6 ms·

If we want electric cars (and stop burning fuel in general), we need a lot of cheap electricity (like, 100x more generation than today, 10x cheaper). Photovolta

If we want electric cars (and stop burning fuel in general), we need a lot of cheap electricity (like, 100x more generation than today, 10x cheaper). Photovoltaics is not environmentally friendly. Wind power is not scalable. Only next-gen nuclear and fusion fit the bill. That said, ITER is not a good approach. Way too expensive, not scalable. It is good as a research project, but we need scalable and cheaper solutions.

ju-st 9y ago
> Photovoltaics is not environmentally friendly. citation needed
- atemerev 9y ago
  https://www.google.ch/amp/spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think.amp.html https://www.google.ch/amp/spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar...
  - Tade0 9y ago
    It says that the dirtiest solar panels have a carbon footprint of ~70g/kWh. Even in Germany or the US with their extremely high electricity consumption this amounts to 1 tonne of CO2 per capita annually - that's around the target footprint for sustainability. For comparison coal has a footprint of ~880g/kWh and natural gas ~450g/kWh. In short, solar panels are currently environmentally friendly.
    - atemerev 9y ago
      Carbon footprint is not the only metric of environmental damage.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        Sure, but carbon is the gun pointed at our heads right now. I suggest paying attention to it.
      - Tade0 9y ago
        Every other kind of environmental damage(as long as it's containable) can be prevented or undone with enough energy, so as long as that's being done all we need to worry about is the energy ROI. Solar panels, throughout their life cycle, produce much more energy than it is required to produce and recycle them in an environmentally friendly way.
  - dahauns 9y ago
    Two paragraphs in: "The good news is that the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist."
    - atemerev 9y ago
      The bad news is that this is quite expensive and unsustainable without massive subsidies.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        > massive subsidies. That's what governments are for.
rbanffy 9y ago
> 100x more generation than today, 10x cheaper Or we can rethink our use of cars. I drive one about once per week. The rest of my transportation needs are neatly provided by electric light rail. We can also tax fossil-burning cars and their fuels according to their environment impact (like "we'll be all dead in a century"). That alone would make electric cars a lot more attractive. About that, for most of my adult life my cars ran on sugarcane ethanol, which has a pretty close to zero carbon footptint. Plus, if the refining ops were more efficient and didn't burn the refuge to power the operation, it'd have a substantial negative carbon footprint.
- sergiosgc 9y ago
  The problem with the "saving energy" argument is that it goes against our behaviour in all of recorded History. Mankind has always used more and more energy, and that use of more energy is entirely justified, as it has given us increasing quality of life. Quality of life translates to more than extra comfort. It means new purposes, new goals, new horizons. If, apart from civilization de-evolution, we never lowered per-capita energy consumption in ~10k years, I have very little faith we can do it now.
- candiodari 9y ago
  > Or we can rethink our use of cars. I drive one about once per week. The rest of my transportation needs are neatly provided by electric light rail. How do you deal with doing groceries ? I have to do groceries for 5 people, have to actually cook for them about 14x a week, at, let's say, 150gr of food per person per meal, at 50% waste to allow for actual cooking, so let's say 150gr * 14 * (1/(1-50%))= 5 kilogram, plus stuff to drink. Humans drink about 1.5 liter per day. So all in all, I need the ability to carry some 25-40kg easily. How do I do that using light rail ? Note: going twice, by itself, increases the cost of groceries due to economies of scale. Going 5 times increases it by a lot, ignoring the lost time. Also, let's not pretend 12x1.5 liter bottles are easy to carry on light rail, even if it's just that and nothing else. Also light rail, at least in Sydney and London (ie. the metro), only connects places that are ridiculously expensive to rent, and to top that off, light rail is only a little cheaper than a car compared to using a car by myself. With 5 people, they are ridiculously more expensive than using a car. Compared to using a nice secondhand car and traveling 30 times a week (20 of which are simply dropping the kids off at school), the price difference is so high that we cannot discuss using light rail for this. So how can you claim that this is a solution ? When you're 20 and alone, perhaps. When you have a family, the financial difference is off the scale. Come to think of it, once I turn 60 or so, is this still your suggestion ? Because then it'll be physically impossible for me to do it at all without a car, just for 2 people. Personally, I think public transport is effectively a failure. The only function it has is to allow rich middle classers to travel in for their job from the suburbs, taking the car for part of the way. Aside from that it's useful for going out and the like, but it cannot reasonably be a primary mode of transportation. If it were up to me, I'd tear down public transport entirely and replace it with "uber rail cars". Replace all tracks with normal road, reserved for a government-run fast automated-cars-only network that get called on request using an app, with ride sharing. As soon as possible, make that a network for automated call cars that can actually drive to supermarkets, jobs, ... and use the extensive right of way that we have on rail to have essentially a better highway system. No more stations. No more horrible overcrowded-and-ill-ventilated-and-source-of-countless-infections trains (guess what industry I work in). > sugarcane ethanol, which has a pretty close to zero carbon footptint. It also has a 1.05 or so ROEI (or, more likely, <1, when you count full cycle) and is a gimmick. We can probably support a 1905 economy on it. We cannot support the current economy on it.

ju-st 9y ago

> Photovoltaics is not environmentally friendly. citation needed

atemerev 9y ago
https://www.google.ch/amp/spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think.amp.html https://www.google.ch/amp/spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar...
- Tade0 9y ago
  It says that the dirtiest solar panels have a carbon footprint of ~70g/kWh. Even in Germany or the US with their extremely high electricity consumption this amounts to 1 tonne of CO2 per capita annually - that's around the target footprint for sustainability. For comparison coal has a footprint of ~880g/kWh and natural gas ~450g/kWh. In short, solar panels are currently environmentally friendly.
  - atemerev 9y ago
    Carbon footprint is not the only metric of environmental damage.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Sure, but carbon is the gun pointed at our heads right now. I suggest paying attention to it.
    - Tade0 9y ago
      Every other kind of environmental damage(as long as it's containable) can be prevented or undone with enough energy, so as long as that's being done all we need to worry about is the energy ROI. Solar panels, throughout their life cycle, produce much more energy than it is required to produce and recycle them in an environmentally friendly way.
- dahauns 9y ago
  Two paragraphs in: "The good news is that the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist."
  - atemerev 9y ago
    The bad news is that this is quite expensive and unsustainable without massive subsidies.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      > massive subsidies. That's what governments are for.

rbanffy 9y ago

> 100x more generation than today, 10x cheaper Or we can rethink our use of cars. I drive one about once per week. The rest of my transportation needs are neatly provided by electric light rail. We can also tax fossil-burning cars and their fuels according to their environment impact (like "we'll be all dead in a century"). That alone would make electric cars a lot more attractive. About that, for most of my adult life my cars ran on sugarcane ethanol, which has a pretty close to zero carbon footptint. Plus, if the refining ops were more efficient and didn't burn the refuge to power the operation, it'd have a substantial negative carbon footprint.

sergiosgc 9y ago
The problem with the "saving energy" argument is that it goes against our behaviour in all of recorded History. Mankind has always used more and more energy, and that use of more energy is entirely justified, as it has given us increasing quality of life. Quality of life translates to more than extra comfort. It means new purposes, new goals, new horizons. If, apart from civilization de-evolution, we never lowered per-capita energy consumption in ~10k years, I have very little faith we can do it now.
candiodari 9y ago
> Or we can rethink our use of cars. I drive one about once per week. The rest of my transportation needs are neatly provided by electric light rail. How do you deal with doing groceries ? I have to do groceries for 5 people, have to actually cook for them about 14x a week, at, let's say, 150gr of food per person per meal, at 50% waste to allow for actual cooking, so let's say 150gr * 14 * (1/(1-50%))= 5 kilogram, plus stuff to drink. Humans drink about 1.5 liter per day. So all in all, I need the ability to carry some 25-40kg easily. How do I do that using light rail ? Note: going twice, by itself, increases the cost of groceries due to economies of scale. Going 5 times increases it by a lot, ignoring the lost time. Also, let's not pretend 12x1.5 liter bottles are easy to carry on light rail, even if it's just that and nothing else. Also light rail, at least in Sydney and London (ie. the metro), only connects places that are ridiculously expensive to rent, and to top that off, light rail is only a little cheaper than a car compared to using a car by myself. With 5 people, they are ridiculously more expensive than using a car. Compared to using a nice secondhand car and traveling 30 times a week (20 of which are simply dropping the kids off at school), the price difference is so high that we cannot discuss using light rail for this. So how can you claim that this is a solution ? When you're 20 and alone, perhaps. When you have a family, the financial difference is off the scale. Come to think of it, once I turn 60 or so, is this still your suggestion ? Because then it'll be physically impossible for me to do it at all without a car, just for 2 people. Personally, I think public transport is effectively a failure. The only function it has is to allow rich middle classers to travel in for their job from the suburbs, taking the car for part of the way. Aside from that it's useful for going out and the like, but it cannot reasonably be a primary mode of transportation. If it were up to me, I'd tear down public transport entirely and replace it with "uber rail cars". Replace all tracks with normal road, reserved for a government-run fast automated-cars-only network that get called on request using an app, with ride sharing. As soon as possible, make that a network for automated call cars that can actually drive to supermarkets, jobs, ... and use the extensive right of way that we have on rail to have essentially a better highway system. No more stations. No more horrible overcrowded-and-ill-ventilated-and-source-of-countless-infections trains (guess what industry I work in). > sugarcane ethanol, which has a pretty close to zero carbon footptint. It also has a 1.05 or so ROEI (or, more likely, <1, when you count full cycle) and is a gimmick. We can probably support a 1905 economy on it. We cannot support the current economy on it.