So is the consensus EV cars will continue to become popular with consumers while being no so good for the environment.
I think there will be an initial rush which will quickly taper off, 3-5 years and EV's will never make up more than about 25% of the total vehicle fleet.
By the time they start getting a real hold, some other tech will come along and replace them.
Biofuels and hydrogen powered cars are economical and thermodynamicly never going to happen.
Biofuels have been touted for getting on near 20 years and still nothing significant has happened. Despite what some believe. The increase in production rate would have to be impossibly magnified for them to become Viable.
Hydrogen has some upsides but a LOT of downsides. It is not a fuel as such, it's an energy storage medium. You need to change something to hydrogen, it's not something you can grab out the air or dig out the ground. It has to be converted FF, sunlight or something else to get any commercial qtys that would make a dent in the vehicle fleet.
Man caused climate change which is resulting in the melting of the polar ice caps will be good business for the oil companies. With the ice sheet gone it will expose vast new oil reserves and price of fossil fuels will drop.
Globull warming is also good for the planet. Warmer climates makes tress grow better and increased CO2 is also a help for plant life. Greenhouses are warmed and have elevated levels of Co2 to promote plant growth. Incredibly the doomsday greenwashed seem to overlook this obvious fact.
Globull warming will help make the planet green and the melting ice caps will mean that there is plenty of water to ensure their growth.
Yep, may loose a few meters of coastal building land but the benifits of having more water further inland and the resulting increase in crop production will be more than worth it and be better for mankind and much better for greening our planet and the Flora and Fauna.
There are a lot of greenies who beleive anything is possible and feel the laws of physiscs, thermodynamics and chemistry does not apply to them. They will continue to beleive cars can be powered with the electrolysis of water and CO2 and water in the atmosphere can be converted into automobile fuel economicly.
These people have empty lives and need hope and something to believe in for the future so they can believe there is something to look forward to in their lives and things will get better than the lot they have now.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between those that are religious and believe in the green faith as well as compared to the population averages.
Electricty from solar and wind in 50 years will might be able to provide less than 20% of the world’s electricty needs. We just do’t have the raw resources to produce more.
Those members of the green church argue that only small tracts of land are needed to power the world. Musk, the greatest Cult leader of all eternity, Said something to the effect of 400 Km sq of panels could power the world. That's nice but if it's that simple, raises 2 questions for me:
1. Why is the world not solar powered already then?
2. What happens when the sun goes down in the evening?
Those that preach the green gospel have both a penchant for over exaggeration and over simplification. Whatever best suits the fairy tale they are trying to convince people of at the time.
Nuclear power while not without issues is far better than all of the other methods we know about and certainly causes far less heath problems for people compared to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are responsible for causing the premature death and heath issues for one billion people or about one eighth of the worlds population.
can't say I am at all for nuke power. It is simply too powerful and dangerous to be entrusted to mankind.
The accidents that have occoured have all been the fault of the clowns running the facilities rather than the tech itself... which isn't great but hasn't been the problem.
The REAL problem is human nature, specifically greed. Corners are cut, procedures compromised and stupid things done just to save a buck.
Japan case in point. What moron would locate backup generators in the first place that would be hit in a tidal wave prone area instead of putting them higher up and in a more fortified structure?
As for the amount of people dying.... I think that's very had to clarify no matter what vested interest says it. Once could also say how many people live through the wide range of benifits oil provides?
In any case, I think the idea of anything killing so many people a year is kind of a moot point. If we stopped all these people dying from all the statistics attributed to different things, the world would go into melt down trying to support all these extra people and the explosive population growth in a couple of years.
If we want to stop people dying, first we might have to slow down the rate at which they are born.