Tesla Model S

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

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.

I'm not sure how one can compare a chemical reaction with the behavior of people.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I'm not sure how one can compare a chemical reaction with the behavior of people.

You just read how

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You just read how

People don't behave like a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions under the same conditions are repeatable. People's behavior is often irrational, random. Society won't reach equilibrium.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

People don't behave like a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions under the same conditions are repeatable. People's behavior is often irrational, random. Society won't reach equilibrium.

Clearly the analogy was completely missed by you. I’ll rephrase:

We have relied on the gasoline ICE for a primary form of transportation for over hundred years. During that time, the industry has continued to improve on the efficiency of the ICE, as well as, the efficiency of developing ICEs.

Switching to EVs means switching to a system of primary transportation that is in its infancy, which means the total life emissions can potentially be higher than with an ICE. The now classic example was how a hybrid Prius was once said to have a worse lifetime carbon emissions than a Jeep because of the inefficiencies in sourcing battery components from around the world. Likewise, early BEVs may have been less green than many ICEs because of this same manufacturing inefficiency and because they ultimately relied on carbon sources like coal for electricity.

We have finally reached a point now with battery production where a BEV has less total life carbon emissions than ICEs, and it is only getting better. This trend follows the trend of energy states in an exothermic chemical reaction. The move in a chemical reaction from one state (a society of ICEs) of higher and more unstable energy (high carbon and low sustainability) to another state (a society of BEVs) where the energy is lower and more stable (lower carbon and high sustainability) may require a transition period where the energy state is higher and less stable (shifting economy with greater carbon emissions and less sustainable practices), but this transitional state is necessary in order to get us to a better energy state (lowest carbon emissions and most sustainable).

I think it is a pretty simple analogy if you understand the basics of chemical reactions and understand the key aspects and arguments in transitioning from ICEs and from an energy grid that is heavily dependent on burning fossil fuels to a future with BEVs that run off renewables.

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

People don't behave like a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions under the same conditions are repeatable. People's behavior is often irrational, random. Society won't reach equilibrium.

Plot twist, people's behaviors are the results of a chemical reaction.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

Plot twist, people's behaviors are the results of a chemical reaction.

lol
Do people's chemical reactions have free will?

[Brz-123]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

lol
Do people's chemical reactions have free will?

Lol. All a game of hormonal chemicals. Totally free. Predictably unpredictable or vice versa

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk