EV vehicles are not all that if we’re trying to reduce our carbon footprint en masse by 2030. A lightweight vehicle takes ten years to recoup its losses. Trucks are much worse. If you want to electrify transport in America, you need to double the grid size, which would be challenging. What we’ve done in the last 150 years — double that in seven.
That doesn’t make it impossible for the right amount of money, but if you want to do it by 2030, here’s what makes EV vehicles impossible as a final solution.
You need three times the amount of copper, four times the amount of chromium, four times as much aluminum, ten times as much nickel, and eighteen times as much graphite. Never in human history have we ever doubled our production of any industrial material in any industrial period – ever.
Now we want to do it for fourteen materials simultaneously! And we’re losing Russian output, the EV solution looks a lot worse.
Russia is the top producer for about half of this stuff, and we’re going to lose the processing capacity in China. So, this cannot happen with today’s technology.
[Someone tell Pete Buttigieg whose busy dealing with racist streets.]
The processing is all done in China with coal so the carbon footprint is not being factored into most people’s carbon assessments.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
It must be done according to a plan which he describes in the clip. The geography must be considered according to the available materials. EVs don’t make the cut.
You must focus on where generation works well and then concentrate on transmission. We don’t even have a fuel disposition plan.
Are people unaware that these renewables, wind and solar, cannot directly power homes and industry. That power has to be stored in “batteries” and thus converted. The amount of batteries necessary is another ecological disaster in itself. Not one has asked about the disposal of all those batteries. If it weren’t for corporate subsidies (which my dad called Welfare) there would be little interest in “renewables”.
The elites know that their electrical fad will not work, and will cause major hardship. That is their plan.
The proponents seem to always consider ‘the benefit‘ of these so-called renewables but never speak about the ecological devastation in the mining and producing of the elements. If one analyzes hydrocarbons from the exploration to production the footprint is minuscule. The exploration footprint is about the size of a suburban house lot. Therefore the entire cycle of hydrocarbons are the most ecologically sound alternative. There is no strip mining or large scale pollution involved.
The one product that fuels the majority of industry, no matter the type, is natural gas, whether food processing or heavy industry. The amount of new natural gas fields has shown there is enough for many generations to come.
A dose of Reality!