I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

From TX A&M university going back much farther.  

Then link it. Just know that the NASA study I posted is current to 2023, and by your own admission this is much older- and what """""natural process"""""" is pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Do I need to spoon feed you too?

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-reveal-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

And the current crisis and scare is based on 63 years of data.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide

No one is saying that we shouldn't clean up the planet but there are far more obvious issues to tackle first.  And given the data above it's pretty safe to say 1-2 years of lockdown did nothing at all.  

GIRTHQUAKE said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

From TX A&M university going back much farther.  

Then link it. Just know that the NASA study I posted is current to 2023, and by your own admission this is much older- and what """""natural process"""""" is pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Natural processes that pump CO2 into the atmosphere.  How about volcanic activity?  Figure out how much that contributes.  

And let's be honest if anyone actually cared about carbon emissions people would be eager to figure out how Nordstream got blown up.  But that's just one of many topics no one on this forum will discuss.  That put more carbon and CO2 into the atmosphere than I ever will.  People only care about what the TV tells them to care about.  
 

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/9/29/nord-stream-pipeline-leaks-are-catastrophic-for-the-climate

 Volcano 's?  A pipeline?   Really? 
  The atmosphere gets plenty of stuff from factories, cars, trucks, shops and planes. 
     In spite of Russia cutting off pipelines Europe managed to get through the winter without people freezing to death.      
         So  perhaps we can do things that save money as well as leave the atmosphere a little cleaner?     
   It's not a flip a switch and everything will be better.  Not every solution is perfect but attention paid can make serious improvements over time.  
    Here in America we have improved auto safety, fuel mileage, and pollution  levels of cars. Over the objection of some.   The same group who objects to the next round of improvements.  
     The country is learning to ignore those objections and listen to educated people.    Same thing that  it has since the beginning.  
     We will move forward trying to leave the world better for our children.  

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

From TX A&M university going back much farther.  

Then link it. Just know that the NASA study I posted is current to 2023, and by your own admission this is much older- and what """""natural process"""""" is pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Do I need to spoon feed you too?

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-reveal-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

And the current crisis and scare is based on 63 years of data.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide

Quoted from the research you posted:

"Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, noted that CO2 is by far the most abundant human-caused greenhouse gas,"

But we have a decent idea of how much CO2 a volcano pumps into atmo. With the math I posted earlier, you should be able to find out how many volcanoes would need to go off each day to equal that amount of CO2.

As for the pipeline? Putin blew it apart to deprive his Oligarchs of a lifeline back to the West. As long as it existed, Europe could exert influence on them for future Natural Gas revenue in exchange for going against his wishes.

Opti said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

This is illustrating my point. Walkable cities/bike paths will not make a material difference in actual emissions. Its hailed as some great initiative that will make a difference but in the massive country it wont.

The world Bank shows Denmark is down to 5.1 metric tons of CO2 per capita, while the US is at 14+. Our world in Data backs this up and shows the USA trending downwards too. Sites like WIRED link to studies showing how much CO2 can be saved by just not driving and biking instead, so no it'll make a massive difference and it's been long proven.

The govt will put a  bunch of barriers and inconveniences on the individual to live in these walkable cities, while the goods are still trucked in via large diesel truck, and the power  is still generated by garbage outdated power plants, and everyone will pretends they are saving the world.

It's still an improvement and gives people more options. Had I lived in a city where I could bike to work I would avoid tons of issues- I've nearly had to quit jobs because of vehicle breakdown at horrible times.

Youre right Iowa makes about 50% of its energy from wind. Problem is wind still uses fossil fuels,

... what?

Whats not talked about is the massive waste problem we have with solar, we pretend its clean and when these incredibly short lived producers need to be replaced we just bury them in the ground. 

Solar panels are solid-state and have lifespans in the 20-30 years. Did you mean burying windmill blades? We can recycle those now, but it's a good question if any corporation will even want to dig them up to do so unless the government doesn't give them a choice (it should not).

With an ICE we have the energy creation on board, 

You do not. You have to spend energy to pump the fuel, move the petroleum to a plant, refine it, move it to a station (typically by truck) then pump it into a holding tank, THEN into a gas tank. 

If you scroll down you can click on the report "List of Goods Produced by Child and Forced Labor." They mention batteries a couple times, here's the gist. China processes 85% of the cobalt, most cobalt comes from DRC, China owns about 90% of the mines in DRC, and processes the cobalt to sell as battery components. Yes Tesla is working on removing cobalt from their batteries and the slave labor, last I checked they had only been able to do that for about half of their cars and they are still sourcing battery components from China. The answer to your question is likely much less. There is actual competition in oil, and very little in cobalt, because an authoritarian regime controls the vast majority of it.

Cobalt depends heavily on the battery used- LFP obviously doesn't use it at all and that's the Standard Range Model 3s battery now, but as you can see on Statista it rarely goes above 10% for common lithium chemistries- only LCO demands high levels of cobalt, which is seriously supply constrained and I only know of it's use for drag racing.  

Not to sound like I'm trying to deflect the point, but lots of our things are made with what we would consider slave labor so talking about the slavery with cobalt always feels like a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. How can I even know the rubber in my tires aren't from slaves? We barely even know if our clothes are.

You keep complaining about sources, so where are your sources? What bills are going to "move the needle." Cap and trade and carbon taxes wont do anything. They are the same ole same ole, anything is legal if you can afford it. Do you know who can afford it, the largest polluters in the country. The government having money because someone polluted (carbon tax) or a low emitter having money because a big one bought there credits (cap and trade) doesnt actually reduce emissions. You may say with cap and trade they can limit actual total emissions, but you know who has enough money to lobby politicians to make sure their business is still lucrative? The largest polluters. 

Okay, then you should have no issue proving me wrong then so I can have a better and more educated opinion.

That was the obvious implication. One EV doesnt change anything. One nuke plant changes a ton. Extrapolate that to thousands and are in a much better place. Dont tell me green movement has 180 on nuclear energy. The polling doesnt show that. The green new deal didnt mention Nuclear energy, instead it focused heavily on solar and wind.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/474650/americans-support-nuclear-energy-highest-decade.aspx

Sorry, I should have said "starting to". But your source even shows that it's reversing, and the EU is even saying that nukes are green under circumstance. The DOE has considered them necessary for a better future. Russia helped there as well.

You will not convince me that the people that have largely made nuclear power not viable in the US (the government) are the people that should run the industry. That is the most ass backwards thinking Ive ever heard. Even some of the biggest proponents of a government backed nuclear agenda will admit that the regulatory landscape in the US has led to skyrocketing costs of nuclear while other countries have been more steady or even decreased the cost (South Korea).

I never said I wanted the old leadership. I just know on a very personal level from having worked with NBC protocols, HAZMAT, and having a little more knowledge than your average person that not a single corporation should ever be trusted to do anything but screw up and I don't know of any other options. It still chaps me the NRC was used as an example of regulatory capture in 07-08 and was never altered, but other far more pressing matters were occurring then.

but instead what actually happens, is a banning of gas stoves, a forced switch to EV, and propaganda surrounding Solar and Wind (as in a bunch of horse E36 M3 that wont amount to anything) and 1 state actually building a couple nuke plants, while actual online reactors has been decreasing for 3 decades.

Gas stoves aren't banned, nobody is being forced to buy an EV. That was already addressed earlier in this thread.

So largely in the US the people that are most concerned about the climate also tend to be the people that are less likely to support nuclear power.

You act like this cannot be changed. Quoted from the article:

"Notably, while the most supportive constituency by political affiliation is Republicans (66% supporting nuclear, followed by 62% of Independents, and 58% of Democrats), Democrat support has grown over 20 points in the past 5 years (from 37%in 2018 to 58% support in 2022)."

Opti said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

This is largely why I have a problem with the current "green" movement. The general view is so narrow and generally revolves around moving the emissions and devastation to poor areas and pretending we're doing something. You say your EV CAN run on clean energy but largely in the US it wont. "Renewables' (which is a scam in itself, and its basis is in feel good marketing not actual data) only account for like 20% of of energy production, so while it can run on clean energy it will run on about 70% fossil fuels. It is good that overall they can be more energy efficient. Its funny that when they look at energy efficiency of hybrids they dont look at the efficiency of the energy source. Before it becomes electricity for the car, fossil fuel plants generally run at 30-50% efficiency. Using a fossil fuel to spin something is not very efficient, wether its a huge turbine or an ICE, we just like to move the inefficiency upstream and pretend we did something. Also no mention of the problems in manufacturing EVs.

Remember when people focused on large industry as a source to reduce emissions and then all the sudden it switched to "your personal carbon footprint." It was because of a brilliant marketing campaign by BP after their huge oil spill. Turn the focus from industry to individuals.

We could build a nuclear power plant, and affect (lower) the emissions of hundreds of thousands of people and industry, instead we decide to mandate EVs that most people cant afford that will largely be powered by fossil fuels and the raw materials are mined with slave labor. I understand some nuke plants are being built but largely the national conversation is around bullE36 M3 that wont do anything, like EVs and chasing the handful of people rolling around in deleted diesels, while the presidents motorcade is all deleted diesels.

Like someone mentioned, want to actually help, quit being motivated by blind consumerism, convenience and status, buy things that last and keep them. Its crazy to me that quality is a niche now.

Ill start thinking this is an actual problem, when we start acting like its one.

The one thing I have learned over my life is no political party is all good or all bad.   Painting one group of Americans  with one brush gets the extremists thrilled but it's dishonest.   
      No one solution works for everyone.  
 Walking cities?   When 6 months of the year those paths have snow and Ice on them?   Walking may be fine for fine young people but babies and children, plus the handicapped and elderly simply risk too much. 
       Solar panels are steadily improving. The Germans are developing printable panels. Printed on old newspaper presses. They are not using the labor intensive silicone crystal  panels currently in common use.  
 Those panels are only 18-22% efficient   now ( serious improvement from the 6% they started out with). 
  The newest printable panels are as much as 250% more efficient ( 50%) converting sunlite to electrical energy.  
      These are early days. Yet the Sun generates so much electrical power, in the not too distant future  100% of our electrical needs can come from the sun. 
       I was wrong.   I thought there was no way we could make enough batteries to meet overnight needs.  
     Reading about some promising developments ( some that are already in use) that use relatively common ingredients.  It's easy to see  the potential.   
  Look at EV's, Yesla is already at 6 miles per kWh    With even greater range in the new model 2.   ( forecasts are as much as 7 maybe even more).  

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

The world Bank shows Denmark is down to 5.1 metric tons of CO2 per capita, while the US is at 14+. Our world in Data backs this up and shows the USA trending downwards too. Sites like WIRED link to studies showing how much CO2 can be saved by just not driving and biking instead, so no it'll make a massive difference and it's been long proven.

Your article says is the whole WORLD bikes at the level of Denmark we would save 441 Million tons of CO2. First that is such an unreasonable premise it crazy, it wont happen. Second, when I say wont make a difference, I mean wont make a material difference, but in this instance I will stick with the  generic wont make a difference because 441 million tons seems like a bunch until you look up global CO2 emissions with is 36.8 Billion tons. So 441M tons would be around 1%. So something thats so pie in the sky it will never happen will lead to a 1% reduction in CO2 emissions. Yah wont make a difference.

Also the US is 228 times larger than denmark and has about 60 times the population so we are far larger and more spread out, things that make large scale biking less likely. Plus you cant bike goods in to the walkable cities.

It's still an improvement and gives people more options. Had I lived in a city where I could bike to work I would avoid tons of issues- I've nearly had to quit jobs because of vehicle breakdown at horrible times.

Cool if you want to move to a walkable city, they are a solution to some peoples problems. They are not a solution or viable option to actually fight CO2 emissions, which is what we are talking about here.

 ... what?

The production, installation, and maintenance of wind energy required fossil fuels. Last stat I saw was more than 4 times more than large scale nuclear. 

Solar panels are solid-state and have lifespans in the 20-30 years. Did you mean burying windmill blades? We can recycle those now, but it's a good question if any corporation will even want to dig them up to do so unless the government doesn't give them a choice (it should not).

 Sorry meant to say wind. I read your article and its about a specific blade for offshore windmills that CAN be recycled and is only being partially deployed in Europe. Someone else posted an article about a technology to recycle conventional blades that had not actually been deployed yet. Im sure we will eventually be able to recycle them, but we arent there yet, and it doesnt take into account wether it will actually be economically viable to do, or will get done. Currently we are largely still burying them. Why do you keep thinking we should entrust the government to solve problems it created. They largely made people switch to solar and wind, and now you are saying they should go back and tell the same companies its their fault they buried these things even though we knew full well this is what was going to happen. The govt keeps creating problems and you keep thinking they are the only ones that can solve them, its backwards thinking. Quit giving more power to the people ruining E36 M3. If you tell these companies they have to go dig up these windmills and recycle them, your energy bill will go up. One of the only benefits of wind is its cheap, want to make it no longer viable? Have the government regulate it more heavily.'

You do not. You have to spend energy to pump the fuel, move the petroleum to a plant, refine it, move it to a station (typically by truck) then pump it into a holding tank, THEN into a gas tank. 

Cool, keep that same energy when you think about the efficiency of EVs. It ends up being pretty close. That sounds awfully similar to the process required to make the energy and send it to an outlet.

Cobalt depends heavily on the battery used- LFP obviously doesn't use it at all and that's the Standard Range Model 3s battery now, but as you can see on Statista it rarely goes above 10% for common lithium chemistries- only LCO demands high levels of cobalt, which is seriously supply constrained and I only know of it's use for drag racing.  

Not to sound like I'm trying to deflect the point, but lots of our things are made with what we would consider slave labor so talking about the slavery with cobalt always feels like a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. How can I even know the rubber in my tires aren't from slaves? We barely even know if our clothes are.

So we have to move to a less energy dense battery style to try and avoid slave labor?

Your right a lot of things involve slave labor, but if you have an industry with some competition its much easier to avoid it or lessen it compared to an industry largely controlled by an authoritarian regime actively participating in internment camps.

Have any manufacturers besides one Tesla model moved away from cobalt? Is it another "we are working on it situation."

Okay, then you should have no issue proving me wrong then so I can have a better and more educated opinion.

Still waiting on these bills that will "move the needle." Sources? My point is we arent doing anything and your point is largely "we are working on it" and we are doing something. So I await your sources of these bills. Ive been hearing we are working on it for 20 years, and yet its still supposed to be a massive crisis. I assume we will just be "working on it" until long after Im gone.

Sorry, I should have said "starting to". But your source even shows that it's reversing, and the EU is even saying that nukes are green under circumstance. The DOE has considered them necessary for a better future. Russia helped there as well.

Your articles had little mention of the United States. They even mentioned how development banks wont give money on nuclear and hydropower because the donor nations dont like it.

 I never said I wanted the old leadership. I just know on a very personal level from having worked with NBC protocols, HAZMAT, and having a little more knowledge than your average person that not a single corporation should ever be trusted to do anything but screw up and I don't know of any other options. It still chaps me the NRC was used as an example of regulatory capture in 07-08 and was never altered, but other far more pressing matters were occurring then.

Corporations are made up of people and do dumb E36 M3. The government pretty much exclusively does dumb E36 M3. They are not efficient, frugal or proactive. A big thing in public funded departments is if you dont spend all the money they will  cut funding. The incentive structure is actually built to incentivize inflated costs with no regard to economic viability, seems like a pretty bad formula to run the energy sector. The government are the ones that ruined the industry, dont hand them more power because they messed it up, is backwards thinking. I also dont want to hear the argument that traditionally we have put the wrong people in power but trust us we wont this time, its ridiculous. Id atleast like the people running it to have a incentive structure that benefits instead of harms me.

Gas stoves aren't banned, nobody is being forced to buy an EV. That was already addressed earlier in this thread.

Yes im aware they arent banned but thats the type of thing that the national conversation is centered around. Look at whats being talked about from the normal persons perspective. Banning gas stoves, EV mandates, walkable cities, etc. A bunch of nothing burgers putting inconveniences and mandates on the individual that will not result in a material reduction to CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is largely  not in the national conversation on a large scale.

You act like this cannot be changed. Quoted from the article:

"Notably, while the most supportive constituency by political affiliation is Republicans (66% supporting nuclear, followed by 62% of Independents, and 58% of Democrats), Democrat support has grown over 20 points in the past 5 years (from 37%in 2018 to 58% support in 2022)."

I didnt say or mean to say thinks CANT change. I was only rebut your statement that things have done a 180 by showing things havent changed over the last 30 years.

You might want to look at the source material of this article and the actual polling

Here is something alarming from the poll

Q5: If you learned that we can clean up unhealthy pollution and make the climate stable by modernizing nuclear power, would this shift your opinion?

15% of people answered "Yes, I would support nuclear power after learning it pollutes the climate much less." which is down 3% from 21

45% answered "Perhaps, but I would only support nuclear power until lower cost renewable energy becomes available"

31% answered "No, I would want to phase out nuclear power as soon as we can replace it with clean safe energy"

and 9% werent sure.

So 76% of people want to phase it out or only support it as a stopgap. Nuclear support hasnt done a 180 and is largely absent from the national conversation. Instead we talk about things like walkable cities or powering our EVs with fossil fuels. The things being proposed by the establishment wont actually do anything but inconvenience people or make them poorer. I think Anthony said it best when he said we are not a serious people.

My feelings on the energy sector are largely summed up by a great meme from the meme thread.

You two guys asked if there were natural processes that put CO2 in the air.  There are.  Then you poo pooed it.  There are also natural processes that remove CO2 in the air.  Because of an abundance of forests near me, I'm sure I breathe in less CO2 than many of you, but you can't find local data on this.  Why?  The press will only point to one location on Earth.  Does CO2 vary across the planet.  I'm certain it does.

Why must society be upended in a few countries for data collected in one place over 60 or so years?  Why destroy successful eco mine with restrictions other countries are exempted from?  Why continue pushing an agenda that has proven false numerous times?  Show me one prediction Al Gore made that came true.  He enriched himself, that you can't deny but you will anyway.  At the end of the day how is taking more money from me going to solve this problem?  Did it win the war on poverty?  Hunger?  Terror?  Drugs?  The pandemic?  Inflation?  No all of these wars were lost.  The only winners are the top 0.01% each time.  Stop falling for the ruse.  Poverty, hunger, drugs, terror, inflation and totalitarianism are all winning because no one is honest anymore and you yes you continue to support them.  All you have to do is say no and then figure out what is real.  And then fire the shysters.  

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

You two guys asked if there were natural processes that put CO2 in the air.  There are.  Then you poo pooed it.  There are also natural processes that remove CO2 in the air.  Because of an abundance of forests near me, I'm sure I breathe in less CO2 than many of you, but you can't find local data on this.  Why?  The press will only point to one location on Earth.  Does CO2 vary across the planet.  I'm certain it does.

Why must society be upended in a few countries for data collected in one place over 60 or so years?  Why destroy successful eco mine with restrictions other countries are exempted from?  Why continue pushing an agenda that has proven false numerous times?  Show me one prediction Al Gore made that came true.  He enriched himself, that you can't deny but you will anyway.  At the end of the day how is taking more money from me going to solve this problem?  Did it win the war on poverty?  Hunger?  Terror?  Drugs?  The pandemic?  Inflation?  No all of these wars were lost.  The only winners are the top 0.01% each time.  Stop falling for the ruse.  Poverty, hunger, drugs, terror, inflation and totalitarianism are all winning because no one is honest anymore and you yes you continue to support them.  All you have to do is say no and then figure out what is real.  And then fire the shysters.  

Local CO2 levels vary too much.  If a coal fired electricity plant is in the area the numbers are off the chart. 
     As you point out  if you live in an evergreen forest the numbers will be very low.  ( unless the forest is on fire) 
      But remember,  air travels around the world so a high level of pollution  is spread all over.  
       If you want exact numbers there are several sources.  Me? I'd go to the local library.  ( but I'm a well known Luddite ). More tech savy guys will use the internet  to source that information. 
      I have the weather channel on my phone  it gives air quality numbers. 

GIRTHQUAKE said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

You two guys asked if there were natural processes that put CO2 in the air.  There are.  

Then prove what natural processes are pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere :^)

You're smart, you should be able to, right?

you can make your point without being a dick. That last sentence is uncalled for. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Tesla valuation is so much higher because it's valued like a tech company. Yes they are profitable, but they had a pretty large market cap when they weren't. Theur valuation is high in hopes of a massively expanded business and profits in the future not necessarily what they are capable of today and lots of hype.

Not that the hype is unearned they are good, but the large manufacturers seem to be developing and turning over models much faster than Tesla, for the average consumer is Tesla actually a better car? I see a lot of aging models that, anecdotally, are bought as a status symbol and not because they are actually the best EV

In reply to Opti :

    The goal of Tesla is 4 million  ( oops) model 2 cars.  2 million out of Mexico, 1 million out of China and I million from Berlin.   
   The cost of manufacturing is 50% of the Model 3  which is selling at $50,000 so they are on target   To meet that goal.   
   The market for that price car is 700 million  units so a $25,000 that is eligible for the $7500 IRS CREDIT   means a new EV car can be purchased for $17,500!   
     If I have it right they will have a 52kwh battery and with the new motor and other improvements that might reach 300 mile range plus extremely fast recharge time.   

In reply to frenchyd :

That's a great goal. Doesn't mean it will happen

In reply to Opti :

  I wouldn't  dismiss Elon Musk.  He tends to achieve things others think are impossible. 
  Reading what major companies are spending to get into the EV game.   It's obvious he has a really big head start over traditional auto manufacturers.  

This thread makes me wish there was a User Ignore function on this forum. No one can ever seem to remain polite about this topic for long. 

In reply to DocRob :

Lately its become ANY topic. 

DocRob said:

This thread makes me wish there was a User Ignore function on this forum. No one can ever seem to remain polite about this topic for long. 

Most of the folks have been surprising calm..........once it went past page 20 I knew I'd unleashed the lions.

If it goes to 1000 posts I'm going to claim it was my evil plan all along...................

In reply to Tom1200 :

It was a guaranteed winner from the start.  
   You are asking people to discuss the future. A percentage of those people will be firmly in trenched in the past with no vision of the future.  
       The really interesting part is those who's hobbies are in the past dealing with the future growth and changes.  

  While another segment will have a vision of the future.  And debate details with others. 

Opti said:

Your article says is the whole WORLD bikes at the level of Denmark we would save 441 Million tons of CO2. First that is such an unreasonable premise it crazy, it wont happen. Second, when I say wont make a difference, I mean wont make a material difference, but in this instance I will stick with the  generic wont make a difference because 441 million tons seems like a bunch until you look up global CO2 emissions with is 36.8 Billion tons. So 441M tons would be around 1%. So something thats so pie in the sky it will never happen will lead to a 1% reduction in CO2 emissions. Yah wont make a difference.

Yes, "only" half a billion tons of CO2, not counting all the other benefits that regular exercise gets people, or the long term effects of people now not using resources, or the health benefits, ect.

1% improvement should never be considered? If I spend 30 minutes on my project car a day and only make 1% progress in doing so, should I just scrap it because it isn't 5 or 10? Should I scrap going to the gym tonight because I'll only increase my deadlift by ~10 lbs? You're giving up before you even try Opti.

Also the US is 228 times larger than denmark and has about 60 times the population so we are far larger and more spread out, things that make large scale biking less likely. Plus you cant bike goods in to the walkable cities.

Remember how everyone used that claim of "too spread out" for why electric cars wouldn't work in the US? I wonder why they stopped lmao

And "Cant bike goods into walkable cities"? I didn't say that, don't be putting your words in my mouth now . What the hell is "Large scale biking"? People think I'm nuts doing ~5 miles total to my local gym but it only takes me 15-20 minutes. Is biking a mile away to grab half and half from my local supermarket "Large scale biking" too? This phrase means friggin nothing lol.

Cool if you want to move to a walkable city, they are a solution to some peoples problems. They are not a solution or viable option to actually fight CO2 emissions, which is what we are talking about here.

It's a tool in the toolbox, it gives people options- and my prior links showed it absolutely is, since Denmark makes a quarter of the carbon the US does and it's apart of it.

 ... what?

The production, installation, and maintenance of wind energy required fossil fuels. Last stat I saw was more than 4 times more than large scale nuclear. 

Opti EVERYTHING needs fossil fuels. They're gonna run out eventually, so why would you EVER want to burn more than you need to? Again, you're giving everything up before you even try, demanding some kind of silver bullet to all these ills when that'll never exist.

" Solar panels are solid-state and have lifespans in the 20-30 years. Did you mean burying windmill blades? We can recycle those now, but it's a good question if any corporation will even want to dig them up to do so unless the government doesn't give them a choice (it should not)."

Sorry meant to say wind. I read your article and its about a specific blade for offshore windmills that CAN be recycled and is only being partially deployed in Europe. Someone else posted an article about a technology to recycle conventional blades that had not actually been deployed yet. Im sure we will eventually be able to recycle them, but we arent there yet, and it doesnt take into account wether it will actually be economically viable to do, or will get done. Currently we are largely still burying them. Why do you keep thinking we should entrust the government to solve problems it created. They largely made people switch to solar and wind, and now you are saying they should go back and tell the same companies its their fault they buried these things even though we knew full well this is what was going to happen. The govt keeps creating problems and you keep thinking they are the only ones that can solve them, its backwards thinking. Quit giving more power to the people ruining E36 M3. If you tell these companies they have to go dig up these windmills and recycle them, your energy bill will go up. One of the only benefits of wind is its cheap, want to make it no longer viable? Have the government regulate it more heavily.'

Emphasis mine. You go from "we have a massive waste problem" with a link to recycling for it existing, now "Well we're only just starting and it's government's fault!" as if the Free market wasn't the real driving factor here behind wind and solar power (LINK 1 and LINK 2). You don't get to use the fed as a cop-out here opti; these corporations bury the blades because the problem is mostly one of cost and access to equipment, AKA cost. Quoted from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Repowering involves keeping the same site and often maintaining or reusing the primary infrastructure for wind turbines but upgrading with larger capacity turbines. The blades might be replaced with more modern and typically larger blades. Either way, the fiberglass blades, once they’re no longer needed, pose the greatest challenge to end-of-use considerations for wind energy.

While it’s possible to cut the blades into a few pieces onsite during a decommissioning or repowering process, the pieces are still difficult and costly to transport for recycling or disposal. And the process of cutting the extremely strong blades requires enormous equipment such as vehicle mounted wire saws or diamond-wire saws similar to what is used in quarries. Because there are so few options for recycling the blades currently, the vast majority of those that reach end-of-use are either being stored in various places or taken to landfills.

Cool, keep that same energy when you think about the efficiency of EVs. It ends up being pretty close. That sounds awfully similar to the process required to make the energy and send it to an outlet.

Wrong. From the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: "EVs convert over 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels."

I'd LOVE to see you prove how that massive chain of transportation of gasoline from Texas is somehow equally as efficient as my cities grid.

So we have to move to a less energy dense battery style to try and avoid slave labor?

Your right a lot of things involve slave labor, but if you have an industry with some competition its much easier to avoid it or lessen it compared to an industry largely controlled by an authoritarian regime actively participating in internment camps.

Have any manufacturers besides one Tesla model moved away from cobalt? Is it another "we are working on it situation."

It's partially that, also "If you want to continue to own smart phones, accessories, laptops and all other current aspects of western life you need more lithium-ion battery production, which you don't have yet." Lithium Iron Phosphates are cells that last ~5 times longer than a lithium ion and are far safer and cheaper, so there's tons of reasons to go for them over stock Li-ion cells that make much more sense for your average consumer.

As for who else- Everyone really has said they're gonna do it, Toyota is with the terribly-named BZ4X but i'm having a hell of a time finding the article that showed buyers which was which outside of range. I think there's 3 different BZ4X'es, one using Samsung cells, one with Panasonics and a third using BYDs.

Okay, then you should have no issue proving me wrong then so I can have a better and more educated opinion.

Still waiting on these bills that will "move the needle." Sources? My point is we arent doing anything and your point is largely "we are working on it" and we are doing something. So I await your sources of these bills. Ive been hearing we are working on it for 20 years, and yet its still supposed to be a massive crisis. I assume we will just be "working on it" until long after Im gone.

 You said " Cap and trade and carbon taxes wont do anything" and I'm genuinely asking why. I need YOU to prove your opinion.

 I never said I wanted the old leadership. I just know on a very personal level from having worked with NBC protocols, HAZMAT, and having a little more knowledge than your average person that not a single corporation should ever be trusted to do anything but screw up and I don't know of any other options. It still chaps me the NRC was used as an example of regulatory capture in 07-08 and was never altered, but other far more pressing matters were occurring then.

Corporations are made up of people and do dumb E36 M3. The government pretty much exclusively does dumb E36 M3.

What is "East Palestine Ohio".

They are not efficient, frugal or proactive. A big thing in public funded departments is if you dont spend all the money they will  cut funding. The incentive structure is actually built to incentivize inflated costs with no regard to economic viability, seems like a pretty bad formula to run the energy sector. The government are the ones that ruined the industry, dont hand them more power because they messed it up, is backwards thinking. I also dont want to hear the argument that traditionally we have put the wrong people in power but trust us we wont this time, its ridiculous. Id atleast like the people running it to have a incentive structure that benefits instead of harms me.

So instead of having a way or method to change things... just don't? Toss it to (your words) equally untrustworthy corporations? Just Don't bother? I understand complaining, but we need solutions, not endless whining.  I know what you're really doing here, but I want you to actually make a point- If we supposedly can't trust government (of it's people, mind you) or corporations to run power generation, then who?

Gas stoves aren't banned, nobody is being forced to buy an EV. That was already addressed earlier in this thread.

Yes im aware they arent banned but thats the type of thing that the national conversation is centered around. Look at whats being talked about from the normal persons perspective. Banning gas stoves, EV mandates, walkable cities, etc. A bunch of nothing burgers putting inconveniences and mandates on the individual that will not result in a material reduction to CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is largely  not in the national conversation on a large scale.

Oh so now we're changing the discussion to being about perception? Easy- i'll tell em' the truth, that walkable infrastructure is stupid cheap and means people will be able to walk, ride bikes, or adventure more outside. It'll benefit the disabled since now they won't be reliant on vehicles, and it'll put kids into the best positions to form bike gangs with their friends. I'll sell childhood dreams and memories because that's what I'm genuinely making while at the same time building a city you don't need to own a car in to live inside of it. Nobody will know the wiser!

 

15% of people answered "Yes, I would support nuclear power after learning it pollutes the climate much less." which is down 3% from 21

45% answered "Perhaps, but I would only support nuclear power until lower cost renewable energy becomes available"

31% answered "No, I would want to phase out nuclear power as soon as we can replace it with clean safe energy"

and 9% werent sure.

So 76% of people want to phase it out or only support it as a stopgap.

THEY'RE STILL SUPPORTING IT LMAO, THAT'S THE POINT

Jesus, should we have not bothered with steam power because it ain't gas or diesel? No, we needed that E36 M3 as a stepping stone on the path of industrialization. Who cares if we get rid of nuclear if it leads to us going carbon-neutral and fixing climate change? We still did it.

My feelings on the energy sector are largely summed up by a great meme from the meme thread.

If you have to repeat the joke it wasn't funny the first time lmao, bumper sticker politics have been a disaster for the human race.

Here is why forcing change is bad.  Let people figure things out and innovate will always result in better solutions.

And I never said anything about "trillions of tons" of CO2.  I think the problem is real, but I also know it is grossly overstated to drive fear and an agenda.  The video above shows that always has unintended consequences.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

And I never said anything about "trillions of tons" of CO2.  I think the problem is real, but I also know it is grossly overstated to drive fear and an agenda.  The video above shows that always has unintended consequences.

You LITERALLY POSTED this research article here at the top of the page that shows over 420 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, which per NOAA means trillions of tons of CO2 have entered the atmosphere. You claimed it was caused by "natural processes" but have refused to prove of any.

"Forcing change is always bad" lmao, I think I heard that last from a heart failure patient who we told couldn't eat ham anymore.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

volcanic co2 emissions I found several different numbers ranging in the 400-700million tons per year average. Spikes on larger eruptions to over a billion tons for that year. That is definitely a non-trivial amount. Many of those refer to there being approximately 36billion tons of co2 in the atmosphere, humans responsible for 20-30 depending on source.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Here is why forcing change is bad.  Let people figure things out and innovate will always result in better solutions.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8fSv7lNo1eM?rel=0

And I never said anything about "trillions of tons" of CO2.  I think the problem is real, but I also know it is grossly overstated to drive fear and an agenda.  The video above shows that always has unintended consequences.

I don't see how the government is forcing anything.   It's your choice.   If you want to run on oil you can buy a diesel generator and run your house on that .  Or Natural gas.  
   Meanwhile we can take advantage of the sun shinning and the wind blowing. 
  You're free to buy as many ICE cars or trucks as you want while I can buy EV's. 
      
  The one thing I understand is just because people choose the less expensive EV's doesn't mean Oil is going to stop being available.  
   There are a lot of things made from oil besides fuel.    They aren't going away.  
      In the end the government basically does what we want it to.   The people in the government  respond to the voters. 
      One party who doesn't have as much support as the other has neatly stacked the deck in their favor. So for a while anyway a minority will still have inputs. 
  In fact if that group is thoughtful  they can make rules for a very long time.