I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.
Barry Leybovich
11

Hydro is region specific and cannot be assumed to be available everywhere. Likewise, as in the experience of Venezuela, an El Nino can turn your ‘renewable hydro’ into a reason to ration. Here’s the IEA breakdown of energy by source: In 2014, the shares of primary energy supply by energy source were: oil, 31.3%; coal, 28.8%; natural gas, 21.0 %; biofuels and waste, 10.3%; nuclear, 4.8%; hydro, 2.4%; and “other”, including all renewables energy sources, 1.4% (geothermal, tidal, wind, solar).

We will need terrawatts more electrical energy to power an EV ‘revolution’ and trillions of dollars to upgrade the grid to handle the additional load. Read the Euan Mearns analysis and all will be crystal clear. http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/

People assume self-driving cars will stop or reduce car accidents. The American Scientist letters I referred to points out there are many large barriers to self-driving cars being on the road at any scale.

A recent study from Lund University claimed having only one child would be effective in reducing carbon footprints — I make the reverse argument that if self-driving cars save millions of lives, then those lives lived will increase the carbon footprint — in a gruesome way, for the carbon and climate change obsessed — car accidents are ‘saving the planet’ from all those people killed. (which I think is a sick thought, but so is the idea of Lund proponents teaching childen that more than one child is destroying the planet).

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Michelle Stirling’s story.