Why do we still use fossil fuels and other polluting energy?

[Red Squirrel]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities I see absolutely no reason to even mess around with fossil fuel anymore. It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Not to mention they sound quieter.

 

[master_shake_]

who's going to convert all the current cars and trucks with gas engines for free?

 

[zerocool84]

Because you can't just change a hundred years of infrastructure overnight, it takes time.

 

[Ns1]

because rolling coal is freedom you goddamn canuck.

 

[MrPickins]

Energy density.

 

[Spydermag68]

There is a big problem with solar, and wind power. They do not provide a constant flow of energy. The big solar arrays cook birds on the fly and windmills also kill a lot of birds.

 

[balloonshark]

There is a big problem with solar, and wind power. They do not provide a constant flow of energy. The big solar arrays cook birds on the fly and windmills also kill a lot of birds.

How many animals, birds and fish have died because of oil spills? How many human lives have been lost during to wars to ensure we have a steady oil flow? Imagine where we would be if the money on those wars was spent towards clean energy, education and health care.

 

[IBMJunkman]

When I can drive LA to Vegas non-stop, fuel in Vegas in 15 minutes and return non-stop. In a car that costs less than $30k. And where the manufacture/disposal of the batteries is not more polluting than the emissions of a gas engine.

And solar panels?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

 

[IronWing]

Me Tarsand, you Jane.

 

[Jeff7]

:hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[John Connor]

LNG!

 

[Captante]

When I can drive LA to Vegas non-stop, fuel in Vegas in 15 minutes and return non-stop. In a car that costs less than $30k. And where the manufacture/disposal of the batteries is not more polluting than the emissions of a gas engine.

And solar panels?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

Your car takes 15 minutes to fuel ???

 

[Ruptga]

Is this a parody?

 

[Andy22]

Your car takes 15 minutes to fuel ???

Umm...he's saying we will be off fossil fuels WHEN this can happen. i.e. It takes less than 15 minutes to "recharge" your car.

 

[Captante]

Umm...he's saying we will be off fossil fuels WHEN this can happen. i.e. It takes less than 15 minutes to "recharge" your car.

No .... really ?? :awe:

 

[PliotronX]

When I can drive LA to Vegas non-stop, fuel in Vegas in 15 minutes and return non-stop. In a car that costs less than $30k. And where the manufacture/disposal of the batteries is not more polluting than the emissions of a gas engine.

And solar panels?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

+1 a dirty secret of electric cars is that the battery packs are not only toxic but cost just about as much as the vehicle is worth. Disposable cars like phones, good for corporations, bad for anyone looking to keep a vehicle long-term.

 

[glenn1]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities I see absolutely no reason to even mess around with fossil fuel anymore. It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Not to mention they sound quieter.

Unless you live like this then you know your answer. Until then just thank fossil fuels for your job, computer, every consumer product you own, and not freezing to death up there in Canuckistan.

 

[natto fire]

Taking your aloof ignorance to a whole new level here, RS. Lots of "current technology is based around burning fossil fuels more efficiently, not using the absence of them to create energy. People are still scared of nuclear fission, but energy demand keeps going up. Energy demand will continue to rise as battery electric vehicles proliferate.

There is no magical off switch for fossil fuels at the moment.

 

[OverVolt]

Just the fact that you ask this question makes me facepalm.

Think of all the billions of dollars invested into the current infrastructure. There are 115,000-150,000 gas stations in the US alone.

How much would it cost to replace them with charging stations to go from 40mpg to 100empg equivalents?

More energy and money than you'd save, thats how much. Which is why it hasn't been done. Because the payoff is not worth the initial cost.

 

[Genx87]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities I see absolutely no reason to even mess around with fossil fuel anymore. It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Not to mention they sound quieter.

The costs.

 

[Spungo]

It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Wind and solar cost about 3-4x as much as coal. Unless we gave billion dollar subsidies to corporations to pay for increased energy costs, making anything in the US would be cost prohibitive. It takes a lot of energy to make steel. It takes even more energy to make aluminum. Energy is one of the largest expenses in mining.

There are times and places where alternative sources of energy work great, such as solar panels charging batteries powering traffic signals at a construction site, but those are generally cases where there is no installed infrastructure.

 

[Vaux]

Just the fact that you ask this question makes me facepalm.

Think of all the billions of dollars invested into the current infrastructure. There are 115,000-150,000 gas stations in the US alone.

How much would it cost to replace them with charging stations to go from 40mpg to 100empg equivalents?

More energy and money than you'd save, thats how much. Which is why it hasn't been done. Because the payoff is not worth the initial cost.

Yep. It's all about money. Screw the planet and everyone on it, just give me your money.

 

[Eli]

It's a good question really, and it's not as simple as "the basic economics [of energy]", and all that.... though that certainly plays a big role. It's easy energy, easy money.

We could have done something about it. We just chose not to. "We" being the energy companies, policy makers and people in charge 40+ years ago.

There's really only one answer - greed.

I'm sure you all heard about this:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming

There is no doubt that the unprecedented energy source fueled our explosive growth during this time, but wouldn't you rather have slower sustainable growth over a longer period of time, than explosive feast or famine type of events? That's what we're going to go through now. Not to mention the unprecedented damage to our biosphere.

Instead of gradually adapting to the inevitable changes over the last several decades, the energy corporations that saw these changes as a threat to their profits decided these problems would simply go away if you ignore them. Then systematically deny them when evidence mounts.

We all know how well plugging your ears and going "lalalalalala" works in the real world.

 

[JulesMaximus]

because rolling coal is freedom you goddamn canuck.

I really despise the douchebags who do this. They really are the lowest form of scum on the planet.

 

[dainthomas]

Energy density.

This. The 650 pound battery in a Nissan Leaf contains about as much energy as half a gallon of gas.