"Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Topics related to EV businesses
User avatar
Stealth_Chopper   100 W

100 W
Posts: 202
Joined: Aug 30 2019 8:08am

"Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Stealth_Chopper » Aug 31 2022 10:57pm

Elon's Warning { they're calling it }
"Otherwise ( dammit )
Civilization (I enjoy warmth )
Will Crumble"
Hey, Elon's a smart guy
How 'you 'doin?
M

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12447
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hillhater » Sep 01 2022 12:12am

…..because..
You cannot have a functional civilised society without it .!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
spinningmagnets   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12784
Joined: Dec 21 2007 10:27pm
Location: Ft Riley, NE Kansas

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by spinningmagnets » Sep 01 2022 10:57am

The civilian world can easily transition to electric and hybrids. All it costs is money.

The militaries of the world will be the last to give up oil, and they will only do that when the oil is gone.

User avatar
DogDipstick   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1541
Joined: Aug 19 2018 12:39pm
Location: Fleetwood Pa

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by DogDipstick » Sep 01 2022 11:48am

An excerpt from a speech my father wrote recently. This is the current, shared opinion, of alot of the power industry, for I see the discussion come up all the time in the steam boiler groups.

My father is a world renowned engineer, educator, and company owner, ( flies across the world monthly)), licensed to practice, with an operating engineering company, is currently working on fusion in France ( the ITER), Geothermal in Japan ( Mitsubishi ), scrubbers in New York ( Owls head,) and probally designed the reactor that is powering your state; (...and ...wrote the instruction booklet to boot.) . We have certainly been inside a large percentage of power plants in the USA, practicing for half a century as a ASME power engineer.

I do not know where I sit. Personally. I really have none of his experience, nor credentials.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

About forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. (and an even larger fraction in the rest of the world) is from coal-fired plants. It follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, a technical fact that is not well provided to the public, as it does not assist in making someone’s profits.

It takes virtually the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one, and note that electric vehicles generally weigh far more than conventional gasoline powered vehicles. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device.

There are two types of batteries; rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles these are lead-acid type of battery, found in virtually all gasoline powered vehicles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle a single-use battery properly.
But that is not half of it. For those excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs about one thousand pounds. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

All those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just one typical electric automobile battery.

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and workers can die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these factors as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being “green”, but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each large windmill has a weight of about 1688 tons (the equivalent to about 1000 automobiles) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass/epoxy, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. A large windmill blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We presently cannot recycle used blades.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.

Why is it that these realities are not presented within our society? In my opinion, one only needs to look at the corporations and their management to see who can profit from promoting the “green revolution”. A new technology to promote, manufacture, sell and make profits from; that is what many of us have been trained to seek out for success in our working lives, often with a blind eye to the realities of what we are doing. No judgement here, just stating truth.

Having worked in the energy field for over 50 years, I believe the most real solution to most of the “green” objectives was presented by Jimmy Carter way back in the 1970s. This was not because of the motive of achieving minimum environmental impact, but rather to get through the Oil Crisis of that decade. Conservation, cutting back on the consumption of energy, that works much better than many of the present directions that big corporations are taking in today’s world. But there’s not much profit in going with that path.

-Frederick Rosse, Beckersville Steam Engineering Co.
84v of Ironhorse XC.. :) :bolt: by Chevy :bolt: :D You call .. that.. a "glitch:" ? :twisted: (...No Mom. The formula is Kaw > 1(Hr) = Impounded. The math checks out. I'll be fine. ).. :? Broke20Horsies! 17,830w !! :x 1 (pound / second) Hp = 338.24 M^2 Kg^2 / Sec^4 :twisted: ) :| isn't 13" x 27".. Oh nvrmnd :roll: 4+25% = 5 ; 5-20% = 4... 5(1-20%) = 4.. so, to correct the incorrect reading, of 4 ... 4(1+25%) = 5 :confused: Fabricator @BSECo. :( God. Damn. Slugs. :o

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 01 2022 2:20pm

Of course u don’t have to get the electricity produced by burning fossil fuel. You could produce the electricity by one of many “friendlier” means.

When I lived in Oregon I chose to have all my electricity produced by wind and it cost me like 10% more. Different locations will be more or less expensive depending on proximity to windy areas, or strong sunlight, or a dam, or whatever. The potential is there for the common citizen to have all their elec produced in a sustainable way but they’re too cheap to do it.

Unfettered capitalism is the problem

I think looking at ur dad’s REAL costs related to alternative energy misses the point and our biggest environmental problem now is global warming not chem pollution. Alternative means of producing electricity can greatly reduce greenhouse gases.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12447
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hillhater » Sep 01 2022 5:22pm

spinningmagnets wrote:
Sep 01 2022 10:57am
The civilian world can easily transition to electric and hybrids. All it costs is money.
Civilian transport is only a minor fraction of of oil usage.
Far more critical is all the industrial, and commercial use for chemicals, pharmcuticals, plastics, etc etc..
….they are much more difficult to substitute without major compromises and sacrifices
Any restriction on oil/ products availability will affect the underdeveloped societies most.
Example in reality..Sri Lanka !
For a practical, civilised, society, the primary requirement is available, affordable, reliable, energy,… fuel, electricity, etc.
Currently, that can only be provided “en mass” by fossil fuel sources .Oil , Gas, and coal.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12447
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hillhater » Sep 01 2022 5:24pm

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 01 2022 2:20pm
Of course u don’t have to get the electricity produced by burning fossil fuel. You could produce the electricity by one of many “friendlier” means. ……
.. but not reliably, affordably, or in sufficient quantity !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
ZeroEm   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2451
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ZeroEm » Sep 01 2022 6:41pm

He is a smart man and knows what he is talking about.

One point he dogged is we need to change. Jimmy Carter was elected into office 1977. What have we done to reduce our energy use and change our path from environmental destruction.

Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because we never got rid of all the horses or steam engines. The other 99% need to use something else.

Yes, EV's are dirty as the source of electricity. The power efficiency of generation plants is much higher than ICE and it's easer to clean up plant emission's.
by DogDipstick » Sep 01 2022 11:48am

An excerpt from a speech my father wrote recently. This is the current, shared opinion, of alot of the power industry, for I see the discussion come up all the time in the steam boiler groups.

My father is a world renowned engineer, educator, and company owner, ( flies across the world monthly)), licensed to practice, with an operating engineering company, is currently working on fusion in France ( the ITER), Geothermal in Japan ( Mitsubishi ), scrubbers in New York ( Owls head,) and probally designed the reactor that is powering your state; (...and ...wrote the instruction booklet to boot.) . We have certainly been inside a large percentage of power plants in the USA, practicing for half a century as a ASME power engineer.

I do not know where I sit. Personally. I really have none of his experience, nor credentials.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

About forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. (and an even larger fraction in the rest of the world) is from coal-fired plants. It follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, a technical fact that is not well provided to the public, as it does not assist in making someone’s profits.

It takes virtually the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one, and note that electric vehicles generally weigh far more than conventional gasoline powered vehicles. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device.

There are two types of batteries; rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles these are lead-acid type of battery, found in virtually all gasoline powered vehicles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle a single-use battery properly.
But that is not half of it. For those excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs about one thousand pounds. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

All those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just one typical electric automobile battery.

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and workers can die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these factors as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being “green”, but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each large windmill has a weight of about 1688 tons (the equivalent to about 1000 automobiles) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass/epoxy, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. A large windmill blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We presently cannot recycle used blades.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.

Why is it that these realities are not presented within our society? In my opinion, one only needs to look at the corporations and their management to see who can profit from promoting the “green revolution”. A new technology to promote, manufacture, sell and make profits from; that is what many of us have been trained to seek out for success in our working lives, often with a blind eye to the realities of what we are doing. No judgement here, just stating truth.

Having worked in the energy field for over 50 years, I believe the most real solution to most of the “green” objectives was presented by Jimmy Carter way back in the 1970s. This was not because of the motive of achieving minimum environmental impact, but rather to get through the Oil Crisis of that decade. Conservation, cutting back on the consumption of energy, that works much better than many of the present directions that big corporations are taking in today’s world. But there’s not much profit in going with that path.

-Frederick Rosse, Beckersville Steam Engineering Co.
2019 Performer E-Trike
2013 Nissan Leaf S 7 bars 331.5w/KM

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 01 2022 9:18pm

There’s too many people. It seems nitpicking beyond that.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12447
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hillhater » Sep 02 2022 6:00pm

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 01 2022 9:18pm
There’s too many people. It seems nitpicking beyond that.
True, and a serious problem, but it is not the main factor.
We could shift some energy demand away from oil to electricity ( transport, heating, etc) to conserve resources, ..but electricity supply is being restricted and even reduced by dumb political decisions preventing the development of enhanced generation capacity.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 02 2022 10:57pm

For sure we could shift from oil to whatever and we could do it maybe everywhere but planes so far. And batteries aren’t far from being both with the energy density needed to be practical and environmentally hit all the goals.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 12447
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hillhater » Sep 03 2022 12:39am

Ocean freight shipping poses a major challenge for oil substution, ….
….and batteries are currently going the wrong direction regarding cost /kWh for mass uptake of EVs
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10964
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Chalo » Sep 03 2022 1:44am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 03 2022 12:39am
Ocean freight shipping poses a major challenge for oil substution,
We've done it without fossil fuels before-- and without satellite observations, accurate weather forecasting, industrial materials, machine automation, or computer-aided design.

Major challenge? Sure. It's the kind that money can surmount, which once done will build lasting wealth instead of making expensive problems to contend with tomorrow. That's the thing about both fossil fuels and fission energy: they rack up a bunch of externalities for future economies to pay more to fix than the value of the energy they provide today.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 03 2022 10:02am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 03 2022 12:39am
….and batteries are currently going the wrong direction regarding cost /kWh for mass uptake of EVs
I didn’t look much but over the last ten years battery prices have hugely dropped and just recently they’ve gone up in price with everything else.

https://www.morningbrew.com/series/batt ... alysts-say


https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/im ... ce=nar-cms
Attachments
A4E077E7-4D09-49AB-ABD8-8AFC9631E4CC.png
A4E077E7-4D09-49AB-ABD8-8AFC9631E4CC.png (339.51 KiB) Viewed 304 times

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 10:21am

spinningmagnets wrote:
Sep 01 2022 10:57am
The civilian world can easily transition to electric and hybrids. All it costs is money.

The militaries of the world will be the last to give up oil, and they will only do that when the oil is gone.
This conversation is about economics. Ask any midwestern home owner with three kids who live in Iowa how much it costs to heat their 2500 sq-ft home in the wintertime. Home owners raising kids with little savings don't have big cash outlay for capital investment of alternative energy sources. Most don't want a windmill in their front yard and can do the math on alternative energy sources both investment and monthly costs if switching to alternative energy. There is a reason the federal government offers cash incentives aka free money to buy an electric car which cost more than gas cars for equivalent performance. Given a choice today, I would still purchase a gasoline automobile.
Same with a motorcycle. Electric motorcycles have poor range and are slow to charge. Ride a Zero motorcycle on the freeway and watch the battery gauge go down like Shaq drinking a coke.
Oil will stop being viable when is it depleted. That day will come because the world is finite place and oil isn't renewable. Put another way, when the cost to extract oil exceeds the cost of alternative energy sources.

The world works on economics.

Tree huggers like John Karrey who flunked math in school, creates a larger carbon footprint than anybody on this forum riding around on his private jet.

The engineer who wrote the article is right.
Last edited by ebuilder on Sep 03 2022 11:01am, edited 1 time in total.

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 03 2022 10:43am

Arguing that people who are concerned about global warming should have to ride in a flinstone plane or something obviously isn’t a solution to the problem.
(Jim Carey? Why do we care what he got in math class? It seems he’s capable of adding the true costs of burning)

We should make people pay the FULL cost of burning fuel for starters and air pollution has a huge impact on health

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36501

I think it’s estimated we’d all get a couple more year of life if the world wasn’t burning. How much is that worth?


2.2 years

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/14/air ... cohol.html


There’s many things in the article that are straight wrong, one being you need cobalt in lithium batteries. Tempted to go through it all and add where it’s wrong or outdated or assuming the worst case scenario
Last edited by Hummina Shadeeba on Sep 03 2022 10:58am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 10:57am

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 03 2022 10:43am
Arguing that people who are concerned about global warming should have to ride in a flinstone plane or something obviously isn’t a solution to the problem.


We should make people pay the FULL cost of burning fuel for starters and air pollution has a huge impact on health

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36501

I think it’s estimated we’d all get a couple more year of life if the world wasn’t burning. How much is that worth?


2.2 years

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/14/air ... cohol.html
I had an environmental professor in college who said to 'exist is to pollute' and I studied rocket science aka thermodynamics so you can call me a rocket scientist. Elon is correct. In fact, I don't remember him ever being wrong. Maybe his attempt to buy Twitter which will be to the positive if that ever manifests to preserve the 2nd amendment. Eliminate people on the planet and that will decrease the carbon footprint. Is that what you want?
Guys like John Karrey who espouse energy conservation and diminution of the carbon footprint, don't walk the talk. They are the problem.

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 03 2022 10:59am

We don’t need a rocket scientist to figure the true costs but let’s figure it here. ? To be human is to pollute? Sure. That’s possibly a very simplistic escape from taking responsibility though.

Hero musk is right about what?

Who is this John Karrey?

Why should anyone have to diminish their burning if the rest aren’t? It needs more than personal responsibility and there’s cheapskates all over who don’t even think global warming is real or are too concerned about themselves (ironically while killing themselves and their family sooner). That’s when the government is useful.


Yes I believe reducing or at least stopping the population from growing seems a responsible move until we could get our environmental problems more under control. Not that I think that is possible but it would be a relief.

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 11:09am

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 03 2022 10:59am
We don’t need a rocket scientist to figure the true costs but let’s figure it here. ?

Hero musk is right about what?

Who is this John Carrey?
What is your education? We can determine who is better qualified to solve the problem...lol.
May I ask what country you are from? Might help explain a different vantage point but not necessarily.

Did you read the opening post of the thread? Have you been watching current events?

Elon Musk said the world still needs oil and gas in order to avoid civilization from crumbling, Reuters reported.
He made the comments at an oil and gas conference in Stavanger, Norway and also mused on climate change, renewable energy, and population decline.
"Realistically I think we need to use oil and gas in the short term, because otherwise civilization will crumble," Musk told delegates, per Reuters.
"One of the biggest challenges the world has ever faced is the transition to sustainable energy and to a sustainable economy. That will take some decades to complete."
He also said "at this time, we actually need more oil and gas, not less," and would not "demonize" fossil fuels in comments reported by Bloomberg.
Energy insecurity has risen following Russia's decision restricts flows of natural gas to Europe after its invasion of Ukraine, and other factors such as drought in Europe.
Musk said that "some additional exploration was warranted at this time" in response to a question on whether Norway should drill for more oil and gas.
He added that offshore wind power generation in the North Sea, combined with battery packs, could become a key source of energy, per Reuters. "It could provide a strong, sustainable energy source in winter."
The CEO of Shell, Ben van Beurden, told the same conference that Europe may need to continue rationing energy for several years because the crisis was likely to continue for more than one winter, the Financial Times reported.
It is not the first time in recent months that Musk, the world's richest man and CEO of electric car maker Tesla, has called for more production of fossil fuels.
In March following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the West's imposition of sanctions, Musk tweeted: "Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures." He admitted such an outcome would be bad for Tesla.

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10964
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Chalo » Sep 03 2022 11:16am

Elon Musk also thinks it's important to keep growing the population, so his credibility is less than zero on issues of sustainability.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 03 2022 11:21am

You didn’t need rocket scientist expertise to just say do what hero Elon says. Is Elon adding up the 2.2 years lost? Let’s see some rocket scientist math of ur own. I can do this math but would like to see urs first.

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 11:23am

Chalo wrote:
Sep 03 2022 11:16am
Elon Musk also thinks it's important to keep growing the population, so his credibility is less than zero on issues of sustainability.
Your parochial view I am afraid. I side with Musk's genius.
I believe Musk believes in his heart of heart that humanity aka our civilization will only survive by colonizing to other planets. Translation is, over time, many believe its already started to happen...the earth will become less habitable and humans will need to create their own eco system to survive elsewhere. That will take more people and not less.

https://www.thetechoutlook.com/news/tec ... vilization.

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 11:26am

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 03 2022 11:21am
You didn’t need rocket scientist expertise to just say do what hero Elon says. Is Elon adding up the 2.2 years lost? Let’s see some rocket scientist math of ur own. I can do this math but would like to see urs first.
If you don't answer my questions, I can't help you. Your schooling and where you live define your viewpoint.
If you majored in underwater basket weaving, we may have a different viewpoint. If you live in the Congo which lacks industry and is very warm climatically, you may not see the struggle of those trying to heat their home in America's midwest and still put food on the table for their family.

User avatar
ebuilder   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 532
Joined: Jul 11 2022 8:09am

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by ebuilder » Sep 03 2022 11:38am

Hummina Shadeeba wrote:
Sep 03 2022 11:21am
You didn’t need rocket scientist expertise to just say do what hero Elon says. Is Elon adding up the 2.2 years lost? Let’s see some rocket scientist math of ur own. I can do this math but would like to see urs first.
Its not that complicated. Lack of energy will crumble the world. Fossil fuel is what powers the world. As Musk explains, transitioning to alternative, greener energy sources will take decades. Turn off the oil spicket and civilization will crumble. There needs to be a slow transition and I know guys like you don't believe we have enough time. So yes, we maybe doomed on some level. Many believe it to be the case. But don't underestimate and rule out humanity entirely. We do have a shot at survival.

Hummina Shadeeba   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 25 2014 10:26pm
Location: Sausalito

Re: "Realistically I think we need to use oil & gas because":

Post by Hummina Shadeeba » Sep 03 2022 11:43am

ebuilder wrote:
Sep 03 2022 11:23am
many believe its already started to happen...the earth will become less habitable and humans will need to create their own eco system to survive elsewhere. That will take more people and not less.
We don’t just believe it’s becoming less live-able here on earth, we know it is, and we know why. Opting to move to mars instead of making it livable here.. that’s why we have government n laws to help protect those of us who aren’t into that abomination of a strategy. It’s the non-strategy. It’s the run-away. There’s no math needed there and it results in 0 for earth. That’s the math I’m looking to see: how well does life on earth do?

Locked