4 ms·
Key phrase in my post "where applicable". Naval ships, humvees, tanks, and diesel trucks can all possibly use batteries. The grid can use batteries instead of p
by rgbrenner 9y ago
Key phrase in my post "where applicable". Naval ships, humvees, tanks, and diesel trucks can all possibly use batteries. The grid can use batteries instead of peaker plants too (enabling more renewable energy sources to be used instead of coal).
But the F22 will still use oil--battery development is no where close to provide that level of energy-to-weight.
You seem to be arguing that we're talking about ALL oil production. But that's not true.. we're just talking about the 90+% that is used for transportation. Removing that--which if battery improvements continue absolutely will happen--oil will never see the demand it has in the past. It'll be relegated to a specialty fuel.
- pwaai 9y agoyour version of 'where applicable' seems to be just about anything. Like you say F-22 will still use oil and not batteries, but its not just weight but ease of transportation and economies of scale of pulling oil from the ground vs. manufacturing and maintaining the whole supply chain. Transportation in what part of the world? Please be more specific, you made it sound like countries where people can barely afford to live are suddenly going to hop onto Tesla grid and their lives change. Who benefits from this narrative do you think? Definitely not the people who will be shackled into further debts by purchasing the new paradiagm shift in energy tech. Until you have an infinite source of energy, the battery is not truly sustainable. They all have a shelf life, maintenance and harm to the environment. There's a lot of money thats going to be involved and so will people profiteering and selling their reality and attacking people who say otherwise.