Unless those problems are addressed and fixed, maybe.
Everyone seems to think that âalternative energyâ is pristine and harmless, but itâs not. Wind turbines are bird-blenders that kill by the tens of thousands per year (addendum: each), and change wind patterns (and thus weather downstream). Geothermal sucks heat out from underneath and leads to contraction, causing (for now, small) earthquakes. Water power disrupts marine life, sometimes catastrophically. Solar uses noxious chemicals (and lots of energy) to produce the cells, and changes local weather and habitat (shading, heating, etc.). I wonât even get into solar-towers that instantly fry birds in midair if they happen to fly into any of the beams.
So wherever it comes from, electricity has its environmental costs, but itâs just trading one set of problems for another.
Hereâs a bonus, though. All those âclean airâ laws? Theyâre working! No more pea-soup fog in London, smog is dramatically clearing worldwide (except China and anywhere downstream), and the air is lots cleaner overall. The drawback, though, is what happens when you clean dirty windows that are covered with caked-on pollen, dirt, etc. It lets in lots more sunlight. You can see that beforeânâafter in your living-room, or just cleaning dirty headlights on your car. So sure, all that extra sunlight reaches the ground and⌠omgwtf⌠heats up the ground and oceans, raising temperatures! I can personally feel the difference on even cool days, being in shade and then in sunlight. I feel like an ant under a magnifying glass.
Frankly, the best solution would be nuclear, but not the old traditional way that leaves tons of radioactive ash, but IFRs (integral fast reactors) that can wring out most of the stored energy leaving almost low-level waste that doesnât need excruciatingly hazardous handling and storage afterwards. In fact, IFRs can burn as fuel whatâs now being dumped as waste. Ah, but thatâs not âgreenâ⌠:confounded:
For a forum populated with people who dive into the details on cells on a regular basis, pretty amazed at the astonishing amount of incorrect information in this thread
Itâs not even worth de-bunking whatâs been said in the first few posts as for people to be here in 2019 and still believing some of this tired old crap shows either:
A total unwillingness to accept something new even in the face of overwhelming evidence
Stupidity to the level that cannot be argued with.
Yeah, my bad, I misremembered an article about birds in some migratory path going through those bird-blenders. People in the area were scooping up small piles of dead birds each day (>10k/yr), but that was one wind-farm. Overall, numbers vary (Audobon, USAToday, etc.), but itâs still a fractional-million per year.
Solar is great if itâs used on roofs, carports, other dead-space, but not so great on âsolar farmsâ, where acres of greenery (which sucks in that bad olâ CO2) is plow- or paved over to install them.
In relation to electric cars, Iâd love to see a Tesla Model 3 with a 100kWh battery pack.
Due to being slightly more energy dense than the 18650 Tesla S 100kWh battery pack, and being quite a bit more efficient, Iâd be willing to bet we could get even closer to 450 miles.
I just looked up the conversion efficiency of chlorophyll (you can tell this is BLF) and got:
from Wikipedia:
Commercial solar cells routinely achieve 20% these days, so the solar panels could actually be better for the environment than the plants they displace, as long as the power they produce is displacing power from sources that emit carbon dioxide.
I do agree that itâs better to put solar panels on dead spaces like rooftops, though - thatâs a win-win for power and plant life.
Much of the money, time and effort going into solar, wind, etc. power recently should have been put into nuclear fission 30 years ago. Unfortunately there was a concerted misinformation campaign and extensive lobbying to kill it. Current nuclear tech is leagues beyond what was available for most of the 20th century but now its been made too expensive to really switch in that direction in the US.
There is a reason most of Europe and China have already made a significant switch toward it, its the only power source remotely close to be able replacing our dependence on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Other renewable sources are a great supplement but they will NEVER achieve what the world needs on their own, even if tech advances in rapid leaps and bounds.
There have been too many highly publicized nuclear incidents for people to feel comfortable with fizzy power in their local neighborhood.
Maybe iffn it were Way Far Away they might get more comfortableâŚ.after awhile.
Why did we throw money into fossil fuels when we couldâve developed better batteries, better storage methods, much more efficient vehicles, a better VHV infrastructure(750-1000kV), distributed country power generation, etc.
GREED and PROFIT, same as it always has been.
Less than 20 Families make money on everything on this Earth, they make money regardless of economy.
You may think you have a choice and a vote that matters, but in the end you donât.
Sad but true.
And the coverage of those events was completely propagandized, without any analysis of why or how they really happened. Any plant built now would be exponentially more safe than Fukushima, unless a bunch of people completely forgot about natural factors such as earthquakes and tsunamis again.
Fossil fuel power plants are statistically much more dangerous, and release more radiation. Seriously.
There was fair analysis, but how many people were presented with it, or had the resources to find it?
Think of it this way, if you asked people on the street how dangerous âecig batteriesâ are - AKA the ones nearly all of us use in our flashlights - what do you think the average response would be after seeing nothing but reports of âMan Blows Jaw Offâ in the news?
You mean lithium ion I hope? Lithium-ion IMO, is a safer technology than gasoline powered cars.
Too expensive⌠for now. Iâd rather pay more for a car than contributing to higher levels of pollution and stupidity(literally!).
There are level 2 chargers, and level 3 chargers. Iâve managed to convince my old apartment owner to install 1x Level 3 charger and many level 2 chargers, since the electric service was already very capable and absolute overkill.
Iâm going to call this different solutions for different jobs and people. Large cities, go small electric for size and pollution. Rural, itâs still liquid fuel for now. In between, well thatâs up to you. Electric is getting the research and if my roof can charge my car great. Now the other tech weâre looking at is OnStar and other similar products. With OnStar we can stop your car, tell how many are in it with the seat belt sensors. How fast, what direction and listen to your conversation. If itâs synced with the phones then that data came be combed through to give an idea of who is in the car. High speed chases might not be an option for runners for much longer. No plates no problem a future ping to the car will give itâs data. Currently the state of Texas is ironing out the legal agreements with the providers as are other states, many already have those agreements. Wire tapping warrants are near impossible with cell phones as they are often changed out with drug dealers. A warrant written to include car syncing allows us to keep track of those new phones. Often from first call up to when itâs tossed out the window. But that right now is more on a Federal level. Another bit of new tech, if you have a warrant and start your car it will inform us of it and your location. When a warrant is entered these days your name, aliases, address, description, picture, finger prints, vehicles owned along with a bit more are entered.