the electric car fantasy requires quantities of materials that don't exist
Maybe for lithium batteries, though that may not be true either. "Quantities" or "stockpiles" are data sets that can be lies to push an agenda. Oil quantities, possibly even where oil comes from, may be a lie. There is no reason to suspect differently about lithium. This estimates that there are trillions of tons of lithium available in the crust, and billions in the ocean. Then it becomes a extraction (technological) problem.
In addition there are other potential means of electrical storage that can have greater energy density than any chemical battery, such as a flywheel or even potentially a cold fusion generator (something that is very likely to be a hidden tech). These or other energy storage systems can be used to power electric cars.
The idea that we can only do it with oil is just a part of The Matrix. Both arguments for and against Gas powered transportation are part of The Matrix; controlled opposition.
So, if we can extract nine times as much lithium as we do now we will be able to supply demand for cars but what about other forms of transport that will also be needing energy storage of some sort?
That still leaves open the matter of supplying energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. What energy storage system could we use or that? We need to store several days of energy usage in case renewables do not produce. Non-car energy usage is several times the car usage.
To put things into some perspective, we do not just need batteries (or equivalent) to store energy from renewables to maintain an uninterrupted supply we actually need many Tesla Gigafactories-worth of batteries that will need to produce year afer year so we can replace worn out units.
I am not in any way trying to "solve the Lithium problem". I'm not trying to make our world electric. I am only suggesting that what we think is true about the "Gas" v. "Electricity" debate may very well be a complete fabrication.
However, if you want to get into it, lets do it. Again, I don't give a fuck about this. I am trying to point out that arguments for or against one or the other are built around a pack of lies. Nevertheless...
What energy storage system could we use or that?
Gravity is a great energy storage device (there is another gravity storage if you watch from the beginning), but there are all sorts of solutions like this. We could use flywheel storage (which is very similar to gravity storage).
We can also use more batteries (home batteries, grid batteries, etc.). Note, I'm not in any way a fan of chemical batteries. I think other methods are way better, but there are all kinds of solutions out there. We could also use nuclear energy, we can use all kinds of shit.
we actually need many Tesla Gigafactories-worth of batteries that will need to produce year afer year so we can replace worn out units.
This assumes we can't make batteries that live forever (within scope) and/or that we can't get full recycling, both of which are possible.
Most discussions about renewables fail because the proponents have never done any calculations to see just how much is required. For instance, I once calculated that to power the USA you would need an area equal to eight times that of Texas covered in wind turbines as one option.
Also, based on the Ivanpah solar plant in the Nevada desert an area of over five square miles is required to install a faceplate capacity of less than a single coal-fired power station generator. They often have three installed. Then you need to multiply that up because there is no sun at night, not everyone is near a desert and, in the case of Ivanpah, they also still need gas!
Strangely, they did not seem to realise that the liquid they heated during the day would cool down overnight. Who knew?
It takes around thirty Ivanpahs to replace Drax, a (formerly) coal-fired, powerstation in the UK. I bet you can multiply that by at least two to compensate for the lack of sunlight in the UK. So, one powerstation would need 300 square miles of solar plant to replace it - plus storage, of course.
Pump storage is good. It is probably the best "gravity" system but it relies on having the right landscape. If you need to build the mountains then you have insurmountable issues.
The following people put renewables into perspective - and at least one of the presenters used to be a proponent of renewables.
based on the Ivanpah solar plant in the Nevada desert an area of over five square miles
This is not the way to do a solar infrastructure. If we wanted to go solar we would have to find a different path.
For example, my mother has solar panels on her roof. She produces more electricity in a year than she uses. If every home had a true solar roof (not just solar panels), and maybe solar paint, whatever, and stored all that energy locally while also being tied to a grid, many states would have no problem meeting their energy needs, including the most populous state of CA.
Perhaps NY might not be able to do that since its so vertical and gets less sun, but who cares? They can find another way. We can put solar panels in space and beam the energy down (nothing could possibly go wrong!). There's also geothermal energy (of which NY has plenty), or thorium, or gravity energy (tidal energy e.g.).
I personally think all of this is moot however. I think we will have Cold Fusion in the not too distant future. It's been shown that there is something remarkable there for decades. Quite a while ago I was a computer scientist with a passion for reading math and physics. I found so much evidence that supported Cold Fusion that I was blown away by how little attention it got. The scientific evidence was overwhelming that it was real and the explanation of why it was "debunked" (incorrectly) when it first came out made so much sense. It seemed like it was pure hubris that kept it from being made public. I was so blown away by the whole thing that I decided to get a degree in physics just to make sure I wasn't missing anything (I wasn't).
Of course now I think it was intentionally hidden. I had no idea of a larger conspiracy at the time. I mean, how can you push global warming when you have cold fusion? How can you push a gas crisis when you have cold fusion? So many agenda's fall apart with such technology.
Regardless, there is so much energy there its stupid. I think the whole energy thing is going to become a complete non-issue within a decade.
... no problem meeting their energy needs, including the most populous state of CA.
I would like to see CA run completely stand-alone on renewables. They could set an example for the rest of the world. They have people there who like the idea, they have sun, wind, ocean and mountains for hydro. If they could show it worked for a state like CA then the rest of us might start taking an interest.
... Cold Fusion in the not too distant future.
Cold fusion has been "about 20 years away" for decades now. I am starting to wonder if it will ever be made to work.
... there is so much energy there its stupid.
That became true as soon as we discovered nuclear power. The problem has always been to develop that into a practical solution whether that is fission, fusion, uranium, thorium or whatever.
Current renewable solutions all have a propensity for monopolising large quantities of the environment. You need to use either large tracts of land or clog up the coast. Either way much wildlife will have issues.
Cold fusion has been "about 20 years away" for decades now. I am starting to wonder if it will ever be made to work.
That is Hot fusion that has been 20 years away forever. Hot fusion is "accepted science". I am talking about Cold fusion (LENR). Cold fusion is suppressed technology. If a physicist happens to stumble upon Cold fusion experiments and is unafraid to look at the evidence and decides to do more research they are called "crackpot conspiracy theorists" and will receive no funding for anything ever. You throw away your career if you look into Cold fusion.
When you control all the research money, and all the schools, and all the media, and enough of the government, etc. you can do anything you want, including subverting tech such as Cold Fusion (or disease cures, etc.). Anything that would kill the narratives you have created to take the world into the Great Reset is destroyed by The Machine.
Part two of my report, titled The Matrix will be exploring the gears, dials, and switches of the Machine that controls everything. For a hint at what I mean, please see Part one here.
The problem has always been to develop that into a practical solution whether that is fission, fusion, uranium, thorium or whatever.
Not really. The problem has always been one of Matrix Control. Solutions are suppressed, funding is allocated to not solutions that keep the world in the direction of The Great Reset. I'm not saying there's nothing but hidden tech all over the place. I know of a few in medicine and physics because that is where I work, but I have seen a great deal of the control mechanisms, and their control is total, at least on the large scale. If you own everything, what can't you do?
Current renewable solutions all have a propensity for monopolising large quantities of the environment. You need to use either large tracts of land or clog up the coast.
You are seeing the micro problems. Until you appreciate the macro problems the micro problems seem like macro problems. All energy solutions are already there, you just can't get funding to implement them, you can't tell people about them because you will be labeled a crackpot. Until you understand that there is an actual Powers That Be (string pullers with control of the entire mind space, economic space, government space, etc. of the whole world) nothing makes any sense. You can't fit all the evidence together. Certain problems have no solutions because the most important piece of the puzzle isn't there.
Look at every problem with that in mind. Then look deeper and the solutions present themselves.
We make 70% of our demand of lithium domestically so most likely the prices are going to top out pretty fast.
Still a 6% jump in price is enough to lower production numbers.
It’s because electric cars and solar power with lithium backups are the future of true energy independance. If people have individual energy independence, just imagine how much easier it would be to say “fuck you” to the government
Maybe for lithium batteries, though that may not be true either. "Quantities" or "stockpiles" are data sets that can be lies to push an agenda. Oil quantities, possibly even where oil comes from, may be a lie. There is no reason to suspect differently about lithium. This estimates that there are trillions of tons of lithium available in the crust, and billions in the ocean. Then it becomes a extraction (technological) problem.
In addition there are other potential means of electrical storage that can have greater energy density than any chemical battery, such as a flywheel or even potentially a cold fusion generator (something that is very likely to be a hidden tech). These or other energy storage systems can be used to power electric cars.
The idea that we can only do it with oil is just a part of The Matrix. Both arguments for and against Gas powered transportation are part of The Matrix; controlled opposition.
Good links
We cant run out of oil as long as the earth exists
From the lithium link:
"Them" being Nissan Leaf cars used in their example.
How many total cars are sold in a year?
Around 70 million according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/
So, if we can extract nine times as much lithium as we do now we will be able to supply demand for cars but what about other forms of transport that will also be needing energy storage of some sort?
That still leaves open the matter of supplying energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. What energy storage system could we use or that? We need to store several days of energy usage in case renewables do not produce. Non-car energy usage is several times the car usage.
To put things into some perspective, we do not just need batteries (or equivalent) to store energy from renewables to maintain an uninterrupted supply we actually need many Tesla Gigafactories-worth of batteries that will need to produce year afer year so we can replace worn out units.
I am not in any way trying to "solve the Lithium problem". I'm not trying to make our world electric. I am only suggesting that what we think is true about the "Gas" v. "Electricity" debate may very well be a complete fabrication.
However, if you want to get into it, lets do it. Again, I don't give a fuck about this. I am trying to point out that arguments for or against one or the other are built around a pack of lies. Nevertheless...
Gravity is a great energy storage device (there is another gravity storage if you watch from the beginning), but there are all sorts of solutions like this. We could use flywheel storage (which is very similar to gravity storage).
We can also use more batteries (home batteries, grid batteries, etc.). Note, I'm not in any way a fan of chemical batteries. I think other methods are way better, but there are all kinds of solutions out there. We could also use nuclear energy, we can use all kinds of shit.
This assumes we can't make batteries that live forever (within scope) and/or that we can't get full recycling, both of which are possible.
Most discussions about renewables fail because the proponents have never done any calculations to see just how much is required. For instance, I once calculated that to power the USA you would need an area equal to eight times that of Texas covered in wind turbines as one option.
Also, based on the Ivanpah solar plant in the Nevada desert an area of over five square miles is required to install a faceplate capacity of less than a single coal-fired power station generator. They often have three installed. Then you need to multiply that up because there is no sun at night, not everyone is near a desert and, in the case of Ivanpah, they also still need gas!
Strangely, they did not seem to realise that the liquid they heated during the day would cool down overnight. Who knew?
It takes around thirty Ivanpahs to replace Drax, a (formerly) coal-fired, powerstation in the UK. I bet you can multiply that by at least two to compensate for the lack of sunlight in the UK. So, one powerstation would need 300 square miles of solar plant to replace it - plus storage, of course.
Pump storage is good. It is probably the best "gravity" system but it relies on having the right landscape. If you need to build the mountains then you have insurmountable issues.
The following people put renewables into perspective - and at least one of the presenters used to be a proponent of renewables.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
This is not the way to do a solar infrastructure. If we wanted to go solar we would have to find a different path.
For example, my mother has solar panels on her roof. She produces more electricity in a year than she uses. If every home had a true solar roof (not just solar panels), and maybe solar paint, whatever, and stored all that energy locally while also being tied to a grid, many states would have no problem meeting their energy needs, including the most populous state of CA.
Perhaps NY might not be able to do that since its so vertical and gets less sun, but who cares? They can find another way. We can put solar panels in space and beam the energy down (nothing could possibly go wrong!). There's also geothermal energy (of which NY has plenty), or thorium, or gravity energy (tidal energy e.g.).
I personally think all of this is moot however. I think we will have Cold Fusion in the not too distant future. It's been shown that there is something remarkable there for decades. Quite a while ago I was a computer scientist with a passion for reading math and physics. I found so much evidence that supported Cold Fusion that I was blown away by how little attention it got. The scientific evidence was overwhelming that it was real and the explanation of why it was "debunked" (incorrectly) when it first came out made so much sense. It seemed like it was pure hubris that kept it from being made public. I was so blown away by the whole thing that I decided to get a degree in physics just to make sure I wasn't missing anything (I wasn't).
Of course now I think it was intentionally hidden. I had no idea of a larger conspiracy at the time. I mean, how can you push global warming when you have cold fusion? How can you push a gas crisis when you have cold fusion? So many agenda's fall apart with such technology.
Regardless, there is so much energy there its stupid. I think the whole energy thing is going to become a complete non-issue within a decade.
I would like to see CA run completely stand-alone on renewables. They could set an example for the rest of the world. They have people there who like the idea, they have sun, wind, ocean and mountains for hydro. If they could show it worked for a state like CA then the rest of us might start taking an interest.
Cold fusion has been "about 20 years away" for decades now. I am starting to wonder if it will ever be made to work.
That became true as soon as we discovered nuclear power. The problem has always been to develop that into a practical solution whether that is fission, fusion, uranium, thorium or whatever.
Current renewable solutions all have a propensity for monopolising large quantities of the environment. You need to use either large tracts of land or clog up the coast. Either way much wildlife will have issues.
That is Hot fusion that has been 20 years away forever. Hot fusion is "accepted science". I am talking about Cold fusion (LENR). Cold fusion is suppressed technology. If a physicist happens to stumble upon Cold fusion experiments and is unafraid to look at the evidence and decides to do more research they are called "crackpot conspiracy theorists" and will receive no funding for anything ever. You throw away your career if you look into Cold fusion.
When you control all the research money, and all the schools, and all the media, and enough of the government, etc. you can do anything you want, including subverting tech such as Cold Fusion (or disease cures, etc.). Anything that would kill the narratives you have created to take the world into the Great Reset is destroyed by The Machine.
Part two of my report, titled The Matrix will be exploring the gears, dials, and switches of the Machine that controls everything. For a hint at what I mean, please see Part one here.
Not really. The problem has always been one of Matrix Control. Solutions are suppressed, funding is allocated to not solutions that keep the world in the direction of The Great Reset. I'm not saying there's nothing but hidden tech all over the place. I know of a few in medicine and physics because that is where I work, but I have seen a great deal of the control mechanisms, and their control is total, at least on the large scale. If you own everything, what can't you do?
You are seeing the micro problems. Until you appreciate the macro problems the micro problems seem like macro problems. All energy solutions are already there, you just can't get funding to implement them, you can't tell people about them because you will be labeled a crackpot. Until you understand that there is an actual Powers That Be (string pullers with control of the entire mind space, economic space, government space, etc. of the whole world) nothing makes any sense. You can't fit all the evidence together. Certain problems have no solutions because the most important piece of the puzzle isn't there.
Look at every problem with that in mind. Then look deeper and the solutions present themselves.
MUH Ford Lightning!!
We make 70% of our demand of lithium domestically so most likely the prices are going to top out pretty fast. Still a 6% jump in price is enough to lower production numbers.
It’s because electric cars and solar power with lithium backups are the future of true energy independance. If people have individual energy independence, just imagine how much easier it would be to say “fuck you” to the government