Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Gatefan1976]

That is the only important sentence in your post.
Eventually, we will have better sources "on the shelf". But until we do, its rather boneheaded to try to force people to use immature tech.

Not if we stick to "petroleum is the most dense form of energy", or "coal is more efficient"
We need to loose the efficiency factor as the primary goal, and what is "most effective" and effective and efficient are NOT the same things.
Again, If can give you ALL the power you need, but just not as efficiently as petroleum, but cleaner, why would you NOT want that?
Initial "buy in" cost?
A reasonable position, but as people want more, your beloved market forces drive them down due to competition, which allows even us peons to buy in.
I bet you own a flat screen TV, would that have been possible for a peon even 10 years ago?

This is the core of the issue I have with "flat earther" energy people. You want the reward, with none of the developmental cost.
You want something that costs 35c for 10 miles, but because it's "too hard" you pay 3$ for the same level of "efficiency" and "convenience"
Not very efficient from where I see it.

[Gatefan1976]

That is the only important sentence in your post.
Eventually, we will have better sources "on the shelf". But until we do, its rather boneheaded to try to force people to use immature tech.

Force people?
You talking about your lightbulbs again?
FORCING is wrong, and the government of the US should NEVER have forced the decision on you.
I'm not talking about force, I'm talking about good 'ol 'Murrican engineering and INNOVATION driving CAPITALISM.
We were "urged" to replace our bulbs, we even got tax breaks for doing so, but we were never forced to do it.

[Annoyed]

Force people?
You talking about your lightbulbs again?
FORCING is wrong, and the government of the US should NEVER have forced the decision on you.
I'm not talking about force, I'm talking about good 'ol 'Murrican engineering and INNOVATION driving CAPITALISM.
We were "urged" to replace our bulbs, we even got tax breaks for doing so, but we were never forced to do it.

I consider taxation and other governmental tactics to be equivalent to "forcing". The govt. should stay the hell out of it and let people buy what they want. When a new technology matures, and is in fact better than what we have, it will replace the old tech. on its own.

[Gatefan1976]

Haven't there been studies that show that if you take all the losses such as transmission, manufacture & such into account, electric vehicles actually use more energy than gasoline powered vehicles do?

Yes, in a horizon of somewhere around 10 years if memory serves. After that the electric car uses less, which is why it's important to get as many people to replace their gasoline car asap. Also no c02 emissions.

I would wager given the tech advancement pace of the modern era, you could cut that down to 5 years. As for replacing gas with electric, again it comes down to competition, competition drives down end user cost, (which is why I find it so funny some think I am a communist).
One thing to consider though is HOW you get the electricity to power your non CO2 emitting cars. If it's a belching smokestack of gas and coal, you are not FIXING the problem, just moving it to somewhere you don't see it, so YOU feel better, and encouraging said belching stacks to produce more.
Again, Efficiency VS effective for your goal.
If efficiency is all you care about, Annoyed is right, petrol is better, if you effectively want to reduce your carbon output, but keep your toys, Solar, wind and nuclear are far cleaner energy generating systems. One day, soon I hope we can replace them as well as they too have dangers associated with them.

[Gatefan1976]

I consider taxation and other governmental tactics to be equivalent to "forcing".

This is ignorant.
Without taxation, you would not be the nation you are.
Get off public roads, don't use your boat on public lakes, don't expect cops, firefighters or paramedics to give a toss if you loose everything and die.
You are stealing from them. (or are you gonna claim "superannuation" again?)
Society is a rociprical relationship, it's not just about YOU, it's about US.
We ALL pay into the "system", and guess what? That System is called "government"
You are pissy because 3% of the population "take a ride", cool be pissy at them, not the rest that need help.
I don't wanna pay for the "welfare cheat" either, but that does not invalidate welfare.

The govt. should stay the hell out of it and let people buy what they want. When a new technology matures, and is in fact better than what we have, it will replace the old tech. on its own.

No, it won't
You are equating advances to a "flip of a switch" (very communistic of you BTW), and it's NOT.
Without demand, no tech will mature to the way you seem to see it, it will be seen as a dead end by business, and given the sheer pace of advancement today you would be foolish to ignore it. The US government (or any other) should NOT mandate tech.
But it should encourage it, if only for self survival.

[Annoyed]

This is ignorant.
Without taxation, you would not be the nation you are.
Get off public roads, don't use your boat on public lakes, don't expect cops, firefighters or paramedics to give a toss if you loose everything and die.
You are stealing from them. (or are you gonna claim "superannuation" again?)
Society is a rociprical relationship, it's not just about YOU, it's about US.
We ALL pay into the "system", and guess what? That System is called "government"
You are pissy because 3% of the population "take a ride", cool be pissy at them, not the rest that need help.
I don't wanna pay for the "welfare cheat" either, but that does not invalidate welfare.

No, it won't
You are equating advances to a "flip of a switch" (very communistic of you BTW), and it's NOT.
Without demand, no tech will mature to the way you seem to see it, it will be seen as a dead end by business, and given the sheer pace of advancement today you would be foolish to ignore it. The US government (or any other) should NOT mandate tech.
But it should encourage it, if only for self survival.

You're not even discussing the same topic!
I'm talking about using tax policy to push people to alternative energy sources, and you're talking about welfare.

[Chaka-Z0]

You're not even discussing the same topic!
I'm talking about using tax policy to push people to alternative energy sources, and you're talking about welfare.

What about the carrot model? I believe BC residents here in Canada get up to 16k in refunds for the purchase of an electric vehicle ever since the last Federal policy came into effect (the amount depends on the total value of the car). Every dealer outlets are now rushing to fill in their stocks with what the clients demand, electric cars.

Also considering your MAGA mindset, wouldn't having equipment such as solar panels which would cover a good chunk of your electricity bill another way to assume and enjoy your American Freedom since you wouldn't be giving as much American Dollars to stay connected to the American grid?

See, all you need is to let the Bernie flow through you.

[mad_gater]

What about the carrot model? I believe BC residents here in Canada get up to 16k in refunds for the purchase of an electric vehicle ever since the last Federal policy came into effect (the amount depends on the total value of the car). Every dealer outlets are now rushing to fill in their stocks with what the clients demand, electric cars.

Also considering your MAGA mindset, wouldn't having equipment such as solar panels which would cover a good chunk of your electricity bill another way to assume and enjoy your American Freedom since you wouldn't be giving as much American Dollars to stay connected to the American grid?

See, all you need is to let the Bernie flow through you.

As far as fuel goes I would rather see us make use of algae as a fuel source. You can extract a lot of raw materials for fuel production from algae (and any leftover algae matter could be composted). Algae also re-grows fairly rapidly and comes in 2 "flavors" if you will. One is high-lipid algae which would be useful for extracting oil that can be refined into gasoline and diesel for cars that currently burn regular gasoline. The other is high-carbohydrate algae which can be turned into ethanol for cars that burn ethanol as a fuel source. Another environmental benefit is that you wouldn't have to do any drilling...just scoop up the algae and extract its fuel precursors. It also wouldn't require rebuilding current combustion engines to burn an entirely new kind of fuel. Exhaust could be taken care of with advancements in exhaust filtration (and perhaps one day it might even be possible to recycle exhaust into fuel on the fly). And no needing to buy electric cars that currently can cost as much as a small house and whose components contain raw materials mined in rather environmentally unfriendly ways.

[Annoyed]

What about the carrot model? I believe BC residents here in Canada get up to 16k in refunds for the purchase of an electric vehicle ever since the last Federal policy came into effect (the amount depends on the total value of the car). Every dealer outlets are now rushing to fill in their stocks with what the clients demand, electric cars.

Also considering your MAGA mindset, wouldn't having equipment such as solar panels which would cover a good chunk of your electricity bill another way to assume and enjoy your American Freedom since you wouldn't be giving as much American Dollars to stay connected to the American grid?

See, all you need is to let the Bernie flow through you.

Sorry, I'm not a toilet.

No, I think the govt. should just stay out of it. Let people decide what they want to do for themselves, based upon the merits of whatever tech they choose.

For example; a solar system where I live is impractical. Sunlight is far too unreliable to depend upon it for energy, so what is the point of setting up an expensive alternative that cannot be relied upon?

[Chaka-Z0]

@MG: algaes are still fossil fuels, it's not a bad idea though I've seen the tubes they use to transform it into fuel and it does remove the industrial pollution aspect out of the equation. That would've been good 60 years ago, we cannot go for half measures now.

@Annoyed: you don't get it, you pay the solar panel ONCE and it's unlimited energy given proper maintenance. It's not enough perhaps but you would be surprised how a couple panels can provide for most energy requirements in a household. Figure they charge batteries to store energy, you can connect a few dozen car batteries and you will never run out.

Panels don't need direct sunlight to charge btw, they can even during cloudy days. Oh and you may use your "you don't live here" excuse with someone else. I'm less than 8 hours away from you, there is plenty of sun and we get less up here and panels work fine for homesteaders all over North and you know it.

[Chaka-Z0]

And dude I'm telling you if you were to slap some of these babies on top of your roof right now you'd be in the green 5 years for now on your monthly bills.

[mad_gater]

@MG: algaes are still fossil fuels, it's not a bad idea though I've seen the tubes they use to transform it into fuel and it does remove the industrial pollution aspect out of the equation. That would've been good 60 years ago, we cannot go for half measures now.

@Annoyed: you don't get it, you pay the solar panel ONCE and it's unlimited energy given proper maintenance. It's not enough perhaps but you would be surprised how a couple panels can provide for most energy requirements in a household. Figure they charge batteries to store energy, you can connect a few dozen car batteries and you will never run out.

Panels don't need direct sunlight to charge btw, they can even during cloudy days. Oh and you may use your "you don't live here" excuse with someone else. I'm less than 8 hours away from you, there is plenty of sun and we get less up here and panels work fine for homesteaders all over North and you know it.

How is it still a fossil fuel if its derived from plants rather than drilling for the crude stuff?

[jelgate]

The first time I read this, I thought Annoyed was literally slapping babies. Then I thought, it sounds like something Annoyed would do

[Chaka-Z0]

The first time I read this, I thought Annoyed was literally slapping babies. Then I thought, it sounds like something Annoyed would do

*On a roof

[Annoyed]

And dude I'm telling you if you were to slap some of these babies on top of your roof right now you'd be in the green 5 years for now on your monthly bills.

Are you forgetting about maintenance costs? Batteries need to be replaced quite often. Winter storms and windstorms with flying debris will damage the panels.

Add in all the hidden costs, and I can't imagine even breaking even with such a scheme, let alone coming out ahead.