Comments by "David Elliott" (@davidelliott5843) on "Are Teslas Actually Better For The Environment?" video.

  1. Dont forget 13 million tonnes of methane leaked away by the USA every year. At 85 times the warming effect of CO2 it's equivalent to 1.1 Billion tones of CO2. They dont tell us about that one and you wont smell it because the "odorant" is only added to domestic gas at the local distribution centre.
    3
  2.  @SgtKanyo  When I want A to B travel I really don't want soul. I just want minimal hassle and the travel job done with. I dont need the clunky gear shifts, reluctant engines and wobbly handling of most commodity cars on the market. When I want soul, I'll get a Lancia Stratos replica with it's mid mounted 3.0 V6. Or maybe a Shelby Cobra. A Fiat Panda 100HP with turbo would be a great toy at a more reasonable cost but it's not a daily driver.
    3
  3. If a fuel source cannot undercut coal on costs per Kwh then all it will do is displace the coal burn to people who can't afford the expensive "green" energy. No net change. Molten salt nuclear reactors especially the Moltex remove all of the hazards associated with pressurised water reactors and because they are so safe can be built and operated at lower costs than coal. With something that simple why go to all the trouble of digging up and burning coal. The Moltex actually burns waste fuel taken from existing reactors. It's cleaning up AND making money all at zero CO2.
    2
  4. A recent report shows the USA natural gas industry is leaking 13 million metric tons of methane each year, giving a leak rate of 2.3 percent. Methane has a global warming effect 85 times that of CO2 and when it's degraded over time its become CO2. in CO2 terms that 13 million tonnes wasted is really 1.1 Billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Coal has a horrendous CO2 emissions because most of it is carbon AND the thermal efficiency is never better than 30%. I cant find the figures but it's BAAD. Nukes and renewables are of course zero CO2. So its reasonable to use gas as the mean though that leakage effect is pretty nasty. The big question is why are we not using molten salt nuclear reactors like the new Moltex going up at New Bruswick in Canada. It will burn waste fuel from the old light water reactor next door and building it costs no more than a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plant. Fuel costs are negative because they are being paid to take away the irradiated waste fuel. Coal is the cheapest fuel but overall the Moltex will be cheaper per KWH than a coal fired plant. When can we have more of these things? Cheap. Zero CO2. Uber safe it cannot explode or melt down. You could rip the top off and there would be no toxic clouds. The fuel is fully burnt so no long life waste.
    2
  5. High temperature (600C) nukes as in molten salts can do this. 1% of all the world's energy is used to make ammonia for fertiliser. No problem for high temperature nukes and ammonia can fuel ICE vehicles. Hydrogenate it and you get esters that make great diesel fuel. Portland cement is considered to be really bad on CO2 but the heat from high temperature nukes solves the problem with zero CO2 energy. Molten salt nukes make the heat at less cost per Kwh than coal and plant construction times compete with natural gas fired plants. PWRs can make electricity that's it. They only get built as government vanity projects. PWRs are fundamentally hazardous with huge engineering costs and very long build times to make them safe.
    1
  6.  @weetikissa  Yesterday, I saw a red Model 3 in Newton Abbot UK. Tesla are beginning to affect sales of top brand ICE cars. The new Lekky Porsche canty compete. Its slower, has less range and costs considerably more. It gets around the Nurburgring a bit quicker but in the real world the Tesla beats it everywhere.
    1