https://cdn-ilcjnih.nitrocdn.com/BVTDJPZTUnfCKRkDQJDEvQcUwtA...
https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-dramatically-...
Solar + hot water tank can provide any house in US with 100% solar hot water (from PV!) for 80% of time, remaining 20 % of time you can have 10-99% solar heated water.
So we should focus on saying to people that if they buy solar and add electric heating element to hot water tank, then PV system will pay itself much sooner and their batteries will last longer. Becasue it is known and predictable load, you need hot water every day. And hot water is order of magnitude more energy then TV, lighting...
By lowering household usage like this we can make energy transition faster, cheaper.
Also proper construction - house heated only 10 days in a year - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHScgjTJtE
Imagine if everybody switched to EVs right now, en masse. Emissions over the next decade, and every subsequent decade, would be massively lower. Waiting for every gas car to reach end of life before switching is always going to be higher emissions, always.
Similarly, the "waste" already happened when the gas heater was manufactured. There's no additional waste when it's decommissioned. It's a sunk cost, there's no getting that back. The only question is if you switch to lower emissions now, or you switch to lower emissions later.
Now, if you bring money into it, sure, there could be a financial motivation to keep emitting higher amounts of emissions. But if you take monetary considerations out of it, it's always better to stop emitting sooner rather than later.
I'd love to have some serious push back against this. The best I've ever got is "that doesn't sound right..." without any engagement with the quantitation or the ideas. Which is exactly what I would expect if it was a fallacy.
So the emissions stayed the same and you added the carbon embedded in the new EV.
I do really appreciate shifting this from the "the consumer must make the right choice" to "what choices result in overall better outcomes" but we must do the full accounting.
Well no, there will be a chain of people all upgrading their cars to better ones. The final car will drop off the bottom of the chain, so you trade an EV for what is likely to be the worst performing car environmentally.
Someone that that switches to EV today will pass that EV to a second owner down the line. The sooner the fleet starts switching to electric, the sooner the carbon emissions, primary energy needs, gas usage and particle emissions dive.
Try this: if everyone in the US suddenly purchased EVs, and ditched their ICE cars, flooding the market with old ICE vehicles, would emissions decrease in the world or increase? I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the old ICE vehicles would be junked, and there'd be marginally more vehicle-miles-travelled, so the huge wins of everyone using EVs would counteract any increase in vehicle miles from suddenly having cheaper ICE available around the world.
So I would argue that the single person doing that action would have the general same trend as if everyone did it.
Welcome to public policy.
> Try this:
No, I’ll stay in the real world. Your thought experiment isn’t possible, and extrapolating from it isn’t useful.
Every taxi I rode in the Bahamas was a 2nd gen Jeep Grand Cherokee with the CEL on.
The bottom exists, but it’s not here.
If you're saying electric cars are pointless, and we should keep making ICE cars, because for a period of transition from ICE to EV some older ICE cars will go overseas, then I'm not sure there's much else to say. I disagree that that's good logic, I suppose.
