Second issue first. I googled this, and the original Ford Model A of 1903 drove comfortably at 40 to 45 mph, and had a top speed of 65 mph (105 km/h), thus much faster than a horse, and it didn't get tired or have to be fueled (fed) when not in use. Speed advantage was even faster when you hitched your horse to a buggy so you would have cargo and rider space comparable to an auto. Now the first issue: Dizzy acceleration is only important if you are a race car driver getting out the gate. Not for the rest of us. Let's start with total cost of ownership over three years (excluding taxpayer subsidies direct to the buyer) according to car and driver using electric vs. ICE models of the same vehicle: https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32494027/ev-vs-gas-cheaper-to-own/ Mini Hardtop: $41,454 Mini Electric: $49,312 Hyundai Kona: $39,817 Hyundai Kona Electric: $55,311 Range: on long trips, ICE vehicles have the advantage. Weather conditions: EV's range declines in extreme cold or heat. Also, heating and defrost in winter is superior in ICE vehicles. Total cost to the economy of scaling up to a global mass market: it will be much, much higher for EV's than it was for ICE, because EV's are far more material intensive, and the grid will need to be upgraded too, among other problems I refer you to the following two papers: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf AND https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check Long haul trucking, ocean shipping, and airline travel: EV's are totally inadequate, as the batteries take up most of the space needed for cargo. Long distance trade will always require liquid fuels or slow, pre-industrial transport. I refer you to the book _When Trucks Stop Running_ by Alice Friedman. Unfortunately, it is quite pricey, so you might prefer the following summaries of the issues involved (site maintained by one of your fellow liberals, and a rather shrill one, so no use protesting against "right wing" bias): http://energyskeptic.com/?s=when+trucks+stop+running
That's simply categorically false. Wind outages were responsible for 13% of the outages according to ERCOT, you know the ISO that runs the Texas power grid (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...for-texas-electricity-crisis/?sh=516b71f221b3). What is your source, exactly? Happy to get into a detailed discussion of ISOs and capacity markets vs ECOTs capacity model, but clearly that's far beyond your capabilities since you're unable to even grasp the basic mathmatical impossibility that something that only creates 20% of the power could be responsible for more than 40% of the outages. How do you cross the street without getting hit by a bus, let alone hold down a job or earn a living with that level of stupid?
Your first group of arguments, "just like fossil fuels," is incorrect; it is not like fossil fuels because the scale of production and therefore environmental degradation and labor abuse will be many times greater. Scale matters. Also, there may be just not enough of certain minerals. Your confidence that their will be plenty of cobalt, nickel, and other minerals is not shared by some geologists. "moving beyond this planet" -- not going to happen! (Although you will perhaps be gratified to know that President Trump signed an executive order permitting moon mining by American firms, for what that's worth; yea, Donald.) The following are not the most comprehensive or detailed arguments against the viability of space colonization, but they will do for an intro: https://www.tor.com/2018/10/05/sorr...s-but-were-not-colonizing-space-anytime-soon/ AND I like this article better: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/ As for, "maybe i missed but where's the % by how much or less ?... Without data by how much or less, any of these ,,new" problems is irrelevant." Well, it's just a short article to raise popular awareness. For nitty gritty details, I refer you to the following two papers by the same author, which I hope you will read: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf AND https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
Mathematically, that is entirely possible. Think it through. In fact, it is mathematically possible (although not true in this particular case) that something that generates 20% of the power could be responsible for 100% of the power outages.
Very good how long have ICE's been around? Over 100 years. How long have current EVs been around? A little over a decade. Yes I know there were electrics 100 years ago but nothing was done to improve them for the past 100 years till Musk showed up. Leaf and Volt were jokes. I get it. Not fast enough for you ... so you whine. Ok whine away.
You are quite correct, it has NOTHING to do with "massive fiat printing" because THERE HAS BEEN NO FIAT PRINTING IN THE UNITED STATES OR IN MOST OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. QE is NOT "money printing" in any sense of the word, because bank reserves are not part of the money supply, nor do they directly or indirectly monetize the deficit. Those are the facts. Guys like Peter Schiff may say otherwise, but they are factually incorrect. Inflation currently results from private sector bank lending in excess of private debt repayment (most of the time), or from supply reductions due to pandemic related supply chain disruptions. In fact, not all commodities have been on a tear, as would have been the case if prices were being driven by money printing, which raises the price of everything, including labor costs, which are barely rising. The commodities that are booming are being driven by supply and demand, not primarily by cheapening of the dollar.
Please, enlighten us with your vast knowledge of ISOs and power dispatch on exactly how this is possible? To abstract this to a level you can understand, let me ask you this; how far down does this magical ability of wind to cause outages go? If something generates 15% of the power on a grid could it be responsible for 100% of the outages? What about 5%? What about .0001%? Or to abstract again, let's say the world demand is for 100 widgets. My company makes 16 of them. A bunch of other companies make the rest. The demand goes up to 1000 widgets. I still make 16. Or I stop making them altogether. In what universe am I responsible for more than 16% of the widget shortfall, let alone 100%? Seriously, this is stuff my kids could reason through as 5 year olds.
The main problem that needs to be resolved with EV's is the battery. Advanced battery tech has been researched intensively and steadily since the first cell phones hit the market in 1984. That was 35 years ago. At this point it is a very mature technology which can no longer improve by leaps and bounds. Let's compare batteries with microcomputers ("personal" computers). The first home computers hit the market in 1977, according to google. 35 years later, in 2012, they were a very mature technology, just like batteries are today. Or fission power plants. The first one to produce usable power, according to google, began operating in 1951. 35 years later brings us to 1986, by which time they were a mature technology. Indeed, it is most likely that battery costs have no further room to decline, and in fact may even rise in the future. No amount of technology will prevent batteries from being materials intensive. Please read the two "manhattan institute" papers that I linked to in my previous reply. They will address battery technology potential and related issues. Yes, I know you don't want to because it is serious reading and not just a breezy popular article, but if you want to continue this debate, you need to read them.
You have it backwards. Power availability did not increase in Texas, it declined. So let's stick with your widgets analogy. World production is 100 widgets per unit of time. Your company produces 16 of them, or 16%. Then your widget plant burns down, and world production falls from 100 to 84, down 16%, and your widget plant that used to produce 16% of the world supply is responsible for 100% of the shortfall. It has been a pleasure to enlighten you. No thanks necessary.
Srly,... Linking tor as a viable source of info ? If US won't , - others will. Try to stop it & you will risk an open war. It's like printing. Sure. Don't print. But others - will & buy out your whole market. Wen't through authors articles from tor. The man is perfect example for this : Being smart & being visionary it's two different things. Some of his gems : ,, Why didn’t we colonize space? Perhaps because some of the early space hype was unconvincing when regarded with any attitude other than fanboy enthusiasm. And perhaps because there weren’t any compelling reasons (political, economic, scientific) for significant human presence beyond low Earth Orbit. We don’t need to send up squishy frail humans when we can send probes and remote-controlled vehicles ." Or perhaps, that until Elon showed up, the basic radio module for the rocket was $100k & now it's $10k ? Good god. Im out.