yes, I guess the commodities run has nothing to do with massive fiat printing. Hidden inflation cant hide much longer. ..lol $60 oil when in 10 years many will be driving EV..its propped and this clown show will end in USD being laughing stock.
Initially. But the reduction in CO2 over the next n-years makes up for the initial bump by more than an order of mag. Your dad should have pulled out.
My takeaway from the article was that there are significant potential risks to the reliability of wind and solar power. If you want to rely on them more, then the cost of electricity will go up a lot even though the cost of solar has come down a lot over time. Storing electricity is very expensive especially considering that the storage battery will have a limited amount of charge and discharge cycles. What makes sense for now is having enough natural gas backup capacity and a better grid. However, the green energy people want to get rid of natural gas and they are having success. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-in-commercial-buildings-and-some-apartments/ Guess it's back to nuclear energy? https://www.inverse.com/innovation/bill-gates-thinks-nuclear-energy-is-the-future He's probably right.
It's not so clear cut always, like in Sweden it's pretty popular to be green inside the country and export the problems. A recent example is that we are already importing electricity at peak hours from coal plants in Poland and some other countries, which is obviously undesirable besides being brittle, and our gov has plans to massively increase electricity usage further in order to achieve massive reductions in CO2 emissions of steel production. Furthermore our nuclear plants are being closed faster than their full life spans by the green party in the gov, further exacerbating the above (and it's also ironic, given that nuclear energy is comparatively clean). CO2 neutrality is a great goal but we need to avoid shuffling problems around due to ideological blocks to critical thinking...
While I agree with what you say about storage issues, right now, as well as having enough natty gas, nukes and better grid much better, I disagree greens are having much success except when and where it has been feasible. Even in Europe there has been pushback whenever petrol prices go "too high". Everything has a cost. For too long carbon-based fuels haven't had to be priced to their real cost. And when it is, over time, it is becoming less competitive with renewables. Repeat over time. The pendulum is swinging. Hopefully the planet can wait.
Motorized transport let us move more men and goods faster and safer and at lower cost per mile than with the horse. It gave us more for less. EV's are offering us less for more, and there may not even be enough minerals to scale EV production up to levels that Green True Believers aspire to.
Less like 0-60 in 3 seconds? Which quicker than it took to type this. BTW the first autos were not much quicker than horse and buggy that is why they call them horseless buggies.
I agree that hydrogen would be better for the environment, but hydrogen has other problems. Either it is derived from methane (natural gas, which is a finite resource), or it is derived from water via electrolysis which requires electrical production. Hydrogen is in effect an energy carrier, not an energy source, and transporting hydrogen is a very difficult problem. You can't just use nat gas pipelines because hydrogen is such a light element that it will inevitably escape from pipelines, and that is probably a deal breaker. But if the transport problem can be solved on a large scale, hydrogen might replace oil derived liquid fuels and buy us some more time, but at the price of faster depletion of our remaining coal, gas, and U235 for electricity. Dimethyl ether or DME is another alternative, perhaps more practical than hydrogen, but it is made from natural gas or coal, so while it might help us when oil production starts falling, it will run down our coal and gas reserves that much faster. Every PV and wind turbine manufacturer in the world relies on fossil fuels (or uranium or hydropower) for power production. Renewables do not power the factories that produce them. Why might that be? I'm looking forward to that commodities boom. It's the silver lining behind the dark cloud of self-deluded left of center parties controlling the levers of power throughout the western world. It will let a relatively few shrewd investors flourish while the world around them slides into smug, virtue signaling poverty.
LOL because renewables provide, depending on region/country 0% to about roughly 30% of energy produced. Nontheeless you are speculating that every PV/Wind Turbine manufacturer relies on fossil fuels only. At one time renewables were just about 0% everywhere, other than where watermills were present. You want 100% right now everywhere in the world otherwise renewables suck ..... in your small mind.