Same applies to fossil fuels. Extracting the fuel, refining and processing it, transporting it to the final destination all involves using energy.
True, but then to be fair there is the energy in forging, casting, machining, and assembling a gasoline engine as well. Which I somehow feel is more energy intensive than battery production.
You mean the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity?
Or the electricity used to run the refineries that produce fuel?
Yes indeed. The same fuel used to help build and transport wind turbines or solar panels or mine and ship coal to the power plants. The same fuel used to mix and transport cement to build the dams that produce electricity or build the vessels to contain nuclear fission for producing electricity. The same fuel that mines and transports the copper and aluminum used in transmission lines to move that electricity from where it is produced to where it is used. We can play this game forever. The world is a long way away from reducing the use of fossil fuels. A very long way.
Electricity can be generated without fossil fuels, using green, carbon neutral renewable energy sources.
Is 23 years "a long way?"
Political goals and marketing hype meant to placate a certain segment have a history of falling well short of reality. The reality today remains, this world runs on fossil fuels.
It won't be easy to reduce that number but many are working hard at it. It's not to hurt anyone, quite the opposite.
Makes me wonder how transmitting 1 kWh via power line from a plant to a car, would compare with transmitting 1 kWh of gasoline from a refinery to a car. I know it wouldn't really matter, but it'd be an interesting number.
I posted many reports in this thread from various sources for anyone who needs a more accurate assessment. All those I found point to the same conclusion.
People are already reducing ff in all those applications, and keep working towards further reduction. The common goal is to maintain a decent quality of life for as many people as possible over the longest time, not to use a particular energy source over another.
Nothing wrong with aiming to reduce dependency. There is not 1 thing the world runs on. As Mach7 said, they are used mining and making batteries, and I can point out that batteries are used to start ICEs and make them more efficient.
Rather than making a blanket statement without support can you provide links and facts to back up your statements?
Well here’s a fact that speaks volumes. According to the Helsinki Center for Research on Energy & Clean Air in 2021 China started construction on 33 gigawatts of coal fired power plants. The most undertaken since 2016.
"China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[1] China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity, and is expected to contribute 43 percent of global renewable capacity growth.[2]"
And in 1900 the world moved on horseback. Automobiles?? The roads are too rough and where can you buy gasoline?
Great example. The move to automobiles (ICE ones at that) came from innovation in the private sector which produced a product (automobiles) that did not require government subsidies and mandates to become mainstream. It was such an innovative product that people craved a switch from horses to automobiles.
So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
I have stated on here many times that I am against virtually all government subsidies. However, to be clear many so called “subsidies” are simply generally accepted accounting principals that apply to virtually all similar industries (depreciation, depletion, etc). Opponents to a certain industry are frequently dishonest in what they tend to label as a subsidy.So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
Absolutely agree! The $20 billion in direct subsidies yearly for fossil fuels should be eliminated at once. When the cost of gasoline for cars and coal, natural gas and oil to run power plants triples in price then the public will decide on the appropriate energy source to use.
Assuming that enough fossil fuels will be produced in the first place in the face of a lack of subsidies.
There is a lot of space between “burning gas is bad” and “burning gas is wonderful”. Understand that when someone is skeptical of claims that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are against something but instead may just have a healthy does of skepticism.
In 2021 Americans used 335 billion gallons of gasoline. At $3 per gallon the spend would be around $1 trillion dollars. If all that $20 billion of direct subsidy was dedicated totally to gasoline (it is not), then Americans would spend $1,020,000,000,000 for those 335 billion gallons. The cost of gasoline would then be $3.04 instead of $3.00. HARDLY a tripling of price. Subsidies to fossil fuels is in the noise.So I take it that you would favor the elimination of government subsidies to prop up a product and let the marketplace decide instead?
Absolutely agree! The $20 billion in direct subsidies yearly for fossil fuels should be eliminated at once. When the cost of gasoline for cars and coal, natural gas and oil to run power plants triples in price then the public will decide on the appropriate energy source to use.
Assuming that enough fossil fuels will be produced in the first place in the face of a lack of subsidies.
Great! Then since by your own analysis fossil fuel subsidies are a drop in the bucket and do not keep fuel prices artificially low then you would have no objection to the complete elimination of all fossil fuel subsidies right?
Rather than simply parrot what the web site says can you provide the math on how removing $20 billion in annual direct subsidies would equate to $12.75/gallon gasoline?
