It's sad. But at least EV batteries are a progression in technology. If we can push the technology further and develop new ways to store energy, that's good for the world in the long run and the private sector is the most likely place to find that.
On the other hand, wind turbines are demonstrably a net loss on the environment. There's not much that can be enhanced about them. You will always need strong and resistant materials that are actually light enough to be moved by wind.
But in the process of this technology, many birds die which will concentrate and spread disease, and it takes up a lot of real estate..and is set up in places that would be good for additional farming or housing.
At least with solar, it's expensive and inefficient and not 100% recyclable, but it's not directly and immediately killing the birds around it. And you can get a few panels and have a small amount of energy in case of a power outage.
Privately owned turbines? Hah. Good luck with the paper work, the clean up and the hard to use power.
Batteries are growing in technology by leaps and bounds. Lithium Carbonate, Lithium Peroxide, with Toyota coming out with their prototype of a solid state lithium based battery (think SOLID chunk of ceramic, with about 240% charge density of current tech) and Tesla announcing a Lithium - Sulphur Battery with a life cycle measured around 4 Million miles.
These newer technologies will likely give ~1,000 miles/charge. And the R&D is being done by CAPITALISM.
There are also some very new revolutionary changes coming in the mining industry - in how we GET these minerals. The way we got Gold in the 1800's is not the same way we get Gold today. The way we get Lithium, Manganese, Graphene, Cobalt and Nickel is going to change. Northern Nevada has enough Lithium trapped in the clay deposits to meet the US needs through the year 2050 - just in Nevada.
There is a reason why every single car manufacturer is moving to EV.
Help getting off the ground and subsidies to push forward is not contrary to a free market.
It's not very different from gun manufacturer contracts, where they compete for the purchase of their products.
If the demand is there by the consumer, as it clearly is, then the government just helps the company with the best tech rise to meet that demand.
Additionally, and further to the point, arguing this is stupid -- because just about all major car manufacturers were given extreme subsidies and more or less squandered them. Tesla did not. Tesla actually made a good product.
You are aware that Telsa sold approximately 349,000 EV's in the last quarter, right? That Tesla has so many backorders on the books - right now - that they may stop taking pre-orders, because the backorders are going out beyond a year.
Compare against GM, that sold 349 cars; after dealers marked the prices up $10,000 over sticker. You cannot even order a Ford Mustang EV this year.
Whatās your point? Tesla was built off of government subsidies, not free market demand. Sure, thereās some demand now. The Ford Mustang Mach E is a great vehicle. I drive oneā¦there are some available on dealer lots, and you were able to place an order for one at some point this year. Current EVs are not yet practical for the masses. If demand is there, businesses will follow with products. The government wouldnāt need to regulate EVs into existence. When battery tech is at 1000 miles per charge highway range, fills up in less than 10 minutes from empty, and has readily available and reliable infrastructure everywhere, thatās a different story. No one is going to sit here and tell me theyāre more environmentally friendly, or that most companies are going after them because of the natural market demand.
It's sad. But at least EV batteries are a progression in technology. If we can push the technology further and develop new ways to store energy, that's good for the world in the long run and the private sector is the most likely place to find that.
On the other hand, wind turbines are demonstrably a net loss on the environment. There's not much that can be enhanced about them. You will always need strong and resistant materials that are actually light enough to be moved by wind.
But in the process of this technology, many birds die which will concentrate and spread disease, and it takes up a lot of real estate..and is set up in places that would be good for additional farming or housing.
At least with solar, it's expensive and inefficient and not 100% recyclable, but it's not directly and immediately killing the birds around it. And you can get a few panels and have a small amount of energy in case of a power outage.
Privately owned turbines? Hah. Good luck with the paper work, the clean up and the hard to use power.
Batteries are growing in technology by leaps and bounds. Lithium Carbonate, Lithium Peroxide, with Toyota coming out with their prototype of a solid state lithium based battery (think SOLID chunk of ceramic, with about 240% charge density of current tech) and Tesla announcing a Lithium - Sulphur Battery with a life cycle measured around 4 Million miles.
These newer technologies will likely give ~1,000 miles/charge. And the R&D is being done by CAPITALISM.
There are also some very new revolutionary changes coming in the mining industry - in how we GET these minerals. The way we got Gold in the 1800's is not the same way we get Gold today. The way we get Lithium, Manganese, Graphene, Cobalt and Nickel is going to change. Northern Nevada has enough Lithium trapped in the clay deposits to meet the US needs through the year 2050 - just in Nevada.
There is a reason why every single car manufacturer is moving to EV.
The problem with electric is that it's being pushed by the cabal, not the free market.
A little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B.
Clearly gas vs electric is being used as a wedge issue. They are creating demand.
Tesla, on the other hand, is pushing to improve the technology beyond everyone else, which is a function of the free market, to meet that demand.
I like Elon but he built his business off of government subsidiesā¦.thatās not free market demand.
The government helps a lot of businesses.
Help getting off the ground and subsidies to push forward is not contrary to a free market.
It's not very different from gun manufacturer contracts, where they compete for the purchase of their products.
If the demand is there by the consumer, as it clearly is, then the government just helps the company with the best tech rise to meet that demand.
Additionally, and further to the point, arguing this is stupid -- because just about all major car manufacturers were given extreme subsidies and more or less squandered them. Tesla did not. Tesla actually made a good product.
You are aware that Telsa sold approximately 349,000 EV's in the last quarter, right? That Tesla has so many backorders on the books - right now - that they may stop taking pre-orders, because the backorders are going out beyond a year.
Compare against GM, that sold 349 cars; after dealers marked the prices up $10,000 over sticker. You cannot even order a Ford Mustang EV this year.
Whatās your point? Tesla was built off of government subsidies, not free market demand. Sure, thereās some demand now. The Ford Mustang Mach E is a great vehicle. I drive oneā¦there are some available on dealer lots, and you were able to place an order for one at some point this year. Current EVs are not yet practical for the masses. If demand is there, businesses will follow with products. The government wouldnāt need to regulate EVs into existence. When battery tech is at 1000 miles per charge highway range, fills up in less than 10 minutes from empty, and has readily available and reliable infrastructure everywhere, thatās a different story. No one is going to sit here and tell me theyāre more environmentally friendly, or that most companies are going after them because of the natural market demand.