All “green” power face the same dilemma’s
1.) When you need it the most, it produces the least, and if you try to store the power, all environmental benefit is lost and costs explode.
2.) While fossil fuels and nuclear have “economy of scale” and power density working to their advantage, these so called green power sources have the “law of diminishing return” apply to them in both respects.
As you stated, when you use more green power you begin to use the less than ideal locations for wind, solar and hydro, BUT you also begin to transport the power over longer distances on networks that are spread out, meaning not only a loss, but also a lot of copper for transmission lines, towers...
Of course because it’s “green” no one in our media asks about minor things like what’s to come with all those composite turbine blades? How much land is being devoted to wind turbine farms, how much digging is being done, concrete is used and access roads are built. What does it really mean economically when you have a bunch of little turbines that all require maintenance spread out all over the countryside?
No none really wants to dig to much (pun intended) about where some of the materials used in the batteries come from, the working conditions, use of child labor, safety, environment... Looking into how filthy it is to manufacture some of these batteries or to recycle them isn’t a question you should ask and our MSM pretty much avoids that topic, after all green = good and EV’s are green. And then there is that minor detail that some of these green power sources use heavy metals in their production such as solar panels, or that these so called green power sources have their own environmental impact may that be with killing birds and being noisy, or changing the entire ecology of a river with hydroelectric...
But, they are labeled as “green” and as such everyone must bow down.
The EV is a chrome plated turd.
It’s what you get in a society where you can literally sell people artist $hit in a can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
It’s all about feelings and perceptions for the people buying this care, what image they want to project, what groups they associate with, even how they vote or what gender they have... https://thenextweb.com/news/how-subaru-created-the-blueprint-for-selling-cars-to-lgbtqi-consumers
https://tonyseba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RethinkingEnergy2020-2030-LRR.pdf
If you download that PDF and scroll down to page 8, you’ll see a graph which purports to tell you how much (or from your perspective, how little) battery is needed to back up a solar/wind electric power source. Tony Seba’s trick (if he is indeed its author, rather than simply promoter) is to propose a big-to-enormous overbuilding of solar power capacity. Depending on geography.
According to the theory, less sunlight can be compensated with more solar panels and more batteries, but nowhere in the inhabited world are the quantities of solar and wind prohibitive.
Again, the definition of “prohibitive” depends on the price of the solar panels and the price of the batteries - and according to Wright’s Law as Seba interprets it, time and mass production of such will drive the prices down into the “not prohibitive” range.
Seba’s bottom line is that “going green” will be less expensive than continuing to rely on steam power for electrical power generation. I don’t have his supporting numbers, and I can’t check his work. But it is, at the very least, an interesting thesis.
