Given the fact that he has been dead for decades, then who else has been making his ideas come true except companies like Tesla, Inc? That's the same company that makes electric cars (among others), which is the topic of this thread. But those require oil needed to mine raw materials needed to manufacture them, part of the manufacturing process, and shipping. All it "learned" was to replace one energy source with another. All other sources of energy that should replace oil have low energy returns. In the real one, there's no such thing. That's why the unregulated derivatives market is many times larger than the same economy that you mentioned. The energy returns for renewable sources are low. That's not a lesson in thinking but in imagining. Of course, not! Electric cars cannot handle steep inclines, carry heavy loads, drive through very rough roads, or operate without an electric grid. Diesel vehicles are needed for that. In fact, even diesel trucks are needed to deliver electric cars to various towns and cities. Energy returns are low for renewables. See the source above and my previous posts for details. What is your point? Are you now acknowledging that you are wrong? Four decades of real data have tracked projections. That's not a crystal ball. I have heard of Tesla, but he died in 1943. The closest we have to a realization of his ideas and that's connected to the topic thread are electric car companies. One of them is named after him.
From the article: That's my point. Electric vehicles have low energy returns. That's why they cannot replace ICE vehicles. That's also why even oil is needed to manufacture them, not to mention mine raw materials needed to make them and even deliver them across thousands of km.
That's too bad, because there's nothing in my posts that can be construed as trolling. But I'm afraid I'll also have to use the ignore function on Gorski, as seen in his sarcasm, references to me as a troll with no proof, and failure to counter every point that I raised. To recap, electric cars have low energy returns because solar, wind, etc., also have low energy returns. That's because a lot of energy, especially from oil, is needed to mine raw materials, operate part of manufacturing (including using petrochemicals to make plastics for tens of thousands of applications), and ship (especially for large container ships that need to travel thousands of km around the world) everything from raw materials to components to finished goods. In addition, e-vehicles cannot operate very well given a lack of infrastructure: they cannot handle steep inclines or very rough roads, and need an electric grid system to be able to do long-range travel, especially with heavy cargo. The irony is that these points can be seen in the article about the e-boat. Not only was oil needed to manufacture the boat, it can only travel up to 5 nautical miles while carrying a crew and passenger allotment of six. Similar applies to ferries and barges linked to in the same article: they have limited range and cannot handle what long-range passenger liners and container ships can do. More important, they even need oil-powered container ships to deliver raw materials and components needed to manufacture them. That's why overall the amount of material resources plus energy needed to ensure all that for a neoliberal global economy feeding a growing human population (which will increase to nine to eleven billion due to population momentum) and a growing global middle class (because the rich--not governments--which control the same economy earn by producing and selling more goods and services to expanding consumer markets) is more than what the biosphere can allow without ecological systems falling apart and global warming taking place. This takes place even if e-vehicles and other sources of energy are use, which BTW also have low energy returns due to multiple reasons: intermittent sunlight, mining and manufacturing needed for components used and to develop infrastructure like electric grids, etc. Also, the issue of limits to growth is not so much Malthusian but based on simple physics, specifically the fact that resources are finite and that we face phenomena such as gravity, which leads to diminishing returns as we try to obtain not only resources such as oil but various minerals. Can governments regulate economic growth? Not likely because they rely on the same neoliberal capitalists for funds. This explains why regulation worldwide to protect ecosystems and deal with global warming has been limited to making small cuts in emission increases (which doesn't decrease emissions overall) and carbon trading (which fuels financial speculation). The only type of regulation that will work will be to force everyone to use less, and that means a focus only on basic needs. In the case of this thread topic, that will mean a focus on electric rail to transport necessities, and using electric cars (simple ones that operate like AUVs and not the fancy ones that many imagine) only for emergencies (e.g., as ambulances): primary personal means of transport will have to involve walking, animal power, bicycles, etc., and electric rail only if needed (e.g., to transport rescue and work teams to repair infrastructure or deal with natural disasters). Such an economy is likely socialist and not neoliberal, and there is a chance that it might be able to allow people to adjust to one of the effects of limits to growth, which is peak oil. One more point: the forecast made concerning limits to growth has indeed been vindicated through four decades of real data. The problem is that the forecast, made in the early 1970s, did not consider the effects of global warming.
The future is nigh!!! (Despite all the "clever dicks"... ) https://electrek.co/2018/05/03/electrify-america-map-charging-stations-network/ Electrify America unveils map of planned charging stations for its massive network
...some of the ways to power them, despite the fossil fuel lobby... Even kids do this nowadays... How about this one: Or rehashing old tech...
There is no stopping Human ingenuity... Now, how about this: ...and it goes on... MJ, can you test this, please:
Unless something escapes me, that last one must be a kind of joke. You can't generate electricity, or any kind of energy, from nothing, without inputting even more energy into it in some form. And I can't see any input source of energy.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...onvert-its-biggest-vessels-to-electric-power/ Washington State Ferries plans to convert its biggest vessels to electric power Ultimately, the state hopes to install onshore charging stations that would allow the ferries to run solely on electric power. The design for the conversion process, which will rely on research from Scandinavian countries, is set to begin this summer. Norwegian ambassador to the United States Kåre Aas joined the tour. Norway leads the world in the development and application of electric technology in transportation. An all-electric ferry in Norway, launched in 2015, reduced carbon-dioxide emissions by 95 percent and operating costs by 80 percent. Seattle’s new Nordic Museum, scheduled to open in Ballard on Saturday. By July 2019, Washington State Ferries is hoping to buy the needed equipment and begin designing onshore charging stations. If all goes as planned, “we’d like to put the first vessel into service by the summer season two years from now,” said Matthew von Ruden, director of vessels for Washington State Ferries.
You can create a current with magnets and a wire coil but there has to be movement of the wire to pass through the magnetic fields of the magnets in order to generate that current, I also do not see how a stationary wire can create any current in that manner https://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity3.htm
That is the principle on which generators work. I add that the movement of the wire meets resistance and has to do work against it, which work equals the electrical energy produced plus friction and losses. And that work is provided e.g. by a turbine, which burns fuel. The overall efficiency can be about 25%, which means that only one quarter of the energy in the fuel burnt ends up as electricity and the rest is heat lost.
Do not leave out water power, Niagara falls produces a total of 2,338,000 Kilowatts just for Canada, and they burn no fuel. The U.S. side of the falls produces another 2,700,000 Kilowatts http://www.niagarafrontier.com/power.html
I did not leave out anything, since I clarified I only gave an example: "e.g. by a turbine, which burns fuel". Other examples, apart from water, are wind, sun, nuclear, etc. The point is not which form of energy you input, but that you have to input such, and in greater quantity than the electricity you get out.
This video is bold and offensive to M. Faraday. But somehow cool....it has got almost 500,000 clicks and it makes people think about gaining energy at all. The author gets some money out of BS, that's actually the most popular business model of other companies as well. BTW: It's sometimes not that easy for people with no scientific background.(Youtube comments) Here is seemigly no movement visible as well..anyway it is true: