Prof. Jacobson is a very sharp guy and I have seen many of his posts on LinkedIn. I usually write posts about all the things people forgot to consider and how ignorant they are of feedback cycles and so forth, but not this time. We can not only electrify everything, but it's *cheaper* to do so. And furthermore, it's *still* cheaper even if for some insane reason we don't care about the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels which according to the IMF run $7 trillion/year at present. And those costs will grow exponentially after tipping points tip. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. I mean it quite literally. I have a Ph.D. in statistical inference, feedback control theory and optimal resource allocation aka combinatorial optimization. I'm not speaking off the cuff here.
A straightforward observation of the political debate is how low the cost of name calling driven by total contempt for consequences of burning stuff for profit.
Simon michaux papers argues we don't have the minerals or materials to even get the first gen renewable grid transition. What magic green faerie will get us that?
Yes, he is wrong. Expanding mineral extraction for 100% renewables (4X what we do now) will still be 99% less extraction than we do now when you include fossil fuel extraction! www.distilled.earth/p/a-fossil-fuel-economy-requires-535x
@@climatechat does those 28 million tons include the rock that needs to be displaced? Because the rock-to-metal-ratio for Cobalt is 859, for Copper is 513, for Nickel is 250 and for Lithium is 1634. Source: Our World In Data (can't post link because TH-cam removed the post the first time I wrote it) That is to say that if you want 1 unit of Cobalt you have to mine/dig up 859 units of Rock. If we do a really rudimentary calculation (which for sure is wrong but might put us in the ballpark of the correct answer) where we average out the rock-to-metal-ratio for the above we get: (859 + 513 + 250 + 1634)/4 = 834 Using our very very rough rock-to-metal-ratio of 834 and multiply it with 28 million tons we get 23.3 BILLION tons. Now, I am sure there are some ratios to coal as well but I doubt it's more than 10:1. Probably more like 5:1 or 3:1. Assuming 5:1 then you would need to displace 40-ish tons of rock to get 8 tons of coal. Definitely worse but in the same order of magnitude as our rough example above. In order to get those 28 million tones we would need to open a lot of new mines in virgin areas I reckon. Which brings problems with Diversity loss, potential groundwater poisoning and so on. I am not saying that we shouldn't do it but I do think it's not such a slam dunk obvious solution as that article and you make it out to be.
Dan, good interview. One request: you interrupt your guest as they are answering, granted w some insightful question, too often and it can be quite distracting. Let them answer, then add your additional two cents. Thanks for the Good interview otherwise!
"No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
That makes no sense. Solar PV *gets energy from the Sun* & it generates over its lifetime far more energy than it took to produce the solar panels. Wind and water turbines are similar.
Lemme get this straight.. you think Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has to study elementary high school level myths because you imagine he hasn't thought of it in the last three decades? And you're the first one to point out the myth of overshoot to him?
@@bartroberts1514 We just hit a billion souls around 1800 and 2 billion around 1920. That 8 billion is sustainable, long term, is still very much an open question. I'm not arguing, just pointing out that me not be biologically or technologically fated for triumph.
@@toadvine9264 I neither subscribe to Malthusianism, nor to the Fallacy of Fear of Large Numbers. But what does your comment have to do with what I posted, at all? Or to OP's post? Overshoot is the denier alarmist myth that fighting climate change to preserve the future of food by ending fossil trade could somehow magically reduce CO2 levels so low all our plants die; it has nothing to do with population statistics.
At about 22:35Prof. Mark Jacobson says: "and that was passed on to customers so you see all these things being passed on to customers and that's why we have high electricity prices in California nothing to do with" What he says it has nothing to do with was so indistinct, I could not understand it. The transcript continues: "rebles speak". This clearly is just rubbish. Does anyone know what he meant?
I believe he was saying that the high cost of electricity in California has nothing to do with the cost of renewables (which are quite low in comparison to the cost of fossil fuel electricity).
Snarky question I could have asked in the live comments: *Are you going to **_allow_** the global south to have as high of energy use per capita as that which Americans enjoy?* I looked at Jacobson's video (the link of which you posted) and his 145-country plan allows for slow growth in global energy consumption through 2050. What is missing are the rest of the world, and what is presumed is that the global south will not use energy at the luxurious levels as Americans.
If they leap frog their technology and use more renewables, they won't be using as much energy even if they do have an equivalent use of electricity and other energy. Ethiopia is heading towards 100% renewable energy by 2030, and they are apparently banning ICE vehicles already.
@@AWildBard absolutely. Solar with battery back up will give less developed countries, usually in warmer sunnier climates, the least expensive energy source.
Look at mobile phones. While the most developed nations are still staggering under the landline burden of creaky old twisted pair telecommunications, emerging markets leapfrogged to mobile, much more economical and advanced for communication. The same is true of solar, water (Jacobson lumps geothermal with this), and wind. Want to avoid becoming the least developed nation for energy? Shut down fossil as fast as you can.
For the fire brick mention here there was that well-known opposing bloke (not Donald Trump, some other bloke) on Dan Miller or Nate Hagens Show saying that stuck with coal for cement & steel because of the extreme temperature "not for hours but days or weeks" and I thought here's a bloke who never heard of "insulation", never heard the fact that the Sun's core has the energy, power, of a compost heap or 30-Watt bulb in a tea chest but the Sun is (ahem) largish so "insulation" is (ahem) biggish and hence the rather high temperature its core achieves with a (ahem) largish bunch of 30-Watt bulbs in tea chests.
This chap is definitely not aware of reality. Full elec by 2030 or 80% overall . Just not happening. There aren’t enough materials by many times. Just a practical issue. Is the biggest problem. In uk we are looking at £5.5 trillion. Batteries will be more expensive when materials are running out. Death is due to pollution in Africa because they have no elec and burn wood etc in homes.
He is completely ignoring that AI and data centers are gobbling up any extra energy renewables are creating. Also, Jevon's Paradox, even without data centers/AI. 🙄
To help you out, there is no "extra energy": there's what the Market will bear. Curtail fossil extraction licenses 2% of today's level per month, and AI and data centers will be just fine, as will be EV's, biofueled aviation and maritime transport, electric vessels and aircraft, and renewable electricity generation, in five years. Your ICE won't be going too far, though.
But you build a combination of solar and wind, plus you tie into other geographies. Tony Seba (RethinkX) assumes worse-case conditions (no tie-in to remote grids, etc.) and his analysis says it works: www.rethinkx.com/energy
i can not get a grasp of the viability of Renewables with all this monetary talk. all we need to know is how much renewable power can we generate forever with little to no pollution(definition of renewable). and how many people can we then give that power to.
At 15:00 "battery capacity ... 3.5 GW" is rubbish speak that I've never figured out whether bods with vested interest like Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson do intentionally to seriously mislead people or are simply lazy. For anybody honest, don't go cobbling "energy" & "power" together like I hear all over the place for 11 years (certainly not only from Dan Miller & Mark Jacobson) knowing as you must surely know that the majority of bods are pretty clueless and easily confused about energy & power Basics. Just stop that and explain it clearly. You should be using "capacity" for energy, not Power, and think of another word or snappy phrase for Power since you evidently greatly dislike using the words "energy" & "power" for some reason.
"Nameplate" power (in kilowatts, megawatts, or gigawatts) is a common way to take about power generation systems whether they be solar, wind, water, nuclear, coal, or gas. That nameplate power translates into different amount of kWh depending on the system and other factors (location, etc.), but it is a normal way of taking about energy systems.
@climatechat Yeah well a "battery" isn't a "power generation system" but rather it's an "energy storage system" and that was the actual point of my comment. You can easily check yourself, check your comment, by noting that battery capacity is universally stated (KWh or "3500 milliamp-hours MAh at 1.5 volts", whatever) so now then inform any passing audience what the data plates of the turbine-generators, or the entire power-generation-system stations, of nuclear-fission, hydroelectric, burnable-gas, wind-turbines and solar-photovoltaic systems have shown on them for the total energy that they provide until they are run down and need to be re-charged, same as a battery has, since you just incorrectly stated that "energy storage systems" and "power generation systems" have the same Essential Basic Specifications. Now I wish I'd taken pics of the data plates on generating turbines at Sir Adam Beck II Niagara Falls and at Stave Falls Dam British Columbia when I was inspecting the elevator equipment in those generating stations, which I did for 18 years to earn a living, but I only recall cute Brass Award Plates on the turbine that won 1972 or 1987 or whatever Award for the Turbine of The Year with whatever rotations it did before a bearing replacement. Nostalgia.
Battery costs for USA is estimated at $ 350 trillion . For uk that would be £30 trillion. Is that realistic. Over building by 4 for wind is rediculous. $60 dollars per KWh. .This idiot is bonkers. Really pushing the sense is proving the impossibility
Yes. It's called bootstrapping. China's already at the point where its entire renewable sector could be powered by its renewable sector; several countries are already essentially 100% fossil free, to boot.
@@bartroberts1514'could be' do you mean technically possible? How can we use renewables for mining and manufacturing? I haven't seen any evidence of any renewable tech being made only with renewable electricity.
@@EmmaSolomano Do you do a lot of work in the manufacturing sector in countries with renewable electricity? You do know Canada's electricity grid is over 80% fossil free (and always has been), and the laggard parts of that grid aren't in especially manufacturing-heavy regions. And China? Chinese renewable growth is a phenomenon the world has never seen the like of before; by 2028 at present rates, they'll be able to switch entirely from fossil and not miss a beat. Will they switch? Jevon's paradox predicts not, but no one can anticipate China's leaders, so ask them. The heaviest users of fossil are fossil producing areas, in general. It's fossil that has a hard time without fossil. Paradoxically, about 5% of Canada's renewable electricity is diverted to refineries, pumps and pipelines, too. Granted, remote mining operations are the hard end for renewable power so far, but it's far cheaper to put up solar panels in a remote site than fly in fuel by helicopter every month, for instance, and it's getting very easy to do geothermal in remote locations co-located with mines.
I too have minor disagreement with Jacobson's approach, in particular with hydrogen over urea. I think Seba's analyses are likely closer. But combining the best of Seba, Jacobson, and Project Drawdown with downregulation of fossil trade, we can certainly get 100% fossil free by 2030, and be better off for it economically.
According to Industrial Ecology, not only can all industries be 100% circular (renewable), but also Donut Economics shows that to be more profitable. And these days, with asymmetric UAV warfare, fossil is a liability. Who depends on heavy fossil, loses.
Also, we are too short on time to accomplish such an overhaul of infrastructure. That problem alone relegates these solutions to the wunderwaffe bin if ya ask me.
Do you have the least idea of just how complex fossil technology is, compared to wind, water (geothermal), or solar? Hint: a good EV has twenty times fewer moving parts than an average ICE.
@@bartroberts1514 But they weigh a third more. They eat tires and infrastructure too. And renters and folks with on-street parking are out of luck for charging em. I'm all in for this technology, but it isn't ready just yet, and that is problematic, cause time isn't on our side.
@@toadvine9264 You're repeating outdated myths. Head over to AFDC's vehicle comparison app and you'll be able to do like-for-like comparisons of EVs by cost (universally cheaper than ICEs over their lifespan now, for anyone but Sunday drivers). Are you a renter? Do you park on a street? Sounds like a problem of dealing with landlords and urban planning, easily solved. Regenerative braking protects tires from wear, and only when inappropriate tires are selected for vehicles is wear substantially higher. Geopolymer road surfacing is far more durable than asphalt, more appropriate to vehicle weights (or are you arguing that EVs weigh more than transport trucks?), and net carbon negative, while being more economical. And while it's true like-for-like EVs are 18%-28% heavier than comparable ICEs, no EV needs a fuel truck to deliver a tank load to a gas station, doing fifty times the damage to the road of the EV.
@@toadvine9264 A BMW 3-series (M340i) weighs 3849 lbs curb weight. A Tesla Model 3 (standard range) weighs 3862 lbs. (0.3% more) while the long range weighs 4034 lbs (4.8% more). So, no, EVs don't weigh 33% more than equivalent ICE cars and as battery density keeps improving, they will eventually weigh less than equivalent ICE cars.
@@climatechat Thanks for the rejoinder. I'm not a car guy by any stretch, but that's the turbo charged 6 cylinder, right? A Toyota corolla (with the smaller engine) weighs a third less than the standard range Tesla. And there are a ton corollas out there. Anywho, I'm a fan of Just Have A Think, and we'll see how this battery tech pans out. If the weight and range deficiencies can be overcome in the next few years, it will be interesting.
![[UNCUT] “อภิสิทธิ์” ครม.อุ๊งอิ๊ง แย่งเก้าอี้กันฝุ่นตลบ “ทักษิณ” บงการเอง Iคนดังนั่งเคลียร์I 21ส.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a_b-kItw2jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Prof. Jacobson is a very sharp guy and I have seen many of his posts on LinkedIn. I usually write posts about all the things people forgot to consider and how ignorant they are of feedback cycles and so forth, but not this time.
We can not only electrify everything, but it's *cheaper* to do so. And furthermore, it's *still* cheaper even if for some insane reason we don't care about the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels which according to the IMF run $7 trillion/year at present. And those costs will grow exponentially after tipping points tip. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. I mean it quite literally.
I have a Ph.D. in statistical inference, feedback control theory and optimal resource allocation aka combinatorial optimization. I'm not speaking off the cuff here.
th-cam.com/video/41Cab-x9V7A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Bx7MA3rA-CzKQqz0
A straightforward observation of the political debate is how low the cost of name calling driven by total contempt for consequences of burning stuff for profit.
Simon michaux papers argues we don't have the minerals or materials to even get the first gen renewable grid transition. What magic green faerie will get us that?
He's wrong.
Yes, he is wrong. Expanding mineral extraction for 100% renewables (4X what we do now) will still be 99% less extraction than we do now when you include fossil fuel extraction! www.distilled.earth/p/a-fossil-fuel-economy-requires-535x
@@climatechat does those 28 million tons include the rock that needs to be displaced? Because the rock-to-metal-ratio
for Cobalt is 859,
for Copper is 513,
for Nickel is 250 and
for Lithium is 1634.
Source: Our World In Data (can't post link because TH-cam removed the post the first time I wrote it)
That is to say that if you want 1 unit of Cobalt you have to mine/dig up 859 units of Rock.
If we do a really rudimentary calculation (which for sure is wrong but might put us in the ballpark of the correct answer) where we average out the rock-to-metal-ratio for the above we get: (859 + 513 + 250 + 1634)/4 = 834
Using our very very rough rock-to-metal-ratio of 834 and multiply it with 28 million tons we get 23.3 BILLION tons.
Now, I am sure there are some ratios to coal as well but I doubt it's more than 10:1. Probably more like 5:1 or 3:1. Assuming 5:1 then you would need to displace 40-ish tons of rock to get 8 tons of coal. Definitely worse but in the same order of magnitude as our rough example above.
In order to get those 28 million tones we would need to open a lot of new mines in virgin areas I reckon. Which brings problems with Diversity loss, potential groundwater poisoning and so on.
I am not saying that we shouldn't do it but I do think it's not such a slam dunk obvious solution as that article and you make it out to be.
@@sandorski56 Prove it. He has thrown the challenge out to the world and NO-ONE has succeeded.
@@dalewolver8739 We are doing it as we speak.
Should point viewers to both Mark Jacobson's online resources, and Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 & Roadmap.
Dan, good interview. One request: you interrupt your guest as they are answering, granted w some insightful question, too often and it can be quite distracting. Let them answer, then add your additional two cents. Thanks for the Good interview otherwise!
I agree
"No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
That makes no sense. Solar PV *gets energy from the Sun* & it generates over its lifetime far more energy than it took to produce the solar panels. Wind and water turbines are similar.
Dont forget. New green energy demand will not only feed AI, but i also understand bit coin mining. So sad. Has anyone else heard this?
He should study overshoot and the definition of "finite".
We is a tenured professor at Stanford, home of America's VC and tech bro industry. He is paid not to understand 'finite'.
Lemme get this straight.. you think Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has to study elementary high school level myths because you imagine he hasn't thought of it in the last three decades?
And you're the first one to point out the myth of overshoot to him?
@@bartroberts1514 We just hit a billion souls around 1800 and 2 billion around 1920. That 8 billion is sustainable, long term, is still very much an open question. I'm not arguing, just pointing out that me not be biologically or technologically fated for triumph.
@@toadvine9264 I neither subscribe to Malthusianism, nor to the Fallacy of Fear of Large Numbers.
But what does your comment have to do with what I posted, at all? Or to OP's post?
Overshoot is the denier alarmist myth that fighting climate change to preserve the future of food by ending fossil trade could somehow magically reduce CO2 levels so low all our plants die; it has nothing to do with population statistics.
At about 22:35Prof. Mark Jacobson says: "and that was passed on to customers so you see all these things being passed on to customers and that's why we have high electricity prices in California nothing to do with" What he says it has nothing to do with was so indistinct, I could not understand it. The transcript continues: "rebles speak". This clearly is just rubbish. Does anyone know what he meant?
I believe he was saying that the high cost of electricity in California has nothing to do with the cost of renewables (which are quite low in comparison to the cost of fossil fuel electricity).
No. Next question.
Snarky question I could have asked in the live comments: *Are you going to **_allow_** the global south to have as high of energy use per capita as that which Americans enjoy?* I looked at Jacobson's video (the link of which you posted) and his 145-country plan allows for slow growth in global energy consumption through 2050. What is missing are the rest of the world, and what is presumed is that the global south will not use energy at the luxurious levels as Americans.
If they leap frog their technology and use more renewables, they won't be using as much energy even if they do have an equivalent use of electricity and other energy.
Ethiopia is heading towards 100% renewable energy by 2030, and they are apparently banning ICE vehicles already.
@@AWildBard absolutely. Solar with battery back up will give less developed countries, usually in warmer sunnier climates, the least expensive energy source.
Look at mobile phones. While the most developed nations are still staggering under the landline burden of creaky old twisted pair telecommunications, emerging markets leapfrogged to mobile, much more economical and advanced for communication.
The same is true of solar, water (Jacobson lumps geothermal with this), and wind.
Want to avoid becoming the least developed nation for energy?
Shut down fossil as fast as you can.
For the fire brick mention here there was that well-known opposing bloke (not Donald Trump, some other bloke) on Dan Miller or Nate Hagens Show saying that stuck with coal for cement & steel because of the extreme temperature "not for hours but days or weeks" and I thought here's a bloke who never heard of "insulation", never heard the fact that the Sun's core has the energy, power, of a compost heap or 30-Watt bulb in a tea chest but the Sun is (ahem) largish so "insulation" is (ahem) biggish and hence the rather high temperature its core achieves with a (ahem) largish bunch of 30-Watt bulbs in tea chests.
What does the sun's core have to do making steel with electricity? I haven't heard of a way to make steel without fossil fuels.
@@EmmaSolomano I explained what the Sun's core has to do with making steel & concrete ........ "insulation"
This chap is definitely not aware of reality. Full elec by 2030 or 80% overall . Just not happening. There aren’t enough materials by many times. Just a practical issue. Is the biggest problem. In uk we are looking at £5.5 trillion. Batteries will be more expensive when materials are running out. Death is due to pollution in Africa because they have no elec and burn wood etc in homes.
Sodium batteries and other cheap storage tech is coming along nicely; won't be a problem.
Not true. Extraction needed for 100% renewable energy is just a tiny fraction (
He is completely ignoring that AI and data centers are gobbling up any extra energy renewables are creating.
Also, Jevon's Paradox, even without data centers/AI.
🙄
Yeah yeah, Jevon's Paradox:
they discuss it from 17:40
... or didn't you watch the whole clip yet before commenting?
Listen in from 30:30, as well.
To help you out, there is no "extra energy": there's what the Market will bear.
Curtail fossil extraction licenses 2% of today's level per month, and AI and data centers will be just fine, as will be EV's, biofueled aviation and maritime transport, electric vessels and aircraft, and renewable electricity generation, in five years.
Your ICE won't be going too far, though.
Cloudy days get you maybe 10% of the power as sunny days, not 25%.
But you build a combination of solar and wind, plus you tie into other geographies. Tony Seba (RethinkX) assumes worse-case conditions (no tie-in to remote grids, etc.) and his analysis says it works: www.rethinkx.com/energy
i can not get a grasp of the viability of Renewables with all this monetary talk.
all we need to know is how much renewable power can we generate forever with little to no pollution(definition of renewable).
and how many people can we then give that power to.
No we can't
can we rapidly move to 0% subsidies for fossil fuel companies?
👍
Not just no but fuck No and No way in Hell no
At 15:00 "battery capacity ... 3.5 GW" is rubbish speak that I've never figured out whether bods with vested interest like Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson do intentionally to seriously mislead people or are simply lazy. For anybody honest, don't go cobbling "energy" & "power" together like I hear all over the place for 11 years (certainly not only from Dan Miller & Mark Jacobson) knowing as you must surely know that the majority of bods are pretty clueless and easily confused about energy & power Basics. Just stop that and explain it clearly. You should be using "capacity" for energy, not Power, and think of another word or snappy phrase for Power since you evidently greatly dislike using the words "energy" & "power" for some reason.
"Nameplate" power (in kilowatts, megawatts, or gigawatts) is a common way to take about power generation systems whether they be solar, wind, water, nuclear, coal, or gas. That nameplate power translates into different amount of kWh depending on the system and other factors (location, etc.), but it is a normal way of taking about energy systems.
@climatechat Yeah well a "battery" isn't a "power generation system" but rather it's an "energy storage system" and that was the actual point of my comment. You can easily check yourself, check your comment, by noting that battery capacity is universally stated (KWh or "3500 milliamp-hours MAh at 1.5 volts", whatever) so now then inform any passing audience what the data plates of the turbine-generators, or the entire power-generation-system stations, of nuclear-fission, hydroelectric, burnable-gas, wind-turbines and solar-photovoltaic systems have shown on them for the total energy that they provide until they are run down and need to be re-charged, same as a battery has, since you just incorrectly stated that "energy storage systems" and "power generation systems" have the same Essential Basic Specifications. Now I wish I'd taken pics of the data plates on generating turbines at Sir Adam Beck II Niagara Falls and at Stave Falls Dam British Columbia when I was inspecting the elevator equipment in those generating stations, which I did for 18 years to earn a living, but I only recall cute Brass Award Plates on the turbine that won 1972 or 1987 or whatever Award for the Turbine of The Year with whatever rotations it did before a bearing replacement. Nostalgia.
Battery costs for USA is estimated at $ 350 trillion . For uk that would be £30 trillion. Is that realistic. Over building by 4 for wind is rediculous. $60 dollars per KWh. .This idiot is bonkers. Really pushing the sense is proving the impossibility
can renewable energy infrastructure be manufactured with renewable energy?
Yes. It's called bootstrapping. China's already at the point where its entire renewable sector could be powered by its renewable sector; several countries are already essentially 100% fossil free, to boot.
@@bartroberts1514'could be' do you mean technically possible? How can we use renewables for mining and manufacturing? I haven't seen any evidence of any renewable tech being made only with renewable electricity.
@@EmmaSolomano Do you do a lot of work in the manufacturing sector in countries with renewable electricity?
You do know Canada's electricity grid is over 80% fossil free (and always has been), and the laggard parts of that grid aren't in especially manufacturing-heavy regions. And China? Chinese renewable growth is a phenomenon the world has never seen the like of before; by 2028 at present rates, they'll be able to switch entirely from fossil and not miss a beat. Will they switch? Jevon's paradox predicts not, but no one can anticipate China's leaders, so ask them.
The heaviest users of fossil are fossil producing areas, in general. It's fossil that has a hard time without fossil. Paradoxically, about 5% of Canada's renewable electricity is diverted to refineries, pumps and pipelines, too.
Granted, remote mining operations are the hard end for renewable power so far, but it's far cheaper to put up solar panels in a remote site than fly in fuel by helicopter every month, for instance, and it's getting very easy to do geothermal in remote locations co-located with mines.
No!
I too have minor disagreement with Jacobson's approach, in particular with hydrogen over urea. I think Seba's analyses are likely closer.
But combining the best of Seba, Jacobson, and Project Drawdown with downregulation of fossil trade, we can certainly get 100% fossil free by 2030, and be better off for it economically.
what industries, other than the military industrial complex, depend on fossil fuels for energy? can the manufacturing industry adopt 100% renewables?
According to Industrial Ecology, not only can all industries be 100% circular (renewable), but also Donut Economics shows that to be more profitable.
And these days, with asymmetric UAV warfare, fossil is a liability. Who depends on heavy fossil, loses.
"short of you being a tzar of the world...." lol.
renewable energy without renewable materials is not "Clean"
Also, we are too short on time to accomplish such an overhaul of infrastructure. That problem alone relegates these solutions to the wunderwaffe bin if ya ask me.
Ugg, this guy does not get it. He does not seem to understand that the more complex the technology, the more extensive the footprint.
Do you have the least idea of just how complex fossil technology is, compared to wind, water (geothermal), or solar?
Hint: a good EV has twenty times fewer moving parts than an average ICE.
@@bartroberts1514 But they weigh a third more. They eat tires and infrastructure too. And renters and folks with on-street parking are out of luck for charging em. I'm all in for this technology, but it isn't ready just yet, and that is problematic, cause time isn't on our side.
@@toadvine9264 You're repeating outdated myths. Head over to AFDC's vehicle comparison app and you'll be able to do like-for-like comparisons of EVs by cost (universally cheaper than ICEs over their lifespan now, for anyone but Sunday drivers).
Are you a renter? Do you park on a street? Sounds like a problem of dealing with landlords and urban planning, easily solved.
Regenerative braking protects tires from wear, and only when inappropriate tires are selected for vehicles is wear substantially higher.
Geopolymer road surfacing is far more durable than asphalt, more appropriate to vehicle weights (or are you arguing that EVs weigh more than transport trucks?), and net carbon negative, while being more economical.
And while it's true like-for-like EVs are 18%-28% heavier than comparable ICEs, no EV needs a fuel truck to deliver a tank load to a gas station, doing fifty times the damage to the road of the EV.
@@toadvine9264 A BMW 3-series (M340i) weighs 3849 lbs curb weight. A Tesla Model 3 (standard range) weighs 3862 lbs. (0.3% more) while the long range weighs 4034 lbs (4.8% more). So, no, EVs don't weigh 33% more than equivalent ICE cars and as battery density keeps improving, they will eventually weigh less than equivalent ICE cars.
@@climatechat Thanks for the rejoinder. I'm not a car guy by any stretch, but that's the turbo charged 6 cylinder, right? A Toyota corolla (with the smaller engine) weighs a third less than the standard range Tesla. And there are a ton corollas out there. Anywho, I'm a fan of Just Have A Think, and we'll see how this battery tech pans out. If the weight and range deficiencies can be overcome in the next few years, it will be interesting.