AndyH said:Hey ydnas - which of these vehicles will be the most useful in the post-oil world of 2040+?
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/08/battery-performance-deficit-disorder/The real point is that batteries fall pathetically short of our customary fossil fuel energy storage medium. When we wake up to a declining global availability of petroleum, we won’t just switch over to electric cars. We may not be able to collectively afford such a transition, given the huge up-front costs in both money and energy. Where will the prosperity come from? If oil shortages drive recession in the usual fashion, expensive options may be off the table.
Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?
By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.
These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."
Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with "Elites" based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both:
"... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels."
The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:
"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."
AndyH posting tip #1: Start every post with an ad hominem attack.AndyH said:I get that complexity can be challenging, but for this topic we must be able to consider multiple factors.
So the obvious solution is to pursue solutions which use MORE resources and MORE energy (which, in turn, uses MORE resources). /sarcAndyH said:I'm a fan of Elon Musk. I would, however, like to see what's behind his 50% BEV number. Unless we have a crisis that takes a LOT of cars off the road and massively increases our ability to make batteries, there's not a chance that we'll get to 50% market penetration in 2050 -- and we need 80%+ of all vehicles on the road to be ZEV - not just 50% of new car sales.
Back to your old tricks, eh Reg? How in God's Green Earth can you take a request to zoom out as a f'n personal attack? :roll: Yours is the attack - make it the last one please. Thanks in advance.RegGuheert said:AndyH posting tip #1: Start every post with an ad hominem attack.AndyH said:I get that complexity can be challenging, but for this topic we must be able to consider multiple factors.
You're still not getting it. Sorry about that. Start with facts then work toward solutions is my suggestion - not the other way around.RegGuheert said:So the obvious solution is to pursue solutions which use MORE resources and MORE energy (which, in turn, uses MORE resources). /sarcAndyH said:I'm a fan of Elon Musk. I would, however, like to see what's behind his 50% BEV number. Unless we have a crisis that takes a LOT of cars off the road and massively increases our ability to make batteries, there's not a chance that we'll get to 50% market penetration in 2050 -- and we need 80%+ of all vehicles on the road to be ZEV - not just 50% of new car sales.
Let me spell it out for you: It takes MORE resources to MAKE EACH FCV AND it takes MORE resources to FUEL EACH FCV. Because of this simple fact, every fuel-cell vehicle which is put into service uses the resources that would have allowed either two or three BEVs to have been fielded. As such, when used in roles that BEVs address, they are not a solution, but rather they are a direct impediment to progress toward a solution.AndyH said:You're still not getting it. Sorry about that. Start with facts then work toward solutions is my suggestion - not the other way around.RegGuheert said:So the obvious solution is to pursue solutions which use MORE resources and MORE energy (which, in turn, uses MORE resources). /sarcAndyH said:I'm a fan of Elon Musk. I would, however, like to see what's behind his 50% BEV number. Unless we have a crisis that takes a LOT of cars off the road and massively increases our ability to make batteries, there's not a chance that we'll get to 50% market penetration in 2050 -- and we need 80%+ of all vehicles on the road to be ZEV - not just 50% of new car sales.
They may be using more resources per FCV, but they plan to make it up on volume.RegGuheert said:It takes MORE resources to MAKE EACH FCV AND it takes MORE resources to FUEL EACH FCV.
AndyH said:I'm a fan of Elon Musk. I would, however, like to see what's behind his 50% BEV number. Unless we have a crisis that takes a LOT of cars off the road and massively increases our ability to make batteries, there's not a chance that we'll get to 50% market penetration in 2050 -- and we need 80%+ of all vehicles on the road to be ZEV - not just 50% of new car sales.
You can spell it in any language you choose but until you cite some sources and define the system in which your mythical resource hogs will be used, there's no point to your 'point'. You might want to double check your 'facts' if you think that a FCEV system capable of moving 40,000 lbs of cargo uses more raw materials than an equivalent battery system...RegGuheert said:Let me spell it out for you: It takes MORE resources to MAKE EACH FCV AND it takes MORE resources to FUEL EACH FCV. Because of this simple fact, every fuel-cell vehicle which is put into service uses the resources that would have allowed either two or three BEVs to have been fielded. As such, when used in roles that BEVs address, they are not a solution, but rather they are a direct impediment to progress toward a solution.AndyH said:You're still not getting it. Sorry about that. Start with facts then work toward solutions is my suggestion - not the other way around.RegGuheert said:So the obvious solution is to pursue solutions which use MORE resources and MORE energy (which, in turn, uses MORE resources). /sarc
And, yes, I will continue to call you out on your incessant, obnoxious ad hominem attacks.
Enter your email address to join: