4 ms·
It’s highly likely it’s for that reason. Almost all fossil alternatives get these ”silver bullet” counter-arguments that don’t survive basic tests. Example: IC
by originalvichy 5y ago
It’s highly likely it’s for that reason. Almost all fossil alternatives get these ”silver bullet” counter-arguments that don’t survive basic tests.
Example: ICE cars vs. Electric: electric cars need more resources to create and thus use more CO2 in reality!
Simple truth: initial energy cost might be high but battery-electric cars catch ICE cars in resource friendliness after only few years.
They just had to find one for wind turbines that was better than ”they are an eyesore”.
- imtringued 5y agoI don't know why but people don't seem to understand that expending all energy upfront can actually be a benefit assuming you don't throw the car away for ridiculous reasons. In economics capital is often considered to be stored labor. In practice storing labor is a very difficult or maybe even impossible thing, so the ability to store additional labor in the form of physical capital is very useful. Lots of people want to retire early. They want to work a lot in their youth and then relax instead of working until they die. If you get an ICE car right before your retirement, you are dependent on a lot of young people running the infrastructure necessary for that car. Meanwhile with EVs that infrastructure is a lot less labor intensive so a demographic decline isn't that bad. All the work was done before demographics got worse. Now try doing the same with food. You can drive a car for 20 years off a wind turbine that lasts 20 years but you can't store food for 20 years. You are reliant on young workers who will take care of you.
- jacquesm 5y agoAnd that bird thing too... very boring these non-arguments.