[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

I agree that multiple needed technologies do not need to advance in lock-step parallel development, nor is that even usually possible. But my basic point is, why do we want electric cars? What are we trying to achieve? Energy independence? Reduced CO2 emissions? The point is not ICE vs BEV, but what is the best use of limited resources to achieve the desired ends?

Of course achieving both a renewable energy economy and reducing CO2 emissions are the goal (and go hand-in-hand). But resources, meaning money, are always limited. There is only so much to go around. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game. You can't just keep printing money to pay for everything. As a society, we have to choose our priorities.

Consider a couple of hypothetical scenarios: 1) building renewable energy power plants (solar, wind, geothermal); or 2) continuing to build more BEVs but without fundamentally changing the energy grid. My point is that right now, we are primarily engaging in the second scenario - which does not accomplish either reducing reliance on fossil fuels nor reducing CO2 emissions - whereas focusing on the first scenario (investing in renewable energy sources) helps achieve both ends.

Hypothetically, if we were to invest in replacing current fossil fuel (and nuclear) power plants with renewables, CO2 emissions would be reduced. ICE cars would continue to use gasoline, but the total amount of fossil fuels used would decrease and global CO2 emissions would go down. The world continues to use and need electricity, and the more of it that is generated from renewable sources, the better off we will all be.

But, if we continue to build (and in some cases mandate the use of) BEVs without changing the power grid, we achieve little. In the US, 63% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, and burning those fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge BEVs makes about as much sense as towing a gasoline-powered generator behind a car to charge a BEV. It doesn't (except perhaps in some local cases where remote emissions would make sense, having a fossil fuel plant away from a city center).

Yes, battery technology advances, and charging infrastructure is expanded, but as a society we would achieve nothing as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels or reducing CO2 and not killing ourselves and the planet. As others have suggested, some sanctimonious pseudo-green hypocrites might feel smug about driving a Tesla, but today it doesn't really accomplish much.

Regarding nuclear fission and thorium, there are some hurdles. First, cost (the usual). Building a fission plant costs several billion dollars (approximately $6-$10 billion per 1000 mW). If you're going to spend billions of dollars on a power plant, why not make it solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal? Thorium would have been a great alternative to uranium, but it wasn't pursued because there was the desire to make fissionable fuel for atomic bombs. Does it make sense to make the massive investment in thorium now given the renewable alternatives (plus the higher cost of processing thorium fuel)? Second, with conventional uranium fission one is trading CO2 emissions for nuclear waste disposal, which has its own major problems, such as condemning future generations to have to deal with our toxic waste. Lastly, remember Chernobyl? No technology has zero risk, and the downsides with uranium fission are not trivial.

Fusion would be fantastic, but right now is a science fiction utopian ideal. For the past 40 years, fusion has always been '10 years away'. I know someone who has been working on this at Princeton for 30 years, and the whole time it's been '10 years away'. The bottom line is, you can't build a fusion plant today, and probably not in 10 years either.

If unlimited resources (= money) were available then of course why not pursue both BEVs and revamping the energy grid, at whatever pace they each may advance. But that's not the case. The coronavirus crisis is making the choice even more stark. Whether we like it or not, the unpleasant reality is that world economy is going to be significantly negatively impacted for years to come. Between reduced economic output, and the deep debt countries are getting into, resources are going to be even tighter than they have been. The recently approved $2.2 trillion 'stimulus' package is only the beginning. Debts like that must be paid back, and one way or another (increased taxes, inflation, increased economic output) they will be. Digging ourselves out from the coronavirus will and must be repaid before money could be available for new energy initiatives. Even before the coronavirus crisis, there was little appetite for making the massive investments needed for a wholesale revamping of our power grid (some local renewable energy projects notwithstanding). There will certainly be less money available for the foreseeable future.

So my personal opinions are that continuing to push BEVs in the absence of significant revamping of the energy grid towards renewables achieves little, and since money is going to be tight for some time to come, why not focus it on replacing fossil fuel generating capacity with renewable sources?

Individually, people could be buying EVs for all sorts of reasons. I would have to look up the surveys. Some could think they reduced their carbon footprint. Some could think they are contributing to a better tomorrow. Some might like the quiet ride. Some might like the performance. Some might like the cargo capacity. Some might like the tech. Some might like the safety. Some might appreciate not having to worry or do much maintenance. Some might want something that will outlast their ICE. Probably most think it is all those things or many of those things, but I wouldn't presume to believe it is just CO2 emissions that is driving interest. I don't even think it is the main thing.

Elon Musk doesn't believe that electric vehicles will reach mass adoption based on people wanting to reduce emissions. In fact, he specifically says the BEVs need to appeal to all as a better alternative to their current vehicle. Taking a cue from Tesla, Toyota realized that marketing their hybrid technology as a performance enhancement was the way to go, which is why the Rav4 Prime is marketed as the fastest/sportiest version. They could have always done that, but they assumed that hybrid buyers wanted to be eco-conscious or wanted to save money on gas over the life of the vehicle. That is probably what their surveys taught them, but Musk is betting that people will 'vote their conscious', so he is showing the BEVs have the potential to be "just a better car".

With that said, he has also said we need to reduce greenhouse emissions, but you are right, there are other ways to do that. We could kill off half the population or go vegan, as unrealistic examples, and either of those would probably do more than switching to BEVs and switching to renewables combined. It probably isn't going to happen, so what is next? If you watched that video then you realize that what Germany did with renewables actually raised their carbon footprint, so dam, switching our energy grid rapidly to renewables might not work.

The solution isn't easy to see because there isn't a magic bullet that solves this problem, except for fusion.

Until then, the reality is that nuclear fission is our best chance of going green. We can do that by encouraging our government to invest in safer nuclear technologies. I think wind, hydro, solar and batteries are also great, but there are carbon costs there too that need to be considered.

We don't live in a utopian Borg collective where we can just alter our course as we see fit. At least not on a short time scale, so we will have to move in parallel with all these technologies, and unfortunately, things might get worse before they get better. Hopefully, we survive to see a future and don't damage things too much before we get there.