Comments by "S Andersson" (@sandersson2813) on "Engineering Explained"
channel.
-
6
-
@Ganiscol I'm well aware that there are thousands of oil related products that we need oil for, not least for tyres and plastics as well as medicines, cosmetics and various other compounds.
None of us would last five minutes without oil and gas.
The point I am making is that EV's are not especially green, and the focus on electrifying cars whilst ignoring far more damaging aspects and causes of climate change is folly.
Of course we have an energy transition, but by the very nature of infrastructure and electricity production, it simply cannot happen quickly and nowhere near as quick as doomsday environmental cults like XR want.
Make your childish digs at "oil lobby" if you like, but the energy transition will be slow.
As for fuel cells, hydrogen is simply too difficult to produce and too expensive using current technology.
I'm just being realistic, so there's no need to throw barbs at me.
The environmentalist line of "use renewables" is the equivalent of the Marie Antoinette "let them eat cake"
Switching to renewables simply isn't practical for billions of people, and would put them back into poverty if you cut off fossil fuel.
The whole environmental movement is pretty much virtue signalling, largely by Europe as long as China, Russia, India, Brazil and America continue to be the polluters that they are.
Nothing we do in Europe will make the slightest difference.
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Adams4000
The oil and gas industry is not subsidised in real terms at all. It is the most highly taxed industry in the country so any subsidy is more than paid for in the taxes paid back.
You probably won't know this but some oil fields are taxed at a rate of 80% in the pound. Name another industry that pays that sort of amount in taxes? There is none.
Furthermore, how is the government paying for solar power? The government gets its money from TAXATION. So are you happy to pay more tax for virtue signalling?
You could cut European emissions to nothing today, and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the world CO2 .
The issue is America, Russia, Brazil, India and China. Anything we do makes no difference at all whilst they do nothing.
If I buy an EV, depending on the type of grid I'm connected to, I'll have to drive it for between 30-70,000 km before it overtakes an ice car in terms of CO2. Those figures come from a Polestar report and they make EV cars.
I buy a new car about every 40,000 miles, so I'll never own a car as green as my current petrol one, besides European cars only account for 1% of all global emissions. So again, its virtue signalling. Even if you replaced all of Europe with EV cars, until they'd done 50,000 km each there would be zero reduction in European CO2.
1
-
1
-
1