Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Big Think" channel.

So every year in history, pretty much
1
@kd1s It's not ad hominen. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Electric vehicles are not the most efficient means of transportation. Their power to weight ratio is terrible, they have caustic chemicals used for energy storage, they take 12 hours to charge, and they rely on the grid to charge. They are powered by whatever the grid uses, whether it be renewables, nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc. Cars don't even make up the largest portion of CO2 production by a long shot. Those would he electrical generation and manufacturing. What we really should he doing is developing the most advanced forms of nuclear power possible. Jumpstart nuclear power to the 21st century instead of using dangerous power plants built in the 1970's. We need fourth generational nuclear power to meet the growing energy demands without using natural gas peak generation plants. Power consumption is on the rise, and introducing electric cars with no additional way to generate enough electricity to charge them is foolhardy. Consider this as well-being if the majority of America charged their electric cars on the grid at night, the transformers wouldn't have time to cool, as there wouldn't be anything such as non peak hours. They'd blow and you'd have constantly blackouts.
1
@panaccoman Lol. Sure. Have you any electrical engineering experience?
1
@panaccoman Look into inductive wireless power transfer. It's very useful for powering small devices over very short distances, like inside a house. Unfortunately, we won't know what health hazards are associated with living constantly around a positively charge space might be. As far as transmitting power over great distances, thats much less useful. It involves beaming power to a specific device using an aimed microwave beam that degenerates over distance. It also carries huge health hazards. Might be useful for charging a spacecraft or something. We will continue to use hard wired power conduction for the forseable future because it's only way that is realistic. Wind and solar aren't reliable and are expensive , and current energy storage is hazardous. Even worse if you look at how dangerous compressed hydrogen would be. IV generation nuclear power is our best shot. If we don't develop that, we will see more fracking to make up the shortfall as natural gas becomes even more dominant.
1
@kd1s Subsidies might help, but maybe not. The volt was heavily subsidized as was the EV1. The best way to get a new technology to compete on the economy of scale is to get rich people to buy it first, like exactly the way the automobile became commonplace in the first place. Same with the PC, cell phone, plasma/led tv , etc. It started with the wealthy, and of course, government use. I'd be interested to see a maximum size/efficiency for an electric vehicle. Could they power a 18 wheeler truck? They would have to he able to haul the same weight for 600 miles before recharge to compete. I would think for all electric to really take a market share in the US, pickup truck designs would need to be offered. I've seen many all electric scooters in Beijing, but they travel much less in much slower traffic than Americans do. Of course, those are ultimately coal powered, as well.
1
@kd1s You think that a battery pack on an 80,000 lb vehicle would only need to be twice the size of one in a car? It would have to be monstrously larger, as the motor would. You are seriously underestimating the type of power were talking about. The engine is 6 times larger for a reason. Just to get a Tesla to go 600 miles in a day, it would have to have a double sized battery. To give a big rig the same performance as a diesel, that battery would probably have to weight 15,000 lbs.
1
@Adam George If you give the money you tax from people right back to them it's not really a tax, and I question it's effectiveness. If you tax energy to high, as in 10 dollar a gallon, you'll have a revolt and the people will begin killing politicians.
1
@kd1s Your ballpark figure is flat wrong. The combined weight of fuel and power train of a modern diesel big rig is 4500 lbs. An electric battery with the same power and range would weight 7 to 8 tons and cost more than $150, 000 at current prices. That's alot of money to replace something that already works. Plus, the batteries lose their maximum charge over time, so it will get worse power and range the longer it's used. Couple that with the reality that it would take hours to charge back up. Are you defecting from these realities by shifting to politics? If you want to combat CO2 in the most meaningful way, we have to invest in power generation first before instituting more electrical users. A safer nuclear power plant is the best way forward and all of our energies should be invested in that first. Even if you put climate change aside, our current nuclear power plant strategy is it's own environmental disaster in the making.
1
@kd1s Battery technology just isn't there yet. Yes, battery density is constantly improving, but we also have to consider the elements that comprise them. The main ingredient right now is lithium ion. How much of a supply if that is available? Where do we get it? Will the price go up? Will we have wars to secure that lithium? What are the environmental concerns with lithium waste? What about the fire hazard associated with lithium ion batteries?
1
@Adam George A carbon tax would hit electric bills the hardest. How would a consumer, especially ones who aren't rich, switch to green energy? They buy their power from a utility. It's a monopoly, and people can't shop around. it would be simple, though devestating, to collect a heavy carbon tax. They would add it to every source of energy. Gas, heating, and electrical rates would skyrocket, impoverishing millions and destroying the economy. How would you give the money back? Tax returns? What about all if the people who don't file taxes? U don't want to spend 10 bucks a gallon fir gasoline. That would raise the price of every single product and service multiple times. I don't want to sound 2 or 3 times more a KW for electricity. Those bills are already high. And you want to raise them? If you tax people's electricity and then give them all of the money back, you haven't taxed them at all.
1
@Adam George That's insane. You do really ze that a large amount of a gas tax would go into the price if products that are produced using petroleum, along with the transportation involved, don't you? This is a hypothesis not based in reality at all. Again, how do you rebate the money? Where has this worked ever? Why not just make green erergy more attractive to start with instead of schemes? If green energy is more efficient and cheaper, it'll catch on by itself. People buy energy efficient appliances without government subsidies already. Someone who creates a better product will compete against others who don't and will gain market share. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve, but it can do so without grandiose social engineering scams.
1
@Adam George You don't have a choice where you get your electricity. Taxing people on their use doesn't allow them to take a different route at all. If you raised my electricity by double, what could I do? Shop around for a better utility company? It's just like water. You only have one source. It's not as if people can just decide to change the source. It's not the sane as changing cable companies. If you raise gas prices to every consumer but give a rebate to every person drawing breath, you're going to be paying out WAY more than you take in, and it won't get to the same people. You'll he paying out to people who don't even own a car. Can you even imagine the concept of unintended consequences?
1
@Adam George It's a good thing that you aren't a politician
1
@Adam George Holy shit. You're not getting it. If you tax 50 million people and rebate to 300 million, you won't have enough money. There will be more money going out than coming in. Most air travel isn't by "Lear Jets" just as most ground travel isn't by Ferraris. Were talking about jirnal people trying to get to work, manufacturers trying to supply people with the necessities of life, transportation companies getting those products to people, farmers growing food, power companies trying to avoid massive blackouts. You have no idea just how big the issue you are discussing is. Rather than going maoist on the problems at hand and ignoring the glaring realities of how ad hoc decisions can affect people's very survival, take a step back and consider everyone for a moment. It's very easy in many people's minds to just pop out what they think us a crazy simple solution to a complexed problem. It's just not real life
1
That would be racist and homophobic!
1
@redhairdavid It's easy to have new records if you erase the old ones
1