Death to new gasoline powered cars has begun

only a tiny fraction of that produced energy actually hits the earth.

 

I just made my point that it’s somewhat cheaper to fix a non electric car. Never mind that our power grid cannot handle the demand and the infrastructure is not there to begin with, maybe in 30 years?

 

Stop confusing people with facts.

 

Check your math.

40% (0.4) is double 20% (0.2). 0.8*0.8*0.97*0.9 is considerably more than 0.4.

Percentages multiply, not add.

 

That batteries aren’t particularly hard to recycle, just expensive right now and the service is not in high enough demand yet to allow for decreased costs of scale.

 

Drought will kill hydro power resilience. The whole grid will have to change to solar. Except for Texas, cause they aren't on the national grid.

Every journey starts with a first step. Technology is innovating at an incredible pace.

 

even with .8*.8*.97*.9, its still only 55%, which still isn't 50% better, only 35% better

 

That's obvious. What's not obvious is that the fraction of the Sun's energy recieved by Earth is 1/120,000,000th of the energy produced. Calculated by taking half the surface area of the Earth and dividing by the surface area of the sphere of the radius of the average distance of the Earth to the Sun. I'll let someone else do the math on how many times what the Earth receives from the sun is needed to power the world.

 

55% / 20% = 2.75 or 275%. 275% - 100% is 175% better.

 

We really are living in crazy times. We knew this was coming, but I really am running out of words to describe the idiocy and foolishness surrounding electric vehicles attempting to be forced on us by the government. Let the free market and supply / demand drive adoption. This is ridiculous.

 

55% is 35% more than 20%

 

Seems like the only way we get drastic improvements in technology is either due to government paying for developments during war or corporations being forced to update/improve by laws. Though I don't know enough to make a statement about shortage of materials, I do know that usually there are alternatives that companies ignore because they are too costly but eventually scientists/engineers are able to figure out how to make a new substance/material that works just as good if not better.

I hope this doesn't get my banned for political talk but I see climate change as a very real issue that we can ignore for the next 10-20 years and those of you who are over 30 or so can probably live out most of your lives as our society currently lives, but then we damn the children/grandchildren to have to completely change society due to the environment being different then what we can imagine living in. Changes to society that will make only being able to buy all electric vehicles seem like a dream. While we may be at a point where we can never return the environment to how it was 50 years ago we can take steps to slow down/partly correct climate change so that in four or five generations there is still some semblance of our current society that we would recognize.

 

Yea we can but we aren't there yet with the amount of available power.

Again I'm not against electric vehicles, I'm against them being force fed to us.

 

The key words are "current technology". Technology is improving at an unbelievable rate so I don't doubt something can be worked out.

 

Texas gets about 40% of it's electricity from solar and wind. That's why last year much of the state lost power in February.

If the environmentalists were serious they'd push for more nuclear power. But they aren't so they push for sources that are marginal, have short useable life spans and are impossible to recycle.

With that i'm done with a thread that is heading into political territory.

 

California is so awesome, their residents are fleeing to other states.

 

Nuclear is the way to go.

 

Standard fission nuclear power is too dirty, fusion for power generation is the way to go, and we’re getting closer to it:

https://scitechdaily.com/jet-fusion...f-the-sun-sets-a-new-world-energy-record/amp/

 

You're confusing comparative percentages for percentage points. 55% and 20% are themselves quantities (which are being used to describe energy efficiency in our case). If you want to compare those percentages meaningfully, you must compare them against a control. The universal control is simply 1. 20%/20% is 1, so you do the same operation to 55%. 55%/20% is 2.75. Now we can convert 1 and 2.75 to percentages again since that's how we want to express our comparison. Easily by multiplying both by 100%, we get 100% and 275%. I hope you agree that 100% is 0% more than 100%. And 101% is 1% more than 100% and so on. The trend is that our comparison (how much "more" our quantity is) is 100% less than the value of the greater quantity. This means 275% is 175% more than 100%. Therefore, 55% is 175% more than 20%. It's more than double.

55% is more than double 20%, so electric is more than double efficient combustion.

What you're describing is the energy saved from switching. 55% of the energy is captured by electric, and 20% by combustion, so the savings on energy consumption is 35% the original energy capacity. The 35% doesn't know or care about how much more or less relatively efficient one or the other method is.

 

You know we are all living in the matrix, right?