Pfffff.... Environmental regulations and traffic rules are for pu$$ies.... Real ''Muricans know that the only aspect of life not overregulated is immigration... Drill baby, drill... Roll coal, baby roll.... Then build that wall...
The EU is a political union of 28 member states. If the EU is not a country, then your US arent either. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy Share of renewable energies in gross final energy consumption in EU-28 countries in 2015 (in %)
The original argument remains valid. I just brought another. It is just that the EU cant be a country cause it wouldnt suit your argument. Your president learned with the trade deals too that thats not how this world works.
Would it be rude of me to ask how we got around to discussing the differences between the EU and a recognised country like the USA? I mean, seriously, what difference does it make to the matter at hand?
An individual country with a climate as diverse as the US has a much bigger and more expensive issue with changiing not just the source of power but the grid as well. There are quite a few Europeans that simply cannot fathom the differences in say Arizona and Seattle. It seems to be beyond their comprehension so they change the parameters to fit their argument.
Being one country, it should be a lot easier, obviously... because you can implement policies at a federal level. Also, unless we're going with this whole 'it's a lot sunnier in Germany' meme so beloved of Faux News you have the places capable of generating huge amounts of solar energy, for instance. In europe it takes years... literally, YEARS to agree anything because they ARE separate countries so, by definition, everybody has to have their say and take a 'cut'. In the states it should be possible to implement policies to, say, organise power transmission across states at a federal level. If it doesn't happen then it's a major political failure.
I those two examples because of the difference in climate makes for vastly different abilities to generate clean power. Then there is the size of the area, thus my Montana comparison, making it much more expensive to just dictate on a federal level to change.
According to this article, the end is near for big oil... https://shift.newco.co/amp/p/38b843bd4fe0 Let’s bring this back to today: Big Oil is perhaps the most feared and respected industry in history. Oil is warming the planet — cars and trucks contribute about 15% of global fossil fuels emissions — yet this fact barely dents its use. Oil fuels the most politically volatile regions in the world, yet we’ve decided to send military aid to unstable and untrustworthy dictators, because their oil is critical to our own security. For the last century, oil has dominated our economics and our politics. Oil is power. Yet I argue here that technology is about to undo a century of political and economic dominance by oil. Big Oil will be cut down in the next decade by a combination of smartphone apps, long-life batteries, and simpler gearing. And as is always the case with new technology, the undoing will occur far faster than anyone thought possible. /quote
I think news of its demise is premature. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve their stranglehold. But having had a BMW I3 electric, i do agree with the article on a lot. Until you drive and own an electric it's just hard to realize how great they are. And relative to internal combustion development it's only the early stages - much more to come.
Interesting. Our family is probably as close to ideal for electric car use as they come (we both drive around 100-150 miles per week). Yet we still have young kids, go on a lot of road trips and electrics are not cheap enough yet, so we have a gas guzzler (sort off) and a regular sedan. Hopefully if we can get a sub $40k electric with decent size we would make the jump in 2018/19.
I understand. We are at an awkward stage in the battery development cycle. We are about to start getting a slew of 200+ mile range vehicles that are more affordable - not large family cars per say but not super compacts either. Once they start getting to market we will see more competition and choice. I'm actually in-between electric vehicles for this reason also, although I'm "getting by" with a plug-in hybrid. This is the next best thing and perfect for me since I do a lot of short trips around town. But it's only a holdover till I get a more affordable 200+ mile electric. Then, will never look back. Some of the things I liked about electrics: 1) Start every day with a full "tank". 2) Cheaper to run - for me about 2.5c per mile 3) A lot less maintenance - Like every 18 months (hate to go to the dealers) 4) Quiet and clean 5) FUN to drive - Very, very fast off the line because of instant torque of electric motor.
One of the funniest jokes in germany is how the BMW I3 electric is the world's first coal power car I agree it's a great development but the source of the electricity for these vehicles matters a lot
It does, but that's the thing even if all the energy that I used to power it was from a coal power plant (which was not), it is still more efficient than a tailpipe.
Speaking of other energy sources, 2 new nuclear plants construction have been halted: https://www.bizjournals.com/charlot...ty-votes-to-stop-building-16b-v-c-summer.html The fate of the project has been closely watched in the industry, which considered it a bell-weather for whether new nuclear construction would be economical in the United States. Duke Energy Corp., which still has the massive W.S. Lee Nuclear Station proposal in its long-range plans, has said it is following developments at Summer closely as it decides whether to proceed with its own project. And executives have said the final resolution there could have a significant impact on Duke's decision whether to proceed with its own project. Enthusiasm for nuclear projects in the early 2000s led many to predict a nuclear renaissance. But the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 and escalating nuclear construction costs put a damper on those expectations. Now it is not clear that any more large-scale nuclear plant construction is likely in the United States. In 2009, the two utilities undertook what was projected to be a $9 billion project to build two new generation AP1000 nuclear reactors at the existing Summer plant. They undertook the effort knowing a recently adopted S.C. law, the Base Load Review Act, would provide for expedited recovery of project costs while it was under construction and allow the companies to recover all reasonable and prudent costs on the expansion even if the reactors were never built. Westinghouse bankruptcy The project soon ran into delays and cost overruns. In October 2015, the utilities negotiated a contract with designer and prime contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. that allowed a “fixed-price” for the project. In May 2016, the utilities exercised that option, ostensibly capping their costs for the projects at close to $14 billion. But issues continued. In March, Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors after determining it had lost more than $6.1 billion on work at Summer in Jenkinsville, S.C., and a similar two-reactor expansion at Southern Co.’s Plant Vogtle, in Brunswick County, Ga. While uncertainty and ballooning costs are the main drivers, some people have linked the stoppage with the boom of renewables, making them cheaper and more widely available, faster than anyone could have predicted a decade ago.
Hey maybe you guys should give more powers to Brussels and we can better call the EU one country. Or cheap gas and oil are killing more than just coal. A carbon tax could help nuclear energy along with renewables.
True. We are witnessing a the development of a different mixture of energy uses and sources. Even more once we get bigger and more efficient storage for more energy intensive applications. I think that in the medium term all residential and land mobility use (except peaks in demand and valleys in production) will be supplied from renewable sources. It will take a little more for industrial applications but just by cutting fossil fuel use by 40-50% will help us stabilize the planet's climate.
Climate Change report leaked before the Trump administration could tinker with it... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/...ing-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 Here is the actual document, and yes, we are experiencing significant warming: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html And I can't cut and paste from NYT in my office's browser, so, click the links if you want to read.
The report underscores how much we need nuclear power, solar power, wind power, and, yes, we need to all start using less. I'm a vegetarian. I walk to work. We live in Florida and during the summers our thermostat is set to 78. These three things alone cut my energy footprint massively.