Waco1947 said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
RMF5630 said:
Waco1947 said:
RMF5630 said:
Waco1947 said:
RMF5630 said:
Waco1947 said:
RMF5630 said:
Waco1947 said:
RMF630 "Ok, electric was deemed the winner through marketing. Elon had more to do with electric being pushed than.it being a better tech than.Hydrogen. EV is an environmental disaster on par with fossil fuels, REM mining, battery disposal, hazardous material and emergency materials nightmare. So, we are putting carbon, which is not even the biggest greenhouse gas issue (methane). So, the Biden plan is more marketing than doing anything to curb climate change or respond to it."
"Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions.
- FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.
E The EPA
There is more to the environment than carbon. You can reduce Carbon and still make the environment worse. The climate crowd is too focused on carbon and not enough about the rest of the equation.
Quote:
Waste from end-of-life solar panels presents opportunities to recover valuable materials and create jobs through recycling. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, by 2030, the cumulative value of recoverable raw materials from end-of-life panels globally will be about $450 million, which is equivalent to the cost of raw materials currently needed to produce about 60 million new panels. Diverting solar panels from landfills to recycling saves space in landfills in addition to capturing the value of the raw materials.
Would you like me to use studies from the American Petroleum Institute?
Yes
So, it really doesn't matter what the source is as long as it supports your narrative? You are using Studies from a Renewable Energy Agency to validate the that renewable energy will be beneficial? The whole purpose of this "agency" is to accelerate the deployment of renewables. You don't see anything wrong with that picture? Why not accelerate its deployment. We are warming rapidly.
And your source says, "Drill at all costs." I tend to trust mine more than yours because yours is funded by the oil and gas industry.
Actually, I could care less. It is still four wheels on the road, EV is just a matter of propulsion. My concern is the practicality of trying to actually implement this in a knee jerk method all in the name of save the planet and the Government selection of winners and losers. What sounds easy in a sound bite and political platform is a nightmare in real life, people do not think about the scale of what they are asking.
People like 47 want all the pollution and destruction to be hidden in the more impoverished parts of the world so they don't have to see it and think about it.
You just make up stuff don't you? I was asked to dialogue. Your statement is simply immature not dialogical.
I am in the middle of a study to investigate how we can provide charging stations along our facility, I am the Director of Innovation for a roadways, the jump from providing 10 slow-charge charging units at a place of employment to providing on a system for the public. Is massive. It is the difference between being a standard business customer and a "super user" industrial level customer. Slow charge will not work on the roadway, no one wants to sit for 4 hours in a park-n-ride or rest area charging.
So, now we are in the realm of fast charge. The impact in terms of cost to provide is geometric. The charger is more expensive, the impact on the electric grid is more, and the cost to provide the power is more. You still have to sit there for 45 minutes.
People then talk about inductive charging. Do you realize how invasive that is? You are basically tearing up your whole roadway. In addition, the EVs coming off the line do not have the capability to do inductive charging, it is a retrofit. The major OEMs have no interest in having it be part of future product lines, outside of transit vehicles and fleet delivery. It could and probably will work there in the future.
So, what if we went to frictional electric production? To just power lights, DMS boards and on-system electronics. You would need to have 2000 units per mile put in and then you are generating 70 watts. Enough to do a light bulb!
I understand it is coming. I have no problem with it. But, the timeframe the Administration came up with is a political talking point. We are looking at 50 years to get the system totally converted. I have not even gone into the impacts of the grid and what needs to be done. It needs to be phased and just going cold turkey off of fossil fuels is an economic death sentence. There has to be a business case that works at all phases. An F150 that is limited to 64 miles towing and takes 6 hours to recharge is not gonna cut it. I have no problem with the tech, innovation is in my job description. But you gotta be realistic in what can be done.
Media is our worst enemy. Space X landed a rocket in the ocean. What do they talk about going to Mars. Do you know how hard it is to do what Space X did? Yet, the common person thinks we are going to Mars next week. This **** is hard and will take time. I hope this is not taken as disrespectful because it is not meant to be.
