Our Electrifying Future | FT Rethink

[@howlinwaters]

At this time, there are maybe 2,500 or so electric cars in the Texas town I live in. They all have some kind of electric charging unit to energize the onboard batteries. Every year during summer, the electric company sends out notices to everyone to "please conserve electricity" because of the hot summer days and everyone using a/c units. My question is, when there are 10,000 electric cars in town w/their own charging units, how is the electric co-op going to supply the basic needs of the people with all the added electric needs of automobiles? Electric cars do not seem to be the dream-answer to replace gas-engine automobiles. Electric cars are just going to suck more power that's needed for home and office needs.

[@wibbers4578]

Slay Patagonia outfit

[@Yawgmothmel]

Not a single mention of nuclear as a solution for climate change. We all love talking about how cheap " green " energy is, nobody talks about the storage problem. We just need to look at germany, a country that embraced the green revolution, now they are building Coal power plants 😂

[@HexaSquirrel]

As much as society focuses on EV’s and batteries, they won’t actually do anything to reduce the NET emissions. They fundamentally aren’t scalable technologies.

[@grahamcook9289]

You silly witch rodent! You are talking complete and utter crap.

[@grahamcook9289]

Is that guy black or white?

[@dzcav3]

If he wants replace the entire energy infrastructure, I hope he has several trillion dollars laying around that he can spare. He mentions stability of energy supply. Wind and solar are not stable; they are intermittent. This video is about wishful thinking more than reality. If he wants to get rid of gas stoves, I hope he can find chefs who prefer electric. Chefs HATE electric stoves, which is why you don't see them on cooking shows. All of this is based on DEFECTIVE climate models which cannot even accurately model historical climate, much less the future.

[@roaxeskhadil]

_"replace the entire energy infrastructure, I hope he has several trillion dollars laying around that he can spare"_ This argument is absolutely ridiculous. You are assuming the current infrastructure has an unlimited lifespan, which it hasn't. Replacing one end-of-life system with another is a continuous process that every company needs to do. This includes both power stations and transmission lines. Power stations, for example have a planned lifespan of some 30 years. So at comparable costs for "conventional" and "new" energy this change is completely cost neutral. Given that power generation from renewables (including storage capacity) is now cheaper than coal, oil, gas, and nuclear almost everywhere in the world, the replacement is actually a cost saving measure. _"Wind and solar are not stable"_ Nobody claims that. That's what storage and trans-continental transmission lines are for. _"All of this is based on DEFECTIVE climate models"_ And your evidence for that is what blog?

[@dzcav3]

@@roaxeskhadil You said replacement is a continuous process, "This includes both power stations and transmission lines." That is false. Power plants are rarely just abandoned; they are typically upgraded or just have certain portions replaced, with much of the infrastructure remaining intact. Transmission lines are only replaced if they fail or are damaged (other than replacing local wooden poles if they rot). New wind and solar sites require new transmission lines that are almost always protested by people who don't want to live near them. You said, "Given that power generation from renewables (including storage capacity) is now cheaper than coal, oil, gas, and nuclear almost everywhere in the world, the replacement is actually a cost saving measure." But that's NOT a given. Solar and wind are QUOTED as cheaper, given assumed capacity (usage) factors and NO BACKUP. But people want electricity to be available 24/7/365, not dependent on the weather or fudged numbers. In real life, utility solar only outputs 14% of stated capacity over time, not 30% as the EIA claims. This is because utilities mount solar panels on fixed, not pivoting mounts which track the sun (as the EIA assumes). Also not included are backup battery and generation costs for when the sun doesn't shine. (Source: "The Real Cost of Wind and Solar" on the "Wattsupwiththat" website) You also said, "Nobody claims that ["Wind and solar are not stable"]. That's what storage and trans-continental transmission lines are for." But, again you did not include the extra cost for new "storage and trans-continental transmission lines" in your argument about cheaper costs. The evidence for the defective climate models can be found in "The Thought Experiment That First Made Me a Climate Skeptic" on the "Forbes" website.

[@lost_thoughts5416]

​@@dzcav3 are you predicting future based on these websites 😅!

[@dzcav3]

@@lost_thoughts5416 Facts are facts, regardless of feelings, desires, and lies.

[@dzcav3]

@@valleyofiron125 Who says we should give trillions of dollars to the middle east for oil? Not me. Use domestic investment to drill at home, where appropriate, and use other sources of energy, where appropriate. Please name the best European chefs that use induction ranges, and ask them their preference -- gas vs. induction.

[@SaianaKrishnaMehrotra-fr4qt]

first