Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad
OK
First and foremost, may I clarify, my comments previously, and my reply to your comments now, are not intended as a personal attack on you or anyone, I am stating my understanding of the world around me.
In response to your comments:
1) in reality only 60% of the US power generation is carbon based. The remaining 40% are equally split between nuclear and renewables.
How do you then explain the fact that every year wind takes over ~1% of total US power generation capacity, and solar takes over another .3%, all at the expense of traditional sources, because total consumption has remained constant since 2005?
I love you guys, but please, America is not the world. I live in South Australia where almost 70% of our entire energy supply comes from renewables and yet Australia has one of the worst emission track records in the world.
Why, I hear some ask! Well, with a land mass around 84% of continental USA and only 8% of your population, 55% of our land, and 25% of our water is used to produce some 50 million heads of cattle, sheep, goat, and other livestock much of which end up on dinner tables around the world.
This brings me to the next point. At 1% PA increase in wind and 0.3% increase in solar generated power, you will have your entire energy production from renewables in, let me work it out, say around 90 years. It is therefore immaterial how much they increased by, or carbon-based energy decreased by. We are talking about EVs NOW.
Oh, and, when you present figures, please keep in mind, not every country have a nuclear power plant. In fact, only 32 countries from amongst 195 (16.4%) produce some of their energy requirements from nuclear power plants. Besides, at an average cost of USD$22.6Bn and taking up to ten years to build, the possibility of any more of them going up anytime soon is pretty marginal.
Also, keep in mind, most countries, even if they had the desire and the money to build nuclear power plants, would not do so because of many reasons such as constitutional restrictions, or the obvious dangers, or timeframes associated with construction. To top that, decommissioning a nuclear power plant is an absolute nightmare which sometimes can take even longer than what it takes to build one.
Many of your own nuclear plants are past their use-by date but aren't being decommissioned.
Then we come to the stats you presented regarding EV Vs ICE - Let's then try to address that elephant in the room.
2) most EVs require less energy to move them than comparable ICE vehicles, and you get, at worst, 1/4 of CO2 emissions per mile for EV vs ICE.
Some facts which might surprise you,
Total cars in the world 1.42 billion
Total commercial planes in the world 25,368 (rising to 35,000 by 2030)
Global pollution by sector and across all fields:
Cars 3.23% across all fields
15% in transport sector
Planes 2.5% across all fields
11.6% in transport sector
This means, for every tonne of emission 25,368 planes produce, 1,420,000,000 ICE engines produce 1.29t.
Interestingly, by 2030, air travel will account for 16% of transport related pollution which will exceed all ICE engines on the planet combined.
I may be out of my depth here, but I don't think Boeing will be delivering any Electric 787 Dreamliners anytime soon.
One thing that would not be a surprise, is the exorbitant cost of replacing or refurbishing a battery when compared to an ICE. By extension, an average ICE vehicle will last 30+ years if maintained well.
Many folks are not willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to replace the battery in their otherwise perfectly good car. This was evidenced recently by one Tesla owner blowing his car up CREATING MORE POLLUTION.
Prohibitive cost of battery replacement will mean EVs will go out of circulation a lot faster than ICEs will. Let's say 15 years, that means there will be two EVs going to scrapyard for every one ICE - emission is not the only problem here, waste is, pollution is as a whole and not just carbon emissions.
In reflection, so much hype has been afforded to a technology that is not perfect, is still polluting by your own account (albeit a little less) and is far too expensive and endangers the ecosystem in different ways, all to reduce the global emissions by 3.23% if every single ICE vehicle was replaced by an EV tomorrow?
Am I right?
Oh wait, there is more. From amongst 78 million cars manufactured in 2021, 1.2 million, or 1.54% were some sort of electric (EV, PHEV, etc). If this rate was to increase by 20% per annum on a compounding basis, it would take 24 years to cover 1.42 billion cars.
At USD$22.6Bn per nuclear power plant, taking between seven and 10 years each to build, it would take more than 5,000 years to build enough power plants to provide enough power to charge 1.42 billion EVs in the world.
If I have not lost or bored you to death, I'd like to make a bet with you - I will cover your next visit to Australia if you can prove to me that ICE is going to vanish from our roads any sooner than 40 or 50 years from now.
We are all reasonable folks in the company of reasonable folks. I am by no means PRO ICE or ANTI EV.
I am simply anti BS and the argument put forward by the EV industry is a whole lot of .... selective brainwashing (to be polite)
Naturally, I stand to be corrected
BTW, all information I have provided is available from credible and publicly accessible sources
|