"To-day I read in the Gazette that the local constabulary is replacing the very fine horses they've used for years with this new Motor-Car invention; I dare say that 'what shall they do when the gasoline they use catches fire?' Surely they must re-think their ways and continue the use of the horse, which has proved its Safety time and again!"The U.S. government is pushing for an all electric fleet in the near future. Where are we supposed to go for help when police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances start bursting into flames like these buses?
That option will disappear within I'd say a decade simply because it will no longer be profitable for automakers to make ICE vehicles that fewer and fewer people will want. Also, as EVs make up an ever greater share of vehicles, it will no longer be profitable for gas stations to continue operating. Nobody will force you to get rid of your existing ICE vehicles, but be aware the time will come when it's difficult and very expensive to fuel them. I actually discussed this with my brother. He'll be happy to get an electric for his next daily driver vehicle but he's wondering if he'll still be able to find gas for his "classic" 1960s hobby cars in time. I told him he's probably safe for at least a decade since there will still be a lot of ICE cars on the road but in 15 to 20 years that may not be the case.I want electric cars to work, but I want people to have the freedom to have the option of a hybrid or regular I.C.E. vehicle as well.
We can get the additional power from lots of sources, not just nuclear. The southwest US is ideal for solar. You just need more grid storage to deal with the fact solar isn't 24/7. That's actually one of the few uses which make sense for hydrogen and fuel cells. Install an excess of solar power. The surplus energy is used for electrolysis to make hydrogen. At night the hydrogen is used in fuel cells to supply electricity.Until we get more nuclear power plants built to power all those electric cars, I don’t see gas powered cars going anywhere. If we can get enough nuclear power plants built to replace the current power plants and take on the extra load from all the electric vehicles, appliances, yard equipment, etc. we may see an end of I.C.E. vehicles around 2050.
If there's a World War it won't matter. The human race is over and the planet will recover from us in time.Maybe 2075 if our supply chain and economy continue to suffer and if there is a World War putting things on hold.
Fuel cells make zero sense in cars. Seriously, they don't. In essence a hydrogen fuel cell is a very inefficient battery. Then you need to transport and store the hydrogen at nearly absolute zero. You need to put in place the infrastructure for all this. Plus when all is said and done hydrogen is the equivalent of $5/gallon gasoline in economic terms. The oil companies are the only ones interested in hydrogen for cars because it lets them continue their monopoly on motor fuels. And you're worried about electric cars exploding? That's nothing compared to hydrogen or other flammable gases under pressure. NYC was considered LNG ferries for a while, until they discovered that an LNG ferry exploding would take out most of lower Manhattan. A hydrogen car obviously won't be that bad, but it can take out a city block easily. No thanks.Ideally, if our supply chain started working now (no chip shortage, no metals or plastics shortage, no worker shortage, no trucker strikes, no rail worker strikes, no port holdups, and the U.S. producing more oil), we could have enough smaller nuclear plants built to do the job by 2040, and maybe have hydrogen production as a byproduct for fuel cell cars.
I hope you know wind, and especially solar, are the cheapest ways to generate electricity. Solar especially will only get less expensive as cells get more efficient, and cheaper to manufacture. The economics are there. The issue with both is what I mentioned earlier, that they are intermittent sources. So we need massive grid storage. Hydrogen fuel cells might be one way. Another is iron-air batteries.Right now as it stands, the electric grid is failing, hydropower in the west needs replaced with something now, renewables (wind, solar) are a joke for replacing constant sources of power, and we’re at a tipping point where we might not recover if we keep doubling down on green energy. We need oil as a bridge to the future right now and our leaders are busy burning that bridge.
And we have sodium-ion batteries just reaching commercial production this year. That and iron-air batteries will solve these issues. There's not enough lithium anyway to meet demand if we continue to base our batteries mostly on it.If you think mining for fossil fuels is a disaster, you should look into how your green technologies come to be. Lithium and cobalt are mined in poor developing nations like places in Africa where children are sent to mine the minerals. Some places even use slave labor.
We use far more plastics for cheap Walmart junk than we do for useful things like wire insulation or solar panels. If anyone wants to start pointing fingers, stop using plastics in your life. That especially includes those one-use bottles for bottled water.The plastics that make up the wire insulation, solar panels, lithium ion battery casings, and wind turbine blades are made from fossil fuels. Coal is burned to produce the silicon in solar panels.
Again, electricity to charge EVs can come from lots of sources, and solar panels aren't scrap after 20 years. Many can generate power for at least 20 more years, perhaps even another century. Give the panels we first world people no longer find useful to those who don't have them. I'll happily take used solar panels and put them on my garage roof.After about 20+ years for good solar panels, they are buried in a landfill. Then you get an electric car which is plugged in at night, using the power of 25-50 refrigerators powered 100% on fossil fuels. Thank you for saving the environment.
The United States has the largest deposits of fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, and oil. By not tapping into our own resources we have left those psychopaths, as you call them, with a monopoly on energy in the world, giving our enemies leverage over our allies. Just look at Europe. They are held hostage by Russia who is controlling their natural gas supply. We could be lowering our costs here at home, rebounding out of recession, and helping our allies by supplying them needed fuel. Instead, we let Russia, Iran, and Venezuela and others gain power as Western society crumbles. If we produced more in the U.S., fuel prices would drop and those nations would make less per unit of fuel. Your argument is flawed, and by the way, many nations are dealing with riots over food, fuel, energy, and fertilizer shortages due to green policies that deny the people a way to put food on the table, farm, or keep the lights on. Revolutions are starting over those environmental policies. The biggest disaster is giving psychopaths who have nuclear weapons or are close to attaining them and want to kill us with them a monopoly on oil.A secondary issue with fossil fuels is geopolitical. It seems the countries with the largest deposits have psychopaths in charge who use fossil fuels as leverage. Get off fossil fuels, and we'll have a lot fewer wars. Wars are the single biggest environmental disaster going.
Silicon (which is used in solar panels) is refined by burning coal. Want proof? Here you go:Coal isn't burned to make solar panels. Where do you get this stuff from? Solar panels require energy to make, as do most other things, but that energy can come from lots of sources, including existing solar panels.
Let me describe the reality of that to you. Would you be willing to have your drinking water supply poisoned by fracking? Would you want to have a coal mine open up close enough to you to make your home a living hell with noise, fumes, and toxic runoff in groundwater? Ditto for an oil well. Remember any benefits of this policy are temporary, while the damage it causes will take generations to fix. Plus energy companies have shown time and again they're not willing to pay for these damages. If NY had allowed fracking, for example, it would have cost the state several billion to mitigate contamination of the drinking water supply. The oil companies were unwilling to pay for it. They wouldn't even tell us what chemicals they use for fracking so cleanup measures could be targeted better. Hence we told them to take their business elsewhere. Also note the word "mitigate". The water might have been technically drinkable after mitigation, but it still would have caused lots of cancers or other health problems. I don't want that kind of "business" where I live, and you shouldn't either. It's sort of like selling the family jewels for a night on the town.The United States has the largest deposits of fossil fuels including coal, natural gas, and oil. By not tapping into our own resources we have left those psychopaths, as you call them, with a monopoly on energy in the world, giving our enemies leverage over our allies.
Europe made a fatal mistake. That was closing their nuclear plants before they had enough renewables up and running to fully replace them. CA made the same mistake. So did NY when they shuttered Indian Point. Europe had to replace nuclear with gas from Russia in the short term, thinking that Russia wasn't the belligerent trading partner they turned out to be. Big mistake.Just look at Europe. They are held hostage by Russia who is controlling their natural gas supply. We could be lowering our costs here at home, rebounding out of recession, and helping our allies by supplying them needed fuel. Instead, we let Russia, Iran, and Venezuela and others gain power as Western society crumbles.
Most of that is because of the war. Good environmental policy shouldn't cause revolutions. It should result in lower, stable energy prices, along with a cleaner environment. To be sure, mistakes were made. Fix those, but let's not slow down getting off fossil fuels. Europe especially needs to do this yesterday so Russia is out of cards to play. We need to do the same to take Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. out of the picture. If these places want to participate in the world economy, they'll have to offer something besides oil. But in order to do that, they'll need to become stable, non-belligerent countries. So we get off fossil fuels and make the world a safer place at the same time.Your argument is flawed, and by the way, many nations are dealing with riots over food, fuel, energy, and fertilizer shortages due to green policies that deny the people a way to put food on the table, farm, or keep the lights on. Revolutions are starting over those environmental policies. The biggest disaster is giving psychopaths who have nuclear weapons or are close to attaining them and want to kill us with them a monopoly on oil.
That's basically using coal as a reactant. That's a good use for it actually. In the scheme of things only a tiny percentage of coal mined would be needed for that. Anyway, I thought you meant burning it to supply power for the manufacturing process. Oh, and solar panels are another thing we should make here big time, not get them from China.Silicon (which is used in solar panels) is refined by burning coal. Want proof? Here you go:
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom...cal,extensively in the metallurgical industry.