Have Your Say: Is The Future Electric?

[Akra]

Man, you're back. This must really be annoying you to keep digging up the thread eh? I thought you rage quit the forum?

I think it's absolutely ADORABLE when people go after Musk as if he's some sort of con man. The man invented the first online newspaper, he invented paypal, the first liquid fueled rocket into orbit, the first private company to launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft, the first private company that docked at the ISS, the first powered landing of an orbital class booster, the first reflight of an orbital class booster, and on track to be the first private company to take astronauts to the ISS. But hey - you keep telling everyone how the self made billionaire who changed the internet as we know it, and is redefining the possibilities in the aerospace industry is just a hack and swindling everybody! I'm sure they'll all listen.

Tesla Loan: $465 million - paid back in full, with interest 10 years ahead of schedule - Tax payers made a gain

Chrysler Loan: $12.5 billion (with b!) - paid back 6 years ahead of schedule, but only $11.2 bn. Cost tax payers approx $1.3bn

GM Loan: $51 billion (still with a b!) - paid back on time, but only $39.7 billion. Cost tax payers $11.3 bn

Even if your article is true, it claims that SolarCity was given $750m of tax payers money, which means it still cost the tax payers 16 times less than GM and Chrysler did. Isn't maths fun?

So lets get rid of subsidises completely. I agree. GM and Chrysler wouldn't even be here any more. Ford actually got a bailout when it didn't need one, as it claimed it was unfair for GM and Chrysler to get one and Ford wouldn't be able to compete!

https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/

https://www.thebalance.com/g00/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670?i10c.referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/subsidy-tracker

SpaceX has of course received government support - as has Boeing. These 2 companies receive government support because they are developing systems to deliver crew to the ISS. The US currently has to pay a huge amount of money to the Russian government to ferry US astronauts to the ISS as the US has no way of getting astronauts into space right now. Doesn't that make you feel all patriotic? The bald eagle of freedom has to rely on the russian communist for a space taxi. 'Murica.

The cost of a ticket on a Russian Soyuz is $70m per head. It's estimated that NASA has paid approx $3bn (with a b!) to Russia just for this. By supporting Boeing and SpaceX, the US will end its reliance on the Russians and be able to launch its own astronauts from US soil. The cost of a Falcon 9 launch is approximately $60m (depending on the payload and chance of recovering the booster). This is significantly cheaper than EVERY launch provider. The Dragon 2 has the capability of holding 7 crew, which would cost a cool $490m to send up on the Soyuz. SpaceX will do the same launch for $60m. That means the US government (and therefore tax payers) can save around $430m per crew rotation! And that's before the massive saving on cargo resupplies is factored into account. Isn't maths fun?

The US Air Force contracted SpaceX to put 2 classified satellites into orbit. The costs of these were $83m and $96.5m. These are higher because the huge heavy satellites use a lot of fuel, and SpaceX won't be able to recover the booster due to the weight of the payload. But despite these costs, the contracts are 40% lower than what the Air Force was going to pay United Launch Alliance to launch the rockets (so around $300m). So SpaceX saved the US Government around $130m from those launches alone. The only launch company even remotely close to SpaceX is Rocket Labs, with the impressive Electron Rocket (which is also cool cos it's black, and looks awesome). But the Electron can only lift 100th (yes, a hundredth!) of the weight of the Falcon 9, and wouldn't be able to service these heavy sats.

http://www.realclearfuture.com/arti...the_king_of_low-cost_space_launch_111957.html

So my money is on the self made billionaire who launches (and lands) his own rockets after being told he can't launch (or land) rockets. But you keep telling us how it'll all fail man, I'm sure someone is listening.

 

[protonv5]

You're right. I'm wrong. And have fun shelling out your hard earned money to Musk and whoever asks you for it since you're so eager to give it. The rest of us know what's really behind these so-called world savers. But as they say...ignorance is bliss. It's your future so embrace it with all your heart.

 

[Akra]

You're right. I'm wrong.

Glad we all agree.

"World Savers"

I think the value of beauty and inspiration is very much underrated, no question. But I want to be clear, I’m not trying to be anyone’s savior. I’m just trying to think about the future and not be sad.

39m 50s (if the url timestamp doesn't work)

 

[Akra]

On a side note, anyone who is interested in where American tax payer money goes when it comes to subsidise can have a quick look here -

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

Boeing are top by miles, but interestingly Intel are second. GM 3rd, Alcoa (American heavy insutry) 4th, Ford 5th, Tesla 6th. (Solar City and Tesla are the same company, so Solar City comes under Tesla as a parent company). Interesting to see companies like Nike, Alphabet (Google), and Disney in there - you wouldn't expect that. Fossil fuel giants Sempra, Cheniere, Shell and Exxon all make guest appearances. No matter what your stance, it is interesting to see where money goes.

 

[protonv5]

Glad we all agree.

Haha. You're so gullible dude. Sure, easy to do anything when you spend other people's money. He's a fraud. Like you. Your neighbors are laughing as they pull their new Model 3 into their driveway, knowing that you paid for it. Haha. I can say all kinds of nonsense too if you'd believe it. Oh well. When you're done looking in the mirror telling yourself how awesome you are, just remember that you've been ripped off. Bwaaahhhahaha

 

[Will Mazeo]

Instead of being king of electric cars, sounds like Tesla/Musk is the king of the swindle.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/i...g-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/

I remember reading a study some years ago saying how these tech companies are creating a new buble (as always with Govt help) that will bring a new crisis in a decade or so. We should be close to it, obviously people will say it's Trump fault if it happens while he is there, just like 2008 crisis started with Clinton but it's blamed on Bush and then they'll bring more state, that will cause another crisis in the future, blame capitalism, repeat. Oh well...

 

[Akra]

Haha. You're so gullible dude. Sure, easy to do anything when you spend other people's money. He's a fraud. Like you. Your neighbors are laughing as they pull their new Model 3 into their driveway, knowing that you paid for it. Haha. I can say all kinds of nonsense too if you'd believe it. Oh well. When you're done looking in the mirror telling yourself how awesome you are, just remember that you're been ripped off. Bwaaahhhahaha

Never let facts get in the way of an opinion, eh man?

You said Musk is getting too much free money, and I posted some good old fashioned facts showing GM and Ford get even more, and Chrysler cost the tax payers more than Tesla, and your only response is I'm a fraud? I'm not the financial institution that posted the figures for every companies subsidies - so you'll need to go have a chat with them if you're upset about fraudulent reporting. But heads up, if you're going to progress from arguing on an internet forum to arguing with professionals, you might want to do a better job that "bahaha you're a fraud", or they might not want to talk to you.

If you want to argue subsidies are bad, that's fine. That's a perfectly valid stance to take. But be fair about it - don't pretend Musk or Tesla getting subsidies is fraudulent, and GM and Ford getting them is ok. Have a spine and be fair. Anyway, don't worry about me and my tax payer dollars. Because my taxes aren't in dollars.

Fancy chatting about how much money SpaceX and Musk saves the government? Or are we just going to pretend that isn't happening? He's still a fraud right? Those rocket landings are just CGI yeah? If you want to talk about Musk as a person rather than his companies as separate, then SpaceX is easily going to save the American government more than they pay Tesla in cash. That'll balance out very quickly because of the astronomically low (see that, space reference!) price of a SpaceX launch, and ending the reliance on Russia for crew changes. So if you bundle them together, Musk is a net gain for the American tax payer. How many ISS crew changes are GM Doing? Anyone taking a Chevy Silverado to the ISS any time soon? No...? Oh

I remember reading a study some years ago saying how these tech companies are creating a new buble (as always with Govt help) that will bring a new crisis in a decade or so.

That could be the case! Unfortunately we'll have to wait and see on that one. Alphabet (which is Googles parent company), Amazon and Intel all feature on the subsidise list, but so do all the old school oil and car companies. So if tech companies are going to sink us, surely the car companies would have by now?

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-industries

If you look at industries ranked, utilities and power generation is top, cars second, aerospace, oil and and gas in the top 5. IT only comes in at 13. So if the top 12 haven't sunk the economy, why would 13th do it? I'm not saying it won't happen, but IT and tech companies get only a small fraction of it - everybody is involved in government funding.

 

[Will Mazeo]

Point is: one group have a profit, the other group made of certain green tech companies does not despite all the investment and public money
No public money should be going to private companies and events anyway. Keep the govt out and let people move on their own. Nuff said.

 

[protonv5]

Never let facts get in the way of an opinion, eh man?

You said Musk is getting too much free money, and I posted some good old fashioned facts showing GM and Ford get even more, and Chrysler cost the tax payers more than Tesla, and your only response is I'm a fraud? I'm not the financial institution that posted the figures for every companies subsidies - so you'll need to go have a chat with them if you're upset about fraudulent reporting. But heads up, if you're going to progress from arguing on an internet forum to arguing with professionals, you might want to do a better job that "bahaha you're a fraud", or they might not want to talk to you.

If you want to argue subsidies are bad, that's fine. That's a perfectly valid stance to take. But be fair about it - don't pretend Musk or Tesla getting subsidies is fraudulent, and GM and Ford getting them is ok. Have a spine and be fair. Anyway, don't worry about me and my tax payer dollars. Because my taxes aren't in dollars.

Fancy chatting about how much money SpaceX and Musk saves the government? Or are we just going to pretend that isn't happening? He's still a fraud right? Those rocket landings are just CGI yeah? Man, picking on Musk is a fools game when the financial figures of all the car companies had to be posted during the bailout process.



That could be the case! Unfortunately we'll have to wait and see on that one. Alphabet (which is Googles parent company), Amazon and Intel all feature on the subsidise list, but so do all the old school oil and car companies. So if tech companies are going to sink us, surely the car companies would have by now?

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-industries

If you look at industries ranked, utilities and power generation is top, cars second, aerospace, oil and and gas in the top 5. IT only comes in at 13. So if the top 12 haven't sunk the economy, why would 13th do it? I'm not saying it won't happen, but IT and tech companies get only a small fraction of it - everybody is involved in government funding.

Facts? Ok, if that's what you want to call them. And no I don't let YOUR facts get in the way of my decision making. Leftists such as yourself are easily duped to part with their money because you're so full of fear. Fear of the world ending. Fear that you'll be labeled a racist. Fear that you look like a <mod-edit: insults removed> in your new Model 3, which by the way, you do.

Anyway, sure there are subsidies for everything. All of which you would gladly be on board with. Except if it's an oil company. Because they're terrible people. Yet, they were saving the day fueling the world many years before you existed. But hey. Electric is the future. So when Musk steals all of our money so he can send people to Mars it's all good, because he's so great and your college professor said so.
I've pointed out how an all-electric future is not viable as well as how these scam artists get subsidized. Youi respond by saying everyone is subsidized so it's ok. What an idiotic argument. But a typical response from an, well, an idiot.
No one's said gas cars will save the planet or your life or anything else. They're merely here to serve a purpose. The whole electric thing is touted as saving the earth and children and on and on. Yet they won't do any of that. So, you change the argument to be about, well this other car company does it too. So stupid. You should listen to yourself. <mod edit: insults removed>
The argument is about electric powered cars and how they save the world. My point is they don't and you're getting ripped off in the process. And that's why they're pushing the electric agenda. To get you into a far more expense form of energy which conveniently costs you more money while they all get rich. That's the argument. Sorry you missed it. But thanks for trying to blame everyone else.

 

[Akra]

Point is: one group have a profit, the other group does not despite all the investment and public money
No public money should be going to private companies and events anyway. Keep the govt out and let people move on their own. Nuff said.

That's a pretty fair stance - nobody gets help, survive on your own. I don't really disagree with it either.

But lets be careful - we say one group makes a profit, the others don't. If we look at the motor vehicle industry, the top 4 are GM, Ford, Tesla and Chrysler. Only one of those would have survived with no help - which is Ford. So we can say that now these companies turn a profit, but at one point they certainly did not. So should we have helped them through rough times?

If you look at IT, the top 4 are IBM, Alphabet, Microsoft and DST. I had to Google DST, they make banking hardware and software. I don't know anything about DST or IBMs profits, but Alphabet and Microsoft are also getting help - and they are MEGA profitable. So in that sense, that industry is making profits. I'm not sure we should be helping companies that are profitable though?

Facts? Ok, if that's what you want to call them. And no I don't let YOUR facts get in the way of my decision making. Leftists such as yourself are easily duped to part with their money because you're so full of fear. Fear of the world ending. Fear that you'll be labeled a racist. Fear that you look like a total wanker in your new Model 3, which by the way, you do.

Anyway, sure there are subsidies for everything. All of which you would gladly be on board with. Except if it's an oil company. Because they're terrible people. Yet, they were saving the day fueling the world many years before you existed. But hey. Electric is the future. So when Musk steals all of our money so he can send people to Mars it's all good, because he's so great and your college professor said so.
I've pointed out how an all-electric future is not viable as well as how these scam artists get subsidized. Youi respond by saying everyone is subsidized so it's ok. What an idiotic argument. But a typical response from an, well, an idiot.
No one's said gas cars will save the planet or your life or anything else. They're merely here to serve a purpose. The whole electric thing is touted as saving the earth and children and on and on. Yet they won't do any of that. So, you change the argument to be about, well this other car company does it too. So stupid. You should listen to yourself. How dumb you sound.
The argument is about electric powered cars and how they save the world. My point is they don't and you're getting ripped off in the process. And that's why they're pushing the electric agenda. To get you into a far more expense form of energy which conveniently costs you more money while they all get rich. That's the argument. Sorry you missed it. But thanks for trying to blame everyone else.

Seriously? Those are government published figures, and you claim these are leftist facts? Whilst there is a massive right wing government in power? I mean come on man, numbers are numbers. You are the one saying Musk gets lots of money (which is true), but you're going to completely ignore the billions that everyone else gets? Why? And instead of talking about the numbers, you just call me a wanker?

You're clearly skim reading these threads and projecting your own thoughts, because I have never said oil companies are bad and they should go away and are horrible people. I hope they aren't horrible people, because I work in the energy industry, and one of our sectors is oil and gas (another is renewables, another is training). So I hope they aren't horrible people, otherwise my boss is a bond villain.

Now you're talking about Mars, and Musk stealing money for it, which is absured. The only government funding SpaceX has had is $2.5m from the state of Texas to build a launch site in Texas, to employ Texans. Every other company we have talked about here is into the billions (including competitor, Boeing), and you're saying SpaceX is the one stealing money? Remember SpaceX is saving the US Government billions because now NASA doesn't need to rely on the Russians. SpaceX going to Mars is privately funded. Sorry bro - Trump ain't paying for anyone to go to Mars.

I have repeatedly said that I don't really care about the environment (but I have posted statistics on thermal efficency and how electric cars do help that), I just care about sustainable energy. Screw saving the world - I just want to make sure my kids and my gran kids, and my great gran kids have a way of moving around the planet after we have used up the fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are amazing - they allowed us to go through the industrial revolution and globalise the world in a way never thought possible. But they will end - and I'd rather prepare for that, rather than pretend it won't happen and plough blissfully on until the day I do not have any petrol to put in my Bentley (I don't own a Bentley, I just wish I did).

To summarise: I don't really care about saving the world (but I won't argue against the physics that do help it). I just want a way to power cars once we've used up all the fuel. I do not want to bank roll every company in the world, but I will not pretend Musk receives more than anyone else, because that just isn't true. I want to own a V8 Bentley. I work in the energy sector (both oil and gas and renewables), developing control room and emergency management simulations, and I'm an engineering student, studying sustainable energy. If you want to call me dumb, and a wanker - that's just fine (although it'd be more impressive if you had answers to my points, but we can't have everything) - but do not project your feelings and anger onto me. I'll remind you of what I said earlier.

 

[protonv5]

Electric is not the answer. It wastes billions. That is an answer to your point. I've been saying this all along. It all ends up coming from oil, coal anyway. What's not to get? What we get from solar/wind is extremely negligible. The cost to return isn't there. I've been saying this. Yet you convolute what I say with these long answers and try to sound scientific. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not worth it. If I tried to sell you a pack of gum for $20 you wouldn't buy it. Would you really need to bust out the calculator? I don't know, perhaps you might. Same with renewables. Many of can see that's it's based on smoke and mirrors and is the most epic waste of the century. But whatever. Go with it. So if you try to sell me a pack of gum for $20 I'd call you a w*****, thus the name. I know. My catalytic converter needs new bearings. How much?

 

[Akra]

Electric is not the answer. It wastes billions. That is an answer to your point. I've been saying this all along. It all ends up coming from oil, coal anyway. What's not to get? What we get from solar/wind is extremely negligible. The cost to return isn't there. I've been saying this. Yet you convolute what I say with these long answers and try to sound scientific. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's not worth it. If I tried to sell you a pack of gum for $20 you wouldn't buy it. Would you really need to bust out the calculator? I don't know, perhaps you might. Same with renewables. Many of can see that's it's based on smoke and mirrors and is the most epic waste of the century. But whatever. Go with it. So if you try to sell me a pack of gum for $20 I'd call you a w*****, thus the name. I know. My catalytic converter needs new bearings. How much?

A lot of electricity IS from oil and gas, you're right. But we discussed that earlier. A petrol engine operates at around 20% thermal efficiency. A diesel engine operates at around 40% efficiency, and diesel has more energy per litre than petrol - this is why diesel engines get more MPG than petrol engines - great efficiency. If you generate your electricity from gas (they don't tend to use oil for electricity generation - more common is gas), the rustine generator that the gas is burnt in operates at 60% efficiency. This is simply because the turbine can be massive and heavy (since it doesn't need to get transported about in a car) and use stronger components. So you immediately gain 20-40% efficiency right off the bat using a 100% gas powered national grid supply. That is before you take into account the gains from not requiring the refining of petrol, or transportation of petrol. A litre of petrol takes around 6kWh of electricity to refine, and an electric car will drive around 25 miles on that same amount of electricity. So before taking into account the efficiency gains, then electric car is doing 25 mpg. And then you talk about infrastructure and distribution energy costs, etc.

The summary of that is a bad electric car will not beat a petrol car in terms of energy consumption. But a good electric car will. That doesn't make an electric car better - and it doesn't mean that the current range of electric cars are good enough. But it does mean that as technology progresses, the potential for the electric car is higher than the petrol car. The less energy conversions you do, the less waste you'll have and the more efficient your process. So even if you generate the power from 100% gas, you still have a net gain in efficiency.

What we get from renewables is not negligible by a long shot. 30% of the UK electrical grid is powered by renewables. If you removed a third of the UK electrical grid, you'd have a massive massive problem. Despite having huge oil reserves in the North Sea, Norway produces 99% of its energy from renewables. 100% of Iceland is renewable. etc. I am not saying we should move to renewable sources now, because that is not a sensible thing to do - however if you are suggesting that renewables only provide a negligible amount of energy, then you're also suggesting we simply take away power from several nations. I'm sure you'll agree that this is not a good thing.

Yet you convolute what I say with these long answers and try to sound scientific.

Oh I'm sorry. Given we're talking about science and engineering, I thought it would be a good thing that the engineering student would talk about this from an engineering standpoint. I didn't realise I should pretend it's all simple and easy. There's a reason this stuff has long answers - engineering is hard. Science is harder. That's why we're not all scientists. We could sit around and say "LOL put fuel in it and it goes fast!" but I'd like to think we're a bit beyond that level.

You can talk about all of this being a waste of money if you want, but I've posted the facts and figures of who gets subsidies and fossil fuels energy providers are getting just as much as renewables. The fact is, there is no such thing as a unsubsidised unit of energy. So if you want to argue nobody should get government money (and that's a good fair point to make), then that should apply to everybody. Don't tell me that's leftist nonsense, because it isn't - the numbers are published by the American government on who gets what, and the jist of - everybody gets something.

Look man, I love a petrol engine. There's nothing I love more in this world than sitting in the pit grandstand at Le Mans, at dusk, and a Corvette roaring by. That's my favourite place in the whole world. I REALLY don't want electric motorsport (because it's dull. Man Formula E is boring to watch), but if we don't do something then one day there will be no motorsport. So lets keep good old fashioned petrol racing engines going as long as we can, but prep for the future. But as much as I absolutely adore the Corvette V8, that doesn't mean oil is infinite. It will run out one day. Ignore the environment argument (because it doesn't interest me at all. I want a Corvette V8) and just look at pure sustainability. We need an alternate supply of energy once we do run out of oil - whether that's in 20 years or 100 years. I don't care about sea levels and all that - I just want to make sure we can still keep driving cars when oil is gone (or my gran kids can, if it's after I'm gone). I have seen a lot of "electric cars are not the answer" posts, but I'm yet to hear an alternative from anybody that can be in place for when we run out of oil. Saying "electric is not the answer" is not actually an answer. By your own wording...it's not an answer. Once again - the man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the man who is doing it.

If you have a solution for this problem, rather than telling me I'm wrong and being too long an scientific about it (despite it being a scientific and engineer problem to solve), then I'd be happy to listen. But tell you what - even better - get to work on a solution. You clearly feel passionately about this, and if something is important, then even if the odds are against you, you should do it anyway. So rather than beating the negativity drum about how all these solutions are rubbish, come up with one. Study the subject, go to uni, get a degree, make posts on the internet that are far too long and scientific, and work in the field and contribute to the solution. That's what spurred me into taking up an engineering degree, so why can't you? Find a better solution if this one is so bad. And always keep in mind - when Henry Ford made the Model T, people said "what's wrong with the horse?".

 

[protonv5]

A lot of electricity IS from oil and gas, you're right. But we discussed that earlier. A petrol engine operates at around 20% thermal efficiency. A diesel engine operates at around 40% efficiency, and diesel has more energy per litre than petrol - this is why diesel engines get more MPG than petrol engines - great efficiency. If you generate your electricity from gas (they don't tend to use oil for electricity generation - more common is gas), the rustine generator that the gas is burnt in operates at 60% efficiency. This is simply because the turbine can be massive and heavy (since it doesn't need to get transported about in a car) and use stronger components. So you immediately gain 20-40% efficiency right off the bat using a 100% gas powered national grid supply. That is before you take into account the gains from not requiring the refining of petrol, or transportation of petrol. A litre of petrol takes around 6kWh of electricity to refine, and an electric car will drive around 25 miles on that same amount of electricity. So before taking into account the efficiency gains, then electric car is doing 25 mpg. And then you talk about infrastructure and distribution energy costs, etc.

The summary of that is a bad electric car will not beat a petrol car in terms of energy consumption. But a good electric car will. That doesn't make an electric car better - and it doesn't mean that the current range of electric cars are good enough. But it does mean that as technology progresses, the potential for the electric car is higher than the petrol car. The less energy conversions you do, the less waste you'll have and the more efficient your process. So even if you generate the power from 100% gas, you still have a net gain in efficiency.

What we get from renewables is not negligible by a long shot. 30% of the UK electrical grid is powered by renewables. If you removed a third of the UK electrical grid, you'd have a massive massive problem. Despite having huge oil reserves in the North Sea, Norway produces 99% of its energy from renewables. 100% of Iceland is renewable. etc. I am not saying we should move to renewable sources now, because that is not a sensible thing to do - however if you are suggesting that renewables only provide a negligible amount of energy, then you're also suggesting we simply take away power from several nations. I'm sure you'll agree that this is not a good thing.



Oh I'm sorry. Given we're talking about science and engineering, I thought it would be a good thing that the engineering student would talk about this from an engineering standpoint. I didn't realise I should pretend it's all simple and easy. There's a reason this stuff has long answers - engineering is hard. Science is harder. That's why we're not all scientists. We could sit around and say "LOL put fuel in it and it goes fast!" but I'd like to think we're a bit beyond that level.

You can talk about all of this being a waste of money if you want, but I've posted the facts and figures of who gets subsidies and fossil fuels energy providers are getting just as much as renewables. The fact is, there is no such thing as a unsubsidised unit of energy. So if you want to argue nobody should get government money (and that's a good fair point to make), then that should apply to everybody. Don't tell me that's leftist nonsense, because it isn't - the numbers are published by the American government on who gets what, and the jist of - everybody gets something.

Look man, I love a petrol engine. There's nothing I love more in this world than sitting in the pit grandstand at Le Mans, at dusk, and a Corvette roaring by. That's my favourite place in the whole world. I REALLY don't want electric motorsport (because it's dull. Man Formula E is boring to watch), but if we don't do something then one day there will be no motorsport. So lets keep good old fashioned petrol racing engines going as long as we can, but prep for the future. But as much as I absolutely adore the Corvette V8, that doesn't mean oil is infinite. It will run out one day. Ignore the environment argument (because it doesn't interest me at all. I want a Corvette V8) and just look at pure sustainability. We need an alternate supply of energy once we do run out of oil - whether that's in 20 years or 100 years. I don't care about sea levels and all that - I just want to make sure we can still keep driving cars when oil is gone (or my gran kids can, if it's after I'm gone). I have seen a lot of "electric cars are not the answer" posts, but I'm yet to hear an alternative from anybody that can be in place for when we run out of oil. Saying "electric is not the answer" is not actually an answer. By your own wording...it's not an answer. Once again - the man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the man who is doing it.

If you have a solution for this problem, rather than telling me I'm wrong and being too long an scientific about it (despite it being a scientific and engineer problem to solve), then I'd be happy to listen. But tell you what - even better - get to work on a solution. You clearly feel passionately about this, and if something is important, then even if the odds are against you, you should do it anyway. So rather than beating the negativity drum about how all these solutions are rubbish, come up with one. Study the subject, go to uni, get a degree, make posts on the internet that are far too long and scientific, and work in the field and contribute to the solution. That's what spurred me into taking up an engineering degree, so why can't you? Find a better solution if this one is so bad. And always keep in mind - when Henry Ford made the Model T, people said "what's wrong with the horse?".

"Solutions" are best tested and proven before they are unleashed on the masses as "the" solution. So, come up with something better. Test it. Prove it's better before forcing everyone into it. Which is what is happening with renewables. And it really hasn't taken long for people to catch on and see that it's not working. England is going 'all in" and it will be a disaster. Anyway, let's agree to disagree. You can be right, I'll be wrong.

 

[Akra]

"Solutions" are best tested and proven before they are unleashed on the masses as "the" solution. So, come up with something better. Test it. Prove it's better before forcing everyone into it. Which is what is happening with renewables. And it really hasn't taken long for people to catch on and see that it's not working. England is going 'all in" and it will be a disaster. Anyway, let's agree to disagree. You can be right, I'll be wrong.

You might be interested in knowing (because it supports your argument) that the UK is not going all in. What has been reported is that petrol and diesel is being banned, but hybrids will still be allowed. So in the UK (not just England), nothing will actually change. By 2040, all cars will be hybrids anyway, so really they haven't changed much. The UK isn't going all electric, despite the headlines!

Now does this mean electric isn't the answer? Or does it mean the British Government wants to be seen as green and awesome when it hasn't actually done anything? That's up for debate. But for Brits, nothing to panic about just yet - 2040 you'll need to buy a hybrid (used non-hybrids are still fine though). I think France and Norway are up to something to, but I don't know if it involves hybrids or if it's a full electric conversion.

Or maybe the recent breakthrough in an aluminium alloy producing hydrogen could lead to easier hydrogen production (the difficulty of that is what has stopped it taking off). So if this breakthrough works outside of the lab (not tested just yet), we could end up with hydrogen as our primary fuel source. That'd be fun, because we could still have V8s.