shin_getter
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 June 2019
- Messages
- 947
- Reaction score
- 1,201
Global warming is rather overrated and is a big deal because of crazy politics. The impact of it is much smaller than a major historical war or perhaps even cov-19 (big error bars all over the place) to take place over the next century and no actor is actually giving up much of anything to fight it.
*why doesn't someone spread a "serious" pitch in for India to invade the ME to induce a oil crisis to 'save themselves' as being a tropical nation with "much to lose".... this category of troll sounds fun in the right places*
That said, it is nonetheless good and proper to correct for externalities whenever practical. A universal carbon tax priced at the expect global impact (not that high per ton) would make good sense, so that high value uses can continue while pollution without good cause gets stopped. Swap this tax for "distortionary" taxes like income and one wouldn't have to rescale government either.
---------------
Some people just think in religious, binary ways emphasizing moral purity and they push totalitarianism in everything, and they have taken up the green issues and push for typical totalizing control, like every issue taken up by those people. The notion that someone can do something they don't like is unacceptable regardless of everything else. I should note however, the crazies are not successful in general. Instead, their success comes up when they have powerful allies for other reasons, like when the idea they are pushing is not completely insane by complete accident! No need to throw an idea out because crazy people support it, crazy people's beliefs are effectively random and irrelevant factor to judge an idea on.
There is a successful push for EV tech at this point because it is (barely) good enough and stakeholders outside the crazies have something to gain. Ultimately rural populations have fewer votes and not all that much money, while oil is taking such a hammering (coal is literally dead, 99% drop in market value in past 10 years) that everyone in it is looking for exit strategies instead of spending effort for long term political position.
www.businessinsider.com
Well, wait for Aptera to deliver I guess. Stuff a battery into those hyper-efficient solar racers. It will be a long time until these gets a volume ramp and show up in the 2nd hand market at significant markdown though, on the other hand 2030+ is still a whiles off.
Ultimately long range, low cost electrical vehicles are a small market that is not profitable in a time of battery shortages, that is why vehicles for this purpose is not pursued by major players.
If you go to mid market, a $45k 2021 Hyundai SUV could to 15~12mile/minute recharge (it is a curve) with suitable fast charge in place.
Really need a few more battery cost drop cycles to reach parity in this domain. But it should be clear that this is not just plain unworkable. There is a billion things governments wastes people's money (like one third of the stuff in the main forums) on, what can I say~~
For a multi-decade asset like power plants the future market need to be known, while the solar+battery cost drop continue for 5 years and you'd break even, run in 10 years you'd be dead broke and run it 20 years we'd be looking at another industrial revolution in terms of cost of energy.
It is pretty dangerous to step in front of a exponential curve and people in the know is not going to really push back especially with their own money. If the development curves for those technology is clearly slowing with hard constraints shown, it would be reasonable to plan another course of action. The correct course of action is simply unknown at the moment and waiting it out is the safe move.
It is not like green/gaia people could win fights without intrinsic weakness in their "opponents". Ask how has the voluntary human extinction movement work out. Alternatively ask how successful they are in stopping CCP, or air travel or globalized shipping or increase in motor vehicle sizes.
*why doesn't someone spread a "serious" pitch in for India to invade the ME to induce a oil crisis to 'save themselves' as being a tropical nation with "much to lose".... this category of troll sounds fun in the right places*
That said, it is nonetheless good and proper to correct for externalities whenever practical. A universal carbon tax priced at the expect global impact (not that high per ton) would make good sense, so that high value uses can continue while pollution without good cause gets stopped. Swap this tax for "distortionary" taxes like income and one wouldn't have to rescale government either.
---------------
Some people just think in religious, binary ways emphasizing moral purity and they push totalitarianism in everything, and they have taken up the green issues and push for typical totalizing control, like every issue taken up by those people. The notion that someone can do something they don't like is unacceptable regardless of everything else. I should note however, the crazies are not successful in general. Instead, their success comes up when they have powerful allies for other reasons, like when the idea they are pushing is not completely insane by complete accident! No need to throw an idea out because crazy people support it, crazy people's beliefs are effectively random and irrelevant factor to judge an idea on.
There is a successful push for EV tech at this point because it is (barely) good enough and stakeholders outside the crazies have something to gain. Ultimately rural populations have fewer votes and not all that much money, while oil is taking such a hammering (coal is literally dead, 99% drop in market value in past 10 years) that everyone in it is looking for exit strategies instead of spending effort for long term political position.
Insufficient. Minimum acceptable: 250 miles on one fill/charge; minimum range 500 miles per day. Time required to refill or recharge cannot exceed 15 minutes.
He has to drive 75 miles to school, then fifty miles to work, then 100 miles home. Bonus: add another 60 miles to pick up/drop off girlfriend.
A startup opened orders for a $26,000 solar-powered EV that it claims never needs charging. The first batch sold out in 24 hours.
Aptera claims the aerodynamic three-wheeler can travel 1,000 miles on a charge, and 11,000 miles per year on solar power alone.
![www.businessinsider.com](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fpublic%2Fassets%2FBI%2FUS%2Ffavicons%2Fapple-touch-icon-192x192.png%3Fv%3D2023-11&hash=fa297a66aeb2dea998b8b39443fe7996&return_error=1)
Ultimately long range, low cost electrical vehicles are a small market that is not profitable in a time of battery shortages, that is why vehicles for this purpose is not pursued by major players.
If you go to mid market, a $45k 2021 Hyundai SUV could to 15~12mile/minute recharge (it is a curve) with suitable fast charge in place.
Really need a few more battery cost drop cycles to reach parity in this domain. But it should be clear that this is not just plain unworkable. There is a billion things governments wastes people's money (like one third of the stuff in the main forums) on, what can I say~~
Those planning power generation have a serious problem at this point. The issue isn't solar/battery costs today, which is enough to dominate day time generation, but that cost curves over time are drawn in log charts.That will be the likeliest outcome of current trends. There are seven and a half billion people trying to achieve the quality of life of three quarters of a billion westerners, and the only way they have a hope in hell of doing so is with a *vast* expansion of energy generation.... Build all the wind turbines and solar panels you like - and I certainly support that - .... *and* shut down all the coal and gas powerplants and not build new nuclear plants, you're outta your friggen' mind.
For a multi-decade asset like power plants the future market need to be known, while the solar+battery cost drop continue for 5 years and you'd break even, run in 10 years you'd be dead broke and run it 20 years we'd be looking at another industrial revolution in terms of cost of energy.
It is pretty dangerous to step in front of a exponential curve and people in the know is not going to really push back especially with their own money. If the development curves for those technology is clearly slowing with hard constraints shown, it would be reasonable to plan another course of action. The correct course of action is simply unknown at the moment and waiting it out is the safe move.
It is not like green/gaia people could win fights without intrinsic weakness in their "opponents". Ask how has the voluntary human extinction movement work out. Alternatively ask how successful they are in stopping CCP, or air travel or globalized shipping or increase in motor vehicle sizes.
Last edited: