Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "Please Stop Commenting How EVs Are Around The Corner And How ICE is Dead" video.

@TravisFabel EVs are pushed as an environmentally friendly solution which they are certainly NOT even with the BS CO2 criteria. Not only because they get charged from a heavily weighted on coal-powered energy grid but because their production CO2 emissions are saving nothing from the overall lifecycle of a vehicle. Not to say anything about the future environmental problems when you'll need to recycle all those batteries - an extremely energy-intensive ordeal.
47
In your next clip look into the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) figures of solar and wind and then you'll see the whole narrative collapsing. Solar and wind have an EROEI of about 3.2 which means for every unit of energy invested in the system you get about 3.2 units of energy back. This is Medieval levels of energy efficiency! Fossil fuels have about 30 EROEI whereas nuclear get 100! That should tell the "greenies" something.
11
There's another name for EVs which is EEVs and means "Emissions Elsewhere Vehicles". The average EV produces more emissions than the equivalently massed ICE car during production to the point that some research suggests that they need to be driven about 200K kms to just break even in terms of emissions by which time most will need a new battery (which is the greatest part of these extra emissions)!
11
Kirk Wolfe You don't know what you are talking about! We ARE getting back to Medieval levels of inefficiency in energy production BECAUSE of renewables. Moreover, the levels of toxicity from disposed batteries in the future it's going to hit us straight on the forehead because, if you think that recycling them is an easy ordeal you have another thing coming!
10
Moreover: EVs have enormous production emissions so even with their CO2 criteria they don't make sense at all! Lastly, let's say to your audience that CO2 makes up just 0.04% of the atmospheric volume and that 95% of that is natural! In other words they are playing us with the anthropogenic CO2 narrative.
7
@bitai683 of course they need to sell you new products but there's also the parts department which is huge for certain companies. For example GM is selling crate engines and performance parts like hotcakes. But that's because there's a thriving car culture and less political correctness BS in the States where they can take a rusted bucket and make a hotrod out of it. Creativity, passion, knowledge, meaning is found in these hobbies (or businesses) and that's human nature at its best. Governments don't want us free, they want us scared and controlled.
6
@tedmoss be sorry about yourself and the illusions you have been fed with.
5
@sepg5084 what do YOU know about the climate? What's "climate change" (in NUMBERS) for example?
4
@ignasanchezl It is EXACTLY the case even with the BS CO2 criteria!
3
@REDLINERUNNER I can Google your story although I already believe it. Trust me when I say that I have seen plenty of corruption in my time. Thanks anyway.
3
@REDLINERUNNER that spells corruption to me. Someone got that EU money (subsidies) installed a visible display and “forgot” to put some parts of the non-visible (but essential) part of the operation. Or perhaps they are installing the cables afterwards. Bureaucracy has also a cost and much of it translates to time (and , of course, money/cost). The point though is that even if everyone of those wind turbines worked 100% they can’t escape the limitations of their physics and with terrible EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) figures you just can’t compete with the efficiency of fossil fuels or nuclear.
3
@TravisFabel "You've literally said nothing." >>No! That's what YOU think. I wrote a whole lot and the problem is that you don't get the point. The point is that you don't shove down society's throat "solutions" to (hypothetical) problems (CO2 emissions) that require almost a fast track decommissioning of ICE vehicles. You don't understand the complexity of that ordeal, like the retooling of whole industries and the taking down of existing and perfectly operational infrastructure to substitute it with new and call it "environmentalism". You don't even have enough energy or commodities for these "solutions". I think me and you went as far as I can afford (time-wise) in this issue.
2
@kng128 I know that channel and I've subbed to it years ago. The people I follow are serious names in the investing domain (which is also my job) and their reports must be really detailed and thorough before publication (I get a newsletter from them). Their sources too. If they don't deliver reliable reports they lose customers and their business will eventually perish. Everything they've said has been so far pretty accurate. Even their predictions (which is one of the hardest things to risk publishing).
2
@replica1052 Yeah! NO! Go look at the latest publication by Svensmark, Shaviv et al (2021) in Nature's Scientific report. There are mechanisms out there that we have no idea about. Climate science it's in its infancy and that's something only skeptics are saying. The very fact makes everything that's presented as a certainty suspicious (at the very least).
2
Your final comment on "greed and selfishness" is completely wrong! It's false labeling of what's humanly natural and that's adding value to our personal lives. Technology DOES create solutions and if you don't think so I should tell you that back in the days when horses and carriages were the main means of transportation big cities had huge problems of disposing horse manure and dead carcasses of horses! The ICE engine solved all that. The problem of humanity lies in false labeling just like you labeled "greed and selfishness" everything that YOU think harms the environment (because you think shallowly ATM) since you seem to focus on what you think is harmful (and even that's debatable) and neglect all that is beneficial. Driving cars or flying planes to the mountain actually preserves nature when you have to put off a wildfire. Yes? More CO2 is actually greening the planet right now and that's something the "greenies" won't tell you because they want to make you feel guilty for your needs. Then, not only they won't solve any ACTUAL problem (like certain types of pollution) but they'll tax and exploit you and take up political power from you and me. P.S. Is it just a coincidence that all former communist parties are now manning green political parties? This is just an anti-capitalist and anti-humanist agenda. That's all it is.
2
@Scoots1994 until the bill reaches their wallet. Then they'll wake up for good. The undergoing energy crisis is just the beginning of what's to come.
1
Have any of the persons that push for renewables (only solar and wind - because in the "renewables" the UNEP includes BURNING LIVE WOOD/BIOMASS, like THAT is going to help the planet!) ever thought about the production emissions for solar and wind or whether the available global production of commodities is sufficient for a mass scale energy transition? Or what will it mean for their energy costs? Or what will it mean for the planet when every 15 years you will have to replace all solar panels and wind turbines, pour new concrete for their bases, transport and install, recycle them and so on? Do they know that only the Netherlands (a country of just 17 million people) will need between 2x and 12x the GLOBAL production of certain commodities and elements just to reach their 2030 energy transition plans? Welcome to the real world guys where things don't appear (produced or disappear) by waiving a magic wand!
1
@kng128 I've read a report that had academic research behind it.The authors of the report are professionals in the commodities field (G&R) and the title of the report was "Ignoring energy transition realities". BTW, there's no emission free grid! Wind turbines are not emission free themselves. It's not only their emission-intensive production, the construction of wider mountain roads for them to pass and installed, their transportation, maintenance, etc, but also the huge amounts of cement they need for every one of their bases. Then every 20 years or so you need to decommission them and find a way to recycle them in an economically viable way which, at the moment, doesn't seem to exist, hence they bury them (and you need to redo everything from scrap!)! Then there's their intermittency problem. Sun and wind are only available (at best) half the hours of any given day/year. The rest of those hours you need to operate other energy plants to provide the power. The problem with that arrangement is that these power plants don't like to operate intermittently themselves and they emit the most on their start-up procedures which become more frequent when wind/solar are a substantial part of the grid. I don't know what the channel you mentioned did but experts on the field (with "skin in the game") disagree with what you wrote. Maybe you didn't understand the nuances of his video or maybe he's mistaken himself.
1
Joseph Tutor it’s not a wise move to have authoritarian (and potentially hostile) regimes controlling your energy needs. Moreover the “simple solutions” you posted in one of your comments are anything BUT simple. I don’t think that there is enough global production (of certain commodities - and that’s excluding any other uses) to cover even 1/4th of your plan.
1
@HorstSchlaemmer00 that video is NONSENSE propaganda! I stopped watching when he said "millions of gallons are spilled in the oceans". Tell that IDIOT that oil leakage occurs naturally in the depths of the Oceans and that there are certain bacteria that FEED on that oil and clean it naturally. Green agenda BS! Moreover, I liked the fact that he mentioned pumping oil but didn't touch the mining processes that go into mining rare earth materials for EVs or "renewables".I doubt that he mentioned anything by the end of his clip in relation to production emissions of EVs. Just green propaganda.
1
Joseph Tutor yeah! We agree to disagree then. I don’t think that authoritarian regimes control everything. I also don’t see why you don’t try your solutions locally and scale them up (if you are so confident about them)? It’s easy to sound good in theory. As a person that has been involved with psychology and brain science I can tell you that there are systems in us that make us believe that reality is far simpler than it is. This is an internal obstacle to overcome when you want to remain vigilant for forming arbitrary assumptions. That’s the most difficult part in any practical endeavor that involves us humans. Try your solutions and I hope they are well-thought and go well. My experience tells me that this is a very rare exception to the rule but nevertheless, if you feel passionate about it go for it. Not a bad existential goal to go by anyway.
1
Joseph Tutor "Everything runs on electricity and batteries are practical." >>I certainly didn't write that! Slow down a bit and hold that excitement in reins. You are addressing someone else's comment. "Billions of dollars per year are lost to resistance in power lines where water in pipelines to generate electricity has no losses." >>Maybe you meant to write "to transfer electricity"? If you think there's a wasted opportunity in there why don't you make a product that solves that problem? Is it because theory is easy to speak whereas practice is not? How are you going to prevent leakages over time in such pipelines (for example)? I don't know what kind of real-world difficulties these will bring about but if you are so certain about their usability do it! "Fiberglass pipelines made by free energy and drones to collect sand are free if you know how to make self replicating 3D printer drones that can be used as sand collection vehicles." >>I don't know what exactly you mean by that. What energy is free and what does sand has to do with it? Drones collecting sand to do what? If you have explained that in a previous comment I certainly missed it. "Incompletely right is the same thing as completely wrong." >>No! That's DEFINITELY wrong and I know that from the domain of investing. Being somewhat right ALWAYS beats being completely wrong. "One approach speaks for itself, even if people can’t hear it, or won’t hear it. I have to watch as my retarded brother lifts his own hand, and puts out his own eye." >>That's just chaotic writing right there. Out of context and even though I'm no native English speaker (nor do I live in an English-speaking society) I know that's just some neurons firing randomly in that head of yours. The rest of the comment is just as chaotic with poor attention to punctuation and sentence formation. Such a pity! Some parts are really insightful (and I actually agree with many of what you've written, many things are aligned with my own world-theory). Phrases like "Luxury and comfort are the brainchild of intellect" which is also true for its opposite as intellect is also the child of luxury and comfort. Philosophy came about only after basic needs were covered (historically by slaves) and ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Romans, etc have achieved a level of living conditions that would allow them to have spare time for thinking. There lies the birth of Philosophy as a whole. But philosophy has a huge problem and that's the subject-object dichotomy (Google it). That's your two selves (right and left hemisphere) operating at different frequencies (meaning that they perceive the world in an entirely different fashion). Google the Sperry split-brain experiments (Nobel prize winner).
1
Joseph Tutor "bite you"? Why do you have to make a discussion unpleasant? If that's what you want to share with the world I'm not interested. BTW, you are wrong! Something that's not entirely wrong (or about right) is much more useful than something that's completely wrong. Invest your money under this doctrine and you'll see what I mean. Peace out indeed!
1
Joseph Tutor "The end?" >>It certainly seems for you...I, on the other hand, have a lot more faith in humanity and, you know what, sometimes that faith pays dividends and once in a while there's a gem to be shared. At the end of the day I agree, humanity is myopic and, guess what, me and you both are part of humanity.
1
Joseph Tutor I wouldn't have said it better myself! Congrats!
1
Joseph Tutor I know...it's that time of the day.
1
Joseph Tutor I hear you...chirping away...
1
Joseph Tutor You convinced me...you are an excellent chirper...
1
@jeffkiefer5182 I am not for one solution and one solution only. I am for a plethora of solutions competing each other in the market place without government hinderances on one form of energy over another. I am for the market to decide what’s cheaper, more abundant, better for all of us and for the many peculiar situations we all have in everyday life. A small EV may be a great solution for in-town transportation but not for everyone, not at this point of their life, not under the current circumstances and so on (as our friend here in his clip clearly shows us many of the practical problems one might face). If I decide to buy an ICE car I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t because they THINK that climate sensitivity to CO2 is crucial (when they don’t even know how to quantify that - and that’s why they implement dozens upon dozens of climate models with different climate sensitivity to CO2). Professional politicians always proclaim certainty over doomsday narratives. Yet they know nothing at all and historic records are pretty clear on that. They were always historically wrong about everything! What’s extremely upsetting now is that they have government-sponsored scientists on their payroll that give them back the excuses they need to tax us and regulate markets. That isn’t going to end well. It already shows with energy prices skyrocketing (and NO! that’s not just because Putin invaded Ukraine, that’s nonsense! The supply side of oil was already showing the direction of global oil prices well before Putin did anything. The problem is structural and is a diminished CAPEX since the peak of 2014 - this means less oil reserves ever since). P.S. There was a guy that was researching a rare species of an animal (I can’t remember what exactly that was right now) but couldn’t get funding for years. As soon as he “linked” that to “climate change” he now owns a 40’ boat and a Land Cruiser. That’s a perfect example of how government funding distorts scientific narratives on demand.
1
@KingKoudi “how much electricity is used by the oil industry?” >> fossil fuels have an EROEI of about 30 to 40 (depends on which kind of fuel we are talking about, coal, oil, natural gas, etc). This means that you are putting/investing in the system 1 unit of energy to take back 30 to 40 units of energy. That’s excellent and cheap (all included). For renewables (solar and wind) you get an EROEI of below 4 !!! That’s Medieval levels of (in)efficiency!
1