Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
You mean like all the time?
|
In a chemical reaction, the transition from one state of equilibrium to another state of equilibrium requires a period where there is less stability and more energy in the system. Some chemical reactions would take years to happen without a catalyst or without an input of energy to meet the activation energy needed for a reaction to occur.
Likewise, moving from a system where we are dependent on fossil fuels to one where we are living sustainably requires a catalyst, so the change happens quicker. That catalyst comes from private and public investment along with private and government regulations.
During this transition, energy use or carbon production could actually increase. For instance, I do agree that there was a time when a Prius may have been less green than a Jeep because of global inefficiencies in battery production. This is not the case any longer for electric vehicles. I do agree that BEVs didn’t make sense at one point because the cost per MWh for green energy was much more expensive than coal, but now that is not the case, and wind and solar are cheaper than coal. Moreover, BEVs weren’t greener if we were just exchanging burning oil in an ICE with burning coal to make electricity, but now that has changed. Even in states where coal is the primary means of energy production, BEVs are greener over their entire lifecycle, and this should just get better.
We haven’t reached equilibrium yet. There are still inefficiencies, but we are on the path to a better energy state—an equilibrium point that is more stable and desirable. I think it is easy to get distracted by individuals who point out the flaws in the current state of the system or in the energy input required to get from one state of equilibrium to another. Inherently, the instability of the transition is uncomfortable and triggers anxiety, concerns, frustration, anger, etc, but these individuals can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel, nor can they imagine the vision of that more stable future. They only see the current energy state of the system, and they don’t understand that it requires more input to get to a lower energy state. From their perspective, if the transition isn’t a straight path down to a lower, better, energy state then it doesn’t make sense to change. This is asinine.
[IMG]https://labster-image-manager.s3.amazonaws.com/e0c59f5f-e0b4-4c5d-8995-c2614ad3a***/ENK_ActivationEnergy.en.x512.png[/IMG]