Why are some people so much against EVs and clean renewable energy sources?

[Iggy Wolf]

I mean, I don't know if it's strictly an American thing, in which a certain party constantly looks down on and mocks EVs and clean sources of energy, or it's actually more widespread in the world than I think, but I'm curious why so many people have such a negative and skeptical viewpoint?

Don't get me wrong, I imagine it wasn't that weird at the time to be skeptical of the internal combustion engine either when it was first introduced, and that the "horse and buggy" was a tried and true method of transportation, so people wouldn't be so quick to abandon it. But it seems to me that unlike those people, people today have the luxury of hindsight, in knowing that evidence and research has been done and actual results have been seen that have yielded better gains and experience with cleaner sources of energy.

Even if you couldn't get all cars to be EVs, having more of them be hybrids would still be an improvement. I once drove a hybrid because it was given to me as a rental. I immediately noticed how I got 600 miles on it vs the 400 my current car gets. MORE mileage for LESS money?! Who wouldn't want that?!! But it seems to me that people seem to have some kind of "personal attachment" to their gas guzzlers and/or ideology surrounding fossil fuels.

Seems like it's more a matter of money and convenience. If hybrids were as cheap and convenient as regular cars, I'm sure more people would maybe be open to the idea. Assuming that THOSE are the reasons why, and not some stupid "ideological stance" just to "own the [insert opposing political party here]".

[kingjames488]

引用自 Mr B.：

They are popping up everywhere. And the cost is being met by various companies, governments and organisations. Tesla obviously, Hyundai, Shell, BP, RWE, Daimler Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, and that's just a few.

yup..

引用自 kingjames488：

it's a thing to get it adopted so they can pass off the cost of it on the consumer once people rely on it...

[Mr B.]

引用自 kingjames488：

also "renewable" energy isn't all that renewable other than maybe hydroelectric... all those wind turbines and solar panels have a lifespan of like a decade then they tear them down and they create waste... hydro electric has been a reliable source of renewable energy literally since there's been electricity... thomas edison developed the first one ffs.

You know what renewable means, right? It's on about the 'fuel', not construction. Also, to correct you somewhat...

Wind turbines, 20-25 years, though modern ones are thought to last longer.

Nuclear, various but average is 40 years.

Coal plants, again varies but average of 46 years.

Solar panels, is debatable. Older ones start to lose chunks of efficiency so say down to 70%, your looking at 20-25 years. Modern ones however, are thought to be able to last far longer. The inverters are more likely to be needed to be replaced before the panels.

With all of the above, there is maintenance and replacement parts.

What you really want, is total energy cost over lifetime. I.e. what it takes to make, build (including transport and construction on site), maintainance and decommission. All that, v energy it produces over it's operating time.

Both solar and wind produce far more than all the above. With links to various studies:

https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/13/wind-turbine-never-generate-much-energy-cost-build/8423146002/

Nuclear cannot yet be given a final energy lifetime cost as none of the waste is yet in a permanent storage facility.

And you missed the bit where wind turbines and solar can be recycled. When was the last time you saw a decommissioned coal/gas/nuclear site recycled?

[Mr B.]

引用自 kingjames488：

引用自 Mr B.：

They are popping up everywhere. And the cost is being met by various companies, governments and organisations. Tesla obviously, Hyundai, Shell, BP, RWE, Daimler Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, and that's just a few.

yup..

引用自 kingjames488：

it's a thing to get it adopted so they can pass off the cost of it on the consumer once people rely on it...

Sooo.....where does the cost of existing fuel stations go?

I'm sure the cost of building and maintaining all that doesn't get passed onto the motorist, the big companies pay for it from the goodness of their own hearts :D :D

[kingjames488]

引用自 Mr B.：

引用自 kingjames488：

also "renewable" energy isn't all that renewable other than maybe hydroelectric... all those wind turbines and solar panels have a lifespan of like a decade then they tear them down and they create waste... hydro electric has been a reliable source of renewable energy literally since there's been electricity... thomas edison developed the first one ffs.

You know what renewable means, right? It's on about the 'fuel', not construction.

do you see the problem there? and how that makes no bloody sense?

引用自 Mr B.：

Also, to correct you somewhat...

Wind turbines, 20-25 years, though modern ones are thought to last longer.

Nuclear, various but average is 40 years.

Coal plants, again varies but average of 46 years.

Solar panels, is debatable. Older ones start to lose chunks of efficiency so say down to 70%, your looking at 20-25 years. Modern ones however, are thought to be able to last far longer. The inverters are more likely to be needed to be replaced before the panels.

With all of the above, there is maintenance and replacement parts.

What you really want, is total energy cost over lifetime. I.e. what it takes to make, build (including transport and construction on site), maintainance and decommission. All that, v energy it produces over it's operating time.

Both solar and wind produce far more than all the above. With links to various studies:

https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/13/wind-turbine-never-generate-much-energy-cost-build/8423146002/

Nuclear cannot yet be given a final energy lifetime cost as none of the waste is yet in a permanent storage facility.

why are you trying to toss in coal and nuclear with "renewables" to pad the numbers?
and leaving out hydro-electric? the actual winner here...
you see how it's easy to "prove a point" when you mix un-related facts while ignoring other facts?

引用自 Mr B.：

And you missed the bit where wind turbines and solar can be recycled. When was the last time you saw a decommissioned coal/gas/nuclear site recycled?

right... just like how plastic "can" be recycled but no one actually does it...

[Mr B.]

引用自 kingjames488：

why are you trying to toss in coal and nuclear with "renewables" to pad the numbers?
and leaving out hydro-electric? the actual winner here...
you see how it's easy to "prove a point" when you mix un-related facts while ignoring other facts?

Pad the numbers? WTF are you on about?

By all means, put hydro electric in there. It's a renewable ffs, exactly what I'm arguing for. But hydro is extremely site specific, more so than almost any other generation technology. It's awesome, but not applicable like any of the other types, at least not in the same scale.

By using something so situational, I'd be padding the numbers the other way to what your thinking.

But if you want, google says 25 years (this is the turbines, not the dam). However, some have lasted longer, over 50 years (none however, without major work or total replacement of turbines). Not sure if you've ever heard of Triggers Broom?

And you completely ignored what I said about energy v lifetime. Just because it didn't fit your opinion I guess.

引用自 kingjames488：

引用自 Mr B.：

And you missed the bit where wind turbines and solar can be recycled. When was the last time you saw a decommissioned coal/gas/nuclear site recycled?

right... just like how plastic "can" be recycled but no one actually does it...

Why don't people even bother to do research anymore?

Currently, wind turbines are 95% recycled (though, some countries can vary in policy), the blades being the main problem. While they can be recycled, generally they are not and put into landfill because of cost.

But that's an 'us' problem, not a problem of the technology.

Many governments now have strict rules on recycling panels.

Funny how people argue such things when the rules on renewable are far stricter than fossil fuel sites and nuclear waste.

[kingjames488]

引用自 Mr B.：

引用自 kingjames488：

why are you trying to toss in coal and nuclear with "renewables" to pad the numbers?
and leaving out hydro-electric? the actual winner here...
you see how it's easy to "prove a point" when you mix un-related facts while ignoring other facts?

Pad the numbers? WTF are you on about?

exactly what I said...

引用自 kingjames488：

why are you trying to toss in coal and nuclear with "renewables" to pad the numbers?

while you're doing what you're whole argument is just flawed...

edit: or were you trying to show that traditional power generation lasts longer? I'm not sure... regardless hydro electric power stations last longer.

[Xero_Daxter]

Once EV becomes cheaper than a beater car then I would consider buying one. That includes repairs and whatnot.

[Mr B.]

引用自 kingjames488：

引用自 Mr B.：

Pad the numbers? WTF are you on about?

exactly what I said...

引用自 kingjames488：

why are you trying to toss in coal and nuclear with "renewables" to pad the numbers?

while you're doing what you're whole argument is just flawed...

You make literally no sense. The numbers are there - get off your ass and do some of your own research, you want to dispute it. You won't though, because you're lazy and don't want to do true, unbiased research. It's easier for you to just argue increasingly stupid things because you won't consider your wrong.

My argument, is that I think renewables are better, even with their drawbacks. It's my opinion with reasons and evidence. That simple.

I've got even more reasons why I think renewables are better, but frankly I don't think you're even open to them.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

the only way you could have eletric cars that are cleaner then gas powered one is if you get everyone to drive much smaller cars , less mass and smaller batteries which would reduce how much energy peoples have to use to move around.

[kingjames488]

引用自 Mr B.：

引用自 kingjames488：

exactly what I said...


while you're doing what you're whole argument is just flawed...

You make literally no sense. The numbers are there - get off your ass and do some of your own research, you want to dispute it. You won't, cos it's easy to throw silly accusations but harder to do unbiased research.

My argument, is that I think renewables are better, even with their drawbacks. It's my opinion with reasons and evidence. That simple.

ya, I looked over it again and I'm not really sure what you were trying to say other than that wind and solar have a lower livespan than coal or nuclear... tho I'm still pretty sure hydro-electric beats them.

and you can't just build a solar farm anywhere either.... one of the major problems of these renewables is they have to be built where the resource is.

hydro electric is still the winner tho.

[Xero_Daxter]

引用自 Lemonfed：

the only way you could have eletric cars that are cleaner then gas powered one is if you get everyone to drive much smaller cars , less mass and smaller batteries which would reduce how much energy peoples have to use to move around.

*laughs in Electric Semi-Trucks that have to drive 2000 miles with 80,000 pounds of load*

[Ulfrinn]

Everyone who has any kind of rechargeable portable electronics are aware of one major rule. That battery life declines significantly after a few years. However, with an electric car, it's $25,000 to replace... every few years. That's why electric cars are going to fill landfills. You can buy a new, conventional vehicle every few years and still be better off.

What concerns me most is we have people in power trying to mandate that people buy into them... and it's clear they're not even, and may never be all that affordable. Those mandates will harm lower income families, while their corporate cronies get rich off the forced business those mandates will bring.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

引用自 Xero_Daxter：

引用自 Lemonfed：

the only way you could have eletric cars that are cleaner then gas powered one is if you get everyone to drive much smaller cars , less mass and smaller batteries which would reduce how much energy peoples have to use to move around.

*laughs in Electric Semi-Trucks that have to drive 2000 miles with 80,000 pounds of load*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg

but then in my first post I was more specifically thinking about the average person that more often then not is driving alone and will only be bringing around about a few days worth of grocery at most for their home.

the kind of peoples that buy an SUV or Pick Up trucks even when they don't need to haul a lot's of stuffs around.

[Ulfrinn]

A better idea to above would be trains that run that way... but those already exist. Time to bring back trains for transporting cargo.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

引用自 Ulfrinn：

A better idea to above would be trains that run that way... but those already exist. Time to bring back trains for transporting cargo.

Bring back horses and remodel society.