I do get a chuckle when Tesla sales are something like 11,XXX in a Q and the pumpers start screaming about "record sales" ;)
One thing that I am happy about is that I should be here long enough to see the "500,000 unit in (or was it by?) 2020" go poof even to the most strident pumpers. Of course EM will tweet "Did I say 2020? I meant 2025"...
Yes, using less fossil fuel is of value to me and civilization. Why do you want to needlessly waste fossil fuel?
Where do you think solar panels come from -- do they grow on trees? It's all about cost -- things that cost more use more fossil fuel,
Burning even more oil to artificially prop up more costly so-called "green" or "renewable" energy sources has even less benefit than burning the oil more directly.
You are living in hope-and-change fantasyland. There is no such thing as "alternate energy". Because they cost more, "alternate energy" methods are all just more inefficient ways to use fossil fuel (so they waste net fossil fuel).
"There is no way that the production of a BEV and solar array uses more energy than it takes to produce an ICE car, and fuel it for it's lifetime."
To quote another idiot like you's response: "prove it!"
If BEVs actually saved net energy and net cost, they would already be widely used in China and India. Oh right, those evil Koch brothers must have them hypnotized into behaving crazy ;)
Won't disagree with you, that since there is no free H2 on Earth to easily gather, it makes little sense to use it as an energy source, but the same is true of BEVs. EVs and batteries don't grow on trees so the process of taking fossil fuel, converting it into EV and batteries, and then using it as (a more inefficient) substitute for fossil fuel is also insane. BEVs just shift (and increase) fossil fuel use to a different part of the total life cycle process.
The proof is self-evident. When something is truly more efficient, it costs less, and our civilization adopts it going forward without the need for gov't mandate/redistribution of wealth. It's all about true total lifetime cost -- when something costs less, it uses less fossil fuel -- period. Tesla use a huge amount of fossil fuel because they are expensive - to think otherwise is to just be in denial about where $s come from in our civilization.
Really? It's actually photons that come from the sky, not electrons -- perhaps you need the same physics class? Burning fossil fuel to make, operate, and maintain solar panels (or solar thermal) is presently more inefficient than just burning the fossil fuel directly. If that ever changes, the cost will be lower and we will switch over to that -- but presently we are just wasting fossil fuel to support the religion of solar (and wind) power.
Should we be funding a few smart people to try to accomplish the probably-impossible task to find technologies that actually cost less, and therefore, use less net fossil fuel overall = ABSOLUTELY!
However, trying to force the widespread use of a more overall inefficient technology isn't an "investment" -- it's just forcing others to waste even more net fossil fuel while the $ proceeds are given to crony-crapitalists and their politicians.
Total $s is meaningless. The correct thing to rate is (total tax $s paid to US gov't) - (total tax $s recevied from US gov't).
Why do you have to resort to profanity? All of the process that you describe also go on for creating PV solar -- we just inject the additional steps of converting some of the fossil fuel into $s to support more overall inefficient PV. It's a net fossil fuel loss overall -- are you incapable of understanding that?
It is "dirtier" -- because it costs more. You are just in denial that we oxidize (even more) fossil fuel in other parts of the overall PV process.
And when are you going to stop using fossil fuel? Professional Soldier supporting rational civilization is a legitimate profession.
pwdy -- Solar panels, batteries, and electric cars don't grow naturally on trees. Presently, they are wholly based on oxidizing fossil fuel, and actually waste net fossil fuel over their complete lifetime (because the total lifecycle cost is higher -- their being less convenient is also an additional negative). If these "faux-alternatives" ever use less net fossil overall, they will be readily adopted, but even then, civilization will still be using huge amounts of fossil fuel -- so, yes, I support keeping fossil fuel available to civilization by using troops, if necessary.
pwdy - It's all about (unsubsidized) cost. Things that cost more use more fossil fuel. They just shift (and increase) the fossil fuel use to a different part of the overall process.
On a side note, distributed systems always cost more than centralized systems. If solar or wind ever does cost less (and I'm not holding my breath for that to occur), we should be implementing them in a centralized fashion -- everyone owning their own small personal "powerplant" is idiotic.
WRONG! -- When the price of fossil fuel goes up, the costs to produce and operate a Tesla go up. When the price of fossil fuel goes down, the costs to produce and operate a Tesla go down.