
Re: (Score:3)
People like you passing blanket laws to eliminate personal cars should learn to think beyond the suburbs of your cities. I'd rather ride an electric scooter than use public transport, it just usually sucks that badly outside of huge hive cities.
I think you misunderstood my point. I do think more people should switch most of their personal cars usage for alternative transportation means. I think that, because I know:
- some people will need cars and ICE for still a long time (farmers, people who have to live far from a city for a good reason...), and I would like them to be able to do so
- some usages will require ICE for still a long time (as I said, trucking will still be needed for a long time before electrified rail for long haul becomes a thing)
Re: (Score:2)
The download link doesn't work for me, but I wonder whose batteries they were looking at. 22kWh suggests they were Renault batteries, as they made packs of that size and I don't think anyone else did. From there they appear to have extrapolated the other two sizes, because again nobody makes exactly 60kWh batteries, or 100kWh for that matter.
Renault's battery tech is old and not particularly great compared to rivals.
Anyway, there is another big advantage of EVs. The pollution is moved away from where people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The download link doesn't work for me
I guess your internet is a different one from the rest of us. You are one of a kind Amimojo.
From there they appear to have extrapolated the other two sizes
Nope, but you can try again. Really, do some research before trying to think the world works like in a fairy tale.
The pollution is moved away from where people are breathing.
Not really. Pollution from brakes and tires is actually the worst [earth.org] (mainly because exhaust pollution, even for diesel, is partially captured). Here is a math riddle for you: EVs are on average heavier than ICE (a battery IS heavy). Which elements in an EV will wear down faster because of increased weight?
E
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah yeah "you'll own nothing and be happy, eat the bugs, live in the pod" etc.
How about instead of robbing people of one of the most important leaps forward in individual freedom, economic emancipation, and labor savings individuals have received since electricity itself we do something about cargo ships. Just ten or so cargo ships pollute more than every car on earth.
Funny how the left's environmental demands all revolve around screwing over normal people and protecting the rich and corporations.
Re:Citation here (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a true state of slavery when those enslaved think that providing any transportation options besides private cars on government roads is "making them less free". Heck even having different types of cars seems to be seen as some kind of conspiracy. Wake up sheeple. American was built on rails, trams and good old fashioned walking. Let's legalize those things again and MAGA, shall we?
Re: (Score:3)
Just ten or so cargo ships pollute more than every car on earth.
Total annual carbon emissions for all cargo ships [npr.org] is about one billion tons of CO2. Total annual carbon emissions for all cars [statista.com] is about three billion tons of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Right there you are saying you are wanting to make people "adapt our lifestyle to mat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm...sacrifice? Inconvenience?
This surely doesn't sound like incentive for me or anyone else to ditch our ICE vehicles....and voluntarily lower our standard of living....?
Why would I want to do that?
I'm not seeing a carrot for the general masses here...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This surely doesn't sound like incentive for me or anyone else to ditch our ICE vehicles....and voluntarily lower our standard of living....?
Why would I want to do that?
I can't blame you. This is normal human behavior: ride the wave as long as it lasts, we'll surely figure something out later.
We are animals. When you are driving toward a concrete wall at 150mph, the danger is immediate: our brain and survival instinct makes us hit the brake, get out of the car, or steer the direction to avoid the wall.
But the problem with CO2 emissions and climate change is that we are driving toward a wall, but the wall is decades in the future. And when we start hitting the brake, the in
Re:Citation here (Score:4, Insightful)
"If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation"
I keep telling the Tesla fanboys this, that a 1-for-1 replacement of individual passenger ICE with EVs won't save the planet & that BYD & other Chinese companies mass deployment of electric buses & taxis has offset more than the millions of Teslas sold despite the dirty Chinese grid
Re: (Score:3)
That ain't gonna happen....at least not in the US.
Depending on public transport is just not aligned with daily normal live of most people across the US.
Unless you live in one of the few, extremely dense urban cities like NYC or the like...it just isn't practical for anyone or family living a normal US life.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter "where it came from"....it matters where we are at.
We simply don't have the money to tear everything down and rebuild it in the manner tha
Re: (Score:2)
>> EVs currently take about 180,000km
That is a lie.
Not surprising (Score:2)
You just can't (currently) beat the portability and energy density of hydrocarbons. It's simply a more convenient energy source and no amount of government and NGO play-field tilting is going to change that for the foreseeable future. This is especially true for transportation. Until you can "fill" the energy reservoir in the same amount of time and for the same overall cost to the end user which includes upfront purchase price of the vehicle and operating cost, EVs will always be less desirable. You ca
Re: (Score:2)
You just can't (currently) beat the portability and energy density of hydrocarbons.
From what I've heard, you also can't beat how you feel when you're high on meth.
That still doesn't mean that's a good idea to just keep smoking it. Sometimes in life, you have to forego choices that give you the most short-term satifaction.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: "Can't beat hydrocarbons" [Re:Not surprising] (Score:3, Insightful)
Posting this from the destination of my 450 mile annual road trip to see family in two cities, roughly 300 miles and then another 150 miles from where I live. Went in two steps. Going back tomorrow in one straight shot of 450 miles.
I do this once or twice a year, every year. If a car can't handle this 1% use case, I'm not getting it. Even though my usual daily round drip is actually under 39 miles.
We're not all zillionaires with a different car for every day of the week. An automobile, for just about everyo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
annual road trip
And what about the other 363 days a year?
Reading comprehension issues? (Score:3)
The post you responded to contained the answer to your question - and you would have noticed if you were both capable of reading and capable of understanding the written word.
I suspect you knew this and your question was not an honest one, given that you posted as an anon coward.
As that previous poster indicated, MOST average people cannot afford to own multiple vehicles, each with particular strengths; they need to be able to have a vehicle that meets all their needs, and if one cannot meet even an infrequ
Re: "Can't beat hydrocarbons" [Re:Not surprising] (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but many people have figured out that you can rent a car for the 2 times a year such needs come up. But at the same time I see people buy large pickup trucks with the excuse "I might need to help someone move someday", despite the vastly cheaper alternative of using u-haul.
Or get a plugin hybrid. I have one, it's great for the 9 mile commute, but I am also taking it on 200 mile trips regularly for some care giving. And let me tell you, the price of gasoline is absurdly high where I go, I'd much rather have longer distance with cheaper electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen how much it costs to rent a fucking car lately?
I was looking into it with the last year or so....for only 2-3 days in town....100's of dollars?!?!
Sorry, that is just not viable.
And as others have said...I'm not spending a LOT of money on my private vehicle, and accepting it does not handle ALL of my use cases as my current ICE vehicle does.
Everyone pushing EVs so hard....seems to also
Ever consider renting? (Score:5, Insightful)
As darningob mentioned, consider r3nting for the 2 days a year. Or, you know, use a supercharger once.
A Tesla model S long range is rated for 412 miles. 62 more than you demand. A supercharger can toss 200 miles on in 15 minutes, so you'd only need 50 more, so 4 minutes, barely enough time to hit the bathroom, and you're good. Remember, you have to be there to refuel with gasoline, with EV it is plug in and you can wander off(mostly, some busy sites will charge you for letting it sit at a charger for too long).
EVs catch fire less than gasoline vehicles.
As for expense, once you account for fuel and maintenance, the extra purchase cost is outweighed and the total cost of ownership is less with the EV.
As for expensive golf cart, the more sporty teslas can beat just about anything off the line.
Note, my one way distance to see my parents back in the day was 600 miles. 450 is easy mode.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You nasty, nasty person! You carved so many great, gaping holes in his custom-designed "Gotta have a gas-burner" argument there's scarcely a shred of it left. The only one you missed is a straight-up swap for the weekend. Offer a trusted friend your electric for a couple of days in return for their gas car. A buddy of mine has done just that with his neighbour on several occasions over the past several years.
Re: (Score:2)
No no you missed this part!
Going back tomorrow in one straight shot of 450 mile
If your car can't drive 7 hours without stopping, it's a piece of shit and proves EVs are toys! You can't possibly expect someone to make a 20 minute stop during a day of driving, that's communism!
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that the vast majority of vehicles can't make that in a straight shot without refueling either, and most that could actually have the extra fuel capacity to make ~300 miles while towing. Meaning that you're under-utilizing the vehicle.
And yes, you really should take at least a couple 15 minute breaks during such a drive.
Neat note: I was military. When I was junior enlisted, I actually had to submit driving plans to my supervisor, including planned breaks. Pretty much just like professional dr
Re: (Score:3)
They don't even need an expensive Tesla for this. If they got an affordable EV with 250+ mile range and charged up once on their trip, say for 30 minutes, they could easily save far more time than that by charging at home the rest of the year. Plug in and walk away, takes literally a few seconds. No diverting to a gas station and standing around while it pumps, then paying for it.
Plus it will be a lot cheaper. Doing 39 miles/day is more than enough to see an ROI on an EV in a few years.
It's not worth buying
Re: (Score:2)
True, they don't need an expensive long range EV for this, but range is what he was ranting on, so I pulled out the longest range production EV I remembered off the top of my head. Besides possibly being able to make the distance if you hypermile it, a long range Tesla right now has the most charging options, and would be able to take 200 miles of charge without going over the 85% or so when charging slows down.
And I know it for long journeys. These days I make a point to stop and eat in a sit down restau
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I didn't mean to argue with you. It's just frustrating that people like the OP don't realize any of this, and they they need a 400+ mile range EV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, now hear me out here, just rent a gas car for the literally one time a year you actually need to drive 400 miles without stopping to charge. I full-on empathize with hating the idea of extended charging stops; Once on the road, my mission is to get from point A to point B and with the help of our Lord, Caffeine.
Myth that an EV takes longer to road trip (Score:2)
>> 450 mile annual road trip to see family in two cities
'doing this in a basic TM3 SR+ about 4 times a year, no prob.
Friends doing the same 450 miles in a diesel took exactly the same trip time (you have to service those pesky humans)
The myth that an EV takes longer to road trip is old and busted....
Even did 1500km in a single trip, why not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Can't beat hydrocarbons" [Re:Not surprising] (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, fascinating. People don't buy EVs in America because of 5 reasons:
1) cost
2) public charger availability
3) cost
4) range anxiety
5) cost
EVs cost more than comparable ICE vehicles (for the most part), there's the cost of installing a decent charger in your home (renters & apartment dwellers are kinda stuck on this one), and there is the very, very real issue of what scheme are our politicians going to cook up to cover the sharp decline in gasoline tax-derived maintenance revenue to pay for upkeep on the roads? (A simple milage tax? A tracker in your car? Will they send you a stand-alone bill, add it to your electric bill, what?) oh, and the range anxiety is real - it is very important to a large number of car owners for them to be able to just jump in their car a drive 900 miles from Houston, TX to Cape Canaveral, FL anytime the voices in their head tells them to without waiting hours for a charging station... [biography.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, increased regisration fees.
The gas tax makes $53B per year. There are around 278M vehichles registrations per year, so ~$200. Can probably lean more on vehichle weight, 2nd vehichles etc and massage those numbers
Re:"Can't beat hydrocarbons" [Re:Not surprising] (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you live in an apartment.
Re: "Can't beat hydrocarbons" [Re:Not surprising] (Score:2)
most upscale apartments are not, most apartments don't and won't have chargers. what nonsense you believe! EV are not an option for nearly all apartment dwellers in USA.
Re: (Score:2)
>> won't have chargers
How do you know the future ?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not at the moment, but it is now a search option for apartment seekers on websites, and it gets returns. As more people get EVs, I predict that more apartments will install them to attract those customers. Plus, right now there are tax credits to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to phrase it in Wikipedia-speak: "citation needed".
We are headed in the wrong direction. (Score:2)
Re:We are headed in the wrong direction. (Score:5, Funny)
> We need to get people to stop consuming so much energy.
Nonsense. I want to reach Kardashev Type I civilization in my lifetime. We need to harness MORE energy! MORE energy dam it!
Re: (Score:2)
Dam more energy!
Re: (Score:2)
I want to reach Kardashev Type I civilization in my lifetime. We need to harness MORE energy! MORE energy dam it!
So you're Keeping Up with the Kardashevs?
US is fine. Go bother China. (Score:2, Troll)
I recently found this video [youtube.com] showing about 10,000 brand new Chinese electric cars rotting away.
People have mentioned that there are fields of unused vehicles in other countries, and this is no different from buying up excess food production and burning it in a pit: it keeps production capacity high, prevents farming profits from dropping, and is generally a good thing to do economically.
But there's a difference: all the Chinese vehicles (*all* of them) are registered - despite being brand new and with no mil
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that 10k cars is a rounding error in China, and who knows, they might be sold off and being used in a year.
Not the first time it has happened. Hell, we had fields of them(well, normal gas cars) in the USA due to covid. It hit the news because one of the fields caught fire.
Re: (Score:2)
They might not be abandoned at all. Cars are often stored this way before sale, including in Western countries. When they get sold they are sent to the dealer who cleans them and touches up any damage done during storage or shipping.
The painting stuff could be any number of things. They did some spraying for the 2008 Olympics for cosmetic reasons. Sometimes they do it when building new properties to help them sell - people tend not to want to live near brownfield sites. Or maybe it's just a prank and that g
Re: (Score:2)
I am amazed also at how very high natural gas costs are compared to electricity. I don't use natural gas myself, but my mom does and the winter heating bills in a relatively warm area is well over $400 a month, whereas electric bill in the sweltering summer is under $100.
This probably missies micro-generation completely (Score:3)
Re: This probably missies micro-generation complet (Score:2)
Solar panels don't need copper wires?
Let me guess, they're wireless?
Seriously, I think you over-estimate the market penetration if solar cells in underdeveloped third-world nations. The majority of residents don't own their home, and no one (practically speaking) has the money to pay for imported solar panels, nor the ability to protect their solar panel from the greedy ands of the out-of-work copper wire thieves...
Re: This probably missies micro-generation comple (Score:2)
Gee it's almost as if (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a ZERO dollar organization dedicated to maintaining the value of the assets of the multi-billion dollar organizations too.
They're called brain washed environmentalists who *think* nuclear power is wrong. They advocate for shutting down nuclear plants in Germany so they can over pay for natural gas! Yes, you read that right.
Re: (Score:2)
Economically irrelevant (Score:2)
>> nuclear power is wrong.
Nuclear power is economically irrelevant going forward. Each kWh costs 4-6x more to produce, and this gap is widening.
Besides, it is also an unmanageable risk, but that did not stop us in the 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
How about one run by commies, Chernobyl .. how did that work out?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with nuclear isn't environmentalists it's businessmen. Nobody believes they can keep power companies out of the hands of businessmen because of ignorant fools who think you can give everything to a businessman and it will somehow be cheaper than letting the government do it. And since businessman don't have to live near the ecological disaster as they cause we all know nuclear power isn't safe we just don't talk about it because you're not allowed to talk about how businessmen don't care about our lives.
Don't let for-profit companies run nuclear power plants if that's your concern. Problem solved.
Exactly (Score:2)
Exactly. Correct.
- Don't let for-profit companies run nuclear power plants
- Don't let government supervised oraganizations run nuclear power plants
Safety problem solved.
Exponential growth (Score:3)
Current share of renewables is only 1.2% of total energy (not just electricity). So a 25% growth means only 0.25% of total energy shift from fossil fuel (and also from nuclear which fell by 4.4%) to renewable and hence the 82% share of fossil fuel is constant. Renewables (excluding hydro) is growing at a double digit growth rate. It is still years away before a visible shift but once that happens, the fossil fuel percentage will start falling drastically.
Time to invest more. (Score:2)
Yep.
Time to invest more.
Carbon offsets (Score:2)
Anyone who comes up with objections to this plan is just a negative Nancy & I just don't have time for you. Go & be critical & unconstructive & make people feel bad somewhere else.
Did I mention the coal industry has come up with a process for converting coal into hydrogen fuel? Hydrogen's green because it doesn't emit any CO2 when it bur
Nuclear (Score:2)
Re: Depends on which country (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? In Norway they tax the bejezus out of everything, and the state 'owns' the oil the country produces, that model would be a hard sell in America (I assume you intended to contrast US with Norway.).
It would be interesting to see what ICE and EV costs are like in Norway, what they charge for petrol & electricity, and are EVs subsidized and ICEs penalized?
A gallon (not a liter) of gasoline is about $8 US dollars in Norway, compared with what, $3.50/gallon in the US? [globalpetrolprices.com] Perhaps that has an influence on EV sales there?
Oh, and only 1/3rd of all cars ON THE ROAD in Norway are EVs, but EVs do account for about 80% of all new car sales in Norway. [thenorwayguide.com]
Here's a fascinating overview of the Norwegian car tax situation regarding EVs and ICE vehicles [elbil.no] - the big one was that until the ending of 2922 (last year) EVs escaped the Norwegian VAT on all EVs sold in Norway. That means every EV was 20% cheaper than a similarly-priced ICE car, and there are a slew of other incentives that the gov't waives for EV owners.
Re: Depends on which country (Score:2)
...until the end of 2022...
Typo, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it a hardsell in America that the state owns the oil pumped out of its own ground? America has huge swaths of public land, that... belong to the public. Yes, there are some intransigent folks demanding that the ground beneath their feet is theirs all the way down, but they need to catch up to reality. People only "own" their land because the state granted the rights to them or a previous holder; and where most oil is produced the mining rights are granted by the state as well. And this is the case
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution guarantees the right to own property as a right endowed by the Creator, not by any government.
Re: Depends on which country (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, the Constitution is a law written by mortal hand and enforced by Earthly government...
I'm also not able to find the part of the Constitution that talks about a "Creator." I did a Control+F and the word was nowhere to be found. What section was that in?
https://www.archives.gov/found... [archives.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, this post I wrote 2 days ago is strikingly relevant:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The people who wrote the constitution were very explicit about pretty much everything modern dishonest arguers love to pretend was lost to time.
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly, they chose not to include that passage from the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution. For those who haven't studied history: these are two separate documents, one of which is law and one isn't.
Since I linked to the full text of the Constitution, and yet you went somewhere else and copied a passage from a different document, we can only conclude this is an attempt at deception, not simple ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the preamble maybe? Also the Constitution is generally not "enforced" on anyone. Why do people not understand the governing principles of our nation's founding?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually bill of rights my bad. Got a little worked up there but the point still stands..
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution guarantees the right to own property as a right endowed by the Creator, not by any government.
The Constitution says no such thing.
It does say, however, that the government cannot coerce anybody to believe or disbelieve in any alleged "Creator".
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the preamble! What do people believe these days?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Er bill of rights not preamble duh
Re: (Score:2)
And you know the declaration of independence too
Re: (Score:2)
Errr...has anyone actually ever quizzed the Creator and gotten an unambiguous answer? We'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you have no appreciation for what was communicated by the Constitution. All that land predates the British crown or any land grants. The right of free men to own that land could only be infringed upon by the Crown (or any other tyrannical governing body).
If you insist upon derailing the discussion with complaints about what happened to the natives then maybe you aren't very serious about this discussion.
Re: We'll see. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many babies did that post kill, spewing out tiny bits of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide as it zipped its way across the internet, sometimes hopping through servers powered by natural gas, routers powered by coal, and the occasional endpoint powered by a janky gasoline generator in a power outage?
Scapegoating is bad. It feels good, but it wastes time and makes enemies of people whose cooperation you might need down the line. It's how they did and still do things in the old world.