theprof00 said:
Your second paragraph and on is very misinformed. Electric is the most efficient energy source we have. Instead of burning gasoline in cars (extremely inefficient) we can burn them in a plant and feed the electricity to other applications. And yes I know we can't "switch" to wind and solar. That is a demonization to think that that's our goal. Wind and solar and tidal are meant to offset, not replace. Furthermore, currently in the world today, there is 194 Gigawatts being produced worldwide. That's enough to power 194 million homes. We get a lot more power from it than you think. By 2020, the government wants 20% of our energy use based off of wind. Do you realize how much oil that displaces? So, much to your chagrin, we don't actually need to displace tons of animal habitats for it. We use tidal and wind in conjunction in oceans farms, and displaces very little. There is a major reduction in usage, and you just need to educate yourself a little better. You have some good questions, and some logic behind it, but from what I can tell, your sources have blown it out of proportion. Additionally, there are many places that are nigh unliveable that are perfect environments for energy gathering, like the desert, the ocean, craggy landscapes, etc etc that we've only begun to transform into collection fields. By 2020 we could possibly offset oil needs by as much as 35-40%. You know how the arab world is only really a power because of their oil? Connect the dots, maan. You're a bright guy. There is so much more to gain than just energy and jobs. There's independence, defunding of the arab countries, raising the world standard, cultural reach, etc etc. |
You keep bringing up jobs. You may create a few new jobs, but what about the jobs that are lost when we just start dumping oil and coal? Basically we're going to be putting a lot of people out of work, while giving new people jobs, so jobs will probably remain the same.
As far as Arab countries go, we could already have them defunded if we invest in the sources of fuel we have here, as well as develop more nuclear power plants. While this is going on we would allow companies to further invest into other technologies, without given them huge taxpayer funded subsidies, and when the time is right and these technoligies are actually affordable, then the market will decide its time.
I find it interesting how you think burning gas in a car is inefficient, yet burning actual oil is more efficient and environmentally friendly. Of course, you also have to think about our electrical grid as it is now. There are brownouts and blackouts with how we have it now. Now imagine what will happen when half the country is charging their car at almost the exact same time. We would need a complete overhaul of our electrical grid. Of course, you'll probably have special connectors that only special stations will be licensed to have, which will cost you extra to use on top of any Federal/State tax. Then you have to charge at least 1-2 times a day (more if you travel long distances). All that, plus the extra expense of even purchasing the car, is not going to be very cost effective.
Edit: Also, there's the fact it's going to take you at least 6-8 hrs to charge your car. And when the batteries die out, it will be quite expensive to have them changed out. Which with how many times you will be charging it, will probably be once a year.
