The speaker makes some valid points, but there is some misinformation and mistakes about history in what he says. Two points in particular: Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. They would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern power meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this. Obsolete technology has often been banned. He says we did not ban horses to bring in automobiles. That is incorrect. In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, horses were banned first to facilitate railroads, then electric streetcars, and then automobiles. Horses were never supposed to be allowed on railroad tracks. Railroad companies have been trying to stop pedestrians, horses, cows and wildlife from using their right of way since railroads began. Horse drawn urban streetcars were widely used in the 19th century. Electric streetcars (trolley cars) were introduced starting in 1881. For a short while, on some lines, a mix of horse drawn and electric streetcars were used, but this was soon prohibited because it caused many delays and accidents. Horses were banned from most urban public streets soon after automobiles became widespread, after 1918. They were still common in rural roads and small towns. They were never allowed on freeways and highways designed for automobiles, starting in the 1920s. They could not be used. Obviously, a slow vehicle on an automobile highway would cause catastrophic accidents. Such roads are banked, for speeds of 30 to 60 mph. A horse drawn vehicle would tip over.
But horses were banned because they didn't want them conflicting with the cars; not because cars needed a "Leg up"...you wouldn't want horses being mowed down or trampled.
No need to scotch gasoline cars, electric ones will take over because they already get 80-150 MPGe (miles per gallon, electrical equivalent). If people drive little, or have special needs they will not create much CO2 or noxious gases or particles in comparison to the amount that is created or released by nature. Musk expects most HD gas/Diesel trucks to be gone as soon as electrics are available. Electric car transition will require about half the energy consumed by gas/diesel vehicles to be switched to electrical power and made available in charging stations. There are some promising inventions in Hydrogen powered cars. Both H2 and petroleum fuels can be formed using the the heat and power from advanced nuclear plants. See Generation4 nuclear power.
There's not enough materials to build electric cars for everyone. They are getting scarce and the dirty behind the scenes of GETTING these materials isn't being shown to everyone.
Plastic water bottles pollute...tax them? Plastic for food store pollutes...tax them? Tax tires? All car parts? Roads? Phones? Windmills? Salem nuclear plant, NJ had an impact study done 10 years ago and found zero pollutants around the plant except for the trash left by humans, like plastic bottles and bags... That nuclear plant makes enough energy to match with 1200 acres of solar panels and has been in operation over 40 years now, solar panels last maybe 15 years... you should see the article in LA about the huge pile of used up solar panels that no one wants to deal with in LA.
@@prefersoxygen9373 solve the nuclean waste issue, and find a private insurance company to insure nuclear, and minimize the mining footprint - and then keep the high energy use human populations from destroying every ecosystem on the planet- then i might go nuclear. but for now the renewables and extreme energy efficiency have the smaller eco footprint. and i agree to tax everything that pollutes!
@@markschuette3770 you must be rich because taxes will crush the poor... Nuclear waste is encased in titanium lined lead blocks and then encased in reinforced concrete and dry storage which can last for hundreds of years according to the current rate of decay of currently stored waste... It may also be stored at the bottom of spent strip mines in which they water proof each block and then cover them in backfilled dirt up of at least 75 feet/25 m.. renewables are non sustainable and full landfills...use fossil fuels to make and install.. did you know that there are more deaths in totality and annual with renewables than nuclear energy? I see plastics everywhere polluting but I see no nuclear waste pollution (apart from Fukushima)...but guess what has been found in waterways and the ocean ... Solar panels debris and micro plastic.... Are you willing to sacrifice large swaths of arable lands for solar fields?
@@prefersoxygen9373 if your against your tax money crushing the poor- then stop nuclear- its heavily subsidized by the government (for example the insurance). you actually can grow crops or graze animals under some PV panel layouts. and PV can last for twice the 15 yrs you menthion and its improving all the time. the bottom line is we do not need the amount of energy we use now- by at least 1/2 ! we first need to invest in mass transit, rail, elec. busses, bicycle infrastructure, and all forms of energy efficiency and NOT using energy. and i'm working poor- but what gives me the most pleasure in life is nature and healthy ecosytems. and yes plastic needs to be taxed like all things that pollute.
@Mark Every city and town and large storage tanks at each gas station, even larger tanks at stations where big trucks refuel. That fuel presents a danger but we all accept it. Nuclear waste also presents a danger and can be contained similarly. We don't allow children to play or adults to linger near chemical ot fuel storage tanks. The risks with nuclear are similar. However it would actually be more likely to be a fatal for someone to fall into a chemical or a fuel storage tank, vs a tank containing nuclear fuel covered with water. A person falling into a tank containing nuclear waste will most likely survive. I imagine the reserve is most probable with anything else. Every form of energy produces some waste. But nuclear energy produces the least amount of waste, per unit of energy.
Long story short, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and greedy EV companies
I ride a unicorn to work and plan on using fairy dust for energy.
Cool. Fairy dust is totally zero emissions and renewable dude, and cheap.
A terrible green way of keeping the poor poorer and the rich richer!
I hope you run for Governor again.
😂 brother Spittin facts 😂
Will never happen.
The speaker makes some valid points, but there is some misinformation and mistakes about history in what he says. Two points in particular:
Electric cars will not be a burden on the power grid if most of them are charged overnight. They will cause the power grid to consume more natural gas, but overall much less energy and CO2 emissions than gasoline would. They would be a problem if they were charged during the day. With modern power meters, electric power rates can be set to avoid this.
Obsolete technology has often been banned. He says we did not ban horses to bring in automobiles. That is incorrect. In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, horses were banned first to facilitate railroads, then electric streetcars, and then automobiles. Horses were never supposed to be allowed on railroad tracks. Railroad companies have been trying to stop pedestrians, horses, cows and wildlife from using their right of way since railroads began. Horse drawn urban streetcars were widely used in the 19th century. Electric streetcars (trolley cars) were introduced starting in 1881. For a short while, on some lines, a mix of horse drawn and electric streetcars were used, but this was soon prohibited because it caused many delays and accidents. Horses were banned from most urban public streets soon after automobiles became widespread, after 1918. They were still common in rural roads and small towns. They were never allowed on freeways and highways designed for automobiles, starting in the 1920s. They could not be used. Obviously, a slow vehicle on an automobile highway would cause catastrophic accidents. Such roads are banked, for speeds of 30 to 60 mph. A horse drawn vehicle would tip over.
But horses were banned because they didn't want them conflicting with the cars; not because cars needed a "Leg up"...you wouldn't want horses being mowed down or trampled.
Yeah no one comes home from work and turns on the AC, electric stove, and clothes dryer. You have no idea what you are talking about
It’s a joke
No need to scotch gasoline cars, electric ones will take over because they already get 80-150 MPGe (miles per gallon, electrical equivalent). If people drive little, or have special needs they will not create much CO2 or noxious gases or particles in comparison to the amount that is created or released by nature. Musk expects most HD gas/Diesel trucks to be gone as soon as electrics are available. Electric car transition will require about half the energy consumed by gas/diesel vehicles to be switched to electrical power and made available in charging stations. There are some promising inventions in Hydrogen powered cars. Both H2 and petroleum fuels can be formed using the the heat and power from advanced nuclear plants. See Generation4 nuclear power.
There's not enough materials to build electric cars for everyone. They are getting scarce and the dirty behind the scenes of GETTING these materials isn't being shown to everyone.
Just ignore the engineering reality
You’re gagging on dumbshit juice
If he actually did the research he would know IT ALL A LIE.
the better way is to tax fossil fuels (pollution). and nuclear is not clean!
Plastic water bottles pollute...tax them?
Plastic for food store pollutes...tax them?
Tax tires? All car parts? Roads?
Phones? Windmills?
Salem nuclear plant, NJ had an impact study done 10 years ago and found zero pollutants around the plant except for the trash left by humans, like plastic bottles and bags... That nuclear plant makes enough energy to match with 1200 acres of solar panels and has been in operation over 40 years now, solar panels last maybe 15 years... you should see the article in LA about the huge pile of used up solar panels that no one wants to deal with in LA.
@@prefersoxygen9373 solve the nuclean waste issue, and find a private insurance company to insure nuclear, and minimize the mining footprint - and then keep the high energy use human populations from destroying every ecosystem on the planet- then i might go nuclear. but for now the renewables and extreme energy efficiency have the smaller eco footprint. and i agree to tax everything that pollutes!
@@markschuette3770 you must be rich because taxes will crush the poor...
Nuclear waste is encased in titanium lined lead blocks and then encased in reinforced concrete and dry storage which can last for hundreds of years according to the current rate of decay of currently stored waste... It may also be stored at the bottom of spent strip mines in which they water proof each block and then cover them in backfilled dirt up of at least 75 feet/25 m.. renewables are non sustainable and full landfills...use fossil fuels to make and install.. did you know that there are more deaths in totality and annual with renewables than nuclear energy? I see plastics everywhere polluting but I see no nuclear waste pollution (apart from Fukushima)...but guess what has been found in waterways and the ocean ... Solar panels debris and micro plastic.... Are you willing to sacrifice large swaths of arable lands for solar fields?
@@prefersoxygen9373 if your against your tax money crushing the poor- then stop nuclear- its heavily subsidized by the government (for example the insurance). you actually can grow crops or graze animals under some PV panel layouts. and PV can last for twice the 15 yrs you menthion and its improving all the time. the bottom line is we do not need the amount of energy we use now- by at least 1/2 ! we first need to invest in mass transit, rail, elec. busses, bicycle infrastructure, and all forms of energy efficiency and NOT using energy. and i'm working poor- but what gives me the most pleasure in life is nature and healthy ecosytems. and yes plastic needs to be taxed like all things that pollute.
@Mark
Every city and town and large storage tanks at each gas station, even larger tanks at stations where big trucks refuel. That fuel presents a danger but we all accept it. Nuclear waste also presents a danger and can be contained similarly. We don't allow children to play or adults to linger near chemical ot fuel storage tanks. The risks with nuclear are similar. However it would actually be more likely to be a fatal for someone to fall into a chemical or a fuel storage tank, vs a tank containing nuclear fuel covered with water. A person falling into a tank containing nuclear waste will most likely survive. I imagine the reserve is most probable with anything else.
Every form of energy produces some waste. But nuclear energy produces the least amount of waste, per unit of energy.
Shellenberg lies