Still does nothing to address the amount of steel and concrete needed for wind power. Coal and nuclear use 1/10th the steel and concrete for the same power output. Where does this steel and concrete come from?
If advancements in wind mill technology can halve the cost of wind then would it not also be possible for advancements in technology to reduce the costs of nuclear power by a similar amount? Especially when wind takes so much more resources per production capacity? Wind is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Once people realize the environmental impact of wind power to that of nuclear then nuclear will dominate.
Those that oppose nuclear power are ignorant, mentally impaired, or both. We can fix ignorant, but we can't fix stupid.
Of course, all is negated because you found the black swan, the tall midget, the short giant.
There is still a majority of rail that is not electrified. Many of these rails it is not economical to electrify. When an electric locomotive fails how is it recovered? With a diesel locomotive. How is a failed diesel locomotive recovered? With another diesel locomotive.
A diesel locomotive can travel electrified tracks but an electric train cannot travel on non-electrified tracks. This advantage is used often in cases when the electric line is at capacity or the line loses power.
Let's say that we use electric locomotives to move the fuel for airplanes and ships, does that mean we can do away with those oil pipelines? No. Because moving oil by electric train is asking for not only another spill (much more common when moving fuel by train than by pipe) but now it's moving on a rail in close proximity to high voltage power lines. Let's add the risks of a fire on top of the environmental damage to an oil spill. This is on top of using limited rail capacity to move a product that can be more cheaply and safely moved by pipeline.
The electric lines are a danger to cargo and passengers, put height limitations for cargo when the lines are overhead. Sure, electric trains have advantages which is why they are so common. If we made an all out effort to convert those diesel locomotives to electric then we'd have to spend a lot of money, and it would take decades to complete. What do we do in the mean time? We need to build oil pipelines so that the trains that carry the materials to electrify these lines can run. Even then we'd need to keep some diesel locomotives around for emergencies.
No, I'm pretty sure it is the tree huggers that look like idiots here.
Look up how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline. Next time you fill your tank note how long it takes to fill and how many gallons were pumped. Now figure out how many watts that gasoline pump just transferred. Do some tinkering with that math and compute how many amps that would be with a typical household electrical service voltage. With an atypical household service voltage. With an industrial electrical service. Go look up some electric service codes on how large of a conductor it would take to transfer that much current.
Even if you assume that the gasoline fueled vehicle has terrible efficiency and the electric vehicle is near 100% efficient the amount of energy transferred in gasoline is at a level that modern electrical technology cannot do. These electric vehicles are fine for things like a commuter car, or city buses, but electricity does not work for things like powering trains, long haul trucking, aircraft, watercraft, and so much more. People may call trains "electric hybrid" because it has a diesel generator set driving electric traction motors but that does not make it "electric" in the same way as a Tesla car.
Even if we have some leap in technology tomorrow that makes electric vehicles more practical we will still be burning a lot of petroleum for another fifty years as the infrastructure gets built out and these vehicles reach their service end of life.
So, what should we do about it? Well, for one it might be helpful if idiot tree huggers stop protesting oil pipelines. We need that oil. If it doesn't move by pipelines, with their electric pumps (powered by "green" nuclear and wind) then it will move by diesel trains, trucks, and ships.
These idiot tree huggers are destroying the environment.
My first thought about this was about these vehicles being coal powered as you predicted. My second thought was that with billions of people without reliable electric service this development is quite meaningless to them.
How do we bring electricity to one or two billion more people and not add to the carbon output of humanity? If this plan to replace petroleum powered vehicles with electric ones does not include a plan to develop carbon free energy then we will have a problem.
Wind power is great until you realize that for every megawatt of capacity installed it takes over 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete. Nuclear power takes one tenth of that. To replace coal with wind would take 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world production of steel and concrete is 1.5 billion tons. This is from a Morgan Stanley director at the 2016 Platts nuclear conference.
We cannot have "green" energy and provide electricity to the world unless nuclear power is part of the plan. This does not mean solar and wind cannot also be part of that plan but without nuclear power having electric vehicles is not practical.
We have three choices: - Status quo and all that comes with it - Nuclear power and an improved environment - We join those people without reliable electric services
I'll predict that someone would respond with that some technological advancement will solve all of our problems. To those thinking this right now I ask, what should we do until that technology comes along? We have three choices, pick one.
You mean like print out secured documents, fold them up, stick them in a pocket, and walk out the door? It sounds like that is what Reality Winner did.
I'm quite certain you may be only half serious with this but I'll make a comment anyway.
I worked at a place that made the electronics for some of these "things" you imply. The forces on the "things" when fired from a cannon is immense. Getting electronics to survive this is not trivial. Getting something like a pizza to survive this delivery method would also not be trivial. I do like that you've given this some thought.
What some people have proposed since the early days of flight is having a kind of parking garage for private aircraft built much like a land based aircraft carrier. People would be able to land on the top with an arrested assist to shorten the landing length. To reduce the length needed for the take off, and save on fuel, there would be a catapult assisted take off. To manage all the people coming and going the garage would have elevators to lower the aircraft to different levels where parking spaces existed.
Imagine a package delivery system much like this. A tower of a building with space to warehouse products for sale and aircraft to deliver them. As people order products the product would be loaded on an automated aircraft and launched by catapult. The automated craft would fly overhead, release the product by parachute and return to base. The drone could be recovered and then refueled for the next delivery.
I know I'm talking fantasy too but perhaps just a bit closer to reality.
To those people that ask why they don't have a flying car yet in $current_year here is your answer:
They are energy intensive, far more than rolling cars.
I've talked to a few pilots and they tell me that light aircraft will burn common gasoline (the kind without ethanol mixed in) and at a rate nearly equivalent to a common pickup truck, if done in a rough miles to the gallon per person kind of computation. Of course a common pickup truck can carry more than a ton of cargo and the kind of plane being discussed here can carry maybe a passenger or three and some luggage.
These planes don't cost much more than a common pickup truck do either. At least if you aren't too picky on getting a used aircraft instead of a new truck. Then what's the problem?
The problem is that an airplane can only go from an airstrip to an airstrip. The definition of an "airstrip" might be a grassy field in some cases but unless that grassy field is your backyard and the places you want to go also have such a place to land then this airplane is not so useful for day to day travel.
One fix to this problem is to be able to land and take off vertically. To get an aircraft to lift off vertically means it requires a much larger engine. This means more fuel is burned. That changes the math.
Another fix is to make an airplane road worthy. That means fitting the rules on minimum road speeds, crash worthiness, lights, and handling roads rougher than even a grassy field. All of this adds mass that must be lifted. Mass that is not useful in flight. Mass that adds to fuel consumption.
Either solution to making an aircraft that can take a person from door to door, or even parking lot to parking lot, is going to take a lot of fuel.
Flying cars are a really bad idea.
I agree on a lot of your points but I believe many of the issues can be solved with some changes in law that one must follow, some changes to infrastructure, automation to simplify the controls, and so on. The big problem though that is not so easy to solve is the cost of the fuel. I believe we can make an aircraft that is safe, inexpensive, and land on a spot not much bigger than a parking space. The problem will be in the cost of the fuel. If the cost of energy drops because of some leap in technology then I can expect "flying cars" (I hate that term) to become common.
How cheap would energy have to get to make a "flying car" practical? That's hard to say. It would have to get cheap enough that the speed and convenience of air travel is worth the cost in fuel compared to that of travel by ground. The comparative convenience of air vs. ground travel also depends on a lot of things. Which means these aircraft might be common in one place but unheard of in another.
Looking at the specs they claim a flight altitude of 10 meters. This is quite likely within the range of ground effect meaning it cannot attain "flight" as many would understand it. This may also be merely a way to get around a lot of rules from the FAA and similar government agencies around the world and not have to go through the more rigorous testing required for a powered aircraft.
This vehicle should not be that difficult to design. We've been making quad-copters for a long time now and so a lot of the math has been done. Just scale up to the point it can carry a person. Unless the problem is a matter of optimization, they are trying to find out just how cheap they can make this for market.
Anyway, with a listed maximum altitude of ten meters this is less a "flying car" and more a hovercraft or ground effect vehicle.
Death is to be feared by the young but welcomed by the wise and old. We are to fill our lives, and the lives of those around us, with adventures, song, stories, food, and love. After we've filled ourselves up and spread ourselves thin we should embrace the next life that awaits us all.
Trying to extend our lives beyond it's natural course is a path leading to pain, suffering, and evil. Those that are successful lose their humanity.
Don't be stupid and lazy. We will definitely have electric cars that are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to operate, and cheaper to maintain than ICE's in the very near future (this coming decade, guaranteed).
HEY EVERYBODY! LISTEN UP!
Okay, not that I have your attention I have great news to share. It seems that all of our problems are solved.... Well, they'll be solved in ten years. But don't worry. You don't have to do anything in that time. We have it all figured out. Come back here in ten years, with your check books mind you, and we'll be selling planet saving cars for your garage and solar collecting shingles for your roof.
These cars will cost no more than your last car and be just as convenient and luxurious, more likely even more so. These solar collectors will cost no more than shingles and last just as long. The two together means you'll never have to pay another utility bill or visit a filling station. All with the power of the sun.
Thanks everyone for your attention. In the mean time do as you were, there's nothing to worry about.
[/snark]
Is that the message you want to send? Because I assure you that is the message a lot of people are getting right now.
What does your guarantee give me if you cannot provide what you promised? Won't this mean people will be making the problem worse in the mean time?
I have a solution, maybe just part of the solution but it is something we can do right now. We can build more nuclear power plants. Nuclear fission is as clean as wind and solar, as cheap as coal, safer than all the above, and does not require some future technologies to work. If we give the US Navy some money to develop their jet fuel synthesis program then we can produce fuels made from carbon extracted from the air and hydrogen from seawater. I won't guarantee the synthetic fuel technology in ten years because it is possible the Navy wants to keep this for themselves for a while. But the nuclear power we can have right away. We can build a gigawatt scale nuclear reactor in a matter of a couple years. In a couple years later with experienced manpower we can build two in that same time. Then four, then eight. in ten years we could have dozens of nuclear power plants giving us cheap, clean, and safe energy.
We can't stop there though. We'd have to keep going as those nuclear power plants age and need replacement. That's how we keep them safe, by taking them out of service before they become a problem. Don't worry about nuclear waste either. We know how to turn that waste into medical isotopes, portable heat and energy sources for spacecraft, and so on. All that stuff will be used as it decays away to inert elements or get shot off into deep space.
Stupid me hitting submit in the middle of my post. I'll continue...
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
I've thought about this problem for a very long time, perhaps for longer than you've been alive. The solution does not involve subsidies because the government only fucks things up. Get rid of the subsidies unless there is a very specific problem to solve.
The government subsidized a US Navy project to address the problem of having to ship so much fuel to ships at sea to allow the aircraft they carry to fly. They developed a process that turns seawater into jet fuel. Let's subsidize that, make it standard equipment on every aircraft carrier, destroyer, and amphibious assault ship. This technology relies on nuclear power to drive the process. Since the carbon comes from the sea it closes the carbon loop on the fuel. It's a carbon free process to produce jet fuel.
We can use this same process on land for civilian fuel production. Since there are people standing in line at the Department of Energy to get permission to develop these technologies for commercial use there is no real need to subsidize it. The government needs to only give them permission to proceed.
There's no raping of the taxpayer because these reactors can run off the tails that are left after the wind and solar people got what they wanted out of the earth. You think that wind and solar is free from producing radioactive waste? Uranium and thorium is everywhere. If you dig a hole and take all the stuff that is not uranium and thorium then it is left in concentrated piles.
We can get energy while cleaning the earth. We get rid of radioactive material by consuming it in a reactor. We get rid of natural oil spills by digging up tar sands. By using only wind and solar this oil and radioactive material is still there to contaminate the environment. Once done in those mines they can be filled back in with clay and sand and trees planted on top.
What's your problem? You don't like trees? Windmills and solar panels displace trees. I like trees and so I like nuclear power.
The only reason you even dare to mention nuclear is that, in the event of an accident, the cost of any kind of cleanup has been externalized.
What of the external costs of wind and solar? These windmills and solar collectors are made of materials we dig from the ground. Materials extracted with toxic chemical and tails. All kinds of heavy metals go into these things, and leach into ground water. Where does the cleanup of that mess come in? I know the answer, it comes in being out of sight and out of mind. These materials are largely mined and refined in China where they dump this toxic stew into lakes. The lighter stuff evaporates into the air. Some of the heavier elements blow away in the wind or sink into the water table. We've externalized all of the USA environmental hazards to China. What happens when China decides it doesn't want to do this any more?
Nothing is "externalized" in reality. Delayed perhaps but people will see these effects. It's only external if the person is ignorant, willfully or not, of the costs.
You talk about coal and nuclear as though they are viable alternatives. They are, if you ignore the fact that they rape taxpayers in a way that solar and wind don't even come close to.
If you fear nuclear power and coal more that global warming then global warming is no threat. The chances of an accident in a nuclear power plant goes up with the age of the plant. The longer we delay building new nuclear power plants the more likely one will fail. If the fear keeps people from building a new plant then an accident that costs many lives becomes more and more certain. We've not had any of these accidents in the USA for a long time because, as far as nuclear reactors go, they are still relatively new. If we keep them running from their 40 year planned life span and extend that to 80 years like Obama likely forced us to do then we will see accidents. We will have to build a new nuclear power plant in the USA at a rate of one per month to avoid skyrocketing electricity prices, nuclear accidents, blackouts, burning coal, or whatever else you might think of as disastrous.
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
As I stated in my previous post we see this cost of wind and solar being cheaper than coal is only true if the fossil fuel back up remain in place (the coal plants already exists as you point out). If the goal is to go beyond nibbling at the edges of coal burning and replace coal completely then solar energy will have to be cheap enough to make up for the infrastructure needed to account that the sun does not always shine.
This can mean shifting the sunlight in time with storage systems, in space through transmission lines, or more likely a combination of the two. Solar is not cheaper than coal because there needs to be a large build out of additional infrastructure for it to replace coal.
We've seen a number of nations try to reduce their carbon output and reduce the cost of energy with a combination of wind, solar, and fossil fuel backups. Apparently because nuclear power is not popular right now. The result has been increases in costs and increases in carbon output.
It does not matter WHY coal is cheap, only that it has set the standard for other sources to compete with. If solar cannot do that then it's not viable. This is all because people chose to stop using nuclear power. This is evidence in support of my claim that any plan to reduce carbon output that does not include nuclear power is a fantasy.
I know of places with an abundance of hydro, sun, and wind, that have claimed to be carbon neutral. That's great until you realize that they have no heavy industry and this is due to a very unique geography. These tropical nations can do this but the USA, UK, Germany, and so on are not able to do the same. They will need nuclear fission or some technology we don't have yet and may never obtain.
In the USA we still get a large portion of our electricity from coal. Certainly natural gas and nuclear fission provides a good part of it too, and they have contributed greatly to our reductions in carbon output lately. The article mentions the potential for recharging the battery fluids with wind, solar, and hydro but wind and solar are much more expensive than coal and hydro is a resource we've already maxed out. Unless the prices of wind and solar can get below that of coal, or we build nuclear power at a rate that can replace the aging nuclear power plant AND aging coal plants, then we will be building more coal power plants to charge these cars.
I have people tell me all the time, "just you wait, wind and solar will be cheaper than coal any day now". That's great! Only what should we do until that time comes? People will also say that the time has already come for wind power. That's great! Then what are we supposed to do if the wind is not blowing? People will tell me that we should charge up batteries for when the wind is not blowing. Great! Except now with wind AND the batteries then wind is not cheaper than coal any more because it relies on doubling or tripling wind capacity and the cost of the batteries. If instead one claims we use a national smart grid instead of the batteries then the cost is in the wires and other infrastructure.
Any plan to reduce carbon output that does not include the use of nuclear power is a fantasy. Waiting for wind and solar to get cheap enough to replace coal is waiting for a ship that may never come to shore. I won't say it is impossible for wind to get cheaper than coal, only that we don't know when or if that will happen. Waiting for that to happen is not a plan to reduce carbon output. Taxing carbon is not going to make that happen any faster, it will only make us all poorer.
I believe electric vehicles hold promise and I wish all of those developing this technology the best. The problem though is that this is just half of the solution. The other half is either nuclear fission or waiting. I say we should not wait.
This whole exercise was about standing on a stage and having people applaud him.
Democrats (with a big "D") keep talking about how we need democracy (with a little "d") in the USA. We hold a vote and the government acts according to that vote, that is how society should work. Which is how Democrats keep talking so long as the vote agrees with their agenda. Obama signed this agreement and people cheered. Democracy (with a big "D" and little "d" in this case) won.
People, or at least those that voted, weren't too happy with the Democrat view of the world. They voted for Republicans. The Republican at the top decided that this agreement signed by the top Democrat before him was not fitting with (little "d") democracy. And the people cheered.
Now the (big "D") Democrats are upset. Democracy won. What do the (big "D") Democrats want now? What they want is less (little "d") democracy. If they truly believed that how the people vote is how the government should act then they can certainly their concerns and disagreements, just not talking about impeachment. I recall Obama said something along the lines of how he won so he gets to do as he pleases.
If you think that Trump did away with this agreement for the applause then would it not follow that Obama signed it into place also for the applause?
I believe that both men were doing what they thought was best for their nation, they just had differing views on how to achieve that. Calling Obama "good" for getting accolades from his voting base while calling Trump "bad" for doing the same thing is just being partisan.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs. People know that if they burn fossil fuels now that their children will pay for it later. People understand the need to care for their children and make choices to give them the best chances for success in the future. Put up billboards, put public service announcements on TV, and provide informative articles on the internet and dead tree form.
Creating taxes to "push" people to make certain choices creates a dislike for government. The people that want to impose these choices on others will vote for these taxes, those that don't want the taxes will vote them away. It's not just the "climate deniers" that will vote against these taxes but also the people that believe that CO2 emissions are bad but also believe that government enforcement of "good" choices is not the way to run a free society.
I see a problem with these alarmists that think man made CO2 creates runaway global warming. There is a large and vocal group that make the claim that man made CO2 is bad but "next year" or "next decade" or more vaguely "real soon now" we will have cheap wind and solar power, maybe even fusion reactors, that will solve all of our problems. They have just built this huge argument on how we are destroying the planet and then flushed it all down the toilet. There's nothing we need to do today if the problem will be solved for us tomorrow.
A responsible adult hearing this will make their choices much like this... The children need food, shelter, clothing, and an education. To do this I need the best products for the lowest price because what is left over goes into their college education fund. I'll get the cheap gas powered car, I'll heat and cook with natural gas. I can justify this because "real soon now" we will have cheap fusion power and all our CO2 emission problems will be solved. By the time the children are old enough to go to college they'll pack their things in their hydrogen powered hovercraft and float off to a bright future.
Al Gore is the biggest example of this. He shot himself in the foot on how future technology can save us, right after he stuck his foot in his mouth when scaremongering on how we are killing the planet. Al Gore hasn't been making many speeches lately. It seems he's realized his brand of saving the world isn't so popular any more.
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
But the total cost of ownership is higher. The initial cost is higher. What happens to that cost of operation as they become more common? Will the demands on the electric grid raise the price of electricity?
When the total cost of ownership is close to parity then we will see greater adoption of EVs. As it is now EVs are toys for the wealthy.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis. This is because a tax on an item does not change the costs to society. It changes the cost to the individual but in the aggregate the taxes just move money around, it cancels out in the end.
Also, a government can only govern by with the permission of the governed. People tolerate gas taxes now because gasoline is a convenient energy source for vehicles and people understand the need for those taxes to fund roads. I know that the money does not actually all go towards roads but so long as that lie is generally believed it is tolerated.
For a gas tax to get people to move to another source of energy there must be something of equal value to replace it. With the high costs of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles there would have to be a crushing tax on gas to get people to switch, and the governed will not tolerate that. People will vote in officials to remove the tax, or a black market will develop.
The only proven way to get people to move is with market forces, not taxes and mandates. We saw this with light bulbs. There was a subsidy on CFL which prompted people to buy them. I bought some too. Then I realized how much they suck. They did not reach full brightness for an hour, they interfered with infrared TV remotes, and if broken they left a toxic mess. Oh, and they never lasted as long as promised. When LED lights came on the market I saw CFLs nearly disappear. No one I know buys CFLs any more. The market found the solution much better than taxes and mandates ever could.
Electric vehicles may be the solution but I have serious doubts on that. If they are the solution then the market will decide, not the government. For electric vehicles to actually reduce CO2 output then we need low carbon energy, and nuclear power is the lowest carbon energy we have right now. Wind and solar are still future energy sources because they cost more in real dollars than coal. We can afford to subsidize wind and solar only because a majority of our energy comes from cheap coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Tax subsidies don't change the real cost to the consumer, it just means taking the money by gunpoint instead of having them hand it over willingly.
Would these people that are getting this "young blood" have some of their own taken out at the same time to avoid issues of excessive blood volume? I'd think that adding blood to the body in any amount to have a medical benefit/cost/change would also mean adding more blood than the body can just take on and not make room for it.
So, this could be a big benefit for the blood supply. We'd have rich "old" (in quotes since the lower age range is 35, which is not all that old any more) people paying to have blood from the "young" (in quotes since the people that donate must legally be adults) and the "old blood" taken out can be donated or sold to local blood banks. I am assuming the people getting these blood transfusions, or at least a large portion of them, will be in reasonably good health or they would not be able to perform the transfusion.
If the blood banks are in need of blood to the point they are willing to pay for it then a company performing this service can use that to improve their profits. Buy "young blood" from college students, sell it to the "old" wealthy, and the blood taken from the "old" to make room for the "young blood" can be sold off to blood banks.
Assuming people come in regularly for these "young blood" transfusions then this can become a reasonably reliable source of blood for the blood banks to provide for people that need blood for accidents and surgeries.
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them.
YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!
Don't increase taxes on fossil fuels, that only makes the government more reliant on their use for their funding. America is not addicted to oil, the American federal government is addicted to oil taxes. Sure, the import tariff on oil is little to none but the taxes on fossil fuels is HUGE. The federal government is not going to enact a tax on an item to only later discourage it's future use.
I know that seeing taxes on gasoline reduced is unlikely. I also know that if society is to reduce its oil use it will be because of market forces, not some dictate from the federal government.
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
Obama enacted a lot of his campaign promises through executive orders, which is a very weak foundation to build policy. What one POTUS can create another can destroy. If Obama wanted to create a lasting legacy then he should have got Congress on board and made it law. That way his legacy would have required an act of Congress to bring down.
Where the Democrats really screwed up was to weaken the filibuster, the "nuclear option" they enacted to get the bills they wanted into law. The filibuster is to slow down the legislative process, to make sure that what becomes law has had proper debate and is supported by a true majority. Without the filibuster, and Republicans in charge, we can expect to see even those policies that Obama signed as law, not just an executive order, to fall as well.
Not only has the federal government been usurping powers over time the rate at which that power has been concentrated in POTUS has increased greatly during Obama's time in office. I guess the Democrats thought they'd stay in power for all time. Now that the Republicans are in charge they can use policies, processes, and traditions developed through the previous decade to tear down what the Democrats have built.
Good job Democrats, you quite possibly orchestrated your own demise.
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars?
It won't and I did not claim it would.
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Right now the government justifies the road taxes on gasoline because a majority of the gasoline used is for cars on the road. There's some used for things like lawn mowers, off road vehicles, light aircraft, and such which is likely to continue for some time after cars transition to electric but that cannot fund the roads due to its much smaller usage. If the powers that be in the government actually believe that gasoline cars will be rare soon, are responsible about government spending, and can think beyond the next election (which is what planning for a 3C rise in global temperatures requires) then they need to plan for the transition to road funding that does not rely on gasoline fueled cars.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
If the government had not baled out GM then their factories would have been bought by the likes of Tesla, and we'd have had those same workers back to work building electric cars in a matter of weeks.
If the government was interested in pushing electric vehicle technology forward then they would have left GM to die or innovate.
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes. That's assuming the sun doesn't consume the Earth first.
If the aid is voluntary then all POTUS did is signal that the USA "volunteers" not to pay out. Either we don't pay now (by withdrawing from the treaty) or we don't pay later (by not volunteering to donate the money).
Apparently nothing was lost here, which make me wonder why anyone is upset about POTUS "unsigning" the treaty.
If the treaty cost nothing, did nothing, and has no penalties for acting or not acting then why is anyone upset if the USA withdraws? Why were so many people overjoyed upon it's signing?
If people want to see the USA use more wind and solar energy then the solution is simple, make it cheaper than coal. I believe that the wind and solar subsidies made the situation worse for renewable R&D. They were all happy swimming in government dollars instead of doing the hard work of competing with coal.
I have to wonder if we'd have all ethanol fueled cars by now if the teetotalers hadn't prohibited private distilling. Even after the prohibition was lifted the taxes on ethanol made it difficult and it continues even today. I believe the free market is the best means to fix any problem. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and let people do their R&D without the government getting in the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Still does nothing to address the amount of steel and concrete needed for wind power. Coal and nuclear use 1/10th the steel and concrete for the same power output. Where does this steel and concrete come from?
If advancements in wind mill technology can halve the cost of wind then would it not also be possible for advancements in technology to reduce the costs of nuclear power by a similar amount? Especially when wind takes so much more resources per production capacity? Wind is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Once people realize the environmental impact of wind power to that of nuclear then nuclear will dominate.
Those that oppose nuclear power are ignorant, mentally impaired, or both. We can fix ignorant, but we can't fix stupid.
Of course, all is negated because you found the black swan, the tall midget, the short giant.
There is still a majority of rail that is not electrified. Many of these rails it is not economical to electrify. When an electric locomotive fails how is it recovered? With a diesel locomotive. How is a failed diesel locomotive recovered? With another diesel locomotive.
A diesel locomotive can travel electrified tracks but an electric train cannot travel on non-electrified tracks. This advantage is used often in cases when the electric line is at capacity or the line loses power.
Let's say that we use electric locomotives to move the fuel for airplanes and ships, does that mean we can do away with those oil pipelines? No. Because moving oil by electric train is asking for not only another spill (much more common when moving fuel by train than by pipe) but now it's moving on a rail in close proximity to high voltage power lines. Let's add the risks of a fire on top of the environmental damage to an oil spill. This is on top of using limited rail capacity to move a product that can be more cheaply and safely moved by pipeline.
The electric lines are a danger to cargo and passengers, put height limitations for cargo when the lines are overhead. Sure, electric trains have advantages which is why they are so common. If we made an all out effort to convert those diesel locomotives to electric then we'd have to spend a lot of money, and it would take decades to complete. What do we do in the mean time? We need to build oil pipelines so that the trains that carry the materials to electrify these lines can run. Even then we'd need to keep some diesel locomotives around for emergencies.
No, I'm pretty sure it is the tree huggers that look like idiots here.
It's worse than you think, if you do some math.
Look up how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline. Next time you fill your tank note how long it takes to fill and how many gallons were pumped. Now figure out how many watts that gasoline pump just transferred. Do some tinkering with that math and compute how many amps that would be with a typical household electrical service voltage. With an atypical household service voltage. With an industrial electrical service. Go look up some electric service codes on how large of a conductor it would take to transfer that much current.
Even if you assume that the gasoline fueled vehicle has terrible efficiency and the electric vehicle is near 100% efficient the amount of energy transferred in gasoline is at a level that modern electrical technology cannot do. These electric vehicles are fine for things like a commuter car, or city buses, but electricity does not work for things like powering trains, long haul trucking, aircraft, watercraft, and so much more. People may call trains "electric hybrid" because it has a diesel generator set driving electric traction motors but that does not make it "electric" in the same way as a Tesla car.
Even if we have some leap in technology tomorrow that makes electric vehicles more practical we will still be burning a lot of petroleum for another fifty years as the infrastructure gets built out and these vehicles reach their service end of life.
So, what should we do about it? Well, for one it might be helpful if idiot tree huggers stop protesting oil pipelines. We need that oil. If it doesn't move by pipelines, with their electric pumps (powered by "green" nuclear and wind) then it will move by diesel trains, trucks, and ships.
These idiot tree huggers are destroying the environment.
My first thought about this was about these vehicles being coal powered as you predicted. My second thought was that with billions of people without reliable electric service this development is quite meaningless to them.
How do we bring electricity to one or two billion more people and not add to the carbon output of humanity? If this plan to replace petroleum powered vehicles with electric ones does not include a plan to develop carbon free energy then we will have a problem.
Wind power is great until you realize that for every megawatt of capacity installed it takes over 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete. Nuclear power takes one tenth of that. To replace coal with wind would take 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world production of steel and concrete is 1.5 billion tons. This is from a Morgan Stanley director at the 2016 Platts nuclear conference.
We cannot have "green" energy and provide electricity to the world unless nuclear power is part of the plan. This does not mean solar and wind cannot also be part of that plan but without nuclear power having electric vehicles is not practical.
We have three choices:
- Status quo and all that comes with it
- Nuclear power and an improved environment
- We join those people without reliable electric services
I'll predict that someone would respond with that some technological advancement will solve all of our problems. To those thinking this right now I ask, what should we do until that technology comes along? We have three choices, pick one.
There are far easier ways to exfiltrate data.
You mean like print out secured documents, fold them up, stick them in a pocket, and walk out the door? It sounds like that is what Reality Winner did.
I'm quite certain you may be only half serious with this but I'll make a comment anyway.
I worked at a place that made the electronics for some of these "things" you imply. The forces on the "things" when fired from a cannon is immense. Getting electronics to survive this is not trivial. Getting something like a pizza to survive this delivery method would also not be trivial. I do like that you've given this some thought.
What some people have proposed since the early days of flight is having a kind of parking garage for private aircraft built much like a land based aircraft carrier. People would be able to land on the top with an arrested assist to shorten the landing length. To reduce the length needed for the take off, and save on fuel, there would be a catapult assisted take off. To manage all the people coming and going the garage would have elevators to lower the aircraft to different levels where parking spaces existed.
Imagine a package delivery system much like this. A tower of a building with space to warehouse products for sale and aircraft to deliver them. As people order products the product would be loaded on an automated aircraft and launched by catapult. The automated craft would fly overhead, release the product by parachute and return to base. The drone could be recovered and then refueled for the next delivery.
I know I'm talking fantasy too but perhaps just a bit closer to reality.
To those people that ask why they don't have a flying car yet in $current_year here is your answer:
They are energy intensive, far more than rolling cars.
I've talked to a few pilots and they tell me that light aircraft will burn common gasoline (the kind without ethanol mixed in) and at a rate nearly equivalent to a common pickup truck, if done in a rough miles to the gallon per person kind of computation. Of course a common pickup truck can carry more than a ton of cargo and the kind of plane being discussed here can carry maybe a passenger or three and some luggage.
These planes don't cost much more than a common pickup truck do either. At least if you aren't too picky on getting a used aircraft instead of a new truck. Then what's the problem?
The problem is that an airplane can only go from an airstrip to an airstrip. The definition of an "airstrip" might be a grassy field in some cases but unless that grassy field is your backyard and the places you want to go also have such a place to land then this airplane is not so useful for day to day travel.
One fix to this problem is to be able to land and take off vertically. To get an aircraft to lift off vertically means it requires a much larger engine. This means more fuel is burned. That changes the math.
Another fix is to make an airplane road worthy. That means fitting the rules on minimum road speeds, crash worthiness, lights, and handling roads rougher than even a grassy field. All of this adds mass that must be lifted. Mass that is not useful in flight. Mass that adds to fuel consumption.
Either solution to making an aircraft that can take a person from door to door, or even parking lot to parking lot, is going to take a lot of fuel.
Flying cars are a really bad idea.
I agree on a lot of your points but I believe many of the issues can be solved with some changes in law that one must follow, some changes to infrastructure, automation to simplify the controls, and so on. The big problem though that is not so easy to solve is the cost of the fuel. I believe we can make an aircraft that is safe, inexpensive, and land on a spot not much bigger than a parking space. The problem will be in the cost of the fuel. If the cost of energy drops because of some leap in technology then I can expect "flying cars" (I hate that term) to become common.
How cheap would energy have to get to make a "flying car" practical? That's hard to say. It would have to get cheap enough that the speed and convenience of air travel is worth the cost in fuel compared to that of travel by ground. The comparative convenience of air vs. ground travel also depends on a lot of things. Which means these aircraft might be common in one place but unheard of in another.
Looking at the specs they claim a flight altitude of 10 meters. This is quite likely within the range of ground effect meaning it cannot attain "flight" as many would understand it. This may also be merely a way to get around a lot of rules from the FAA and similar government agencies around the world and not have to go through the more rigorous testing required for a powered aircraft.
This vehicle should not be that difficult to design. We've been making quad-copters for a long time now and so a lot of the math has been done. Just scale up to the point it can carry a person. Unless the problem is a matter of optimization, they are trying to find out just how cheap they can make this for market.
Anyway, with a listed maximum altitude of ten meters this is less a "flying car" and more a hovercraft or ground effect vehicle.
"Out of my way, canner!"
Did you not read his books?
Death is to be feared by the young but welcomed by the wise and old. We are to fill our lives, and the lives of those around us, with adventures, song, stories, food, and love. After we've filled ourselves up and spread ourselves thin we should embrace the next life that awaits us all.
Trying to extend our lives beyond it's natural course is a path leading to pain, suffering, and evil. Those that are successful lose their humanity.
Don't be stupid and lazy. We will definitely have electric cars that are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to operate, and cheaper to maintain than ICE's in the very near future (this coming decade, guaranteed).
HEY EVERYBODY! LISTEN UP!
Okay, not that I have your attention I have great news to share. It seems that all of our problems are solved.... Well, they'll be solved in ten years. But don't worry. You don't have to do anything in that time. We have it all figured out. Come back here in ten years, with your check books mind you, and we'll be selling planet saving cars for your garage and solar collecting shingles for your roof.
These cars will cost no more than your last car and be just as convenient and luxurious, more likely even more so. These solar collectors will cost no more than shingles and last just as long. The two together means you'll never have to pay another utility bill or visit a filling station. All with the power of the sun.
Thanks everyone for your attention. In the mean time do as you were, there's nothing to worry about.
[/snark]
Is that the message you want to send? Because I assure you that is the message a lot of people are getting right now.
What does your guarantee give me if you cannot provide what you promised? Won't this mean people will be making the problem worse in the mean time?
I have a solution, maybe just part of the solution but it is something we can do right now. We can build more nuclear power plants. Nuclear fission is as clean as wind and solar, as cheap as coal, safer than all the above, and does not require some future technologies to work. If we give the US Navy some money to develop their jet fuel synthesis program then we can produce fuels made from carbon extracted from the air and hydrogen from seawater. I won't guarantee the synthetic fuel technology in ten years because it is possible the Navy wants to keep this for themselves for a while. But the nuclear power we can have right away. We can build a gigawatt scale nuclear reactor in a matter of a couple years. In a couple years later with experienced manpower we can build two in that same time. Then four, then eight. in ten years we could have dozens of nuclear power plants giving us cheap, clean, and safe energy.
We can't stop there though. We'd have to keep going as those nuclear power plants age and need replacement. That's how we keep them safe, by taking them out of service before they become a problem. Don't worry about nuclear waste either. We know how to turn that waste into medical isotopes, portable heat and energy sources for spacecraft, and so on. All that stuff will be used as it decays away to inert elements or get shot off into deep space.
Stupid me hitting submit in the middle of my post. I'll continue...
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
I've thought about this problem for a very long time, perhaps for longer than you've been alive. The solution does not involve subsidies because the government only fucks things up. Get rid of the subsidies unless there is a very specific problem to solve.
The government subsidized a US Navy project to address the problem of having to ship so much fuel to ships at sea to allow the aircraft they carry to fly. They developed a process that turns seawater into jet fuel. Let's subsidize that, make it standard equipment on every aircraft carrier, destroyer, and amphibious assault ship. This technology relies on nuclear power to drive the process. Since the carbon comes from the sea it closes the carbon loop on the fuel. It's a carbon free process to produce jet fuel.
We can use this same process on land for civilian fuel production. Since there are people standing in line at the Department of Energy to get permission to develop these technologies for commercial use there is no real need to subsidize it. The government needs to only give them permission to proceed.
There's no raping of the taxpayer because these reactors can run off the tails that are left after the wind and solar people got what they wanted out of the earth. You think that wind and solar is free from producing radioactive waste? Uranium and thorium is everywhere. If you dig a hole and take all the stuff that is not uranium and thorium then it is left in concentrated piles.
We can get energy while cleaning the earth. We get rid of radioactive material by consuming it in a reactor. We get rid of natural oil spills by digging up tar sands. By using only wind and solar this oil and radioactive material is still there to contaminate the environment. Once done in those mines they can be filled back in with clay and sand and trees planted on top.
What's your problem? You don't like trees? Windmills and solar panels displace trees. I like trees and so I like nuclear power.
The only reason you even dare to mention nuclear is that, in the event of an accident, the cost of any kind of cleanup has been externalized.
What of the external costs of wind and solar? These windmills and solar collectors are made of materials we dig from the ground. Materials extracted with toxic chemical and tails. All kinds of heavy metals go into these things, and leach into ground water. Where does the cleanup of that mess come in? I know the answer, it comes in being out of sight and out of mind. These materials are largely mined and refined in China where they dump this toxic stew into lakes. The lighter stuff evaporates into the air. Some of the heavier elements blow away in the wind or sink into the water table. We've externalized all of the USA environmental hazards to China. What happens when China decides it doesn't want to do this any more?
Nothing is "externalized" in reality. Delayed perhaps but people will see these effects. It's only external if the person is ignorant, willfully or not, of the costs.
You talk about coal and nuclear as though they are viable alternatives. They are, if you ignore the fact that they rape taxpayers in a way that solar and wind don't even come close to.
If you fear nuclear power and coal more that global warming then global warming is no threat. The chances of an accident in a nuclear power plant goes up with the age of the plant. The longer we delay building new nuclear power plants the more likely one will fail. If the fear keeps people from building a new plant then an accident that costs many lives becomes more and more certain. We've not had any of these accidents in the USA for a long time because, as far as nuclear reactors go, they are still relatively new. If we keep them running from their 40 year planned life span and extend that to 80 years like Obama likely forced us to do then we will see accidents. We will have to build a new nuclear power plant in the USA at a rate of one per month to avoid skyrocketing electricity prices, nuclear accidents, blackouts, burning coal, or whatever else you might think of as disastrous.
So how about, for once, comparing apples to apples, then considering what we should be subsidizing going forward.
As I stated in my previous post we see this cost of wind and solar being cheaper than coal is only true if the fossil fuel back up remain in place (the coal plants already exists as you point out). If the goal is to go beyond nibbling at the edges of coal burning and replace coal completely then solar energy will have to be cheap enough to make up for the infrastructure needed to account that the sun does not always shine.
This can mean shifting the sunlight in time with storage systems, in space through transmission lines, or more likely a combination of the two. Solar is not cheaper than coal because there needs to be a large build out of additional infrastructure for it to replace coal.
We've seen a number of nations try to reduce their carbon output and reduce the cost of energy with a combination of wind, solar, and fossil fuel backups. Apparently because nuclear power is not popular right now. The result has been increases in costs and increases in carbon output.
It does not matter WHY coal is cheap, only that it has set the standard for other sources to compete with. If solar cannot do that then it's not viable. This is all because people chose to stop using nuclear power. This is evidence in support of my claim that any plan to reduce carbon output that does not include nuclear power is a fantasy.
I know of places with an abundance of hydro, sun, and wind, that have claimed to be carbon neutral. That's great until you realize that they have no heavy industry and this is due to a very unique geography. These tropical nations can do this but the USA, UK, Germany, and so on are not able to do the same. They will need nuclear fission or some technology we don't have yet and may never obtain.
In the USA we still get a large portion of our electricity from coal. Certainly natural gas and nuclear fission provides a good part of it too, and they have contributed greatly to our reductions in carbon output lately. The article mentions the potential for recharging the battery fluids with wind, solar, and hydro but wind and solar are much more expensive than coal and hydro is a resource we've already maxed out. Unless the prices of wind and solar can get below that of coal, or we build nuclear power at a rate that can replace the aging nuclear power plant AND aging coal plants, then we will be building more coal power plants to charge these cars.
I have people tell me all the time, "just you wait, wind and solar will be cheaper than coal any day now". That's great! Only what should we do until that time comes? People will also say that the time has already come for wind power. That's great! Then what are we supposed to do if the wind is not blowing? People will tell me that we should charge up batteries for when the wind is not blowing. Great! Except now with wind AND the batteries then wind is not cheaper than coal any more because it relies on doubling or tripling wind capacity and the cost of the batteries. If instead one claims we use a national smart grid instead of the batteries then the cost is in the wires and other infrastructure.
Any plan to reduce carbon output that does not include the use of nuclear power is a fantasy. Waiting for wind and solar to get cheap enough to replace coal is waiting for a ship that may never come to shore. I won't say it is impossible for wind to get cheaper than coal, only that we don't know when or if that will happen. Waiting for that to happen is not a plan to reduce carbon output. Taxing carbon is not going to make that happen any faster, it will only make us all poorer.
I believe electric vehicles hold promise and I wish all of those developing this technology the best. The problem though is that this is just half of the solution. The other half is either nuclear fission or waiting. I say we should not wait.
This whole exercise was about standing on a stage and having people applaud him.
Democrats (with a big "D") keep talking about how we need democracy (with a little "d") in the USA. We hold a vote and the government acts according to that vote, that is how society should work. Which is how Democrats keep talking so long as the vote agrees with their agenda. Obama signed this agreement and people cheered. Democracy (with a big "D" and little "d" in this case) won.
People, or at least those that voted, weren't too happy with the Democrat view of the world. They voted for Republicans. The Republican at the top decided that this agreement signed by the top Democrat before him was not fitting with (little "d") democracy. And the people cheered.
Now the (big "D") Democrats are upset. Democracy won. What do the (big "D") Democrats want now? What they want is less (little "d") democracy. If they truly believed that how the people vote is how the government should act then they can certainly their concerns and disagreements, just not talking about impeachment. I recall Obama said something along the lines of how he won so he gets to do as he pleases.
If you think that Trump did away with this agreement for the applause then would it not follow that Obama signed it into place also for the applause?
I believe that both men were doing what they thought was best for their nation, they just had differing views on how to achieve that. Calling Obama "good" for getting accolades from his voting base while calling Trump "bad" for doing the same thing is just being partisan.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs. People know that if they burn fossil fuels now that their children will pay for it later. People understand the need to care for their children and make choices to give them the best chances for success in the future. Put up billboards, put public service announcements on TV, and provide informative articles on the internet and dead tree form.
Creating taxes to "push" people to make certain choices creates a dislike for government. The people that want to impose these choices on others will vote for these taxes, those that don't want the taxes will vote them away. It's not just the "climate deniers" that will vote against these taxes but also the people that believe that CO2 emissions are bad but also believe that government enforcement of "good" choices is not the way to run a free society.
I see a problem with these alarmists that think man made CO2 creates runaway global warming. There is a large and vocal group that make the claim that man made CO2 is bad but "next year" or "next decade" or more vaguely "real soon now" we will have cheap wind and solar power, maybe even fusion reactors, that will solve all of our problems. They have just built this huge argument on how we are destroying the planet and then flushed it all down the toilet. There's nothing we need to do today if the problem will be solved for us tomorrow.
A responsible adult hearing this will make their choices much like this... The children need food, shelter, clothing, and an education. To do this I need the best products for the lowest price because what is left over goes into their college education fund. I'll get the cheap gas powered car, I'll heat and cook with natural gas. I can justify this because "real soon now" we will have cheap fusion power and all our CO2 emission problems will be solved. By the time the children are old enough to go to college they'll pack their things in their hydrogen powered hovercraft and float off to a bright future.
Al Gore is the biggest example of this. He shot himself in the foot on how future technology can save us, right after he stuck his foot in his mouth when scaremongering on how we are killing the planet. Al Gore hasn't been making many speeches lately. It seems he's realized his brand of saving the world isn't so popular any more.
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
But the total cost of ownership is higher. The initial cost is higher. What happens to that cost of operation as they become more common? Will the demands on the electric grid raise the price of electricity?
When the total cost of ownership is close to parity then we will see greater adoption of EVs. As it is now EVs are toys for the wealthy.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis. This is because a tax on an item does not change the costs to society. It changes the cost to the individual but in the aggregate the taxes just move money around, it cancels out in the end.
Also, a government can only govern by with the permission of the governed. People tolerate gas taxes now because gasoline is a convenient energy source for vehicles and people understand the need for those taxes to fund roads. I know that the money does not actually all go towards roads but so long as that lie is generally believed it is tolerated.
For a gas tax to get people to move to another source of energy there must be something of equal value to replace it. With the high costs of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles there would have to be a crushing tax on gas to get people to switch, and the governed will not tolerate that. People will vote in officials to remove the tax, or a black market will develop.
The only proven way to get people to move is with market forces, not taxes and mandates. We saw this with light bulbs. There was a subsidy on CFL which prompted people to buy them. I bought some too. Then I realized how much they suck. They did not reach full brightness for an hour, they interfered with infrared TV remotes, and if broken they left a toxic mess. Oh, and they never lasted as long as promised. When LED lights came on the market I saw CFLs nearly disappear. No one I know buys CFLs any more. The market found the solution much better than taxes and mandates ever could.
Electric vehicles may be the solution but I have serious doubts on that. If they are the solution then the market will decide, not the government. For electric vehicles to actually reduce CO2 output then we need low carbon energy, and nuclear power is the lowest carbon energy we have right now. Wind and solar are still future energy sources because they cost more in real dollars than coal. We can afford to subsidize wind and solar only because a majority of our energy comes from cheap coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Tax subsidies don't change the real cost to the consumer, it just means taking the money by gunpoint instead of having them hand it over willingly.
Would these people that are getting this "young blood" have some of their own taken out at the same time to avoid issues of excessive blood volume? I'd think that adding blood to the body in any amount to have a medical benefit/cost/change would also mean adding more blood than the body can just take on and not make room for it.
So, this could be a big benefit for the blood supply. We'd have rich "old" (in quotes since the lower age range is 35, which is not all that old any more) people paying to have blood from the "young" (in quotes since the people that donate must legally be adults) and the "old blood" taken out can be donated or sold to local blood banks. I am assuming the people getting these blood transfusions, or at least a large portion of them, will be in reasonably good health or they would not be able to perform the transfusion.
If the blood banks are in need of blood to the point they are willing to pay for it then a company performing this service can use that to improve their profits. Buy "young blood" from college students, sell it to the "old" wealthy, and the blood taken from the "old" to make room for the "young blood" can be sold off to blood banks.
Assuming people come in regularly for these "young blood" transfusions then this can become a reasonably reliable source of blood for the blood banks to provide for people that need blood for accidents and surgeries.
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them.
YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!
Don't increase taxes on fossil fuels, that only makes the government more reliant on their use for their funding. America is not addicted to oil, the American federal government is addicted to oil taxes. Sure, the import tariff on oil is little to none but the taxes on fossil fuels is HUGE. The federal government is not going to enact a tax on an item to only later discourage it's future use.
I know that seeing taxes on gasoline reduced is unlikely. I also know that if society is to reduce its oil use it will be because of market forces, not some dictate from the federal government.
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
Obama enacted a lot of his campaign promises through executive orders, which is a very weak foundation to build policy. What one POTUS can create another can destroy. If Obama wanted to create a lasting legacy then he should have got Congress on board and made it law. That way his legacy would have required an act of Congress to bring down.
Where the Democrats really screwed up was to weaken the filibuster, the "nuclear option" they enacted to get the bills they wanted into law. The filibuster is to slow down the legislative process, to make sure that what becomes law has had proper debate and is supported by a true majority. Without the filibuster, and Republicans in charge, we can expect to see even those policies that Obama signed as law, not just an executive order, to fall as well.
Not only has the federal government been usurping powers over time the rate at which that power has been concentrated in POTUS has increased greatly during Obama's time in office. I guess the Democrats thought they'd stay in power for all time. Now that the Republicans are in charge they can use policies, processes, and traditions developed through the previous decade to tear down what the Democrats have built.
Good job Democrats, you quite possibly orchestrated your own demise.
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars?
It won't and I did not claim it would.
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Right now the government justifies the road taxes on gasoline because a majority of the gasoline used is for cars on the road. There's some used for things like lawn mowers, off road vehicles, light aircraft, and such which is likely to continue for some time after cars transition to electric but that cannot fund the roads due to its much smaller usage. If the powers that be in the government actually believe that gasoline cars will be rare soon, are responsible about government spending, and can think beyond the next election (which is what planning for a 3C rise in global temperatures requires) then they need to plan for the transition to road funding that does not rely on gasoline fueled cars.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
If the government had not baled out GM then their factories would have been bought by the likes of Tesla, and we'd have had those same workers back to work building electric cars in a matter of weeks.
If the government was interested in pushing electric vehicle technology forward then they would have left GM to die or innovate.
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes. That's assuming the sun doesn't consume the Earth first.
If the aid is voluntary then all POTUS did is signal that the USA "volunteers" not to pay out. Either we don't pay now (by withdrawing from the treaty) or we don't pay later (by not volunteering to donate the money).
Apparently nothing was lost here, which make me wonder why anyone is upset about POTUS "unsigning" the treaty.
If the treaty cost nothing, did nothing, and has no penalties for acting or not acting then why is anyone upset if the USA withdraws? Why were so many people overjoyed upon it's signing?
If people want to see the USA use more wind and solar energy then the solution is simple, make it cheaper than coal. I believe that the wind and solar subsidies made the situation worse for renewable R&D. They were all happy swimming in government dollars instead of doing the hard work of competing with coal.
I have to wonder if we'd have all ethanol fueled cars by now if the teetotalers hadn't prohibited private distilling. Even after the prohibition was lifted the taxes on ethanol made it difficult and it continues even today. I believe the free market is the best means to fix any problem. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and let people do their R&D without the government getting in the way.