Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
I will say one bit more about the idea of facts and data. This right here is just a complete and total lie. There's still been one source total cited on your side. Did I say anything about who it was connected to? No. I talked about the fact that it A) backed up what I said in almost every particular, and B) was based on bad data - a decade-old understanding of EV technology and a very low estimate of vehicle lifecycle. I assessed the quality of what it said and found that to be quite lacking.
If someone - you or anyone else - brings up contrary data to what i've said about how much oil we have, how much is being discovered or consumed, what emissions actually are - all that is open to discussion. There is no monolithic 'net zero groups think X' bit going on here. There are quite different proposals even within those groups. But it's impossible to get to a point of reasonable assessment when we can't even get to a point on engaging on what the facts are. Instead it's just presumption and generalities with almost no concrete information to either verify or refute. Remember, I used to be on your side of these issues 20 years ago. I just couldn't stay there in light of the increasing amount of evidence demonstrating where the reality actually is.
|
Let me try and summarize.
We can agree that there are at least 50 years of oil remaining based on current knowledge and storage. I don't know if we can agree on the chances that more will be discovered.
In the '70s, when we last went through this argument, production increased and known reserves are still, today, higher than known reserves then. But we went through a round of massive changes based on that worry, which triggered inflation and the worst somewhat long-term economic period in my lifetime.
We can agree that mankind cannot rely on oil reserves forever. We disagree on whether the timeline suggests that we immediately, "full-stop" (you can tell this is what frustrates me) dismantle what is working for us today and switch to unreliable, expensive alternatives.
So the path of divergence there is, I think, you - this starts now, and me - we don't have a good solution now, let's spend just a fraction of the money we're spending on unreliable energy sources and double-down on new research.
I have referenced the NERC site (link -
https://www.nerc.com/Pages/default.aspx), which tracks outages and is responsible for assessments on what we need for a stable, reliable energy grid. Major outages are increasing in frequency. Several areas of the US and Canada are projected to be producing less energy than peak demand in the very near future.
I would argue that mankind's standard of living depends on reliable energy and many of the products (like plastics and fertilizers) that we create from fossil fuels.
Life expectancy:
File:Life expectancy by world region, from 1770 to 2018.svg - Wikipedia
Eliminating fossil fuel use is more than just changing cars or how electricity is produced. If we stop making fertilizer, people will starve in many places around the world. With the increase in life expectancy has come a dramatic increase in world population. They need to eat.
This dramatic transition comes at an enormous cost. If you look at subsidies to the people just to keep the furnace on and the lights on, Germany (which is several years ahead of us in this transition) has already approved 10% of its GDP (it is spending 7% now) just paying people's energy bills. That's a world-high, but others are catching up (the UK just approved 5% of GDP). Right there, that alone is a recession. And it doesn't even begin to cover the cost of the transition itself.
So the "full-stop" has a monumental cost. And yes, I understand that means begin the transition, not complete it today. We are full-stopping, beginning the transition. And it is already causing enormous harm in Europe, which is years ahead of us.
This is not to say that we shouldn't try technologies like EVs. That might mean research money to companies like Tesla - a lot of research money. Where we might disagree is whether the products themselves should be subsidized to wealthy middle-class Americans at taxpayer expense.
I don't know if you're right and the studies showing EV use saves on emissions are valid. Or the opposite is true. I read this summary a while back, and that one came under a lot of attack, but they stand by the analysis.
IFO INSTITUTE STUDY CASTS DOUBT ON CLIMATE-SAVING CREDENTIALS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine
But even if it does save emissions, the more important piece today is whether the electric grid can handle the increased demand of charging. You dismissed, out of hand, the experiences in European countries as irrelevant. I don't agree, since if we have more EVs, it makes sense that we push limits as Europe already does.
Many long-term plans include restrictions on EV charging, even a requirement that EVs be used as batteries and feed into the system when demand is otherwise high. This would lower battery life. We disagree on whether the 20 years theorized by Tesla can be used as a benchmark for EV analysis or cost. No Tesla battery is 20 years old. Their warranty doesn't guarantee you 20 years. That's because they know it's just theory and your mileage may vary. The estimate doesn't include use in colder weather or non-ideal charging based on need and certainly not on this plan for feeding power back into the grid. I'd have to check, but it may also be specific to one type of charging. Does the super-fast charging create more wear?
I just don't think the EV transition should start now. Cost, convenience, need... it only makes sense if full-stop is a requirement. The technology simply isn't economical yet. That combined with the artificial strains we're already placing on the grid, sacrificing reliability, sacrificing security, spending hundreds of billions on subsidies... it seems insane to me.
We have plenty of time. It took about 150 years to more than double human life expectancy. Fossil fuels are a huge part of this. Understanding that we are burning billions of years of the "bodies" of plants and animals long past, it will, of course, run out at some point. At some point we will need full-stop.
It is not today. However, we've already started. If we continue that transition today, resources that we desperately need to find something viable for the future will be spent simply trying to keep people alive today. When you're spending up to 10% of GDP, as Germany plans, just to pay the electric bills... that's a sign that you're causing a lot of harm with your policies.
You would call these "generalities." I don't. I'm only trying to show that starting this transition early has an enormous cost.