-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
The book I posted talks about replacing the carbon intensive furnaces for steel with electric arc ones because it all comes down to chemistry and electric arcs are the most efficient. And then there is this company: Boston Metal.
As you see from the slides, they expect to be ready by 2026. Let's say 28-30 by the latest for safe measure - that means the fossil fuel industry starts to shrink in this sector sooner than you/your friend/others think.
SDRick
Active Member
According to NPR, China is building approximately two new coal-fired plants per week! What's up with that? One would think they know there are better and more economical alternatives. It looks like they are prioritizing energy security over climate, but going coal? Geez.
Many skeptical ICE owners will counter this argument with " ... your model S cost twice as much as comparable sedan... ". And so the clear cut benefit isn't all that clear.
I tend to agree with that. I absolutely love the Tesla i just purchased. The technology and user interface alone is well worth the extra money.
It is a phenomenal car, and literally EVERY human being should drive electric. Unfortunately - not everyone is a tech junky like I am.
If you remove the tech junky aspect of it - the money just doesn't compute really.
Last edited:
Probably has more to do with what you can get in the timeframe needed vs renewable+battery alternative. When you talk China, you talk scale. When you deal with scale, you can't be too picky.
This is a symptom of multiple issues going on in china. Their coal power plants are underutilized (below 52%) and unprofitable, and are built as dispatchable power. It's strictly an energy security play, due to the fact that their hydro was severely restricted due to drought, and Russia's war with ukraine caused gas supply issues - which should've been resolved after their recent summit with Russia.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/RPJU464SDNN5XB325S4OTHPO3Q.jpg)
China leans on coal amid energy security push
China's state planner underlined a greater role for coal in its power supply on Sunday, saying the fossil fuel would be used to improve the reliability and security of its energy system.
www.reuters.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's hard to make a recommendation since every insurance company makes up its own rules and every situation is different.
I have Tesla insurance for my Tesla and Metromile for my old Land Rover which is per mile insurance and works out to be cheap since I don't drive much.
Try to get bids from as many companies as you can. You'll see a wide variation in prices.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Forget geoengineering. We need to stop burning fossil fuels. Right now | Rebecca Solnit
Pie-in-the-sky fantasies of carbon capture and geoengineering are a way for decision-makers to delay taking real action
www.theguardian.com
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, one of which dropped this week, are formidably researched and profoundly important, but they mostly reinforce what we already know: human-produced greenhouse gases are rapidly and disastrously changing the planet, and unless we rapidly taper off burning fossil fuels, a dire future awaits.But “act now” means taking dramatic measures to change how we do most things, especially produce energy. The people who should be treating this like the colossal emergency it is keep finding ways to delay and dilute a meaningful response. Fossil fuel is hugely profitable to some of the most powerful individuals and institutions on Earth, and they influence and even control a lot of other people.That was clear when Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announced its nuclear-weapons-related fusion breakthrough last winter, which the Bulletin of the Atomic Physicists noted had “at best, a distant and tangential connection to power production”. But many news stories latched on to it as if we were waiting for some miraculous solution when the solutions already exist and just need to be scaled up. It was as if they were selling us a dream of a lifeboat eventually reaching our shipwreck when viable lifeboats are all around us. Dr Jonathan Foley, who heads Project Drawdown, joked that “fusion is here now. Look up in the sky.” The sun gives us far more energy than we can ever possibly use, now that solar panels let us convert some of that to electricity.Among the worst of the excuses for not doing the one thing we must do is carbon capture, which has absolutely not worked at any scale that means anything and shows no sign of so doing on a meaningful scale in the near future. But while it is dangled as a possibility, it creates a justification to keep burning fossil fuel. So does geoengineering, which along with posing many kinds of disruptions is a way to compensate for continued emissions from burning things rather than stop burning them. These centralized hi-tech solutions seem to appeal to technocrats and beneficiaries of large corporations and centralized power, who perhaps don’t like or don’t comprehend the decentralization of power coming from sun and wind.We know what to do, and we have the solutions we need to do it, so the biggest problems are political. They’re banks, politicians, financiers and the fossil fuel industry itself. We don’t need any magic technology to defeat them, just massive civil society willpower set in motion.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The money absolutely computes... For any Tesla.
Model S is an expensive luxury car but much cheaper per mile and over time than any ICE luxury car.
Models S
Model S - short of its acceleration potential - falls well short of luxury bracket cars an average, wealthy individual would purchase.
It certainly is cheaper per mile to operate, but it takes years for that to make fiscal sense.
Most buyers don't keep the luxury car that long, and certainly don't care about cost per mile.
All im saying is - reality is a bitch - we tesla lovers sometimes forget about it.
While - as i stated in my previous post - everybody should be driving electric - it just doesn't yet compute dollar to dollar.
I for instance dont care about cost per mile, or how "green" it is - I just love the fact that I don't have to be stopping at gas stations and freeze my hands of once or twice a week - even if it irks me that my LONG RANGE 310 mile estimated is really barely low 200's
I respectfully disagree.
Model S - short of its acceleration potential - falls well short of luxury bracket cars an average, wealthy individual would purchase.
It certainly is cheaper per mile to operate, but it takes years for that to make fiscal sense.
Most buyers don't keep the luxury car that long, and certainly don't care about cost per mile.
All im saying is - reality is a bitch - we tesla lovers sometimes forget about it.
While - as i stated in my previous post - everybody should be driving electric - it just doesn't yet compute dollar to dollar.
I for instance dont care about cost per mile, or how "green" it is - I just love the fact that I don't have to be stopping at gas stations and freeze my hands of once or twice a week - even if it irks me that my LONG RANGE 310 mile estimated is really barely low 200's
mspohr
Well-Known Member
We could argue about "luxury" all day but to compare a Tesla Model S with a Mercedes S class is, to me, no contest.
The Mercedes is old and obsolete from its ICE engine to the cabin design and operation.
As you know, driving an electric car is a much more luxurious experience than an ICE car... smooth, quiet, powerful.
Regarding cost, it's also no contest compared to my 2015 Model S:
Mercedes S 4wd loses about $75,000 value at 7 years and 100,000 miles ($0.75/mile)
Fuel cost for 100,000 miles ($20,000)
Maintenance for 7 years estimated at $14,000
? repair cost
Total cost for Mercedes S 100,000 miles $109,000
My Model S lost about $55,000 value at 7 years and 100,000 miles ($0.55/mile)
Fuel cost for 100,000 at $0.04/mile is $4,000 (my actual cost was much less... about $0... due to free Supercharging and free home solar electricity)
Maintenance and repair $213
Total cost for Tesla S 100,000 miles $59,213
I totally agree with that. To me Tesla is luxury.
I think you're exaggerating here a little , no?
In addition - i'd say MS is more comparable to E-class rather than S-class
Also here - Your solar panels aren't free - you paid for them and their amortization period is long - 20 years long, or a bit less in California since you guys are nuts over there
Im glad my solar panels make my electric bill an even $13.00/month, and Im glad to overlook the monthly payments i make on the solars to a private entity.
Im even more thrilled that my tax dollars aren't going to the village and state, where they notoriously get misappropriated
mspohr
Well-Known Member
On my solar electricity cost... All of my arrays have paid for themselves by generating more electricity than the cost of the arrays so I consider the electricity I get from them to be free.I totally agree with that. To me Tesla is luxury.
I think you're exaggerating here a little , no?
In addition - i'd say MS is more comparable to E-class rather than S-class
Also here - Your solar panels aren't free - you paid for them and their amortization period is long - 20 years long, or a bit less in California since you guys are nuts over there
Im glad my solar panels make my electric bill an even $13.00/month, and Im glad to overlook the monthly payments i make on the solars to a private entity.
Im even more thrilled that my tax dollars aren't going to the village and state, where they notoriously get misappropriated
(Another way to look at it is to amortize over their 25 year guaranteed lifespan. In that case, I have a $0.064/kWh cost of electricity for 25 years then free after that.)
BTW, I just looked up the maintenance cost of cars. Tesla has the lowest 10 year maintenance cost and Mercedes near the highest cost. (About a +$10,000 difference)(caredge.com)
mspohr
Well-Known Member
We need to get rid of plastic too!
Plastics cause wide-ranging health issues from cancer to birth defects, landmark study finds
Plastics are responsible for wide-ranging health impacts including cancers, lung disease and birth defects, according to the first analysis of the health hazards of plastics across their entire life cycle – from extraction for manufacturing, through to dumping into landfill and oceans.
Plastic production workers are at increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma … brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma … and decreased fertility. Plastic recycling workers have increased rates of cardiovascular disease, toxic metal poisoning, neuropathy, and lung cancer.” Meanwhile, residents of communities adjacent to plastic production and waste disposal sites experience increased risks of premature birth, low birth weight, asthma, childhood leukaemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. The report referred to evidence that infants in the womb and young children are at particularly high risk.
“Plastics are on par with climate change in their harmful effects globally, and drive climate change with their need for fossil fuels,” he said.
Plastics cause wide-ranging health issues from cancer to birth defects, landmark study finds
Plastics are responsible for wide-ranging health impacts including cancers, lung disease and birth defects, according to the first analysis of the health hazards of plastics across their entire life cycle – from extraction for manufacturing, through to dumping into landfill and oceans.
Plastic production workers are at increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma … brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma … and decreased fertility. Plastic recycling workers have increased rates of cardiovascular disease, toxic metal poisoning, neuropathy, and lung cancer.” Meanwhile, residents of communities adjacent to plastic production and waste disposal sites experience increased risks of premature birth, low birth weight, asthma, childhood leukaemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. The report referred to evidence that infants in the womb and young children are at particularly high risk.
“Plastics are on par with climate change in their harmful effects globally, and drive climate change with their need for fossil fuels,” he said.
White Shadow
Member
Model S pales in comparison to most luxury cars. I'd even go as far to say that the Model S isn't a luxury car at all. It may be priced like one, but how does it compare to legacy automaker's luxury cars? It really doesn't compare.
They are horrible. And really not recyclable despite the markings. Biodegradable packaging is available, but it isn't used as much as it could be.
Plastic packaging is the great bulk of what we take to the landfill. Nearly everything else can be recycled or repurposed.
There is certainly a place for plastic for devices and permanent tools and equipment, etc. But it needs to be done safely.
It's even worse, with our "on the go" lifestyle.
Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ are contaminating plastic food containers
Harmful PFAS chemicals are being used to hold food, drink and cosmetics, with unknown consequences for human health
www.theguardian.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That's one thing that really bothers me about "take out". We end up with a pile of plastic containers. That's one reason I don't often order take out.It's even worse, with our "on the go" lifestyle.
Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ are contaminating plastic food containers
Harmful PFAS chemicals are being used to hold food, drink and cosmetics, with unknown consequences for human health
Does it make sense to package a meal which will be consumed within hours in packaging which has a lifetime of hundreds of years?
KISS, but not any further.
This call to end plastic use has been brought up before, but without a viable alternative, will fall on deaf ears. It's like the early environmentalists call for the end of gasoline use and more walking/mass-transit. It just isn't a viable option for many. Plastics is what makes many things possible, primary of which is sterile medical supplies. Until the equivalent of a BEV gets developed, the call to end plastics is premature.
Edit: Note that the production of plastics can be done without adding CO2, so it's not interlinked with climate change.
Similar threads
