Everything we do involves gaseous exchanges with the atmosphere. We aren't going to bring about an end to gaseous exchanges by replacing air breathing vehicles with non-air breathing vehicles.
What we should be doing is researching and designing more sustainable air breathing machines instead of willy nilly declaring such approaches off limits because their pedigree was not so clean. I don't think we should abandon nascent technologies like hydrogen and synthetic fuels just because they aren't currently cost effective. I mean if that were true then solar cells should have been abandoned decades ago. Harry On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I don't mean to sound pedantic but the term "chemically fueled" could >> apply to just about any vehicle except one powered by nuclear power. >> > > I don't mean to sound pedantic, but all cars are nuclear powered. Fossil > fuel cars are powered by the sun's fusion millions of years ago; wind, > solar or hydroelectric cars are powered by the sun hours or months ago. > > I think it was clear I meant powered directly by chemical reactions. > > > For example vehicles which use batteries or fuel cells both rely on >> chemical reactions to generate electricity. >> > > Well, they rely on chemical fuel 60% during the day. See: > > https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php# > > Most electric vehicles are recharged overnight, so they are mainly nuclear > or wind powered. In large parts of Texas they are entirely recharged by > wind, for free. (The power companies offer free electricity at night, plus > they have a base monthly charge.) > > > >> What seems to be happening with the push for battery driven electric >> vehicles is nothing less than a comprehensive suspicion, disgust and >> possible hatred of all air breathing vehicles. >> > > People hate air breathing vehicles for good reasons. Mainly: > > They are four times less energy efficient. > > The vehicles themselves are much more complicated and difficult to > maintain. When the technology matures, electric vehicles will be cheaper > over the life of the vehicle. > > Even for electric power generation, fossil fuel is more expensive than > wind or solar, and it causes many more problems including: damage from > fracking and coal mining; damage from ash; particulate pollution; global > warming; enriching our enemies such as Putin. > > Nearly all new generating capacity is renewable, because that is almost > the cheapest. Aeroderivative natural gas is the cheapest at $1,294 base > overnight cost, but solar PV is $1,327. A slight increase in natural gas > costs, or a slight decrease in PV costs will make solar the cheapest. The > cost of solar and wind are more stable and predictable than natural gas. > The cost of sunlight will not increase, whereas natural gas costs have > increased thanks to Putin. Coal and fission cannot begin to compete. Solar > thermal cannot compete. It is probably one of history's might-have-beens. > > See Table 1: > > https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf > >
