Having an electric car is not CO2 free, but even the current mix of electricity in the US ensures it's about 50% cleaner in total. See figure ES-2 in this document. With low-carbon sources spreading, it's going to get even better.
Also, what happened to this? Did the 50% carbon TCO reduction disappear? Who cares about the small increase caused by battery manufacturing when the total decrease is so much greater?
People, including myself, have already explained to you that individuals are a blip in greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions comes from industry.
A small hint: "Per-capita emissions" don't mean breathing and farting of individuals.
That's an obvious fallacy. In the absence of renewables covering a part of the demand, the *same* demand (which is not being changed by adding or removing generators) would have to be covered with extra lignite burned - at an extra cost, as per your own reasoning above. If you had "extra" renewables, what would you be doing with them? Shunting them uselessly? No, they allow you to burn *less* coal, which comes at $0.15/kWh of externality cost (at least!) plus the fuel price - around $0.04-$0.05/kWh.
Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
Given that China is the one emitting half as much CO2 per inhabitant as the US, why are you being petty?
It's simple. Given a fixed population of Earth, CO2 per capita needs to be below a certain level to prevent adverse consequences. Given the resulting permissible CO2 per capita, CO2 per unit of GDP *also* needs to be low enough to ensure a decent standard of living. So both need to satisfy certain limits. US fares badly at both, Luxembourg fares badly at CO2 per capita but less so at CO2 per unit of GDP. Some other countries have the opposite problem of Luxembourg.
If you can't produce enough barley, you can charge as much as the largest top segment of potential buyers that you can still satisfy is willing to pay.
In my country's case, apparently under *any* set of conceivable numbers. Using the *lowest* current estimate of carbon price adds $0.15 to price of most of our conventional generation. That basically doubles the average retail price of our electricity.
Wake up! We can't even reliably predict the f*king weather two weeks out, let alone the climate 30-100 years out.
If I'm filling a pool with a hose, and I know that the average water surface is rising by a millimeter per minute, I won't know any better how high a wind-induced wave is going to be in a given place at a given time, but I will *still* know that the average will be six centimeters higher an hour from now.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions?
No, which is why the US is bad because it's both wasteful AND large. However, the population of Earth between the alternatives is fixed. If you covered the Earth with Chinas to match the current population, it would better emissions-wise than covering it with USes.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive
Germany's high prices are caused by paying for OLD technology. Costs of future installations CAN'T be extrapolated from German payments to operators of OLD equipment with grandfathered feed-in tariffs.
Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up" the renewable source as needed - but do not include the costs of that backup source.
"Most don't include"? You must be reading some crappy studies. Not to mention the fact that most grids are overprovisioned with generator capacity. My country already has generator capacity equal to around 200% of the average consumption. I'd be surprised to see a stable large grid that is significantly less provisioned.
Slashdot Mirror
But after the Fukushima disaster, they closed down all their nuclear power plants. To make up for it, they have to expand the use of coal
This is false, the decrease in nuclear output has been more than adequately followed by an increase in renewable generation.
and buy electricity from nuclear power plants in France
This is also false, Germany has actually shifted into net exports.
This usually coincides with another milestone of being an adult, like getting a job, going off to university, or getting married.
Or an alien robot invasion?
Having an electric car is not CO2 free, but even the current mix of electricity in the US ensures it's about 50% cleaner in total. See figure ES-2 in this document. With low-carbon sources spreading, it's going to get even better.
He didn't. Where did he assume that?
Also, what happened to this? Did the 50% carbon TCO reduction disappear? Who cares about the small increase caused by battery manufacturing when the total decrease is so much greater?
People, including myself, have already explained to you that individuals are a blip in greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions comes from industry.
A small hint: "Per-capita emissions" don't mean breathing and farting of individuals.
Because the climate cares not one whit about how much each person emits - it cares about the TOTAL emissions.
If you want to solve CO2 emissions, you have to start with the biggest out there - China.
Oh, if *that* is how you reason, then the solution is simple - split China into smaller countries and the problem is solved!
That's an obvious fallacy. In the absence of renewables covering a part of the demand, the *same* demand (which is not being changed by adding or removing generators) would have to be covered with extra lignite burned - at an extra cost, as per your own reasoning above. If you had "extra" renewables, what would you be doing with them? Shunting them uselessly? No, they allow you to burn *less* coal, which comes at $0.15/kWh of externality cost (at least!) plus the fuel price - around $0.04-$0.05/kWh.
Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
Given that China is the one emitting half as much CO2 per inhabitant as the US, why are you being petty?
There are laws requiring them to not discriminate
Is truth a protected class?
One powered to a significant extent by lignite at ~1000 g CO2/kWh.
It's simple. Given a fixed population of Earth, CO2 per capita needs to be below a certain level to prevent adverse consequences. Given the resulting permissible CO2 per capita, CO2 per unit of GDP *also* needs to be low enough to ensure a decent standard of living. So both need to satisfy certain limits. US fares badly at both, Luxembourg fares badly at CO2 per capita but less so at CO2 per unit of GDP. Some other countries have the opposite problem of Luxembourg.
repeatedly screwed his users
With an Allen wrench, I presume?
Luxembourg is much worse for the environment than the US - their CO2 emissions are higher per capita, after all...
Luxembourg actually has 39% lower emissions per unit of GDP than the United States.
Exactly the opposite.
If you can't produce enough barley, you can charge as much as the largest top segment of potential buyers that you can still satisfy is willing to pay.
In my country's case, apparently under *any* set of conceivable numbers. Using the *lowest* current estimate of carbon price adds $0.15 to price of most of our conventional generation. That basically doubles the average retail price of our electricity.
Wake up! We can't even reliably predict the f*king weather two weeks out, let alone the climate 30-100 years out.
If I'm filling a pool with a hose, and I know that the average water surface is rising by a millimeter per minute, I won't know any better how high a wind-induced wave is going to be in a given place at a given time, but I will *still* know that the average will be six centimeters higher an hour from now.
Large fleets of BEVs don't require non-renewable backups, since they are their own energy buffers.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions?
No, which is why the US is bad because it's both wasteful AND large. However, the population of Earth between the alternatives is fixed. If you covered the Earth with Chinas to match the current population, it would better emissions-wise than covering it with USes.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive
Germany's high prices are caused by paying for OLD technology. Costs of future installations CAN'T be extrapolated from German payments to operators of OLD equipment with grandfathered feed-in tariffs.
In fact, photovotaic solar, is the absolute highest priced option out there.
That "highest price" is getting pretty low these days.
Most of those "solar/wind are cheaper!" studies assume the existing power infrastructure will always be available to "back up" the renewable source as needed - but do not include the costs of that backup source.
"Most don't include"? You must be reading some crappy studies. Not to mention the fact that most grids are overprovisioned with generator capacity. My country already has generator capacity equal to around 200% of the average consumption. I'd be surprised to see a stable large grid that is significantly less provisioned.
ICE cars are not cost-competitive either without large subsidies in form of ignored negative externalities.
I saw another article that said we're past the point of no return, so there is no use trying at this point.
So it's straight to point 13 these days?
Too many decades late for that. :/