Electric Cars Are Good, but We Still Need Fossil Fuels
"Engineers are really good at making things better, but they can't make them better than the laws of physics permit."

Politicians praise electric cars. If everyone buys them, they say, solar and wind power will replace our need for oil.
But that's absurd.
Here is the rest of my list of "inconvenient facts" about electric cars.
"The future of the auto industry is electric," says President Joe Biden. He assumes a vast improvement in batteries. Better batteries are crucial because both power plants and cars need to store lots of electric power.
But here's inconvenient fact three: Batteries are lousy at storing large amounts of energy.
"Batteries leak, and they don't hold a lot," says physicist Mark Mills.
Mills thinks electric cars are great but explains that "oil begins with a huge advantage: 5,000 percent more energy in it per pound. Electric car batteries weigh 1,000 pounds. Those 1,000 pounds replace just 80 pounds of gasoline."
But future batteries will be better, I point out.
"Engineers are really good at making things better," Mills responds, "but they can't make them better than the laws of physics permit."
That's inconvenient fact four. Miracle batteries powerful enough to replace fossil fuels are a fantasy.
"Because nature is not nice to humans," explains Mills, "we store energy for when it's cold or really hot. People who imagine an energy transition want to build windmills and solar panels and store all that energy in batteries. But if you do the arithmetic, you find you'd need to build about a hundred trillion dollars' worth of batteries to store the same amount of energy that Europe has in storage now for this winter. It would take the world's battery factories 400 years to manufacture that many batteries."
Politicians don't mention that when they promise every car will be electric. They also don't mention that the electric grid is limited.
This summer, California officials were so worried about blackouts they asked electric vehicle owners to stop charging cars!
Yet today, few of California's cars are electric. Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered that all new cars must be electric by 2035! Where does he think he'll get the electricity to power them?
"Roughly speaking, you have to double your electric grid to move the energy out of gasoline into the electric sector," says Mills. "No one is planning to double the electric grid, so they'll be rationing."
Rationing. That means some places will simply turn off some of the power. That's our final inconvenient fact: We just don't have enough electricity for all electric cars.
Worse, if (as many activists and politicians propose) we try to get that electricity from 100 percent renewable sources, the rationing would be deadly.
"Even if you cover the entire continent of the United States with solar panels, you wouldn't supply half of America's electricity," Mills points out.
Even if you added "Washington Monument-sized wind turbines spread over an area six times greater than the state of New York, that wouldn't be enough."
This is just math and physics. It's amazing supposedly responsible people promote impossible fantasies.
"It's been an extraordinary accomplishment of propaganda," complains Mills, "almost infantile…distressing because it's so silly."
Even if people invent much better cars, wind turbines, solar panels, power lines, and batteries, explains Mills, "you're still drilling things, digging up stuff. You're still building machines that wear out….It's not magical transformation."
Even worse, today politicians make us pay more for energy while forcing us to do things that hurt the environment. Their restrictions on fossil fuels drive people to use fuels that pollute more.
In Europe: "They're going back to burning coal! What we've done is have our energy systems designed by bureaucrats instead of engineers," complains Mills. "We get worse energy, more expensive energy, and higher environmental impacts!"
I like electric cars. But I won't pretend that driving one makes me some kind of environmental hero.
"There'll be lots more electric cars in the future," concludes Mills. "There should be, because that'll reduce demand for oil, which is a good thing. But when you do the math, to operate a society with five or six billion people who are living in poverty we can't imagine, when you want to give them a little of what we have, the energy demands are off the charts big. We're going to need everything."
That includes fossil fuels.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I find this rather unlikely.
But hey, PedoHitler got 81 million votes, right?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (knd-18) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
"This is just math and physics. It's amazing supposedly responsible people promote impossible fantasies."
But most people, including business and political leaders, struggle with even middle school math and physics. That's if they apply math and physics at all.
Instead, EVs and renewal power are religious icons, to be "debated" as factions might argue doctrines. In this context, some things are "good" and believing in them brings salvation, while opposing them is heresy that will lead to damnation.
One time I was talking to the local pharmacist trying to get my prescriptions synced up, and that required that she do some math. I told her I got x number of these and y number of those, and just wanted to get them refilled all at the same time. She portrayed herself as a hero for figuring it out saying "I had to do math!" like it was a fucking accomplishment. C'mon. You're getting paid $80K a year and pat yourself on the back for doing a third grade word problem? The fuck.
There has been a pharmacist shortage for a while and it’s been getting worse. My guess is that pharmacy schools have lowered their standards to where maybe math competency is optional, because hey ! That’s what computers are for.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Should also tell her that she's a fucking doctor and that boasting about doing basic math is pretty pathetic.
She's a pharmacist, not a doctor. But the pharmacist has only 3 jobs: Get the pill type right, get the pill count right, and fill out the paperwork right. If #2 challenges her math skills, she should not even have been accepted at pharmacy school.
My favorite is when I buy something for like six bucks and change, hand them a twenty and two ones, and they try to give the ones back to me. I tell them to just punch in the numbers, so they do. The look on their faces when they see I did it to get a ten and a five back is priceless.
4.76.
Hands over 5.01.
Clerk looks at the penny like it's a severed finger.
Like you said, just punch in the numbers.
^THIS... And the extent of the imagination/religion has proven boundary-less/endless....
All rooted in the "weather changes" emergency... LOL... That every single person in the world could open their front door and admit "What Emergency!".
Electric cars are a disaster. Full of intended consequences. Just like ethanol reformation in petroleum fuel, but massively worse.
Yeah, just the issues with their fires is reason enough to have concerns.
Electric (i.e. coal-powered) cars are utter garbage -- nothing but rich men's toys.
The are horrible for the environment (MUCH more so than ICE powered cars) and almost useless for anything other than puttering around town.
Complete scam just like anthro global warmth.
I drove my model y across the country twice. Unbeatable performance.
ICE cars do that every day. How was your Tesla unbeatable?
And how much time did you waste refilling the battery? I can refuel my ICE vehicle (12.6 gallon tank) in less than 5 minutes per stop, and go about 350 miles between refueling (about 32 mpg).
My bladder won’t go that far, and I get hungry too. Takes 20 minutes max to charge. Nice way to travel. And tons cheaper than gas.
Is it tons cheaper than gas when you have to buy a replacement battery for 20 grand?
$20,000 can buy...
1 new battery for an electric car.
1 new subcompact ICE car.
4,292.77 gallons of 93 octane gasoline at $4.659/gallon (what I paid Monday night) - that'll go for 137,368.64 miles for me.
And it gets even better. Unless your vehicle manual absolutely requires 93 Octane, you can use 87 Octane instead and get more gas for less money, supplemented with 4 Ounces of Marvel Mystery Oil per fill-up and it purrs like a kitten.
(I know, Marvel Mystery Oil sounds like something Stan Lee would have sold from the back of a covered wagon in a cameo in an Old West Marvel Alternate Universe, but it is a solid product!)
And better still, if you pump at night when it's cooler, there's less gasoline evaporation and it can get you at least a few more percents more gas per fill-up!
Yep, for the time being, petroleum For The Win!
How much is a new engine or transmission?
About 2k per, they typically go about twice the distance that ITL is talking about for his 20k in gas before they need replacing.
A lot less than that. A clutch is about $1,700 but will last a long time (mine's already at 227,000 miles and going strong). $3,500 for a new manual transmission, but that's only if you abuse it. M/Ts will last forever if not abused. It's still better to rebuild a transmission (A/T or M/T) instead of puting in a new one. Engines can cost about $2,000. If all new, that's only $7,200 for the whole enchilada. Still saves $12,800 over a new battery for an EV.
That's why rest areas and real restaurants separate form filling stations exist. Even then, most rest area stops are 5 minutes.
Just because I'm curious and also lazy on doing the research did you have to plan any special routes for the fast charging or is it pretty easy to find one? Just wondering if you're at this point forced to take certain routes to do it efficiently.
A Tesla knows where they are, how busy they are, and which ones you need to stop at and for how long.
Just don't piss Elon's overseers off
Full charge or rapid half charge? My sister and nephew went from the midwest to Cali a few years ago. His Chevy volt would get around 300 miles on a full charge but only half that on a fast charge. So lots of 20 min stops during that 1500 mile trip.
First, he's a liar. This is an obvious troll.
Second, 20 minutes is the published best time at the highest rated 210KW station for rapid charge, which doesn't get you a full charge. It'll be like 80%. If the charger actually works at rated capacity, which is kind of rare.
Work buddy has a Y and told me it usually takes him, 30 min to an hour to get 80% charge at remote stations, depending on the quality of the charger. That buys him 200+ miles. I think he has the performance one, and he's not the type to keep his foot out of it, so he gets 250-260 miles on a full charge that he does at home.
Yeah I was giving him the benefit of doubt. They had to follow a certain route to guarantee chargers. On one of their stops the fast charger was not working so that short stop turned into 4 hours. I got the impression it was not the fun trip she thought it would be.
I lurk here quite a bit and sometimes it's still hard to remember who is worth engaging with and who is not.
A Chevy volt is not comparable to a Tesla.
"And tons cheaper than gas."
UR going to have to add details to sell me on that one.
CA electricity rate is $0.25/kwh; how many kwh to a charge for 150-miles (As someone else commented).
What are you comparing it to? A full sized pickup? Or a comparable rice burner/bicycle with a plastic cover? Rice-burners are getting 45mpg for a 150-mile stretch that's $15 @ $4.50/gal.
The average Tesla will use about** 34 kWh of electricity **for every 100 miles driven.
Teslas are great. They're just like any other luxury automobile- lots of fun to drive, but wildly impractical for most people. EV mandates aren't going to magically make EVs more practical.
That’s true.
So about comparable to $2.55/gal gas.
Yep; I'm sold in 2022 - but not from 2015 to 2020.
What they need is a battery swap like hand tools.
Here’s actually a good list of KWH per milehttps://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/
Where they say the Ford Explorer USPS costs $2500 MORE over 5-years than gas. It’s also interesting that the only cars listed are rice-burners except the a-fore mentioned. I’d imagine payload might kill the “cheaper” narrative even at today astronomical gas prices.
Another interesting thing about EV'S is they get better city than hwy mileage in complete contrast to gasoline. Its probably pretty correct to infer EV'S only fit scenario's where energy isn't really needed.
My bladder won’t go that far, and I get hungry too.
So by 'unbeatable performance' you mean 'performance able to be beaten by the bladder of an 8-yr.-old girl'?
Get a condom catheter, with a thousand cc drainage bag and imagine how far you could travel.
Some long haul truckers do do this, or wear depends.
I have an unconfirmed-but-confirmed-enough suspicion that if you think the majority of half full gatorade bottles on the side of the road are half full of gatorade, you're a wild optimist.
What the Hell is this, Occupy Wall Street meets Convoy? 🙂
So how much does the electricity cost to recharge?
Yeah,.,,, I’m sure constant stops to recharge didn’t eat up any time at all.
There is the potentional for miracle batteries as soon as we figure out how to mass produce graphene. Graphene is a miracle material. We’re talking space elevators that run on graphene tethers. Flying cars. T-shirts that are bulletproof.
Sounds a lot like marijuana. It does everything. And it's all good!
Exactly.
And illegal aliens.
Can it also be used as a dessert topping?
Not only that, but it takes Glock magazines - and is self-sharpening.
Yet another secret they do not tell you. What is graphene made from? Carbon. What is the best source of carbon? Fossil fuels. What is the main byproduct of recovering carbon from fossil fuels? Carbon dioxide and water. Oops.
Wouldn't releasing carbon dioxide be a waste of carbon? If we had cheap nuclear they could get the carbon FROM carbon dioxide.
As long as "they could" doesn't include Gov-GUN theft.
Look at the chemical formula. Then consider that chemical reactions work in both directions. Then consider that no reaction ever achieves 100% completion. Then consider carbon is positively charged while oxygen is negatively charged, therefore, chemically carbon bonds to oxygen more readily than to itself. So, basically you can never recover all the carbon that goes into the system as pure carbon or graphene. Additionally, something has to happen to the hydrogen and oxygen that are also present. Some of this will form water but not all of it. Some oxygen will bind (actually binds more readily due to the difference in electrical charges) to carbon, but because there is more hydrogen atoms than carbon atoms in hydrocarbons you produce more water. The amount of energy required to approach 100% carbon recovery is unworkable large. The closer to 100% efficient the more energy required to recover carbon from the reaction. Thus at some point it becomes to costly to recover anymore carbon. Usually this occurs far below 50%.
Shorter answer is that the difference between what stoichiometry states is theoretically possible and what is realistically possible is usually far apart.
Theoritically a chain reaction should consume all uranium in a fuel rod, practically speaking 95+% is usually still present. You can use a bit more by reusing spent rods in a burner reactor but you still won't achieve anything close to 100%.
Yeah, I keep hearing that shit is right around the corner. And I’ve been hearing that for 20 years now.
BEV’s are a pipe dream.
Graphene was only isolated in 2004. So they have two more years to prove you wrong!
>>Electric Cars Are Good
>>reduce demand for oil, which is a good thing
both of you pull Martha Stewart with no rationale
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just.........>>> onlinecareer1
A big jump in battery technology has been promised for 20 years. Nothing but incremental improvements. This may lie in the same wishful thinking category as nuclear fusion energy.
Practical electric cars require batteries with an energy density that is physically impossible.
"Practical electric cars require batteries with an energy density that is physically impossible."
Sarc? If not, please elucidate: Define "practical."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXrLKplLAhM&t=271s
Electric cars are practical as long as you don't have to go anywhere. Sure they're fine for city living. Until you need to leave town. Charging times compared to getting gas are decidedly impractical.
A thought of mine was to make batteries for electric cars standardized so you can just swap them out. Instead of waiting at a charging station you just replace the batteries. Then the station charges up your batteries and puts them into another car. Sure there are a million things wrong with the idea, but it would be faster than waiting for a charge.
The more practical solution is hybrids. It’s relatively easy to get range, power, or both from hybrid systems that can’t be attained from either one alone. Less battery/energy density intensive. Less grid reliant (especially if you can charge the battery directly off-grid).
Again it’s such a revolutionary technology that submarines and railroads switched to it decades ago and the only reason submarines did away with it was to adopt nuclear.
The solution to the "problem" of internal combustion engines using fossil fuels is electric cars that use internal combustion engines using fossil fuels to charge the battery.
While I agree with you, it's not an easy sell.
The "weather changes" religious indoctrination gets in the way. 🙂
Gov-Gods haven't blessed the weather yet so don't breath.. 🙂
You didn't say you wanted THE solution, you said you wanted A PRACTICAL solution and you didn't say THE problem was burning fossil fuels but 'going anywhere'. To wit, hybrids exist with ranges well beyond either EVs *or* ICEs, are generally more affordable than EVs, and fuel up or recharge pretty much at speed with either of the two power systems (to the same power density) wherever those refill/recharge points may be located.
Stop agreeing with me, jerk.
^^^ This ^^^
Trains have been moving tremendous loads with diesel generator powertrains for decades. When engineers choose the best option - well it generally works out well - when politicians do, you know we're in trouble.
But hey - politicians will say trust the science and the public will just believe the lies...
You know STEM is hard - expecting politicians to do it is impossible!
Yes to the long-awaited promise.
On the other hand, graphene based batteries -- some claim many times as efficient as lithium-based batteries -- are currently being manufactured in Australia (but only "pouch-style" batteries for drones and such.) It's a tiny industry today. Available for electric cars by 2035? Nope. Extend it to 2050, and yeah, more than likely.
This, however, will not solve the basic problem:
Even if we triple the "renewable" energy resources of today, It will take approximately one thousand 1-gigawatt nuclear reactors to replace the petroleum-generated energy we use today. We have fewer than 100 nuclear reactors currently online.
As I understand it, the newest reactors are smaller, with a smaller environmental footprint, modular (factory-built and assembled on-site), and utilize waste nuclear products for power generation.
The problem is mass production of graphene. Someone will figure it out because it will make them fabulously wealthy. Capitalism solves problems.
"Capitalism solves problems."
Yep. And, in the mean time, a couple of investors, including Buffet, are investing in industrial-scale extraction of lithium from the brine of the Salton Sea, with virtually zero environmental impact.
Aluminum was once prohibitively expensive until someone figured out the technology that made it cheap to worth with. I suppose the same will happen with grapheme.
I am actually hopeful for commercial nuclear fusion in the next couple decades. They've made some huge advancements the last couple of years, including short lived self sustaining reactions. The biggest advancements have come in new and better magnetic field designs to contain the plasma. I may be overoptimistic, but they've come further in the past five years than in the 20 before that. But like everything, there will be trade offs. Hopefully, the watermelons won't hinder their deployment by scaring everyone of the tradeoffs like they did with fission.
"I may be overoptimistic, but they’ve come further in the past five years than in the 20 before that."
All true. And I DO believe that fusion-generated electricity is in our future. I just suspect that is a quite a ways into the future.
Always 5 years out?
I’ve always wanted my own Arc Reactor.
It's that damn stupid Jane Fonda movie that scared the shit outta people of anything nuclear.
Quick reminder on energy density for the environmentally minded:
https://xkcd.com/1162/
Love that cartoon. Now let's add a few more columns relevant to the discussion above. All answers in megajoules/kg:
Lead-acid battery 0.11 to 0.18
NiCad battery 0.16 to 0.29
Ni Hydride battery 0.22 to 0.43
Lithium ion battery 0.18 to .94
Graphene battery 0.58
And for those too lazy to click through to the cartoon:
Gasoline 46
This is like vegans who argue that plants have plenty of necessary nutrients. Compare how much spinach you would need to eat to equal the amount of iron you get from one hamburger (and that is based only on gross iron, not the fact that plant based iron is Fe3+ and therefore less biologically available than animal based iron which is Fe2+, which is more readily available and absorbable).
I’ve never met a vegan who didn’t engage in delusional levels of confirmation bias.
Yeah, Randall can be a funny, intelligent guy but it's either obviously ignorant or obviously stupid as to why he left batteries (or even other fuel sources) off that chart.
At a rough guess, he probably left that off because a) that comic was published over a decade ago* - before arguments about the energy density of batteries were a thing in the news and/or b) it wasn't necessary to the joke. The joke, after all, is about using reams of paper instead of log scales.
* XKCD started in 2005 and each comic is numbered in the archive. The one above is #1162. This week's is #2699. But the publications have not been strictly linear. My memory is that he was more prolific in the early days. That's how I estimate "over a decade ago".
What the hell are you talking about? First, people have been discussing energy density of alternative fuels since the ethanol mandates in 2000. Second, even if it's a decade old, that puts it right around the rollout of the Tesla Model S and several years after the Roadster. A couple years after Dell's massive recall over Li Ion battery fires and burns.
I'd agree that he's trying to make some sort of point about biological energy sources vs. nuclear but, even then, the omission of batteries, especially from someone so otherwise The Science-y about climate seems, exceedingly short sighted.
No, he was trying to make a joke about people who won't use logarithmic scale on the axes of their graphs when they really should. Good lord, read the comic.
A question below asks about hydrogen fuel cells. Adding to the table above:
Hydrogen 121 megajoules/kg
H Fuel Cell (including the tank and equipment necessary to store and use the H2 safely) 7 megajoules/kg
So an order of magnitude better than any of the battery options but still almost an order of magnitude worse than gasoline.
And all of that ignores energy cost for production. When that is factored in fossil fuels are still the most efficient by an even larger margin.
But you are discounting the mass and inefficiency of the ICE.
Gas still looks better.
The mass of the engine is, to a rough approximation, about equivalent. It would drop the relative value of gasoline but not enough to affect the order of magnitude ordering.
If you want to factor efficiencies into the calculation instead of just the energy density of the fuel, electric vehicles actually get worse, though how much depends a lot on the vehicle design. The big reason is that batteries "leak" (that is, discharge over time). Gas tanks don't. (Or if they do, you can plug the leak with a piece of chewing gum. It's not an inherent characteristic of the tank.)
This all explains why Doc Brown used a 'Mr. Fusion' instead of a 'Mr. Fuel Cell'
All part of.....
Covert Operation: The Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime OWNS all Energy.
Enter Stage 2354175482904 of the Nazi take over of the USA.
If it's not propaganda but reality; It doesn't need Gov-GUNS in the first place. Crony-Socialism strikes again.
Gov-GUNS ONLY positive human resource is to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
If Mark Mills is the best Tech bindlestiff John can trot out , it's time for him to get out of the way of Technology Review and Ars Technica.
For decades, Mills has been recycling "strategic metals " memes and beclowning himself at Heartland Conferences as a periodic chart challenged wannabe George Gilder Now he's MI writing press releases John seems disposed to pass on toReason readers, instead of doing his homework higher up the technology food chain.
Here's AT's fisk of Mill's last tired attack — since it aired Koch Industries has blindsided Mills by buying into battery development big-time.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/is-there-a-shift-from-disbelieving-climate-change-to-attacking-renewables/
As I’ve said before, there are not enough raw materials to replace all current ICE vehicles with EVs. So EV mandates will just make new cars much much more expensive and only the very wealthy will be able to afford them. You can try to squeeze as many miles as you can out of your old gas or hybrid car before it has to go to the junk yard, but I imagine the next step will be to ban ICE vehicles from roadways in most communities, leaving you nowhere to drive. So you’ll have to either pony up for an EV, or move to a place where you can take the bus or subway.
Forcing everyone into some kind of high-density living arrangement is the goal. The Green New Deal doesn't work if people insist on wanting yards and open spaces. Once they get everyone crammed into China style mega-cities, EV affordability will be moot. The proles won't need one- they can walk to work or take the public transit. Vehicles and freedom of movement will be a luxury for the rich elites.
Do you really want to take the Paul Ehrlich / Limits to Growth side in a replay of the commodity supply bet he lost to Julian Simon ?
It's important to know WHY Ehrlich lost that bet to Simon.
Ehrlich wrongly believed that we would need to build everything out of metal and wood products until the end of eternity. Simon rightly recognized that markets have a way of finding different ways of doing things, new materials and the like. Meaning suddenly things like plastics and other materials could displace other commodities.
For instance, as the price of lithium and other rare earth metals shoots up in price, we may discover that hey, there's this internal combustion engine that runs on pretty cheap oil and gas that might displace billions of vehicles that need batteries.
Now, in the spirit of fairness, it's always possible that new materials and methods of building batteries will be discovered, making them more efficient, able to charge faster, higher energy density etc.
But unfortunately we're putting thumbs all over every scale everywhere by... you know, banning the internal combustion engine in 2035... you know, Paul Ehrlich-ish stuff like that.
I think it's informative to this discussion to point out why ICE became dominant in transportation in the first place. At the beginning of the auto age, three different styles of vehicle propulsion were around. Electric vehicles, steam and ICE. Electric vehicles were actually more common. In the latter 19th century, racing, especially endurance racing, began to gain a major following. While electric vehicles were considered more reliable (early ICE were notoriously prone to mechanical failures) and were faster ICE dominated this emerging racing scene. Why? Endurance. Steam powered tractors and harvesters also were common in the late 19th century, and generally more powerful than ICE powered variants, but ICE closed this gap quickly, were easier to operate and used less fuel. As a result, both electric and steam power was eclipsed and virtually disappeared by the first decade of the 20th century. Every ten to twenty years since there's been attempts to reintroduce these technologies (mostly electric) but with little success. The world's militaries have spent trillions of dollars combined over the past century in researching electric vehicles (fuel is a major logistical challenge, besides being loud). The fact that since the first automobiles were introduced in the 1860s that ICE achieved dominance and haven't yet been knocked from that perch should be instructive to this debate.
Well Said! The best possible outcome is always achieved with Liberty and Freedom.
The same physics and chemistry that limit batteries also limit the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. The fact is that we have to make changes and moving to EV is an easier choice than many other options. Nuclear energy is going to have to be part of the solution, but using renewables should also be in the mix.
I think the argument about climate change is moved on from if to when and we need to be talking about productive ways forward. If you want to keep ICE vehicles then where do you get carbon reductions to slow climate change?
It has yet to be proven necessary to do so.
Why is climate change assumed to be bad?
"Why is climate change assumed to be bad?"
Because climate warming could turn places like Siberia, Scandinavia, and Northern Canada into the largest agricultural producing regions in the world? Or in another scenario, the Sahara could become a bread-basket. This could seriously "upset" the power structure of the world.... well, if one is a paranoid politician. (And I know, "paranoid politician" is redundant).
the Sahara could become a bread-basket.
Like it used to be.
That would also require that region to get rid of Islamic prohibitions on alcohol and swine, which is what created a lot of desertification in the first place.
Climate change is when an air conditioner dies in Florida and more people than ever wish they were dead. Lowland Central America doesn't have much of an immigration problem either.
There are several issues that have to be addressed.
What is heat to the average person is energy to the physicist or chemist. That energy must be account for in the system and that means changing weather patterns and higher energy storms.
Second is that climate change will require adaptation and that is not always pleasant. Higher sea levels will mean less available land and more crowding. Hotter temperature could mean less available fresh water.
Third and most dire is the idea of a tipping point that could render the atmosphere unlivable. In this case higher temperature cause the release of naturally sequestered carbon leading to still higher temperatures. This could continue until a new equilibrium is established and that could mean a radically different gas mix in the atmosphere.
That energy must be account for in the system and that means changing weather patterns and higher energy storms.
We're better and measuring things, have more measurement tools, and more people means we're in the path of more storms. But I haven't seen evidence that storms are actually worse.
Higher sea levels will mean less available land and more crowding.
I wish you could see my WTF face right now. People don't crowd because land is not available. They crowd because everyone wants to be in the same place.
Third and most dire is the idea of a tipping point that could render the atmosphere unlivable.
Yeeeeeeea. I mean no. That theory has always smelled like bullshit to me.
The worst thing that could happen as a result of climate change is government telling people what they must do. Because government is the enemy of innovation and adaptation.
We are a long ways from the atmosphere becoming unlivable, and even if we burned every ton of recoverable fossil fuels would still be short of that. As for energy in storms, that is still highly debated. Warmer climates tend to have fewer strong storms, because wind shear tends to make them less likely to develop. Ocean water levels would have to rise considerably before we would notice a major decrease in land mass on the continental land masses, where the vast majority of people live. Additionally, land mass loss along shores will be offset as warmer weather opened colder regions by making them more habitable. Finally, warmer air means more humidity (humidity is a measure of the atmospheres water carrying capacity, the higher the temperature the more volume of water the atmosphere can hold, look up partial gas pressure laws). Additionally, warmer weather means more evaporation from the oceans. Ergo higher humidity, more evaporation, less likely to form strong storms results in more, weaker weather systems, more frequently, resulting in more precipitation rather then less, meaning more freshwater not less. And if you read the scientific literature, this is exactly what most predict. Some localized droughts, but overall greater precipitation even in the most arid regions of the world.
As for the current drought in the southwest, it's mainly due to an extended long period of less typhoon and abnormally mild monsoonal storms in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, which kind of runs contrary to your assertions of greater, stronger storms.
Utterly wrong.
A hotter atmosphere drives faster evaporation and holds more water vapor, and the more water in the sky the less on the ground, because condensation at cooler , higher latitudes does not suppress higher evaporation closer to the equator.
Let's take those claims one by one.
- A hotter atmosphere drives faster evaporation" - Not really. Evaporation happens only at the surface. Wind speed at the surface is far more important than average temperature of the atmospheric column. But even after controlling for wind speed, what matters is ground temperature, not air temperature.
- "A hotter atmosphere holds more water vapor" - In theory, yes. In practice, the predicted changes to total atmospheric water content have not matched the observations.
- "The more water in the sky, the less on the ground" - Not hardly. This is especially true in a terrestrial environment dominated by oceans.
- "condensation at cooler higher latitudes" - Not sure where you're going with this one but the global climate models that are predicting climate change all say that temperatures at the equator will stay roughly flat. The predicted average increase is because temperatures in the higher latitudes will increase. So, there won't be any "higher evaporation closer to the equator" even assuming the climate models.
He's basing his analysis on the shoddy science journalism which is more often than not written by journalist majors who misinterpret the peer reviewed literature. That is it they even read the peer reviewed literature. More often than not they base their reports on universities' press releases, which are also written by journalist majors, and generally grossly misrepresent the actual findings. In the scientific fields, on their chat boards and meetings (which I've spent a lot of time at both as part of my career) this is a major discussion point. Press releases are meant to make a splash to attract funding, but to often sensationalize the results. In the few cases where the writers actually read the peer reviewed science, they tend to read only the abstracts and possibly (less often) the conclusion. Therefore, they skip the three most important sections of the paper. And even if they read all three sections, they tend to have very little base knowledge to understand what they've read. A biology major would understand more from a physics paper than a journalist major, because they have a much stronger science base (including likely at least two years of physics because guess what all sciences are interrelated, and at their base every biological function is based on chemistry and physics). The biology major also 9/10 times has more statistics training than the journalism major, which is also critical to understanding peer reviewed literature.
Pop science literature tends to be some of the worst for sensationalizing research papers' findings. That's how we ended up with the widely held myth in some circles that we only had ten years until utter disaster. The most sensational finding was based on the least likely worst case scenario, that basically ignored real world data. This projection had a less than 1% probability to occur and would require a massive change in fossil fuel usage, offsetting decades of improvement in efficiency. The authors of the paper even stated that multiple times in the report, but it gained widespread coverage as gospel. The most likely outcome was far milder, with around 1.5°C increases by 2100 (basically the target for the Paris Accords) with current trends and data. The outcomes from these increases would be far more milder, and more easily adapted and include many benefits as well as detriments. This doesn't play well to the advocate crowd, so they went with the least likely doomsday scenario that totally ignored real world data and trends.
Move the reply button
Wrong. You form more storms with higher humidity. There are almost no hot, humid deserts anywhere. Yes, more water carrying capacity, but more water in the atmosphere equals more precipitation in storm systems. The driest places in the world have the lowest humidity. The wettest places have the highest humidity. Storm formation is a mixture of wind, atmospheric particles (more particles, more clouds) and humidity. This is the basis of persistent drought. Drought dries out soil moisture, reducing near earth humidity. This results in less storms and less precipitation. Therefore drought persists until a strong enough system breaks this cycle. More water in the atmosphere always equals more precipitation, not less. It's basic Earth Science. You don't get, ever, humid drought. It just never happens because humidity drives precipitation. The more humidity there is, the more precipitation. Period. Also, the more precipitation the more humidity.
Additionally, the driest places on Earth are the coolest. Whereas, quite often the warmest places also tend to be the wettest.
And it's not just me saying this, it's the vast majority of even climate scientists.
Additionally, stronger storms and less precipitation are virtually mutually exclusive. One of the big reasons people believe the myth that climate change means more strong storms is because almost all the literature agrees that we will have more storms, but that the storms are less likely to be well organized (thus precluding strong storms) but when a storm does organize sufficient to form a hurricane/typhoon they will have more energy because of increased atmospheric moisture, and therefore will likely be stronger. So, less strong storms but more disorganized weak storms, and the few strong storms will on average be stronger. Read the fucking literature not the journalism based on the literature, because the journalism generally misinterprets what the peer reviewed literature states. The literature does support that localized droughts may be more frequent but lower in intensity and persistence, e.g. in the Midwest instead of drought every three decades it may be every one or two decades, but instead of lasting for a decades they will likely last a single year or two at the most.
Please name the climate science journals to which you are referring and tell us how many issues you read a year ?
Reading a textbook before pontificating further might do you some good.
I have a MS in Animal Science (a biology discipline) and a minor in range science what do you have?
As for climate journals, none per se. I have read the actual IPCC reports, also I have attended multiple scientific conferences given by climate scientists and have even had a personal conversation with Dr. Mann on the subject. Additionally, I routinely read published material on sites such as PubMed as both a student and in my professional career. Which means, I've read the same articles that are in the journals, without actually subscribing to the journals. Please inform me of your science background. I'm betting you it's not even close to mine.
And I am betting you haven't even come close to reading the textbooks I have, because everything you maintain is wrong, even by introductory science textbooks. Name me one humid area that isn't also high precipitation. Just one.
He appears to have gone away. I wonder why?
Additionally, I am that nerd that actually enjoys reading peer reviewed literature and prefers non-fiction to fiction. Who actually does go on sites like PubMed and Google scholar for entertainment. If I didn't have to make a living and could afford it, I would be happiest as a professional student, learning new things perpetually.
A demand for cites and credentials from someone who provided none him/herself. And we should pay attention to you why?
Because he follows 'The Science™' and thinks anyone who disagrees with him or corrects him is an uneducated git. It is quite common for people who belong to pop-science sites like IFL and Reddit science threads. Invariably, in my experience they tend to actually be less scientifically educated than many young earth creationists. See how he believes that higher humidity means drier weather. It has never occurred and he can't provide a single example of this but he believes it because he was told that. I'm betting he doesn't have any more science education than a basic survey class designed for non-science majors but he believes his BA somehow makes him more educated than anyone who dares disagree with him.
It's similar to the idiot last year who thought because I was from Idaho I never knew any non-whites growing up. Until he found out I grew up on the reservation and live less than five miles from one now. They have a perception of their own superiority, often reinforced by compliant media, and sites like I've mentioned. They don't realize that what they actually are is victims of group think.
You can almost predict this based upon how when you and I actually counter with science and real world data, that he resorts to appeals to authority. Also, his user name is also a big giveaway to his close minded feeling of unearned superiority.
I wish you hadn't gotten all emotional and muted me because I enjoy conversations where you show what you know and I'm able to draw information out of you by asking questions.
Maybe if you accepted that I muted you because of your actions not my becoming overly emotional than I could unmute you for more than this reply.
Actually greater storms come fro. Temp differential. The poles are warming faster than the equater, so less severe storms would be the result.
What does renewables have to do with EVs? I can charge my EV with a diesel generator or coal-fired plant just fine.
If I’m ever forced into an EV, I will charge mine off a custom generator powered by baby seal blubber.
I think you ignore other externalities that take carbon out of the atmosphere. When there is additional CO2 in the atmosphere, more plant life flourishes and extracts it from the atmosphere. The productivity of land has increased alongside the increase in CO2. A whole lot of organisims make their living off of CO2, and more of it enhances their success. There is no emergency. We are watching the changes, and they appear to be mild and beneficial. "Climate change Inc" is just another Marxist wealth redistribution scheme, enhanced by slick marketing and modern communication of lies to the gullible and uneducated public at large.
It's interesting that many of the climate change indoctrinated, that insists it's an emergency also oppose any carbon capture technology. They're suing to stop a pipeline that transports carbon dioxide from power plants and ethanol plants to underground storage sights in South Dakota. They've also spoken out against plans to seed iron in the tropical ocean to increase the growth of photosynthetic plankton and algae. If it's such an emergency wouldn't removing some carbon dioxide be needed? It's almost like they want to force everyone to do only what they propose. But that's conspiracy thinking I guess.
"When there is additional CO2 in the atmosphere, more plant life flourishes and extracts it from the atmosphere."
Except in California, where all the "stored CO2" is generously given back to the atmosphere...
Yes, California (and Oregon and Washington) have so fucked up forest management that they've created a preventable environmental disaster in the name of protecting the environment. It's largely based upon the myth that before Columbus Amerindians lived 'in harmony' with nature, when the archeological evidence and even written history of early settlers and explorers, instead show that they aggressively managed their environments. Often through control burns (there is even some who theorize that the mass die off of Amerindians after Columbus lead to a massive deficit in atmospheric carbon and thus to the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age that wasn't reversed until well into the industrial revolution).
"Yes, California (and Oregon and Washington) have so fucked up forest management that they’ve created a preventable environmental disaster in the name of protecting the environment. "
Poor forest management combined with predictable droughts. In the last 100 years, CA has had a major drought in every decade except two. On top of that, if one goes back a few hundred years, one comes across the fact that at least one drought lasted over 100 years. Now, I don't know if this is related to the abandonment of cliff-dwellers in the midwest (apparently due to drought), but somehow I suspect it is. In short, CA seems to be returning to its normal climate, which does not bode well for the future.
re: "The same physics and chemistry ... also limit[s] the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere."
Bullshit. The fact that you make that claim demonstrates your ignorance of the terrestrial climate works.
Is the physics and chemistry different where you are than where I am living?
Yes, because we studied actual chemistry and physics.
Good for you. I worked at it for a living for 40 years. The principles of chemistry and physics that work in a battery are the same that affect the atmosphere. You can't say you believe the science of batteries but not believe the science of climate change, because they are the same.
No, they aren't the same. As for working for a living, I have had a job since I was fourteen, and also managed in that time (while working) to graduate cum laude with a science degree and a master's of science. The difference is that I actually understand the peer reviewed literature and don't rely on journalism to instruct my science. Yes climate change is happening. Yes humans play a role in it (though how much is still widely debated), but no the literature states with current data and trends, the outcomes are far milder than the advocates push and there are almost as many beneficial outcomes as detrimental. That is what the literature states.
As for battery technology, the physics and chemistry are almost universally in agreement that they are far less efficient than gasoline, in energy storage. And there isn't some big break through that can change that. Even graphene is orders of magnitude less efficient. For small applications, batteries make sense, for large applications, batteries are simply not as efficient, and never will be, than fossil fuels. Nuclear is better than both for large applications (a nuclear powered sub or aircraft carrier only has to refuel every 25 years and has unlimited range during that period, the only limit is potable water and food).
Focusing on a limited power source, batteries, is less likely to replace ICE for most applications. The physics and chemistry all agree on that. EV that rely on batteries will have some place but are not a long term replacement for most applications that currently rely on ICE. Even most EV drivers also own a ICE vehicle because of the benefits of ICE.
OMG! The average temperature over a F'En CENTURY changed 1C.... I'm melting screams all the OCD overdosed witches scream.
If you want to cherry-pick the other side of Climate Change charts we'd need to purposely dump CO2 to cool the planet. See Climate Changes during WWII dropping more significantly than anytime before or after when more gunpowder and unfiltered gasoline's dumped 24/7.
The religion of 'climate change' belongs to chicken-little sh*ts, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"...
And we'll all just play this pretend game that such a small gain over such a long period came without any tolerances. It really is a F'En joke what the weather-religion plays on people.
I don't deny that overall temperatures are warmer or that humans have helped contribute to this. What does really irritate me is how science has become lazy. Can't explain an outcome, especially why a species is dying off or thriving, blame it on Climate Change. It really is lazy when you read a lot of population biology papers. To many Conclusions now read similar to: 'these findings differ from what we expected and from previous literature predicts. We can't explain this difference but climate change could be contributing to the observed changes.' They almost never discuss what mechanism of climate change could explain this. It's really just a lazy way to not have to examine possible other explanations. Another example of this is studying a mechanism of biology that is poorly understood or not well studied but then stating you're studying it to see how climate change is impacting it. For example (totally made up but similar to many studies I've seen pass peer review) The impacts of climate change on the mating of the northern short tailed, Yellowstone marmot. But then you read the introduction and find out no one has done any research on the mating habits of the short tailed Yellowstone marmot, ergo how can you study the impacts of climate change if you don't have a baseline to compare it to? But, I know why they publish it that way. It's the publish or perish mentality of universities that judge tenure on publication history for many sciences, and including the current zeitgeist makes publication much more likely (especially in 'premier' journals). And yes, science is impacted by the most current zeitgeist.
In the past, whenever trying to explain an extinction event since H. sapiens emerged, blame it on overhunting even if there is little evidence to support this or what evidence does exist is based on weak correlation based on dating techniques that create wide ranges of estimated age of an artifact. As we have refined aging techniques, evidence now points to extinctions either occuring before humans arrived or much later than originally believed. The latest is evidence that humans and megafauna in Australia coexisted for ten thousand years longer than originally believed, throwing into question the hypothesis that aboriginal ancestors arrival caused the extinction of Australia's megafauna. These theories were popular around the same period that Ehrlich published his book The Population Bomb and people were worried about peak oil and other resources.
"Engineers are really good at making things better," Mills responds, "but they can't make them better than the laws of physics permit."
Hold my beer...
How come he doesn't enumerate those limits?
One of the things never addressed is that ev have a shorter life span, five years on average. The biggest costs of ev are the batteries, and the main reason for their short life span. Over half of the vehicles in the US are over five years old. Most vehicles sold in the US are used. For most families, new vehicles are out of reach and they're happy if they can get a vehicle that is less than five years old with around 50,000 miles on it.
An EV that is five years old (batteries don't age well, even if just driven to church every Sunday and stored inside) would cost a decent fraction of a new vehicle due to needing the batteries replaced. Likely, due to the toxic nature of current batteries, there will likely also be a battery disposal fee to add into that.
Additionally, EV light trucks are less useful for work vehicles than ICE variants, having lower towing, lower GVW and lower cargo. So far, there are no marketable medium or heavy trucks, the backbone of the majority of industry and transportation. There are no electric tractors, combines, trains, passenger aircraft, transportation aircraft or transportation shipping. In terms of efficiency the best way to move products, in descending order, are ships, rail, long haul trucking, and air. At this point there are no viable means to electrify these industries. Ergo, they'll remain reliant on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Also, due to the costs of these vehicles, when you purchase one it's a long term investment. You're likely planning on at least ten years (often double that) of expected use out of it. It's one thing to say something should be done it's another to actually make it happen.
Of course, the best way to address converting industrial transportation to non-fossil fuels already exists and has every since the launching of the USS Enterprise CVN 65 in 1958 and the USS Nautilus SSN-571 in 1954, but the watermelons have made that option to costly (nuclear powered jet engines using thorium were also under development in the 1950s and 1960s but fear mongering killed them).
Thorium reactors, it seems to me, are entirely feasible for use in automobiles. Thorium is quite abundant (at least compared to uranium), and a small reactor only needs about 1/4″ of plate for shielding. While the start-up costs, seeing how the industry would have to be built almost from nothing, are considerable (there are a few thorium generators operating, but mostly for research work), the payback is big: according to supporters, one gram of thorium has the energy equivalent of 7,000 gallons of gasoline.
Thorium is also far less radioactive, the radiation produced is far less dangerous (by logarithmic scale) and thorium reactors can't melt down. Even for aircraft they would be safe. The biggest drawback to thorium is it requires energy input to start and maintain fission, but still produces far more energy output than required input. The biggest reason thorium was abandoned by the DoE was that thorium can't be weaponised and therefore research money was spent developing uranium (because nuclear energy development was largely related to nuclear weapons development).
The XB-70 was supposed to eventually have a thorium reactors to power it's jet turbines, but the XB-70 was abandoned not so much because of the crash but because the USAF concluded heavy bombers no longer were a vital first strike platform, and money would be better spent on ICBM development and the then nascent stealth technology. That for strategic missions the B-52 and the then being developed B-1 met their needs as well, and cheaper than the XB-70. Experience in Vietnam showed that modern air defense could not be beaten by speed alone. They could be beaten by stealth and avoidance. Low level flying, stand off air launched cruise missiles, etc was better than speed. The B-52 could fulfill this role (better navigation systems for low level flight and redesigned bomb racks for cruise missiles) and the B-1 would also be able to fulfill these roles (the B-1A was originally designed specifically for cruise missiles deployment, the B-1B was redesigned to deploy both air launched cruise missiles and gravity weapons). The B-52 and B-1B are both projected to remain in service until 2050, despite the deployment of the B-2 and the soon to deployed B-21.
We could cover the country with overhead wiring, stick a pole on your Tesla and you'd never have to stop to recharge.
https://www.wabteccorp.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/Wabtec-Transit-Rail-Power-Collection-Trolleypoles-480x480.jpg
Idaho Fish and Game did a study on what was the biggest threat to threatened sage grouse and sharptailed grouse. Know what it was? Power and telephone poles. It turns out that raptors and corvids will roost on them and identify where the grouse nest and then raid the nests, eating the eggs or hatchlings.
Corvids especially are extremely smart and able to transmit knowledge to others. Research has shown as soon as one raven or crow discovers something, that it isn't long before that knowledge is transferred to the population. Theirs a reason that ravens are featured as symbols of wisdom and knowledge in northern cultures mythologies across the globe.
"Clang! Clang! Clang! Went the trolley!..." 🙂
The Trolley Song--Meet Me in St. Louis--1944--Judy Garland
https://youtu.be/hwP6kNIDg30
I wonder also why California focused solely on EVs in its new mandate, blowing off the hydrogen fuel cell idea.
Oh, or maybe not. Maybe it’s just the reporting and discussion that is focusing in on battery vehicles. Looks like the California mandate does allow for hydrogen fuel cells:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/HY?state=CA
A hydrogen car is an electric car.
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/2022/
How generous of your Marxist masters. ‘Allowing’ such a choice.
Updating the table above, hydrogen has a fantastic energy density – 121 megajoules/kg. The problem is that you can’t drive around with raw hydrogen in a rubber balloon. When you factor in the heavy-duty tank and equipment you need to compress store the hydrogen (and to safely uncompress it so you can use it), the net energy density drops to around 7. Still way better than any known batteries but a factor of 6 less than gasoline.
The other issue with hydrogen that the watermelons don't like is that the best source for industrialized hydrogen production isn't water but hydrocarbons, i.e. fossil fuels. Split one mole of water you get one mole of hydrogen (H2) at most (reality is you'll never achieve this because the energy to split the second hydrogen is much greater than the first hydrogen). Split one moles of petroleum you get thousands of moles of H2 plus a lot of carbon dioxide. It also requires less energy to break the bond between carbon and hydrogen than between hydrogen and oxygen. So, besides volume, fossil fuels are more efficient from an energy view, thus less expensive source. Currently, it takes more energy to strip hydrogen from water than can be produced by burning it.
I think many people don't realize that burning hydrocarbons actually produces more water than carbon dioxide. Another thing is that water vapor itself is a heat trapping gas, far more efficient than carbon dioxide or methane, at trapping heat.
Of course, there are also fuel cells that can use gasoline or other energy-dense fuels, but I assume environmentalists would summarily dismiss exploring that path. Sigh.
If, say, nuclear power could be used to synthesize a liquid fuel and then it was efficiently used in a fuel cell, that would be a big win. But, again, it would probably be shut down.
Fuel cells that use hydrocarbons still generate their energy by breaking down the hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. They just use catalysts rather than combustion to accomplish the task.
So if you sincerely believe that CO2 is evil, a hydrocarbon-powered fuel cell is no better than a hydrocarbon-powered combustion engine.
It might, however, be quieter, have fewer moving parts, need less maintenance or otherwise be more efficient. And there is some interesting research into the possibilities. Nothing close to production-ready that I'm aware of, though.
To wonder that would be like wondering why Democrats purposely shut down oil pipelines and in general are trying to shut down all oil period.
Because, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
No.. The sky isn't going to fall if the USA doesn't inherit a Nazi-Regime government (National Socialism).
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.
Every person easily do this job by just.........>>> onlinecareer1
Anyone not on the payroll of Koch would know that public transit does it all better and has been around for a long time.
We could, oh I don't know.., build our cities smarter, link people with mass transit and save a buttload of money and increase our economic efficiency. Anyone still wanting a car could commute to some far flung suburb but one where they would actually pay the commensurate cost of their sprawling lifestyle.
But no, let's keep subsidizing this bullshit until the end of time. One more lane oughta do it. Only reason we have this inane discussion is because we continue to subsidize people, something libertarians are ostensibly against.
OR .......... YOU could setup the transit to do it all as a ?greedy? private company out to make that "butt-load of money"..
Because if you want any sense of Justice then your plan would require it to actually "increase our economic efficiency" judged by free people with choices.
Problem is your whole BS narrative rests upon using Gov-GUNS ("public" [WE] Gov-GUNS) to force people to do/labor for something you believe while dismissing any accountability on if your belief is true or not.