They bided their time, and knew about the (mandated) EV transition years ago.
79 karma · joined November 22, 2022
For a start, I need the list to include the country of origin of each person.
>he burden is on you to do this as you’re the one questioning the accuracy of the widely cited Hurun list.
I've pointed out that Hurun don't make public their list of billionaires per country, unlike the other providers of that data. As no-one yet has been able to show otherwise, my point stands.
I could make the same statements about Forbes and Knight Frank, so that doesn't help explain the 3x disparity between Hunan's figures and the rest.
>it's an inaccurate objection proven by 1 minute of research:
I too found that list of the globe's billionaires. As we are comparing the rates of billionaires in the US, UK, and France, that page doesn't help.
If you can't write that quicker than the ChatGPT prompt you provided, then you probably should pay more attention to your class.
Try this dataset instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
It's funny how they always exist, even in countries like the UK and France which in reality have taxed them out of existence, and payscales are absurdly compressed compared to the US.
Careful what you wish for, you are someone else's "super rich".
By your same argument, I could say that there's no inherent CO2 emission required to manufacture petrol (as in, there theoretically is a way to do it).
>The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter.
I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. The pro-EV crowd seem happy to ignore the former, as long as it's far away, or could be solved by some as yet unimplemented technology.
And once the spell is broken, you find yourself staring at people stumbling around, tied to their tiny screens.
It just appears, fully-made and with no CO2 spent on its manufacture?
Nope, I said that it's lower than other sources of power, and thus an energy economy based on solar will look very different than what we currently have.
Given that electricity represents a relatively small percentage of our power usage, in the majority of cases (materials manufacture, industry, heating, etc), the EROI of renewables will be worse than fossil fuels.
And? Most of our power usage is not supplied through electricity. Solar panels are never going to heat my house.
That's not very interesting though - what is interesting, which has been my topic of conversation this entire time, is what the energy economy would look like if it were not still fundamentally rooted in fossil fuels.
Given that coal and other fossil fuels are basically free energy - it does not take much at all to get energy from it (ie, set it on fire), it is not physically possible for PV generation to beat that. Therefore, it follows that renewable power will be more expensive than fossil fuel power. I don't see why this is so hard to acknowledge - we are living in a time of unreasonably cheap power, fuelled by several million years worth of stored solar energy. It can't last.
I certainly haven't made any claims as specific as this without any backup!
Where do you get your numbers from?
>it would pay back that power in under two years.
That's exactly the problem. This is a significant portion of the lifetime output of the panels.
>it would still produce more energy in its lifetime than putting the coal in a coal plant.
I'm not arguing that solar panels are a net negative, as you seem to be implying. I'm arguing that the energy economics of a world fuelled entirely by solar (and other renewable technologies - solar is about the worst for EROI) would look very different to what we have now.
>driving operating coal plants out of business
Any specific ones? The only coal plants I've seen get shut down are because of environmental reasons (or age). Some countries, like Germany and China, are re-opening or building new coal plants.
Talking of mental gymnastics - fundamentally, the energy economy boils down to EROI (energy returned on energy invested). It's just wishful thinking that we can replace energy sources that are basically free (coal, oil, gas), with those that have energy payback periods in the mid-double digits of their expected lifespan (solar).
>Cost of current production is an upper bound.
Under the current state of the energy economy, maybe. If we had to replace all manufacturing power sources with renewables - absolutely not.
Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe!
>It just appears at the wall socket like magic.
It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.
Why? And if not, why can't we apply your argument to other things, eg, coal power plants?
>Even if you could get rid of most cars, that wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be able to happen quickly enough to avoid electrification.
Estimates for the lifetime CO2 savings of EVs vary from 40% to 70%. Assuming the be best case (70%), the CO2 impact would only be the same as "getting rid of most cars", which you say isn't enough.
That's funny. As restrictions started to lift during 2021 (UK/Wales), some complained that the government was now letting it rip. Just shows - anyone more cautious than you is needlessly scared, and anyone less cautious is an idiot.