Make hydride legal and no need for gas. Convert water to hyrogen

That had to do with allocating availability on the airwaves. A separate issue that's not applicable here.

 

But government does not have to apply this on an entire national scale to begin doing this. They could just install those charging stations in certain high-population areas, like the Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C. Northeast megalopolis area.

(And the federal level of government does not need to be involved)

They should probably begin experimenting in one area of the country to see if this will even catch on and if consumers would switch over on their own, once the charging stations are available.

Electric cars do actually make some sense in very high population city areas due to air pollution and noise pollution issues.
(Although for fair comparison, natural gas cars have very low air pollution levels)

If government pays for charging stations to be built and that's still not enough to get consumers to switch over to electric, what does that tell us?
Paying for charging stations to be built is already a considerable form of government support. Is it really such a good idea to be supporting something that needs more economic subsidies than that?

 

Another option is to design the battery storage so a part of it can be easily changed out. That way, if you run out of power, you can just call a special service which will arrive and change out the easily replaceable part of the battery so you will have enough power to get home, or get somewhere else where a charging facility exists.

 

Good idea , lets make Hydrogen bombs and legalize them .

 

In my general area we are lucky to have geothermal energy available, and this along with solar, made it easy to achieve 30%. But that's as far as we've gone because the remaining 70% is the challenge. Most talk about solar farms ends due to NIMBY. And one thing sorely missing IMO is for governments at all levels to set an example by integrating more sustainable energies. Biden says he will convert much of the government transportation to electric but when?

Natural gas is better than coal but it's still a large polluter of CO2.

In my area, few people install solar on their homes. The public utility company won't allow home systems with battery storage because they fear losing peak power pricing. And when the utility will pay for excess solar power, it is at the lowest wholesale rates. So there remains a negative dynamic between the public utility and property owners. Not clear to me who will be the ultimate referee in this?

I continue to wonder why governments do not require every dwelling to have solar? i understand there are efficiency issues due to weather, etc. but even 10% efficiency is better than 0%. And if there are millions of solar installations that are only 10-20% efficient, this is millions (*) 10-20% which is a benefit.

 

It's an option to kickstart the consumer with a paradigm shift from fossil fuel to electric...

 

This transition will not happen in a week! EV's are what...maybe 1-2% of total production? All of this technology, and the issues to go with it, require visionary planning that is long term. Decisions and investments must look several decades into the future...

 

That was only one of a good number of issues that had to be decided. Those owning the cable ends, those making TVs, those making broadcast media and several others all had their own ideas about what would make a good system. For example, those owning the cable ends wanted the bandwidth, but did not want to blow it on delivering high deinition content.

 

Maybe you should call them and get them to implement YOUR plan.

OR, maybe the automobile industry knows what it's talking about.

 

I don't believe that is even slightly necessary.

 

The remaining 70% is harder.

But, the first question to answer is how much do we really need, and why.

I don't know anyone who has claimed we need to completely stop using fossil fuel.

Yes, solar is cost effective for a major number of buildings of all types in America.

But, our electricity distribution network is not set up to allow for full use of that electricity. Plus, there are buildings that are buildings where solar can be an installation problem - Spanish style tile roofs, for one example. And, there is an initial cost that low income home owners could find to significant, even though the work would pay off in a short number of years. And, there are buildings with overhanging vegetation or sun blockage from other sources.

Also, you identified the problem of local power utilities who are NOT interested in people having reduced power bills, and maintain or errect both technological and legal barriers.

I'm with you on fixting these barriers so that indiduals, apartment building owners, corporate buildings and others can reduce their power consumption by becoming producers - even if it is less than the total they use.

 

First you say there is a problem electric cars may not be able to overcome, and then when I suggest a reasonable solution you say that it is not even slightly necessary.

 

What exactly are you trying to say?

Are you just looking for an excuse why not to first try this in one part of the country for a while before implementing it everywhere else?

 

Maybe because you think like an authoritarian?

Well, for one thing, solar makes more sense in some climates than in others.
Solar panels don't always look so good on the top of all houses.

Did you put solar on your house?
Going to be rather hypothetical if you are saying everyone should be forced to do something that you haven't done of your own free choice.

(And if you live in an apartment, great idea, I think you should be forced to pay for the solar panels to be installed. They could put you on a special payment plan or make it come out of your rent, calculating an additional surcharge each month to cover the financing for the owner. If you live there, you pay for it)

 

If the automobile industry has a plan that doesn't involve government, I wouldn't want to interfere with that and will trust them to know what's best.

 

I haven't said there is a problem that electric cars may not be able to overcome.

 

Let's look at your original post.

 

Federal help could cause faster adoption.

Maybe even more importantly, federal help on our infrastructure definitely can make a major difference in citizens and corporations having opportunities for having lower electric bills.

 

What does "the automobile industry knows what they are talking about" have to do with federal help?

 

And?

 

??

The auto industry has significant lobbying power with our government. Remember how many YEARS the auto industry claimed that 10 or 15 miles/gallon was just far too hard to achieve?

And, our government IS interested in lower cost, efficient transportation, the growth of the clean energy sector as one of the more promising sectors for growth, clean air in cities, lower greenhouse gas pollution, and in understanding what our electricity needs will be, such that smart infrastructure upgrades actually accomplish something.

It seems like you are struggling to find objections to electricity as a transportation fuel.

Can you help out with some reason for that?

 

You do realize that incremental improvements would be expected to get harder and harder, and smaller and smaller?

Past developments can really not be expected to be any indicator of future developments here. Or at least certainly not on a linear mathematic scale.

 

I guess you never had really had a point then.

 

And you think that's necessarily a good thing? They'll probably manipulatively try to set the rules to increase their profits and price to the consumer, all under the guise of environmentalism.

There's numerous precedents for that (cap and trade, lightbulb regulations).

 

I don't look at it as 'how much do we really need' but more about placing alternative energy at every opportunity. This can involve installations on every building or installations on public land, and certainly with access to a grid. In housing developments, place solar on roofs or stand-alone on the ground. If 100 homes in a development don't want solar on their building/property, then require a small solar farm in the development. Our large road systems are perfect for installing lots of solar or wind.

We will not stop using fossil fuels for the next 100 years because the technology won't be in place to solve every fossil fuel scenario. Encouraging EV's over combustion cars is low hanging fruit. But even in this arena EV's remain 1-2% of total production so there's a long way to go. So much of going electric hinges on improved battery technology.

Even though utility companies are investing in sustainable energies, they remain a huge hurdle because of their profit motive. Perhaps over the next 100 years utility companies will transition from power generation more to administrators and grid management? When public and private can generate 50-60% of total power generation, this will force the utility towards a different business model. But they'll be kicking and screaming all the way...