Less than 13% of US energy is produced by renewables

....unless there is another power in control that is not science!

it's all connected to racist math...

Paid for expected results is the best science - liberal 101

Interesting facts about Electric cars.

The average Tesla Model 3 uses 34kwh of electricity for every 100 miles driven.
https://www.carshtuff.com/post/how-much-electricity-does-a-tesla-use

A brand new Telsa battery is only 94% efficient in charging and 90% efficient in energy use while driving. This degrades over time as the battery ages. So 16% of the energy needed to use a Tesla is wasted.

The average household in America uses 911kwh of electricity per month.
http://insideenergy.org/2014/05/22/using-energy-how-much-electricity-do-you-use-each-month/

If you drive your Tesla 100 miles per day, you would use an additional 1,034 kwh/month of electricity of which 165kwh is wasted, assuming you have only one car per household.

For the average household, your electric bill would more than double per month.

If everyone owned a Tesla, we would need more than twice the generating capacity then we have today. At times, California can't even keep up with the current demand for electricity.

This doesn't even factor in what would happen if all the trucks, tractors, combines, backhoes, and other vehicles were electric.

Oh... and we'll run out of raw materials to create batteries LOOOOOOONG before the oil runs out...

Just like all conservatives you are attempting to confuse the "settled SCIENCE" with FACTS.

Also, EVs are significantly heavier than internal combustion cars because of the weight of their batteries. The longer range EVs can travel, the heavier they are. The extra weight of all these vehicles takes its toll over time, shortening how long road surfaces last. More frequent road resurfacing means more impact on the environment because all the machinery used for road maintenance use fossil fuels - like many of the power plants that generate the electricity EVs use. 😂

There is a weak link in your argument. The average household actually drives a bit less than 40 miles per day.

So, *if* you drive 40 miles per day, you would use an additional 408 kwh/month. His argument is still sound.

“Your electric bill would more than double.”
408 is less than half of 911 last time I checked. Also, are the costs taken from the peak time or at night? Because charging your car at night can reduce the cost depending on how much is charged by the landlord.

In addition, the sheer cost of gas today makes driving with gas expensive. Here is a fun website that helped me figure out costs: https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/

Here is an image that assumes that the state is California where all three cars are owned and that the average gasoline cost in the area is $4.99:

You still missed the “if” in his scenario. “IF you drive your Tesla 100 miles per day … “. The fact remains that your electric bill will increase. Also, if you’re charging at night, you’re Using more energy from non-renewable sources.

As you can see, one is notably the cheapest.

First, you are comparing a compact Tesla SUV to large SUVs. A Telsa Model Y Longrange costs $58,000. A Toyota RAV4 costs $26,000 and gets 27/31mpg. The Toyota Corolla Cross is only $22,000 and gets 31/33mpg.

The cost to replace a Tesla battery is about $15,000 and is warranted for 8 years. The average US car ownership of the original buyer is 9.7-11years.

I didn't make the graph. I used this website: https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/

Secondly, read my reply to "warwingslover." I understand what the point of the meme was now, I get it now. I personally think that electric cars have other perks though, even if they take energy to generate.

I agree EV have perks, however, they are not the panacea that some people think. Over time as technology and infrastructure advances, they will be more of a benefit.

The problem is that people are pushing for them now without thinking of the impact on the existing electric grid.

These same people are also discounting the environmental impact of obtaining the rarer minerals required to build them, like cobalt, titanium, aluminum, lithium, and nickel.

According to Earthworks.org, In a 100% renewable energy future, demand could reach 136% of the documented nickel deposits that are economically feasible to extract, 280% for lithium, and 426% for cobalt.

https://earthworks.org/fact-sheet-battery-minerals-for-the-clean-energy-transition/

Never mind that to build one Telsa battery, you need to move 500 tons of earth to obtain the minerals. They also discount the amount of energy it takes to refine those minerals.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

Yep, exactly the main issue with electric cars.

and the power that charges the cars is made by oil and coal

But it needs recharging more often

Oh wait, I missed the point of the argument. My bad, I thought you were saying that electric cars were more expensive. Pardon my divergence then.

:0)

:0)

I'd watch that for a dollar.

68op8x.jpg (click to show) There's also that to consider.

Netflix stock dropped

and?

Good time to buy Netflix instead of lithium battery stock?

And that doesn't even get into that ironclad 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt pesky Laws of Thermodynamics.

https://i.imgflip.com/66rv12.jpg

Good One - 20f68v.jpg (click to show) Meme Upvoted!

Recycle? Most plastics are not recycled, why? Too expensive. A lot of glass is not recycled. Why? yeah.... Paper, is easy because we have been doing it. Pie in the Sky energy will happen...just remember 160 years ago I communicated this with telegraph

Europe burns trash. Scandinavian countries especially. And they get two things done, no more trash, and power. It’s perfectly clean

That a debatable.

https://www.clf.org/blog/burning-trash-not-the-solution/

co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/

https://www.cleanwateraction.org/2021/02/04/support-hb0332-burning-trash-not-clean-energy

that first photo is them burning a landfill. That isn't how power generating trash burning works. and the "smoke" coming out of incinerators is steam.

You may want to do more research. It is a debatable process.

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/02/9-reasons-why-we-better-move-away-from-waste-to-energy-and-embrace-zero-waste-instead/

https://ntn.org.au/10-reasons-why-burning-waste-for-energy-is-a-bad-idea/

The smoke is actually just steam. And it may not be the cleanest now, but it’s getting better.

Is zero emission of particles in your local

And almost nine of it is hydroelectric. Which is the best renewable energy source

*none*

Unfortunately, you need a body of water moving fast enough, with enough drop in height, and a large enough volume to turn the turbines. This severely limits the opportunity for more Hydroelectric.

Actually, they just built dams. And we can do it again. There’s about a million in Maine that aren’t doing anything. Just find a large river, and build a dam. They did it for years.

The same tree huggers who drive EVs, thinking they are “saving the planet”, want to get rid of dams because of the “environmental impact” they cause.

Exactly. But dams don’t cause any real harm. If it’s that big a deal, build a fish ladder.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimated in 2012 that if every non-powered dam in the US had hydroelectric they would have a total of 12,000 MW of potential hydropower capacity.

This is equal to about 4 nuclear power plants the size of Palo Verde, Arizona which has about 3GW capacity.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/where-hydropower-is-generated.php

Yes. So restart the hydroelectric dams!

While it would help, it would only supply a very small amount of the increased electricity needed.

The total amount of the increase (12,000 MW) would only be a 20% increase over what is produced today by Hydroelectric. Today Hydroelectric accounts for 6% of electricity generated (80,027 MW). All those dams would raise that to about 8%.

Additionally, these dams were never originally designed to produce hydroelectric, which means they would have to be rebuilt to accommodate hydroelectrically if that was even possible.

In 2021 the EIA estimated the US used 4.12Trillion KW of electricity

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

We don't need much more electricity, and if we do, we could burn our trash like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, thats clean, or we could use nuclear, that is the cleanest and most efficient form of energy. And nuclear waste can be recycled and used again. How to deal with the electricity problem. Get rid of the electric cars. that will save some power.

I agree with you on nuclear. Burning waste is a debatable process.

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/02/9-reasons-why-we-better-move-away-from-waste-to-energy-and-embrace-zero-waste-instead/

https://ntn.org.au/10-reasons-why-burning-waste-for-energy-is-a-bad-idea/

Ok, fine, I’ll give you that, but the tech is getting better.

So is the tech to clean up gas-fired power plants.

Yes. But burning trash still kills 2 birds with one stone.

When I said dams not doing anything, I mean't hydroelectric dams not doing anything

The number I used was for all dams in the US being used for hydroelectric only adding 2% more hydroelectric power. Restarting old hydroelectric dams would have even less of an impact.

But it’s something. And it’s cleaner that solar, which uses toxic chemicals, or wind, which takes 19 tons of coal to build 1 turbine

But coundnt more dams lead to more and bigger wild fires? Could the great dams we've build over years, be causing the crazy fires out west?

Dams don’t cause drought. 🙄

yes. Finally a smart person

What the hell are you talking about? No.