EV's, Reliable Power, et al

[Herman]

Old Musk was wrong as her could be about this. This is from Alex Epstein.



Refuting the myth that just a small area of solar panels plus storage can power the world

Storing just 3 days of global energy would cost $590 trillion at Elon Musk's current prices. And the panels would take up more space than all the world's cities, towns, and villages combined.

 

Several weeks ago, a common and destructive myth—that just a small area of solar panels can power the world—went viral on Twitter with help from Elon Musk (who has repeatedly promoted this myth). I decided to demolish it once and for all. My own Twitter thread on this issue so far has well over a million views, and Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams (both of whom are regularly engaged by Musk) have publicly encouraged Musk and others to respond. If you're on Twitter I hope you encourage @elonmusk to respond, too.



Myth: Just a small area of solar panels plus storage can power the world.



Truth: Storing just 3 days of global energy would cost $590 trillion at Elon Musk's current prices. And the panels would take up more space than all the world's cities, towns, and villages combined.¹





We often hear just a small area of solar panels plus storage batteries can power the world.



"Such an obvious move" says Elon Musk about this idea, adding "Even solar plus batteries on a small section of Spain would solve EU energy needs."



This is dangerously false.



Musk says that "to power the whole Earth" we need just solar panels and "some batteries."



What is "some batteries"?



To store a mere 3 days of world energy, to be prepared for weeks (let alone seasons) with lower-than-usual sunlight, takes >1,350 terawatt-hours in batteries.²



The world uses over 165k TWh of energy annually, or ~1.36 billion MWh in 3 days. 1000 Tesla Megapacks (3916 MWh of storage) have a price over >$1.7 billion. This would mean 3 days of storage using Tesla batteries would cost >$590 trillion. That's 6X world GDP!³





For those who think $590 trillion in batteries will somehow soon become cheap due to economies of scale, consider this: Tesla Megapack prices have been increasing, not rapidly decreasing, lately.



And efforts to scale batteries on an artificial timetable drive up prices.⁴





The focus by Elon Musk and others on the space taken up by solar panels and batteries dodges the real issue: cost-effectiveness.



Due to stratospheric battery storage costs, no amount of solar panels can cost-effectively power the world.



Arguing that solar panels and batteries can provide energy to 8 billion people using modest space is like arguing that Rolls-Royces can transport 8 billion people using modest space.



Yes, there's space for 8 billion Rolls-Royces—but the human time it would take to produce them is cost-prohibitive.



Another reason the world can't be powered by solar panels and batteries: these only provide electricity—currently 1/5 of the world's energy. Electricity can't power many uses of energy (flight, cargo ships) and is very costly for others (many forms of industrial process heat).



The main lie of "Just a small area of solar panels can power the world" is that it ignores the insane cost of the necessary batteries.



But it also drastically underestimates how much space solar panels require.



For example, this viral Twitter post underestimates the area by some 25 times.⁵





The world uses >165,000 TWh of energy per year, which requires ~19 billion kW of power output on average. An optimistic, real-world power density for solar projects is 10 W/m^2. To power the world, you'd need ~1.8 million km^2 of solar PV projects—about the size of Libya.⁶





If 1.8 million square km of solar panels doesn't seem like much, note that it is more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined (~1.5 million sq km).



And this excludes the huge footprints of solar and battery mining, manufacturing, and transmission.⁷



Summary: While we are told that the world can be powered by a small area of solar panels and batteries, the storage costs involved are impossibly high (hundreds of $trillions) and the panels involved would take up more area than all the world's cities, towns, and villages combined.



The idea that the world can be powered by a small area of solar panels and batteries has been a major cause of today's global energy crisis.



The world artificially restricted fossil fuel supply because smart people like Elon Musk told us we could use solar and batteries instead.



Elon Musk has dramatically improved his energy rhetoric over the last year, acknowledging the need for oil and gas and walking back his past climate catastrophism. But he and others need to stop spreading the deadly idea that solar and batteries can power the world.⁸

[Frood]

What Epstein has also rightly pointed out is that the surface area required to power the world with PV and batteries would ecologically murder the planet through reduced photosynthesis, broadened heatsinks, and mass extinctions.



I love solar as a small or short term fix... but it's crap for anything besides subsisting.

[Herman]

That stunned cunt Jane Fonda says racism is respomsible for climate change. Four fifths of new emissions are in the developing world and India and China do not give two shits about your woke political bullshit.



Here is some of the idipcy that came out of her rich, prog piehole.



"Where would they put the s—? Where would they put the poison and the pollution?



"They're not gonna put it in Bel Air. They've got to find some place where poor people or indigenous people or people of color are living," continued Fonda, herself worth an estimated $200 million after a six-decade career in entertainment. "Put it there. They can't fight back. And that's why a big part of the climate movement now has to do with climate justice."



If she had half a frickin brain she would know that solar panels and electric car batteries are turning developing countries into toxic shitpits so cunts like her can buy the newest and best electric cars. She is the real enviro racist.

[Herman]

[Anonymous]

That stunned cunt Jane Fonda says racism is respomsible for climate change. Four fifths of new emissions are in the developing world and India and China do not give two shits about your woke political bullshit.



Here is some of the idipcy that came out of her rich, prog piehole.



"Where would they put the s—? Where would they put the poison and the pollution?



"They're not gonna put it in Bel Air. They've got to find some place where poor people or indigenous people or people of color are living," continued Fonda, herself worth an estimated $200 million after a six-decade career in entertainment. "Put it there. They can't fight back. And that's why a big part of the climate movement now has to do with climate justice."



If she had half a frickin brain she would know that solar panels and electric car batteries are turning developing countries into toxic shitpits so cunts like her can buy the newest and best electric cars. She is the real enviro racist.

Errr, reading what you quoted it rather seems as though she does and is taking pot shots at the faux environmental activists for NIMBYism and claiming that EVs are clean, leaving other races (and I would argue classes) to deal with the pollution they create.



Which is pretty much bang on the money as you and I well know. Not sure why you're slamming her for articulating it.

[DKG]

That stunned cunt Jane Fonda says racism is respomsible for climate change. Four fifths of new emissions are in the developing world and India and China do not give two shits about your woke political bullshit.



Here is some of the idipcy that came out of her rich, prog piehole.



"Where would they put the s—? Where would they put the poison and the pollution?



"They're not gonna put it in Bel Air. They've got to find some place where poor people or indigenous people or people of color are living," continued Fonda, herself worth an estimated $200 million after a six-decade career in entertainment. "Put it there. They can't fight back. And that's why a big part of the climate movement now has to do with climate justice."



If she had half a frickin brain she would know that solar panels and electric car batteries are turning developing countries into toxic shitpits so cunts like her can buy the newest and best electric cars. She is the real enviro racist.

Errr, reading what you quoted it rather seems as though she does and is taking pot shots at the faux environmental activists for NIMBYism and claiming that EVs are clean, leaving other races (and I would argue classes) to deal with the pollution they create.



Which is pretty much bang on the money as you and I well know. Not sure why you're slamming her for articulating it.

I could be wrong, but I thought JF was all for ev's and solar panels as long as the rare earth mines and the people of colour who work in them are no where near any of her mansions.

[Anonymous]

Errr, reading what you quoted it rather seems as though she does and is taking pot shots at the faux environmental activists for NIMBYism and claiming that EVs are clean, leaving other races (and I would argue classes) to deal with the pollution they create.



Which is pretty much bang on the money as you and I well know. Not sure why you're slamming her for articulating it.

I could be wrong, but I thought JF was all for ev's and solar panels as long as the rare earth mines and the people of colour who work in them are no where near any of her mansions.

Yeah, see had that been the case then I could understand Old Herman giving her a serve. Hell, I'd do it. EVs are less efficient than internal combustion engines and the pollution associated with their construction and operation way more damaging - but "out of sight is out of mind" for these enviro-nazis - it's all rainbows and unicorn farts as far as they are concerned.



What Herman quoted of her demonstrates (to me at least) is that she understands the pollution will not be expressed where the virtue signaling eco-fascists get to deal with it, but in poorer and underprivileged areas. I'd argue that makes it classist as well as racist.

[Thiel]

Jane Fonda is an entertainer. Her "Fire Drill Fridays" protests in Washington are merely another performance.

[DKG]

The Biden administration's tax credits for electric vehicles (EV) could end up costing taxpayers four times more than earlier estimates, with multiple manufacturers set to collect billions in such credits over upcoming years.



Among the many tax rebates in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed last year, one is specifically aimed at electric battery manufacturing. For each kilowatt-hour of U.S.-manufactured cell, a company will get tax credits worth $35. This is expected to cut down battery production costs in the country by a third.



An estimate made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in August last year foresaw tax revenues lost from these tax credits amounting to $30.6 billion over a period of 10 years, with the figure including credits for solar and wind manufacturing as well.



A new estimate by London-based Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a specialist information provider for lithium-ion batteries in the EV supply chain, puts the total cost of battery rebates at $136 billion over 10 years, according to Axios. This would be four times the CBO's estimated revenue loss for the government.



"President Biden has a goal to get 50 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States to be electric by 2030. To reach that goal, the administration wants to invest in EV infrastructure and does not mind making taxpayers, who are already suffering from high inflation, fund lucrative tax credits," said a Feb. 6 post by the Institute for Energy Research.



"Through these subsidies, the government is picking winners and losers, and history has shown that the government usually fails when it interferes with the market."



GM is expecting its credits to net $300 million this year. Ford estimates over $7 billion in credits during the three-year period between 2023 and 2026, after which the company expects the credits to grow.



The EV tax credits of up to $7,500 will be offered to U.S. citizens who buy certain electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids.



According to regulations, at least 40 percent of the critical minerals used in the battery must be (a) from North America, or (b) from a country that has a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, or (c) recycled in North America. This number is set to go up to 80 percent in 2027. The critical minerals cannot come from a "foreign entity of concern."



In addition, roughly 50 percent of the battery parts must be assembled in the United States or with a country that has an FTA with America. This number will jump to 100 percent in 2029.



But despite the Biden administration's push to promote EVs, they still remain too expensive for many people. One survey found that 85 percent of drivers in the United States could not afford an electric vehicle.



A survey published by Rasmussen Reports in August found that only 28 percent of American drivers saw electric cars as "practical for most drivers," with 54 percent saying that these vehicles aren't practical.



https://www.theepochtimes.com/american-taxpayers-will-fund-lucrative-tax-credits-worth-136-billion-for-bidens-electric-car-agenda_5044368.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe-nonai&src_src=morningbriefnoe-nonai&utm_campaign=mb-2023-02-09-nonai&src_cmp=mb-2023-02-09-nonai&utm_medium=email&est=5l9Juc6PNXEEcgPdIy7jJEvyw%2BQAjDFTqAgjWGlRbdfhcDQ4yqW13%2FAF68McafaGOQ%3D%3D">https://www.theepochtimes.com/american- ... aGOQ%3D%3D">https://www.theepochtimes.com/american-taxpayers-will-fund-lucrative-tax-credits-worth-136-billion-for-bidens-electric-car-agenda_5044368.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe-nonai&src_src=morningbriefnoe-nonai&utm_campaign=mb-2023-02-09-nonai&src_cmp=mb-2023-02-09-nonai&utm_medium=email&est=5l9Juc6PNXEEcgPdIy7jJEvyw%2BQAjDFTqAgjWGlRbdfhcDQ4yqW13%2FAF68McafaGOQ%3D%3D



Wind, solar and electric cars receive more government largesse without accountability than any other industry.

[Herman]

This is from my buddy Alex Epstein.



I can summarize the economic portion of Biden's State of the Union speech in one word: evasion.



President Biden is evading responsibility for the consequences of the anti-freedom, anti-development, anti-fossil-fuel policies he has supported.



Things won't get better until he's held accountable.



In the economic portion of his State of the Union speech, Joe Biden focused on 3 problems: 1) the decline of US industry and infrastructure, 2) the global energy crisis, and 3) the supply chain crisis.



While Biden portrayed himself as the solution to all 3 problems, he is in fact a major cause.¹



1: Biden's role in the decline of US industry and infrastructure



Why have US industry and infrastructure declined?



Because industry and infrastructure require development—and we have, with Biden's support, been passing anti-development environmental policies for 50+ years.



The root solution to our industry and manufacturing problems is to liberate responsible development. By totally failing to do this, Biden's "buy American" policies will just subsidize inefficient operations and increase our cost of living even more.



In his State of the Union speech, Joe Biden asked "Where is it written that America can't lead the world in manufacturing again?"



The answer: It is written in the endless anti-development industrial regulations that Biden is only adding to.²



2: Biden's role in the global energy crisis



In his State of the Union speech Joe Biden portrayed the global energy crisis as a problem that he is solving. In fact, it's a problem he has helped cause with anti-fossil-fuel policies—and is making worse with new anti-fossil-fuel policies.



Biden's sole explanation for the global energy crisis was "Putin's war." But the root cause is global anti-fossil-fuel policies, supported by Biden—which made fossil fuel prices artificially high pre-war and prevented the free world from quickly increasing production in response.



As I have documented extensively, had Biden and other Democrats spent the last 3.5 years (including the 2 of the Biden admin) liberating US oil and gas investment, production, and transport instead of strangling them, energy would be far cheaper.

[Anonymous]

More or less bang on the money, but try convincing someone like Biden that.  There seems to be an overarching conceit in these turds that because they were so successful at enriching themselves, they either have all the answers that elude us mere mortals... or they simply see us as a resource to be exploited and bled beyond the point of dry. Either way, the logical upshot is the same.



And I put it to you that he is also the cause (in part) of Putin's war too. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has wanted to negotiate an end to hostilities on a number of occasions, prepared to cede territory and offer assurances Ukraine will not join NATO in return for Ukraine being able to maintain its own armed forces. A more than reasonable offer and one which Vladimir Putin has indicated he is down with.



But the Biden administration is not having a bar of it and while they aren't alone in promoting the continuance of this war, aggressive colonialist expansion in the region (which arguably dates back as far as Senator Obama's meddling, if not before) assures us that this war is set to be waged for a long time yet. Think Afghanistan and you'll be in the ballpark.



So yes, Biden represents interests that are at odds with the peoples of the world. He is a steward of the US presidency though, almost as much a pawn as Zelenskyy is because neither of those two chickenshits have the guts to tell their masters to fuck off while they get down to the business of securing their peoples futures. If you were to remove either or both of them from the equation tomorrow, freshly minted puppets would simply be installed to their positions... to pick up where they left off.

[Thiel]

I saw a video about hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles. They are not a serious alternative to gasoline powered cars either.

[DKG]

European Parliament has formally approved a law that will effectively end the sale of gas- and diesel-powered vehicles in the European Union by 2035, calling for a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions for any new cars sold, according to Reuters.



The 27-nation union agreed to the changes in October 2022, but has now formalized the deal, which enforces a 55% reduction in emissions for vehicles by 2030. Levels for CO2 for 2021 were set at a target of 37.5%.



Vans will get a slight advantage in the market, requiring a a 50% cut by 2030, compared with 2021 levels.



Just a few months before the announcement in May 2022, car makers such as Ford and Volvo even signed a joint letter with 26 other companies asking the European Union to implement such a plan.



A Bulgarian official had said that the EU needed to reconsider the economic costs of switching to electric and the effect that would have on poorer nations in the union.

[Herman]

If geothermal managed to become ultra-cost-effective at some point, it would surely attract opposition from our anti-energy knowledge system due to the inevitably large impact on nature it would have. For example, advanced geothermal, like much oil and gas drilling, makes use of fracking in order to crack rocks and release heat. Does anyone believe that Greenpeace and the Sierra Club wouldn't come after geothermal fracking if it were widespread? Is there any chance that anti-impact hostility won't increase if deep geothermal projects are known to be drilling over ten thousand feet below the surface of the earth?

[Odinson]

That hysterical, fearmongering climate gathering that happened recently.





You´d think that if they really believed what they preached, they would stop using private jets, superyachts and chartered flights.



A video phonecall would suffice.