This is San Francisco now! By 2025 all of California will look like this.....not sure I see the need for cars!
I'll just leave this here. Hot off the presses.
- Thread starter southerncaltiger
- Start date
Let's have a session of realism here.
Supposed "green energy" sources like solar and wind require a lot of rare earth metals for production. Here's a look at a rare earth mine
Mining is a highly toxic process that destroys the environment around it. By some estimates, we have about 20-30 years of these minerals left on Earth and as we increase usage, that will just decrease supply.
So yeah, no gas sounds great but instead we'll have these mines all over as people scrape and claw for the last of the rare earth minerals/metals.
"Green energy" is the furthest thing from green. Also, we have no way of disposing of all the used batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. They will not degrade over time any better than plastic does in most cases. So yeah, this is full of genius!
That's my entire issue with current leftist thought. It's all emotion; no reason, no process and no real understanding.
We will be mining asteroids by then.
Maybe
WHAT???? You are saying a 4 week fire has contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than 20 years of autos. Show me your numbers please... or did you just make that up?
And your solution is to start more controlled fires?
I get the controlled burns to keep the amount of fuel available to a fire down. It's pretty well known and accepted that by putting fires out too quickly and not allowing them to "clean out" some of the undergrowth. So eventually a fire comes along and all that undergrowth is extra thick b/c it hasn't been thinned naturally by fire. So yeah, I get that this practice would cut down on the intensity of the fires. IE more small fires and fewer big ones.
But doesn't that just average out over time. Lets say over a 10 year period, you have a controlled burn every 3 years or so. OR you have a major fire every 9 or 10 years. Doesn't the same amount of stuff burn up? Seems like the amount of greenhouse gases would be the same over the same period... ie 3 smaller amounts or one big one.
This is probably true
Regardless of where you stand on the issue. The cost of electric cars is dropping quickly and has been for a long time. You have to believe that electric cars are going to be the cheaper option...I don't think it is even close
Any chance they go totally in vitro to stop the spread of STD? I am 62 so by 2035 I maybe would be ok with it.
Did you just look at a snapshot of the cost? The cost of electric and especially the cost of batteries has been consistently dropping. The only way it is not cheaper is if you assume that technology advancements stop.
Let's have a session of realism here.
Supposed "green energy" sources like solar and wind require a lot of rare earth metals for production. Here's a look at a rare earth mine
Mining is a highly toxic process that destroys the environment around it. By some estimates, we have about 20-30 years of these minerals left on Earth and as we increase usage, that will just decrease supply.
So yeah, no gas sounds great but instead we'll have these mines all over as people scrape and claw for the last of the rare earth minerals/metals.
"Green energy" is the furthest thing from green. Also, we have no way of disposing of all the used batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. They will not degrade over time any better than plastic does in most cases. So yeah, this is full of genius!
That's my entire issue with current leftist thought. It's all emotion; no reason, no process and no real understanding.
Recycle? These rare earth metals help with the chemical processes of moving electricity around. By definition they are not changed into another element by the process. So maybe recycle those old batteries (aren't we supposed to do that now) solar panels and turbines? The only reason that we DON'T recycle now is that it's CHEAPER to simply throw away the old and just replace it with a new one. When it becomes economically smart to recycle, everyone will be doing it. As the supply of new rare earth metals starts drop, we'll start stripping down everything that has them and even "mining" landfills to get at the already tossed stuff.
The "pollution" you are talking about, and they say they want to eliminate, is carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food. It is a naturally occurring substance that supports life on this planet. If all man made carbon dioxide were eliminated, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would go up any time a volcano erupts or there are wild fires, not to mention the natural cyclical release/absorption from the oceans.
Planting trees is a much better and cheaper method to offset any man made release of carbon diode than giving a politician the power to regulate industries (oil cos and car companies who cannot develop the technology required) out of existence.
Interesting discussion but nobody mentioned the free market and consumer choice which will ultimately decide the outcome . If people don’t like the law they’ll move . You can’t create an onerous law in a vaccum and expect no consumer response . Look at the exodus now from states with burdensome taxes and lack of safety from the defund the police crowd . I like the electric/hydrogen/ natural gas powered vehicles. But if one area forces the issue and folks don’t like it they will move . The market is efficient ! Just MHO !
I think part of it is that to look at the advances in battery technology (acquisition of raw materials, storage, efficiency, longevity, etc) in the last 15 years. No reason to think that won't continue and accelerate in the next 15.
Just yesterday:
Tesla to make EV battery cathodes without cobalt
Nwesome is a NWO lowlife & his uncle is Committee of 300 Member, George Soros! Both are bottom feeders
And this:
Next to the proposed cathode plant will be a lithium conversion facility, according to Baglino, who added that the company is working on a new sulfate-free process that he claimed will reduce lithium costs by 33%.
It’s unclear where the cathode plant will be located or when it will be built. However, if the aim is to bring the supply chain close together, it might end up being next to the plot of lithium clay to which Tesla recently bought the mining rights.
Mining the reactive alkali metal does have an environmental cost. But Musk claims the company has found a better process. Traditionally, mining lithium takes a lot of water. Miners will drill a hole in the land and pump brine to the surface where it’s then left to evaporate. What’s left is a mix of minerals like manganese and lithium salts. Those continue to be filtered until the lithium can be extracted.
Musk said they have a new process that can extract the lithium from ore using sodium chloride, or table salt.
“Nobody’s done this before, to the best of my knowledge, nobody’s done this,” Musk said, adding that all of the elements in the process are reusable. “It’s a very sustainable way of obtaining lithium.” He then said the land where the mining will take place “will look pretty much the same as before.”
Tesla plans to build a cathode plant and get into the lithium mining business
For what it is worth, recycling creates quite a bit of pollution as well. We are not really recycling rare earth minerals yet because it's very expensive to do. China stopped accepting recycling because of how toxic the process is and it was just another environmental issue they were facing. Now most recycling isn't going anywhere and countries that do take it are not really prepared to do it in the cleanest way possible. Again, we are all about what sounds good and feels good but not very much about actual process, practice and production.
Why would low-income folks be buying new cars?
As mentioned in the thread, this is low-hanging fruit that the politician is trying to use to get some brownie points when in reality most manufacturers have targets waaaaay more aggressive than this. Now sure why this would anger anyone. It's going to be extremely rare to buy a gas-powered car in 15 years. That's an eternity away from an industry evolution standpoint.
Seriously dude? Yeah, please tell me all about the cost of electricity.
Sounds like I need to open up a dealership right across the state line in Nevada.
I often find myself amused by the stark contrasts between CA and NV...and that they share such a large border.
It’s down right now. Question is, when is the right time to scoop up some more?
china stopped accepting the US' single stream because for years we were sending them 50% contaminated with MSW shipments.
It’s a bad thing because the power grid can’t handle it - and never will be able too. The costs would be too astronomical and take too long to implement as far as power infrastructure. We need to literally double, if not more, the number of power plants we currently have. And I mean fissile fuel and nuclear - how do you think that will go over?
Sounds good. If I had an electric car here in Greenville I would be running it on nuclear and hydroelectric power. Clean.
If my daughter in Pittsburgh buys one she will be burning coal instead of gas.
I wish we would shoot for natural gas.
If my daughter in Pittsburgh buys one she will be burning coal instead of gas.
I wish we would shoot for natural gas.
Hydrogen or Hydrogen/Electric hybrids are still IMHO, the long term path forward.
The hydrogen trucking companies that are getting in to sell trucks to company based on route volume and then installing filling stations all along those routes is a very sensible approach to rolling it out, that will eventually create the infrastructure needed to see consumer support options.
The hydrogen trucking companies that are getting in to sell trucks to company based on route volume and then installing filling stations all along those routes is a very sensible approach to rolling it out, that will eventually create the infrastructure needed to see consumer support options.
Pretty simple. They'll be buying USED cars. The policy only says new cars.
How are we going to pay for our roads? Right now, we use a gas tax?
The fact that right under our noses is the key to clean, sustainable energy for everyone in this country, yet it's the most demonized option we have, is infuriating to me.
The only reason you see O&G companies promoting wind and solar is because they know it lacks the baseline load so there will always be a market for their LNG. They're the ones promoting these other sources and demonizing nuclear, because it keeps their products alive.
Well I’m sure they will have similar solutions to those problems. Maybe they can put a windmill on top of all the cars so they can recharge as the go down the highway, oh I forgot that stop and go traffic in the city won’t generate much electricity. They can’t possibly consider fusion because that’s something like nuclear power and that’s a no no. I confident they will have an answer. Maybe I guess.
Oh, you mean the cheaper used ones that will need new expensive battery packs because they will have decreased range? Oh, you mean used gas-powered cars? Wonder how that market will work.
Again, these are folks that are financially stressed as it is.
yes, because for 20+ years the world was sending all of their plastics to China, however, there was no effort done to minimize contamination of the loads that were sent over - and since China didn't care at the time, they gladly accepted it. however, due to major waste haulers and recycling initiatives failing to properly decontaminate their loads and send them a decently clean product, it has screwed everyone.
Can't see further than the end of their nose.
When I was in elementary school in the 70's we were told:
1) Fossil fuels will all be gone in 20 years.
2) We'll all be on the metric system before 1980
I'm still waiting for both to happen.
1) Fossil fuels will all be gone in 20 years.
2) We'll all be on the metric system before 1980
I'm still waiting for both to happen.
