Try reading the works of Andrew Gelman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gelman). Professor of statistics, Columbia University.
Not the wikipedia article, but his actual writings.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chinese Automakers Shocked at Apple's Decision to Cancel Car Project
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not the wikipedia article, but his actual writings.
But you're ignoring a majority of the secondary effects. By that statistic 100% of the energy used in the US is renewable sources, since petroleum is a naturally occurring renewable resource.
Petroleum is not renewable; it takes millions of years to produce more petroleum.
We could argue that there’s no such thing as pollution or nuclear waste, because Earth will be around for another 2 billion years and all the nuclear waste will be cleaned up in 50 million years or so, right? But this ignores the fates of our children and grandchildren.
Sunlight and wind are obviously in infinite supply and zero cost as fuels, but, like every other form of power generation, capital equipment must be built. The oil industry does a great job of pretending that windmills are massively expensive and coal furnaces are somehow free. Go figure. But once a windmill is built, its ongoing expenses are far lower than a fueled plant, obviously.
It is not statistical data, it is empirical data, they do know how much electricity was used, and how it was produced. What secondary effects? And please do enlighten me, and probably the rest of the universe, to how you "renew" petroleum without pumping more oil out of the ground?
Last edited:
Of course you pump it out the ground that is want makes it a natural product, with few downsides to the environment. And nature continues to make new petroleum every day. Remember we started using petroleum because it was oozing out of the ground, kinda like water.
There is more known petroleum in the world than there is for the raw materials used in batteries and solar cells.
Follow on effects are filling landfills with hazardous materials like battery byproducts, turbine blades, etc.
Where are you getting this stuff? Seriously. What sources are telling you this??
I know it is hard to understand when your whole life has been filled with propaganda, but do the research and you find the truth. If I just tell you, you won't appreciate it and will just call me names.
For example, the Rockefeller's coined the term "fossil fuel" to increase the price and make it seem like oil was rare. It oozes out of the ground, that is not rare. Do the research and use some common sense.
Ohh, an unrelated fact is that diamonds, make by a similar process as oil, can now be made completely synthetic and are perfect. Most (not all) components in petroleum products can be made synthetically also. In another few decades there is a good chance that all petroleum products can be synthesized. But that does not fit the propaganda narrative.
Last edited:
This is about what I expected. You can’t support any of it so you accuse me of being intellectually lazy. It’s a dumb tactic that won’t work here. “Do the research” may fool some, but not many. Show some evidence to support your wild claims or expect to be ignored.
Car batteries aren’t going to landfill in developed countries, they are recycled as it is illegal to do anything other. Wind turbine blades going to landfill?? Since when has that been happening?
I’ve seen some tripe from the anti EV crowd across the internet but this is by far the most amusing. Makes a change from the rubbish about batteries exploding and the carbon foot print being higher mining lithium though.
I knew you'd result in name calling. The research you want to look for is called the theory of Abiogenic Deep Origins of Hydrocarbons in Oil and Gas formations. If it were well known that oil and gas is plentiful and renewable, then the powers that be would not be able to charge outlandish rates for gasoline, exert power over you, and the government would not be able to regulate it, etc. Again propaganda getting in the way of truth.
Really it costs twice as much to recycle and it does to mine the raw materials, especially lithium.
It is interesting how the anti-EV (battery) crowd has no issues with phones and computers.
I didn’t call anyone names. That’s an obvious misdirect and literal falsehood.
You’re the one who made the claims. It’s on YOU to document them, not me.
Except that you haven’t sourced or proved any of this. So the comment below?
It’s utterly hollow. No propaganda is getting in the way of anything on my side of the conversation. Instead you keep making extraordinary claims and then refusing to back them up. That isn’t forthright discussion. It’s deflection.
And again you’ve failed to document this in any way. I assume you expect us to just take your word for it? Sorry. No. You’ll need to show us some actual data supporting your conclusion.
He’s “spreading.”
That’s when someone tells five lies, and while you’re debunking the five lies, he tells ten more. It takes a few words and no effort to tell a lie, and lots of effort to debunk them.
This guy is never going to believe any fact you present him. We presented data from Department of Energy and he ignored it.
Look I have no obligation to document or prove anything. I've given you the information you need to do your own research. In addition, follow the money, it is the fastest way to determine how you are being manipulated.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force the horse to drink.
Yes, you do. If you make outrageous claims (which you have) you’re obligated to back them up if you want anyone to believe you.
Nope. You haven’t given me any information. You’ve given me unsupported comments that have no weight without backing evidence. Your refusal to provide it means that either 1) you can’t or 2) they aren’t accurate. Possibly both.
Glib slogans aren’t supporting evidence.
The “water” in this case would be proof of the claims you’ve made. But you can’t and or won’t back them up so no one has been led to any water. In your analogy your entire argument is a mirage.
I googled “cost of recycling be mining lithium” and all I got was recycling g is more expensive than mining. Couldnt find specifics so op may be more correct than not.
He may be a dog for all we know. See what I mean? Without some kind of evidence he’s just blowing so much hot air.
How China Is Churning Out EVs Faster Than Everyone Else
Riding China’s EV boom, upstart automakers have eclipsed foreign rivals to develop cars faster, push the boundaries of smart tech and swamp consumers with choice.
www.wsj.com
There are citations for “recycling cost > mining cost”. I’m not taking up the battle to figure out who has the most correct figure. But I have my keyword search, so it’s easy to prove. If you want to hold op to the number 2 - please feel free.
While the WSJ reports that “even the world’s biggest elective vehicle maker is slowing”. Feb 18.
How China Is Churning Out EVs Faster Than Everyone Else
Riding China’s EV boom, upstart automakers have eclipsed foreign rivals to develop cars faster, push the boundaries of smart tech and swamp consumers with choice.